Here is what BLM can do to your city, too, with the funding of pervert Soros:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlzF...c9TXWIckapCcQE
Here is what BLM can do to your city, too, with the funding of pervert Soros:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlzF...c9TXWIckapCcQE
"Pervert Soros" xD
:popcorn: whats with all the tents and homeless looking ppl?
Looks like LA.
MFW the entire west coast is a third world shit-hole.
It's like China except non consensual. China took the garbage of the USA and the West coast took all the USA's discontents. The presence of homelessness and poverty on the west coast is not an indicator that the West coast is poorly run. It's more an indicator of the entire country's problem with taking care of its own. But it's easy to blame the West coast so the real problem gets ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunfingers
Don't listen to propaganda brother. The west coast is the most competently run place in America. Aramas explained it wellQuote:
Originally Posted by shotgunfingers
There's a lot of homeless there too because they are very popular places to move. Almost everyone wants to move west in the states so people move without enough emergency funds etc. One road bump and they lose their home
Love pro abortion
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QkJ67kxPW...disgusting.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
Maritsa, you are deceived by the lies of these times. We live in times where wrong is called right and right is called wrong. Believing in lies ENSLAVES you and brings you misery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
These days we live in were foretold:
2 Timothy 3:
1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
This is the eternal truth. And we see it all around us now like never before. Verse 2! That is the time we live in! People are not lovers of good. They are lovers of selves, boastful, proud, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. Yes. This is our times, like never before. Depraved minds are all around us, and here in our country, we have a couple of the MOST depraved minds in the Democratic party running for president and vice-president. (Trump is no saint, he is not holy, but he is not depraved.)
The first commandment of God: "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind". How many do you know living this today? It was not so hard to find in other times as today. Something is very wrong in our times, and in your lifetime especially there in California Hollywood-land, you have been drilled in every way to believe the lies of the baby killers. "Choice" - its a SLOGAN. Its made up! It has no truth! The right to have the limbs torn off your own child, his head crushed, while he tries to escape the instruments of death in your womb, a place that should be safe - that is not a right, it is an intrinsic evil in every case. What you have been told about the goodness of "choice" is a satanic LIE. A lie wrapped in pretty paper so you would accept it. Told it to you over and over like a mantra, in the Nazi fashion: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
And so you have come to believe and embrace a lie and the lie festers within you like an instrument of death to your soul.
If you like countless others have been deceived into choosing to having an abortion(s), then repent, and ask God to forgive you because He will. He knows our foolishness and He knows our pain and weaknesses that cause us to sin and He forgives and forgets - - IF we repent. (If we do not repent, He MUST be just. Otherwise, an unjust God could not also be a good God, could He?)
The blood of the innocent cries out to God for justice. God hears. God must act.
Repent, and He forgives, and He will put your sin as from from you as the east is from the west.
And He heals, because every abortion is deeply psychologically damaging to a mother. Even if she has been able, with the help of the many eager accomplices around her, to convince herself she has done the right thing, it does not change the fact that she has been an accomplice in an intrinsically evil act. Her soul knows it, and accuses her. She is lying to her own self and she will never feel peace asserting the lie that she did the right thing. She is wounded, and the wound will always fester and she will not have peace until she cleans it out.
The fact verified by sound research says that a woman who has had an abortion is MANY TIMES more likely to be committed to a mental hospital at some time in her life than one who has not aborted a child. Did you know that? Women who have experienced the abortion of their own children need healing. Jesus will heal them, and make them whole. Try Rachels Vineyard. Get free!*
You have believed a falsehood. And you are ENASLAVED by the lie. The truth sets you free. Get truly free. Choose Truth. Choose God. Choose Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light." Eternal words! Go to The Light! Leave the darkness behind.
__________
*Retreat Location: Duarte, CA
Local Host: Rachel's Vineyard Los Angeles
Contact: Christine Lowe
323-577-5693
RVLA.christine@gmail.com
I'm anti-abortion myself. I don't know why people would see abortions as desirable. However, I am pro-choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
fence sitting. The choice simple means, it's okay to choose to kill a child in the womb. If you are Joe or Kamala, that is when it's 9mohnths old in the womb! When you are Kamala, that means even if the 9 month old is born alive!Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
I'm not fence-sitting. I'm in favour of abortion being legal. However, you should appreciate that I am unlikely to get pregnant so it does not feel correct for me to overrule a women's choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
Are you in favour of freedom of religion? Doesn't that make you a fence-sitter?
In the Bible, living human individuals of less than 30 days of age had no value. Yet this is your holy book.
Another bulllshit thread by Eliza
Eliza, I think you and my mom would hit it off lol
you remind me a lot of her, she sends me videos like that all the time
People need a scapegoat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duschia
Who needs proof when there is enough bullshit to go around? :biggrin:
@Eliza Thomason
The Black Lives Matter movement has been protesting against systematic racism by the Police. Systematic racism that has resulted in the Police killing unarmed civilians, including instances deemed to be murder, as in the case of George Floyd.
Most of the protestors have been peaceful. However, at the same time, there have been white supremacists who have murdered protestors.
