Nice Jesus: When Anon gets it Right
(files.catbox.moe)
Comments (69)
sorted by:
People forgot in their love is love version of Jesus that he specifically said Love to the father was paramount. He told people that if their families kept them from God to leave them.
Yes God wants you to love everyone, but correction is a part of love. If you saw your brother sinning you'd stop him, correct? So stop anyone from sinning because they are your sibling.
This idea that Jesus would accept sin because he was a hippie is laughable. He didn't tolerate sin he insisted you leave it behind to be with him. Jesus would never tell someone God put them in the wrong body, that God fucked up. Satan would do that, but not Jesus.
Enabling is probably one of the most insidious sins out there, and its the one the Left promote the heaviest.
Personally I'd rank it almost equal to the sin it enables itself, because there is solid argument to make that someone wouldn't sin without the enabler supporting them towards it.
This is is what the Western Church has called "scandal." Its also another example of how the English language has drifted. Scandal is considered a "mortal sin" by Roman Catholics precisely because enabling or encouraging others to behave in a detrimental way is evil.
Correct, and doubly so for children. Parenting is taken VERY seriously among real Catholics, because it is a solemn and serious duty to guide your little ones along the right path. Less so among Churchians, who you'll find frequently espouse postmodernist bullshit and exhibit a derision of this duty. I'm very thankful for my own parents, who were not the disinterested and absentee parents as were so many of their generation.
Millstones. That's what I worry about.
Higher maybe, in you're in a teacher or leadership position and enable sin. The Bible has some choice words for teachers who lead others astray
Quite true, once power dynamics get involved its certainly far more evil.
Faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love. The problem is "love' is a pretty shite word, and a piss poor translation of caritas. Caritas is the love that teaches difficult children, the love that leads to an intervention, and the love that begs wayward brethren to return. It has nothing to do romance. In fact older Anglo Christians never said "faith, hope, and love, " they said "faith, hope, and charity." In the modern era I presume this linguistic shift was intentional.
The verse you're talking about is 1 Corinthians 13:13, and the word there is not "caritas", it's "agape".
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/13/2/ss1/t_conc_1075013
Good point. I've imposed the traditional virtues over scripture; a bad mistake. I think my point may still stand: "love" is still not a great word to stack against agape.
I’ll never understand the Christians who quote judge not but forget that he told the woman go and sin no more
Woah buddy! Who are we to judge? I mean we have the scriptures and two thousand years of tradition, but wouldn't it be mean to tell a sinner they might be making a mistake?
As a note, that passage in the bible was an after the fact addition. It's removed from newer translations specifically because it's a pretty blatant forgery.
Which passage is a forgery?
John 7:53-8:11
It’s been a while but I remember hearing they believe the Gospels come from something called a Q reference or something like that. Been years since I was in the class. I guess my point was you can lovingly tell someone they are in the wrong. People have done so to me.
I do remember reading the Gospel of Thomas was written like 60 or 70 years after the 4 gospels
Are you talking about this? If so, that implies that John was different.
Thanks! I think I was in high school when all that was explained to me in my parents Sunday school class.
Q reference? So you're saying Q Anon has been around for thousands of years?
No. Something regarding the Bible
Wokies agree, they just call it call in/call out culture. The difference is wokies "correct" you if you're not being degenerate enough.
People simply don't know what love is. They equate it with romanticism and passions. Love is a choice, not a feeling, since feelings are fickle and temporary.
From a Catholic perspective, to love is to selflessly will the good of another.
Sometimes a slap is an act of love.
Gay pastors, rainbow masses, and evangelical acceptance of anything that keeps the dollars flowing. All of these trends have been a equally acknowledged by Christians, “Christians,” and Anti-Christians alike. How are we to tell the difference and why would a anyone even care? Well, here's an old chan post to clarify things any literate knucklehead knew a century ago. Discussion to follow, maybe.
Almost anything can be reinterpreted if you try hard enough. The eruv in New York is perhaps the ultimate example of that.
Can people who make these 4chan screenshots please narrow their windows before hitting print screen... PLEASE
Sorry. This is ancient, not my capture.
It's a wee bit annoying. I feel like an old type writer scrolling back and forth to read the mile wide sentences.
Image 1:
If you want to avoid having disagreements, paradoxes, but have some reduction of complexity, you can find a worldview (faith of reason). You can kill through all the variants and build your own. But that's too boring. I like a multi-faceted perspective. And I really like the idea of living with paradox.
