Yeah, Andy Griffith show is one of my favorites and I love it, but even in the first season, I pick up on some feminist messaging which is annoying.
They at least let the women look foolish at least half if not more of the time, but there is definite "see men!" moments in the show which I really don't like.
Just don't even invoke a battle of the sexes as a plot. I always hate it.
Sexes are complementary and even if the episodes resolution ends up with that conclusion, you still have the majority of the runtime dedicated to women competing with men and it's downright unpleasant to watch.
I understand how much it was pushing the envelope for the time.
I'm not denying that.
The only difference is there's nothing bibically inherently immoral about an interracial kiss. There is something biblically inherently sinful about the tranny stuff.
If we're going to assess things by how big of a deal they were at the time, we could do that for a lot of stuff. Like it wa a controversy that the movie Psycho showed a toilet flushing. You're not supposed to have that be seen in cinema according to sensibilities of the day.
Does it being a big deal at the time mean it's on the level of tranny and wokeness? I don't think you would consider a toilet being shown as in that category.
Do I like the interracial kiss? Knowing what the agenda has been, no. Do I think it's on the same level because the audience reaction was the modern day equivalent that we'd have over something horrendous. No, I don't think it's on the same level objectively speaking.
By the same token, if the woke crazies were to become the majority, like a true majority and something conservative happened in a movie and it caused national outrage, that they considered subversive, that wouldn't give you insight into the morality of the thing itself.
You have to deal with it objectively outside of general audience reception.
Is a white man kissing a black woman objectively immoral? No.
Was it pushing the envelope of the culture. Yes.
Was that envelope pushing part of a larger destruction of the values of our society? Yes.
So I'm against it for those two out of three reasons.
However the tranny, gay and other blatant anti-white bullcrap fails all three categories.
You can stop at the very first question in their case. Is the tranny gay and anti-white stuff objectively bad? Yes.
So they aren't perfectly equivalent. I don't like it for what it represented, but again, a white man kissing a black woman is not sinful or inherently wrong unlike stuff today.
I found you Razorfist!
I've never heard anyone except Razorfist use the term apotheosis.
Just kidding, unless you actually are Razorfist in which case my powers of deduction win again!
I thought that TNG had some definite agenda and viewpoint that I didn't like.
It was much more "man is inherently good" centric.
Most of that show was Picard trying to prove mans worthiness and how deep down man will fix everything and be perfect beings because we're so innately special and good.
Basically a denial of the sin nature.
The original series absolutely at every turn acknowledged that man is flawed and didn't trust mankind's nature with many lines pointing out the dark side of the human nature, not in the past tense, but in the present tense.
As an example. The first episode of TNG is Picard vs Q basically arguing with Rodenberry's strawman of God and beginning the series long argument that man is great, whereas the first shot episode (it was aired out of order) of TOS is a guy who gets god-like powers and how that's a really bad idea and ends in disaster because man is prone to sin (even if they don't use the word sin explicitly).
That's one of many issues I had with TNG, but I'd say the majority of my issues with TNG stem from that philosophical difference in starting position.
If your baseline premise is faulty, every conclusion made by using that baseline premise is going to miss the mark.
But in general I would also say TNG just had a more feminine outlook in general. There was less masculinity to the thinking, acting, characterization, etc.
Exactly, but even then, I'd say, it's considered progressive because people remember some of those stand out moments.
The half-black, half-white fight that was meant to be a "woah, racism is like stupid man....." and the interacial kiss.
There's like 30 episodes per season.
The majority of the show isn't left leaning or right leaning.
Including the messaging. Most of the time the messaging would be as simple as "having quiet wars where no cities get destroyed, but millions of people die is bad...war is supposed to be ugly which is why you try to avoid it". These "messages" weren't usually as much about pushing an agenda, as giving an intriquing conflict to figure out how to resolve where you have culture clash. And back then the good guys represented the values the typical American would have. Whereas TNG and later would be more "morality is grey and who are we to say their culture is wrong". Whereas Kirk and his team were more like, no....this is right, this is wrong, your society is stupid.