Yet you choose to denounce Black Lives Matter over the white supremacists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
Thomas Aquinas permitted abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
http://avemarialaw-international-law...20Complete.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Err, hate to brake it to ya, but the demand for "White Supremacy" far outstrips supply. I mean fuck, talk to blacks in the deep south. Ain't no real fear of lynchings anymore. Yeah, ya might get called the N-word here and again and that sucks and they don't like it, but they ain't exactly fearing for their life if some random clansman happens upon them on a particularly dark and dreary night. Possibility's still there, but it's remote. After all, all them crackers call em' N-word and "pound their chests" as it were yet not one has yet to assault them with fists, baseball bats, or firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Also, I laugh as you prove my assumption right as you affirm how most of the protests were "peaceful" in your words. I'd also point out that if you had video evidence of some skinhead brutally murdering a totally innocent POC that wasn't obviously a shoddy Hollywood Special Effects Job to anyone with an IQ north of 50 it'd be all over the MSN and the net. You don't have that. Wish you did to your lord below but the One Above All has denied you that because his servants actually give a fuck about those who aren't "one of us" as it were.
Fun fact: There is a video of the opposite. A bunch of blacks assaulting an innocent mentally disabled white man. Dumb fuckers posted it on Facebook even. Open and shut case. Yet you never heard of that one on CNN. Just like you've failed to hear about how Hunter Biden is basically the CCP's bitch given all the dirt they got on him thanks to him... well, being a diddler.
No he did not. Though we must give him some credit from your end (and credit to most any historical figure over a hundred years behind our time). See, they didn't answer certain potential challenges or plan against certain contingencies in their arguments because, to them, those things were literally inconceivable. Thomas Aquinas literally never thought of the possibility that one could kill a baby within the womb of a woman without also killing the mother as well. Well, maybe he did in a fevered dream, but that dream would have so utterly horrified him that it would have... well, driven him even more to be as faithful as he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
If you showed a video of a sex change operation or an abortion to the average soldier in the trenches of WWI you'd have probably made them fail a SAN check so hard they'd have immediately killed themselves. Literally. Inconceivable. I can't fault em' for that. Sadly, most far leftists can. After all, one can never be "woke" enough in regards to the dogma of the Death Cult.
In closing here, I'll explain how an "inconceivable" notion has occurred and I, myself, never thought it could come to pass. See, I am, among other things, an Austrian Economist. Mises is my dude, and "Human Action" is the tome you need to read if you wanna understand how Economics works. However, he (and pretty much every single economists from Marx to Salamanca) assumed one truth that doesn't hold.
See, they thought the profit motive was sacrosanct in one form or another. Marx railed against it, seeing it as the reason why the Bourgeoisie fucked over the Proletariat. Mises and his ilk saw it more positively. The happy worker is the busy worker. Pay him/her more, and you rightfully expect/will undeniably receive better outputs. There is a balance to be had as no employer has infinite money but it is obvious that if you pay person more than they think they're worth they'll work harder and more eagerly for you.
This takes the form of the quote "Get woke, go broke". Sadly, despite that statement making absolute sense to even Marxists, it hasn't really been the case. Why? Well, Economics Majors aren't all that well versed in matters of faith. A banker who hails the same god as you do is way more likely to ignore the profit motive in exchange for doing a fellow believer/cultist "a solid" as it were.
I don't think that addresses my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
Aquinas did not consider a fetus as human before 40 days from conception for a boy or 80 days for a girl, as this was when he believed they gained a soul. As I understand, there was to be no punishment in his view if a fetus was terminated before this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
This does not mean that he thought that abortion was wrong in all circumstances, but you see @Eliza Thomason does not distinguish between the two. She called me a hypocrite for disliking abortion while being pro-choice.
Interesting view, but also runs up against my point. Again, there was no way to kill the unborn without murdering the mother back then so Abortion and Murder were distinctions without differences to him. The mother was undeniably Human by that point. Days until one or the other gained a soul in the womb were, well, semantics. Yeah, maybe you don't get nailed for double homicide in the divine court. Too bad for you that single homicide is a Mortal Sin and thus you will still burn in Hell for that. Fun fact: Eternal hellfire is remarkably equal. Makes sense IMO, as Hell is simply a place God is not present. By the very choice/will of those within it by the way. C.S. Lewis had a great take on the whole affair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
The Abortion take is also confusing. If you dislike something like that why wouldn't you want to ban it? I get the practical side (e.g. they'll resort to wire hangers in unsanitary back alleys), but not the moral side. It's a moral matter for people like me and Eliza. You ought not kill babies just because it's inconvenient for you to have one. I'm also Catholic so I also don't support contraception but Jesus Christ girls, if you take the pill and make him wear a good quality rubber the odds of getting preggers gets ridiculously low. Hell, get your tubes tied if ya just gotta have that raw D without getting a bun popped in the oven as a result. Iterative odds are a bitch and a half but the odds of getting preggers with a girl on the pill while the guy's wearing a rubber? Yeah, I could roll on that table to see if I die daily and have comfortable odds to die a natural death before I "hit" with those odds.
Plus adoption's a thing. If you can't be bothered to raise the child I can guarantee you someone else is. Not everyone can have kids of their own and those that can't yet want children will gladly take that kid off your hands and raise it as theirs. Why not just have the kid than immediately give it up for adoption with an agency you trust that deals in that area? It avoids all moral concerns all things being equal.
I couldn't resist but had to take a peak what silly statements came out of your mouth this time. Well, what can I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
Quote:
A proposition must be plain to be adopted by the understanding of a people. A false notion which is clear and precise will always meet with a greater number of adherents in the world than a true principle which is obscure or involved.
- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. I. 1830
Throughout history, actually, way back into prehistory, there have been known abortifacients that women could take that would most likely not kill them.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
The abortion rate is high, and sadly similar to the rate that god kills fetuses via miscarriage.