The propagators of the idea Christians can be seen and heard from another and Christians argue you have to serve as you can see noise or have truth sprinkled all this truth at someone you know?
They opened Jesus eyes in the year, and that He never would have done anything to upset people. They say that He came down from heaven to protect tolerance and acceptance, and He said that anything that might offend someone is wrong. They claim that He never condemned anyone for anything, and that we should never say anyone might be wrong about anything.
Jesus: What are you talking about? I said I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Repent and believe the gospel. Anyone who does not believe is already condemned. I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.
"You aren't preaching Christianity you are just false lies. The above message of yours was that we should be nice to people because we don't them to be nice to us. That's how we can all be happy. Peace is a true gospel."
Be nice to be I love to you, and God will be happy. That's why Jesus message is "let's all be nice". The above is a strawman of Christianity. Really?
Jesus Christ preached a truth so radical and extreme that it brought Him a violent and agonizing execution. Really?
A Christian claiming to "tell the truth in love" to someone in a crowd, yet is loud enough and close enough to the crowd that the doctrine doesn't remain private. What's that?
"Shouting, bro. That's just shouting. Why do you want to anger and humiliate people in public? There's ways to reach people 1:1 or in small groups where you can have a real conversation."
Context matters. Shouting at randos is usually bad. But is it good to be loud at times? Sure. Why do you think God made us able to shout? God tells us to make a joyous noise. God tells us to lift up our voices like a trumpet to declare sin. Preaching publicly is good. The question is when and how.
I'm not the Jesus I read about in the Bible. I read of a strong, brave, open, and bold Savior. Compassionate, yes. Forgiving, of course. Loving, always loving. But definitely very bold.
Image 2:
On one occasion — at all events we recorded occasion — He used violence. The scene was the money-changers in the temple, and from all the reported He was not in the whole, gentle & (diverse hes) He was righteously indignant. He overturned the tables of the money-changers and drove out those who were buying and selling. His actions even scared His disciples. It was not in tune with the Jesus they thought they knew.
The real Jesus is fierce, and kind. Wrathful and merciful. Loving and Just. Full of grace and truth. Paradoxical to our finite minds.
If you watch the real, feel him at all.
Image 3:
Jesus wasn't nice. He was kind. Being nice and being kind are two different things. Nice means being pleasant, agreeable, and inoffensive. Kind means showing care and concern for others, even when it's difficult or uncomfortable. Jesus was undoubtedly kind - He healed the sick, comforted the grieving, and showed compassion to the outcasts. But He wasn't always nice in the modern sense of the word.
Jesus often spoke hard truths that made people uncomfortable. He called out hypocrisy and injustice. He challenged the religious leaders of His day. He overturned tables in the temple. He spoke about hell and judgment. These actions weren't "nice," but they were ultimately rooted in love and a desire for people's ultimate good.
True kindness sometimes requires saying or doing difficult things for someone's benefit, even if it upsets them in the moment. Jesus exemplified this - He loved people enough to tell them uncomfortable truths, challenge their assumptions, and call them to radical life change.
So while Jesus was unfailingly kind and compassionate, He wasn't always "nice" in the modern sense. He cared more about truth, justice, and people's spiritual good than about keeping everyone comfortable or avoiding offense. His goal was to save and transform lives, not just to be pleasant and inoffensive.
Suppose you catch your teenage daughter stealing money from your wife's purse.
You ground her until she apologizes. If she doesn't apologize, then she stays grounded. If she apologizes, she gets to do some chores to remind her that stealing has consequences and to show her penitence.
Does this mean you don't love your daughter? Of course not. A lack of love would be to permit the aberrant behavior, to enable it and to fail on your duty to guide and correct your children.
Freaks bastardize even the words they speak, blasphemously proclaiming that "love" requires you to tolerate and enable their behavior. Those are the words of the serpent, a satanic inversion of what is true and just.
"Love" is a pretty poor word. The issue is that every twat born after Marx in the Anglosphere latched onto "love." Our entire global politics is based on "love."
Of course. The propensity of the enemy to invert is especially present in language.
That's why every inch is worth fighting for. Because you don't know what the proverbial mile is behind it. It's why "conservatism" is a false ideology that leads only to failure, an ideology of constant retreat.
I was raised in a mid-90s evangelical church. It kindda sucked for me because it was all personal prophesy and scriptural interpretation. It wasn't their fault, but a sect based on every last dude's interpretation is hard. To over-simplify, I was 30 before I learned Christianity had a 2 millennia history of moral theory.
