#MeToo and Cancel Culture: Friday is bring your own torches and pitchforks day!

That would be a shame I honestly like you as a person
But I don't know what else I can do if this is the only thing you're going to talk about.


You may be willing to spend the rest of your life whining and moaning waiting for your grandchildren to fix your mess ups but I rather go down swinging.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Becouse,like Blackaddler said in one of WW1 episodes,they would not expect us to charge in the same place 17 time.
We're not really the problem thing is you need to change out who's in charge of a system every 80 to a hundred years or so.

The managerial system created in the wake of WW2 isn't working anymore personally I prefer a more decentralized solution.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Wokists reject literally everything about Christian philosophy and ethos except Egalitarianism, and they don't actually even practice that either, they just pretend to.
The back-and-forth bloodbaths between Christianity and Islam demonstrate the Important thing that Intersectionality retains from Christianity: Reliance upon "One True Way" to make sense never works out when you need to live with those who disagree.

With Christianity and Islam, they've proven incapable of peaceful coexistence in thorough contradiction to prior religious friction forming buffer-zones stabilized by syncretism, as any such thing violates the core axiom that their scripture is the only valid morality because it's handed out by an unquestionable absolute.

With Intersectionality, it's philosophically reliant on equality of demographics in all matters of nature, from which any deviation unravels all their rhetoric. Because if any demographic factor is of immutable significance, this "Tabula Rasa" concept is false.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
The back-and-forth bloodbaths between Christianity and Islam demonstrate the Important thing that Intersectionality retains from Christianity: Reliance upon "One True Way" to make sense never works out when you need to live with those who disagree.

With Christianity and Islam, they've proven incapable of peaceful coexistence in thorough contradiction to prior religious friction forming buffer-zones stabilized by syncretism, as any such thing violates the core axiom that their scripture is the only valid morality because it's handed out by an unquestionable absolute.

With Intersectionality, it's philosophically reliant on equality of demographics in all matters of nature, from which any deviation unravels all their rhetoric. Because if any demographic factor is of immutable significance, this "Tabula Rasa" concept is false.

This is ignorant of what the actual doctrines of the two religions teach, and what the various political leaders who've used religion as tools historically have done working with and against that.

When the 'One True Way' teaches that you should Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, yes, the 'One True Way' can coexist peacefully with those who do not follow it.

When the 'One True Way' teaches that nonbelievers are subhuman, and that they should be subjugates, then ultimately either forcibly converted or put to the sword, the 'One True Way' cannot peacefully coexist with those who do not follow it.

When you're an ambitious noble, merchant, or politician in a religious society, you may be willing to manipulate religious teaching and doctrine distorting some parts and completely ignoring others, in order to get whatever you want out of it.


These differences and distinctions matter.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
This is ignorant of what the actual doctrines of the two religions teach, and what the various political leaders who've used religion as tools historically have done working with and against that.

When the 'One True Way' teaches that you should Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, yes, the 'One True Way' can coexist peacefully with those who do not follow it.

When the 'One True Way' teaches that nonbelievers are subhuman, and that they should be subjugates, then ultimately either forcibly converted or put to the sword, the 'One True Way' cannot peacefully coexist with those who do not follow it.

When you're an ambitious noble, merchant, or politician in a religious society, you may be willing to manipulate religious teaching and doctrine distorting some parts and completely ignoring others, in order to get whatever you want out of it.


These differences and distinctions matter.
I have extreme doubt towards these modern Christian apologetics, yes for the past 2000 years Christian’s we’re getting it wrong only NOW in the modern west with seperation of church and state are people finally understanding Christ message.
 
I have extreme doubt towards these modern Christian apologetics, yes for the past 2000 years Christian’s we’re getting it wrong only NOW in the modern west with seperation of church and state are people finally understanding Christ message.

it's not really either or though. Christianity has ebbs and flows throughout history, Christianity gets a spiritual wake as a result of cultural collapse<slowly becomes a part of the new mainstream culture<becomes corrupted by mainstream culture and customs<cultural collapse occurs due to corruption<Christianity gets a spiritual wake as a result of cultural collapse.
Also it should be noted that Christ message was hard for even the apostles to swallow, as up until his accession that they thought he was going to restore the phisical nation of Isreal, it wasin't until after that everything clicked, and there were still moments when some of them backslid and had to be rebuked, and these guy's walked with jesus directly. Should we really be surprised when those who saw him not have such difficulty too?
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
I have extreme doubt towards these modern Christian apologetics, yes for the past 2000 years Christian’s we’re getting it wrong only NOW in the modern west with seperation of church and state are people finally understanding Christ message.