I did explain - I in favour of abortion being legal for various reasons, such as the fact that countries where abortion is legal have fewer abortions than countries where abortions are illegal; such countries also have fewer deaths and injuries amongst women who have abortions because there are fewer botched abortions; I suspect that countries where abortion is legal also have fewer suicides of pregnant women - suicide would of course kill the fetus too; I also believe that a woman should have the ultimate say over their own body and that it would be especially wrong for me as a male to decree what a woman can or cannot do. It is easy for me to say I dislike abortion when I am unable to have one.
Morality is purely a matter of taste. You don't get to say something is worse because you consider it a matter of morality rather than aesthetics.
Thomas Aquinas was supposedly against abortion in all instances, even before the age before which he believed the fetus gained a soul. Seemingly this was because he saw abortion as an act of cruelty, an act that inflicts pain. If you are like Thomas Aquinas, then really, you should be opposed to killing animals too. Jesus famously had no problems with killing pigs or fish. And torture in eternal hellfire is the ultimate act of pain.
Throughout history, actually, way back into prehistory, there have been known abortifacients that women could take that would most likely not kill them.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
The abortion rate is high, and sadly similar to the rate that god kills fetuses via miscarriage.
I did explain - I in favour of abortion being legal for various reasons, such as the fact that countries where abortion is legal have fewer abortions than countries where abortions are illegal; such countries also have fewer deaths and injuries amongst women who have abortions because there are fewer botched abortions; I suspect that countries where abortion is legal also have fewer suicides of pregnant women - suicide would of course kill the fetus too; I also believe that a woman should have the ultimate say over their own body and that it would be especially wrong for me as a male to decree what a woman can or cannot do. It is easy for me to say I dislike abortion when I am unable to have one.
Morality is purely a matter of taste. You don't get to say something is worse because you consider it a matter of morality rather than aesthetics.
Thomas Aquinas was supposedly against abortion in all instances, even before the age before which he believed the fetus gained a soul. Seemingly this was because he saw abortion as an act of cruelty, an act that inflicts pain. If you are like Thomas Aquinas, then really, you should be opposed to killing animals too. Jesus famously had no problems with killing pigs or fish. Torture in eternal hellfire is the ultimate act of inflicting pain.
Judaism and Christianity also teach that fornication is a sin, but had no problems with Adam, Eve, or Jesus being bastards.
Ok, you know me, you've seen what I have posted again and again for years now. You've paid more close attention to me in more recent times so you know what's coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
You have just attempted to call me out on failing to uphold my Christian morals. Well, those morals you're holding me to only seriously matter if you, yes you, personally, can say one simple little thing even in jest.
Confess that Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead.
Say it, type out the words exactly as I have. Hell, I'll type them out myself. I believe/confess that Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead. If you can't do that within 24 hours of reading this than you're a witch and any BS that comes from a witch is shit I ain't got time to deal with seriously on a moral level. I ain't got time for the servants of the great tempter who have defiantly chosen evil. You're not as bad/fargone as most I've encountered, but I'm willing to bet money I don't got to bet that you can't manage to pass a Witch Test :).
I didn't know that you failed to uphold to your Christian morals. And I don't really have a problem for people failing to meet their own standard, unless they're being blatantly hypocritical. I do however have a problem with an ideology that teaches that individuals are inherently flawed and in needing of being saved, and which holds them to an impossible standard and has an unbalanced sense of justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
What is considered morality should be utterly independent from belief or disbelief about properties of the universe, unless you think that belief or disbelief itself is a virtue.
I doubt that "Jesus" even existed as a historical figure, nevermind the supernatural claims that can never be verified. If you produce Jesus' body, I might be able to believe that is Jesus if you make the argument for it, but I doubt I would believe any supernatural claims. I cannot say or type out that phrase you say and mean it because I simply honestly do not believe it is true. Are you going to damn me for my honest beliefs? Are you trying to force myself to believe it? If I was brainwashed, would I truly believe?
Your modern day, evolved, mind cannot make any argument to shift the thinking of someone stuck in a 16th century mindset but I enjoy watching you try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Edit: I also find his "witch test" juvenile since it is a mockery of his own belief system.
If this is true - and I will look into it (also as to whether he ever rethought that) - it is not anything to do what makes him great. And if he is "dogmatic", that most likely means he is nothing like the infamous Pontius Pilate and his "What is truth?". I don't want anything to do with that kind of philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
So many good true and wise things are said by Aq1uinas. But it seems like good true and wise are not the things that catch your interest. Right? You instead go looking for the one off-note?
We actually live in one of the more ethical times. And your shared reasoning is not solid for your opinion on abortion. The way you're reasoning out what you are trying to share is not doing your points any favors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
For example: "Claims that women who have elective abortions will experience psychological distress have fueled much of the recent debate on abortion. It has been argued that the emotional sequelae of abortion may not occur until months or years after the event. Despite unclear evidence on such a phenomenon, adverse mental health outcomes of abortion have been used as a rationale for policy-making. We systematically searched for articles focused on the potential association between abortion and long-term mental health outcomes published between January 1, 1989 and August 1, 2008 and reviewed 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. We rated the study quality based on methodological factors necessary to appropriately explore the research question. Studies were rated as Excellent (no studies), Very Good (4 studies), Fair (8 studies), Poor (8 studies), or Very Poor (1 study). A clear trend emerges from this systematic review: the highest quality studies had findings that were mostly neutral, suggesting few, if any, differences between women who had abortions and their respective comparison groups in terms of mental health sequelae. Conversely, studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion."https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782408003697?casa_token=iehKj2_6-7QAAAAA:Xn-pSSadiSh1qiiNqBnAEUbva6GAO7XRDIHEUqS_DHn3QYnp2RT7K wfx9htxFOcQ8r-YkiIn
I make a point, lately, to say that fundamentalists often believe church and rules mean "love and family." Our being controlled by church and rules seemed like a necessary trade off for love and family, and it's a compelling one. The thing is, it's an unnecessary trade.
