Khari > Recent Status Updates

"God faces the reality of who a person is, forgives that person, and then works with the reality of who he or she is. He does not demand perfection when that is clearly not reality. "

I do not find his arguments against inborn sin to be at all convincing. They seem more based on his personal preference and logic than anything biblical.

If you are going to argue about an alternate interpretation of the Bible. You need to back yourself up with texts from the Bible itself, not with sophistry.

Again, yes, Christ came 'in the flesh' but that just means that he had a body, it's not being used at all in the same way as Romans 5 uses it because it's contrasting being ruled by the spirit and ruled by the sin nature.

If the doctrine of the sin nature were not true, then why would Christ need to be born of a virgin? The seed of the woman? The whole reason for the virgin birth was to annul inborn sin from Adam.

Yes, the word flesh is used positively and negatively in the Bible. But it depends on the context. When it is talking about the flesh in contrast with the spirit, it's almost entirely negative. So, yes, the flesh nature is carnality and unrepentance.
Getting rid of the theology of universal sin just because the Bible uses 'flesh' in different senses is a huge issue.

Uh. What about in Romans, when Paul literally says that he finds a law in him that which he does not want to do he does?

I think he is mistaking justification and sanctification together. Plus, I don't find his argument convincing.

You can't just say 'the greek means something different' and then not back it up. I mean he doesn't even tell us the greek word so we can look it up ourselves. And he says 'Personally'

The bad news is that there is no excuse for falling short. The Good news is that there is forgiveness and cleansing.

It might open her mind a bit more.

Ah. I see.

Let's just quote Simone de Beauvoir uncritically, because naturally everything she said is right.

Men feel no gap between their gender and what is expected of them. Naturally. That's why so depression, suicidality, and just all around giving up on life is so prevalent in men today...because they have no existential angst the way women do.

Maybe she should read some literature that has male protagonists

This worldview of zero agency is so strange.

"Their desires evolve to fit their" circumstances (?) sorry, can not remember the exact word she used.

She's talking about literary characters, who when they are small don't want to get married, and when they are grown, do. Because they were forced to, and that's true for real women too. They are forced to, by society, by circumstances.

Maybe they just grew up? Maybe their tastes changed?

I swear this woman reads books at only the most superficial level, if she goes deeper at all, it's only to put a feminist spin on it.

But what does the book say about life? About morals? About meaning? About truth? About who you are and who you could be?

Yeah, Anne of Green Gables is about puffed sleeves, but it's also about being able to overcome and be successful no matter where you start out.

And you can absolutely identify with whoever you are reading, regardless of whether or not you look like them.

Just because some idiot girl tells you that you have to be the yellow power ranger because you are from the Philippines doesn't mean that you have to accept her narrative as truth.

You got angry, because you know it isn't true, and that it's ridiculous. So why do accept that narrative as an adult!?!

It's not always about being high-powered performance seekers.

And some women have a pathological aversion to spending money on things like athleisure wear and exercise classes and only do free things, and still somehow manage to be pursuing some ideal, be it beauty, energy, health, or whatever.

She's very convinced that she knows why everyone else is doing the things that they do.

It's almost as if this woman has never heard of the idea of projection.

Not every woman is in an exercise class because they want to be strong enough to work to have enough money to take this class to look hot and be strong enough to work.

Some women take exercise classes because they want energy, some for their health, some for their mental health, some for their attractiveness, and some for all of the above.

She's basically blaming everything on capitalism, but, well, capitalism has been around longer than feminism has, and so it should have had these effects before now. Isn't it interesting that these issues have only come about after feminism?

I wonder if this woman is ever going to come to the realization that even as she is railing against the current day's view of the ideal woman as someone in leisure wear going to get her nails done after yoga as shallow and lacking meaning, it is a direct creation of women putting into practice the feminists railing against motherhood in favor of building a career?

"For a person to assess his life as victorious based upon how well he has followed the Law indicates that his source of satisfaction is derived from his own self-effort. This is idolatrous; it leads to self-righteousness, and it is not what God intended."

Oh my.

Men have never had to change themselves in order to make themselves marketable to women, the way women have always had to.

It's like history doesn't even exist.

The conflation is real.

Because someone anonymous on Forchan wrote a super degrading opinion about women, that's what the gamer gate, and all right leaning, people believe.

....Forchan. Anonymous...
You don't know it was the same person. You don't know what it's reach was. You don't know the political affiliation of the person who wrote it.

Is it horrible? Yes. In fact, it's exhibit A of reasons to avoid Forchan.

Looking at both sides is now a way to make yourself look intelligent. Not a way of actually being intelligent.

"The left takes hate seriously," line made me spew. Granted, this was written before Charlie Kirk and the attempted assassinations of Trump, but Linda Sarsour is still an accepted person on the left from this time frame, as is Al Sharpton, the hate pouring off of them is apparently not worth mentioning?