A Stonewall Moment of Some Sort Is Needed | Doug Wilson 

A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience, although, differentiation is necessary, since, in other cases, it might be demonstrable that the small step will likely lead to an effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense it constitutes an informal fallacy. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome. Other idioms for the slippery slope argument are the thin end/edge of the wedge, the camel's nose in the tent, or If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.

That's a beauty!

My goodness this is like a John Knox kind of man 🤗

well then, off top, upfront, it canNot be a "'my' army"; But, something along the line of "YHWH'Soldiers", "YESHUA'Slaves"! ~ sDg

Do you want the church you go to to be godly? You know, your church?

“No one has ever fought for a worse cause.” -Grant

@@adamsmith4195 “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take” ~ Abe Lincoln

@@CoxinatorProductions ​Well, Lincoln never said that and Grant did. Larger point though is that having watched the video, I still don't understand why Doug Wilson is holding up someone like Stonewall Jackson as an example and saying he doesn't want to re-litigate issues in the war. This is a self-inflicted wound. Countless examples from history about heroism as a rallying point. The Alamo in "S"an Antonio would have been far better, since in that case, like Christ's, the heroic side was triumph. The Jackson metaphor fails on so many levels, especially for a postmillenialist. To identify with the side struggling for the right to own slaves is no good metaphor for someone trying to be aligned with Christ.

That's hilarious...but true

It doesn't take much for them to get in "panties in wad!!!" mode. Godless twits. They need some real problems; not imagined invented ones.

I love my four seasons and I won't apologize for it! 🤣🤣🤣

Who’s kindness?

It was Brig. Gen. Barnard E. Bee who gave Jackson and us the inspiring Stonewall label ... only moments before being struck by the Union artillery shell that would take his life a day layer. Not a bad contribution to make as you go down swinging ...

As far as I can tell it’s a “no further” thing. They want to cancel you, if you don’t accept 52 or more genders.

I guess ask yourself what Christ would do

We need perhaps to be more studied up on the other religions and more vocal that there are only two. Cain and Abel, the narrow path and the broad. Bob Dylan's "you gotta serve somebody" speaks it somewhat. There's the Way, Truth and Life through Jesus Christ, or there's the wrong way from lies to death of the evil one. Jesus didn't force or coerce any to believe, we should follow the Truth, be unashamed and bold to speak it, and dust of when it goes unheard. This will allow God's patience and mercy to be seen in that His true freedom allows for those who don't want His way to choose the false freedom of believing lies that He will give consequences of in His time and judgement. I need prayers from my brothers and sisters in Christ to not appease and to share the Truth God has so graciously guided me to.

@@adamfehr4119 Its not what would he do, but what did he do. He told everyone to repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus is King of kings. All king must obey and enforce all ten commandments. If they don't, they are rebellious. If any in the Church speak otherwise they also are rebels and will be found wanting on judgment day.

He looks tan to me.

The word is ruddy.

Interesting tactic you chose to use there.

Hint: the Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was an economic one to keep the South from getting to powerful economically. You think every Yankee who “volunteered” went to war to free the slaves? 😐

@@chuckcribbs3398 Thanks for repeating the dumbest lost cause canard ever. Very helpful. (Sarcasm alert) Maybe YOU need a hint: Hint all wars are economic. This was a war to preserve an economy based on slavery. That is irrefutably made clear by the Southern s.o.b's who wrote it down in their secession documents. From the many letters we have of northern soldiers, thousands joined specifically to free the slaves and signed up singing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." Of course most did not. Most joined because they had to or because they wanted to save the union. With respect: You have the same access to the original documents that I have. You might consider taking more advantage.

@@jonathanfischer5292 If I'm not mistaken, wasn't slavery used as a northern virtue signal in order to invade the south, on the pretext of wanting to free African slaves, while actually only really wanting to create a strong central (Oligarchical) bank, a strong federal government which can over-tax and oppress the American people domestically, and then compete with Prussia, England and France militarily? I think slavery is a horse beaten to death a trillion times over, and the Civil War didn't actually "free" African slave labor; go to any inner city and drive through a typical American slum and you'll see how free the descendants of these people feel. The civil war was about turning America into an Industrialized consumer Nanny State by the Robber Baron and for the Robber Baron, not by the people and for the people as our half witted school textbooks will insist on. Unpaid Chattel slavery turned into modern urban wage Slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation is just a sweet sounding virtue signal, because slaves and slave owners never disappeared: they just changed names. The new slave owners own the banks and charge interest, and today's new slaves go to public school and stay where the middle management slave drivers put them until retirement and death. The Confederacy was actually about maintaining a farming Republic of small sovereign states (which makes Direct Democracy more feasible), the North wanted an industrial Imperialistic Empire that wastes resources bullying third world nations and turning our children into woke conformist campus lemmings (all at taxpayer expense of course). Slavery wouldn't have lasted much longer, as technology would replace the need of manual labor anyways. I believe many Southerners owned their own farms and picked cotton side by side with black folk, if I'm not mistaken. Reality isn't as black and white as your elementary school teachers said it was.

