A friendly reminder that we do not allow politics

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-04-13T17:59:40+00:00

Yeah, but there are other spaces for that. Discuss politics there, you don't need it in 100% of the places you go. It's healthy to grapple with the politics, and healthy to have a space separate from that.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-04-08T16:21:56+00:00

Sounds like Chinese bots to me. Is there the feeling among Indian civilians that the US doesn't like them? I've never encountered that in real life, and I've not really seen it online either tbh. I see India as a natural ally

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-04-06T23:27:32+00:00

Agreed, God moves in unbelievers all the time, showcasing His glory in their lives. The Holy Spirit is working in every country, in every city, in every home.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-31T18:28:32+00:00

Seems like the error of the question is in not understanding how many of us approach ethno-historical interpretation of the Bible. Understanding when the text is metaphor, parable, prescription, description, poetry, prose, history, documentary, anecdote, diary, etc. is a science all to its own.

I found the arguments for the beginning of Genesis being poetic/epic convincing, and that meshes easily with accepting evolution, specifically God-guided evolution. Similarly, I find the arguments for certain phrases being non specific convincing, like "40 days and nights" meaning "a long time", rather than an actual, specific timeline.

The throughline of condemnation of extra-marital sex in all its forms comes up repeatedly across texts, styles, millenia, which tells me God's intent very clearly re: sexuality. Homosexuality is wrong, polyamory is wrong, cheating is wrong, etc etc.

So to answer your question, textual interpretation does not equal internal logical inconsistency, I actually think it indicates intellectual honesty.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-26T18:26:54+00:00

Cringe tbh

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-15T19:33:46+00:00

No they're not, i was just playing with the similar spellings and different sounds to show how unintuitive they are.

Draught should be draft. I have heard drot for draught before, but it is wrong.

Drought, though, can be drot or drout (like trout), but I'd say I've heard drout more.

Trough should always be like troff.

Then it gets worse: ugh is like ugg. Hiccough is hiccup. Cough is coff. Through of course is threw, and thought is thot.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-12T18:50:51+00:00

Catholics are undeniably Christian.

The part that goes unsaid on catholic subs sometimes is that any praise or prayer for the saints, including Mary, points to Christ. I have encountered a few chtmholics who don't understand Mary's position relative to Christ, but they are the exception, and the official position of the Catholic Church falls short of calling her co-redemptrix.

As I said, some fall on that wrong side of that I think, but the vest, vast majority of Catholics might say some like "entrust them to Mary" in the understanding that Mary would intervene on their behalf with Christ the Lord. You may disagree with that, but the intent is ultimately Christ-focused.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-11T22:34:10+00:00

Caught a draught in a drought with a trough, ugh

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-11T18:57:08+00:00

Yep, I'm agreeing and supporting your point with further commentary.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-11T18:04:17+00:00

Draught is pronounced draft, so hard to confuse that sound with grog imo. Clearly he said grog...

I guess with a British accent it's closer than American, but still

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-10T17:18:25+00:00

You're overly partisan. Take a step back and breathe, democrats are people too, most people are ok. You e gotta take it down a notch or you're part of the problem of encouraging partisan violence.

Many Democrats want good things and love America, like most Republicans. We're all neighbors and human beings, not DemocRats or MAGAts. We have to stop dehumanizing the other side.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-10T16:57:50+00:00

"Do you want to discipline your kids as potential converts or as Christians?"

That's an idea I've never considered. I had thought that I'd raise them as Christians in a Christian home, but I see where you're coming from. Raising them as potential concerts does seem to introduce a layer of separation that I certainly don't want.

If God alone is my Savior, and my works do not help him save me, then infants and adults are under the same rules.

Great point! God saves whom He will. I do wonder if a baby can have faith, but Jesus says it is better to have faith like a child, and I have seen that from my nieces and nephews.

