Strill

@kaiyoukaiyou @3askin1obbins Sadly there are no stories like that in American media. Hollywood wants to destroy cowboy stories, along with all stories about strong, stoic, masculine men.

@3askin1obbins 日本人が桜を愛で侍を想うように、アメリカ人は夕陽の中で荒野に佇むカウボーイの姿を思い浮かべて胸が熱くなったりしないのかな？ 言葉なんて必要無いくらいの"アメリカ"がそこに詰まっていると思うんだけど、リベラルは何も感じないのだろう だったらリベラルの魂ってどこにあるんだ？ 空っぽすぎる

「アメリカには歴史と文化がない」なんてことを都市部のカフェテリアでMacBookを叩きながら語っていたのは一体どこの誰なんだ 美味しそうなBBQやバカデカいトラックのレースはそれほどまでにリベラルな人達にとって都合が悪いのか？

@farmingandJesus @creation247 That's a Jesus Juke. We're talking marriage, not salvation.

@creation247 Jesus wants them.

Every teacher in America should do this:

@tuna_neck @WarE107 @kangminlee @LizzieMarbach She'll bend over backwards to read everything Ashley says in the most favorable light imaginable, but the moment you ask her to explain herself, you're a bad faith actor and she blocks you.

@WarE107 @UpwardSenility @kangminlee @LizzieMarbach Okay, so Job was equally righteous to, say, Jeffery Dahmer (who repented and asked Jesus for forgiveness before he died)?

The whole “we’re losing the young men” argument is just the same old seeker-sensitive argument that is being repackaged. You don’t compromise the gospel because you fear it’ll turn people away. Just be faithful to Christ and preach his word.

@HibariTheCloud @hrkahrig The context is that the hypothetical applies directly to her. Boasting is prideful and vain. Boasting indirectly with hypotheticals is prideful, vain, and cowardly.

@UpwardSenility @hrkahrig The picture you provided makes it seem like she's discussing a hypothetical. Is there context that shows she is referring to herself?

It is easy to convince yourself you are right if you can convince yourself that those who disagree with you deny the Gospel.

@HumanBe87 @ItsRiverShane Because God is necessary in order to become sanctified.

@UpwardSenility @ItsRiverShane Why even be a Christian at that point? At best what you have is a sort of legalism.

Let me say this plainly so that I can reference this tweet without having to repeat myself constantly. With regard to the @/TrevorSheatz debate, mostly with @/GodFastMK2 (idk anything about Trevor, not defending his moral character, just taking issue with this particular topic): I am not, nor are most people in this side of the debate, saying that *you* have to marry someone with a promiscuous past to be a "good Christian". That is not the point we're making, we do not believe that, and neither should you. We are not saying that, we are not implying that. People are twisting our words into *being* that, so that they have an easy target to attack. Let me be clear. You are allowed to have whatever preferences you want. Who you choose to marry is nobodies business but yours. You prefer virgins? Marry a virgin. More power to you. In fact, mutual virginity is of course ideal in a marriage. You do you. The problem we take, is not with your preferences. Let me repeat, *we do not take issue with your preference*. The issue we take is with making your preference into a broad moral statement at the expense of repentant Christians. "They're tainted, they're whores, they don't deserve a virgin man." 👈 This obnoxious and un-Christ-like behavior is what we take issue with. I will repeat myself again. *MARRY WHOEVER YOU WANT TO*, so long as the marriage aligns with Scripture. We are not policing who you should and should not be with. *You* are. Those who truly repent stand equal before Christ. Those particularly sinful pasts can be redeemed. Cleansed. Forgiven. And those who have been, are on equal footing with anyone and everyone else. Let's not forget that we are *all* sinners in need of grace. Marrying someone with a more intensely sexual past than you do, so long as they are truly repentant and have turned to Christ, is *not* problematic. Will that come with unique challenges? Perhaps. Does that make them unmarriageable? Absolutely not. Does that mean that *you* have to marry someone like this? Once again. *No*. That is *not* what we're saying. This has been the most consistent argument I've seen. "But you're saying I have to marry a wh*re to be a good Christian." Two things. 1. I'm not saying that *you* have to marry anybody in particular. I'm saying that those people are not tainted. If someone doesn't have the same reservations as you, *that's* who I'm talking about. 2. This whole debate is about *REPENTANT CHRISTIANS*. Not unrepentant OF models. So not only is using slurs like wh*re and sl*t unbelievably inappropriate and un-Christ-like (even towards people living in active sin), those words don't even apply to the people in question. We are *not* suggesting you marry someone you are unequally yoked with. Our point is that forgiveness (for people who sincerely ask for it) should carry more weight than you give it credit for. So let me reiterate the two important points, here. You *do not* have to marry a non-virgin in order to be a "Good Christian". Nobody is saying that. But, turning your preferences and personal convictions into a blanket moral statement that everybody else should adhere to is problematic. If your position is not biblically defensible, you do not have a strong case. Now please stop treating people with sinful pasts as if they are sub-human. Good day.

@HumanBe87 @ItsRiverShane Are you seriously telling me that every christian you know has immediately tossed off all their sins and negative habits? If not, then that is evidence that sanctification (aka theosis), is a process, one that you can judge (imperfectly) by observing their behavior.

