Mitchell Peters

Bible/Theology Teacher. Adjunct Philosophy Professor. PhD Candidate in Ethics and Public Theology.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@waldenpod https://t.co/2A5zz7ZQ8T

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@TylerNeutron If people read their Bibles, they’d realize that the King arrives as a slain, bloody lamb rather than a vengeful warrior-king with a sword.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@PAHoyeck I don’t vibe with this

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@megbasham Christianity and universalism are not antithetical to one another. Universalism is a type of Christianity.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@MattLutzPhi I don’t vibe with this

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@AuronMacintyre In what world is a statement like this “communist?”

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@Panagio3309288 @PAHoyeck I’m not sure your first point is an actual, coherent sentence.

But regarding your second point, the Bible is a story, not a rule book. When people treat it like an instruction manual, they inevitably end up arbitrarily picking and choosing what they will apply to their lives.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@Panagio3309288 @PAHoyeck 1. I said Christians have rarely argued that consequences don’t matter. Throwing out Kant’s name doesn’t disprove that.

2. The Bible doesn’t give a systematic account of morality.

3. I didn’t state any conclusion other than that this response was weak.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@Panagio3309288 @PAHoyeck This response not only completely misunderstands secular ethics (some of your points were raised in Hoyeck’s original thread), but it also deeply misunderstands Christian ethics. Christian ethicists have rarely argued that we shouldn’t care about consequences.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@PAHoyeck Thank you! This is a wonderful thread.

I’m of the belief that most non-philosophers are implicitly consequentialists, even if they would claim that their standard for morality transcends consequences.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@GigachadJohn007 @WilliamWolfe How so? My point was if we’re going to judge people by past comments, even if they have since changed their mind, then the same logic that Wolfe applied to Martens should also be applied to Trump.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@GigachadJohn007 @WilliamWolfe I know

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@havenhoops @WilliamWolfe That’s a convenient way to dismiss every opinion that you disagree with.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@WilliamWolfe Is it fair to say you support a Democratic president, then? As long as we’re “just sharing the actual words.”

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@WilliamWolfe When you say, “This is Martens” w/o including the fact that he completely shifted on that issue and did the opposite of what your post says, you are misrepresenting him.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@WilliamWolfe @martensmatt1 Then, at best, you’re both guilty of misrepresenting each other.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@thatlandinotho @WilliamWolfe @martensmatt1 This is a false dichotomy. Refusing to love God entails refusing to obey Him (John 14:21, 1 John 5:3). But God’s greatest desire is love, which is more than mere obedience (Deut. 6:5, Matt. 22:37).

When one refuses God’s love, they are breaking the greatest commandment.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@thatlandinotho @WilliamWolfe @martensmatt1 That’s simply not true.

[Mitchell Peters @itsmitchpeters]

@thatlandinotho @WilliamWolfe @martensmatt1 1. Some Christians do believe everyone will be redeemed, and that God’s wrath is restorative rather than punitive.
2. Even if that’s not true, God still extends his love to all, and those who would face His ultimate judgment having willingly chosen to reject His love.