Pinned Tweet
Christians must have an answer to this accusation.
This atheist is correct about evangelicals like Joel Berry: they have the same perspective that an illegal alien or invading army might have. Christians think "the world is not my home" and therefore they become traitors.
True Christianity is not this way. In scripture Paul says if a Christian does not care for his own people then "he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
When the Jews were captured and enslaved in Babylon God told them to "seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the prosperity thereof shall ye have prosperity.”
God’s people should seek the good of the place where they live, even when the surrounding society is not faithful to God. How much more should God's people seek the good of a Christian Nation.
Modern Christianity destroyed this and taught Christians to ignore "secular" issues and focus on the "sacred." If you really want to follow Jesus, you need to be a pastor or a missionary. If you become a dentist or politician then you are a lesser Christian because your concern is on the physical and not the spiritual.
That is all bunk. Every last bit of the physical world is inextricably entangled with the spiritual. A Christian dentist is not only secular labor. The Holy Ghost infuses a Christian's work so that dentistry, politics, and every other endeavor is sacred.
The Christian Nation is a holy people, set apart from the world of chaos and despair. The Christian must pray, love, fight, and die for such a nation.
It is not a Christian virtue to be a traitor.
Thank you for removing the mask, Joel. Even if it may have been inadvertent.
You have, of course, simply confirmed what I said in the first place.
You are not an American Patriot.
You are a Christian Globalist.
Sey is a member of your tribe, and I am not. America is not your homeland, it's just where you keep your stuff. You do not feel loyalty to Americans, any more than you would feel loyalty to the guy who rents the storage unit adjacent to yours.
The same goes for Western Civilization as a whole. The ethos of illegals who defy American custom and law, who disrespect the American people, by sneaking into our homeland to profit from us, makes complete sense to you. Because it is your ethos as well.
You live in America not because America is special to you, or because you feel you owe it, and us, anything at all. You simply live America because it is comfortable and profitable to do so.
Unfortunately, this is not currently considered sufficient legal grounds to deport you to wherever the homeland of Christian Globalists is, Ghana or Bethlehem or the afterlife, whatever. Up to you.
So we can't rid ourselves of you just yet. But what puzzles me is why you think that membership in the Christian Globalist Tribe somehow gives you the legal and moral right to hand out tickets to America.
The bible does not come with a green card stapled to it.
America, and the right to hand out tickets to it, belongs to Americans. And, by your own admission, you are not one. That's what you said.
Now, I'm sure that saying you are a citizen of the kingdom of god has a nice ring to it, and your Christian Globalist friends may all have clapped when you said it.
But, unlike America, the kingdom of god is an idea. You haven't built it yet. You can't point to it on a map. And, while I'm sure you can think of lots of fine poetic-sounding metaphorical retorts about the kingdom of god living in the hearts of Christians everywhere, or something, you cannot actually go and live in that metaphor, because it's not a place, and it's not zoned for residential.
We have to keep the physical place we live nice, and we are doing that the way humans have always done that — by physically controlling our borders and who gets to cross them.
But you are not interested in these kinds of adult responsibilities. You are not interested in stewardship of the temporal earth, or the people on it. You have rejected this in favor of a lifestyle where your only responsibility is to love Jesus with the maximum possible intensity, and to miss no opportunity to tell everyone just how much you love him.
Frankly, if I were Jesus, which I am very much fucking not, I would find this slightly creepy, and quietly ask you to maybe tone it down just a bit.
But my concern is not the nature of your relationship with Jesus. I wouldn't even know about that relationship if you didn't insist on praying loudly on street corners.
My concern is the future of America, the future of Western Civilization, and the future of humanity, all of which are intertwined, and all of which will suffer if you are allowed to sneak open borders in the back door, concealed in a hollowed-out bible.
Gavin Ortlund filmed a video called “The Dangers of Christian Nationalism.” One of his chief concerns is the loss of religious toleration, a first amendment right that Ortlund considers to be sacrosanct. This is fascinating for a number of reasons.
First of all, it reveals that Gavin has a religious devotion to the Constitution, over and above what he finds in Scripture. To be specific, it is the Constitution as viewed through the lens of 20th Century Liberalism. The founders never intended the 1A to protect demonic statues and Islamic ghettos.
Secondly, Gavin does a Jesus juke, explaining that we actually win by losing. After accusing Christian nationalists of commingling the spiritual and the political realms, he actually does that himself by encouraging Christians to accept worldly losses (and even death) in order to be more than conquerors spiritually.
