I'd venture a safe guess most here have changed their minds on several things over the years, even core principles. I have.
I used to support gay people.
I used to support the empowerment of women.
I used to support the military and police.
I used to support Israel.
I used to think egalitarianism, individualism, and libertarianism were correct.
I used to be an agnostic.
People change. I'm also a relatively new Christian as well. Accepting Jesus naturally changes your heart. Reading the Bible and believing Jesus' words and lessons changes your heart.
Why would Christians, or right wingers, or anyone here be averse to changing one's mind? Why would we be averse to women changing their minds? Since women are the most susceptible to propaganda and psychological manipulation, if you demonize those who do come to our side, you're effectively telling them that you reject them, don't want them, that they'll never be good enough, and that you want women (or men) to remain under their brainwashing, that they are forever stained and sentenced to hell just for their views, which they were manipulated into.
This isn't a Christian view. We all fall short, but we're all forgiven, now matter how far we fell.
Could Melonie Mac be gritting? Possibly. But to demonize all women who break free of their conditioning, which I see more and more men do, is antithetical to their goals.
imo you gotta have a little grift and a lot of hustle if you're gonna be someone who slings ideologies on youtube for money. Is Mac a grifter? Possibly. Do I give a shit? No more than anyone grifting on the left. It's a job.
But I do gotta say, she has a bible reading channel where she reads the bible to viewers and I gotta say that's a lot effort for a low yield hustle if it's a grift.
One other piece of circumstantial evidence that her turn may be genuine is that she is not shy about breaking out the "faggot" slur and gives no fucks when it gets her banned.
that clip hit so hard because I got so used to living in a society where context no longer matters and we can't just use the words like rape, faggots, retarded casually without retard faggots going to HR to get them to rape you in the ass.
if this tweet was posted in like 2010 maybe i could forgive it. But by 2018 when culture was already so extremely woke and insane you are still woke and calling people bigots then no. I cant forgive it . i don't trust any adult who was still woke in 2018.
So you only accept converts so long as their conversion was a long time ago? You're not answering the fundamental problem of your stance, only putting an artificial time limitation on it. If you want people to come around to your views, if you want people to improve, would you not accept them, regardless of how long ago or how soon it was? If you reject new converts wholecloth, you dismiss push away people who would otherwise become your ally. That's not the mentality we should engender if we wish people to realize the truth and accept our views.
I changed several of my above viewpoints in just the last few years, with most occurring between 2016 and 2020. I'm a relatively new convert to many of my current stances. By your own standards, I am unwelcome, and everything I say is false and disingenuine.
They can convert. They just shouldn't be leaders or influencers in conservative movements. i do not trust such people (especially women) and you won't change my mind on it
Saint Paul was exactly that. Went from hunting Christians to becoming one of the core preacher (then eventually one of the biggest leader) in a matter or weeks.
I do think that's a good point, but this chick isn't leading anyone. I know you're annoyed at her opinions on X this week but that's literally all it is.
They just shouldn't be leaders or influencers in conservative movements.
I agree with this somewhat. Leaders should be the best of us, should know what we know, and must prove themselves.
i do not trust such people (especially women) and you won't change my mind on it
I'm not asking you to blindly and naively accept everyone. I'm asking for you to forgive people who actually repent and accept truth.
There are obviously devious people, false converts, grifters, subversives, and liars who will always attempt to enter our spheres, homes, and nations, in an attempt to take them over and destroy them. Do not welcome or accept those people, but be sure you know how to spot them, and the differences between them and true converts.
With regards to women, they are easily manipulated, because they're less logical and more emotional than men. They are not meant to lead. We are to lead them. If we lead them, and they accept our ways, they aren't a false convert. They will always try to err, but that is the nature of women, and to a slightly lesser extent humans as a whole. If women could never be trusted of their convictions, they'd never be able to enter Heaven, because all of their prostrations and repentance would be meaningless.
Since women are the most susceptible to propaganda and psychological manipulation, if you demonize those who do come to our side, you're effectively telling them that you reject them, don't want them, that they'll never be good enough, and that you want women (or men) to remain under their brainwashing, that they are forever stained and sentenced to hell just for their views, which they were manipulated into.
