For some reason there are “Christians and conservatives” who exist simply to have a persecution complex. The juror who stepped down from the rittenhouse trial over what essentially boiled down to him believing in the constitution is a perfect example of this. It’s also why leftists lash out in glee, for there are plenty of self flagellating faggots on the right that bend over and say harder daddy.
Consider the history of martyrdom. How the Bible is read to tell people to rejoice in being persecuted, reviled and hated. It can give the idea that being outspoken and completely transparent about yourself and your faith is the way to go. As it is, it's not really clear when discretion would be applied.
Martyrdom is for when you are truly under the boot, like the Christians of the 1st and 2nd century. Amusingly the problem of people "pursuing martyrdom" became a problem the moment Christianity was decriminalized in the Roman Empire. It took effort by various Patriarchs to tell people "Cut that shit out, if they're not trying to feed you to lions, don't volunteer." Seems we're doing the same thing in reverse now.
That was actually 8chan, a site that "became to be known for racism and child pornography." Still that image is the best response to modern Christianity I've ever read.
Even spouting that horseshit is ridiculous. 8chan is as much "known for child pornography" as any other website with low moderation that the left has chosen to target. It was literally spawned from the censorship conducted against the users of 4chan during the gamergate scandal.
It was where the more serious userbase went to until it was destroyed, and huge swathes of us are still around.
Don't spew the enemy's propaganda about a site that should be remembered with pride.
I always called those "Hippy Churches." Churches that will say anything -- and condemn nothing -- to attract as many sinners as possible. They acknowledge the existence of sin, but they wont' tell anyone "hey you: you're sinning!" So they get these people in the door, and they make them feel good about themselves, but they don't help them get any closer to God.
It's the same problem with the Republican party, where they would rather "lose with dignity" than win by any means necessary. Sure, you can look like the bigger man while losing, but a loss is a loss no matter what. Eventually, those losses are going to pile up, and you can't fight a war in which you always lose your battles.
Imagine if your country refused to adapt to modern warfare, insisted on riding in to battle on horseback, and then cried "no fair" when they got cut to pieces by a belt fed machine gun.
This is the problem with modern Christians and the Republican party. They're too soft. They fear the reaction to their self defense more than the violence they already receive. The burglar isn't sitting outside your house, he's already inside, about to stab your wife and steal her jewelry. The time for meek pacifism is long gone, and being a cowardly nice guy is only going to make the suffering last longer.
They don't want to stain their pearly image of themselves, which comes above all things. As long as they can call themselves "a good person" then the rest of the world can crumble, the innocent can suffer, and evil be allowed to continue.
Whether it comes from a place of thinking so high of themselves, or thinking so little of themselves that their ego is built on mud, it functions the same. A compulsory need to always "do the right thing" in the moment, without a single thought for their place in the machine. Just be the spinning gear focused only on spinning.
If you look into the historical context of the time that Jesus was up and kicking, it's anything but; The entire 'turn the other cheek' is just modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the original message.
When Jesus says 'turn the other cheek', he's saying 'Force your enemy to respect you.' When he said 'carry their burdens another mile', he's telling you 'If someone seeks to enslave you, make them break the law'. Fight smartly, pick your battles, but you must fight.
Jesus was anything but passive. Violence is perfectly permissible, even applauded, under the right circumstance.
Modern teachings, however, have stressed the passivity to a near breaking point. There are two reasons for this, one known historically, and the other a personal theory of mine.
For one, women have been seen as the spiritual center of the family for atleast two centuries, if not more. Teaching of scripture is therefor going to focus on a more passive, 'get along' approach, as this is what appeals to women - and the more people in the pews on sunday, the more money the church gets.
My personal theory, though... Thing is, priests aren't stupid. They're college educated, in fact(depending on your denomination. The ones I learned of were.) And I think they very well know that the one most terrifying force in society is young, restless males, seeking to inflict change. So they work to try and remedy that, preaching passive martyrdom at every turn and opportunity.
And that's why you get modern Christanity. And why they've been consistently loosing people over the various decades.