You're showing an enormous ignorance of the history of Christianity, Christian organizations, and 'christendom.'

In every era, including the lifetimes of the direct disciples of Christ themselves, there were those within the church who sought after authority, position, and prestige, rather than actually following Christ's teachings. The epistles regularly called this out.

At the same time, in every era there are those who are lauded for the ways they do follow Christ's teaching.

If you seriously think that Christian history between the resurrection and the 20th or 21st century was just a lot of bloodshed and conquistadores, you've been drinking too much atheist kool-aid.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
You're showing an enormous ignorance of the history of Christianity, Christian organizations, and 'christendom.'

In every era, including the lifetimes of the direct disciples of Christ themselves, there were those within the church who sought after authority, position, and prestige, rather than actually following Christ's teachings. The epistles regularly called this out.

At the same time, in every era there are those who are lauded for the ways they do follow Christ's teaching.

If you seriously think that Christian history between the resurrection and the 20th or 21st century was just a lot of bloodshed and conquistadores, you've been drinking too much atheist kool-aid.
True the Bible called out those who were corrupt. But what historical Christianity did not do that many apologists try now is condemn certain actions like you just did oh crusades are bad, oh conquistadores were bad. No they were considered good and doing the Christian thing.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
True the Bible called out those who were corrupt. But what historical Christianity did not do that many apologists try now is condemn certain actions like you just did oh crusades are bad, oh conquistadores were bad. No they were considered good and doing the Christian thing.

Again you are showing ignorance of history.

Some supported the conquistadores at the time. Some didn't. Generally those who did were doing it more out of nationalism than any kind of religious fervor or such.

Further, the Crusades were a much, much more complicated thing than they were made out to be. Ultimately, the crusades were a counter-attack against the islamic world for the invasions of the Eastern Roman Empire and Europe. They were brutal and bloody, often more so than can possibly be justified, but so was the war the islamic world was waging on 'christendom,' at worst, you can say they failed to rise above the level of their opponents, which Christians are supposed to do.

I repeat, your perception of history seems to be based on classic 'atheist history' talking points.

To make a point, what can you tell me about the historical good done across the centuries by Christians?
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
True the Bible called out those who were corrupt. But what historical Christianity did not do that many apologists try now is condemn certain actions like you just did oh crusades are bad, oh conquistadores were bad. No they were considered good and doing the Christian thing.
There were literally several hundred years where wars were fought only between small groups and civilian casualties were almost entirely avoided, because the church emphasized the "Peace of God" and forbade targeting non-combatants.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Again you are showing ignorance of history.

Some supported the conquistadores at the time. Some didn't. Generally those who did were doing it more out of nationalism than any kind of religious fervor or such.

Further, the Crusades were a much, much more complicated thing than they were made out to be. Ultimately, the crusades were a counter-attack against the islamic world for the invasions of the Eastern Roman Empire and Europe. They were brutal and bloody, often more so than can possibly be justified, but so was the war the islamic world was waging on 'christendom,' at worst, you can say they failed to rise above the level of their opponents, which Christians are supposed to do.

I repeat, your perception of history seems to be based on classic 'atheist history' talking points.

To make a point, what can you tell me about the historical good done across the centuries by Christians?
The only people who were condemned the conquistadors were hypocrites like the British. And yes I know the crusades were complicated.
As for the good christians have done many many things. The most important being they saved the souls of countless Europeans and South Americans by letting them be raised in the true faith. It for secular reasons well Christian churches have cared for the poor and widows and orphans, they helped promote a measure of peace in Europe did not always work but the common culture of Christianity at least limited wars. The monks preserved knowledge of the ancient Roman Empire. And the conquistadors ended human sacrifice.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
There were literally several hundred years where wars were fought only between small groups and civilian casualties were almost entirely avoided, because the church emphasized the "Peace of God" and forbade targeting non-combatants.
Among Christians yes, I acknowledge this I said it above.
 
*Sigh* no @King Arts they were not the only ones. There have been various secs against the Catholic church throughout the centuries the two big ones being a return to pacifism and a return to poverty. Up until the reformation however they were essentially the vocal minorities of there time and they likely would have stayed that way had the Catholic church not openly fallen into corruption (namely with the use of indulgences) but they were there.