@UpwardSenility @ItsRiverShane So you disregard Christ and all of divine command but you like this particular (contrested) doctrine around sanctification because it means you can judge people and call them names (at least to yourself.) You’ve stripped Christianity of Christ What’s the point of it?

@HumanBe87 @ItsRiverShane Would I be unchristlike for rejecting her for her body count? Would I be 'idolizing virginity'? I haven't emptied christianity of anything. Sanctification is a process. The christian must work out his salvation over time with fear and trembling. He is not entitled to anything.

@UpwardSenility @ItsRiverShane You’re not obligated to marry anybody Why do you constantly keep bringing this up? You’re not obligated to marry anybody. And you fully avoided my question: what is the point in you being a Christian when you’ve essentially emptied it of Christ and its contents?

@GrammarJedi01 @realfemsapien The problem is people stripping promiscuity of consequences. Promiscuity results in you being more morally pure than one who wasn't, and you avoid the vice of 'idolizing virginity', while those who refuse you the marriage you want do not have 'the heart of christ'. Sweet deal.

No, she didn't. She said the "woman he refused to marry . . . CAN have a much purer heart". She also said she prayed "he wouldn't idolize virginity - but would prize holiness and zeal for Christ." I would also point out that none of this addresses my actual question: WHO IS SAYING PROMISCUITY ISN'T WRONG? If I need to conduct a class in reading comprehension, let me know.

You know what shows humility? Women who did the wrong thing (promiscuity) prior to marriage admitting it was wrong and moving forward to forge a new path with whatever consequences to their behavior come their way. Instead we have a bunch of women saying it wasn’t wrong and you’re a big ‘ole meanie for mentioning it at all.

@GrammarJedi01 @realfemsapien I appreciate all the lessons in plausible deniability I've been getting from people over this. Lots of good tips on how to brag you're better than other people whole couching it in enough qualifiers that it doesn't technically count.

@HumanBe87 @ItsRiverShane The woman who slept with 1000 men in a day, got baptised. Would I be obligated to marry her if she were in my congregation? Now that she's quit christianity and gone back to online prostitution, am I still obligated? Is naievete an obligatory christian virtue?

@UpwardSenility @ItsRiverShane At this stage, what is even the point in being a Christian for you? You disregard Christ’s moral example, his teaching; you relegate divine providence before earthly prudentialism and now you’re saying all you need is your own personal discernment in things What’s the point?

@HibariTheCloud @hrkahrig Suppose I, a school shooter, I tell my atheist coworker 'Ex-school-shooters who become christians are more pure than law-abiding atheists'. I would be boasting and prideful. I would also be doing it indirectly, which is cowardice. Theological correctness would not matter.

@UpwardSenility @hrkahrig Not really, its true. A repentant Christian can be more pure of heart than a virgin. It didnt seem like an attack, just a supporting statement to the overall conversation.

@HumanBe87 @ItsRiverShane God gave you discernment. You toss it out at your own peril. You don't need to be able to see someone's soul to judge their character.

@UpwardSenility @ItsRiverShane You categorically do NOT have that power. You are NOT God. There is a great arrogance about you, honestly. Your presumption towards these powers and the entitlement you feel to judge another person who has been made new in Christ You cite gotquestions.org all the while

@HumanBe87 @ItsRiverShane I do in fact have that power. It's called wisdom and pattern recognition.

@UpwardSenility @ItsRiverShane No You do not have the power to know an individuals past or future life trajectory. You do not have the power as God does to know or sanctify You are conflating separate categories and then accusing me of doing it! Lmao And you cited it because you’re a novice theologically

@tekarin Very surprised. My Japanese language class was shocked.

今「日本人はなぜかクリスマスにKFCのフライドチキンを食べたがって、何週間も前から予約してまでチキンを食べるんだよ」って言ったらアメリカの人はびっくりするかな

@HumanBe87 @ItsRiverShane You don't need to judge someone's eternal soul to judge whether they are suitable for marriage. Those are two completely different things. Please stop being so dramatic. And yes, I cited it sincerely because you don't seem to understand the difference.

@UpwardSenility @ItsRiverShane No, I was actually asking you if you cited it to me as an insult or if it was sincere Again, though, such a complete oversimplification of divine grace and its implications upon those it touches Also a lie into a known insight of an individual soul You cited it sincerely, huh?

@learning_yohei My refrigerator is empty. That means I have no food. I go to the store to get (仕入れる) food. When I come home with my food, I now have food.

I’m a Japanese person learning English. What’s the difference between “have” and “get”?😵‍💫

@amberlytics Welfare was explicitly created by Roosevelt as reparations.

@HibariTheCloud @hrkahrig And that is prideful of her to say.

@UpwardSenility @hrkahrig Thats still not doing what you are saying and putting repentant promiscuity over chastity, she is saying a repentant woman CAN have a purer heart than a virgin, not that her experience necessitates it.

@HumanBe87 @ItsRiverShane If you need scholars to tell you whether christians reverse all their bad habits upon conversion, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

@UpwardSenility @ItsRiverShane Is citing got question.org an intentional insult or are you just genuinely theologically sub literate? Scholars have been contending on this subject for millennia. Treatises have been written on this. And none of them give you gospel mandate for your carnal desires

@tuna_neck @WarE107 @kangminlee @LizzieMarbach Explicit conclusion actually

@WarE107 @UpwardSenility @kangminlee @LizzieMarbach I forgot one more: [Implicit conclusion: I'm more pure than the virtuous]