V vvvvvvv vvvvvvv
Joined Jul 2022
Alex
boosted
Alex
boosted
Alex
boosted
Time to file yet another JF tweet away in the "tweets that will be prominently featured in a Netflix true crime documentary within 5 years" folder
Alex
boosted
Alex
boosted
Alex
boosted
Alex
boosted
Christians also use the book of Revelation to excuse the constant occurrence of evil, as well as Ephesians 6: 12 as an excuse to allow the violent, perverted and wicked to run amok.
It's utterly despicable. If we are attacked, imprisoned, or acted upon violently, no person should sit in innocence and just roll over for that.
It's utterly despicable. If we are attacked, imprisoned, or acted upon violently, no person should sit in innocence and just roll over for that.
Alex
boosted
Recognition of persecution is being a mature Christian.
Fetishizing persecution is being a bad Christian.
St. Paul says that we will always be persecuted in some way, shape or form (2 Timothy 3:12). This does not mean that the Christian should do nothing about it.
This is where a whole lot of the debates concerning Christian Nationalism are centered.
-One side, the Right wing side, says "There is a system in place which is anti-Christian, and we want to change it to be a pro-Christian system."
-The other side, calling itself "conservative," says "we lose down here" - that is, we are supposed to be persecuted and we will always be persecuted, so we must therefore embrace persecution.
Christian nationalism may be an absolute mess that has no coherent definition, but their opposition among the conservatives is even worse. By saying "we lose down here" and opposing any notion of a Christian/Christian-friendly government, they fetishize persecution while actively participating in persecuting. It is Christianity with Stockholm Syndrome, arising from a rose-tinted view of the past. 1700 years ago these would have been the Donatists, Circumcellions, and anyone else demanding that our faith be addicted to death. They would read the Shepherd of Hermas to everyone that would listen and pine for the days when being a martyr was easy.
Now what's the problem with that, you might ask. After all, the Church has always praised her martyrs who shed their blood for the true faith. Indeed we have. But they shed their blood for the victory of Christ over false religions and evil men - it is not the death itself but the thing which God accomplished in spite of that death. As Joseph says to his brothers in Genesis 50:20, "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."
But the crop of persecution fetishists, who demand that Christians never stand up for a Christian body politic, find value in the death itself. If there were no persecution, they would find a way to perpetrate it on Christians to make themselves feel better. For them, evil things like death and torment are actually good, and good things like peace and orderly Christian societies are actually bad. I am shocked to find so many Protestants among them, because 500 years ago this personality would have attacked Luther on the grounds that Rome crushing souls into powder was a beautiful, right and amazing testimony to "we lose down here" ethics.
Fetishizing persecution is being a bad Christian.
St. Paul says that we will always be persecuted in some way, shape or form (2 Timothy 3:12). This does not mean that the Christian should do nothing about it.
This is where a whole lot of the debates concerning Christian Nationalism are centered.
-One side, the Right wing side, says "There is a system in place which is anti-Christian, and we want to change it to be a pro-Christian system."
-The other side, calling itself "conservative," says "we lose down here" - that is, we are supposed to be persecuted and we will always be persecuted, so we must therefore embrace persecution.
Christian nationalism may be an absolute mess that has no coherent definition, but their opposition among the conservatives is even worse. By saying "we lose down here" and opposing any notion of a Christian/Christian-friendly government, they fetishize persecution while actively participating in persecuting. It is Christianity with Stockholm Syndrome, arising from a rose-tinted view of the past. 1700 years ago these would have been the Donatists, Circumcellions, and anyone else demanding that our faith be addicted to death. They would read the Shepherd of Hermas to everyone that would listen and pine for the days when being a martyr was easy.
Now what's the problem with that, you might ask. After all, the Church has always praised her martyrs who shed their blood for the true faith. Indeed we have. But they shed their blood for the victory of Christ over false religions and evil men - it is not the death itself but the thing which God accomplished in spite of that death. As Joseph says to his brothers in Genesis 50:20, "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."
But the crop of persecution fetishists, who demand that Christians never stand up for a Christian body politic, find value in the death itself. If there were no persecution, they would find a way to perpetrate it on Christians to make themselves feel better. For them, evil things like death and torment are actually good, and good things like peace and orderly Christian societies are actually bad. I am shocked to find so many Protestants among them, because 500 years ago this personality would have attacked Luther on the grounds that Rome crushing souls into powder was a beautiful, right and amazing testimony to "we lose down here" ethics.
Alex
boosted
Alex
boosted
Alex
boosted
Alex
boosted
@Shadowman311 Mark Driscoll is a goddess-worshiping feminist. That's it.
He utilized a tough-guy routine in order to do two things:
-First, this beat down the men in his church psychologically so they felt as though he was an authority figure.
-Second, it made him attractive to the women in his church, so they saw him as the authority figure.
His demeanor was nothing more than a manipulative means by which he could impose the heresy of Christian buddhism on men (be a broken slave, personal desires are evil, etc.). His message is that men are responsible for all sins whatsoever, and if a woman sins it is the man's fault. If a man is angry at him it is because of father wounds or something (plus him being effeminate); if a woman is angry at him, it is because a different man harmed her. Driscoll is the manliest-appearing advocate for anarcho-tyranny between the sexes you'll ever see, because that's how he got people to listen.
He utilized a tough-guy routine in order to do two things:
-First, this beat down the men in his church psychologically so they felt as though he was an authority figure.
-Second, it made him attractive to the women in his church, so they saw him as the authority figure.
His demeanor was nothing more than a manipulative means by which he could impose the heresy of Christian buddhism on men (be a broken slave, personal desires are evil, etc.). His message is that men are responsible for all sins whatsoever, and if a woman sins it is the man's fault. If a man is angry at him it is because of father wounds or something (plus him being effeminate); if a woman is angry at him, it is because a different man harmed her. Driscoll is the manliest-appearing advocate for anarcho-tyranny between the sexes you'll ever see, because that's how he got people to listen.
Alex
boosted
I am calling for a total morritorium on "Happy Wife Happy Life" Wife Guys until we figure out what is going on
V vvvvvvv vvvvvvv
Joined Jul 2022
