There is way more nuance to and lack of agreement on these topics than is presented here. Do I think God could forgive Jeffrey Dhamer? Absolutely. Do people go to “hell” for being gay? Absolutely not. First, because hell (as in the place of eternal torment) doesn’t exist. Second, being gay isnt a sin.
And yes, I know there’s an army of other Christians out there who are are foaming at the mouth in disagreement.
I’ve had the notion of producing some SDXL images of jesus doing hateful things that Christians do, like holding up a “god hates f*gs” sign or roaring and frothing at a trump rally. Make them see what “Christ through them” looks like. Put it on billboards and shit.
Good idea. It is odd how the old and New Testament seem to be at odds with each other in so many ways yet “Christians” who supposedly follow Christ seem to think “god” or the Old Testament biblical version of him, outweighs christs teachings of god, whenever they feel like being justified in their hatred. They’re closer to Muslim than Christian in their closeness of actions to teachings.
To a sizeable number of “Christians”, Jesus is more of an abstract concept than an actual being. Believing he existed is more important than listening to or living out what he had to say. I mean, I’ve actually quoted passages from the bible to people when they try to rug sweep Trumps many moral bankruptcies or start shitting all over poor people or immigrants. And what do they do? They look down at their feet for a few seconds with a sort of guilty expression on their face. Then, they just kind of shake it off and launch right back into whatever bullshit they were spouting before.
If any of those people ever bothered to crack a bible, they would find a fair chunk of it is spent vehemently railing against the things they are pushing for.
It’s ome thing to abstract it and another entirely to be staring at a billboard where your god is shown to be as vile and hate-fuelled as you are. Make them get angry about it, and point out at every enfuriated comment that they’re only proving the point.
Piece of Shit Pie as the internet usually refers to him, was an office holder in the FCC appointed by then sitting US President Donald Trump in 2017. His most noticeable policy stances included a complete end to Net Neutrality regulations in the USA and to or from abroad, despite previously claiming that he didn’t think the board of unelected members had the authority to dictate it. Once he switched his stance to deregulation it would have had the effect of letting telecommunications companies and other intermediary ISPs decide what content or sources their users have access to: the internet as a whole to all US citizens could have been completely controlled by a small group of companies, their customers potentially seeing only what they want them to see and not having access or freedom to send or receive connections.
I can’t think of anything more specifically “reddit brain” than lumping Ajit Pai in with Hitler and of the hundreds of school shootings including the one shooter that happened to be trans.
I can’t think of anything more specifically “reddit brain” than lumping Ajit Pai in with Hitler and of the hundreds of school shooting…
Nobody said they’re the same, just that if hell exists they’d all be there. They’re all just famous horrible people that are popular to talk about online, that’s what they have in common.
… including the one shooter that happened to be trans.
You have a point there, that was certainly a choice.
I don’t understand how Henry Kissinger was left to live peaceably and undisturbed his entire life when he was committing such atrocities for decades. Why were the masses not tar-and-feathering him and harassing him with a bounty on his head, trained assassins not pursuing him all these decades?
Because those are the types actions of people who use hate as a tool (same as Kissinger did). You can ask the same about Trump and why he hasn’t been assassinated yet (I know, apples and oranges). But what I’m trying to say is that people who are against such attrocities usually don’t prefer violence as a means to any end. Just my opinion on the matter.
I remember hearing about it on the news and I was in just… total shock for at least 10 minutes. I just stood there after hearing it on the news. It still spins my brain round how someone could be such an evil fuck.
For the person that down-voted me, it is estimated that Mao was responsible for several times as many deaths as Hitler. Estimates range from 40 million all the way to 100 million people.
You don’t have to be a Nazi to point out that ~100 million people dead because of Mao is worse than ~20 million dead because of Hitler.
Unless you value Chinese lives less than the victims of Hitler, it shouldn’t be an issue to see Mao as having been more evil, even though both were very evil.
To gain power of an entire country like China, Mao had to be very intelligent. Him not being informed of the consequences of his policies is highly unlikely. The consequence of claiming that he was ignorant is that it enables you to absolve him of some of his guilt. You are downplaying how bad he really was. This is not fair. Mao ruled China for 33 years and has caused more destruction in his own country than most rulers (if not all) in recorded history.
I’m not absolving anything. I’m not downplaying anything. I don’t care enough to make an argument one way or another. I’m simply saying that motives should count for something when making grandiose claims about who the worst person in all history is.
Have you read any of Confucius writings? Rulers actually have higher expectations for them than common folk. If a ruler doesn’t act properly and conduct the proper rituals, then their people can’t be expected either. I’m not sure how familiar you are with Confucian thought, I’m struggling to understand what you are basing that statement on.
“The Master said, "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”
I have no real context other than what is here, and maybe Frogfucius, and I’m not great at reading between the lines so bear with me, because that doesn’t seem so awful for medieval philosophy. Lead by virtue rather than punishment? Sounds almost enlightened.
I mean with the part about rules and propriety, it sound a bit like the Broken Window Theorem which has been shown to be a cover for racist policing, but it also came out in the 80s.
Not medieval, Confucius was writing in 500 BCE. I’m not staning Confucius, but he was far harsher on rulers than he was peasants. Rulers are supposed to act like rulers, if they want their people to follow. There are more restrictions on them - a bad ruler (not just bad as in ineffective or cruel, but sexual deviance or drunkeness) can cause droughts or other disasters.
and the joke is, who sets these traditions and rules? go a bit farther, and you learn the justification of these rules is “there wasn’t a natural disaster recently”
like sure there are stringent rules the leader must follow, but whatever the leader decides the rules should be is what even these rules are
??? That would be more accurately describing Lao Zhu if you’re really willing to stretch your interpretations. I’m not sure how you get Machiavelli, Confucius is about as far away from realpolitk as it gets.
Okay, we all need to prepare for the day that he escapes from hell. You know what’s going to happen, it’s been foretold. We need to get one of those books from Myst
Add comment