Thirdly, Gavin’s a priori commitments to liberalism actually prevent him from what he says at the end, “So let us by all means do everything we can to now bring his lordship into every aspect of life, in all the ways that we can, including the political realm.” Ortlund has already conceded that public idolatry must be tolerated! So it’s not “by all means” in any sense at all. It would be more accurate to say “by all means that aren’t mean.”
This is very much the same loser theology promoted by Phil Johnson and others, wherein we should vote for godly candidates and laws, but just don’t take it too far since we win by losing.
Of course, this is all designed to ultimately discourage Christians from political engagement, or worse to permit them to vote for the left. As Gavin’s father Ray Ortlund posted in 2024, “Never Trump. This time Harris. Always Jesus.” 🤮
Imagine how great America would be if Boomers were as good as they think they are
Replying to @ThomLately
I wish they were right! Imagine how great the country would be if this were true!
In the Bible, "Partiality" is the sin of injustice.
Partiality is when the rich are not held accountable to their crimes because of their connections.
Partiality is when you punish one of your sons more harshly than the others because you don't like him.
Replying to @ThomLately
What do you do with there being on partiality with God though? Is that only in salvific matters and not racial matters?
"hath made of one blood all nations of men" is not an egalitarian and universal statement.
We can have a common ancestor and still be profoundly particular.
A Great Dane has the same common ancestor as a Chihuahua.
Replying to @ThomLately
You forgot to read the rest of that very same verse which states that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men" ... which we can both agree is a profoundly egalitarian and universal statement.
Christianity is exclusive regarding only doctrine or faith... "salvation through Christ alone" it is radically universalist regarding membership. Anyone, regardless of race, social status, language, or geographic origin can enter the fold. It can never be particularistic outside of it's salvation doctrine. That theological structure is exactly what paved the way for modern universal human rights, liberalism, and egalitarianism more broadly.
Your scriptures do emphasize caring for one's household and community but the New Testament constantly subverts both tribal and national ingroup preference. The Gospels in particular where Jesus explicitly redefines both neighbor and family to transcend ethnic and national loyalties.
It's bedrock simply doesn't permit particularism without being heretical to it's own teachings and quickly becomes incoherent if attempted.
Christianity is not universalist in the way you think it is.
God is the God of the universe, and Lord of all. In that sense, yes Christianity is universalist.
But compared to liberalism, Christianity is NOT universalist. Here are two examples:
1. God says race is real
2. Christ is the only God
Scripture says race is real: “God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Racial egalitarianism is anti-Christ.
Scripture says Christ is the only path to salvation: “There is no salvation in any other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Everyone who does not claim the name of Christ will be eternally punished in darkness where the fire burns forever.
None of this is the liberal universalism that we have been taught.
Replying to @ThomLately
Unfortunately because Christianity is inherently universalist - it cannot be particular and not be heretical.
This is why it has always and will always lurch leftward. It sands down all people, all other religions, all borders, all meaning, down into one singular amorphous non-distinct form.xitter.cf/Orsonstfu/status/20684…
Thommy Come Lately retweeted
If what @RHPalmerston3 and the @DHSgov say about Sey's legal status is correct, there's serious implications for entities that paid him as a contractor for writing, speaking, and advocacy...
DHS says Samuel Sey overstayed his visa by FOUR YEARS.
Okay, then how exactly was he getting paid to teach, write, speak, and podcast in the United States?
If BCA, G3, Doug Wilson-affiliated ministries, CCV, or other organizations were compensating him, what did their onboarding and tax compliance look like?
W-9 or W-8 on file? 1099s issued? I-9 completed if he was an employee? Did anyone bother establishing whether he was legally authorized to work?
Because the potential fallout here extends well beyond Sey himself.
Failure to file required information returns can trigger IRS penalties and withholding liabilities. Misclassifying employees as contractors can expose organizations to unpaid payroll taxes. And knowingly contracting for unauthorized labor can create an entirely separate immigration-law problem.
The question isn't whether these organizations agree with Sey politically. It's whether they exercised even rudimentary due diligence when engaging and compensating him.
If they didn't, this could become a rather expensive lesson in the difference between ideological solidarity and basic organizational governance.
I'm curious how many of these ministries have their paperwork in order.
Thommy Come Lately retweeted
Humans are a pack animal.
This may be hard to understand if you are evangelical and think the book of genesis is literal rather than allegorical, but humans are a pack animal.
What this means is that the human desire for the acceptance and support of a tribe is as fundamental as the desire for food, for air, for water, for sex, for sunlight, for love.
