What Went Wrong X

Christ follower, Wife, foster & adoptive mom, Abolitionist.
Engaging with topics related to: Human Development / Family Studies / Religion / Politics

[Basil the Great @BasilTheGreat]

Mohammed raped a 14 year old girl and got 5 years less time in prison than Russell Brand

Don’t tell me there isn’t a two tier justice system

[speckzo 🇻🇦 @realspeckzo]

Ok what kind of psyop is going on here?

[DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican]

@AGHamilton29 Fuentes went after me after I boosted a @ncri_io article alleging exactly that foreign influences were involved in boosting him. He’s got an agenda.

[Jesse Hughes ✝️🇺🇸 @JesseHughesNC]

The Nick Fuentes political strategy:

- Take every position on every issue
- Be 99% wrong
- Get one small thing right
- Declare victory and demand that people take you seriously

How do people still fall for this guys nonsense?

[Yogi @Houseofyogi]

I love how J.K. Rowling is liberal by virtually every conventional measure.

She created a cultural phenomenon beloved by billions across generations.

But because she disagrees with the left on ONE issue, she’s portrayed worse than Hitler.

It’s absurd.

People need to grow up.

You don’t have to agree with someone on everything. Disagreement isn’t hatred. Having a different opinion doesn’t make someone evil.

If your idea of tolerance only extends to people who agree with you, you’re not tolerant. You’re just self-righteous.

[Hannah Long @HannahGraceLong]

One of the reasons I disliked INSIDE OUT was that it essentially told kids that your self is controlled by your emotions, not the other way around.

Further, it posited that this would intensify with puberty, not that puberty represented an opportunity to learn to govern emotion

[What Went Wrong X @whatwentwrongx]

@ErickaAndersen We desperately need more strong young Christian men to rise up!!! 🙏🏻

[Dr. Alan Kurschner @DrAlanKurschner]

A PUBLIC REPLY TO WES HUFF'S ALLEGED PLAGIARISM of my Harvard Divinity paper ("Luke 23:34a: From the Lips of Jesus, or a Scribal Hand?") and/or the eventual abridged blog post version of it.

*Huff's graduate paper is titled "Forgiveness in Luke-Acts: A Close Examination of the Passion Saying of Luke 23:34a and the Prayer of Stephen During His Martyrdom in Acts 7:60"

Since people are asking me about this, I want to keep this short and to the point.

I don't follow Huff, but from what I have seen, he is a sharp and knowledgeable young man with a bright future in Christian apologetics.

Both graphics in his paper (the manuscript image and Swanson's readings of the manuscript evidence) are taken from my paper/(and blog post).

In fact, Huff sloppily left in my own footnote sequence in my graphic from the MS readings in his paper! *See the attached graphic.

In the opening of both of our papers, there is questionable unattributed paraphrasing, including the point that Mel Gibson placed this saying on Jesus's lips twice. Not a big deal, in my opinion.

It would have been appropriate for him to reach out to me for permission to use the graphics in his paper, which I would have happily granted.

I have created the vast majority of my own figures and tables for my academic publications, and when I have used someone else's, I created my own version and cited it as such.

Nevertheless, I see this more as slipshodness than plagiarism. I don't speak for anyone else who he allegedly borrowed from.

Incidentally, as for his argumentation for his thesis, I don't find it convincing, as my conclusion in my paper is that the reading in Luke 23:34a is likely not original. But that is for another day.

[Sensurround @ShamashAran]

Okay, gonna put on my "Theology for Atheists and those who just don't normally care" hat.

Arguing that God is non-binary because God transcends gender is like arguing that God is gay because He loves you and you're a man.

You're taking two completely different concepts, noticing that they use similar language, and pretending they're equivalent.

It's a category error. It's like asking, "How many gallons are in a thought?" The question doesn't make sense because you're trying to apply a system of measurement to something that doesn't possess the properties that system measures.

God is not a human being. God is a spiritual being who exists beyond the biological limitations of humanity. We refer to God as He, and Christians call Him Father, not because God is biologically male, but because fatherhood is a relationship we understand.

A father creates, provides, protects, teaches, disciplines, and loves his children. When we call God our Father, we're using that familiar human relationship to describe something infinitely greater and more complex.

God is the Father of all creation, not a male organism who reproduced biologically. Yes, Christians believe God revealed Himself to us as Father. But that doesn't make fatherhood a biological classification of God.

We're using human language to describe the divine. We're not declaring that the divine is subject to human biology.

That's the mistake people make when they try to assign God a modern sex or gender identity. They confuse the language we use to understand God with the nature of God Himself.

Now, consider the term "non-binary."

Non-binary is a term people use to describe their relationship to human sex and/or gender categories. Whether you agree with the concept or not (and personally, i think "non binary" is bunk), it is fundamentally a concept about HUMAN identity.

God isn't a human being who doesn't identify as either a man or a woman. God isn't uncomfortable with traditional gender categories. (God CREATED these categories!) God isn't rejecting a gender assigned to Him at birth. God isn't expressing a gender identity outside the masculine and feminine.

God is not a participant in the human biological and social systems those terms describe.

THAT the distinction people keep missing.

