u/ExplanationKlutzy174

I'm planning a trip to Xi'an. I have all the classic spots: Zhonglou, Bingmayong, Da tang bu ye cheng, etc. One thing I'm still conflicted on is whether or not I should see the shows in my 3 day 2 night trip. A lot of people are saying that I have to go look at the performances, but honestly they don't seem my style.

For one, I'm looking at them online, and they are supposed to be "immersive history" but are so ultra-flashy and loud you'd think it was an EDM concert; the one I'm looking at is supposed to be about the Zhanguo Period -> Qin Dynasty.

And also, I feel like it's very propaganda-y, almost as if it's trying to make me feel connected to my ancestors from the Qin Dynasty, and feel as though I have a personal responsibility / allegiance to the legacy of the Qin Dynasty. It just rubs me the wrong way.

Are the performances really a must-see?

Edit: Why is the mere presence of em-dashes AI now?

I'm planning a trip to Xi'an. I have all the classic spots: Zhonglou, Bingmayong, Da tang bu ye cheng, etc. One thing I'm still conflicted on is whether or not I should see the shows in my 3 day 2 night trip. A lot of people are saying that I have to go look at the performances, but honestly they don't seem my style.

For one, I'm looking at them online, and they are supposed to be "immersive history" but are so ultra-flashy and loud you'd think it was an EDM concert; the one I'm looking at is supposed to be about the Zhanguo Period -> Qin Dynasty.

And also, I feel like it's very propaganda-y, almost as if it's trying to make me feel connected to my ancestors from the Qin Dynasty, and feel as though I have a personal responsibility / allegiance to the legacy of the Qin Dynasty. It just rubs me the wrong way.

Are the performances really a must-see?

Edit: Why is the mere presence of em-dashes AI now?

I've been raised in a very synergistic environment, but honestly I think as I was reading the Bible as a child I epistemically intuited that monergism was true. Synergism had to be explicitly taught to me by everyone else.

There are many biblical arguments for synergism (though imo not as much / as good as for monergism), but I've noticed that synergists usually never use those arguments and instead simply say that their "moral intuition" points to synergism. I think I — and most monergists — would agree. There is something morally jarring about the absence of free will, but you can learn to appreciate it and feel safe in this doctrine. What matters is epistemic intuition and reasoning.

God did unconditionally elect me, and He is the only one who can save me. Humans have no part to play in their salvation.

Honestly being confident in monergism feels so good. It feels like a contradiction that was lodged into my heart has finally been pulled out.

You're welcome to debate me on this.

Honestly, I think my heart was always poised to be monergistic as I was growing up. Reading the Bible as a child, even the simplest things like God hardening Pharaoh's heart made me naturally feel that monergism was true. I had to have synergistic explanations of these passages explicitly taught to me; monergism was intuitive. This isn't to say that monergism was morally intuitive; it was only epistemically intuitive to me.

Growing up, everyone at church made me feel that synergism was the only possible way the gospel works, and so this reinforced synergism as dogma and reinforced my moral and emotional reasons for adhering to synergism. Recently, however, I've been doing a lot of reading on this topic, and the biblical proofs for monergism were basically the same passages for which everyone gave me farfetched interpretations. Honestly, it was pretty hard to reconcile it with the synergistic moral framework that I was taught at first, and I had to try really hard to rebuild what I knew of God from the ground up, but I knew that I stumbled upon the truth.

I don't know how to explain it. My heart just feels that it finally has removed a contradiction lodged into it from a young age. Everything about it feels right. I feel like I've found what I've been looking for all this time.

I don't know what to do at this point, though. Basically everyone at my church seems vehemently against monergism, but I know my church isn't explicitly synergist.

Honestly, I think my heart was always poised to be monergistic as I was growing up. Reading the Bible as a child, even the simplest things like God hardening Pharaoh's heart made me naturally feel that monergism was true. I had to have synergistic explanations of these passages explicitly taught to me; monergism was intuitive. This isn't to say that monergism was morally intuitive; it was only epistemically intuitive to me.

Growing up, everyone at church made me feel that synergism was the only possible way the gospel works, and so this reinforced synergism as dogma and reinforced my moral and emotional reasons for adhering to synergism. Recently, however, I've been doing a lot of reading on this topic, and the biblical proofs for monergism were basically the same passages for which everyone gave me farfetched interpretations. Honestly, it was pretty hard to reconcile it with the synergistic moral framework that I was taught at first, and I had to try really hard to rebuild what I knew of God from the ground up, but I knew that I stumbled upon the truth.

I don't know how to explain it. My heart just feels that it finally has removed a contradiction lodged into it from a young age. Everything about it feels right. I feel like I've found what I've been looking for all this time.

I don't know what to do at this point, though. Basically everyone at my church seems vehemently against monergism, but I know my church isn't explicitly synergist.

I know it's a phrase that Ben Shapiro liked to use, but do you have any problem with it outside of the context of Ben Shapiro?

Is there anything inherently about the notion of prioritizing facts over moral intuitions / emotions that is problematic?