What really hit me hard after my Confirmation, was that ideas like "Satanic inversion" didn't seem as far fetched as I remember as a kid in a Evangelical church. That was probably because I had read fucking Foucault who liked to fuck slave boys and had a large influence on modern ideas of sexuality.
My personal discovery of the rot, so to speak, was the revelation that an enormous amount of the SFF author community were hardcore pedophile cultists.
I encourage everyone to read The Last Closet.
Vox was talking about that book and the sci fi/fantasy author community again the other week yeah, another couple of creeps were revealed IIRC
My discovery was the 2016 election and seeing the fucked up art. The spirit cooking yes, but more the shit the podestas and pizza stores in washington have hanging on their walls. Absolute freaks, evil is real and it has its grips on powerful people.
Very true. And one of the biggest and toughest pills to swallow. Evil is real and it is not rare.
The only people crazy enough to deny the existence of evil, are those who either so catered and coddled that they don't realize that they are becoming evil, or those so drunk and confused by evil actors, that they don't see the mask.
Once you see evil, you never forget it.
The fact that we use only one word to describe multiple, complex concepts has ruined it. Philia, Agape, Eros, we all know what the terms described mean, but then everything gets lumped into one, basic "Love is love" which muddies the waters beyond recognition.
Love is actually a good word, the issue is that it has been bastardized. Love is best understood as the sacral nature of your duty of care towards another.
This is why in the marriage vows, God's love for the church, and the church's love for God are understood as "love", as an obligation that each have to one another, and the sacredness of them.
None of our global politics is based on love. These terms are intentionally re-defined.
When the Left use the term "Love" they mean: enabling.
The nice Jesus stance is so convenient for Christ haters that they're dumping money into it. During the superbowl there was a commercial with a montage of pictures of people washing someone's feet. Whites washing black, two men holding hands, each with one foot in the tub. At the end it said something like "Jesus didn't HATE, HE WASHED FEET"
Link The comments confirm my suspicion. 5.7k likes to 53k dislikes.
This felt blasphemous. You need to see it to feel the vibe behind it but folks like us with the pattern recognition on will see it. They boiled down Jesus' purpose to that of a foot washing servant in order to push a LGBT agenda.
"Stop fighting! Your Jesus would have bent over and washed my feet for this inconvenience!"
Even as an Anti-Theist, jesus washed feet; but he was no slave, and certainly wasn't sucking toes.
People generally mix up good and nice. Being good is doing the right thing, even if may hurt (yourself or the others). Being nice is lying to everyone's face to tell them what they want to hear. If Jesus was nice, the world would love him. But the world doesn't, because Jesus is good, not nice.
This is a major problem today, that I see often especially with parents. They think they should be nice to their kids, never raise their voice, never tell them no, encourage them to do and try anything. That's just not how you educate someone, and that's not how God educates us either.
forgiveness is another big one. you're not supposed to let everything slide. you're just required to accept an honest genuine repentance.
Both verses are likely forgeries. They only appear in one manuscript that was written later than the other manuscripts we have that contain the book of John. The earlier manuscripts do not contain these verses. Research "Pericope adulterae" to find out more.
The verse in Luke 22 precedes the event that caused Jesus to say 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. He wanted to use the swords as a lesson and to fulfill prophecy. He himself mentions the prophecy in Luke 22:37. The lesson was to not fight, because Christians have no need to fight, because their kingdom is not of this world.
Everything else this anon said is fine.
100% on the Pericope Adultury.
Once you know to look, it's an obvious forgery.
Do you think that "don't fight, because your kingdom is not of this world" wasn't the lesson that Jesus taught?
Or are you just lamenting the consequences of this teaching?
Romans 12:18-20
Verses 17 and 21 also apply.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household"
Now, the trick is then they'll take bible quotes out of context and say it's a violent, backwards text that promotes intolerance
IIRC, he stormed the building with a group of armed men, and occupied it forcibly, and prevented a holiday ceremony from going forward.
What building did he storm with a group of armed men, and what ceremony did he prevent? Please cite the verses you're talking about.
I was hoping you all would know more than me. As it was described to me, he stormed the temple.
I know he stormed the temple, but I can't find anywhere it says in the bible that he had a group of armed men with him, or that he prevented a ceremony.
Let's be careful not to accidentally embellish details.
Always remember when asking what would jesus do, flipping tables and whipping people is an option.
nigger I ain't reading that