"Turning the Other Cheek" and Victim Culture. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14938741
Red_Army wrote:I find it amusing that the new wave of right wing degenerate shit-posting cucks identify with the restrictive ideology of Christianity without actually having an ounce of belief in the religion as such. In my estimation its a very base sexual pathology born from their incelism. They again have no faith in Christ as God or any of the Christian mythos, but love the misogyny and the dominion men have over women in both testaments. They also have nostalgia boners for a mythical past that they both did not experience and never actually existed. This association with Christian traditionalism lends their ideology of sexual failure moral weight.

If I was a Christian I would be disgusted by these incels globbing on to my religion expressly to give moral credence to their pathetic ideology.



The same occurred in the early 20th century, when nationalists and protofascists understood Christianity not as a religion, with a distinct set of ethical and dogmatic guidelines, but as a loosely defined collection of European cultural traditions. Telling these people that Christ or some other Christian figure opposes their line of thinking is useless, since they absolutely do not care. What they care about is representing Christianity as part of 'Western Civilisation', a category used to exclude the enemy du jour, be it Jews, Muslims, Marxists, the Left more generally, feminism, or whatever.
#14938742
It's a good rhetorical strategy. These are people who spend most of their time sharing fringe pornography and frog reaction images or playing video games. The bad-faith association with Christianity is the only way they can distinguish themselves from the pink haired tumblr pansexuals who they're struggling against.
#14938749
@Red_Army Do not give me a like, there is nothing to like for you in my post.

Kirillov wrote: The same occurred in the early 20th century, when nationalists and protofascists understood Christianity not as a religion, with a distinct set of ethical and dogmatic guidelines, but as a loosely defined collection of European cultural traditions. Telling these people that Christ or some other Christian figure opposes their line of thinking is useless, since they absolutely do not care. What they care about is representing Christianity as part of 'Western Civilisation', a category used to exclude the enemy du jour, be it Jews, Muslims, Marxists, the Left more generally, feminism, or whatever.
I find this is true as well. There are though Christians in modern populist movement who by your leftie standards will be lumped together into right-wing category. Yet they are not of Neo-Nazi persuasion, who might actually abhor the ideology altogether or at best see it as a necessary tolerable element in current times.

With this said, the left also fails to understand that most neo-nazis today have evolved into other movements such as Identitarianism. They still keep a lot of "Old Guard" ideological principles like antisemitism and Darwinian social outlook. Yet they are much less radical in those regards as the Nazis nor do they want to continue in its path.

What I see has happened is that they see the rise of populism and they think they can represent it, a lot of them believe that the people will follow them as the new right can provide the answer and solutions to current issues. I doubt it will happen like that in the future though. The fact that the left can not see this happening shows the reason why their ideology and outlook will also fail. It just happens so that the new right was in position of opposition to the establishment today when the populist wave hit. It does not mean it will represent it in the end thought.

In fact there are people today, be they the alt-right Identitarians type or some other New Right outlook who desire a new outlook or way to go by. They do not want to continue on the right wing path but wish to evolve into something. Basically they see that the Third Position is not the exactly full answer and perhaps there needs to be a different one. Again the left not seeing this but instead choosing to demonize all of the New Right has pushed away more people away from the left.

We live in a changing times, things are actually evolving very rapidly today, who knows what will happen to the New Right and where modern anti-establishment/populist movement will lead us. But constantly freaking out about the Nazis returning is not helping anyone.
#14938845
Kirillov wrote:The same occurred in the early 20th century, when nationalists and protofascists understood Christianity not as a religion, with a distinct set of ethical and dogmatic guidelines, but as a loosely defined collection of European cultural traditions. Telling these people that Christ or some other Christian figure opposes their line of thinking is useless, since they absolutely do not care. What they care about is representing Christianity as part of 'Western Civilisation', a category used to exclude the enemy du jour, be it Jews, Muslims, Marxists, the Left more generally, feminism, or whatever.


And are the left not doing the same?

Quoting the Bible to justify socialism is no different.