@@mruder2229I've heard this kind of sophomoric claptrap before. It has the ring of truth because the evils of the power elites which you decry are very real. The only problem? Almost none of that was extant at the time, at least not in ways causitively relevant to the war. You are projecting current problems anachronistically into the past. And your "song of the south" romanticizing of the confederacy, along with your demonizing of the north is simply gross, a-historical, and easily disproved. We have the declarations of the southern states explicitly stating they were preserving slavery. We have the letters of thousands of union enlistees stating explicitly that they signed up to free the slaves as well as save the union. The tremendous influence of The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and John Brown shows the true motivations of the good people of the north. The christian slave-owning south had ignored their consciences in favor of their own wealth for too long. The war was, as Lincoln rightly observed, God's just judgement on the WHOLE nation for overlooking such an evil for so long. This was far bigger than the mere machinations of men. It was absolutely biblical my friend.

@@jonathanfischer5292 Your deflection of the fact that not all southern farmers were slave owners is the true claptrap that must be addressed. I agree with you on the point of many northern troops signing up to fight against the evil of slavery, however creating an irrelevant strawman issue out of my arguments by oversimplification by claiming it as "Romanticism" and a projection of current problems into the past makes no sense whatsoever. The civil war was indeed about slavery, good sir, and, if we can see far reaching consequences from them to now, it was also about the issues of industrialism and America becoming a new Imperial power to compete with the powers of Europe. Don't forget to mention how slavery never truly died off, it merely changed it's form in subtle ways. Chattel slavery gave way to corporate and early industrial exploitation, and the destruction of the Christian agrarian extended family, which still has far reaching consequences on the way we (both blacks AND whites) live to this day, so it isn't projecting today to then, but simply describing how then shaped today. Do not let the strawman fallacies blind your reasoning. Also don't forget how industrialism brought about a situation where social engineering, public relations and mental manipulation could rise out of the ashes of that war, and replace the traditional ethics of local Christian charity and community. We have turned mechanism into our new God and Profit into the substitute morality, instead of appreciating it within limits and giving credence to a creator. We have lost just as much, if not even more, in terms of social and political stability when compared to the freeing of the slaves. Slavery was bad, but using it as a smoke screen virtue signal to rip the extended family apart and herd people into exploitative cities is another atrocity that never gets noticed by modern anti -slavery apologists such as yourself.

Um yeah about that... The south fell man. I'm sorry to break it to you. Dixieland was whooped badly and are still part of America. My condolences, the Confederate states are no more 😂

@@Niko-fx2uj It did take y’all almost 5 years to defeat a country with 1/10 the population and like no industrial base whatsoever. It’s like bragging about beating up a child that held you off for 30 Minutes.

@@Willwhite5809 y'all? You mean the United States? Keeping waxing poetic about a bunch of loser rebels. It's hilarious

@@Willwhite5809 so close man. Almost had it 😂

@@Willwhite5809 I mean 5 years is fantastic. To completely destroy the opposition. We've been in Afghanistan 20 and Vietnam was a slog and both of those conflicts can't be called resounding routes. So I'll take 5 years and unconditional surrender and celebrate it for the good ole US of A

"That's a nice reputation you have there. It would be a shame if something were to ... happen ... to it."

I think he is speaking to those who have ears to hear.

@@zapazap Wait, do you really mean "heat" or is that just a typo?

@@ctvtmo It was a typo. Thanks! :)

Dan Norris is it necessary for one to understand so many points correctly, in order to be saved? The *fact* of Christian truth is necessary, yes; but is it not possible, even likely, that one may be saved and misunderstand? That sounds like one's salvation would be dependent on his pastor's teachings being correct. I'm not saved by my pastor's orthodoxy, and neither are you.

@@tedshoemaker923 The primary doctrines about the gospel are not hard to understand, only believe because they insult our pretensions about our virtue. Chesterton understood the gospel doctrine of election but rejected it because it didn’t comport with his idea of Gods justice or whatever. The gospel is not just objective dogma but a powerful message that converts the elect hearer by illuminating their mind and renewing their heart, see 1 Peter 1:22-24, Acts 11:13-15, 13:48-49. 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14. This last passage also points to the truth in the gospel that saves people. God doesn’t convert people with falsehood. Bottom line, God is soveriegn and leads believers to understand and confess the truth. Yes their are false shepherds that lead people astray, but the real sheep hear Christs voice they know him and follow him, see John 10. The idea that someone can be a sheep then spend their life attacking primary gospel doctrines like original sin, sovereign grace and election is absurd and destroys the possibility of gospel confessions the unity of the church and In my opinion undermines Christian Theism.

