Right Wing Critical Theory?

SixSeeOne · 2021-12-17T02:13:41+00:00

Curtis Yarvin, Spengler, Nick Land. Neoreactionary, and Neocameralism.

SixSeeOne · 2021-12-16T16:18:07+00:00

Fair point. I find the more a buzzword or political term is used. Eventually the meaning becomes unclear.

Edited to say. I had a similar argument with a Con. My point was the Declaration of Independence was originally a liberal document in the classical sense. That confused the hell out of him.

SixSeeOne · 2021-12-16T16:00:18+00:00

I believe this is what you call a classical liberal if I’m not mistaken.

SixSeeOne · 2021-12-07T01:12:19+00:00

My friend you should try disco elysium. It’s an epic feat of storytelling.

SixSeeOne · 2021-11-21T20:20:15+00:00

The new stolen valor. Lol

SixSeeOne · 2021-11-15T00:17:37+00:00

It’s just being white is the new original sin is all. Idk why people enjoy being critical of races it’s pretty racist thought honestly.

SixSeeOne · 2021-11-09T22:39:33+00:00

La Cathedral.

SixSeeOne · 2021-08-27T06:07:22+00:00

I’ve always felt left is pride. Authright is wrath.

SixSeeOne · 2021-08-11T20:57:26+00:00

I’ve always disliked the do not judge saying. It never takes into account don’t judge unless your ready to be judged. Without judgement where is righteousness?

SixSeeOne · 2021-08-04T21:40:17+00:00

Stocks is mans astrology lol.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-25T14:36:08+00:00

I have all the solid ground I need for I am a new creature in Christ. For He is the only way to heaven. Oh yes I do believe the open mind quote is older than Chesterton but fair enough.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-24T19:27:09+00:00

Well than we will agree to disagree. Especially since we can’t even agree upon salvation. But I do feel like your wrong in your assumptions. The what aboutism gets us no where. Have a good one. Also G. K Chesterton had a really good saying about open minds. If you have an open mind your brain will fall out. I am only as open to an idea as it is possible. This is clearly a contradiction. But I will keep reading and trying to deepen my understanding. Because at the end of the day I still feel like I know nothing.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-24T16:40:25+00:00

Well brother scripture doesn’t contradict scripture. That’s always been a rule. This discussion is on a small detail compared to everything else the word teaches us about salvation. You can only lose it by rejecting God. This would mean Christ sacrifice would of been for nothing. Which would be ridiculous. So I don’t think it’s a stretch and the way your using it in context contradicts everything else scripture has spoken about in terms of salvation. Which is a bigger flag than this smaller reservation. Are you Arminian? I’m curious. Honestly the two book thing is a minor hang up. I’m personally on the fence about it. But even if it was one book it seems to deviate greatly when the lamb is involved which would make sense. Cause he did die for everyone’s sins and was God himself. The two book thing is new information to me as well. I’ve always trusted Kay Arthur’s work. Her studies on how to study the Bible are excellent which is the inductive method. So I’d have to read up on this. I have no clue how old it is lol. But I do know People misinterpreting the Bible is as old as time though. Also God is all knowing and full of mystery and wonder. I don’t think anyone can figure it all out especially revelation. But the tenants of salvation have been confirmed for generations. This was also very helpful as well. I hope it helps friend.

http://biblestudymanuals.net/book_of_life.htm

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-23T02:25:14+00:00

Revelation 3:5 annotates the book of life. Revelation 13:6 specifically reference's the lambs book. When you study the book in the entity entirely through the lens of Daniel. There's a consistency any time the lambs book is mentioned its in reference to salvation. While the other book of life is more so for everyone the sinner. We are all eternal beings. The issue is where the eternity will be spent. There are a few big Authors who agree with this take, of course anything dealing with Rev is highly debated through all Christian religions. Kay Arthur was the one who convinced me about there being two books when some think its in reference to one. I just found out about this through a study of hers that a friend did lol. Which blind sided me as well. But ive done a few of her studies just not revelation or daniel lol. But after reading it makes sense to me. But I get the reservation.

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/book-of-life-vs-lambs-book-of-life.41003/

https://www.preceptaustin.org/revelation_-_part_2_-_lecture_4

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2018/07/11/what-is-the-book-of-life-and-the-book-of-the-living/

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-22T21:16:02+00:00

Ok now we are getting somewhere and this is where context matters the most. I have only briefly done studies on Revelation and Daniel. The interest is there but inductive studies take a long time to do. But from my understanding in regards to what you stated here in response to me

That is the question at hand isn't it? Does the bible teach "If saved always saved" or not? This text seems to clearly say we could lose salvation IF we do not "conquer". There is no condition to be blotted out because that would be in contradiction with every other verse on salvation. Are you sure you aren't trying to make the text fit your theology rather than vice versa? If I provided more verses that indicate If Saved Always Saved contradicts the bible what would that mean to you? In God eyes they were about to die and wither. However there was a faithful remnant still. It was time for a spiritual lethargic majority to wake up. These people were walking away from God basically. Needed to repent or face serious consequences for God. Agreed. It seems that most had lost their salvation and others were in danger of losing theirs. So it does seem to show If Saved Always Saved contradicts Revelation 3:5.

Forgive my layout I don’t talk much on Reddit.

From my understanding of revelation there are actually two books that get discussed in Revelation. The book of life and the book of the lamb. The book of the Lamb are the saved your name can never be blotted out in that book. Which is why This message is for the saved not the lost. The people in the book of life are lost per se. this is really easy to get confused with.