Presumably you think Christ is a communist?

The Bolsheviks and all other communist revolutionaries never turned the other cheek. There was nothing meek or timid about them.
#14938981
Political Interest wrote:And are the left not doing the same?

Quoting the Bible to justify socialism is no different.



Some Christian social democrats might indeed argue that Christianity and socialism are, to some extent, commensurate. However, most on the Left understand that the Bible in general and the Christian churches in particular have been inimical to the cause of socialism and so prefer either to attack Christianity or just ignore it.

Presumably you think Christ is a communist?


No. Communism did not exist in 30-33AD. On those occasions when Christ pointed to the dissolution of social hierarchy and economic inequality, he did so as a messianic, chiliastic preacher who believed that the approaching end of the world would end these issues: everyone is equal before God and the apocalypse would bring everyone directly before God. This is not a communist perspective, which argues for the dissolution of the existing socio-economic system on the basis of historical materialism.

The Bolsheviks and all other communist revolutionaries never turned the other cheek. There was nothing meek or timid about them.


Indeed. It is one of the admirable things about them.
#14938987
The only "left" that honestly uses the bible are liberal unitarian fakers. Kirillov is right. The bible is reactionary and Christianity isn't worth keeping around past its historical context.

It's fun reading at least. Samuel and Judges are badass. @Political Interest if you honestly think the left is co-opting Christianity to the same degree the right is you're delusional. They would fund raise on Christ's corpse if it would get them a state senate seat in this country.
#14939000
Why the surprise? Humans are opinionated bastards and consider their morality superior to their neighbours.

The left and right are indeed creatures of the same brush - only on opposite sides of the moral spectrum. They consider themselves correct and will use all means to justify their belief over the other. The bible being the prime example of cherry picking of morality for justification for these individuals to live their lives as they see fit. But in reality a Christian cannot decide which parts of the bible are absolute if they accept the bible as a fact. So are its ethics absolute or not? If so, you cannot decide which message to adhere to can you? Whether Christ was a Communist or not is debatable. But he most definitely was not a Capitalist. Sharing, love thy neighbour, helping the poor, feeding the 5000, healing the sick. These are all messages from the bible. Yet in America, a highly Christian nation, has a tax system that favours the rich, wants to build a wall and impose tarriffs on their neighbours and allies, is a society that relies on food banks, has a massive rich poor divide and has the worse health care system in place on the planet where profits and corporations are paramount over that of the health of an individual. Does America actually adhere to any ethics found in the bible? Well a Camel has a easier chance of walking through an eye of a needle than a rich man has in getting into heaven. So in essence, those who are on the right and share Trumps vision are cherry picking the bible's messages for their own morality and believes.

The problem of course is the left and liberalism is also cherry picking. Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible. Women are second class citizens also. There is only one God so that ends freedom of religion. Out of wedlock sex is a sin, so is divorce. Slavery is condoned. So is selling you daughter for sex. And then it also supports the death penalty.

So basically and in other words, there is nothing wrong with Christianity if you 'do' indeed turn the other cheek in a moral standpoint. I disagree with PI here. However, I do agree that victimhood is a modern phenomenon where freedoms that we once didn't have that we do have now, have been replaced with a lack of common sense when these freedoms should be applied. And you cannot blame religion for that. You can only blame today's high moral standards and the zero tolerance principle we have applied to ourselves. There is no better example of this than the sacking of Gunn in Guardians. Before trial by social media, his comments would have been taken as tongue and cheek as was intended when written. But the outrage of victimhood, means the Liberals that defend him have fallen for their own trap of high moral values that they apply to the right. You cannot have it both ways. To do so is hypocrisy. And now we should work on common sense before the west becomes a nanny state and these movements that existed for good such as 'Me too' turn into bad movements of witchhunting, victimhood salvation, putting the burden of the evils of past generations onto todays and turning the innocent into the guilty.
#14939006
B0ycey wrote: But he most definitely was not a Capitalist. Sharing, love thy neighbour, helping the poor, feeding the 5000, healing the sick.


