pauldirks

22.1K posts

pauldirks

pauldirks

@pauldirks

Against child transition; for women's sex-based rights. Advocate. Christian. Pastor. Author: "Is There Anything Good About Hell," and forthcoming fantasy epic.

New Westminster, BC Katılım Eylül 2008
850 Takip Edilen3.2K Takipçiler
Wyatt Graham
Wyatt Graham@wagraham·
Here is a really common baptismal text in the early church: "It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters" (Ps 74:13).
English
1
0
8
584
Derick
Derick@z28DV·
@pauldirks @willspencer @JeremyDBoreing It's a joke. He didn't give the name to himself. He always said "little g" winking at it being a joke. He doesn't put himself above God and actually appears to be quite humble
English
1
0
2
30
Will Spencer
Will Spencer@willspencer·
If you ask me, @JeremyDBoreing is thriving today in part because he had the courage to end a profitable relationship when it cost him something. He didn't say, "But Candace makes some good points." He didn't pretend it wasn't that bad. He named the problem and he ended the relationship. He owned the decision and said, "No. This stops with me." And now he's being rewarded for bravery he showed more than two years ago. Whether you look at his podcast, his show, or the razor company he just bought back, his work is thriving. How quickly we forget that the God who judges sin also blesses faithfulness. So I hope the Christian influencers and internet pastors whose bellies have gone yellow will learn from Jeremy's example. You do not care for your wayward bros by making excuses for them or protecting the relationship. Not when they're selling Third Reich literature at conferences, calling black people subhuman, and blaming a single people for all the world's evils. You rebuke them in the sunlight. You end the relationship. You deprive the poisonous ideology of oxygen, and you say where everyone can see you, "No. This stops with me." The time for bold private opinions has passed. No one cares what you say behind closed doors. The fire has come to the doorstep of your church, your podcast, your timeline, your political party, and our nation. You can stop it, if you're willing to break things: your relationships, your precious reputation, your vision for your future, your financial plan for your platform. As if any of that will matter when we stand before God and He asks, "Where were you when the evil in your nation was rising?" Jeremy Boreing can answer that question. Can you?
English
41
142
1.4K
109.8K
Queen Bethany, Legally Mom
Queen Bethany, Legally Mom@NotBlindfolded·
I'll also add to this excellent discussion that while one can discuss the merits of donning such a title, absolutely ZERO disrespect or egoism was involved when Jeremy used it. Literally every time he said it, the exact words would be: "god-king, lowercase g, lowercase k." I think it's also noteworthy to mention that the REASON it was funny was, initially, nobody knew who he was. It's like declaring yourself king of "Bob's Used Car Lot." So as his fame grew, he had to expand the gag to stupendous, absurd, and unbelievable heights. And Jeremy's never been one to shy away from an inside joke, so he didn't bother to explain the absurdity to every single person, and didn't care to. Which wouldn't have been a problem, except that people who DID understand the joke manipulated it, feigned ignorance, and promoted the opposite intentions, cough Candace cough.
English
1
0
2
25
pauldirks
pauldirks@pauldirks·
@HMZZZaZ @willspencer @JeremyDBoreing I appreciate the response. I agree with you that Boreing has done some really good things. I still think an apology and repudiation would be best. I am still thinking about it, but blasphemy is a big deal.
English
1
0
0
28
Heather Momma
Heather Momma@HMZZZaZ·
An explanation. If a man has a terrible nickname, lets say it's a REALLY terrible name, but his actions are good & kind & point people towards God, would we rather they didn't have the bad nickname & instead had actions that were evil, unkind, & encourage others away from God? Honestly, Christians are, at times, inappropriate, they are flawed, they are sinful. I am inappropriate, I am flawed, I am sinful. I look at my own sinfulness & I can hardly see past it to look at other's sins. I can hardly lift my eyes for the shame or for the gratitude I have for God's grace. It's just a nickname. I don't give it a second thought, I look to the man & see God's love reflected in him.
English
2
0
4
63
pauldirks
pauldirks@pauldirks·
@kristina_benoit Yeah, but isn't it sort of blasphemous? Some things you just don't joke about if you are a Christian and one of them is being God.
English
0
0
0
23
Kristina A Benoit
Kristina A Benoit@kristina_benoit·
That 'god-king' reference is a inside joke with his friends that he let us in on when he did commercials. It's a joke, It's like calling someone "Big John" when they are 5 feet 3 inches tall.
pauldirks@pauldirks

@willspencer @JeremyDBoreing Good stuff. I only wish he would repudiate that "god-king" nonsense.