Saying God is non-binary because He transcends gender is like saying God is unemployed because He doesn't have a job, or homeless because He doesn't have a mailing address.

Technically, you're accurate about referring to PEOPLE with these characteristics that way. God is not a people! You're just demonstrating that you don't understand the limits of the terminology you're using.

God transcending human categories does not mean He belongs to every human category invented to describe people who don't fit neatly into them.

It means those categories don't adequately describe Him in the first place.

[ǝdɐɔsǝʇıʍpıɯ @cnb_1992]

"addiction is proof that you are capable of intense devotion, you're just serving a false god"

[Junkball | イギリス人 @IGotLocked13]

I can assure you we won't start killing ourselves over it.

[𝚟𝚎𝚍𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚢. @panvalues]

Just stand up, Dave.

[Erika Kirk @MrsErikaKirk]

To see leftist podcasters, comedians, and commentators laugh about political assassination as though it’s entertainment and the destruction of a human life is a punchline, is beyond disgusting.

My husband, Charlie Kirk, was killed in an act of political violence, something our two children and I will live with every day for the rest of our lives.

A culture that laughs at assassination is one of profound moral decay. It threatens the very foundation of our country and the principles that hold our democracy together.

You do not have to agree with someone’s politics to recognize the value of their life. This should not be so hard.

Political violence must never be something this country tolerates, excuses, or celebrates.

[Lady Laughingloudley @blah_blablather]

Then plainly:

The indictment is not that progressivism occasionally tolerates vice. It is that much of modern progressivism confers moral legitimacy on things that injure people, then treats resistance to those injuries as the sin.

Pornography does not merely “liberate sexuality.” It trains men to consume women, trains women to accept being consumed, and then calls the resulting degradation freedom.

A sexual culture organized around male appetite does not liberate women when women still bear the greater risks of pregnancy, abandonment, coercion, violence, humiliation, and bodily vulnerability. Calling that liberation does not alter who pays.

Women do not gain equality when male claims are allowed to override female privacy, sports, prisons, shelters, language, medical categories, or sex-based association. When women are ordered to surrender those things and condemned for refusing, that is not inclusion. It is domination of women dressed as compassion.

Race discrimination does not cease to be racism because the target is white. If institutions sort, exclude, stigmatize, or morally burden people because they are white, that is racism. “Equity” does not sanctify it.

A religion does not become benign because its adherents are locally fewer in number. Nor does Christianity become uniquely suspect because it is historically native to the West. When one faith receives indulgence and another receives suspicion according to an identity hierarchy, that is not pluralism. It is favoritism and religious prejudice.

A criminal does not become more morally important than his victim because his biography is politically useful. Mercy without justice is not mercy. It is abandonment of the innocent.

Children are not owed affirmation of every desire or identity claim that adults place before them. They are owed protection, judgment, restraint, and adults willing to say no.

Gambling companies do not become public benefactors because the state taxes them. Pornographers do not become liberators because they use feminist vocabulary. Cannabis dependence does not become harmless because it is legal. Appetite does not become virtue because commerce and politics profit from it.

And the family is not an antiquated obstacle standing between the individual and freedom. It is one of the principal institutions by which men are bound to duty, women and children gain durable claims upon others, and one generation accepts responsibility for the next. A culture that destroys those bonds and then offers bureaucracy, therapy, medication, entertainment, and consumption as substitutes has not liberated people. It has left them alone.

That is the charge.

The lie is not merely that these harms are regrettable side effects. The lie is that the harms themselves are progress.

The woman who objects is called hateful.
The parent who objects is called ignorant.
The Christian who objects is called reactionary.
The white person who objects to racial discrimination is told racism cannot really apply to him.
The Jew who objects to antisemitism is told to account first for Israel.
The citizen who asks why his country’s inherited norms must continually yield is told that his wish for continuity is itself suspect.

And thus the trick is completed: the injured person is placed in the dock, while the ideology that injured him assumes the robes of the judge.

That is not merely foolish. It is a corruption of moral judgment.

Cicero would ask whether a republic can endure when law ceases to be common.

Seneca would ask what sort of civilization calls surrender to appetite freedom.

Epictetus would ask by what right one citizen claims possession of another’s conscience, body, speech, or boundaries.

Marcus would ask what duties we have abandoned while congratulating ourselves on our virtue.

And Tacitus would recognize the darkest part immediately:

the language has been corrupted so thoroughly that the name of the vice is now used for the virtue that opposes it.

[BLAIRE WHITE @BlaireWhite]

He's swearing on a book that INSTRUCTS him to lie to non-Muslims. Joke country.

[What Went Wrong X @whatwentwrongx]

@jakebrodes I am genuinely curious what type of upbringing leads to this personality type.. 🤔

[Tanya @tanyaelisabethh]

Unborn children actually have a right to their mothers bodies

[🌷 LIZZIE🌷 @farmingandJesus]

This is the book he will be swearing on so we are all clear.

[wanye @xwanyex]

If a child cannot consent to getting their arms chopped off because they "may regret it" then by the exact same logic they cannot consent to having arms

[0 @ZEER0HOUR]

Big accounts are now promoting Nick Fuentes

Yes lets just drive all the voters out of the Republican Party.

You go down this path the GOP is over.