Luke Stockdale

@ostrachan If a person is responsible for outcomes they must have the authority over inputs.

@ostrachan Are they under the authority and responsibility of their fathers until they marry?

Our daughters have freedom in Christ in many ways: 1) They can go to college 2) They can marry young if God leads them 3) God also calls some of them to singleness 4) Singleness is an honorable calling before God (1 Cor. 7) 5. Their identity is not in family but in JESUS

@RepMcCormick If Haitians cause rape and murder and chaos in their one country why don’t we invite all of them here so they can get away from it.

I voted to extend TPS for Haitians because I cannot, in good conscience, send people who were lawfully granted protection here, followed our laws, and built lives under our rules back to rape, murder, and chaos in a lawless Haiti. This is completely separate from amnesty or illegal immigration. Conflating the two is dangerous.

@Joshuad4045 @ostrachan How can you have responsibility without authority?

@Luke_Stocky @ostrachan Responsibility to an extent authority no. If your adult kid wants to do something they can do that and there isn’t really anything you can do about it.

@ptomer "so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed." When Christians count those over them as worthy of honor the name of God is not blasphemed.

1 Timothy 6:1-2, "Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things."

@BradWilcoxIFS @lymanstoneky Sounds about right. I would have guessed this was the case.

"Spouses who don’t share a surname divorce at about a 50% higher rate than those who do share a surname, and their divorces come about 30% earlier in their marriages." Striking new divorce research from @lymanstoneky reinforces my earlier research on marital quality & naming:

@ChrisWillx There’s no explanation for this disparity other than blatant unabashed sexism.

Degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by level of degree and sex. — U.S. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

@johnandrewwords So, would you say we’re in a situation where there’s too much love for families and kin or not enough?

@Luke_Stocky I understand there’s different categories of love.

But is not the immigrant also your neighbor? Reformed theology and scripture say yes. Yet Garris quietly excludes the actual immigrant from consideration. Further, Garris is speaking very confidently about issues that are hotly contested in the actual research. But even if his first two empirical claims are givens (they’re not), he’s intentionally or unintentionally leaving out the most obvious and most vulnerable individual—the immigrant. Which leads us to consider Luke 10 and how some sought to limit their ethical obligations. “But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) Christ’s answer in Luke 10 was an expansion, not a restriction, and it explicitly included the outsider in the story.

@johnandrewwords A major problem with our world is a lack of love of fathers for children and children for fathers -Malachi 4:5 This will cause the destruction of the earth. God says so. This is a different category of love than towards other believers. Galations 6:10

@Luke_Stocky Natural affections or affections based on kindred are but one facet of how and who we are to have affections for as believers. For example, supernatural affections for those in Christ are not just another facet, but a relationship that is in at least some ways more fundamental.

@johnandrewwords I am not bringing up kinism or defending it. I don't know about exclusionary doctrine or what it means. I am talking about astorgos and the erosion of love and affection of kin and family that Paul warned against.

@Luke_Stocky Cool. Not sure how this is relevant. Kindred can and often does involve genetic ancestry. Kinism isn’t just a positive love for kin, but rather a negative and exclusionary doctrine opposed to others.

@johnandrewwords Are you saying that it is not more natural to have a different and closer affection for your friends, relatives, and countrymen than someone from a different heritage?

Abbot-Smith does not make this a matter of racialism, but kindred, which is a different but related matter. Regardless, I picked my words on purpose. Natural affections is a perfectly fine interpretation and love of kindred is a perfectly fine concept. Kinists have twisted this into a disordered love that excludes based on race. Like many heresies, it’s a radicalization of rather innocuous ideas.

@johnandrewwords Maybe Abbott-Smith are heretical Kinists. Abbott-Smith Lexicon describes it as without family affection, love of kindred, or natural affection.

The most literal interpretation is simply “without love” or “without affection.” This is sometimes translated or referred to as “without natural affections” which likely alludes to ordered love and our duty to care and love our family. Heretical kinists have, on occasion, taken this rather simple word to justify exclusively or primarily only caring for their “extended family” White ethnic members. Did I pass the exam? :)

@PerfInjust Politics is how groups treat groups. War vs treaty. Justice system is how groups treat individuals. Prison, execution, or tax break. Ethics is how individuals treat individuals. Turn the other cheek, or turn from. 2 Tim 3:5 There is no conflict.

See, Reformed Christian Politics, Chapter 1 for more on this.

This is exactly right. Distinguishing ethics and politics is not placing them at odds but recognizing their distinct subjects (man as individual vs civil community) objects (moral acts as individuals for the good life vs acts as publicly ordered to the common good), operations (reason/will vs civil authority and custom), ends (good life vs common good). They are related in the sense that ethics is the precondition of politics (as that which defines the good life) but politics completes ethics by ordering man as social being to the common good. Politics is architectonic. But that doesn’t mean that all the content of ethics enters politics, as if the civil authority prescribes all moral acts. They are distinct, so you ought to be both kind to the illegal immigrant (give him a glass of water) and then turn him into ICE.

@ZacharyGarris 2 Timothy 3:3 In the last days people will be astorgos (Greek: ἄστοργος without natural affection, unloving, or hard-hearted, particularly toward family members or kin.) We allow love for strangers or categories but not preferential love for our family, kin, or country.

When it comes to immigration, they say “love your neighbor.” Okay… Does immigration help middle & lower class Americans? No Does immigration help the nations that immigrants leave? No loving your neighbor = opposing immigration

@pearlythingz That collar bone guy isn’t even cool.

If clavicular passes sway at least we know he died mogging

@HAnne01254673 @willspencer @grok In the last days people will be astorgos. Right wing influencer- The Apostle Paul Astorgos- "without natural affection," "unloving," or "hard-hearted," particularly toward family members.

@willspencer @grok "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Who are the "Christian" influencers promoting this?

A convicted murderer rewrote the Beatitudes with Thor's hammer. He died in prison serving 190 years. And his ideas are showing up in Reformed Christian spaces right now. New Black Sun episode is live. This one names names.

@ZacharyGarris We went on a mission trip to Honduras. There were virtually no men in the church between 18-50. They were all in the US working. You can't build a church, nation, or family without men.

The U.S. taking in immigrants isn’t just bad for America. It takes away people that should be helping their own nations.

@MikeCosper @PastorMark I'd watch.

@PastorMark I know you won't reply, because — going back to my original reply to your attack on me — you're a coward, and you can't handle a hard conversation or a difficult question. So run back to the desert where no one knows your past and pretend it doesn't exist. Or man up and talk.

You know what's effeminate? Refusing to sit down and answer hard questions.