All of those things are capitalist though. Not everyone is a saint but on a day to day basis that is exactly capitalism just about everywhere. Not one of the good religions forbids capitalism, not one, so capitalism is in general compatible with the best moral understandings we have. The only religion to forbid capitalism is communism, the religion responsible for the equivalent of a dozen holocausts, the secular religion which makes satanism look nice.

#14939016
SolarCross wrote:All of those things are capitalist though.


Absolutely wrong I'm afraid SolarCross. Capitalism is all about private ownership, profit and individualism. You do not share your capital like Jesus did with his bread and fish. You do not help those in need like Jesus did for the Lepers and prostitutes. In order to obtain profit, there must be debt. People sell their labor at a fraction of its worth while the private owner and not the state picks up the surplus profit. Only a state health care system like the NHS and not the American System capitalist healthcare system for profit means no debt burden on those of ill health too.

So Jesus did indeed work under similar lines to Marxism principles found within his manifesto. And he was killed by the Romans for a reason after all. And it wasn't because he accepted its politcal system which was a precurser for feudialism. It was because he wanted a system that was based on necessity, sharing and fairness. So he was a Communist in all but name in my opinion. Only you confuse true Communism with that bullshit Communism that is cloaked under fascism that Stalin produced.
#14939017
B0ycey wrote:Absolutely wrong I'm afraid SolarCross. Capitalism is all about private ownership, profit and individualism. You do not share your capital like Jesus did with his bread and fish. You do not help those in need like Jesus did for the Lepers and prostitutes. In order to obtain profit, there must be debt. People sell their labor at a fraction of its worth while the private owner and not the state picks up the surplus profit. Only a state health care system like the NHS and not the American System capitalist healthcare system for profit means no debt burden on those of ill health too.

So Jesus did indeed work under similar lines to Marxism principles found within his manifesto. And he was killed by the Romans for a reason after all. And it wasn't because he accepted its politcal system which was a precurser for feudialism. It was because he wanted a system that was based on necessity, sharing and fairness. So he was a Communist in all but name in my opinion. Only you confuse true Communism with that bullshit Communism that is cloaked under fascism that Stalin produced.


That's all stuff you made up so you can justify murdering and robbing people. Capitalism is "private" (as in non-government) property and the trade of such which is a really broad thing so if you want to be dark that can include some pretty nasty stuff like selling narcotics or sex slaves but 99% of commerce isn't like that, it is ordinary everyday good and benign stuff we all benefit from and enjoy.

Image

Every single person in the pic above is someone you as a marxist wants to rob, torture and kill.
#14939020
SolarCross wrote:That's all stuff you made up so you can justify murdering and robbing people. Capitalism is "private" (as in non-government) property and the trade of such which is a really broad thing so if you want to be dark that can include some pretty nasty stuff like selling narcotics or sex slaves but 99% of commerce isn't like that, it is ordinary everyday good and benign stuff we all benefit from and enjoy.


Please provide examples if anything is made up. Everything I have written can be found in the bible.

But murdering and robbing people historically is a Capitalist trait. Do you think the Dutch and British history is without casualty? And is private ownership found in nature? Private ownership means that someone has to lose out. Do you think those who don't own, benefit from the current system? And the percentage of populous is with them BTW. So capitalism is a minority beneficiary not net gain for all. And true Communism is not like what you think it is either. You possess what you require and your labor is for the benefit of all. The system is very natural BTW and most animals work under a similar system for their kind.

Also showing an image of a shopping centre doesn't highlight that there is indeed losers in Capitalism either - it just may not be you. Someone in Asia, Africa or any poor state has lost their surplus labor for someone of wealth so that we can afford the trainers they make for example. We in the West do not even know what true poverty is because the current global economic system benefits us at the expense of the world's poor BTW.
#14939026
B0ycey wrote:Please provide examples if anything is made up. Everything I have written can be found in the bible.

