That's because "be kind" in the Leftist doctrine has nothing to do with the actual word kindness, and everything to do with "let me do whatever I want."
Its the childishness of their brain, who associates discipline and dislike of action with outright hate. Just as a child being stopped from killing themselves with a fork would scream "why do you hate me?!"
Yep - they want you to be politically “kind” which is treat the other side or anyone who holds even one opinion different from the current ever-changing progressive orthodoxy like garbage. Every word they use has a secret political meaning.
Yes that's what "tolerance" is about, like being forced to tolerate a dog barking all day or bugs inside your house. The most "tolerant" person is simply a slave that endures their conditions.
100%. As I understand it, the love of a father is the love that God has for his children. That's the kind of love you're supposed to emulate. And being a weak father is not love, because a father must be strong. That includes punishing people for doing wrong.
They are the ultimate losers in the....whats the word......geneticv lottery....
The genetic lottery......This is why the feminists hate you...They lost....They are ugly as fuck...The only people they can compete with on an attractive and mental level. Are kids. Kids are open , they can look past the hidious fucking demons in front of thwm because they have faith.
If you say “fuck Muhammad” in a majority Muslim country, you will be murdered. But Christians are the “hateful” ones for verbally objecting to your attack on their faith. Got it.
Turn the other cheek is not a call to rank pacifism. I do not buy that interpretation That would be contrary to his other teachings, carrying a sword and millstones
The interpretation that works best I think, it needs some cultural context. The romans were a society that ruled and lorded it over their provinces, being able to make people do work for them and carry stuff, and they would routinely slap their inferiors and slaves. They'd slap each other too, honour was a thing back then, but it was a different type of hit. Now also look at the middle eastern context even today. The left hand is dirty, it is for cleaning and toileting, it is unclean.
Now look at exactly what Jesus said, if they slap the right cheek. He didn't say the left, he didn't say a cheek, he said if they slap you on the right specifically. What you do as a subject of Rome in that region is in a way, resist, insist you are equals, and that if you're gunna fight and slap, they do so on the other cheek, with the clean hand, and like equals, as though it were with a fellow Roman.
To a roman, this is 'hateful', it is saying that non roman's are equal to they, at least, which is an unfathomable and disgusting thought to them. (I can see some parallels to today really)
The other lines near that one lend more strength to that interpretation. If you are pressed into service to carry something one mile, go two? Well that just sounds weak right? Well no. The Roman gov was conscious of the fact that the 'you must carry stuff for our soldiers' laws were being abused and creating more discontent, even they had limits. Their soldiers were only allowed to have the locals carry it so far, but no further. This is an act of defiance and perhaps mockery also, to offer another mile. If he takes you up on it, he has broken Roman law and disobeyed Caeser.
There is context to these that show they're, while not aggressive, they're a form of assertive resistance. They're all claims to dignity and resistance without recourse to violence really.
This also fits with the wise and clever interpretations of His teachings. There are numerous instances of the jews and pharisies against him trying to ensnare him in some legal trap with tricksy wording to get him in trouble before it was time or in a vain attempt to disprove his teachings, and Jesus would say a clever specific thing that would stump them. He's very careful and clever about wording, as is respected tradition at the time too, and we're 2000 years removed from the cultural context of some things and some gestures. He said right cheek specifically. So we should ask and explore why.
Yeah? Care to elaborate on what my "pagan" rituals are, exactly?
That said, I'm hardly Christian obsessed and wouldn't besmirch any religion except Islam. Live and let live. Also, I'd take Christianity over any other religion.
I used to be a part of an atheist group that had a winter solstice celebration complete with pagan imagery. But no Christmas party, because, you know, atheists. They didn’t like it when I pointed that they’re not actually being atheist so much as anti Christian. Dismissing one belief system as silly and magical then embracing a different silly magical culture isn’t rational. They got all pissy and said I wasn’t being tolerant and brought up how the Christians oppressed wiccans or whatever.
I’m not with that group anymore. I’m still atheist, it I’m of the opinion that most atheists are retarded. And for some reason, yeah, a lot of theme seem to embrace paganism.
And yes. I recognize this is anecdotal evidence and thus worthless.
I don't engage in "winter solstice celebrations," and I have zero issues with Christmas or Easter. What was the pagan imagery in your case?
As you know, the winter solstice is a calculation, the one day per year, for each hemisphere, where the respective pole is furthest from the Sun. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is acknowledging the shortest day of the year (in terms of sunlight) a pagan practice to you or others here? If so, it's not "pagan," it's practical. There are limitless tangible benefits to planning around such an event.
If that's pagan, so is acknowledging the tides, or that leaves fall in autumn, or that temperatures fluctuate depending on time of year, or that planets have moons or other orbiting satellites. Is taking advantage of understanding time and cyclical patterns "pagan?"
