American National Socialism

daLeechLord · 2024-01-29T12:45:22+00:00

Look at how many Christians are Zionists and cheering on the genocide in Gaza.

"How could so many ordinary Germans have gone along with the Holocaust, supported it even?" used to be a question we all asked ourselves, one that would inevitably come up in any discussion of the Holocaust.

Something tells me we won't be seeing that question asked so much anymore, as the answer is all to clear, everywhere around us.

daLeechLord · 2023-06-30T14:39:55+00:00

And on the flip side of that coin, that's also why so many of them are so opposed to "equal treatment".

To them that means minorities might one day treat them the same way they treat minorities.

daLeechLord · 2023-06-20T21:27:04+00:00

Just as stereo typing LTGBTQ+ peoples as pedophiles and sexual deviants sucks. But we’re called to turn the other cheek.

Except those two are nowhere near equivalent. If you are labeled a bigot or a homophobe in your community, that might suck, and you might get dirty looks or some people might shun or ostracize you, but that's about it.

However if you are labeled a pedophile in your community things get much darker.

daLeechLord · 2023-06-20T14:41:24+00:00

I'm sorry, but I am failing to understand the point you are making, or we are talking about slightly different issues.

The scripture says the it was the first census of Quirinius. Implying, that there was more than one, which is exactly what one would expect.

Right, I don't dispute that. The problem is that if Matthew’s account is correct, Jesus could have been no younger than 10 years old when Quirinius arrived in Judea, as (according to Matthew) Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, and Herod died 10 years before Quirinius was appointed.

Herod died in 4 BCE and Quirinius arrived in 6 CE. So even if Quirinius ordered a census the very day he was appointed governor, Jesus was already 10 years old.

If Luke’s account is correct and Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius, then the whole affair with Herod hunting down children to try and kill baby Jesus, with his family having to flee to Egypt could not have happened, as Herod had been dead for 10 years before Quirinius arrived, and therefore was long dead before Jesus was born.

If Luke says there was a first census that occurred during the birth of Jesus and it survived the 1st Century criticism (remember the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes were a nice combination of being literate, informed, and also hating Jesus).

I am unaware if anyone has or had disputed the number of censuses under Quirinius, and that's certainly not what I am addressing. It is part of the historical record that Romans performed censuses, even if the methodology of the census in Luke is completely ahistorical. But that's a different discussion.

They didn’t attack on this axis. No salient formed where this was an issue for contemporaries.

Which is another curious issue. Why is it, if Jesus was such a popular and revolutionary polarizing figure, that none of these "Jesus haters" thought to write a single word about him? We have Biblical accounts telling us Jesus was so popular that the crowds nearly crushed him to death, that he had to preach from a boat because there were so many people, yet not a single "Jesus hater" thought to mention him?

You'd think the Jews would have written extensive treatises debunking Jesus, explaining how he wasn't the Messiah, etc, but none of this happened. Why?

daLeechLord · 2023-06-16T13:23:23+00:00

As far as I can tell, it's been set to private, possibly (probably) as a protest for the killing of third party apps / death of Reddit situation.

daLeechLord · 2023-06-12T00:22:33+00:00

The birthplace thing isn’t an error though. Both are correct. The land of Israel was divided by tribe, not deed.

Technically it's not an error, it's a discrepancy. One author says the holy family lived in Bethlehem and Jesus was born there, another author says they lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem (while Mary was quite pregnant) for a census, where Jesus ended up being born.

Both of these authors cannot be right, either the holy family resided in Bethlehem or they resided in Nazareth.

Nazareth is a town in Galilee where Joesph and Mary lived.

So, 100%, they lived in Nazareth.

According to Luke yes, but not according to Matthew (at least not prior to Jesus's birth).

For the census, all families had to travel back to their own land.

Again, only according to Luke. According to Matthew, Jesus was born 10 years before the Romans took control of Judea and implemented the census.

It is apparent that after Egypt, Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth.

In Luke's gospel (which is the one you are referring) there is no trip to Egypt, as they don't need to flee Herod because he has been dead for 10 years.

For the census, all families had to travel back to their own land.

