Ian Duley

I have no idea if anyone will see this but I’m posting it anyway. Doctors discovered I had a collapsed trachea recently and i’m recovering from life saving surgery. I haven’t posted recently because of this but I felt compelled to comment on this. We can 100% say owning another person is inherently wrong. As Psalms 24:1 says, “The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” No one can own another human because everything we think we “own” belongs to God. Israel’s law was not only a stark contrast to other ANE nations, it showed the heart of God. God tolerates slavery as an institution that was created by a fallen and sinful humanity, but He doesn’t endorse it as an ideal. God's ideal is clearly shown in scripture. God's first act toward a nation group was freeing Israel from slavery in Egypt. Also, every time God interacts with a slave He treats them with respect, despite their earthly designation. Hagar is the best example of this. In Genesis 16 Hagar was mistreated by Sarah (Abraham’s wife). What does God do? He looks on her with kindness and promises that He will “increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.” Hagar rightly notices and points out that God is the god who sees. In the same way, God sees us and loves us and calls us despite our earthly given designations. Now, there were two types of slaves in Israel: Hebrew and non-Hebrew. The laws that people have a harder time wrestling with are the ones for non-Hebrew slaves. The major hang-up people have is the passage Leviticus 25: 44-46, which states, “44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” If this were the only verse that addressed slavery in the Old Testament that could be the end of the story, but it isn’t. A great passage that shows how God’s law stood in contrast to other ANE nations, subverted the contemporary reality of slavery, and shows his ideal is Deuteronomy 23:15-16: “15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.” Scholars believe this verse mostly applies to foreign slaves born outside of Israel who are fleeing their master. I believe it does, and it stands in contrast to other ANE laws that demanded the return of a runaway slave. Hammurabi code 15 says that the penalty for harboring a runaway slaves were various fines and restitution depending on the situation. I think the Deuteronomy passage, however, is intentionally ambiguous enough to include domestic non-Hebrew slaves. Assuming that’s the case, a slave could leave their master for any conceivable reason, thereby severely undermining the institution of slavery and showing the heart of God’s law (i.e. that people don’t belong to man, they belong to God). You may ask yourself at this point, "If that’s the case, then why didn’t God abolish slavery completely as an institution?" Well, the Bible illustrates exactly what would happen had He tried. In Jeremiah 34:8-22, the nation of Judah agreed to free their fellow Hebrew slaves, and guess what happened due to their sinfulness. They freed their fellow slaves temporarily, and later took them right back as slaves, blatantly disobeying God. So, if they wouldn’t free their own countrymen, how then can we expect them to listen to a completely abolitionist top/down command on slavery? Slavery is such an ingrained, sinful, and worldly institution that we will not see the end of it this side of eternity. God, being God, knows this and shows us what His ideal is, but He also understands that we live in a sinful world where true, eternal freedom will not be truly realized on this side of eternity. God is the god of freedom, not slavery, and if I see on my timeline one more atheist who says God condones it, or a “Christian” fascist who says "Well, slavery is actually a good thing," I’m going to have a stroke. God is the god of freedom and Christian Nationalism is fascism.

Yall see the trend yet?

@ConceptualJames @FromtheFire23 @AThinksAloud Put it in the Louvre

@FromtheFire23 @AThinksAloud

@Heisttribe @realmikolson @ConceptualJames My speciality and degree is in biblical studies. I just take James’ word for it when it comes to philosophy. His videos have helped me reconcile Classical Liberalism and Christianity and where they overlap and disagree.

