639 Photos and videos
Have kids. Life is better when you're working with purpose.
Jun 7
I have a friend with a 130ft yacht. One day we were chilling on it …
I said “I need to own this boat someday”
He said “no it’s too big, hard to find dock space, to much crew. The best boat I ever had was my 90ft”
I said “so sell this and buy a 90ft”
He said “fuck that, I’ll sell this for a 190ft”
That was the moment it hit me.
He won’t ever be satisfied with all his shit and striving to his level means I am not satisfied with all my shit.
We will both forever be on the Hedonic Treadmill.
69
To be fair, most young married families aren't paying property taxes 😔
May 28
Young married families with children should not pay property taxes.
1
97
Caleb ♟️ retweeted
Apr 22
Can a biblical case for infant baptism be made?
Abraham was directly commanded to circumcise infants (Genesis 17:10-12). That was a physical sign given to a physical nation.
Under the New Covenant, Christians are given no such command. Baptism is tied to a different reality.
The New Covenant is explicitly not like the old (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Under this covenant, God's law is written on the heart, and all who belong to it know and follow the Lord, not according to the flesh, but through faith.
That's the dividing line.
Every clear command regarding baptism is tied to repentance and faith:
• Acts 2:38 – "Repent and be baptized..."
• Mark 16:16 – "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..."
• Acts 8:12 – "When they believed... they were baptized, both men and women."
• Acts 8:36-37 – "the eunuch said, 'See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?'
And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.'"
• Colossians 2:12 – "having been buried with him in baptism... through faith"
Many try to claim that baptism is the "new circumcision," using Colossians 2:11-12 to make their case, arguing that since infants were circumcised, infants must now be baptized.
But if baptism truly functioned like circumcision in that way, then ONLY male infants should be baptized and it must be done on the 8th day.
Paul says we are circumcised without hands, a spiritual circumcision, that comes THROUGH FAITH. So it's not as simple as saying that baptism is the new circumcision and then applying it the same way to infants.
Baptism doesn't replicate circumcision, but fulfills what physical circumcision made by hands could never do: change the heart.
Paul also shuts down the Judaizers in Galatians 5:2–6. Requiring a covenant sign for inclusion in the people of God is rooted in a misunderstanding of the gospel.
He doesn’t say, “We don’t circumcise anymore because now we have baptism: the new circumcision!”
Instead, he removes the category entirely:
"neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6).
No physical sign can make you a born-again child of God. Only God’s grace through faith can. Nothing external ever could, and that’s precisely why the New Covenant was established in the first place.
An infant does not enter the New Covenant simply because someone decided to baptize them. After all, "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8).
Circumcision marked a nation by birth.
Baptism marks believers by faith.
Conflating the two collapses the very distinction the New Covenant established.
131
21
140
33,076