Kyle

Baptized into Christ. Husband, Father, Confessional Lutheran, Engineer

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@LutheranAnswers Wait... that's not what He said 😂😉

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@Aviation_Intel It's time for the Europeans and our Asian allies to step up to the plate and help!

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@KOB4 Not just wireless. AT&T fiber is also not working.

[Haunts Fiene 🦬 @HansFiene]

The Bible says "baptism now saves you." And sure, you can argue that this doesn't mean what it sounds like.

The Bible says that baptism makes us dead to sin and alive to Christ. And sure, you can argue that this doesn't mean what it sounds like.

The Bible refers to salvation coming through "the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." And sure, you can argue that this watery language does not refer to the watery-thing Jesus instituted in Matthew 28 and said that all Christians were to receive.

The Bible speaks of being born again of "water and the Spirit." And sure, you can argue that this refers not to baptism, where the Holy Spirit works in the water, but to the water of amniotic fluid (that is, the natural birth) and then another birth, the non-watery rebirth of regeneration through faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible speaks quite clearly of infant faith. And sure, you can argue that these passages don't mean what it sounds like.

The Bible thematically links baptism with circumcision, which was performed on Israelite boys when they were 8 days old. And sure, you can argue that this link doesn't mean what it sounds like.

The Bible says that baptism "is for you and your children." And sure, you can argue that this doesn't mean what it sounds like.

The Bible says to make disciples through teaching and baptizing "all nations." Children were inarguably included in the Jewish understanding of "nations." And sure, you can argue that a different definition of "nations" is being used when speaking of baptism.

The Bible describes entire households being baptized. "Households" is a term that inarguably included children if they were present. And sure, you can argue that all of the households described as being baptized did not include children and that there was no reason for Luke to note this if we were not supposed to think that we should baptize infants.

But the problem is that, to deny baptismal regeneration and to reject infant baptism, you have to argue ALL of these things. Each and every one of them.

So, what is more likely: that you are forcing false assumptions about baptism onto the Bible or that every single passage describing baptism and infant faith doesn't mean what it says? What's more likely: that you have a flawed hermeneutic or that passage after passage after passage about baptism and infant faith needs a ton of clarification in order to unlock its true meaning?

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@Bewickwren Not a good weather day for a fire.

[Haunts Fiene 🦬 @HansFiene]

People act as though it's insulting to suggest that Progressive "Christians" aren't sincere about what they believe. I think it's far more insulting to suggest that they are.

If you believe Jesus and the apostles would cheer on a child being chemically castrated, or that they'd rejoice at the thought of a woman decided to rip her child apart, limb by limb, in the womb, you are genuinely a stupid person. Imagine you grab a guy who was marching in a pride parade while wearing dental floss, and hop in a time machine with him and travel to 1st century Judea and say to Jesus, "what do you think about this?" With love and respect, you are an incredibly dumb human being if you think Jesus would say, "I'm so proud of you, my brother."

It's much less insulting to suggest that Progressive Christians see orthodox Christianity as a hindrance to building the world of sexual libertinism they desire. And in an attempt to fight against their enemies, they take something very sacred to them, the name of Jesus, and use it against them. They claim that Jesus would support their agenda, not because they believe it's true, but because they want to demoralize their opposition and shove those they consider low IQ fundamentalists out of the conversation by employing intellectually intimidating academic language.

It's ultimately the same thing that people do when the child of a politician does something they don't like. "Your father, who was a good man, would be ashamed of you." They don't believe it. They say it because pitting someone sacred to your enemy against him is the quickest and most effective way to crush him. It's an ugly strategy, but it's certainly not a stupid one.

So is it insulting to say that people like James Talarico are lying when they say the Bible supports transchildren and abortion? Sure, I suppose. But it's far less insulting than saying he actually thinks the Son of God rejoices every time a doctor throws a 12 year old's severed sex organs in the medical waste bin.

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@becomelutheran @JoshuaBarzon haha great response.

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@WmWeedon @JLuttje Amen

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@ABQJournal Equity? Next candidate...