Someone who converts in good faith, shuts up and doesn't immediately becomes an opinion leader asking to be at the helm, nor uses Christ as some sort of shield
This isn't a Christian view. We all fall short, but we're all forgiven, now matter how far we fell.
Jesus being a hippie who forgives everything is propaganda.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household"
Could Melonie Mac be gritting? Possibly
What good is repentance if it's done for acceptance and not repentance's sake? If she truly believes what she preaches rejecting her isn't a problem
Jesus being a hippie who forgives everything is propaganda.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household"
You are correct that Jesus didn't forgive people who were not repentant, but this verse is about the controversy of his teachings, not the risk of judgment. People would be affected so strongly by his words that deep divisions would open through society.
That specific passage is about people coming to accept Jesus (and God), accepting truth, which naturally divides a fallen world where people have embraced lies. Look at the above passage when combined with Luke 12:49-53 and Luke 14:26:
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
These passages don't mean one should hate their family, or that Jesus is intentionally dividing families against themselves. It's that Jesus (and God) want us to prioritize him (truth) above all other priorities. It's identical to when a loved family member espouses a foolish thing, or does a foolish thing, and we correct them. Just because we love someone, doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they say and do. We must rebuke falsehoods and lies.
What good is repentance if it's done for acceptance and not repentance's sake? If she truly believes what she preaches rejecting her isn't a problem
By that logic, all new converts (Christian or otherwise) should be disbarred from earning any income or speaking. What time frame is long enough for you to recognize sincerity? 6 months. 1 year. 10 years?
I assume you're referring to how Job realized his own limitations in understanding God? If not, what are you meaning?
If you're meaning what I think you are, it's not analogous to the conversation. Scripture isn't infinite. Scripture is designed to bring us closer to God, how to live righteous lives, and live according to God's wishes. God is infinite, though. Realizing the totality of truth (or God), as humans, is impossible.
However, you're making a relatively common fallacious argument with regard to human failings. You're suggesting (if I assume your argument correctly) that because we don't know everything, that because we're mortal, finite, and imperfect, that because there will always be doubt about our actions being in accordance with God (given our limited understanding), that therefore we are forbidden to speak and act, for fear of transgressing against truth (God).
That is a fallacious argument, and no one in the Bible, even Jesus or God, advocate for that position. Furthermore, it's an inherently destructive philosophy, crushing all who believe it into pacifism, moral cowardice, inaction, and inevitable suicide, due to fear of any misstepped action or word.
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
Just because someone thinks they're christian doesn't mean they are.
If we were living, say, in the fifties, I would also attack fanservice. But, for now, it does more good than bad - at least it promotes the traditional kind of beauty and relationship between a man and a woman. Now is definitely not the time to attack it and doing so is hardly a priority.
Just because someone thinks they're christian doesn't mean they are.
True enough, but what bar do you set for how to determine if someone is truly Christian? What's the reasoning for your judgments? If someone says they're Christian, and acts in a Christian manner, how can we judge them any other way?
If we were living, say, in the fifties, I would also attack fanservice. But, for now, it does more good than bad - at least it promotes the traditional kind of beauty and relationship between a man and a woman. Now is definitely not the time to attack it and doing so is hardly a priority.
The promotion of beauty is the one positive of "fan service" and older style entertainment that was put out by Hollywood. However, it is always combined with the temptation of lust that's intentionally inserted into that media, to drive men toward sin (lusting after a woman who is not your wife is the same as adultery in the Bible).
Your position is the advocacy of the lesser evil, but that lesser evil also contains sin, and drives your brothers to sin (lust, masturbation, porn). What's happened to Western civilization with people constantly abdicating to the lesser evil? It's only resulted in more evil. At some point, decent men must reject all the compromises that were made before them, and become steadfast in truth. These men are always called zealots in their day, because their fervent adherence to truth appears radical in a world of lies and lesser evils.
Oh, it's easy - most people who say they're christian don't act christian at all.
And your second point is childish. It's not about abdicating to lesser evil, it's choosing which one to combat. And no, you can't fight them all - the modern reality is that hardly anyone can actually do anything about evil, outside of internet shitposting (which doesn't qualify as a christian act as it's no act at all).
Oh, it's easy - most people who say they're christian don't act christian at all.
You dodged the question. What bar, what metrics, do you use to judge if someone is Christian or not.