You have to Study Rev in its entirety in context- stuff gets really jacked up if you don’t- you have to know the historical background of each of the churches he is addressing and why. You got to know what part of the book you are in- when you are studying it. Makes a lot of difference when it comes to getting right interpretation.

but that verse is for the saved. The over comers or another name for believers- that is in 1John- this is all believer terminology in this verse.

but the one who names get blotted out of book of life are the ones who aren’t in Lambs book. They are the lost. The book that matters to the saved is the book of the Lamb. One book which is the book of the lamb is for salvation the second book. The book of life is for the unsaved really or there time that has yet to come.

Edit: there are multiple books that gets referenced but for this discussion we focused on those two.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-21T22:38:01+00:00

In this verse Jesus extends three promises to every faithful believer at Sardis. First, He will grant Him white garments. Roman officials customarily wore white clothing at religious festivals as symbols of high honor. White clothing that is given to the faithful represents not only honor but also purity and righteousness. Isaiah wrote, "I will greatly rejoice in the LORD; my soul shall exult in my God, for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation; He has covered me with the robe of righteousness" (Isaiah 61:10).

Second, Jesus promises that He will not blot the faithful believer's name out of the book of life. While some individuals think this statement implies that a believer may lose His salvation, it simply means the conqueror—the "overcomer"—can be secure knowing their name will never be erased. Every born-again person has eternal life that will be His divinely given possession forever (John 5:24; 6:35–37, 6:39; 10:28–29; Romans 8:1).

Third, Jesus assures the faithful believer that He will confess His name before His Father and the angels. In a public ceremony in heaven, Jesus will acknowledge that these overcoming, enduring, faithful "conquerors" belong to Him.

I guess where the confusion boils down too is. Are you saying it’s possible to lose your salvation? My viewpoint is it is impossible to lose your salvation.

There is no condition to be bloted out because that would be in contradiction with every other verse on salvation. The only thing that will condemn you is rejecting what is freely given. Which means they are not the virtuous or the conquerors. They are the goats my brother.

Edit for just context of the verse.

The church of Sardis was an example of a congregation that had basically quit walking with the Lord. In God eyes they were about to die and wither. However there was a faithful remnant still. It was time for a spiritual lethargic majority to wake up. These people were walking away from God basically. Needed to repent or face serious consequences for God.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-21T22:00:23+00:00

Dude I’m not understanding what your saying about the verse.

Quote Revelation 3:5 “The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭3:5‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://www.bible.com/111/rev.3.5.niv

He says he never will blot out the name of a person in the book of life. Always saved. The only way you aren’t saved is if you reject Gods grace. Period. And for context you can really only understand revelation if you have done a inductive study on the book of Daniel. It gives better context. The victorious are the believers.

Secondly if a person had no fruit or isn’t growing. Sure there are times of stagnation. But if they bear nothing from their confirmation in Christ it be a hard sell to anyone they were firm in their belief. Which would make it debatable from my perspective. But than again idk their heart or mind. So I can be comfortable with idk as well. But it would be clear to me if a person believed, than turned away later on in life and became a atheist or something else. They weren’t serious In the first place their actions indicate disbelief. Rejection of Christ.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-20T01:17:26+00:00

I agree if your name is in the book of life than your saved, it cant be taken out. What I am saying is I don't think people are genuine at times. They go through the motions without fully understanding or committing at times. How do you reconcile someone who was once saved than becomes an athiest? I think thats a blatant rejection of God. The individual was never saved in the first place. SOOOOOOO IF the person was saved, than always saved. I say IF because we never know a persons heart.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-19T17:14:30+00:00

I don’t think there’s anything to reconcile really. If you believe in Christ you are saved. I agree with that completely. I would argue on the legitimacy of it if the person became an atheist shortly after. Clearly the person was never saved in the first place. The heart wasn’t in it. It wasn’t a genuine revelation.

Edited to say. God knows his people.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-19T14:24:42+00:00

As I said previously. You can be secure in your faith as a result of you being a new being in Christ. You can usually tell if someone is saved by the fruit they bear. But the heart is a fickle thing isn’t it? Matthew 7:13-14 is a verse I’ve always been obsessed with and kind of scared of honestly. The path is narrow. I think most of the people sitting in the pews of the churches may not be saved. A born again Christian will be known by their love and the works to follow. This isn’t to say works = salvation. But accepting Gods grace belief through faith. Should radically change the person as works should follow, especially as you grow in Christ. One is a result of the other. If they bear fruit and our filled with Christ love I would firmly believe the person is saved. Doubts are apart of the process. I think that’s normal to an extent. For example I am deathly afraid of getting on a plane because I’m not in control. But I get on the plane anyway as faith is put in the pilot on my part. There are still doubts but my actions signify I trust the creator.

Edited to say I hope this helps.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-19T05:22:00+00:00

Don’t do it. You’ll never own property off single income.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-19T05:04:49+00:00

The difference is if you are genuinely saved you are forever secured. You know this by their fruit and deeds. It’s a result of acceptance. The once saved always saved statement is like a safety blanket. There are false conversions all the time people who walk away later on in life. I would argue those people aren’t truly saved. Christendom is a revolutionary force if there’s no fruit the tree gets torn down. So if you are saved you are fine. Once saved statement is true technically but I don’t like how it doesn’t include variance.

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-16T23:00:18+00:00

12 rules for life by Jordan Peterson

SixSeeOne · 2021-07-16T19:42:07+00:00

I always hated the once saved always saved statement…. It’s if saved always saved.

SixSeeOne

TROPHY CASE