This is part of a series. See part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6. Note: links will go live upon publication.
Today’s class will be a lesson in how not to write a comment.
Derek Ramsey is a liar.
If you were good at the debate team in High School, starting with an ad hominem might seem like a good idea. You might even score points with the crowd. But ad hominem is no more valid than fans taunting at a sporting event (or for that matter trusting fans to accurately tell the truth about a contested play). It might be fun and involve thousands of people believing the same thing, but the Heckler’s Veto is a meaningless way to establish truth.
Avoiding this ad hominem in your comments is actually quite easy. Just say, “Derek Ramsey is wrong” instead. But this doesn’t sound all that flashy does it? It’s not very appealing at all.
Derek Ramsey is a hypocrite.
This is probably an ad hominem. If this was substantiated and a mere description of me taking two contradictory positions, it might not be, but since he wrote this immediately following a personal attack, I’m going to take the safe assumption that this is also a personal attack. I know, what amazing insight!
Per usual, don’t make personal attacks. It’s not that hard. If you want to be perfectly clear, just say “Derek Ramsey said two contradictory things at the time time.” Once again, this isn’t as sexy as the ad hominem. That’s kind of the point.
Derek Ramsey is seemingly poor at differentiating what are literal commands, what are generalizations, and what are merely examples given in the Bible.
What Sharkly is claiming is called an opinion. When someone asserts their own opinion as unambiguous fact without substantiating it in any way, they are demonstrating a fundamentalist mindset: where truth is defined not by some objective standard but by whatever the individual thinks is true. This is why I call Sharkly a TRUE BELIEVER.
Here is a claim—”Sharkly is bad at differentiating between what are literal commands, what are generalizations, and what are merely examples given in the Bible”—that I have fully substantiated in my review of Sharkly’s post, in “Is Matthew 5 Hyperbole,” in “Jesus and Hyperbole,” and in “Jesus and Hyperbole, Part 2.” And, if that wasn’t enough, I’ve established my ability to differentiate between the two in dozens of articles discussing figurative language in the Bible (see here and here).
That, class, is how you make a claim and support it. Sharkly, by contrast, is more concerned with complaining to others about me than in substantiating his claims or subjecting them to examination (i.e. after a number of days, no one has challenged his claims and he’s received only support).
Meanwhile, Sharkly failed to disclose that churches do, in fact, follow Jesus’ commands in Matthew 18 literally when invoking church discipline: here is one example. Sharkly apparently thinks he knows better than the church does, which reveals a lot more about him than anyone else.
Oh, and as we’ll see shortly below, I can further substantiate that I do know when Jesus is speaking in figures-of-speech.
Derek attacks people publicly on his site, right off the bat.
Regular readers know that there is one overriding theme here:
This is a blog about ideas.
I do attack, but I attack ideas, not persons (which the possible exception of Deti here, because I was following the procedures that Jesus laid out for dealing with sin). This leads to the following core principle of this blog regarding what I write:
If a personal attack is identified, I remove it.
All Sharkly has to do is cite a personal attack that I have made, and it will shortly be gone.
In fact, my refusal to engage with people (instead of their ideas) has led critics to complain about how impersonal my approach is. So much for all those famous impersonal personal attacks!
Each time Sharkly has claimed that I’ve publicly attacked him, I’ve asked him to substantiate his claim with a link or quotation, so I can remove the attack. Each time he has failed to do so.
As you can see, his claim here is unsubstantiated too. This is not unusual.
The core problem is that Sharkly and other critics believe that attacking the ideas someone presents is identical to attacking the person. I do not accept this.
As he is criticizing me for a bunch of (unsubstantiated) personal attacks, he is taking a position that such attacks are wrong. We’ve already seen that Sharkly started his comment with an ad hominem attack. This is, by definition, personal hypocrisy. Sharkly’s objection is self-refuting.
To my recollection he has not ever attempted to correct me privately even though he has emailed me privately before.
Sharkly either has an reading comprehension problem, or he didn’t actually read the post he is responding to. Either way, before you write a comment attacking someone, it pays to actually be right about what you say. If you can’t even get basic facts correct, you’re going to look absolutely foolish. Here is the relevant point that I wrote:
As an aside, it turns out that I do know when Jesus is speaking in figures-of-speech and not literally!