The aforementioned position on war being ugly by design would fall into the category of a common sense message that pretty much anyone would agree to. I think Sun Tzu would probably agree with that as a generally true statement even if you yourself are pro war.
90% of the show is apolitical, 9% a mix of ideas conservatives and liberals might debate on, and then a tiny, once in a while smattering of some, for the time, "progressive" (read subversive) moments that people remember and associate the show with that are actually few and far between.
So in that 90-99% of the time you're left with general writings and attitude of the time which is stuff that makes people with modern day sensibilities fall over into their fainting couches.
Not sure. I'm not deep into lore for Star Trek anyways.
Context is for a second, I think it's been taken down now, someone uploaded a mod restoring male and female instead of body type 1 and 2 for Oblivion Remastered.
A lot of "transgenders" or at least people who are pro that stuff were doing what you'd expect in the comments.
I left that comment.
What I posted, is the entirety of what I said. That middle comment is not mine obviously but is showing the context of what I was replying to in the second comment.
Now in contrast some really vile things were said about Jesus, Christianity, the Bible...it doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess at the types of things they were saying.
Did they get "formal warnings"? I doubt it.
Nothing I said was phrased in an inflammatory way.
I've heard his reasoning, but can't elaborate much since I started with Oblivion and never played any of the games before that game.
The main thing I remember in his reasoning is that fast travel was a good feature, that was in Daggerfall that was removed in Morrowind. That people blame Oblivion for "dumbing down" with a feature like fast travel, when in actuality it's re-implementing a feature that was removed in Morrowind but existed in previous games. I believe also he says that in Daggerfall you had to specialize more and play as a class, and commit to it, ie; actually role play as the class you were playing and Oblivion leaned into that more than Morrowind did.
I don't know much else of the reasons he's given but he has talked about it.
But the thing with Razorfist is trying to understand his opinions with video games are a losing battle.
I don't think there's a single person I have more different tastes with when it comes to video games.
He's very clear headed when it comes to politics, but he can be led by reactionary thinking to excuse something from Microsoft or Nintendo that he would rip to shreds with Sony.
It's not uncommon for him to praise a game with the exact mechanics he tore into in another game because the developer said something based.
When it comes to opinions, he kind of has this thing like "splitting". Where something is either all good or it's all bad.
He's a good thinker with politics, but even in that realm he can fall prey to "splitting".
An example of "splitting" is
"pulp is good, George Lucas aims at pulp, therefore the prequels are pulp and the prequels are good and everyone loved the prequels when they came out and Empire Strikes back was controversial....Prequels good and loved, and all the talk on all the star wars is revisionist history"
Empire Strikes Back won the people's choice award and played every summer in theaters until Return of the Jedi came out in 83. None of the prequels ever got a re-release except for Phantom Menace in 3D and it was such a disappointment that they scrapped the plans of giving the rest of the prequels the 3D treatment.
I have this gaming channel im starting up and if you don't write descriptions, you don't show up in the algorithm, but it's tedious, so I generate a large description using grok after writing a relevant sentence or two.
The thing is though, I put in all caps before the grok wall of text
THE TEXT BELOW IS GENERATED BY GROK TO HELP WITH THE ALGORITHM, FEEL FREE TO IGNORE
Because I don't want to be a scumbag and just want the long description for the retarded algorithm.
They absolutely have the right idea. Women voting and having a part of the political process is something you will find foreign in historical societies.
Women have traditionally exercised political will by being wives or mistresses to kings and whispering in their ear and because sex is a powerful drug, it's often gotten kings to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.
The Bible says "women are more easily decieved".
All societies understood to some degree the nature of women. Women are to be appreciated, but for their specific qualities, those qualities which uniquely suit them for child rearing and home-making.
Those same traits make them terrible judges when it comes to weighty issues and decisions which is why the man leading the home is the model set in the Bible.
Even non-Christian nations were typically wise enough to understand that men leading the home and women staying out of difficult decisions is the rational model, but America got so comfortable in the late 1800s that they decided to start indulging in "luxury politics" such as giving women the right to vote, being so foolish as to ignore that the Bible says women are more easily deceived, and ignoring the observable reality of women being easily swayed by emotion, and not being the most rational creatures.