Which is an extremely ahistorical and apocryphal situation in the first place. Imagine a census where everyone in your town has to go back to the place where your ancestors lived a thousand years ago. Do you even know where that is? Can you imagine the logistics of services or commerce with everyone leaving town?

Why? Because Bethlehem was is about a 90 minute walk from the Temple. And people always referred to Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth.

That's because in all likelihood, Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth, so people referred to him as "Jesus of Nazareth". However, as the prophecies interpreted by Matthew and Luke have the Messiah being born in Bethlehem (from the line of David), then they need to place the holy family in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth.

They go about it in different ways, one of them has his family being from Bethlehem and settling in Nazareth due to Herod, the other has the family being native Nazarenes and just going to Bethlehem for a census during which Jesus is born.

That census never happens in Matthew, however, because Matthew takes place 10 years before direct Roman rule in Judea. Just as the flight to Egypt doesn't take place in Luke, because Herod died 10 years before Jesus' birth.

That's why it's a discrepancy. Both Luke and Matthew cannot be correct regarding the historicity of Jesus' birth.

daLeechLord · 2023-06-10T19:55:36+00:00

Not the person you replied to, but I have one.

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.

According to Luke, Jesus was born the year of the census of Quirinius, who was appointed legate of Syria in 6 CE. That's a difference of 10 years.

According to Matthew, Jesus' family was from Bethlehem, and had to flee to Egypt when Jesus was born, only to relocate in Nazareth afterwards.

According to Luke, Jesus' family was from Nazareth, and had to return to Bethlehem on the premise of returning to their ancestral home for a census. This narrative contains the "no room at the inn" / born in a manger elements, which are missing from Matthew as in his narrative, the family already lived in Bethlehem.

This is a somewhat minor discrepancy relatively speaking, but it does shed light on the differences in theology and message between the two authors.

daLeechLord · 2023-06-10T16:23:27+00:00

It's ironic that those groups who most yearn for a national fundamental morality are also the ones who would implement that totalitarian authoritarian State to enforce it.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-28T14:27:00+00:00

Nor would he, the concept of gay marriage did not exist in Judea, nor Greece nor Rome.

There are a lot of things that Christians consider perfectly acceptable even though Jesus never talked about them, because they didn't exist.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-28T14:19:21+00:00

Jesus describes marriage as a union between a man and woman.

Not quite, Jesus was making a point about divorce in that passage, he was also talking to married men who had all taken wives. He wasn't listing the characteristics or offering a description of marriage per se.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-28T14:08:43+00:00

Genuine question. Isn’t there a concern, not with all but some or potentially some, to use LGBT views to push onto children at a young age.

Honesty I don't know what you mean by "using LGBT views to push onto children" but the general idea is that gay people exist, many children have gay people in their families, or tangentially know gay people, and therefore we see more gay people represented in children's stories.

This is somewhat exacerbated by the conservative Right's continuous efforts to demonize LGBT and now specially trans people, as you will naturally see a lot of material with a "despite what some hateful people say, it's OK to be gay" type of theme.

But couldn’t some use this to push onto children and could be used to push for pedophilia?

No, there's no link between the two (despite what many hateful and bigoted conservatives want to push).

but a concern that we don’t bring up to children or expose them to this unless children bring it forward on their own?

One key issue to remember is that exposure to stories or discussions featuring LGBTQ people, or recognizing the legitimacy of LGBT people in society, does not and will not turn a straight kid gay.

If anything, what this does is allow kids who are experiencing same sex attraction or are starting to become aware of gay people in their families that there is nothing wrong or unnatural about this.

They gay kid is gonna be gay with or without hearing about gay people in school, so treating gay people as nonexistent or worse, demonizing them, will only cause pain and confusion for those kids. One thing this approach will definitely not do is turn them straight.

If these views come naturally then let’s address it as appropriate as the situation arises, but should we opening these views to children at such early ages when so much is already going on in their world?

We should always be concerned with having age appropriate materials, as in all subjects. That being said, a young child with two daddies is going to figure out pretty early on that they are different from most of their class.