And there you go.
It’s actually quite simple. I have no ill will towards Sharkly. I don’t know why he is so judgmental, why he is categorically unable or unwilling to debate a person on the merits of an idea without attacking them as a person. Whatever sins he may have done against me, I have forgiven him unconditionally. I have no interest in going through a process of church discipline with him, nor, having forgiven him, do I retain any ethical, moral, or legal right to do so. He owes me no sin debt, so I cannot collect. Whatever he owes, if anything, he owes to God as his judge.
Here is what I told Sharkly, explicitly, almost a year ago exactly:
I contend against your ideas, not you. If you had some unforgiven sin against me to which I was going to confront you, you would have received an email from me. While I believe much of what you say is in error, I do not believe you do so with bad intent. You are not my enemy.
I’ve mentioned this many other times: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Perhaps he has a bad memory, in which case we should go easy on him.
Sharkly may not have forgiven me, but that does not mean that I also do not forgive him.
However, he claims to want everybody else to follow Jesus’ recommendation given in Matthew 18:15-17 as a one-size-misfits-most solution when confronting him back.
This is another purely unsubstantiated claim.
Here is how it went down. Sharkly made a divine judgment against me. He judged me—presumably as a brother in Christ at the time—with sin (and threw me out of fellowship). He did so publicly and without bringing any witnesses. I told him that he was being disobedient to Christ by ignoring what Jesus himself commanded that he must do. He misinterpreted this to mean that I wanted him to go through the process with me. I clarified that I’d prefer if he cease striving against me (i.e. don’t make judgments; attack ideas only) and that he forgive unconditionally.
So no, I don’t tell people they must follow Matthew 18:15-17 unconditionally, rather, I tell them to follow the stuff that comes after about forgiveness. And I’m not alone in this. When Christian congregations are the victims of mass shootings, they often publicly express forgiveness for the shooter, even when the shooter has not repented of their sin against them. This is Matthew 18:-18-35 in action.
If Sharkly had bothered to read the article he was responding to…
So think long and hard before you send your brother through the process of church discipline to have him removed as your brother. It is the option of last resort, and it permissible—if there is zero willingness for them to reconcile, sincere or otherwise—but never required. You have a choice. Consider, instead, unmerited forgiveness, just as your Heavenly Father has granted unmerited forgiveness to you. Discern what is most appropriate.
…he’d know that I prefer forgiveness. I choose not to involve the discipline of the church, and as the holder of the sin-debt, it is my choice to make.
Jesus did not follow that guidance when driving the merchants out of the temple. He did not first plead with them privately, he did not plead with them next with witnesses, he did not take the matter to the religious leaders. No, Jesus used a whip on the evildoers and flipped over their tables to drive them out. Are we not to be “Christlike”?
In Jesus, the Word of God became flesh.
Pay attention to this. This is identical to Deti’s reasoning where he justifies divorce by claiming the rights of God himself:
Jesus explicitly told us not to be violent. Scripture tells us that vengeance is reserved for God himself. So too, Jesus explicitly told us not to divorce, saying that the right to separate is not man’s. In both cases, what is God’s right is not the right of man. God reserves such things for himself.
We are not to play God, for that is blasphemy.
Neither did the apostle Paul follow that one possible method of Christian confrontation when he confronted the Apostle Peter publicly:
Sharkly’s portrayal of this is flatly inaccurate.
Galatians 2:11 says this:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he was completely wrong.
First, Paul confronted Peter to his face. There is no indication in the text—Paul’s own private recollection of events—that this face-to-face interaction was not a private interaction prior to Paul confronting Peter before the whole congregation (in v14). The verse simply does not say whether Paul confronted Peter privately or publicly. Sharkly’s claim cannot be substantiated.
Second, the parallel passages in Acts (where Paul’s conflict with Peter is mentioned) does not reveal a direct face-to-face confrontation. If it was public, it wasn’t recorded by those who witnessed the public events.