"In moderation, religious and spiritual practices can be great for a person’s life and mental well-being. But religious fundamentalism—which refers to the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders—is almost never good for an individual. This is primarily because fundamentalism discourages any logical reasoning or scientific evidence that challenges its scripture, making it inherently maladaptive.
It is not accurate to call religious fundamentalism a disease, because that term refers to a pathology that physically attacks the biology of a system. But fundamentalist ideologies can be thought of as mental parasites. A parasite does not usually kill the host it inhabits, as it is critically dependent on it for survival. Instead, it feeds off it and changes its behavior in ways that benefit its own existence. By understanding how fundamentalist ideologies function and are represented in the brain using this analogy, we can begin to understand how to inoculate against them, and potentially, how to rehabilitate someone who has undergone ideological brainwashing—in other words, a reduction in one’s ability to think critically or independently.
How Religious Ideologies Spread
Similar to how organisms and their genes compete for survival in the environment and gene pool, ideas compete for survival inside brains, and in the pool of ideas that inhabit them. The famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has used this insightful analogy to explain how ideas spread and evolve over time. In his influential 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, he refers to ideas as “memes” (the mental analog of a gene), which he has defined as self-replicating units that spread throughout culture. We are all familiar with many types of memes, including the various customs, myths, and trends that have become part of human society.
As Dawkins explains, ideas spread through the behavior that they produce in their hosts, which is what enables them to be transmitted from one brain to another. For example, an ideology—such as a religion—that causes its inhabitants to practice its rituals and communicate its beliefs will be transmitted to others. Successful ideas are those that are best able to spread themselves, while those that fail to self-replicate go extinct. In this way, some religious ideologies persist while others fade into oblivion.
It is easy to see why religion quickly spread through culture once it emerged. When humans gained the cognitive capacity to reason and plan for the future, they became aware of their own mortality. The realization that oneself and all one’s loved ones will someday die is naturally terrifying, and this existential fear perfectly set the stage for anxiety-reducing ideas, like ones that offer a never-ending afterlife. But religions are complex ideas, and the psychological effects they have on minds go beyond just relieving anxiety.
Essentially, the brain is a biological computer, and an ideology is a set of coded instructions, or “cultural software,” that is running on the brain’s hardware. Esteemed philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett insightfully described how ideas can control minds when he said, “The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes.” In this regard, it is often not the brain that controls the mind, but the memes that compose the mind that control the brain. This is especially the case when the meme is a religion.
article continues after advertisement
Religions Mutate
Like genes and gene complexes, when an ideology is replicated—or passed from one person or group to another—it undergoes mutations. As a consequence, different versions of that belief system are produced, which generate different types of behavior. As such, there are often good and bad variants of any given religion. For instance, there are moderate versions of Christianity and Islam that promote qualities like a sense of community and a moral code that fosters ethical behavior. These ideas can be beneficial to the host organism, i.e., the religious-practicing individual. At the same time, there are harmful variants of Islam and Christianity—specifically the rigid fundamentalist versions—that cause the host mind to process information in a biased way, think irrationally, and become delusional.
Ideological Viruses and Mental Parasites
There are various types of viruses and parasites, and viruses are themselves parasites. While biological viruses are infectious agents that self-replicate inside living cells, computer viruses are destructive pieces of code that insert themselves into existing programs and change the actions of those programs. One particularly nasty type of computer virus that relies on humans for replication, known as a “Trojan horse,” disguises itself as something useful or interesting in order to persuade individuals to download and spread it. Similarly, a harmful ideology disguises itself as something beneficial in order to insert itself into the brain of an individual, so that it can instruct them to behave in ways that transmit the mental virus to others. The ability for parasites to modify the behavior of hosts in ways that increase their own “fitness” (i.e., their ability to survive and reproduce) while hurting the fitness of the host, is known as “parasitic manipulation.”
One particularly intriguing example of parasitic manipulation occurs when a hairworm infects a grasshopper and seizes its brain in order to survive and self-replicate. This parasite influences its behavior by inserting specific proteins into its brain. Essentially, infected grasshoppers become slaves for parasitic, self-copying machinery.
In much the same way, Christian fundamentalism is a parasitic ideology that inserts itself into brains, commanding individuals to act and think in a certain way—a rigid way that is intolerant to competing ideas. We know that religious fundamentalism is strongly correlated with what psychologists and neuroscientists call “magical thinking,” which refers to making connections between actions and events when no such connections exist in reality. Without magical thinking, the religion can’t survive, nor can it replicate itself. Another cognitive impairment we see in those with extreme religious views is a greater reliance on intuitive rather than reflective or analytic thought, which frequently leads to incorrect assumptions since intuition is often deceiving or overly simplistic.
article continues after advertisement
We also know that in the United States, Christian fundamentalism is linked to science denial. Since science is nothing more than a method of determining truth using empirical measurement and hypothesis testing, denial of science equates to the denial of objective truth and tangible evidence. In other words, the denial of reality. Not only does fundamentalism promote delusional thinking, it also discourages followers from exposing themselves to any different ideas, which acts to protect the delusions that are essential to the ideology.