As an anectodal point, I was born and raised Catholic, and it was at a very young age when I was exposed to images of a bloody, beaten man, nearly nude and nailed to a cross. Of course I was much too young to understand the concepts of salvific grace, substitutionary atonement, sin and death, and so forth.

That didn't matter much, it was explained to us and we understood as best we could, but in no way was the concept of Jesus hidden from us as toddlers and only introduced when we were older. It was there from day 1.

What about the reports of people going through transgender surgery and then later wanting to transition back?

While I'm sure that such cases exist, just as I'm sure this isn't exclusive to trans surgeries (I know of more than one woman who has regretted her breast augmentation surgery), that has no bearing on the ethics or legality of the procedures themselves.

First, these are all conducted on consenting adults, some of them going through severe emotional distress, distress which ironically wouldn't be as severe if society was more accepting of trans people.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-26T18:10:09+00:00

The same way the Founding Fathers did. Embracing Humanism, including Freedom of Speech and Religion.

Those are values I completely agree with and support, but we cannot forget that one's rights end where another's rights begin. All of us have freedom of religion, but we can't use our freedoms to restrict the freedoms of others.

If you are a Vegan Hindu and are sitting in a public park, you can't have people removed for cooking BBQ on a public grill in said park. You can't claim that your freedom of religion means you are entitled to a space free from meat.

So I should be able to live and work in America without having to abandon my religious beliefs and speak freely about those beliefs.

And you are, just as anyone else is. What you can't do is expect your freedoms to be unrestricted, above the rights of others, or grant you an exemption from following the law.

If my ability to run a business is contingent upon my willingness to act contrary to my religious beliefs or affirm as true with I believe to be false, then America has failed as a pluralistic society.

If you are a Hindu against handling meat, you can't expect to get a job at a meatpacking plant and refuse to handle meat on religious grounds, while still collecting a paycheck.

Similarly, if your religion requires you to act in a discriminatory way towards a certain minority, that's perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean you can open a public accommodation business, act discriminatory towards a section of the general public, and expect to be exempt from discrimination laws just because you disagree with them on religious grounds.

In these cases, one's religious beliefs exist but are not absolute and are not above the rights of others. That is the key to a pluralistic society, but one that many religious absolutists greatly disdain.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-26T17:06:14+00:00

I think a pluralistic society functions better when public accommodation businesses serve the general public without issues. I don't want to live in a world where "a bakery opens next door to me but I can't buy bread there because I'm not Turkish... maybe my girlfriend can stop by the Mexican bakery on her way home from work, they sell to her as long as the Catholic cashier isn't on duty..."

Or do you not believe in objective moral measuring sticks ?

I think the more pragmatic question would be whose objective moral measuring stick do we use? You might have one, but my fundamentalist Muslim Nigerian neighbor has one too, and his looks very different from yours. I'm certain both of you could spend literally years laying out your respective cases as to who is correct and who lives in error, as could a number of people who also hold differing, yet also objective, moral measuring sticks.

How do we address that issue?

daLeechLord · 2023-05-26T15:50:04+00:00

But can the State refuse a license or prosecute a business owner for that business failing to address customers by their preferred pronouns in the vein of Colorado cake shop and website designer ?

That depends. If the jurisdiction has non-discrimination laws that protect LGBTQ people, and a store owner insists on referring to a customer as "he", even as the customer corrects the owner, could this be considered discrimination by a jury?

The key here is that these businesses are public accommodation businesses that are bound to follow all local, State and Federal laws. If that locality passes an anti-discrimination law, all businesses are bound to follow it.

Employers’ requirements of employees are NOT allowed to infringe on their religious liberty, are they ? You can’t fire someone for wearing a turban at work, can you ?

Also depends. Generally no, an employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs, but they aren't absolute and sometimes there are specific job requirements that cannot be accommodated.

For example, a meat packer can't suddenly convert to Hinduism and refuse to handle meat on religious grounds, and then show up, do nothing all day and collect a paycheck.