I somewhat agree, that many Christians do not act like Christians, but most Christians I've seen are better people than those I've seen who aren't, on average. Even considering the corruption of the modern church to espouse anti-Biblical stances, modern Christians are better people on average.
Also, I'm curious. Are you Christian?
And your second point is childish. It's not about abdicating to lesser evil, it's choosing which one to combat. And no, you can't fight them all - the modern reality is that hardly anyone can actually do anything about evil, outside of internet shitposting (which doesn't qualify as a christian act as it's no act at all).
You're putting forth different positions. You're initially arguing that people are incapable of fighting multiple things at once, to which I whole heartedly disagree. Secondly, you argue almost no one can fight evil, at all, to which I also whole heartedly disagree.
Both of your positions are an abdication of a man's responsibility to espouse truth in face of falsehoods and lies, and to violently fight evil in his presence. Your position is understandable, though, given how much demoralization propaganda abounds in Western culture, to keep men weakened, controlled, stupid, demoralized, and inactive. On top of this, civilizations at their peak naturally produce weak constituents who cling to their comforts like a sinking ship, refusing to alter their behavior or lift a finger in the face of the growing tide of corruption in their midst, or the ever accelerating slide toward collapse of their civilization. We see this evidence all over Western civilization.
People are still too comfortable, and will enumerate all manner of excuses for why they can't, won't, or shouldn't act. Your excuse is no different. In your own mind, your reasoning is sound, but it's because you're motivated purely by your comforts, knowing that if you were to take up the sword against the people hurting you, and everyone you love, it would rob you of what little comforts you have left. There will absolutely come a time where your excuses no longer suffice, that people will be forced to fight, or to die.
Can people do more than one thing at once? Yes. Can people fight more than one evil at once? Yes. Can people espouse more than one truth at once? Yes. You're acting like you believe individualism is correct, the false belief that people don't group up or have collective interests, or act collectively to fight back against common enemies. We group up precisely because we understand that we can achieve more together than we can by ourselves, to help us fight all the lies and evil.
Your philosophy is also self serving and self defeating, because you actively denounce any idea, action, or people who would fight back against the lies and evil, even though you admit that the lies and evil exists. Thus, your philosophy allows lies and evil to propagate, to spread, and to become worse, fulfilling your prophecy that it is harder to fight "all" the lies and evil at once. This philosophy would put your children and people in a worse position, essentially kicking the can down the road, because you don't want to act.
You also advocate that we should "pick our battles", and constantly compromise with the lesser evil, which is what's allowed evil to propagate in the first place. You can't correct a problem by acting identically to what caused the problem in the first place. Correct the behavior, and then you can correct the problem. But, in your case, you must correct your mind first.
I'd venture a safe guess most here have changed their minds on several things over the years, even core principles. I have.
I used to support gay people.
I used to support the empowerment of women.
I used to support the military and police.
I used to support Israel.
I used to think egalitarianism, individualism, and libertarianism were correct.
I used to be an agnostic.
People change. I'm also a relatively new Christian as well. Accepting Jesus naturally changes your heart. Reading the Bible and believing Jesus' words and lessons changes your heart.
Why would Christians, or right wingers, or anyone here be averse to changing one's mind? Why would we be averse to women changing their minds? Since women are the most susceptible to propaganda and psychological manipulation, if you demonize those who do come to our side, you're effectively telling them that you reject them, don't want them, that they'll never be good enough, and that you want women (or men) to remain under their brainwashing, that they are forever stained and sentenced to hell just for their views, which they were manipulated into.
This isn't a Christian view. We all fall short, but we're all forgiven, now matter how far we fell.
Could Melonie Mac be gritting? Possibly. But to demonize all women who break free of their conditioning, which I see more and more men do, is antithetical to their goals.
imo you gotta have a little grift and a lot of hustle if you're gonna be someone who slings ideologies on youtube for money. Is Mac a grifter? Possibly. Do I give a shit? No more than anyone grifting on the left. It's a job.
But I do gotta say, she has a bible reading channel where she reads the bible to viewers and I gotta say that's a lot effort for a low yield hustle if it's a grift.