If we want to inoculate society against the harms of fundamentalist ideologies, we must start thinking differently about how they function in the brain. An ideology with a tendency to harm its host in an effort to self-replicate gives it all the properties of a parasitic virus, and defending against such a belief system requires understanding it as one. When a fundamentalist ideology inhabits a host brain, the organism’s mind is no longer fully in control. The ideology is controlling its behavior and reasoning processes to propagate itself and sustain its survival. This analogy should inform how we approach efforts that attempt to reverse brainwashing and restore cognitive function in areas like analytic reasoning and problem-solving." "Bobby Azarian, Ph.D., is a cognitive neuroscientist and science writer in the Washington, D.C. area."
After hundreds of years of racism and bullshit such as this, we should be grateful that Black Americans don't set fire to all cities. Most acts of vandalism are done by white people and not part of the BLM movement. But racists will be racists.
Also PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN AND VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT HARRIS!!!!!!!!! <3 <3 <3
Fun Fact: As we are all sinners, we all fail to uphold the truth/morality at some point. As I've said before, many a saint was once an arch/consummate sinner. Indeed, Even Sartre, commie atheist that he was, agreed with church teachings about "original sin" because it was, in his own words, self-evident. We are inherently flawed and thus in need of salvation. Thankfully, that salvation has already occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
I'm going to get a bit theological here. God allows evil so that greater goods may come about because of it. He does not, however, do evil so that good may come of it. The ultimate example of this is, and this might shock you, the crucifixion. God allowed us to kill him. The original "form" of all forms that are good in a platonic sense. Could have easily stopped us, but didn't. Why? Because from that most ultimate of evils, he brought about the ultimate good. The salvation of a fallen mankind.
Plus, Jesus is risen. It is impossible to provide anyone the corpse of a man who yet still lives is it not?
Also, you do realize that you can invalidate a great deal of my own worldview if you could but type the words out yes? I mean, it's a simple line of text and all. You do that and I'll type out my endorsement of a heresy of your choice. You go first and I'll follow suit :).
If it's a mockery, than surely you can mock me by mockingly passing it. All ya gotta do is make it look/sound earnest and enthusiastic. C'mon, you can put on an act and shatter my entire worldview by doing so yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Delta ST or ENFp dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
That honor should be reserved for Native Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim
You actually insulted me for permitting abortion, and on another occasion accused me of "extolling the works of the most most depraved and existential philosophers you can find". And yet Aquinas permitted abortion too. Neither of us liked abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
Why is it that you are unable to say something good, true, and wise about me?
Pontius Pilate never said "What is truth?" - his characterisation in the bible is complete fiction. The real Pontius Pilate would not have dithered and wrung his hands about whether or not to execute some Jewish leader of some rabble.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pontius_PilateQuote:
Pilate of history vs the one in the Gospels
The secular records on Pilate portray a very different man from that shown in the Gospels. Pliny the Elder and Josephus portray a ruler who cared little for the wishes of his Jewish subjects and was not above using violence against peaceful demonstrations.[1] Josephus's account of how Pilate brutally dealt with the Samaritan prophet of 36 CE indicates the style of his unusually long prefecture (note that although Pilate was recalled to Rome, there is no evidence that he was convicted of any wrongdoing):[2]
The idea that such a man would brush off someone claiming to be "King of the Jews" (i.e., King of Judea) as a Jewish matter is insane. First, such a claim could be considered sedition, which would have resulted in Pilate executing him. Second, Pilate was quite willing to have his soldiers hide among the Jewish people so if they did something he didn't like (such as protest against using Temple money to build an aqueduct) he could use his soldiers to randomly attack, beat, and kill people.[3] Third, as the Samaritan prophet debacle shows, Pilate tended to react negatively to large groups of Jews so the large crowds Jesus supposedly attracted would have been enough to set Pilate off. Finally, the disturbance in the Temple area would have also resulted in immediate action by the 600-some Temple guards, or if they weren't enough to deal with the problem, the whole Roman legion (about 5,000 strong) from Fort Antonia to be called in[4] so Pilate most likely would only be deciding the fate of the survivors (if there were any) of such an act.Quote:
“”For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.
When the uprising had been quelled, the council of the Samaritans went to Vitellius, a man of consular rank who was governor of Syria, and charged Pilate with the slaughter of the victims. For, they said, it was not as rebels against the Romans but as refugees from the persecution of Pilate that they had met in Tirathana. Vitellius thereupon dispatched Marcellus, one of his friends, to take charge of the administration of Judaea, and ordered Pilate to return to Rome to give the emperor his account of the matters with which he was charged by the Samaritans. And so Pilate, after having spent ten years in Judaea, hurried to Rome in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, since he could not refuse. But before he reached Rome Tiberius had already passed away.
—Flavius Josephus, (c. 94) Jewish Antiquities 18.85-89
The bible says we are created in God's image. One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill", but the biggest killer in the bible is God. That not only makes it a hypocrite, but a great sinner.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Jesus in the New Testament made it clear that "we" did not kill him - he committed suicide: "I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." - John 10:17-18
"Sin" and "Evil" are purely in the eye of the beholder. I do not recognise such concepts in my worldview.
Rather than teaching that we are inherently flawed, we should learn how to make ourselves better and not feel guilty about negative aspects of of ourselves we cannot change.
The death of an innocent man is not good, and certainly not justice. If anything, it would be unjust. I also do not recognise the legality of punishing an innocent individual for the crimes of another. I consider such a practice immoral.
I ask you to produce the body of Jesus, living or dead. Catholics believe that the wine and bread of the Eucharist is turned into the blood and flesh of Jesus, so if you tested that, it would be a step in the right direction. But how would you prove it was Jesus?
Even if you could prove the existence of Jesus Christ, I still would not follow him. I consider myself better than he, based on Christian and Jewish dogma. I don't say that as a mark of vanity - it's very easy to be better than Christ. If he abides by the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I might consider what he has to say.