But murdering and robbing people historically is a Capitalist trait. Do you think the Dutch and British history is without casualty? And is private ownership found in nature? Private ownership means that someone has to lose out. Do you think those who don't own, benefit from the current system? And the percentage of populous is with them BTW. So capitalism is a minority beneficiary not net gain for all. And true Communism is not like what you think it is either. You possess what you require and your labor is for the benefit of all. The system is very natural BTW and most animals work under a similar system for their kind.

Also showing an image of a shopping centre doesn't highlight that there is indeed losers in Capitalism either - it just may not be you. Someone in Asia, Africa or any poor state has lost their surplus labor for someone of wealth so that we can afford the trainers they make for example. We in the West do not even know what true poverty is because the current global economic system benefits us at the expense of the world's poor BTW.


No one beats communists for murdering and robbing, you make Nazis look cute and cuddly in comparison. Some people say we should punch nazis, actually I think that is a fair thing to do, because anyone in this day and age who self-identifies as a mass murderer pretty much is asking for a punch in the face at least. Way back in the 1930s you might even have the excuse that you didn't really know what was going on, you were just caught up in events but now with the benefit of historical hindsight there really is no excuse. What goes for nazis must go 10x for commies because they are 10x worse. Punching is really insufficient, let's be honest.
#14939029
SolarCross wrote:No one beats communists for murdering and robbing, you make Nazis look cute and cuddly in comparison. Some people say we should punch nazis, actually I think that is a fair thing to do, because anyone in this day and age who self-identifies as a mass murderer pretty much is asking for a punch in the face at least. Way back in the 1930s you might even have the excuse that you didn't really know what was going on, you were just caught up in events but now with the benefit of historical hindsight there really is no excuse. What goes for nazis must go 10x for commies because they are 10x worse. Punching is really insufficient, let's be honest.


No one, and I mean no one, beats the Imperialists for murder and robbing. And who are the most imperialist nations if not the beneficies of Capitalism? Do you honestly think America entered Iraq to liberate them for example? :lol:

But I am not a Communist BTW. I just understand the system and the fairness of it. Although there are pitfalls to it as well I might at. Nonetheless I know the evils of Stalin Mao Lenin etc. But they are not Marxists. They have their own ideology associated to their name if you don't know already. Their systems were not even socialism - let alone Communism I might add, but dictatorships. And until you understand that, you, like almost all of Pofo, don't even know what Communism actually is. Only advocate TIG and a few others actually fully understood Communism as it was intending to be. And I suspect he wasn't shouting the name of Stalin from this cliff tops as he would have known his evils.

So get your facts correct and don't slander the name of Communism until you actually know what you are talking about. Currently there has never been an actual Communist state to have killed and rob anyone. The closest we have ever had to Communism is the words of wisdom from Jesus.
#14939032
B0ycey wrote:No one, and I mean no one, beats the Imperialists for murder and robbing. And who are the most imperialist nations if not the beneficies of Capitalism? Do you honestly think America entered Iraq to liberate them for example? :lol:

But I am not a Communist BTW. I just understand the system and the fairness of it. Although there are pitfalls to it as well I might at. Nonetheless I know the evils of Stalin Mao Lenin etc. But they are not Marxists. They have their own ideology associated to their name if you don't know already. Their systems were not even socialism - let alone Communism I might add, but dictatorships. And until you understand that, you, like almost all of Pofo, don't even know what Communism actually is. Only advocate TIG and a few others actually fully understood Communism as it was intending to be. And I suspect he wasn't shouting the name of Stalin from this cliff tops as he would have known his evils.

So get your facts correct and don't slander the name of Communism until you actually know what you are talking about. Currently there has never been an actual Communist state to have killed and rob anyone. The closest we have ever had to Communism is the words of wisdom from Jesus.


Communists are such liars. There is nothing else to say, except I hope you get what you deserve.
Impeachment in Wonderland

At the heart of this is the indisputable fact tha[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

The commitments also end after two years. China i[…]

One of the first things you do in a trial is Disc[…]

Excursus on Faith and Reason

I don't have faith. Faith is the duct tape of Chri[…]