@Duley90 @realmikolson @ConceptualJames Wilson force doctrine is more Schmittian, “might makes reality”, but yeah when he argues against leftist he kinda leans to hard into the moral relativism more than he should while attempting to do an internal critique of his opponent

I find this mind-boggling, to be honest, and I'm not arguing that Christians should be pacifists or whatever. The example Wilson gives here about selling your cloak to buy a sword comes from the Gospel of Luke. I'm an agnostic and even know this story. He exegetes it wrong. In fact, he exegetes it completely wrong. The point of the story in Luke is that Jesus knows he's about to be taken by the Romans, so he instructs his disciples to get armed, even telling them to sell their cloaks to buy a sword if they must. The point is not to fight, though, as Wilson uses it to mean. The point is completely otherwise. Jesus actually makes this clear IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, BEFORE HE'S EVEN DONE SPEAKING to his disciples. He is doing it so that when he is taken he will fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah about the Messiah being "numbered among the transgressors." The context is that Romans would see an armed band as transgressors and thus take Jesus into custody upon those terms. When Jesus' disciples say they already have two swords, Jesus replies "it is enough." Enough for what? Fighting off Romans who are there to keep the law? No way. For looking like an armed band of transgressors, which would fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah? Yes. But it's not just speculation. The swords are explicitly NOT for fighting back. When Peter draws his sword in the forthcoming scene and slices the ear off a Roman in Gethsemane (where I have stood), Jesus rebukes him for it, saying whoever takes up the sword will die by it. That's one of the MOST FAMOUS STORIES IN THE WHOLE GOSPEL. His disciples weren't armed to fight back. Fighting back wasn't part of the equation. It's bewildering to me that Wilson would use this particular example to make his point. It reminds me of the time I mixed up the point of the story about the wheat and the tares because I wasn't actually all that familiar with the story but knew of it vaguely. Romans 13 (Paul, not Jesus) makes a better case for the authorities being invested with the authority to use force to maintain safety and order. Even the apt example of Jesus chasing moneychangers out of the Temple with a whip makes the case, but this other thing is simply mind-boggling to see. Even I know better.

The manosphere has a body count. One of its casualties is the woman who helped build it. @Lauren_Southern joins me to talk about what it cost her, the performance art of online Christianity, and the state of political media. youtube.com/watch?v=JFPTDw…

@realmikolson @ConceptualJames He believes in might makes right philosophy but smuggles it in underhandedly using force doctrine. He had me fooled initially when Charlie Kirk went on the whatever podcast but it becomes clear when you watch enough content and find out he’s a “Christian” Nationalist.

@ConceptualJames Yep. People should stop listening to Andrew Wilson. He’s horrible.

@ConceptualJames He believes in might makes right philosophy but smuggles it in underhandedly using force doctrine. He had me fooled initially when Charlie Kirk went on the whatever podcast but it becomes clear when you find out he’s a “Christian” Nationalist.

I don't really go in for this weird maybe Nietzschean Christianity. I went looking around for this to make sure I wasn't going crazy and saw it on an explicitly Marcionite site (not saying Wilson is Marcionist). What are we doing here?

@ConceptualJames Lot of persecution complex’s

Are we back to this crap?

I wrote about why so many influencers live completely different lives from the one they portray online. open.substack.com/pub/wokaldista…

Yes. The only pushback I have with being glad that Matt Walsh is speaking out now is that it seems like political opportunism. He didn’t say anything earlier, when people in his orbit were warning him. He knew—and instead, he attacked those trying to warn him about this. He even supported the very trend he’s now warning us against. And now he’s trying to lecture others about discernment? I mean.. I don’t think we should continue listening to Matt Walsh. He hasn’t demonstrated integrity or honesty.

Every time I see people on the right trash Jordan Peterson as not being sufficiently radical, or as being some kind of idiot or dupe, I remember videos like this and realize that the future in no way belongs to those people.

The leftist worldview is an inversion of reality.

I wish this were satire.

Umm...is this due to sola scriptura, too? I mean, RC constantly blame SS for every wild and crazy thing they dig up on the net, so...why isn't this? Or maybe, just maybe, this is yet another example of how Roman claims of ultimate authority...collapse upon thoughtful examination?

9/30/24

Lol whoa

CRT was a social contagion for pastors and teachers Transgenderism was a social contagion for suburban moms Jew-hate is a social contagion for young men

Unity as a purpose is not Christianity. Unity with evil is of the devil. The leader of the Catholic church speaks in communist jargon with communist purpose and I am not ignoring it.

The default position for the Democrat Party is open borders. They can and will do it again if they regain power.

Evil is running rampage and it is not okay.