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@HeiligeBibel I think the United States government is fully within it's right (biblically) to conduct the war if it's truly about keeping Iran from harming thousands or millions in the future with a nuclear weapon. I do not envy the position of being president and making these choices.

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@Breaking911 None of the above. It's all a decoy to take the straight

[Gummi @gummibear737]

Iran was trying to use the North Korean model to get a nuke: create sufficient conventional deterrence so you won’t be challenged in acquiring one (it’s called the Seoul Hostage Problem).

This has been explained over and over since day one.

Everyone claiming shifting goalposts or no imminent threat has been lying.

The reason North Korea was allowed to get nukes is because Seoul (and its 10 million inhabitants) is within artillery and rocket range of North Korea.

During the 1994 nuclear crisis, the Clinton administration seriously considered airstrikes on North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor but backed off precisely because of the artillery threat to Seoul.

Iran was trying to accomplish the same by stockpiling missiles and drones which would have had the same deterrent effect. The proof is what Iran has been doing in the past month: attacking all its neighbors in order to pressure the US to stop attacking it

Beyond this, they were building medium-range ballistic missiles that could reach Paris and London, meaning all of Europe could be held hostage as they built a nuclear bomb.

The reason Iran has not built a nuclear weapon until now is not because it couldn’t, but because it knew it would be attacked and denied this capability.

So by allowing them to continue developing this conventional deterrence, you would be allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

And unlike North Korea, Iran is led by an eschatological death cult

Reagan saw nuclear mutually assured destruction (MAD) as both morally bankrupt (because of the innocent-body-count problem) and dangerously fragile because it assumed flawless rationality between adversaries…this means it only takes one irrational actor to destroy the world.

Working backwards from the conclusion that Iran’s Islamist regime must never have a nuclear weapon, it was necessary for the US to attack Iran to deny it the conventional capacity to hold the entire eastern hemisphere hostage.

Every European leader knows this and behind the scenes praises the US for this action. But they are cowards, held hostage by their own internal Muslim populations, and so adopt these ridiculous public positions.

This was never about Israel. And if your argument is that Iran should be allowed to get a nuclear weapon then you are a fool and a traitor to western civilization…you’re a useful idiot

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@danaparish COVID made my Lyme disease (which I had no idea that I had) flare. Treatment with almost two years of abx made me human again

[Dr Jordan B. Cooper @DrJordanBCooper]

I have seen the pattern time and time again. If you become Lutheran because you think the liturgy is cool, but have no root in Lutheran doctrine, and have never experienced a crisis of conscience, or tasted the sweetness that free justification brings, you will end up going elsewhere.

I love the historic liturgy, but I love it because it forms the people of God through the Gospel it delivers. I worry that some today mix this up and love the liturgy purely for its aesthetic function. While this is a right and good benefit of "high church" worship, it is not its heart.

You may find a more ornate liturgy in a local Anglo-Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Traditionalist Roman Catholic parish than in your local Confessional Lutheran congregation. But you will not find the Gospel proclaimed and exalted as highly as it is within the Lutheran church.

Would I like to see Lutherans have both Gospel-centrality and strong historical liturgical practice? Of course! But if your pastor is not quite as precise as you'd like him to be in his liturgical postures, or cannot chant, this does not in any way negate the beauty of the Gospel which is present in that parish, nor is it an excuse to negate your confirmation vows because you found a prettier service elsewhere.

[Scott Jennings @ScottJenningsKY]

So - definitely a threat. Imminent, even. Put a nuke on it and you can see why Trump has been right about this all along.

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@DrewDisneyDude @grok is she liberal? What is her history on DEI content?

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@Breaking911 That's from the missile exchange last year

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@OAlexanderDK They do have a reason. Lunar cycle! It's only getting brighter right now and the longer they wait, the brighter it gets at night. It could ultimately delay operations for another month.

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@TheIntelFrog Bombers will remain missing as they don't forward deploy. Right?

[Kyle @khammondnm]

@EndGameWW3 I think it goes down this weekend. He's being intentionally deceptive.