Third, the nature of Paul’s response to Peter was to challenge him on factual grounds. He never make an accusation that Peter had sinned. Here is what Paul said before the whole congregation about Peter:
This is a rational, logical argument that makes no mention of condemnation for sin. It’s simply a correction of an error. Peter was wrong because he believed two contradictory things at the same time.
Fourth, Paul challenged Peter in the form of a question. If that is Sharkly’s idea of a confrontation that doesn’t require the Matthew 18 protocol, then he’s free to ask me questions to clarify whether or not what I believe actually makes me a hypocrite. I’m happy to clarify the issue for him again if necessary. I also have plenty of questions for him to answer.
Fifth, there is no mention to Paul bringing forth witnesses. If Paul was bringing a charge against Peter without approaching him privately, he would be a hypocrite himself:
Do not accept an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
The idea that Paul would have charged Peter with a sin without bringing forth witnesses is simply absurd. Or put another way, if you think Paul was making an accusation, then the Principle of Charity requires us to presume that he had already established his accusation on the basis of witness testimony, even though the text doesn’t say he was following the process of Matthew 18.
Given that Paul was correcting Peter’s hypocrisy, it is absolutely absurd to say that he did so while actively engaging in hypocrisy himself. This simply isn’t a reasonable explanation for what happened.
Sixth, even if, for sake of argument, you think Paul was accusing Peter before the church for the purpose of church discipline this does not imply that he didn’t follow the Matthew 18 protocol. This should be obvious, but unless Paul had said that he confronted him publicly without any private confrontation, we simply cannot assume that he violated the words of Jesus and his own explicit teaching. It’s not a valid approach to read what you want into scripture when it chooses to remain silent on the issue.
Seventh, the idea that Jesus established the Matthew 18 protocol is absurd. The process for resolving disputes goes back to the Old Testament and is repeated in the New Testament by multiple persons.
When I did try to take Derek up on his demand that I resolve my dispute with him according to Matthew 18:15-17 and volunteered to go before the elders of his own church with our disagreement, he balked…
Again, Sharkly has apparently not read the article. I’ll simply note here that Sharkly’s charge is vacuous.
Sharkly didn’t approach me privately (Step 1), nor did he establish the veracity of his claim on the basis of witness testimony (Step 2). Moreover, he had already declared me to be outside the fellowship (Step 4) before any of this had taken place, and so not only did he have no jurisdiction to demand it, but he made his conclusion (Step 4) before the process required to make that conclusion (Step 3). Additionally, Sharkly did not recognize the authority of my church and claimed he was not bound by it. This process, rather obviously, could not have resolved our dispute and I recognized that rather obvious fact.
His demand that those whom he smears with his lies in public…
Again, an unsubstantiated claim.
…can only rightly respond to him privately…
False. He’s free to substantiated any of his empty claims—addressing my ideas directly—but he must repent of his slanderous judgment—ad hominem—which he made publicly.
…is just a scripture-misapplying dodge to derail gullible churchians from publicly responding to and confronting his lies.
Sharkly has publicly stated on this blog that he’s not interested in debating me. His idea of “confrontation” is to publicly warn others about “my lies.” He should probably look up what the word confrontation means, as I’ve never ever prevented anyone from confronting me on anything. They are unable to do so not because I prevent them, but because they don’t have a sound argument.
The reason scripture requires witnesses is to prevent stuff like this. And speaking of witnesses, some of the harshest language scripture contains is for those who unjustly take witness against another. So to charge another with a sin, you must not only bring witnesses, but those witnesses must be true. The harshest condemnation for injustice falls on those testify without merit.
You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Here is my full quote regarding the supposed “dodge”:
No I didn’t. You were acting in bad faith, and there isn’t anything to resolve. I’m logically correct in my assertions. Would you prefer that the elders also agree with your falsehoods? There is nothing in the world that could convince me to induce the church elders to embrace a lie. I will not be a willing participant in deceiving them. Moreover, you had no intention of yielding to their judgment anyway, so only harm could have come from it.
If necessary, I would indeed engage in the process of church discipline with a brother, if brought in good faith.