My issues with religion overlap significantly with my issues with feminists, LGBTwhatever, BLM, etc., it's just often a matter of degree. Outsiders and non-believers are looked down on (case in point), transgressions by insiders are rationalized away or ignored or celebrated, explanations or claims of natural and social phenomena lack even the slightest pieces of convincing evidence, the tiniest worldview challenges result in zealous tribalism and denial, and censorship and silencing dissent are commonplace.
I also think religion is basically arbitrary and almost always a product of geography first, but people have a problem with admitting to themselves that it may mean they're susceptible to suggestion, so they get defensive. Just like every ideologue on the planet. Wait, it is a planet we're on, right? Or is that "pagan?"
As you know, the winter solstice is a calculation, the one day per year, for each hemisphere, where the respective pole is furthest from the Sun. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is acknowledging the shortest day of the year (in terms of sunlight) a pagan practice to you or others here? If so, it's not "pagan," it's practical. There are limitless tangible benefits to planning around such an event.
I'm not sure if I'd call it a "pagan ritual", but the fart-sniffing here needs some sort of name.
Most people who are even marginally self-aware need SOME sort of world-view, some explanation for why we're here and where we're supposed to be going, what happens after we die, etc.
A lot of people who become disillusioned with religion become resentful of it for some reason--probably they resent being duped.
I totally agree--some of the most inflexible and dogmatic people I have met are atheists.
Love isn't the same as kindness. Kindness is to be polite and inoffensive. Love is to selflessly will the good of another, even if one has to be unkind.
I would argue that being polite and inoffensive isn't even necessarily 'kindness'. There's nothing 'kind' about enabling someone hooked on drugs or any other destructive habit until their addiction finally destroys them & sends them into an early grave, after all. I would categorize the coddling & enabling of people's worst impulses demanded under the name of 'tolerance', 'kindness', 'empathy', etc. by the left as more just 'being nice', in the same sense that white Minnesotan liberals are putting their 'Minnesota nice' on display for all those Somalis screwing their state up.
Neither love nor kindness have anything to do with inoffensiveness.
Look at 4chan. If they're calling you a fag and telling you to kill yourself, that's kindness, it means they've read your works and thought about them, and give you honesty in response. Look at Canada. If they're calling you sexually-diverse and telling you to seek MAID services, that's NOT kindness, even though it's the exact same message as on 4chan, but with such polite and sanitary terms, they genuinely wish death upon you.
They always hold their enemies to higher standards. They know they're scum. Anyway, Jesus said to always carry a sword. Sell the cloak on the back if you have to, if you don't have a sword. Kindness doesn't mean subservience.
Christians who treat people who hate them with sweetness are exactly the problem.
Again, coming at this from my anti-theist bent; but it's pretty clear you don't treat people who are attacking you sweetness and honey. If a mongol is burning your church, you pick up a god damned weapon.
As far as I understand it, the reason you "love your enemies" is only such that you basically carry your responsibility that God bestows upon you to "love" all of God's children. And by love, we mean a moral responsibility to do good actions that will benefit everyone. You love your kid, but if he points a loaded gun at his sister, you are not going to kiss him. Even if it's an accident, you tackle that sumbitch because you love your son. You want what's best for him even if that hurts him in the immediate moment.
Frankly, this kind of love is the kind of love a Medic or Corpsman has for his soldiers or marines. The kind of love that will break bones and due unspeakable pain to you, in order to save your life. You love your enemies in a way where you understand your obligation to God to help save them... that does not mean you kill yourself with kindness that will not be repaid.
The emptiness of their lives creates resentment, especially when they discover that joining a death cult, whether its transgenderism or communism or neo-Marxism, is not quite as fulfilling as they'd hoped.
That's because "be kind" in the Leftist doctrine has nothing to do with the actual word kindness, and everything to do with "let me do whatever I want."
Its the childishness of their brain, who associates discipline and dislike of action with outright hate. Just as a child being stopped from killing themselves with a fork would scream "why do you hate me?!"
Yep - they want you to be politically “kind” which is treat the other side or anyone who holds even one opinion different from the current ever-changing progressive orthodoxy like garbage. Every word they use has a secret political meaning.
Yes that's what "tolerance" is about, like being forced to tolerate a dog barking all day or bugs inside your house. The most "tolerant" person is simply a slave that endures their conditions.
100%. As I understand it, the love of a father is the love that God has for his children. That's the kind of love you're supposed to emulate. And being a weak father is not love, because a father must be strong. That includes punishing people for doing wrong.
They are the ultimate losers in the....whats the word......geneticv lottery....
