Unpopular, biblical truth: Modesty is commanded and highly desirable in a woman. Dress often expresses (or hints to) the character of one’s heart. Do you live for self (“I dress for myself. I’ll do whatever makes ME happy”), or do you live for God? Do you have insecurities and seek attention to fill that void? Do you live for pleasure (“It makes me feel good!”)? Do you value sexual purity as God does? Do you have self control over your desires? Do you regard the common good as more important than yourself or do you defer to a radical individualism (“How other people react is not my responsibility.”)? Do you guard your raw beauty, or do you carelessly cast your pearls among swine? If your first reaction to my opposing viewpoint is rage and the use of extremes to justify yourself (“You want me to dress like a Quaker! You’re a man; you have no say on this matter. So you’d blame me for rape?!”), then that says a lot about you. Modesty is far more than just dress; it’s about your values and your attitude. #RestoreTradition
Yes. When the church grows weak, family’s break. And when family’s break, order falls. Men call upon the government to save them from the consequences of their sin only to have their freedoms eroded. Without order there is no freedom, but true order cannot be imposed, it must be lived, and that starts with the heart. Only God can change hearts.
Most of you do not know this, but about a year ago I was given the opportunity to become a Supported Missionary at Ratio Christi for Weber University. 
Despite setbacks with COVID-19, it’s been an incredible experience working with these two guys and evangelizing to students. In this video we just explain our backgrounds, how we became Christians, what got us into apologetics, why we think it’s important, and what our plans are for the campus. If you feel led to give, we would be greatly honored.
I often hear, “I’m doing this for myself” and there’s nothing wrong with this by itself, but I worry that people are forgetting something extremely important: we should do all things for God’s glory (1 Cor 10:31). The two are not opposed. You can take care of yourself and be pleasing to God, but the order is important. Do you first and foremost take care of yourself for the sake of yourself, and only secondarily (as a byproduct) “please” God? Or is your first and foremost goal to please God for His sake, SO you take care of yourself? There’s a HUGE difference. You can make an idol of the self and then use the byproduct to justify yourself. It’s very subtle and dangerous; do not confuse the two.
Is lying always wrong? Stated this way, yes, lying by definition is immoral. It’s like asking, “Is murder always wrong?” The better question to ask is, “Is killing always wrong?” and the answer is no, not always. So likewise, perhaps it is better to ask, “Is intentionally uttering falsehoods always wrong?” And the answer seems to obviously be no. I can utter falsehoods to Siri or my friends saying, “I’m a helicopter” but it would not be a lie. The debate then is over *what* counts as a lie. Some think that a lie only counts as such if and only if (i) one intentionally states a falsehood, and (ii) we have an obligation to the person to state the truth. Those who think it is permissible to “lie” to Nazis would deny that (ii) applies. Nazis do not deserve to know the truth, and we have no obligation to speak the truth to someone who intends to do evil. Therefore it is not a lie. But others disagree, arguing that a lie is just intentionally acting contrary to the end of communication, which is truth. Whether the person deserves to know is irrelevant. To the surprise of some, I stray from several prominent natural theorists because I am not convinced that stating falsehoods to Nazi’s is impermissible and thus a “lie.” But out of pragmatic caution, I would resort to broad deception (which both camps agree is not wrong) as far as I can instead. What counts as “contrary to the end of communication” though depends at least in part on the context and intention. I do find the appeals to intuition (or common sense) rather compelling, but not indefeasible. I’m open to it being defeated by some more fundamental, metaphysical truth but so far I am not convinced.
So, real quick life update here: I got a new job at SBN as an IT Technician last week! Better pay, and very challenging thus far (in a good way). Working out 5x a week. I am leading Ratio Christi at Weber every week. Discipling two guys. I’m exhausted. I decided to quit being a philosophy professor because IT work is a lot more sustainable. I may pick up my Master’s again later, but we’ll see. I bought my first gun: Sig P365 XL. I should be receiving my conceal carry permit in a few weeks. Lastly, I’m back on FB in a very minimal way. I’m still not on here much. No more debates or politics, at least for a while. My focus now is on ministry, producing content, and becoming more of a godly man. I’m more fired up than ever 
Hope you guys are doing great!
I was accused of mansplaining on modesty. But just what is mansplaining? If I say, “Women, abortion is immoral”, is “You’re mansplaining!” a valid response? Is every instance of a man explaining something to a woman “mansplaining”? As far as I understand, mansplaining occurs when a man assumes a woman does not know something due to his belief that men are superior, and thus explains it to her in a condescending way. Nothing I said meets this. I do not believe men are superior, did not address any individual woman or most women. And if it is “condescending” to point out that x is wrong, then that’s self-refuting: you are “womansplaining” to me by saying mansplaining is wrong. The whole use of this word seems like an absurd attempt to genderize facts and ignore correction. I’m sure there are legitimate cases where it happens, but men do it to other men, and it’s easy to misapply because some don’t mean to be condescending by assuming you don’t know. Maybe they just like to explain things.
You thought I was done? Think again. If your first thought is, “lmao you’re so stupid, the courts and the super duper experts destroyed this” (which this article addresses) then move along. No one needs to see you barking like a triggered chihuahua in the comments. 
But if you’re interested in hearing opposing viewpoints and being charitable, please read.
‘m excited to announce I’ll be discussing Universalism on May 22nd with Suan! Spoiler: Universalism is false But I can see why one would take this view.
I see no need to get this vaccine so I won’t. But if you are then hey, good for you!
Newer Posts