But I won’t engage in a procedural abrogation of justice, which is what Sharkly was suggesting. At the barest (but still unacceptable) minimum, Sharkly would have had to actually bring witnesses and have agreed to yield to my church’s judgment on the matter. He would do neither.
Plain and simple, Sharkly tried to cheat the system. It is hard to express precisely how much this violates both the letter and the spirit of Jesus’ teachings and the actual Law of God.
Derek went on to say that even if the elders of his church did tell him that I hadn’t used the “logical fallacy” of “circular reasoning” by merely stating “I believe X” that he would refuse to comply with their instruction, or to change his mind.
This misses the important nuance in what I actually said. What I actually said was that I would refuse to force the elders in my church into a kangaroo court where they might be forced to assert as fact a falsehood (i.e. to lie). I said nothing could convince me to make another person speak a lie.
What Sharkly wanted was an abomination, and I will take no part in such things.
Nor would he take back his original statement that my teaching was based upon “fallacies” if his church elders agreed with me that he had misapplied the term “circular reasoning” to statements that were not circular and had misapplied the term “survivorship bias” to things that were not cases of “survivorship bias”.
Notice what Sharkly is doing here. He wants me to recant on the basis of authority, not truth.
Recall how how Sharkly cited Paul and Peter’s disagreement above? They disagreed on a matter of truth, and aired that disagreement publicly. It was resolved by Paul’s reasoning, which established the truth of the matter. Paul exposed the logical contradiction in Peter’s actions. Their conflict was not resolved on the basis of authority.
Sharkly is unable or unwilling to resolve our disagreement through reasoning.
By contrast, I have established the truth of the matter on the basis of reasoning, but unlike Peter, Sharkly isn’t admitting his error and so the conflict remains.
There is nothing more for me to do. He’s simply wrong. As he explained, even if I went through church discipline with him and they ruled against him, he’d still think he was right and refuse to accept the judgment. Church discipline cannot resolve a factual matter. It is a process for dealing with sin, not a forum for making determinations of factual matters.
I have found that it is usually not worth my time to respond to that Creator-defying Evolutionist fool.
This is such a foolish thing to say, that I can only just shake my head. I’m unabashedly a Creationist. I suggest everyone read “Proof of God in DNA,” where I explicitly reason for the existence of the Creator-God and his role in the creation of life. I have never once in my entire life denied that God created the universe.
He will just publish seven new lies against you at his troll asylum for every one that you took the time to try to correct.
As this “fact check” article has shown, Sharkly’s accuracy rate is very close to 0%. His “corrections” are of extremely poor quality. Almost nothing he says is correct. And, ironically, he spends most of his time attacking me rather than engaging with any of my arguments. He rarely “corrects” anything, but engages in fallacy after fallacy. The irony is that even if he was right about the one instance of fallacious reasoning, he’d still have made dozens, or maybe hundreds, other fallacious statements.
Now, consider this article. It is a detailed point-by-point refutation (“seven new lies”) proving that each statement that Sharkly has made is factually incorrect. Sharkly would, undoubtedly, call each one of these refutations a lie, even though they are true.
I’m no sealion. As I’ve mentioned to other commenters (like Betty), you can pick just one point (your choice!) and focus on that one. We don’t have to discuss all of them. Just pick the one and we’ll discuss that one exhaustively. But, and this is key, if we did that, Sharkly would still lose his argument because I’ve already responded to nearly each and every point he’s raised. If he had any refutation to make, he could have made it already. But he’s largely out of material, and so constrained to repeating vacuous claims.
Sharkly’s objection here would seem to be equivalent to the common refrain:
So, remember this simple heuristic: ask if additional evidence is viewed as a threat or welcomed, then pick the argument or viewpoint that isn’t afraid of more information being revealed, as it’s probably the most durable and resilient (i.e. correct) view.
He attacked Dalrock, Jack, myself, thedeti, and others who are effectively helping to move the needle against his churchian Feminism.
What I said about the viewpoints of these men was factual and remains unrefuted. No one has ever denied that Dalrock refused to “deadname,” nor have they denied that his reasons for doing so were to appease people who hate Christians, nor have they denied that this is hypocritical, nor have they denied that this is a contradiction of the concept of Patriarchal authority.