The genetic lottery......This is why the feminists hate you...They lost....They are ugly as fuck...The only people they can compete with on an attractive and mental level. Are kids. Kids are open , they can look past the hidious fucking demons in front of thwm because they have faith.
Just my opinion.
If you say “fuck Muhammad” in a majority Muslim country, you will be murdered. But Christians are the “hateful” ones for verbally objecting to your attack on their faith. Got it.
if you say fuck Muhammad in a non Muslim majority country, you still might get murdered
Fuck Muhammed!
I also dislike pedophiles
Fuck mohammed, fuck jesus, fuck greta.
Hateful isn't exclusionary. It works for both situations, not only the worst. Hyposcrisy abounds in identity politics though.
If we’re going to be relativist, then “hateful” works for every situation.
No, it doesn't. Saying "Turn the other cheek" (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:38-40&version=NIV) isn't hateful. Saying "Die, degenerate/pagan/faggot/etc" is.
Jesus is pretty hypocritical there then. He should've just turned his lower cheeks towards them.
Turn the other cheek is not a call to rank pacifism. I do not buy that interpretation That would be contrary to his other teachings, carrying a sword and millstones
The interpretation that works best I think, it needs some cultural context. The romans were a society that ruled and lorded it over their provinces, being able to make people do work for them and carry stuff, and they would routinely slap their inferiors and slaves. They'd slap each other too, honour was a thing back then, but it was a different type of hit. Now also look at the middle eastern context even today. The left hand is dirty, it is for cleaning and toileting, it is unclean.
Now look at exactly what Jesus said, if they slap the right cheek. He didn't say the left, he didn't say a cheek, he said if they slap you on the right specifically. What you do as a subject of Rome in that region is in a way, resist, insist you are equals, and that if you're gunna fight and slap, they do so on the other cheek, with the clean hand, and like equals, as though it were with a fellow Roman.
To a roman, this is 'hateful', it is saying that non roman's are equal to they, at least, which is an unfathomable and disgusting thought to them. (I can see some parallels to today really)
The other lines near that one lend more strength to that interpretation. If you are pressed into service to carry something one mile, go two? Well that just sounds weak right? Well no. The Roman gov was conscious of the fact that the 'you must carry stuff for our soldiers' laws were being abused and creating more discontent, even they had limits. Their soldiers were only allowed to have the locals carry it so far, but no further. This is an act of defiance and perhaps mockery also, to offer another mile. If he takes you up on it, he has broken Roman law and disobeyed Caeser.
There is context to these that show they're, while not aggressive, they're a form of assertive resistance. They're all claims to dignity and resistance without recourse to violence really.
This also fits with the wise and clever interpretations of His teachings. There are numerous instances of the jews and pharisies against him trying to ensnare him in some legal trap with tricksy wording to get him in trouble before it was time or in a vain attempt to disprove his teachings, and Jesus would say a clever specific thing that would stump them. He's very careful and clever about wording, as is respected tradition at the time too, and we're 2000 years removed from the cultural context of some things and some gestures. He said right cheek specifically. So we should ask and explore why.
Of course it is. I don't understand why this opinion is unpopular here.
Hate has its place. The idea that it can or should be somehow suppressed at all costs is idiotic and a recipe for disaster.
Sometimes hate is a logical response to conditions.
Oh no, “atheists” who are so Christian obsessed they don’t even realize their worldview is just revamped paganism 😂
My worldview isn't paganism.
That being said, if your an atheist, you really don't have to worry about Christians and their attitudes.
Muslims on the other hand... oh jeez.
If I live in a place where I hear a call to prayer 5 times a day, I need to make sure I have a gun and an escape plan.
Yeah? Care to elaborate on what my "pagan" rituals are, exactly?
That said, I'm hardly Christian obsessed and wouldn't besmirch any religion except Islam. Live and let live. Also, I'd take Christianity over any other religion.
I used to be a part of an atheist group that had a winter solstice celebration complete with pagan imagery. But no Christmas party, because, you know, atheists. They didn’t like it when I pointed that they’re not actually being atheist so much as anti Christian. Dismissing one belief system as silly and magical then embracing a different silly magical culture isn’t rational. They got all pissy and said I wasn’t being tolerant and brought up how the Christians oppressed wiccans or whatever. I’m not with that group anymore. I’m still atheist, it I’m of the opinion that most atheists are retarded. And for some reason, yeah, a lot of theme seem to embrace paganism. And yes. I recognize this is anecdotal evidence and thus worthless.
I don't engage in "winter solstice celebrations," and I have zero issues with Christmas or Easter. What was the pagan imagery in your case?