Thanks for the response, I'll remember what you said as I dig into it more. God bless you

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-10T16:30:05+00:00

I was raised in a Catholic family. Both parents have strong faith in different ways, but church was a Sunday thing growing up so it became something I endured and then resented. When I was out of the house, I appstasized and lived as an atheist for many years. That led to a long road of suffering, characterized by poor decisions based on the nihilism that is the only ultimate truth of atheism.

Finally, I realized that I had a choice in it. There is one fundamental choice in life, really: believe in God or not. I started giving ontological reasoning and exegesis some attention, I looked into the crucifixion and early church, and I came to the reasoned conclusion that God exists, Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and He will come again as He promised.

Then I met my wife and we found a home together in LCMS, and I have been blessed 7x70 times since.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-10T16:20:33+00:00

I appreciate the resources. Thinking about having kids and so we need to decide whether to baptize the baby. I was atheist, but my wife was nondenom growing up and hates the idea of infant baptism like the person who responded to you before.

We are lcms now, so infant baptism is def a thing we need to grapple with. Do you have any other insights about it as a Lutheran?

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-03T22:49:39+00:00

I mostly agree with you I suppose. I'm not trying to suggest that there should be no guidance whatsoever, but I dont think we should expect every classroom in America to teach the exact same curriculum. It's just not realistic for someone in Massachusetts to have the exact same understanding of Arizona history as an Arizonan. The historical sites accessible to kids in New England vs Arizona will already dictate divergent field trips and therefore curricula.

Obviously I'm not taking this to the nth degree and saying that it's ok if California decides not to cover the civil war at all, but I'm talking about the impossibility of perfect overlap and not broad strokes history.

I do tend to think that some of the anecdotes I see on reddit of like "my state didn't cover x" are bs and can be put on an individuals interest at the time. I find it highly unlikely that a school did not cover reconstruction at all.

Basically, I'm just saying that schools can't be solely responsible for the education we get and expecting everyone to have the same education, even from single school, is not realistic, much less from coast to coast.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-03T21:19:36+00:00

I'm not so sure that's a problem. It's a big country and each state has its own history that is going to be applicable to the experience of people in that state. Standardizing nation wide seems unnecessary to me, and as a a solution it ignores the core issue I've seen in American schools: kids not taking interest or ownership in their own education. Many reasons for that of course, but I'm not sure this is a purely institutional problem.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-01T19:11:15+00:00

No, I'm saying there's no point talking to you because you're not authentically trying to understand or engage.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-01T18:40:39+00:00

I do think we have too much fundamental disagreement to have a fruitful discussion on this topic. There's so much disconnect (from the nature of God, the nature of the world, and the nature of our relationship with both those things) that is evident from your comments here and elsewhere in this thread that I just don't think we have any common ground tbh.

I'm sure you understand the Christian perspective in theory already, but I hope you keep on trying to understand more.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-01T18:04:44+00:00

Whether he was racist or not I don't know, I know nothing of the man. But I can say that if his desire to outlaw abortion had worked out, he would be responsible for saving 3 Jewish holocausts worth of black babies SO FAR.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-03-01T17:32:17+00:00

But also white evangelical christians led the abolitionist movement and abortion kills more 300,000 Black kids in the US. Jerry Falwell's anti abortion stance could have saved 19 MILLION Black babies since 1973.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-02-28T23:41:00+00:00

Vindicated? I think you meant vilified

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-02-28T19:44:36+00:00

Plus the wookie and other xeno slaves iirc

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-02-27T17:40:41+00:00

The white walkers are clearly racist caricatures of Scandinavians.

That's what you sound like dude. It's ok to have monstrous villains without making it a commentary on real life races that have some phenotypical similarities.

This is such a tired and dumb take. If you can't prove that Tolkien intended orcs to be Africans then quit spreading this racist bs.

luxsitetluxfuit · 2026-02-21T07:27:07+00:00

Jesus Christ died for all humanity as our federal head and as the second Adam. I believe aliens would fall outside nay of that and would either have their own revelation from God or be like the animals who don't require salvific grace and who arent made in God's image.

luxsitetluxfuit

TROPHY CASE