But what the hell do I know. It's friday evening and I'm drunk. Fuck it.
Most of the perceived weakness is because of the church being usurped and decent people being taught values that are so divorced from reality that you end up with people forgiving unrepentant murderers, something that no sane belief system in history has ever encouraged.
Well, yes, leaders have often instituted a state religion change in order to shore up their power. I don't think it was because Christianity was inherently weak.
Christianity survived despite sometime Roman efforts to eradicate it. I'd say Christianity was, if not strong, then at least persistent. I think Constantine saw the value in a religion that was evangelical. That welcomed new adherents and that people could mass-convert to. It probably seemed new and interesting coming from the frontiers of the Empire.
That's true though. When it first hit the news one of the men said the people he didn't know were fbi at the time were saying things that made the man feel like he had to go to keep the woman safe.
It was always true that the Feds planned the whole thing. I guess the question is whether that left any culpability with the defendants. You'd think not, but I think these guys were convicted once already.
There are certain “privileges” granted to law enforcement, the courts, intelligence, military, prosecutors, etc., that only make sense in high trust, homogeneous, non-communist societies. With law enforcement, we allow our agents to embed themselves among terrorists, to commit highly illegal acts in furtherance of our national security. But what happens when the institution is captured by traitors? Suddenly our agents are entrapping patriots in furtherance of a communist agenda. These powers were never meant for such disgusting hands.
For some reason there are “Christians and conservatives” who exist simply to have a persecution complex. The juror who stepped down from the rittenhouse trial over what essentially boiled down to him believing in the constitution is a perfect example of this. It’s also why leftists lash out in glee, for there are plenty of self flagellating faggots on the right that bend over and say harder daddy.
Consider the history of martyrdom. How the Bible is read to tell people to rejoice in being persecuted, reviled and hated. It can give the idea that being outspoken and completely transparent about yourself and your faith is the way to go. As it is, it's not really clear when discretion would be applied.
Martyrdom is for when you are truly under the boot, like the Christians of the 1st and 2nd century. Amusingly the problem of people "pursuing martyrdom" became a problem the moment Christianity was decriminalized in the Roman Empire. It took effort by various Patriarchs to tell people "Cut that shit out, if they're not trying to feed you to lions, don't volunteer." Seems we're doing the same thing in reverse now.
Obligatory Nice Jesus
That's a great series of posts. Makes me miss the old 4chan. The new one is too... nice.
That was actually 8chan, a site that "became to be known for racism and child pornography." Still that image is the best response to modern Christianity I've ever read.
Even spouting that horseshit is ridiculous. 8chan is as much "known for child pornography" as any other website with low moderation that the left has chosen to target. It was literally spawned from the censorship conducted against the users of 4chan during the gamergate scandal.
It was where the more serious userbase went to until it was destroyed, and huge swathes of us are still around.
Don't spew the enemy's propaganda about a site that should be remembered with pride.
And yeah that post was quite good.
I always called those "Hippy Churches." Churches that will say anything -- and condemn nothing -- to attract as many sinners as possible. They acknowledge the existence of sin, but they wont' tell anyone "hey you: you're sinning!" So they get these people in the door, and they make them feel good about themselves, but they don't help them get any closer to God.
It's the same problem with the Republican party, where they would rather "lose with dignity" than win by any means necessary. Sure, you can look like the bigger man while losing, but a loss is a loss no matter what. Eventually, those losses are going to pile up, and you can't fight a war in which you always lose your battles.
Imagine if your country refused to adapt to modern warfare, insisted on riding in to battle on horseback, and then cried "no fair" when they got cut to pieces by a belt fed machine gun.
This is the problem with modern Christians and the Republican party. They're too soft. They fear the reaction to their self defense more than the violence they already receive. The burglar isn't sitting outside your house, he's already inside, about to stab your wife and steal her jewelry. The time for meek pacifism is long gone, and being a cowardly nice guy is only going to make the suffering last longer.
It depends on the individual and the individual circumstances. There can't be a single edict for all: each person makes each case brand new.
As a somewhat general rule: if you have family that depends on you, they come before world-changing martyrdom. If you're alone, go for it.
