The Sortitionist

Managerialism Hates This One Bronze-Age Trick Sortition can be used for good or ill, @AuronMacintyre. Here is a piece I wrote months ago, rated by @OGRolandRat as above average in content and insight (based on lowest score from Video Essay Competition Winners). @GreeneMan6

@StefanMolyneux Is engaging in debate always enacting a universal preference for truth > falsehood? A spy can engage in debate to enact something false. So preference for truth requires action plus intention. If it changes based on intention, the action part is not a universal preference.

You are arguing that it is universally preferable behaviour to reject universally preferable behaviour Self-detonating arguments

こんにちは 私は日本人です。黒人が他人をレイプするのをやめられないのではないかと心配しています

@RevBWarr Logically possible to work at hospital and secretly baptize every infant if it has nothing to do with anyone else's faith.

If justification is not by faith alone, then baptizing infants becomes unclear and even contradictory. What is Baptism in this scenario? If justification relies in any way on human choice, understanding, or effort, then an infant, who cannot think, choose, or act, would be excluded by definition. Baptism would either become an empty ritual, just a sign waiting for future significance, or it would be delayed until the child can meet the supposed requirements for justification. Infant Baptism only makes sense when justification is fully God’s work, where grace is not a reaction to human action but the source of faith itself. In this perspective, Baptism is not a symbolic act based on human qualifications, but a way for God to act: forgiving sins, giving the Holy Spirit, and creating faith when and where He chooses; even in infants. If you deny justification by faith alone, Baptism must change from being a divine gift to a human statement. Once that change occurs, infants no longer fit. However, if justification is truly by grace alone through faith alone, then infant Baptism is not just reasonable, it is a necessary and consistent affirmation that salvation belongs entirely to God, who gives His gifts freely, even to those who cannot contribute anything of their own.

This is my latest article: "Like progressive "Christians", hyper-patriarchists think they know better than God. It’s better to marry a godly woman with a promiscuous past than a quarrelsome virgin." slowtowrite.com/should-men-mar…

@ATrueMillennial If both have a large difference in properties ascribed to Jesus Christ, it is not a shared faith but is different. Mormons do not believe that Jesus is the maximally great being, therefore it is not a shared faith and require a different name.

Imagine if I started calling my other Bible-believing friends "Paulines" because they follow the teachings of the apostle Paul. Or "Corinthians" because that's one of the books in their canon. It's not marketing. There's only one Name we care about. And it's the one everyone avoids. I've been called Mormon, Mormonite, Smithite, Brighamite, and LDS, and the Church of Latter-day Saints-- EVERYTHING to avoid acknowledging the Master I serve. We are the Church of Jesus Christ. Stop treating His name like Voldemort's.

@NeilShenvi Objectively wrong interpretation. He lost his estate share in the future while the other brother did not.

Forget the fact that women with the highest number of sex partners have the highest divorce rates. Forget the fact that the divorce rate in the church is no different than the world. Forget the fact that 80% of divorces are filed by women. Forget the fact that she can take half your stuff. Forget the fact that divorced men are 2x more likely to commit suicide. Just take your pastor’s advice and “forget her past.” 🙄 I can’t think of worse advice to give men.

@LizzieMarbach Part of damage is being less desirable. So by definition they are damaged and the damage remains.

Us: Formerly promiscuous women can be redeemed this side of eternity. They are not damaged goods. Them: So you’re saying I HAVE to marry an ex-wHoRe?! Us: …No? Them: oh so you’re denying accountability & earthly consequences of sin?! Us: …no? ————————— lol it’s comical because this is coming from the men who often rightly point out how irrational and emotion driven many of the conversations are today. Yet here they are being irrational and emotion driven. Nothing is wrong with a young man desiring a woman who is a virgin. It is GOOD to seek out God’s design—two virgins on the wedding night. In fact, I would go so far as to say that young men SHOULD seek this. They should ideally want that for themselves and their future spouse. Young women should seek this too. Ideally, a young woman should find a man who has a proven track record of leading in purity. None of that is at odds with the fact that God saves & redeems people with a sexual past. And He doesn’t just save them from hell. He redeems them here on earth too. God turns the wicked and makes them as white as snow. Some people who lived a life of debauchery will get married by the grace (unmerited favor, meaning undeserved) of God. Some people will not and will remain single and childless. None of this is at odds with men having standards or recognizing earthly consequences exist & taking accountability. God shows mercy on who he shows mercy. His ways are not our own. Not everyone’s earthly consequences will look the same or be what you demand be done. Be careful not to have an attitude like Jonah who is upset over the idea of his enemies finding grace & mercy. You’re not forced to marry a formerly promiscuous woman. That’s completely okay if you do not! & it is GOOD & natural to desire sexual purity. But, it isn’t sinful or automatically unwise if someone else does marry a formerly promiscuous woman who is saved. & it is not a threat to the church if they do. In fact, I would go so far to say that is in God’s plan for some of them to be married, like Rahab. He predestined many to get married after they are regenerated, & that is GOOD. It all brings glory to God. Learn to hold two thoughts at the same time. I believe in you guys! -it is good and righteous to desire a chaste woman. Men should desire this. -it is good and righteous if another man finds a wife who was promiscuous before Christ but has repented and been regenerated. -the most important factor when seeking a spouse is their salvation. Are they in Christ? Everything else follows from that. He who finds a wife finds a good thing.

@theoofcat5 @darwintojesus If it is demonstrably subjective then you would not believe it is objectively wrong to murder a baby.

@darwintojesus But morality is demonstrably subjective, that’s why you’re unable to demonstrate an objective basis for it, and rely on appealing to emotion and conflation of subjective morality with the existence an arbitrary objective standard.