It would be like giving a 7 year old the right to vote. Utterly moronic.
I'm not saying women are dumb like children, but they share the quality of being led largely by their feelings like children.
I can relate. I'm a man with broad shoulders who is being denied my dream of being a victoria secret model just because I have a "masculine look"
I'm currently suing as well. Please send good vibes for my stunning and brave legal battle.
I'll speak generally and say that forgiving someone doesn't need to be public and on the news, and spoken about at all, much less right at the moment when you're possibly emotional.
When he said there's no racial element, that's just incorrect. Even if there was zero racial motive in that crime or anything to talk about wtih racial background of that perpetrator, you cannot deny how the two circumstances are treated there isn't a racial element.
It's like saying there's no racial element in the OJ Simpson trial. I don't think OJ committed murder for racial motives, but it's one of our most racial moments in US history as a significant amount of one side rooted for murder to be allowed for racial motives.
So wise, or unwise, him saying no one should bring up race is just incorrect, as those who have been paying attention notice where the disproportionate amount of violence is coming from and the attitude of that community.
But you have to grant that he could have been in an irrational and emotional state and stuck his foot in his mouth because it's his way of dealing with the trauma. His example is actually too unreliable because if your son just died, it's just about impossible to make a guess of what was going through his mind.
To answer what a wise forgiveness would look like, there's Christians who have talked about having a loved one murdererd and the years it took to forgive the person, but they were ultimately led by God to forgive the person. This wasn't a public thing, it wasn't on the news, it's just something that they wrestle with and the timing is different for everyone.
I find myself having to forgive people I've already forgiven because something will remind me of something and the wound gets opened up again and I have to remember what Jesus forgave me of, and I let it go.
Forgiveness is something you do and isn't a showy thing for the news and the community. No one even has to know you have forgiven someone or even know that someone has wronged you.
If it comes up at an appropriate time, it's not wrong to talk about it.
I think in Austin's father's case, he had the misfortune of, because of the racial dynamics of the country, get catapulted into the media with perhaps pressure, at the very least a subconcious knowing pressure of being labelled this or that and may have made a mistake.
I think the best thing Austin's father should have done is said a very short thing, just said "I'm in mourning and I don't want to speak" which not one person would fault anyone in that position for saying.
Then bring that hurt to God with the help of other loved ones. That forgiveness process doesn't have to be in any way public or for cameras. The world isn't obligated to know your wrestling with difficult topics and working out how to forgive.
No one expects someone to be able to forgive something like that immediately. There's an expectation that it will take time and healing.
So what I'd say is it wasn't the best thing for the father to go the route he did. I'm not able to judge his heart and actually Christians are commanded not to judge other people's heart. He and I have the same judge, so it's not my job to judge his heart.
I can just say there were issues that arose with what he did and how he did it. His heart may have been in the right place. Your heart can be in the right place and make the wrong decision because we're easily misled by our heart and our heart is deceitful.
But again, his son just died, so a lot of latitude should be granted to someone in that position.
I'm more irritated at the culture that promotes and continues to promote a sacred cow-ism of the ghetto culture where no one can ever say what's obvious.
But Austin's father should be given grace because he probably wasn't in his right head.
Forgiveness isn't meant to be blind or done naively.
Jesus commands Christians to "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" and Proverbs tells us to not even trust a neighbor or a friend.
You can forgive someone while recognizing that they're bad news and you need to get away from that person.
And when you see that the person seems to have changed, depending on the circumstance, you can reconcile with that person, but it should be done intelligently and accurately assessing things so you don't get chewed up and spit out.
People do try to take advantage of gracious natures so that's why Christians should be careful to sus that out.
But you can forgive someone while deciding unless something changes, you're never going to associate with that person.
One example could be, you used to be into drugs, and your drug dealer did a lot of screwed up stuff to you.
If a Christian forgives that drug dealer, should they then go reconcile with that drug dealer?