@@dannorris8478 So a potential convert has to have his doctrine correct in order to be saved? I submit that most new converts haven't even considered all the important doctrines. 1. You're expecting people to have their doctrine in order before the Holy Spirit regenerates their understanding. 2. If our salvation is dependent on our understanding, then it is dependent on our pastors and teachers. No! My pastor's understanding or misunderstanding does not save me. 3. The Bible evangelizes with commands to obey, not with propositions to understand. Jesus says "Follow me". Doctrines are explained in Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews -- books written to those who already were converted. 4. Please understand my comments are not meant to attack you. I wish you the best, and hope we can dialogue in good fellowship.

@@tedshoemaker923 Converts are made by God. He converts them with the foundational gospel doctrines of Christ’s substitutionary death and his Resurrection which demonstrates his Sonship, His power and his authority over life and death. Paul calls these doctrines of “first importance” in 1 Corinthians 15:1,2. He teaches them as well that their salvation depends upon believing these doctrines not just following Christ which is of course also part of his gospel. The Corinthians own confusion over whether or not believers will be resurrected too demonstrates the truth that confessing believers can indeed be confused. We however have the advantage over them of a completed Canon but if the Corinthians continued to deny the bodily resurrection of believers after Paul’s instruction they were not confused believers but confused non believers. Real believers don’t reject the gospel as it is more fully revealed to them. Keep in mind my initial post was not about young converts but about “Theologians” like Chesterton who apparently despised important gospel doctrines like election and Grace. I appreciate your willingness to keep things civil and polite to promote unity and understanding.

@@dannorris8478 The truth, the fact, of gospel doctrine is very important. Understanding that doctrine is useful for growing. But understanding doctrine is not a condition for salvation. The virgin birth, for example, is important, because Jesus is the son of God, not the son of Joseph or of any man. But understanding the virgin birth -- indeed, even thinking about the virgin birth -- is nowhere held up in scripture as a requirement for anything. Can we make a distinction between the importance of a thing, and the importance of our grasp of it? In the material world, it's imperative for our survival that we have iron in pur bodies, as one example. But if you happen to believe the four elements are earth, air, fire, water, that doesn't keep you from living. That was my point.

(i) If the wrong people think ill of you for the wrong reasons then you are doing something right -- that is indeed a Christian message. (ii) There are hundreds of Christian messages, for different people at different times, and it is impossible to deliver all in one video. Agree?

@Phillip Hickman I know right? Douglas is such a cry baby 🍼🍼

@Phillip Hickman yes, yes I'm right? Thanks man. Your affirmation means the world to me 😘

@Phillip Hickman Im glad we agree that Douglas couldn't actually handle real adversity the way he cry's about these issues

@Phillip Hickman yes it is dumb that Douglas keeps whining. Really dumb. Glad we agree yet again 🥰

Pathetic.

At some point, you have to decide if you are black or Christian.

@@robertcoeymanjr.2550 what

​@@robertcoeymanjr.2550 I feel pretty sure this is not that point. You also have to remember that the issue of slavery to msny black Americans (Christian or not) deeply penetrates into a place of insecurity. Many have been raised with both latent and patent signs indicating to them that they are not entirely welcome by white Americans. Simply telling them to "get over it" or anything similar is going to be offensive to many, and the line of which ones will be offended may not be "Christian won't and non-Christians will." While Stonewall Jackson is not the worst Confederate one could pick in this regard (he wasn't quite "as racist" as, say, Jubal Early), to a black American, this is akin to picking the least ignoble Nazi and then holding him up as a model.

Anyone practiced in chess games against fierce opponents will tell you that the bulk of their time is spent 0n thinking moves ahead. This video presented a pretty good ratio, I think. :)

Also allot of people appreciate this style of talk it’s artistic and impactful. And efficient.

@@blipflorn6453 Some are silly for Christ' Cheers! :)

No side thought that slavery was good.

Jackson never owned slaves and was an opponent of slavery. He dedicated much of his time, in violation of Virginia law, to teach blacks to read read the bible.

Two critiques (i) I don't think Doug ever spoke of slavery per se as good in itself, and he has spoken of some firms of slavery as downright evil. (ii) You say he was on the losing side of _what conflict_? You have elided that in your comment' Cheers! :)