Innocent as doves, shrewd as vipers.
Its narcissism or cowardice, plain and simple.
They don't want to stain their pearly image of themselves, which comes above all things. As long as they can call themselves "a good person" then the rest of the world can crumble, the innocent can suffer, and evil be allowed to continue.
Whether it comes from a place of thinking so high of themselves, or thinking so little of themselves that their ego is built on mud, it functions the same. A compulsory need to always "do the right thing" in the moment, without a single thought for their place in the machine. Just be the spinning gear focused only on spinning.
Nah.
If you look into the historical context of the time that Jesus was up and kicking, it's anything but; The entire 'turn the other cheek' is just modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the original message.
When Jesus says 'turn the other cheek', he's saying 'Force your enemy to respect you.' When he said 'carry their burdens another mile', he's telling you 'If someone seeks to enslave you, make them break the law'. Fight smartly, pick your battles, but you must fight.
Jesus was anything but passive. Violence is perfectly permissible, even applauded, under the right circumstance.
Modern teachings, however, have stressed the passivity to a near breaking point. There are two reasons for this, one known historically, and the other a personal theory of mine.
For one, women have been seen as the spiritual center of the family for atleast two centuries, if not more. Teaching of scripture is therefor going to focus on a more passive, 'get along' approach, as this is what appeals to women - and the more people in the pews on sunday, the more money the church gets.
My personal theory, though... Thing is, priests aren't stupid. They're college educated, in fact(depending on your denomination. The ones I learned of were.) And I think they very well know that the one most terrifying force in society is young, restless males, seeking to inflict change. So they work to try and remedy that, preaching passive martyrdom at every turn and opportunity.
And that's why you get modern Christanity. And why they've been consistently loosing people over the various decades.
But what the hell do I know. It's friday evening and I'm drunk. Fuck it.
Cereal guy comic
Most of the perceived weakness is because of the church being usurped and decent people being taught values that are so divorced from reality that you end up with people forgiving unrepentant murderers, something that no sane belief system in history has ever encouraged.
Well, yes, leaders have often instituted a state religion change in order to shore up their power. I don't think it was because Christianity was inherently weak.
Christianity survived despite sometime Roman efforts to eradicate it. I'd say Christianity was, if not strong, then at least persistent. I think Constantine saw the value in a religion that was evangelical. That welcomed new adherents and that people could mass-convert to. It probably seemed new and interesting coming from the frontiers of the Empire.
Make sure to not say anything to get you excluded from the jury too!
Getting on juries is one of the few ways you can fight back on equal terms. They sure as well are.
Small victory but remember the process is punishment.
Details? Did they struggle to find anything that wasen't a direct instruction from an FBI instigator?
Yes, the defendants' lawyers argument worked this time that the Feds planned the whole thing, and these guys were just along for the ride.
This is hillarious. Too bad Leftists will never believe it's the truth and stop being Leftists.
That's true though. When it first hit the news one of the men said the people he didn't know were fbi at the time were saying things that made the man feel like he had to go to keep the woman safe.
Imagine living through a Drake and Josh episode where the violent black guy is replaced by a glowie for "inclusiveness".
It was always true that the Feds planned the whole thing. I guess the question is whether that left any culpability with the defendants. You'd think not, but I think these guys were convicted once already.
There are certain “privileges” granted to law enforcement, the courts, intelligence, military, prosecutors, etc., that only make sense in high trust, homogeneous, non-communist societies. With law enforcement, we allow our agents to embed themselves among terrorists, to commit highly illegal acts in furtherance of our national security. But what happens when the institution is captured by traitors? Suddenly our agents are entrapping patriots in furtherance of a communist agenda. These powers were never meant for such disgusting hands.
The guys who pled guilty must feel like the world's biggest dumbasses.
Great. Now arrest and put on trial the FBI agents that actually plotted to kidnap Whitmer.
I sense many more training sessions in the FBI's future.
If your one actual job is to be agents provacateurs you can't really fail at it every time and stay employed, can you?
Still accurate.