Fair. Point still stands. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy
Well, peaceful protest is not ok either according to the right, so what to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duschia
he looks ESI .Quote:
Originally Posted by Ania
I didn't find him "emphatic" and most of you say he's actually not because he doesn't support BLM. So that wouldn't point at Fe empathy either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ania
In fact I found him pretty uncharismatic and emotionally plain to be Fe.
There are ppl from all quadras supporting or being against one thing or another depending on a lot of variants. And I think that for typing effectively we should get rid of social or political prejudices.
Ok. I commented the above due this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ania
Also I don't have a particular opinion about blm either. I mean theres racism and discrimination in many levels ofc, but I don't tend to follow social movements or be persuaded by media.Quote:
I find it a little ironic that he mentioned distrusting media and how they can paint something a certain way while from the very beginning his video gave me this vibe of...doing exactly that. I’m not saying the graffiti was okay but he is obviously painting it a certain way.
The democratic party are not alinged with BLM and leftist. Biden is your run of the mill spoiled shit stain rich boy politician who despises the poor. Just listen to how he talks about communist countries, or the key role he played in the middle east wars. Democrat/Liberal politicians merely recognize the pragmatic value of placating leftist with lip service and petty reforms unlike radical far-rightist like Trump. The conflict between democrats and republicans is similar to the conflicts between Trotsky and Stalin, where both share the same ultimate end goal but end up fighting because one sees the other as too idealistic and radical while the other one sees the other as betraying the cause, only this time the goal they share in common goal is imperialism instead of communism.
I regret to say that you, like so many others I had higher hopes for, have failed my test. Tests I designed with the intent of proving myself wrong by the way. If you were a being with my own perspective, you'd get how I so dearly wish people would, for once, fail to live down to my most pessimistic of expectations. I am not a certified Theologian but I'd bet you've never confronted a real example of one. Ply your BS with the likes of Cardinal Sarah or the sadly departed Sheen. They converted rabid commies and other ardent Christ-hating heathens to the truth of the Gospel. Could you convert them to your blasphemy if you assumed the spirit of absolute humility and respect for the unbeliever they did? How'd you go about convincing those folks who may have damn good arguments for their beliefs without recourse to "authority" or violence? I do eagerly await an answer that doesn't involve said violence or some form of brainwashing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
As I've said before, I tried in earnest to deny the existence of a divinity. I failed. Thus, I tried to ascertain the nature of this divinity. The only one that stood up to the rigor of a man who sought to deny divinity was the Christian/Catholic conception. Thus, I'm a practicing Catholic. If you can tell me an argument I've failed to hear before that, in your eyes, makes me look like a misguided fool I'll give ya a cookie as I dismantle it :).
End, you're coming off as being rude and unkind and a fearmonger rather than as insightful and good-intentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Theologians are experts in Nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Three members of my immediate family did degrees in theology, and two were preachers. However, I learnt nothing from them.
You are accusing me of blasphemy simply for beliefs I honestly hold. If an ideology damns people for thought crimes, then it must be a very sorry ideology indeed. And you don't even say what I said that qualifies as blasphemy.
Does Jesus have a Y chromosome? If yes, what hablogroup is it? This could easily be tested and matched with the flesh and blood of the Eucharist.
If you make a claim, shouldn't you be the one to make an argument for it, rather than me making an argument against it? I don't need to debunk a claim there is no evidence for.
All human institutions carry the weight of our fall. You say you have three theologians in your family. Any of them Catholic? If they are Catholic, do they categorically endorse Humanae Vitae, pretty much any encyclical like it, and all the other points I can go on about for ages if you were curious as to how to determine if anyone's a serious/true Catholic. I may not like the current Pope and while I suspect him of being a crypto-commie, he's still the pope and I must and do accept that as a Catholic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
If they're not/do not than they're literal heretics and it's no wonder you learned not a single thing from them. Also, while it damns for so called "thought crimes" as you'd apparently define them, it also offers absolution for any and all sins (a thing SJW's don't BTW). We all sin, save for Jesus, Mary, and the all the saints (though with the caveat that they did most egregiously right up until they stopped and sinned no more. My patron Augustine practically wrote the books and even recited a prayer that made that fact patently obvious).
As for the Eucharist, there is a documented miracle where the host was put to scientific scrutiny and it did return the result you're asking for. That is, it registered as human flesh and blood. Francis himself was there to witness it I recall (hence why I find his apparent lack of fervor troubling). Explain that away will you?
Of course, you will find a way no matter how outlandish it will sound to any truly neutral observer. Sad fact is, most people can only really be "converted" once their former faith has been shattered. That's quite hard to do if an aspect of that faith is a foundational part of one's own concept of Identity. I suspect your Atheism is on that level. Thus, I'd have to literally walk on water whilst wearing but a few rags to preserve my decency to get you to even open up to the possibility I'm right.
I'm on the same plane from your perspective. You'd have to do something on that level to get me to consider that maybe there really is no God at all. We are sadly at an impasse. An unstoppable force vs. an immovable object. Words will never suffice to convince us of the other's validity. Only things we experience with own lying senses will serve to open us up to the possibility of being persuaded by the other. Sad, but such is human nature.
This is, sadly, a dynamic I'm seeing replicated on things that are far less important. Politics for instance. At least those who war for their "god" war with the hope/knowledge that they get a happy ending no matter what. Political partisans? Well, if their side loses they're fucked. Better to focus on things more worthy of that level of energy and commitment.
They were/are not Catholics.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
The papacy is a Catholic invention, I understand that in the New Testament, Jesus said "Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven", and also, he built the church on himself, not on Peter or anybody else.