No, they just don’t like me pointing out the errors.
Me: Dalrock refused to deadname, cucked to progressive wokes, and thus refuted Patriarchy by contradiction.
Sharkly: Don’t attack Dalrock! He’s doing the Lord’s work!
In absence of a refutation, Sharkly’s objection simply reads as if there are some men are immune to criticism. He can’t see how much damage these men—by their actual deeds—did to their own cause. To wit:
RPA joins Dalrock and other defenders of Patriarchy…
I was a gang lord in middle school…. We inflicted genuine fear throughout the school and busted a couple of guys for life. I mean their confidence was permanently destroyed. I saw them years later as an adult, and they were so pansy *** emasculated it was pitiful.
…in questioning another man’s manhood. Good work, guys. That’ll definitely help the cause of Patriarchy. You are all doing such a fine job utterly discrediting Patriarchy that nothing I say will move the needle one way or the other. Good luck winning converts.
Can’t they see this? No, they can’t. They are blinded by thinking their own motivations (“moving the needle against churchian Feminism” or “doing the dirty work“) justify holding contradictory ideas.
So, remember this simple heuristic: ask if additional evidence is viewed as a threat or welcomed, then pick the argument or viewpoint that isn’t afraid of more information being revealed, as it’s probably the most durable and resilient (i.e. correct) view.
Sharkly
He attacked Dalrock, Jack, myself, thedeti, and others who are effectively helping to move the needle against his churchian Feminism.
What I said about the viewpoints of these men was factual and remains unrefuted. No one has ever denied that Dalrock refused to “deadname,” nor have they denied that his reasons for doing so were to appease people who hate Christians, nor have they denied that this is hypocritical, nor have they denied that this is a contradiction of the concept of Patriarchal authority.
No, they just don’t like me pointing out the errors.
Me: Dalrock refused to deadname, cucked to progressive wokes, and thus refuted Patriarchy by contradiction.
Sharkly: Don’t attack Dalrock! He’s doing the Lord’s work!
In absence of a refutation, Sharkly’s objection simply reads as if there are some men are immune to criticism. He can’t see how much damage these men—by their actual deeds—did to their own cause.
THAT does get down to the core of the issue at hand, doesn’t it?
Its like what Jack said about you and me to you when you last exposed his lies at SF on SF a year ago:
It seems to you like we ”RP” tradcons are insinuating that you, MOSES, JESUS, & GBFM lied about something(when it was us failourous ”RP” tradcons) and that you are facing some sort of retribution as a consequence but ye are just carrying on being the Manosphere American AnchorMEN{like GBFM being revelatory( while Sparkly pouty faced and cried being hi/her/it typical drama queen @ss to get attention and white knights to help a girl out) alone at Spawnys remember?} in my and countless others(even St.Dalrocks and Rollos) eyes dude I admit it even though I despise, hate and fear it. To be blunt Derek, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM are not persecuting us, just reporting the facts about us foolish ”RP” tradcons hate, fear, and rebuke as WE freely lie about Derek, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM to distract from our countless failures in rolling back feminism, its almost like were paid to fail(like our beloved Government) being supposed ”RP ” Geniuses & everything huh?
See how Jack(no matter how much he detesteth the TRUTH) knew WE are the Manosphere “Doctors of Democracy”/AnchorMEN and pioneers of the ever-dying latter-day foolish ”RP” tradcon Manosphere instead of on the failourous W. Bush high school debate team bench like themselves?
Ah yes. “Insinuating.” There was nothing subtle about my accusation nor was what Jack said “reporting the facts”:
(For more, see footnote 1)
Jack unambiguously was made aware of the factual errors and falsehoods in what he had claimed. While Jack made many empty and unsupported claims, in a couple cases in particular—the details of my blogroll update…
…and my posting on my own blog after being explicitly encouraged to do so—
…there is not even a hint of ambiguity that might provide him some sort of cover.
And, of course, when the top contributors to the blog submit hundreds of comment per year, my ~72 comments per year averages out to a mere 1.5 comments per week. That’s hardly disruptive, let alone persecution.