If you tell young men that they cannot have a tribe, they're not going to accept that.
Ever.
Especially if you tell that only to the young men of one tribe in particular. They're going to wonder why everybody gets to have a tribe and they don't.
And they're eventually going to decide that you are the enemy.
Because you are. Anyone who stands between young men and what they need for a healthy, fulfilled life is their enemy.
That includes you.
And if you manage to convince them that god doesn't want them to have a tribe, it will also include god.
The more you push back against their healthy and natural desire for a tribe, a homeland, and a birthright, the more they will hate you, and the more exclusive their definition of that tribe will become.
There is no way you can stop this. The only thing you can control is how far they have to go, how radical they have to become, in order to get it.
Because this can go all the way from enforcing immigration law, and shutting down corrupt visa programs right now, to gangs of young White men in balaclavas with Ar15s going door to door ten years from now.
We have to do something about the 14th amendment. I don't care if that makes you uncomfortable or unhappy. It's not a choice. The constitution exists to serve Americans, not the other way around. If that sentence confuses you, read the first paragraph of the constitution.
If we do not, young men of the future, the same little boys who are being radicalized right now by your malicious indifference, will treat a piece of paper that says they cannot have a homeland the way they would treat a piece of paper that says that can't eat food, or a piece of paper that says they can't own a home, or have a wife and children.
You may think that you offer them a tribe in the form of the universal kingdom of god, the community of all believers, but that's just a word game and you know it, which is why you are so defensive about the whole thing.
Where was the universal community of believers when these young men needed help? When they needed not just the surface appearance of a tribe, but someone to do the things that tribes actually do for younger generations they care about?
The pack serves a concrete set of functions in the life cycle of the human species, and you cannot perform those functions with a cardboard cutout.
Young men are sick of religion that offers them responsibilities with no rights, lectures with no help, demands with no love or empathy.
It's odd, in a way ironic, that, I, the man of zero faith, should have to be the one standing here telling self-styled religious leaders how they failed both their people and their god.
But having no faith does give me one advantage. It frees me from the delusion that Jesus is a puppet that I can pull out of my pocket, slip over my right hand, move his mouth and make him say what I want.
I used to wonder, as a child, what the phrase "taking the name of the lord in vain" actually meant.
But I no longer wonder, because when I became a man, I looked around me and saw all these people who talk to god and somehow get told exactly what they want to hear.
Then I understood that the key phrase here wasn't "in vain". It was "taking". Taking the name of god and using it as a tool for one's own goals.
Joel, here, is sad that his friend is getting sent home. This personally inconveniences both him and his friend, which effects Joel in a way that young men being denied their birthright does not.
So he finds an interpretation of scripture that says that god wants him, Joel Berry, to get his way, and that god wants all the young men who want a homeland and a birthright to go get fucked.
I'm not terribly impressed.
Replying to @JoelWBerry
And after you’ve donated once, donate once again to stick it in the eyes of the demonic neo-Nazi cringelords posing as “Christian Nationalists” who are gloating over Samuel’s situation.
Men have porn to satisfy their soul.
Women have crowds cheering them on for being boring losers.
Both siders are satisfied to watch their soils rot and smoke weed (men) or take SSRIs (women) if they feel the loss
The thing is that men don't naturally want to marry, but a society needs men marrying at scale in order to be stable and prosperous, you need to be able to harness the power of the "average man," to get him to have stake in society and contribute, and the best way to do that is to give him a reasonable shot at marriage and property ownership... to entice men to marry at-scale, you need to give them a reasonable shot at a woman with (at least) limited sexual experience who he has some amount of authority over, full stop. We don't offer that at scale, we offer, at scale, "gently-used" women at the tail end of youth who men have zero authority over, who can leave them at any point for any reason, who face no obligation to give them kids, who view what most would consider "good wife behavior" as degrading pickme-ism... not to mention that men are told incessantly by society at-large that they're not "owed sex" by their own wives, which is a proposition that would've been unthinkable to offer a man at any point prior to say 2010... women can say this is fair, it's more just this way, the previous way was Patriarchal Oppression, OK, whatever, but be that as it may, the current marriage offer isn't good for men, and instead of getting married at scale, they're shifting slowly towards opting out at scale, do with this information what you will
Real
Replying to @TexanJacobite
Zoomers just have to recreate 4,000 years of tradition and wisdom, rebuild a parallel society and economic structure with institutions and orgs. And not be broken 30 year olds after being demonized since birth. Cool plan





