One other piece of circumstantial evidence that her turn may be genuine is that she is not shy about breaking out the "faggot" slur and gives no fucks when it gets her banned.
that clip hit so hard because I got so used to living in a society where context no longer matters and we can't just use the words like rape, faggots, retarded casually without retard faggots going to HR to get them to rape you in the ass.
if this tweet was posted in like 2010 maybe i could forgive it. But by 2018 when culture was already so extremely woke and insane you are still woke and calling people bigots then no. I cant forgive it . i don't trust any adult who was still woke in 2018.
So you only accept converts so long as their conversion was a long time ago? You're not answering the fundamental problem of your stance, only putting an artificial time limitation on it. If you want people to come around to your views, if you want people to improve, would you not accept them, regardless of how long ago or how soon it was? If you reject new converts wholecloth, you dismiss push away people who would otherwise become your ally. That's not the mentality we should engender if we wish people to realize the truth and accept our views.
I changed several of my above viewpoints in just the last few years, with most occurring between 2016 and 2020. I'm a relatively new convert to many of my current stances. By your own standards, I am unwelcome, and everything I say is false and disingenuine.
They can convert. They just shouldn't be leaders or influencers in conservative movements. i do not trust such people (especially women) and you won't change my mind on it
Saint Paul was exactly that. Went from hunting Christians to becoming one of the core preacher (then eventually one of the biggest leader) in a matter or weeks.
I do think that's a good point, but this chick isn't leading anyone. I know you're annoyed at her opinions on X this week but that's literally all it is.
I agree with this somewhat. Leaders should be the best of us, should know what we know, and must prove themselves.
I'm not asking you to blindly and naively accept everyone. I'm asking for you to forgive people who actually repent and accept truth.
There are obviously devious people, false converts, grifters, subversives, and liars who will always attempt to enter our spheres, homes, and nations, in an attempt to take them over and destroy them. Do not welcome or accept those people, but be sure you know how to spot them, and the differences between them and true converts.
With regards to women, they are easily manipulated, because they're less logical and more emotional than men. They are not meant to lead. We are to lead them. If we lead them, and they accept our ways, they aren't a false convert. They will always try to err, but that is the nature of women, and to a slightly lesser extent humans as a whole. If women could never be trusted of their convictions, they'd never be able to enter Heaven, because all of their prostrations and repentance would be meaningless.
Someone who converts in good faith, shuts up and doesn't immediately becomes an opinion leader asking to be at the helm, nor uses Christ as some sort of shield
Jesus being a hippie who forgives everything is propaganda.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household"
What good is repentance if it's done for acceptance and not repentance's sake? If she truly believes what she preaches rejecting her isn't a problem
You are correct that Jesus didn't forgive people who were not repentant, but this verse is about the controversy of his teachings, not the risk of judgment. People would be affected so strongly by his words that deep divisions would open through society.
That specific passage is about people coming to accept Jesus (and God), accepting truth, which naturally divides a fallen world where people have embraced lies. Look at the above passage when combined with Luke 12:49-53 and Luke 14:26:
These passages don't mean one should hate their family, or that Jesus is intentionally dividing families against themselves. It's that Jesus (and God) want us to prioritize him (truth) above all other priorities. It's identical to when a loved family member espouses a foolish thing, or does a foolish thing, and we correct them. Just because we love someone, doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they say and do. We must rebuke falsehoods and lies.
Yes that is the fuller explanation and absolutely correct
By that logic, all new converts (Christian or otherwise) should be disbarred from earning any income or speaking. What time frame is long enough for you to recognize sincerity? 6 months. 1 year. 10 years?
It's Job's parable tho
I assume you're referring to how Job realized his own limitations in understanding God? If not, what are you meaning?
If you're meaning what I think you are, it's not analogous to the conversation. Scripture isn't infinite. Scripture is designed to bring us closer to God, how to live righteous lives, and live according to God's wishes. God is infinite, though. Realizing the totality of truth (or God), as humans, is impossible.
However, you're making a relatively common fallacious argument with regard to human failings. You're suggesting (if I assume your argument correctly) that because we don't know everything, that because we're mortal, finite, and imperfect, that because there will always be doubt about our actions being in accordance with God (given our limited understanding), that therefore we are forbidden to speak and act, for fear of transgressing against truth (God).