Subjective morality is a joke. Always has been. Always will be. If you want to say morality is subjective cool, but don’t act like it’s a serious position. It isn’t.

@NeilShenvi @crusadepepe When terms are conflated on purpose, it IS what they are saying.

I didn’t say “you don’t believe the gospel” just like Gabe didn’t say “you must marry the single mom.” It’s fine to point to someone actually saying these things and criticize them. But it’s unwise to “read between the lines” to critique things they didn’t actually say. If someone did it to you, you would be justifiably frustrated.

At some point, I may post an entire thread of NXR responses to recent marriage discouse, but here's another important one.

@NeilShenvi @crusadepepe What are you talking about? He lost his entire share of inheritance but still has a place where people love him. Why do you think the non-prodigal gets “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours."

@crusadepepe Do you think the Parable of the Prodigal Son drives people to sin because the younger brother didn't face any temporal punishment from the father?

@shadmbrooks @realDailyWire Logical Argument Against Mormonism. 1. An actual Infinite of countable units can not exist. 2. Mormonism implies an actual Infinite of countable units of eternally existing matter and "intelligences". 3. Therefore, Mormonism is false.

Funny how @realDailyWire never makes video like this about Judaism, but are happy to lie and attack Mormons constantly🤔 I'm not saying they should do either of course, but the double standard exposes these two as liars, frauds, hypocrites, and cowards. What does the Daily Wire say, don't support people that hate you? Good advice. And they wonder why no one watched The Pendragon Cycle.

@BigGiantMonstr @DefiantBaptist @pearlythingz Redeemed gambler in massive debt. Do you advise your daughter to consider him equally in marriage against redeemed man with savings?

@DefiantBaptist @pearlythingz So is the takeaway from this that God can't redeem who He chooses, that past sin defines us?

FLASHBACK (9/9/2019): Allie Beth Stuckey reflects on her time in college, including a lengthy period of drinking and partying. There are quite a few things to note here. First, there is zero mention of academics. For Allie, college was about making friends and possibly finding a husband. In 35 minutes of speaking about this, she never says that she should have focused more on school. Second, she blames her partying phase on a difficult breakup and really doesn’t take any responsibility for the debauchery she was involved in. It sounds very similar to modern women wanting to find themselves after being tied down by a serious relationship. Third, while Stuckey denies sleeping around in high school, there was no such denial regarding her college years. Such an omission is quite suspicious. Finally, Allie adopts the same “God fixes everything for promiscuous women” attitude that has been playing on repeat this week, including from Allie herself. If indeed she had a promiscuous phase in college, that would no doubt inform her perspective on the Ashley Sheatz story. What do you think?

@BrandonTheAdams @pureMetatron "A rock exists" is a proposition. Minds existed in the past.

@sortitionist @pureMetatron This is the problem. People conflate “real” with “truth”. That is wrong. A rock can be real, but it cannot be true; only propositions can be labeled “true” and only minds make propositions in the present, therefore…

This is actually very wrong linguistically and philosophically. First this is the actual definition of a delusion: "a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary" Linguistically faith does not satisfy the requirements for the definition, unless you can demonstrate with incontrovertible evidence that there is no God. Note that I'm not saying the burden of proof is on the atheist, that's a different discussion. I'm only stating that without incontrovertible evidence you cannot classify faith as a delusion. But I have more to say. A belief without evidence and reason about something that isn't true, is just a wrong belief. NOT a delusion. A belief without evidence and reason about something that is true, is a correct belief. Two working examples. Scenario 1: I believe there are aliens on Mars. I have no evidence for it. IF we explore Mars and IF there are no aliens, then it's a false belief. If I still believe it after the incontrovertible evidence, THEN it becomes a delusion. Scenario 2: 2 - I believe there are aliens on Mars. I have no evidence for it. IF we explore Mars and IF we find the aliens, then it was a true belief. So returning to faith, we proved faith cannot be linguistically classified as a delusion. Whether or not the belief is false or correct cannot be known by us before incontrovertible evidence. Moreover whether or not we know it, the belief is already true or false based on the ontology of the thing which is believed. If God does not exist, my belief would be false whether I know it or not. If after proof of God's non existence I still believed it, then it becomes a delusion . But if God DOES exist, then my belief would be correct whether I know it or not, even in the absence of initial evidence. Denying the existence of God after the incontrovertible evidence would then become the delusion.

@twolly11 @AStrasser116 A material universe with no beginning would create an infinite series of past events.

@AStrasser116 Even under theism, the vast majority of persons are already contingent upon the universe so why then would we assume personhood is a more fundamental existence than the material universe?

Because a person is exactly the kind of thing that can explain a contingent, finite universe that an impersonal set of conditions has a harder time doing

@NathanBozeman2 "Faith is trusting in what you have good reason to think is true." youtube.com/watch?v=hUhbyQ…

No one thinks faith is belief without evidence except for New Atheists who do not even have a coherent definition of what evidence is.

@BrandonTheAdams @pureMetatron No. Warrant if for claims of knowledge, not truth. Or you have to commit that it wasn't true that the Earth orbited the Sun in the past.

@pureMetatron This is actually very wrong linguistically and philosophically. No belief is “true” until you have evidence or reason that warrants that label. Only humans can apply that label in the present once you have warrant. Your belief that there ARE aliens on Mars IS not true until…

@pureMetatron "Faith is trusting in what you have good reason to think is true." youtube.com/watch?v=hUhbyQ…

@JoelMCurzon Material dominoes would result in infinite regress. Undetermined agent causation (a person) is the only way not to have infinite regress.

Theism is essentially a claim that fundamental reality is some kind of ‘person.’ If that claim doesn’t strike you as utterly bizarre, why doesn’t it?

Take it from a professional Japanese to English translator with over 20 years experience. This is wrong when it comes to 90% of anime and games.