The New Testament says that no one is perfect, except God alone. Also, it says all those who are "saved" are saints, even those who continue to "sin".Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Can you give a citation to its printing in a scientific journal? I'd liked to read about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Anyone can walk on water.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
This is a blatant lie. If your top priority were denying the existence of a divinity, you would have done it until the day you died and possibly beyond. What would you say your first priority is? It can't be truth or you wouldn't say "please lie for me" every time someone who's read too many books you don't like creeped you out. My first priority is truth, and although grand metaphysical claims and "the sky is blue" might not be of equal importance, they are equally truths, and all truths will lead to all other truths by logical necessity. To abandon one truth is to abandon all things. The Catholic Church already showed itself to be full of nonsense by putting Galileo under house arrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Truth is overrated, the consequences are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by khcs
Why are you concerned with how the message is delivered instead of the content of the message?Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
Other people dont exist to pass or fail your tests, dont be megalomaniacal. I can understand the profligate behavior of some people having an effect on your environment, but to presume a universal standard is the opposite extreme. If people wish to engage in unhealthy behaviors, let them do so as long as they and they alone suffer the consequences of those behaviors, (Which i agree often doesn't tend to be the case, because they seek to diffuse the consequences among their own societies).Quote:
Originally Posted by End
I may hate her guts, but damned if she didn't have some good quotes: "We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality"-Ayn RandQuote:
Originally Posted by Daemon40
One may hold the Truth to be overrated, but the consequences of denying or ignoring said truth are hard to overstate and all of them are bad for said denier/ignorer.
At least you get that last point. Though I'd argue that "universal standards" amounts to plain and simple morality. "Relative" morality is a sham. If it's OK to, say, rape a child in one circumstance and not in another than you're arguing over BS distinctions with the likely intent of getting the opponent of child rape to change their tune and become an avid advocate of the practice!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon40
Oh yes, we can formulate a rather outlandish instance where it may be true, but that instance is unlikely to ever happen. And even if it somehow did, could we really fault the person for refusing to do that deed on basic principle? I mean "rape this kid, damn yourself to hell, yet save 100 trillion innocent lives" isn't a consideration any serious ethical philosopher thinks about because it's utterly absurd. How the hell could one even construct the occurrence of that circumstance? You'd need a mind more vile and perverse than Marquis de Sade himself to have a chance at successfully doing so!
Point is, there are things that are categorically and objectively right and/or wrong. To deny that denies morality itself. To say "The ends justify the means" is to say that the concept morality itself is bullshit. People need morals, they crave a system of morality. Only sociopaths can operate without one. Even then, they still have one. "Whatever is good for me is moral and whatever is not is immoral" is their system. If that formulation of some people's moral code doesn't scare, horrify, or disgust you in some way well...
Many problems like pedophilic behavior can be sorted out without state intervention, the consequence being the family or community of such a child seeking their own retribution for the action. Having the state handle it can seem like a convenient solution but even solutions have consequences that produce other problems, like the modern culture of deferring to the police to solve all problems instead of growing a spine and standing up for yourself, even if your life is at risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Id say the death penalty at the hands of family/community is a far better deterrent for pedophilic behavior than imprisonment.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
They are objectively right as far as you are willing to fight and die to enforce them, which is the problem with abstracting responsibilities to police, because eventually you abstract the most petty and absurd rules, rules nobody would be willing to enforce with their lives. You build a "Karen" culture where everyone shouts at eachother while hiding behind policemen and lawyers and nobody actually fights and bleeds for anything meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Its not completely fruitless xenu, you have a better chance finding a good life partner online in places like these, than you do in most other places today. I used to be of that mindset, went out, got a degree, got a car, became a Military Officer, got a house, and yet with all those things i have only met mostly shitty people in person.
I'm just saying it's odd to complain about mostly peaceful protests while not complaining about systematic racism including deaths caused not just by police officers but civilians too. I wasn't aware that all American cops had body cameras.Quote:
Originally Posted by returnofxenu
The US population is 4.87 times greater than the UK population, but the number of deaths caused by law enforcement there for 2020 is 80.8 times greater.Quote:
Originally Posted by returnofxenu
I can't find any evidence that Black Lives Matter have caused any deaths. I can find many instances of white supremacists causing deaths, even recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by returnofxenu
Anti-fascists linked to zero murders in the US in 25 years
Quote:
Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades.
A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database.
More broadly, the database lists 21 victims killed in leftwing attacks since 2010 , and 117 victims of rightwing attacks in that same period – nearly six times as much. Attacks inspired by the Islamic State and similar jihadist groups, in contrast, killed 95 people since 2010, slightly fewer than rightwing extremists, according to the data set. More than half of these victims died in a a single attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in 2016.
'It is serious and intense': white supremacist domestic terror threat looms large in US
White Supremacists Killed More Americans Than Muslim Extremists in Recent Years, Terrorism Report ShowsQuote:
As the FBI director, Christopher Wray, told Congress in February, “racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists” have become the “primary source of ideologically motivated lethal incidents” in the US. The danger overshadowed the jihadist threat that has dominated the security debate since 9/11.
Last year was the deadliest on record for domestic extremist violence since the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. White supremacists were responsible for most of that bloodshed in 2019 – 39 out of 48 deaths, including 23 people who died at the hands of an anti-Hispanic racist in El Paso, Texas, and a Jewish worshipper murdered at Poway Synagogue in California.