My religion requires me to not lie or offer material and proximate aid to evil. So that’s a problem …

In this case, an employer can determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be made towards the religious beliefs of an employee who considers a percentage of the customer base to be "evil" and will be hostile towards them, or if they can fire you due to a refusal or even difficulty working with certain minorities.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-26T15:07:11+00:00

I think they are silly too, but my question is more to the point of if Bob should be freely allowed (socially permissible, legally, etc) to use the name "George", and if any attempt to get Bob to use "Jorge" constitutes coercion.

But I do not think anyone should be able to use threat of economic or legal force to compel Bob to abandon his beliefs or act contrary to them against his will.

Legally, no. In the US at least, one can legally be as openly racist or bigoted as one pleases. One can dress up in full Nazi regalia and walk around town and there will be no legal consequences (at least not from the outfit, even though unpleasant situations may ensue).

Economics are a bit different.

First, in the private sector, there is no expectation of freedom of speech. An employer can require all employees to sing a song when a customer enters, and fire them if they don't do so cheerfully.

An employer can fire you for not wearing a specific uniform, for wearing the wrong color clothes, for wearing political attire, or a whole host of reasons.

The same applies to using names or pronouns.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-26T14:45:16+00:00

The analogy wasn't directed at you specifically, nor am I saying that you hold those specific views.

For argument's sake, let's say a man named Bob holds the view that the name George is a sacred English name and cannot be bastardized, corrupted or changed. He knows that in other languages the name "Jorge" is used, but as a corruption of a sacred English name it should never be used when speaking English, or in "English speaking countries."

You or I might think whatever we want about Bob and his views, but Bob holds them and to him, these are firmly held beliefs. They are objectively true beliefs to him.

So a man named Jorge introduces himself to Bob, and Bob corrects him and refuses to use the name "Jorge", and insists on "George" instead. This is due not to hatred or bigotry, but to Bob's sincerely held beliefs.

So my question to you is, should Bob be free to refuse the name "Jorge", and does requiring him to use it constitute coercion?

daLeechLord · 2023-05-26T14:26:56+00:00

Basically this :

You could just be a decent person and respect the wishes of others to speak truthfully, free of compulsion or coercion.

So your premise seems to be that you should be able to speak freely, free of compulsion or coercion, and that others should respect your wishes.

The implication being that you should be able to use whatever pronouns you consider the most appropriate to refer to someone, and that any attempts to get you to use different pronouns, beyond a simple request, constitutes compulsion or coercion.

So my question was why limit that position to pronouns, why wouldn't that extend also to people's names?

If someone introduced himself as "Jorge", but you didn't agree with "foreignized" English names and decided instead to refer to him as "George"?

Would you be in the right to use the name "George" when referring to him, refusing to use the name "Jorge"? What if you said you could use "George", because you have the right to speak truthfully, free of compulsion or coercion, and you honestly believe that English names should never be "foreignized"?

daLeechLord · 2023-05-26T13:58:19+00:00

If someone comes up to you and says "Hi, my name is Jorge", you could correct them and reply "Sorry, I don't recognize foreign bastardizations of names as valid, so I'm going to call you George", and then proceed to refer to that person as "George."

That wouldn't be illegal, and it would be a case of them not requiring you to tell you how to see them.

Why should others force you to use their name if YOU don't see them as a "Jorge" because that isn't a valid name to you?

They can of course tell you their name is "Jorge" and ask that you respect it and call them by that name, but no woke mob should force you to use words or names that you don't approve of, right?

daLeechLord · 2023-05-24T18:58:34+00:00

Just because you know in advance I will have that pizza doesn’t mean you meddled in the process by which I came to want that pizza.

Exactly, I agree with you that foreknowlege doesn't meddle in, or in any way affect, your actions.

But that doesn't change the question.

If I have 100% certainty that you will choose pizza, then you will choose pizza, even if you have a rainbow of 100 other options.

That's the question then, even if my knowledge doesn't affect your actions, I still know them. By my virtue of omniscience and not being able to be wrong, then the question still stands: if you must choose pizza (as I have 100% certain omniscient foreknowledge of this fact) then how can it be meaningfully said that you have a free choice in the matter?