Then there is the fact that I only interacted with ~7% of articles on Sigma Frame that year—just 16 out of more than 200—and four of those sixteen articles—25%—mention me explicitly!
And, lastly, the idea that I am persecuting anyone implies that this is my motivation. How Jack could possibly know that this is my true, but hidden, motivation—when I explicitly deny it—is beyond me. It’s not like he has evidence to support the claim.
So what do you call someone who continues to claim something without evidence and knowing it to be incorrect? A liar. So yes, by all definitions of what a liar is, Jack is a liar. He’s reproducing something he knows to be false.
Some men are, apparently, immune to criticism.
All the long winded comments on the other blog in postings on women, dating, marriage….boil down to this:
*If your wife ever with holds sex from you, you as a man have a *right* to divorce, leave, file paperwork, assert your manhood, discipline and get one who is “younger / hotter / tighter”
Because the Bible evidently “says so”
*Having premarital sex is okay as a believer if you are a man that is “in the club” because you would not be the “mighty man of God you are today without experiencing this”
*You will die as a man if you dont have sex, men need this like air, water and food AND you are a LESSER man or “not complete” if you are not getting this
*Jesus forgives some men, and not others (according to them)
*Women are not in Gods image. They are things to have sex with.
*Real men are only: Men who are of higher intelligence (according to man-made standards and metrics), men who are deemed “good looking” on a cultural level / getting IOIs and women coming over to their home, office, on the street and offering them sex “just because” of their oozing masculinity and men who have an Ego the size of God himself. Have a STEM degree, and you have to have served in the military when a “Real Man” was in charge like W Bush, Bush I or Reagan.
The rest of us? No hope….well, just find a bold n biblical church and remember this is a faith of suffering, and we will remind you of what a “lesser man” you are. But dont worry! Heaven is gonna be great!
Lastmod,
This is an excellent summary that sounds too absurd for people to actually believe it.
“If your wife ever with holds sex from you, you as a man have a *right* to divorce, leave, file paperwork, assert your manhood, discipline…”
This sounds like hyperbole, but this is literally true. And since I attempted, and failed, to get such filth deleted, we know that this is not mere happenstance or accident.
“Having premarital sex is okay as a believer if you are a man that is “in the club” because you would not be the “mighty man of God you are today without experiencing this””
Again, you’d think this was hyperbole, but it’s not. Just like political double-speak, they speak against premarital sex while simultaneously pointing out how pivotal, important, and indispensable it was in their own lives. And, of course, it proves that they are an authority on how to attract women. They even went so far as to tell me that my lack in that area disqualifies me from being in that “domain of authority.”
I’ve yet to see any of those authority-obsessed men respect and defer to the authority of the men who have never been divorced.
Jesus forgives some men, and not others (according to them)
…as evidenced by their knowledge—and, frankly, determination—of who is going to Hell and who is destined for sainthood, who is persecuted and who is persecutor.
Women are not in Gods image.
No comment required. Still amusing that ChatGPT knows who promotes this view.
Real men are only: Men who are of higher intelligence
This is their belief, but it requires reasoning to get there. Most of the Manosphere is blankslatist, but when one acknowledges that blankslatism is false, all that is left is their advice within the real framework: hereditarianism. And within reality, you have to have a high IQ (or be otherwise genetically fit) in order to be a real man.
But dont worry! Heaven is gonna be great!
As Bruce Charlton notes, few actually care about heaven. Thus, their “encouragement” is revealed for what it actually is.
Peace,
DR
Welll….what’s a mother to do….right??? 🙂
They are married to an agenda / belief system (Red Pill / Game) and what was once a framework of “restoring” some basis of responsibility as a man or manhood; has turned into a very complex social-sexual-genetic-predterminism with a mish-mash of “science” “eugenics” and loosely attached philosophy…and to make sure Jesus isnt “offended” they throw in their Christian faith, or pieces of it I guess.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss kind-of thing.
Perhaps it was “roads not taken” and hindsight is always crystal clear in these matters. I just notice as do many men married or not. Handsome or ugly. Winner or loser……
these spaces with the ideas they purport are not for them.
