@thomaslhorrocks@LauraRbnsn ... I think we're tweeting past each other.
The sonofbaldwin tweet seems to make the case that, if I feel your ideology is oppressive, I don't have to love you.
That basic idea has been what I've heard most frequently as justification for hostility. Am I not making sense at all?
@LauraRbnsn@thomaslhorrocks My concern is what seems to be an increasing acceptance of open hostility and vitriol, justified because of what the opposing side (an enemy) believes. I read an awful lot of uncharitable and unloving tweets from folks who proclaim the name of Jesus.
@LauraRbnsn@thomaslhorrocks Well, yeah, word. I agree with what both you and Thomas just said, but that is not what the original tweet and quote implied... Unless I'm wildly misreading that, in which case, my b.
@thomaslhorrocks A well written article. I'm not seeing the connection to your tweet, or the quote in your tweet, or what I said.
What is your proposed alternative to loving people you disagree with? Just tell them all to get bent then? Be hostile and rude?
I fail to see your point.
@thomaslhorrocks 2) I do think that abortion absolutely denies someone's humanity and right to exist, and yet I continue to love and be friends with people who are pro choice. I don't think they have any more evil in their heart than I do, I just think they're wrong about their belief.
@thomaslhorrocks Nice, so, "love your enemies" unless your enemy is a conservative?
There is a lot wrong with the Republican party, sure, but this is uncharitable. What actual policies deny anyone's "right to exist"? And of the things that are wrong, is love not the greatest tool of persuasion?
@thomaslhorrocks Hmm, I'd be interested to hear your argument as to what makes emotion valuable in gauging the truth.
I would argue that just because something makes me upset doesn't make it untrue.
And likewise just because something makes me feel good doesn't mean it is true.
@thomaslhorrocks Some of those replies seem like they've been unable to think about some of the complex questions about God, probably due to misunderstanding or misguidance.
It feels like you're drawing an uncharitable conclusion from that.
@thomaslhorrocks It seems like you're suggesting that the emotional implication of a theological stance dictates the truthfulness of that stance.
I wrestle with, for example, the concept of predestination, but I should be able to wrestle with that in an emotionally healthy way.
I hear very few pro-abortion arguments that don't rely on logical fallacies. Even though a fallacy generally can be ignored in a debate, this is a beautiful example of one of those fallacious arguments being defeated anyways. Thumbs up.
RT for a chance to win a #TES25 Xbox One X! What better way to celebrate both 25 years of The Elder Scrolls and #BethesdaGameDays at #PAXEast?
See the official rules here: https://t.co/RR1qy2ZoPu
@AdamDHCameron 2) 3. In what ways is the system designed to maintain the status quo, and is the whole status quo undesirable?
4. Should the police ever use force? What do you believe is the primary function of law enforcement?
5. Most important - what, specifically, do you think should change?
@AdamDHCameron 1) Interested in hearing you expand on this. I have some ?s if you don't mind?
1. Do you truly believe that is the intent of the people maintaining those accounts?
2. Is the whole "system" racist, or just parts? Which parts?
Cont...
Well it's mid-week and freezing cold, so here's a thread of composers as biscuits.
1. J. S. Bach, Chocolate Leibniz. Basically cannot go wrong with this biscuit.