Florida Bullfrog

My book “Free-Range Survival Chickens” is out! Its the definitive guide both for how to free-range chickens in high-predator environments and as to the history of the domestic chicken, much of which may surprise you. a.co/d/3VQhDr5

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy … and doesn’t teach her these essential things in the name of keeping her “soft,” I would call that man soft and derelict. So whose definition wins for what a “hard” man or a “soft” woman is? If the book can’t explain those things Biblically, I’m going to call that aspect a fail

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy … who couldn’t thrive if dropped in a Florida swamp aren’t going to meet my definition of “hard.” And if said man raises a daughter that can’t shoot a gun or kill a rattlesnake or navigate her way back home after a disaster or blast a badguy that breaks into the house…

Eric Conn wrote an article in Nov of 2020 explaining why his podcast was named "hard men podcast" (now named "brutal american podcast"). It ends with a very interesting quote 🥸

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy If I can find an except or a digital copy, I will read that chapter for context before I say more.

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy If I read the chapter that quote is out of, will that give me enough context to then either change my opinion (at least acknowledge it is not as goofy as it sounds) or alternatively, you’ll at least listen to me as to why that’s terrible way to word the point?

@RealFLBullfrog @not_our_guy You are criticizing the quote. It just seems like another way that these sides fight over personalities rather than seeking to understand each other. You're criticizing the quote. I'm defending the book.

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy Let me add this… because he is quoting from a book, and you’re indicating we need to read the book to know the context of the quote, Eric isn’t providing the context the book is because he himself is the one extracting the quote out of its context.

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy … I he wants to lead boys to be men, he needs to learn some humility and pour some cold water on his proclivity to charge into everything recklessly as an edgelord. Maturity would see that its problematic write an instruction that appears to tell boys to follow their penises.

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy … or express the need for men to “man up.”

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy .:.but I am aware of many Bible verses that would imply the opposite, that obeying the penis instead of making the penis obey you is going to get you into sin. Even with the best intention, telling young Christian men to obey their erect penises is a terrible way communicate…

@RefRetrieval Is this not just side-stepped by concluding infants have actual sin from conception? They don’t need to be condemned for Adam’s sin. They’re condemned for their own sin because sinful nature is itself sinful, and we all have the sinful nature from conception.

If Adam's sin were not all men's, how could death pass upon infants, who have no actual sin? God is not, cannot be unjust; where there is no fault, there is no room for punishment; if infants in no sense transgressed the command in Adam, the death in the threatening cannot fall upon them, “With what justice can an infant be subject to the wages of sin, if the pollution of it be not in him?” saith Flugentius. May there be pœna sine causa, a punishment without a why or a wherefore? It cannot be. If, therefore, even infants in Adam died, as the apostle speaks, (1 Cor. 15:22,) then in Adam all sinned, as he tells us in the frequented text. …if "death passed upon all men because all have sinned," then infants, because death passes upon them, have sinned; and how have they sinned? Not in their own persons, they are not capable of sinning actually, but in Adam, the root of mankind: not by an imitation, they are not capable of such a thing; but by a participation of the first sin, which by a just imputation becomes theirs. …Again, Christ purchased salvation, but there being no such thing as original sin, who shall be saved by him? Shall infants be saved by him? Indeed, of such is the kingdom of heaven, but what are they saved from? is it from sin? There is no spot in them; Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, they do no more; they have no real flesh of corruption in them. Is it from wrath? There can be none due to sinless creatures. Is it from Satan? He may come and find nothing in them, nothing belonging to his black kingdom. Is it from the world? They are not yet mentally, morally entered into it, so as to be capable of falling into the snares of it; there is, therefore, nothing at all for infants to be saved from. Hence the fathers in the council of Carthage do in their epistle to Pope Innocent tell us, that according to the Pelagians, there is nothing in infants to be saved or redeemed; nothing vitiated or held under the power of the devil; neither was blood shed for their remission. Hence St. Austin argues thus: He that saith that infants have nothing to be saved from, denies Christ to be a Jesus to them. What is Jesus? Jesus is by interpretation a Saviour, a Saviour is Jesus: those whom he doth not save, because they have nothing to be saved from, he is not to them a Jesus. Thus we see, that there being no original sin, infants (which what christian heart can bear?) are not saved by Christ. ” —Edward Polhill, Speculum Theologiae in Christo (London: Printed by A.M. and R.R. for Tho. Cockerill, 1678) 208-209, 233-234.

@Joseph_Spurgeon @not_our_guy I’m more concerned about this: “Godliness for a man means living in obedience to his body.” Really? A Christian man’s body is in the driver’s seat and the inner Christian man must obey the body? Compare that to Paul who said “I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave.”

@not_our_guy It’s a great quote and you should read the book it is from. It’s not being crude but dealing with the truths from natural law.