I'm also including people that are explicitly left-wing, but are shunned by the broader progressive left for not agreeing with them on everything (though by their metrics I would be considered part of the hardcore reactionary right).

Feel free to ask me about any others.

I have even stronger opinions on some Christian commentators if anyone wants me to do it.

Amala Ekpunobi: 6/10. Ok content, but usually pretty clickbaity and shallow. In 7 and above I look for people who consistently have interesting things to say other than parroting everyone else and I don't find it here. Does provide misleading statistics from time to time, and makes some logical leaps though.

Amir Odom: 5/10. It is so abundantly clear the bias he has for his own demographic. When he talks about religious people holding homosexuality to be sinful, he is so quick to label them as genuinely hateful / homophobic, but when he talks about issues as a third party person, he takes the stances that would have made him hateful using the same logic. You can't eat your cake and have it still.

Asmongold: 2/10. He is honestly so gross (most streamers are tbh). I can't find a better word to describe him than "npc". He seems to conform to whatever the people around him — or what the mainstream right's narrative — has to say. He also kind of stans Tectone, which I vehemently dislike for non-political reasons.

Based Camp with Simone & Malcolm Collins: 1/10. Wth so much disinformation. So many logical leaps. It's just conspiracy after conspiracy. Anything they try to comment on about which I also have knowledge is so blatantly false.

Basic Logic: 6/10. Some of his videos reach 7/10 or even 8/10 tbh, but his "tierlist" videos bring it down because they don't go in depth at all and sometimes wildly misrepresent / oversimplify positions.

Ben Shapiro 2/10. Tbh some of his earlier stuff was ok. Now it's very clickbaity and his argumentation is focused on rhetoric instead of content. He definitely does make up random statistics as well.

Brett Cooper: 6/10. Same as Amala.

Joe Rogan: ???. Depends on who is interviewed.

Jordan Peterson: 4/10. Same deal as Ben Shapiro. He has become such an annoying sophist that flaunts his qualifications while ignoring that it has no relation to the stuff about which he comments. I'm rating him higher than Ben Shapiro because there is still a lot of insightful things to take from him. He had a laughable attempt trying to act like being a "cultural Christian" isn't absolutely empty and sad. He brings shame upon UofT.

King Critical: 9/10. I'm biased because he's a leftist, but he makes extremely well argued videos that pretty decisively knock down gender ideology. I haven't found a single person that has actually brought up good counterarguments. Many people — especially on the trans subreddits — skim through his videos and misrepresent him without even understanding his argumentation. He actually helped me become gender critical.

Matt Walsh: 4/10. Tbh I do think "What is a woman?" was pretty good, but didn't go as deep as I would like. Everything else about him is kind of cringe. Also he "cancelled" one of my favourite podcasters so yeah.

Mentis Wave: 8/10. Genuinely insightful and argues pretty well. I do disagree on most of his conclusions, but most of my disagreements are predicated on his premises and axiomata instead of his logic. I can recognize that most of his framework is pretty much internally consistent.

Michael Knowles 6/10. He's Catholic, but acts like a new "BasedCrusader69420" person that converted superficially. Suffers from the same problems as Amala Ekpunobi. Nothing special about his argumentation. Doesn't make a good case for Catholicism.

Misha Petrov: 7/10. Has insightful things to say outside of parroting the mainstream right.

Nick Freitas: 4/10. I didn't know what to rate him. His content is very very surface level, and does a ton of parroting. I just think he's trying to be something he's not. To be honest if he just presented himself as a lay person just like any of us that is navigating this world I think his personality would make me rate him pretty high up.

Nuxtaku / Nuxanor: ???. Based off of his content, 1/10. Based off of his form, probably a 7/10. He doesn't have anything useful to say; it's just that the way he says things are pretty funny. If you're watching him just for its comedic value, sure. If you're watching him thinking that he has anything useful to say, please stop. I also don't like his hyper-clickbaity thumbnails on his youtube videos (I can't be bothered to actually rate his content on stream). I wish he went back to making anime content and stayed in his lane.

Pearl Davis: 1/10. Pick me, spews random inflammatory / clearly braindead takes to drive engagement. Why do people watch her? I remember she got owned by an apologist from Catholic Answers.

Remnant777: 4/10. He sounds like a really young person probably trying to be deep and based — and probably is. Gives cringey "BasedCrusader69420" vibes. To anyone who really likes him — have you listened to when he tried to debate someone else? This dude can't get his point across clearly to save his life. I don't have anything too bad against him, although I feel that his viewpoints are not too well informed. It's just that I don't think he has anything too fruitful to actually say.

ShoeOnHead: 8/10. I'm biased here because she's actually a leftist and I can agree with her on many more points. She does make good videos though.

Triggernometry: ???. Depends on the person interviewed.

Tyler Oliviera: 2/10. This rating is simply because he explicitly claims to be doing "journalism." It's horrible journalism that is extremely one-sided. If he claimed to be an entertainer, his rating would go up since his content is pretty well edited and put together.