Now, these places will defer to the smear “Well, you are just blinded by Blue Pill thinking”
In then end, if they actually believed the faith they claim to follow and read what Jesus actually said, and did. We indeed would have a revival of sorts and the world probably could be turned upside down just like it was when a few men….well prayed…..who indeed believed and had hope and expectation for men (early followers / disciples / believers) instead of dogma, rules, imobile metrics, impossible Laws, Lore and materials to study, practice and commit to memory and be an adonis, and have a great job, and be able to fix anything, and, and, and, and, and, and…..
What Jesus taught to the masses and his own disciples was not easy. It was revolutionary. He rebuked them. Taught them. Loved them….and even after his resurrection….they still did not understand everything that had happened over the past three years. They were average men. Being a fisherman was not a great career with Union benefits and healthcare and an upper class income. Jobs that were looked upon with disgust (tax collector).
In the end it was their faith, the inpsiration to look beyong and a willingness to put it all on the line. They left their homes, their wives while they followed Jesus. Can we do this today?
Probably some can, but the example set was that all should and could.
Jesus talked little of manhood, dating, gettng a wife, IOIs, how much sex is appropriate for a marriage, nothing about his training / career before his ministry. He spoke nothing of his earthly father.
In todays world…..these same men would demand an IQ test. How many women wanted him. And his physique / comeliness “He hath no comeliness that we may be attracted to him” they would want his “seminary” degrees, the classes, the papers. They would demand his grades. “Jesus, give us ONE MORE miracle, then we will believe” statements.
Its sad. Such potential for a revival on this side of the ‘Sphere blown over sex, endless debates if women are actually human, math, graphs, STEM, PSLAMS and OASIS and gym membership and if you had women liking you at age 12.
Childish. Im sorry for the fact in my own role in this of wasting so much time there. That is another thing I have to beg forgiveness for.
There was recently a conversation about excommunication. Since Jesus said that we are to treat the excommunicated members as if they were tax collectors, I was waiting for someone to point out that Jesus dined with tax collectors.
Isn’t that interesting?
I dont have the insight or “biblical” knowledge to untangle what he “really” meant.
I am sure someone out there who studied “greek” or “hebrew” will explain that it really means something else.
What I do know is that yes, Jesus did hang with undesirables a lot. Including “tax collectors” and thieves, and prostitutes (but I thought women were all “holy” back then……) and he did tell a tax collector once that you take what is required and nothing more.
He didnt justify their behaviors and he even told a “bad” woman to “go and sin no more”
Jesus dint make his ministry political, men did that. Trump now has “godly” protection according to many. A thrice married man with countless affairs now can lecture us on “Two Corinthians” and his son can kick his wife to the curb, move in a former lingerie model and Fox News reporter (what is it with all these men around Trump getting involved with Fox News reporters?) who was twice married, has a kid out of wedlock and was the former First Lady of San Francisco (married to Newsom)
……And to lecture me on “morality” and “family”
Even in the Orthodox Church, Pilates wife was made a “saint” because she “stood up to her mean ol husband” and told him to “leave Jesus alone”
So much for a “masculine” faith
Jesus on many occasions called his disciples “men of little faith” and had to correct them. Teach them. Show them. Why? Because they were men.
The ‘sphere makes sin “debatable” when its still sin. They make it out that they fell out of the womb speaking Greek and had their life mission at 4 and if they didnt have this….well, it was “because feminism” and “blue pilled cucks”
As if. Excuses for ME, not THEE
Jesus always showed grace and also did the will of The Father. In everything.
What I do know is that yes, Jesus did hang with undesirables a lot. Including “tax collectors” and thieves, and prostitutes (but I thought women were all “holy” back then……) and he did tell a tax collector once that you take what is required and nothing more.
He didnt justify their behaviors and he even told a “bad” woman to “go and sin no more”
Jesus dint make his ministry political, men did that. Trump now has “godly” protection according to many. A thrice married man with countless affairs now can lecture us on “Two Corinthians” and his son can kick his wife to the curb, move in a former lingerie model and Fox News reporter (what is it with all these men around Trump getting involved with Fox News reporters?) who was twice married, has a kid out of wedlock and was the former First Lady of San Francisco (married to Newsom)
……And to lecture me on “morality” and “family”
Even in the Orthodox Church, Pilates wife was made a “saint” because she “stood up to her mean ol husband” and told him to “leave Jesus alone”
So much for a “masculine” faith
Jesus on many occasions called his disciples “men of little faith” and had to correct them. Teach them. Show them. Why? Because they were men.