English
1
0
0
48
pauldirks
pauldirks@pauldirks·
@HMZZZaZ @willspencer @JeremyDBoreing Yeah, I figured it was something like that, but I really, *really* think it is inappropriate for a Christian. From what you've heard was it more like an explanation or something approaching an apology?
English
4
0
1
85
Heather Momma
Heather Momma@HMZZZaZ·
@pauldirks @willspencer @JeremyDBoreing I have to say I believe he has. He's talked about it previously. It's a silly, sarcastic nickname given to him by Andrew Klavan. He doesn't think of himself as God like or King like. From what I understand, it's just a joke & a nick name that has followed him around.
English
1
0
10
86
pauldirks retweetledi
Bryan of Alexandria ✠🕊️
Bryan of Alexandria ✠🕊️@DBryanRhodes·
I used to be that Pastor. Then COVID shook me up. I've lost a lot of friends over the "flip." But I had to come to terms with the reality that I was using Pacifistic Jesus and Pietistic Jesus to cover up my own cowardice and laziness.
Michael Clary@dmichaelclary

I just spoke to a man on the phone who reached out after seeing this book advertised by Canon Press. We'd never met before. He reached out because the title grabbed his attention and he wanted to share his experience with me. He told me he's in a church where the pastor is a gifted expositor of scripture but has some views that are troubling to him. His pastor teaches that suffering and retreat are the Christian's default posture. He believes * The Christian's primary duty in life is to suffer * If someone were attacking his family he would not use force to protect them * Christians should generally stay out of politics * The church's only responsibility to culture is to do evangelism That's close to word-for-word what he told me. Every one of those beliefs is false and constitutes what I call loser theology. I could tell the man on the other end of the phone is a man of courage. But his own church is telling him to sit down and be quiet. His pastor is telling him to lose on earth so he can be a winner in heaven. He seemed relieved when I told him this is exactly what my book is about. I told him he's not alone and there are plenty of solid believers out there who want to be equipped for courage, not pressured to opt out. They're tired of being told they should just lose and feel good about it. This is who I wrote the book for.

English
4
6
85
8.9K
pauldirks retweetledi
Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸
Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸@Tablesalt13·
This is what headlines look like when you dont have a government funded media.
Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 tweet media
English
82
826
3.8K
47.7K
pauldirks retweetledi
SaskLass
SaskLass@SaskLass·
She makes some excellent points. Remember this the next time you pay taxes
SaskLass tweet media
English
265
2.2K
6.3K
101.8K
pauldirks retweetledi
Will Spencer
Will Spencer@willspencer·
The Charlie Kirk murder trial is putting "the Jews did it" under oath for maybe the first time in history. This matters because if "the Jews" didn't kill Charlie Kirk, then "the Jews" aren't behind everything. And if "the Jews" aren't behind everything, then maybe like we've all been saying... the Jews aren't behind everything. Total epistemic collapse incoming. Some people aren't handling it well. 1/
English
23
46
409
20.3K
Michael F Kane
Michael F Kane@MichaelFKane·
Andrew asked my to come on and talk about AI with @JoshDaws. I was happy to do so. I don't agree with many of Josh's AI takes so I knew it was bound to be a good time. But I'll admit that in person (well, an internet call at least...), it's much easier to find common ground on the things on which you agree. When it's just a keyboard separating you, defaulting to internet warrior is far too easy. So we had a good conversation and I wish Josh every success, even if I still find AI distasteful as an end medium. 😉
Andrew Snyder@Andrewnsnyder

Can AI be used as an instrument for genuine art, or is it necessarily a slop machine? Join me for a conversation with former Disney software engineer, current Blaze VP of technology, and AI filmmaker @JoshDaws and indie novelist @MichaelFKane. Link below!

English
4
2
41
2.3K
pauldirks retweetledi
pauldirks
pauldirks@pauldirks·
I think that the following paragraph is key in showing Tipton meanders around the main issue. It's just a really bad paragraph, but unfortunately, the entire article is shot through with the same errors. Dr. Garner’s contention that Christ “cannot give what he does not possess” and “does not yield what he does not attain” is unavailing. Christ clearly confers much that he did not himself achieve. He gives justification, yet he is not justified as an ungodly person. He gives regeneration, yet he is not regenerated. He gives repentance, yet he does not repent. He gives forgiveness, yet he is not forgiven. Likewise, he gives adoption, yet he is not adopted. Two things are problematic here. Firstly "as an ungodly person" is ridiculous. Not only does Garner not believe this, a myriad of quotations could be produced from the Reformed tradition that Christ was justified and that we are justified in Him. No one every rebuked the Reformers with the argument that "you can't say Jesus was justified because He wasn't justified as an ungodly person." That was presupposed. Secondly, why does Tipton leave out sanctification? Because it is so easily disproven? John 17:19. Our sanctification is in a sanctified Person whose flesh and human nature was sanctified by His own consubstantially divine nature. Says Augustine, and ironically, Aquinas too. If I were Garner I would be scratching my head at Tipton's "clarification" of his previous statements, which seems to me to be almost exactly what Garner believes.
English
1
1
1
102