As you know, the winter solstice is a calculation, the one day per year, for each hemisphere, where the respective pole is furthest from the Sun. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is acknowledging the shortest day of the year (in terms of sunlight) a pagan practice to you or others here? If so, it's not "pagan," it's practical. There are limitless tangible benefits to planning around such an event.
If that's pagan, so is acknowledging the tides, or that leaves fall in autumn, or that temperatures fluctuate depending on time of year, or that planets have moons or other orbiting satellites. Is taking advantage of understanding time and cyclical patterns "pagan?"
My issues with religion overlap significantly with my issues with feminists, LGBTwhatever, BLM, etc., it's just often a matter of degree. Outsiders and non-believers are looked down on (case in point), transgressions by insiders are rationalized away or ignored or celebrated, explanations or claims of natural and social phenomena lack even the slightest pieces of convincing evidence, the tiniest worldview challenges result in zealous tribalism and denial, and censorship and silencing dissent are commonplace.
I also think religion is basically arbitrary and almost always a product of geography first, but people have a problem with admitting to themselves that it may mean they're susceptible to suggestion, so they get defensive. Just like every ideologue on the planet. Wait, it is a planet we're on, right? Or is that "pagan?"
I'm not sure if I'd call it a "pagan ritual", but the fart-sniffing here needs some sort of name.
Most people who are even marginally self-aware need SOME sort of world-view, some explanation for why we're here and where we're supposed to be going, what happens after we die, etc.
A lot of people who become disillusioned with religion become resentful of it for some reason--probably they resent being duped.
I totally agree--some of the most inflexible and dogmatic people I have met are atheists.
Atheism is just anti-Christianity. It's all about rejecting morality.
I bet they went on at length about "The Burning Times"...
They have refined kind to mean total acceptance and extreme coddling no matter what.
Love isn't the same as kindness. Kindness is to be polite and inoffensive. Love is to selflessly will the good of another, even if one has to be unkind.
I would argue that being polite and inoffensive isn't even necessarily 'kindness'. There's nothing 'kind' about enabling someone hooked on drugs or any other destructive habit until their addiction finally destroys them & sends them into an early grave, after all. I would categorize the coddling & enabling of people's worst impulses demanded under the name of 'tolerance', 'kindness', 'empathy', etc. by the left as more just 'being nice', in the same sense that white Minnesotan liberals are putting their 'Minnesota nice' on display for all those Somalis screwing their state up.
There's a pretty good collection of 4chan posts that nails the difference from many years ago, and which I think still absolutely applies to this 'Nice Doctrine'.
You're right.
Yeah, agreeing with this. Niceness is actually a problem.
Neither love nor kindness have anything to do with inoffensiveness.
Look at 4chan. If they're calling you a fag and telling you to kill yourself, that's kindness, it means they've read your works and thought about them, and give you honesty in response. Look at Canada. If they're calling you sexually-diverse and telling you to seek MAID services, that's NOT kindness, even though it's the exact same message as on 4chan, but with such polite and sanitary terms, they genuinely wish death upon you.
They always hold their enemies to higher standards. They know they're scum. Anyway, Jesus said to always carry a sword. Sell the cloak on the back if you have to, if you don't have a sword. Kindness doesn't mean subservience.
Christians are supposed to be compassionate... And often the compassionate thing to do is to tell somebody the harsh truths they don't want to hear.
Anyone complaining about offended christians wouldn't fucking dare offend a Muslim.
Christians who treat people who hate them with sweetness are exactly the problem.
Again, coming at this from my anti-theist bent; but it's pretty clear you don't treat people who are attacking you sweetness and honey. If a mongol is burning your church, you pick up a god damned weapon.
As far as I understand it, the reason you "love your enemies" is only such that you basically carry your responsibility that God bestows upon you to "love" all of God's children. And by love, we mean a moral responsibility to do good actions that will benefit everyone. You love your kid, but if he points a loaded gun at his sister, you are not going to kiss him. Even if it's an accident, you tackle that sumbitch because you love your son. You want what's best for him even if that hurts him in the immediate moment.
Frankly, this kind of love is the kind of love a Medic or Corpsman has for his soldiers or marines. The kind of love that will break bones and due unspeakable pain to you, in order to save your life. You love your enemies in a way where you understand your obligation to God to help save them... that does not mean you kill yourself with kindness that will not be repaid.
The heathen continue to rage.
The emptiness of their lives creates resentment, especially when they discover that joining a death cult, whether its transgenderism or communism or neo-Marxism, is not quite as fulfilling as they'd hoped.
Oh my god that nigger is posting a smuggie without knowing it is supposed to be ironic.
Say fuck Mohammed. Do it!
yeah because it happens so often, npc.
Chapter, verse and context or gtfo. So many things are pulled out of context and used as a bludgeon both against believers and non believers.