That is a fallacious argument, and no one in the Bible, even Jesus or God, advocate for that position. Furthermore, it's an inherently destructive philosophy, crushing all who believe it into pacifism, moral cowardice, inaction, and inevitable suicide, due to fear of any misstepped action or word.
Matthew 7:22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
Just because someone thinks they're christian doesn't mean they are.
If we were living, say, in the fifties, I would also attack fanservice. But, for now, it does more good than bad - at least it promotes the traditional kind of beauty and relationship between a man and a woman. Now is definitely not the time to attack it and doing so is hardly a priority.
Fanservice? That's too complicated an issue to call someone a fake Christian over.
True enough, but what bar do you set for how to determine if someone is truly Christian? What's the reasoning for your judgments? If someone says they're Christian, and acts in a Christian manner, how can we judge them any other way?
The promotion of beauty is the one positive of "fan service" and older style entertainment that was put out by Hollywood. However, it is always combined with the temptation of lust that's intentionally inserted into that media, to drive men toward sin (lusting after a woman who is not your wife is the same as adultery in the Bible).
Your position is the advocacy of the lesser evil, but that lesser evil also contains sin, and drives your brothers to sin (lust, masturbation, porn). What's happened to Western civilization with people constantly abdicating to the lesser evil? It's only resulted in more evil. At some point, decent men must reject all the compromises that were made before them, and become steadfast in truth. These men are always called zealots in their day, because their fervent adherence to truth appears radical in a world of lies and lesser evils.
Oh, it's easy - most people who say they're christian don't act christian at all.
And your second point is childish. It's not about abdicating to lesser evil, it's choosing which one to combat. And no, you can't fight them all - the modern reality is that hardly anyone can actually do anything about evil, outside of internet shitposting (which doesn't qualify as a christian act as it's no act at all).
You dodged the question. What bar, what metrics, do you use to judge if someone is Christian or not.
I somewhat agree, that many Christians do not act like Christians, but most Christians I've seen are better people than those I've seen who aren't, on average. Even considering the corruption of the modern church to espouse anti-Biblical stances, modern Christians are better people on average.
Also, I'm curious. Are you Christian?
You're putting forth different positions. You're initially arguing that people are incapable of fighting multiple things at once, to which I whole heartedly disagree. Secondly, you argue almost no one can fight evil, at all, to which I also whole heartedly disagree.
Both of your positions are an abdication of a man's responsibility to espouse truth in face of falsehoods and lies, and to violently fight evil in his presence. Your position is understandable, though, given how much demoralization propaganda abounds in Western culture, to keep men weakened, controlled, stupid, demoralized, and inactive. On top of this, civilizations at their peak naturally produce weak constituents who cling to their comforts like a sinking ship, refusing to alter their behavior or lift a finger in the face of the growing tide of corruption in their midst, or the ever accelerating slide toward collapse of their civilization. We see this evidence all over Western civilization.
People are still too comfortable, and will enumerate all manner of excuses for why they can't, won't, or shouldn't act. Your excuse is no different. In your own mind, your reasoning is sound, but it's because you're motivated purely by your comforts, knowing that if you were to take up the sword against the people hurting you, and everyone you love, it would rob you of what little comforts you have left. There will absolutely come a time where your excuses no longer suffice, that people will be forced to fight, or to die.
Can people do more than one thing at once? Yes. Can people fight more than one evil at once? Yes. Can people espouse more than one truth at once? Yes. You're acting like you believe individualism is correct, the false belief that people don't group up or have collective interests, or act collectively to fight back against common enemies. We group up precisely because we understand that we can achieve more together than we can by ourselves, to help us fight all the lies and evil.
Your philosophy is also self serving and self defeating, because you actively denounce any idea, action, or people who would fight back against the lies and evil, even though you admit that the lies and evil exists. Thus, your philosophy allows lies and evil to propagate, to spread, and to become worse, fulfilling your prophecy that it is harder to fight "all" the lies and evil at once. This philosophy would put your children and people in a worse position, essentially kicking the can down the road, because you don't want to act.
You also advocate that we should "pick our battles", and constantly compromise with the lesser evil, which is what's allowed evil to propagate in the first place. You can't correct a problem by acting identically to what caused the problem in the first place. Correct the behavior, and then you can correct the problem. But, in your case, you must correct your mind first.