So you're saying that God, under the old covenant which demanded animal sacrifices (which was pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus) requiring a sacrifice for the atonement of sins was evil?
By what standard? You're obviously rejecting God and by doing so you don't have any objective standards of good or evil. Everything becomes subjective and ultimately nothing matters. You lose the ability to call anything good or evil in a purposeless universe where you're just a cosmic accident.
After Jesus, who was the perfect sacrifice, animal sacrifices no longer how we are made righteous before God and cleansed our sins. Any rejection of Christ via animal sacrifice would now be considered a sinful rebellion but prior to Christ's sacrifice would have been considered objectively good and an active obedience to your creator which is the only place they consistent objective definition of good can come from.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree.
I will point out the fact that the enlightenment followed the translation of the Bible into common tongues and the distribution of it to the masses thanks to the invention of the printing press... By a Christian.
The concept of natural law being dependent upon Scripture and the Christian worldview finds its origins in the understanding that God, as the creator of the universe, has imbued it with inherent order and purpose. In the Christian worldview, this belief is rooted in the biblical account of creation, where God establishes order and design in the world.
According to Christian thought, natural law is seen as a reflection of God's eternal law, which governs the universe and is revealed through the created order. This perspective asserts that moral principles are not merely arbitrary commands from God but are rooted in the very nature of reality as designed by Him.
In the Christian tradition, the understanding of natural law has been influenced by thinkers such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Augustine emphasized the idea that natural law is inscribed on the hearts of humanity, providing a universal moral compass that guides human conduct. Aquinas built upon this notion, arguing that natural law is derived from both human reason and divine revelation, with Scripture serving as a primary source of moral insight.
Therefore, in the Christian worldview, Scripture is considered essential for understanding and interpreting natural law because it provides divine revelation that illuminates the moral order inherent in creation. Through the lens of Scripture, Christians believe they can discern God's intentions for humanity and align their actions with His will, thus upholding the principles of natural law.
Everything ultimately points back to God. The law of God is written on every man's heart. Without that as a basis You are left with nothing but subjectivism.
And you watched the interview and you believe that's what Douglas Wilson is lobbying for?
Do you understand the presuppositional limitations of other worldviews when it comes to morality or even truth?
I would define it more like Cultural Christendom. The term Christian nationalist is just a scare term that cultural Christianity advocates started getting called so I just went ahead and embraced it, making it their own.
Cultural christendom refers to a societal condition where Christian beliefs, values, and traditions heavily influence or dominate the culture, even if not everyone in the society practices Christianity. It encompasses the historical and cultural legacy of Christianity within a particular region or community, shaping everything from language and art to social norms and institutions. In Cultural Christendom, Christian themes and symbols are often prevalent in public life, and Christian morality may inform laws and customs, reflecting the enduring impact of Christianity on a society's identity and worldview.
Did you listen to the entire interview yet? Because some of what you're saying completely conflicts with it.
I'm a member of apologia Church And we consider Christ Church a sister church. We wrote at the amicus brief that overturned Roe v Wade. We did that on the basis of a faithful and concise Christian worldview and frequently get called Christian nationalists.
The point of this interview is to define and discuss what Christian nationalism is. Tucker could have just as easily had Dr Joseph Boot or a number of others to explain it. You seem to be hung up on who delivered the message, not the message itself.
You do realize the more faithful someone is to God in the society, the more controversial they will be. It's when you're not being called controversial that you can almost guarantee that you're not having a radical impact on culture.
Douglas Wilson is probably the most attacked Christian preacher and has become the face of Christian nationalism. What is Christian nationalism exactly and why does the left and the MSM hate it? This episode answers those questions and more.
Honestly I've never seen another interview from Tucker where he was more engaged and profoundly and pleasantly shocked.
If it's something reasonable like a buck then I'm all for it.
Sure a buck isn't shit to Soros types...... BUT if X can flag and block accounts linked to the same bank account then that becomes a HUGE roadblock to creating bot accounts. It's a lot more work to create a bank account or attach a different card to each new fake account.
Daniel 9 and The Book of Revelation were pointing to Christ and then the return of Christ on the clouds to destroy Jerusalem and the temple which happened in 70 AD when Rome surrounded the city and laid siege to it. The Christians were the only ones that escaped because when they saw the abomination of desolation surrounding the holiest of holies they fled to the mountains.
If you have a understanding of the historical events that were happening around this time plus when Jesus told us to look for these things "this generation shall not pass till all these things take place" and you understand the symbolism in the book of Revelation which is over 40% quotes from the Old testament this becomes quite clear.
The poetic language can be confusing for most but there's an example... Your seven-headed, 10-horned beast is actually Rome. Rome had seven hills or providence's with 10 governor.
This is what Christians understood and believed for almost 2,000 years. Then what changed you might ask?
About 200 years ago the first Bible with footnotes and explanations of verses was published. This was called the Schofield reference Bible. It had a very fringe position of in times or eschatology and it commonly called darbyism or premillennial dispensationalism.
Unfortunately because this Bible was the first of its kind and had such helpful footnotes in it about all sorts of passages, not exclusively those addressing the end times, it was widely adopted by seminaries and pastors and spread this unbiblical and unhistoric position like wildfire.
In my opinion it's the greatest lies that the devil ever interjected into the church. It is caused Christians to not take Dominion and start projects or missions that their great grandchildren will have to finish because they're expecting to get raptured away at any moment. In fact Christian's almost celebrate when things start looking bad thinking they're going to be yeeted up to heaven to be with Jesus.
No one polishes brass on a sinking ship.
There's no penalty for filing a notice and changing your mind so if I was a business owner That couldn't move quite yet but didn't want to be locked in I would just make a new filing / notice every week as a part of business Just like payroll.
Fuck em.
No I'm arguing gematria, while having some similarities to an alphanumeric cipher, is different and you are using the word incorrectly.
Words have specific meanings and definitions.
Basically if we were talking about engines and you're saying gasoline and I'm saying diesel and you're trying to say the gasoline and diesel are the same, and no they are both fuels but they are significantly different and not interchangeable. If I told you to fill up the engine with diesel and you put gasoline in it it wouldn't work. Specificity matters.
Take this as an opportunity to learn, not as an opportunity to find a way to remain in disagreement.
Christians don't worship books.
Rape and chattel slavery are both punishable by death in scripture.
Dumbass.