Probably not, because if drugs were an issue for them, the wisest thing to do is get rid of any contacts from your phone that have anything to do with drugs but still be praying for them.
Now if you've been 10 years sober and drugs aren't a temptation for you anymore, and you want to share the gospel with the person who used to be your drug dealer, now it's a different situation, but in both situations a Christian shouldn't be going in naively and assuming good about the other persons nature.
You can forgive and also recognize that people search for weakness and will chew you up and spit you out if they get the chance and you ought to be careful.
That's why Jesus said in Matthew 10:16 "Be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves".
In other words, be kind, be loving, but also be smart.
I too defend on the basis of the covenant promise, and further clarified in Romans 9, that God is not done with Israel and people are acting foolishly if they are conceited and think Christians have replaced them.
We've been grafted in, and one day Israel will repent at the end.
Just read Romans 9
Supporting Israel doesn't mean you think they're perfect or that they're behaving righteously. It is the church position to defend Israel as the scripture is clear on where Israel sits today. They sit as temporarily hardened, but the Abrahamic covenant still in effect and they will be restored, and nations that oppose Israel are doing so to their own destruction.
We Christians who support Israel KNOW that Jews are not saved until they place their faith in Christ. Support means, in the side of Israel vs all the nations that want to destroy it, like what we're seeing today and what is prophesized will be the anti-Christ's army, we fall on the side of supporting Israel, and not all the other nations.
That is the scriptural position.
Yeah, I've noticed that.
I think we're in the end times, and the Bible is actually speaking of the end times generation when it describes them as "having a form of godliness but denying it's power".
I've noticed that with the young right.
They recognize that atheism and the rejection of all things rooted in Christianity as the disaster that it is and in response they seek tradition and orthodoxy. Unfortunately, it's not the word of God and Jesus that they seem to be filled by or seek, but by a general "I'm not a degenerate like the woke" sort of satisfaction, and the Bible is completely secondary to them, only useful if the verse can be used or twisted to their purpose.
You'd think the Bible were only comprised of about 4 verses, such as the synagogue of Satan, selling your cloak for a sword, etc.
I should have used scripture, you're right.
You grew up in the ghetto type community?
I'm not the judge on people's standing when it comes to salvation, whether they've truly accepted Christ or not.
But the discernment that we do have and are permitted to execute tells us that if you see someone who murders, steals, commits violence, is quick to anger, lies, hates, never takes accountability, never admits wrongdoing, and many other things, you can fairly well assume they're not a true believer.
And the ghetto community, the one that mocks and twerks in front of DJ Daniel because he wants to be a police officer, that attitude is totally 180 opposite of Christianity.
That ghetto attitude is what I'm talking about.
The place you grew up and the people you've had relationships with, I haven't seen that or experienced what you experience, I'm just looking over at a general culture and noting what I see, the way I look at Japan and can tell that the culture in general is lost as evidenced by their accepting and comfortability with sexual lewdness in public as just a "normal" thing, such as it being acceptable to look at porn anime comics on public transit among many other things.
The ghetto black community, largely, as evidence by their fruit, is not Christian.
"You will know them by their fruit".
Wearing a cross as part of rapper fashion, attending church, and pointing up when you score a touchdown doesn't make you a Christian. It means you're a cultural Christian, or you answer with an affirmative to being a Christian, but it doesn't mean you're saved or have accepted Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins.
There are saved Christians in the black community, of course just like all communities, including ones that struggle like all people with sin and the fleshly desires and struggles, but the vast majority culture of that community shows they do not follow Christ by observing their very blatant and outward behavior.
Even Italian mafia have sometimes attended Catholic mass. Occasionally attending church doesn't mean you're saved any more than visiting McDonald's makes you a hamburger to borrow the oft-repeated but true turn of phrase.
You and I are on the same page.
People think I'm a "boomer Christian" who bends over for everything because of this arbitrary redefining of forgiveness with categories being twisted to and fro.
The entire reason I stopped attending my church and now just attend a Bible study is because of how they responded to BLM's "summer of love".
