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.
No, I'm saying certain things only have value by doing them by their own sake. I'm not even talking about human failings, nor pacifism.
You are extrapolating my arguments in order to defend that tradthot, that's my issue. If you value her and think of her as truth you don't need to defend her. If she is geniune we'll know and there really was no damage done, but if she was an oportunist born again christian you are carrying water and giving her unecessary exposure, at worst she might be a subversive leftist.
It has happened historically time and time again. Not only you are allowing her to advocate as a Real Gamer™ but as a True Christian™.
If she ended up as neo Lieberman or right wing Sarkeesian. Do you think it would legitimize right wingers in nerd media or do the oposite, all while her christian circle is subverted?
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.
No, I'm saying certain things only have value by doing them by their own sake. I'm not even talking about human failings, nor pacifism.
You are extrapolating my arguments in order to defend that tradthot, that's my issue. If you value her and think of her as truth you don't need to defend her. If she is geniune we'll know and there really was no damage done, but if she was an oportunist born again christian you are carrying water and giving her unecessary exposure, at worst she might be a subversive leftist.
It has happened historically time and time again. Not only you are allowing her to advocate as a Real Gamer™ but as a True Christian™.
If she ended up as neo Lieberman or right wing Sarkeesian. Do you think it would legitimize right wingers in nerd media or do the oposite, all while her christian circle is subverted?