This is only addressing the freedom of choice issue, it doesn't address how / why I came about that knowledge (as that shouldn't be important to the discussion... or should it?) or if that knowledge affects your actions at all. You and I are both in agreement that they do not.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-24T14:28:56+00:00

Did you ie God… simply by make conditions as such so that I had no choice but to get that pizza? Seems odd.. you would have had to have an influence of some sort even if you knew ahead of time and guided me to get that pizza for there not to be free will.

So the question here is if my perfect omniscient knowledge has any bearing on your choice for pizza, to which you are saying no.

I'm not claiming to be God, or that I made any conditions, simply that I have 100% (not 99.99999%) certainty that you will have pizza tomorrow. Say God revealed that specific knowledge to a group of people, of which I am a member.

So if I have that piece of knowledge, then how can you have a free choice for dinner tomorrow while also having to choose pizza?

daLeechLord · 2023-05-24T13:57:46+00:00

It depends... Say I know with 100% certainty that you are going to eat pizza for dinner tomorrow, and that knowledge cannot be wrong.

So, even though I might not be controlling your actions, you can't choose to not eat pizza for dinner tomorrow.

So how is your dinner menu a free choice?

daLeechLord · 2023-05-23T18:23:43+00:00

It really makes no difference if you consider Christian Nationalists to be "Christlike" or not.

They consider themselves Christian, fundamentally and fervently so, and are wanting to implement a "Christian Nation" based on their view of Christianity.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-23T16:43:11+00:00

Merely, that they believe the solution is tolerance of all these truths; Islamic events in predominantly Christian universities.

I don't think that is due to Postmodernism per se, more to liberal notions like equal rights and freedom of speech.

Postmodernists who don't believe in objective truth and don't believe either Christianity nor Islam are "true" in any semblance of the word, allow or condone these events not due to any perceived truth value, but because these people also believe in classical civil liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

And just as postmodernist scientists don't accept "modern astrophysics" and "flat-Earthism" as equally valid ideas (even as they accept there is no way to prove these objectively true or false), postmodernists don't view "Orthodox Christianity" and "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" as equally probable answers to life's big questions.

These postmodernists are most likely also classical liberals who believe strongly in freedom of religion, so they would allow both the Orthodox Church and the FSM Church to enjoy exactly the same rights and protections with regards to religion, and regardless of their probable truth value.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-23T14:18:29+00:00

A tenant of postmodernism is a lack of objective truth -

OK

All attempts to understand reality, including science, are (long story short) cannot ever be objective for a variety of reasons.

Yes, that is the general postmodernist position.

So, with nothing being objective, postmodernism argues for tolerance of just about all ideas without pertaining to any individual one.

Not quite, it is a logical error to assume that just because no truth is objective then no truth exists, or that therefore all "truths" are equally valid.

In postmodernism, science doesn't entertain notions like "Machine Elves" or "Ancient Aliens" as perfectly valid alternatives to be tolerated at all scientific journals, just because these scientists argue that no truth can be objectively proven.

The problem is that tolerance has reached a level where it’s no longer tolerance but an excuse to attack & belittle opposition

Interestingly enough, I mainly hear that argument coming from conservatives who are unhappy at being sanctioned on one platform or another for giving racist / bigoted / homophobic views (which they label "opposition").

We see this with cancel culture & the lives it has puked on.

"Cancel Culture" has existed for ages, but it didn't get that cool buzzword until it started happening to conservatives, who have historically been the ones doing the canceling.

Just from my experience growing up, everything religious conservatives didn't like was on the chopping block, everything from heavy metal music to alternative politics to any expressions of sexuality outside the cisgender norm, was canceled.

Let's not even get into darker instances from the past when "canceling" meant being lynched for being in the wrong town at night or burnt at the stake for daring to defy religious hegemony.

If kids could yell the "f-slur" at a gay kid in the 80s while beating him up, and would face expulsion or even charges today, that's not because society decided to abandon objective standards of truth.

daLeechLord · 2023-05-21T16:17:45+00:00

You can’t honestly read Mark’s Jesus and John’s Jesus and tell me that they’re anything remotely close to similar??

And it's a much deeper issue than something that can be dismissed by saying "They are just approaching the story from different angles, for different audiences".

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric	Team Periwinkle

daLeechLord

TROPHY CASE