The ‘sphere makes sin “debatable” when its still sin. They make it out that they fell out of the womb speaking Greek and had their life mission at 4 and if they didnt have this….well, it was “because feminism” and “blue pilled cucks”
As if. Excuses for ME, not THEE
It does have a lot to do with the rise of cynicism in the ’90s(as even Scott at SF said in 2021 ”when suicide became cool among the youth”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtXrxA8RJ70
Postmodernism Killed Superman [FULL] | Parker Settecase
Deep Talks
10K subscribers
Subscribe
91
1,393 views Premiered Jan 13, 2025
Parker Settecase is the host of @ParkersPensees and @ParkerNotes
In this episode, we discuss the rise of cynicism and deconstruction in pop culture, the philosophical roots of these postmodern shifts, and what may be coming next in the hero’s stories of our culture”
That video also parallels Hulk Hogan’s career going from an 80s inspirational hero to a 90s thug in the NWO faction.
You can see a similar thing with Sharkly’s ”I bet oral and anal S*x(as my mans ”Jack ” & ”matt Perkins” also sayeth) is okay and the RCC only forbids it to frustrate my Bill Clinton
liberal lusts” and this from a guy who acts like a caricature of an ultraconservative 50s stereotype Christian meets a ”Kill’em all!!” Salem Puritan from the Salem witch trials in 1692/93, but he assures us he’s not a paid langly troll?
Never knew Superman died in the 1990s. So why do we still have movies and comic collecting and current issues? Oh yeah…..he didnt die.
Hulk Hogan? One of the most boring people alive.
I was never a fan of “grunge music” and I did know about it and it was an important thing of the 1990’s but it was very short lived. Hip Hop and RnB of the 1990’s had a longer stay and a much, much stronger impact on the culture of that time. Grunge died in 1994 and was popular on the college campus and “alternative” radio / MTV
Someone once said, “when Nirvana broke out in late 1991, the scene was over” and that may be a too basic explanation, but I get what the statement means. I remember some of the songs and videos but at that time when I was finishing college in 1992 I had other concerns than what “Kurt Cobain thinks about the presidential election”
The church as usual had opportunities but of course didnt take them. I remember when the Republicans *shocked* everyone in the November 1994 election with a sweep of Congress, The Senate, most statehouses and state assembly’s……what voters wanted was “cut my taxes, put crooks in jail and balance the budget”
What we got was “Americans want abortion illegal, want to become Christian and want Bill and Hillary Clinton in jail” and we wasted the next few years trying to do just that!
The church at that time was still doing silly things, more concerned about politicians in Washington than their own flocks. More concern about “saying a sinners prayer” and witnessing at at a Walmart than heart matters. More worried / debating if a church was a Christian Church v a Baptist / Methodist and hating the Catholics. Stupid Bible and baby songs (well, that still happens) being sung by teenagers / youth group. Workbooks. Mens “Accountability” groups (the term used before Man Up). Promise Keepers.
It was an unholy row…..all of it………..and still is.
When John had his Revelation……when he saw Jesus, he fell flat to worship him. Terrified with fear by his majesty. Today? “Jesus is my buddy, and we’ll talk about sins and how he will protect me from daddys punishment”
The faith is so dumbed down, and only focuses on base level needs: Sex. How-do-I get-girls-to-like-me and of course…..the gym. An middle to upper middle class American Protestantism.
As for the kids killing themselves………Scott’s commet done as snarkly…….but churchmen laughing at this / poking fun at it, but will sh*t a brick if a woman even considers an abortion.
Pingback: Constructive Criticism, Part 2 - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Constructive Criticism, Part 3 - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Constructive Criticism, Part 4 - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Constructive Criticism, Part 5 - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Constructive Criticism, Part 6 - Derek L. Ramsey