I'm not at all down with the current church's even most subtle liberalism.
But the church having issues (every generation has its own issues in the church which is why in Revelation, the majority of the 7 churches get chastised) isn't a reason to throw out the Bible and interpret it in a foreign manner.
It makes it sound closer to Islam than Christianity when the interpretation is stretched so far.
Did you miss the part where I said the church needs to address what's wrong with the black community and the black community needs to face harsh truths?
Forgiving individuals you hold unforgiveness to and having righteous anger at the unjust scales and doing what you can to address those scales are not mutually exclusive.
Did you only read my first part and stop?
I pointed out that the church's responsibility is to preach repentance to cultures that lack God and that it's cowering and sacred cowing of the black culture is them failing in their duties.
But it's not correct to say that historical Christians were not forgiving and merciful and turned the other cheek for 1950 years.
In Acts we see the church being persecuted and laying down their lives despite the intense persecution.
All throughout history this has been the case. Christian missionaries in Japan got slaughtered in the 1600s by the Japanese and died for their faith.
Christians were the main victims in the Roman coliseums who were devoured by lions to cheering crowds. The way that Christians reacted to a persecuting culture being so different than the world which seeks to preserve it's own life at any cost, while Christians are willing to give up their lives for the sake of the gospel has radically saved countless people.
Christians are actually the most persecuted and killed people group. In China, they meet in small underground churches, and the police bust in and beat up old grannies, and the result is Christianity spreads because people see the way Christians have joy in all circumstances and realize "there must be something there"
All other religions must dominate in order to spread. Because God is our power, and we spread even through persecution because what we believe in is stronger than all the world's powers, we baffle the world and the world doesn't know what to make of us.
There are examples of Christians being violent, such as the crusades and the inquisition, but you won't find much biblical justification for that and it's the exception not the norm, and usually it's when the church is corrupt and so powerful that they behave like actual countries.
No, we are not meant to simp. The church right now rightly doesn't have an issue calling out the gay nonsense, or the "trans" nonsense.
Not being violent doesn't mean you are fearful. Quite the opposite. We are called to speak the gospel boldly no matter who it offends.
My post even argued that the church is long over-due to extend that calling out of behavior to the black community even if it means you get shunned, you get de-banked, you get killed, because God's got it and people's eternal fate are being ignored because of cultural taboo.
But when that day comes, when the government persecutes you, we don't act like the world does. Read Revelation about how those killed in the tribulation will have a special song they sing to God, and Babylon who will be destroyed will have been getting drunk on the blood of the saints.
We don't need to take revenge unlike the world because revenge is God's and He will one day bring all things to account.
forgiveness is what you do on your end. It's internally forgiving them instead of holding on to bitterness, hatred, unforgiveness.
You can forgive someone and want them to face legal justice. They're not mutually exclusive.
You can and should forgive people who have been dead for 20 years. You can forgive people who are in hell right now and you should. The forgiveness we do is a separate thing from the forgiveness that Jesus offers because we don't have the spiritual merit to wipe away anyone's sins including our own unlike Jesus. Christians' forgiving is about us having a heart that recognizes our own spiritual depravity and the mercy we've received, and so we let go of the unforgiveness we have towards others.
Your forgiveness is not the same as God's forgiveness. You're forgiving their trespasses, as Jesus forgave you, but it doesn't mean their sins are forgiven to God unless they put their trust and faith in Jesus.
If Jeff Metcalf said "you are forgiven" in that prescriptive way, that would be blasphemous, but he didn't say that. He said, I forgive the killer. It's a different meaning.
As an example, I had to forgive people who were cruel to me in high school, as I was holding on to that bitterness.
I haven't seen them in nearly 20 years. I don't know if they're repentant. I know nothing about them. Most of them I can barely recall anything specific, but I had to come to a point where I forgave them and let it go.
It has nothing to do with them. Christian forgiveness is about your heart towards them.
Whether anyone is actually forgiven of their sins in the eyes of God is 100% down to what they do with Jesus, and is separate from the forgiveness that Christians give.
Good point!