That's like saying the only people against globalism or *insert any war between WWI to today* were hypocrites
 

King Arts

Well-known member
*Sigh* no @King Arts they were not the only ones. There have been various secs against the Catholic church throughout the centuries the two big ones being a return to pacifism and a return to poverty. Up until the reformation however they were essentially the vocal minorities of there time and they likely would have stayed that way had the Catholic church not openly fallen into corruption (namely with the use of indulgences) but they were there.

That's like saying the only people against globalism or *insert any war between WWI to today* were hypocrites
There were groups that espoused poverty as virtue. That is true, I wouldn't call that a sect though since there were groups that were part of the big Church's that took vows of poverty both Catholics and Orthodox had monks who took vows of poverty. Sometimes they were corrupt, but I would say most actually kept to their vows.

However pacifism was a niche sect it was not until after the Protestant reformation until groups like Amish or Quakers, etc. and other pacifist groups started to spread. But even then they were a minority. The vast majority of protestants were Lutherans which for the most part were traditional Christians, Calvinists, then the Church of England. Then more sects came about. But most of them did not require pacifism they frequently engaged in brutal wars including genocidal wars. (the reason I said hypocritical was in reference to the English who brought up the black legend about Spain and it's bad treatment of natives, yet they almost entirely wiped out the natives in North America.)
 
There were groups that espoused poverty as virtue. That is true, I wouldn't call that a sect though since there were groups that were part of the big Church's that took vows of poverty both Catholics and Orthodox had monks who took vows of poverty. Sometimes they were corrupt, but I would say most actually kept to their vows.

However pacifism was a niche sect it was not until after the Protestant reformation until groups like Amish or Quakers, etc. and other pacifist groups started to spread. But even then they were a minority. The vast majority of protestants were Lutherans which for the most part were traditional Christians, Calvinists, then the Church of England. Then more sects came about. But most of them did not require pacifism they frequently engaged in brutal wars including genocidal wars. (the reason I said hypocritical was in reference to the English who brought up the black legend about Spain and it's bad treatment of natives, yet they almost entirely wiped out the natives in North America.)
Waldensians, Lollards, Freticillians, just off the top of my head. These guys were existing long before the reformation. They were a minority but they were there. And being a minority or a majority does not mean being right or wrong. It just means a belief is popular or at least not looked at in hostility by the masses

Anti-Lgbtq folk were a minority until recently. Up until then most people didn't care. You'll fine that no body is 100% right on 100% of things man.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Why are we condemning the conquistadores? As bad as Hernan Cortez was, there's a reason half the population of Mexico jumped on his bandwagon.

Namely, in Central America, the reigning native superpowers were cartoonishly evil, and their own victims converted to the cross and actively encouraged the Spanish to annihilate them.

Their own neighbors saw that as Fairplay. Why are we virtue-signaling for guys who made the Nazis look like pansies?
 
Last edited:

Cherico

Well-known member
Why are we condemning the conquistadores? As bad as Hernan Cortez was, there's a reason half the population of Mexico jumped on his bandwagon.

Namely in Central America, the ringing native superpowers were cartoonishly evil and their own victims converted to the cross and actively encouraged the Spanish to annihilate them.

Their own neighbors saw that aa Fairplay. Why are we virtue signaling for guys who made the Nazis look like pansies?

Because Wokies don't actually understand history and are controlling assholes?
 

Wargamer08

Well-known member
Why are we condemning the conquistadores? As bad as Hernan Cortez was, there's a reason half the population of Mexico jumped on his bandwagon.

Namely in Central America, the ringing native superpowers were cartoonishly evil and their own victims converted to the cross and actively encouraged the Spanish to annihilate them.

Their own neighbors saw that aa Fairplay. Why are we virtue signaling for guys who made the Nazis look like pansies?
Literally this. Sure the Spanish somehow blew all the gold and silver they earned for snuffing out what was likely the most evil religion ever on God only knows what, ye olden days blackjack and hookers couldn't have been that expensive.

And sure they managed to mostly blow all the good will the natives had by treating them worse then livestock. But seriously, anyone who has issue with pulling down the Aztecs and their industrialized practices of mass human sacrifice and canablism is insane.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top