Quote:
In the U.S., 64 victims were killed in 34 terrorist attacks by white supremacists and white nationalists between 2015 and 2019, the report showed. The only groups with more deaths attributed to their attacks were jihadi-inspired extremists, though the GTD said anti-government extremists matched the white supremacists' fatality numbers. In comparison, the report showed seven people were killed in the U.S. during the same time period as a result of Muslim extremist terrorist attacks.
Newsweek reached out to the Department of State's Bureau of Counterterrorism for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.
Though white supremacy has been a point of concern in the U.S. for years, attention on racially motivated attacks by white supremacists has increased since President Donald Trump took office in 2016. Some of that attention has been attributed to Trump's hesitation to condemn white nationalists during his first year in office after a rally held to protest a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia turned deadly.
I used to hang around white nationalists and I can tell you, nobody that is truly one has committed any murder that I can I remember. What those statistics likely are doing are taking murderers and associating them with white nationalism despite them likely being a civic nationalist or having some insignificant association in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Why don't you talk about the black guy who shot a 5 year old in the face for stepping on his lawn, I have yet to see a white person ever do such a thing to a non white kid.
https://youtu.be/kCwHPHDtvNs
The thread as I understand it is about the Black Lives Matter movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon40
Ah so the media blackout about a 5 year old white child getting shot in the head during the black lives matter rioting and obsession is not relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Every single case BLM complained about can be said to not be a black and white situation regarding the death. Floyd being high on drugs and his death likely being a result of drugs rather than a knee on his neck, Breanna Taylor being in the same house that was shooting back at the police and was trafficking drugs, but of course I'm sure the police could have done a better job for the people who love to sit on the sidelines and criticise law enforcement without actually doing it themselves or living in a place where it is relevant.
If you have evidence that Black Lives Matter shot a child, please present it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon40
You sound like me in my younger days, a bright eyed and enthusiastic Anarcho-Capitalist. I still see it as the ideal set up for any society, but now with many a caveat. For instance, I now know it assumes a great deal that will likely never be the case in our modern or even historic world. The most fundamental assumption being that everyone within that society agrees upon what is moral vs. immoral. To put it bluntly, they must all worship the same God and, more than likely, be of the same sect (i.e. Even though Catholics and Protestants can earnestly claim to worship the same divinity, those differences in theology are going to rear their ugly head really fast). This is a thing Hans Hermann-Hoppe actually acknowledges and accepts when he laid out his concept of "covenant communities". Either you agree to the covenant and demonstrate that by living by it, or you get physically removed from the premises (posthumously, if you're particularly insistent on not being so). Binary outcome, you don't get to negotiate any "compromise" BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon40
I quote your last bit because it is most illustrative as well. A "Karen" culture is a uniquely Western thing. In a multi-ethnic, multi-religious/moral society, there is only one question everyone's asking: "Who's in charge?" If that answer isn't made (or rather, not allowed to be made) painfully obvious by force of arms or strength of conviction it devolves into the SJW BS we're currently dealing with. The other sad factor you're probably missing is that people like me know the instant we try to fight and die for our beliefs we're actually handing the "Karens" their own victory.
Ask yourself, what would happen if someone tried to go full vigilante mode on some gangster rapist? Furthermore, let's assume said vigilante is of a pale extraction and the rapist is of a darker hue if you catch my drift. How do you think the MSM would portray him vs. the target of his righteous fury? Or, to make it even more simple and obvious, say I killed a filthy child/baby killer for, well, killing children/babies? If you're honest with yourself, you know the answer. And that's exactly why it won't ever happen until something major alters the current situation.
You are right insofar that there are frighteningly few who would fight and die for the beliefs. The more frightening thing, I'd say, is that those who would are smart enough to perceive the dystopian situation they're in know that the "losing" move is to fight and die. To fight and die for your beliefs right now, if they do not align with the agenda of the PTB of course, is to further said enemy's ends. Trust me, they wish I'd kill some lefty/commie on basic principle. They want nothing more than for the likes of me to "don the devil horns" in their perverse and farcical "morality" play. I refuse to give them what they want. Thus, the current impasse and, to my unending joy, their eternal frustration.
I know what they want from me, and I refuse to give it to them. This is a mentality I'd recommend to anyone who is suffering from the malaise of others. Why give them, vile evil and horrendous cretins they are, what they want? They want you sad, angry, feeling all manners of negative emotions with their probable hope that you kill yourself. What does a Christian care for the opinions and feelings of a hardcore Satanist? Why should an avowed Capitalist give the slightest of fucks about what a Commie has to say about their plans to help the poor? The former stand upon truth, and the latter upon lies. In regards to the latter examples, fuck em'!
You are likely correct. Though I will speak of a probable reason. Mentally deranged they may be, they are still the few people who reside upon the far end of the bell curve. That is, they are almost all likely resting upon a 130+ IQ. That's a mere five percent of the global population. Deluded and likely huffing upon their own farts they likely also are, that's also a predictable result of what I've constantly pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by returnofxenu
I know my God, and I accept him and all that entails. Most here have not and suffer for it. Indeed, most will not. Their own sense of identity being rooted in the active denial of any divinity. I must still try however. If I can but plant a seed that sprouts in even one of them than my time and efforts were worth it. Pathetic and sinful though I am, I at least helped to save one soul. That's enough.
At least I'm not letting this get in the way of my other goals and activities. As you've probably seen, I post in a rather infrequent manner most of the time. It'll probably get more infrequent as time goes on. As has yours, given how you had to create a new account recently. Like speaking to a friend you lost touch with in middle school only to meet again after graduating college...
Hot damn. You are wasting your time. There is no point in arguing against death in one form over death in another. Argue against death in general to a person who may actually listen to you. He doesn't listen to me. I've tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason