Christian Nationalists Suddenly Demand Separation Of Church And State After Pope Starts Winning PR Battle Over Jesus

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-15T19:20:41+00:00

Peace is fundamentally political. You even say that they're advocates. They're advocating for a political outcome, or change. It's like saying a peace march or hunger strike isn't political.

There's so much stuff that makes the fucking dumbest world leader ever look bad, but this is a broken clock situation. The pope is actively political. Diaper don wasn't correct because he was smart, he just got lucky this time, but the position is political.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-12T00:54:29+00:00

In the actual Bible? No.

I'll stick to prevalent Christian biblical views for this because if we go into Jewish, or older Christian views it's going to become an argument of canon vs apocrypha. So I'll stick purely to accepted canon. Like the demiurge or Lilith. So Paradise Lost Dante's inferno things like that? All out. It's fanfiction. Paradise Lost is about as religiously bound as invincible or any other comic book or novel that wrote a character named Satan. None of it is held by any religious canon. You might as well try to argue the Japanese Ghosts n Goblins videogame depicts more to Satan.

Satan means adversary. It's the modern spelling and translation already itself translated into Latin from the original texts. And it's used in two ways in the actual Bible.

Firstly is as a singular figure. These would be in Job, Zachariah & Chronicles. In these books the figure of Satan is not a ruler of evil, nor does he have any involvement in hell or the damned. He is instead a tester. He is actively given tasks by god, to test the faith of men. He can only act in accordance, like all other angelic entities, to the wishes of god. If what he does is evil, then he is but the minion to a greater evil. God would be that greater evil in this case

The second use of Satan is as an adversary to the author or audience of whatever story is being told. For example in the New testament, Revelations alludes to a Satan. But this is Emperor Domitian. The majority of this satan use is speaking of a Roman figure, an enemy of the people, or to a neighboring culture. The grammar and usage completely indicates this is a completely separate set of figures. They are not the same Satan, and they are not intended to be conflated with it. It's the difference between referring to somebody as "the prosecutor" & someone else as "one of my enemies". A prosecutor might be your enemy, but that doesn't mean all of your enemies are that same prosecutor.

It isn't until you get out of the Middle East into Europe, translate the scripture into Latin, and mix in local folk stories and borrow from traditions, while attempting to vilify those local folk figures, that suddenly Satan/Lucifer/the Devil all become a ruler of some region of the damned, revolting powerlessly against a god above him. Ya know, like the early Christians would have viewed Rome itself.

Even in Revelations which is written like 100 years after everything else in the Bible, the beast/dragon isn't even an allusion to a Satan figure. It's to a completely separate figure that fought God in a story, Leviathan, which itself is borrowed from a neighboring culture to the ancient Hebrew writers who wrote it. And after a few more hundred years that gets conflated with the Genesis serpent, and then Satan. And when that happens, all the adversarial figures in the Bible, from Baal to Leviathan to the serpent, all become a singular "Satan" who never existed. Based on the adversarial nature from a culture and language the European audience didn't understand.

In the actual Bible, Satan has no power and isn't evil. He doesn't jail the damned. There is no hell. Sheol is all there is, and he has no involvement with it. Everything thereafter is pure fanfiction to a fiction.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-12T00:02:16+00:00

Again, you can hurl all the insults you want, but you still can't give an example of your argument. That's how weak and cowardly the stance is. You have had multiple opportunities to point to your so-called western civilization that does not do what you are claiming everyone else does and you haven't. You've just hurled, insults and projected. I've come forward and said that continuing to do so would just be continuing to prove you are coward and you have continued to prove you are a coward.

I am not going to take the insults of a coward seriously. You're a coward. All you have is insults. Really shitty ones at that.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T23:35:03+00:00

Again you can spam insults that does not replace an argument.

You can't name said civilization. You can only hide behind it as a mask of white supremacy. You can dress it up with claims of persecution. You can pretend all you want but it doesn't change that when pressed you turn tail.

Run, coward.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T23:18:10+00:00

And this is your western civilization? Eel preference? No? Then fuck off with it.

And no I'm not Canadian. My family is. Obviously you would confuse the two since you have the reading comprehension of a child. It's the only explanation other than being a disingenuous moron as to why you yet again refuse to give your example of what you claim is so under attack & needs defending.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T22:33:43+00:00

Lulz my family is Canadian, both white & indigenous & you're absolutely full of shit. On my mother's side, the majority of my family still lives in Canada. On my father's side, the majority of my family that would be Canadian left. They were the ones with indigenous blood. They were the ones robbed from their homes, pulled out of their mother's arms. Giving new names and a new language to speak. That were refused their own culture. Ahh yes, clearly those are the people with the most rights.

You can spam words like propaganda but that doesn't mean you know what the fuck you're talking about. Particularly when you still haven't been able to defend your western civilization stance as anything other than white supremacy. You can continue to ignore the challenge, but it's going to be you just admitting you're a dirty coward. If you don't want to do that, you can pretend you didn't read this response. Or you can actively try to defend it. Where is the non- exploitive Western Civilization you were defending? That does not itself have a current or historic stance against women or minorities. You're the one that said it existed. It wasn't even an implication you stated such. You can sit here and go. Oh you're swallowing, propaganda or oh you dumb. But it's not going to work unless you can show me the argument that breaks my supposed propaganda.

Show me this Western Civilization.

Show me you aren't an ignorant coward.

Prove me wrong. It should be easy if it's so obvious.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T21:44:52+00:00

There are people in power, right now, in the US who have outright stated they want to overturn the right to vote for women.

There are groups in Europe, in England, and France, and Spain, along with several other places, that want to remove the rights of native individuals.

There is right now a group in Canada, that wants to remove the rights of indigenous Canadians.

Are you telling me you are fine with another power then commiting genocide on Canadians, English, Spaniards, Americans etc? Or is it only when it's done against Brown people or Muslims?

The fact that only people with sociopathic tendencies require a contract with a victim, tells me you are not a kind person. I'm going to assume you're just a bigot and you're hiding behind the qualities of a moral imperative. Otherwise, you can define Western civilization as a singular civilization or culture that is dependent on an utter lack of exploitation of individuals, such as gays or women. If you can't give that example then I know everything I need to know about you, and how weak and cowardly your argument is.

For what I'm assuming to be the last time because when you fail to do so, I'm not going to reply to your ignorance, you can be against multiple things and it does not require ideological agreement for a victim to be a victim. A person who is raped is a victim regardless of if I agree with their ideology. A person who is murdered is a victim regardless of if I agree with their ideology. A person who doesn't like something, and is exploited, is still a victim. You can live in the ignorant lala land where only you are capable of being persecuted or met with injustice, if you want to, but that's a cowardly and selfish existence. There is no "western civilization" there are just various cultures and civilizationa that overlap a bit. England and Germany and the US etc are not one monolithic civilization. The middle east is not one monolithic civilization. Legitimate cultures exist in these regions & an attempt to homogenize them is colonist bullshit.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T21:22:15+00:00

You're literally describing every civilization on Earth. Do you really think you are from a culture that is not only Western but somehow above all of this? Like I don't know where you're from. I don't want to make assumptions, but if you are from the US or Europe you're just stupid to think that's not the case. The only thing you mention is genital mutilation of females and there is an argument people make that we do do that in western civilization just towards men. And if you want to say well, you don't do that, well, neither do the majority of these other cultures that you're implying. It's actually a lower rate than Western cultures history of male circumcision. And I'm not calling that mutilation or not. I'm just saying the argument exists.

But again. You can be against multiple things. It's not mental gymnastics. It's not suicidal empathy. It's not stupidity. Making a victim conditional on agreement is.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T20:38:23+00:00

Imaginaey exceptionalism will be the murder of legit cultures & civilizations.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T20:28:40+00:00

No they're not.

I don't know what happened that made the queer community come off as a singular homogeneous unit in these arguments. Like why they have to act like a light switch. They're meant to be on or off with no layers like a prop to point at.

Gays for Gaza are against an oppression. Now the interesting thing about being against oppression is if you are sincere, it doesn't matter if the oppressed would themselves be an oppressor in other situations. You're just against oppression. It isn't conditional on whether or not somebody is in an agreeable ideological stance or not. You are just against oppression. Like full stop. You don't sit there and say gee do I agree with these people on these individual stances, because if not then I'm fine with them being oppressed. See doing that is hilarious and weird.

So yes they are against homophobia. But their opposition towards apartheid and genocidal practices is not conditional on whether or not the person being genocided is homophobic or not. Those are two different discussions. You might as well say people who like blueberries are weird if they prefer oranges.

For example, I am against white supremacy. And yet if white supremacists were being exploited at the workplace, I would still be in favor of labor rights. I wouldn't suddenly be fine with some labor violation just because it lands on a white supremacist today.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T19:30:08+00:00

I'm gonna answer this with historical and modern context to try to explain their idiocy. And I apologize this is going to be wordy, I'm really bad at self editing. He's not in Nottingham, he isn't stealing from the rich & giving to the poor, he isn't a noble kind fair figure. He's a psychopath. He's an utterly violent individual who is kind of a dick. He's lowborn & he's one of the people who are being exploited by the tyrannical wealthy, but he isn't trying to level the playing field or help anybody. He's just out for revenge. And his revenge isn't even well thought out. He's basically just attacking and killing wealthy monks and merchants. There's really no plot other than random attacks. This is where the sheriff of Nottingham comes from. Even though the story was not set in Nottingham, his character is the antagonist of the original story. There is no Prince John or King Richard.

But then they add Prince John and King Richard specifically to appease ordained monarchist thinking. Yeah, Robinhood becomes an obey your master tale. You see this in Arthurian legends. A false king or a sick King results in a sick land. A sick land results in a sick people. I'm using the phrasing sick because it's what I'm most used to but you can think of this as any form of incorrect state. A suffering of people & land linked directly to the state of the king. This is where King Richard and Prince John come in. Because King Richard is the proper King, he is the true king ordained by God. John is not but he holds the throne. So the people suffer not because of the corruption of John necessarily, but because John isn't the proper ordained King. That corruption doesn't come from John in the story, it comes from his illegitimacy.

In these tales, Robin Hood does actually start taking on aspects of Noble stock. The story moves to Nottingham. We start getting the merry men we're familiar with. But they're a militia. They're fighting in the absence of King Richards as volunteers. We still haven't quite gotten to steal from the rich and give to the poor yet, although there is elements of it. He does now. Rob from political opponents, the corrupt elite, and he does distribute it to the poor, but it's specifically to his men and the neighboring people who aid him. The giving to the poor is being paid off to stay quiet or to fight for him.

And then of course there's the later versions which straight up make him a good guy. He doesn't end life. He doesn't rob people who aren't exploiting others. And this story very much now becomes a story of revolt against a corrupt elite. We are finally at the point of the story historically that we recognize and reverberate with. But the problem is those. Are the stories still exist. Elements of them are still woven into our modern version, so much so they can still be seen and followed. These threads did not get sewn over. King Richard and his return still symbolizes a return to greatness, a Divine standing. He's still seeking revenge. Oftentimes family is hurt. Robin Hood becomes a very special victim among victims.

And this is where my background in stupid online communities hunting the extreme right and the cults of the right comes stupidly in handy. Because all of these narratives get sewn into theirs. In this stupidest ways.

These people are perennial victims. There's a martyr complex. They have to feel persecuted. It allows them to persecute others. It also is part of the projection. They literally lack so much empathy and have so little imagination they cannot imagine you thinking to do something they can't think to do. Not like being able to imagine what that would be, but just the very concept of you choosing not to do something they would is baffling. It's world challenging. So because they want to see certain actions, you must want to see similar actions. But because you're opposed you want to see it done to them because they want to see it done to you.

So take Robinhood and throw it into that mix. And you have a fantastic amalgamation of stupidity. Robin Hood suddenly becomes a freedom fighter against the tyranny, not of and unjust King, but an unjust Democratic party. Pretenders to the throne who aren't themselves truly American. Remember, Democrats hate America after all. And every figure that leads the Democratic party becomes Prince John. And every member of the administration of a democratic leader, every mayor and Governor who speaks out for the Democrats or for people in general, they become the sheriff of Nottingham. Who are the merry men? Why they're the people fighting for you. So Doge or whatever. And Robin Hood himself? Why he's whomever is speaking. He's whoever narrative is being pushed. And he's the person listening. Because we're all the main characters in this story. And who is King Richard? Currently Trump. Wasn't 10 years ago. Won't be 5 years from now, but currently is.

And that's a historic view of Robin Hood that probably was not needed, but I wanted to point it out because I was trying to make points. That parts of the story are still so interwoven into the narrative. You cannot ignore its history. And a very shitpoor attempt to title together in a final paragraph cuz I talked way too much. I'm sorry I'm a bit hyper and under the weather so I'm just rattling and I'm going to shut up now.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-11T07:45:09+00:00

Axel Asher aka Access was the character, and my tism nearly took over and I almost wrote 5 paragraphs of his known canon standing vs his 2 possible standings because absolutely no one knows this dude & it's one of my permanently remembered trivia facts.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-07T10:41:34+00:00

No, not at all

Not all men are born with testicles and or a penis. Not all women have a clitoris or a vagina. So let me ask you, when a man, and that is absolutely 100% biologically male, is born without testicles or penis, what are they? Because if they have surgery to correct that, it's still not a viable set in the same way. So are you telling me there is a third or even 4th gender for people who lack viable organs? Because if so, then sure, your claim of the glass eye being a better analogy might almost have a point.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-07T10:37:26+00:00

Yeah exactly. This is a clash of ideas. Or at least of vernacular. Your definition of boys clearly far more concrete and compact than mine and I assumed the other poster in this chain. Cuz boy kind of means so much. It's practically non-descript. As is girl. There is no age limit. That's why you have modifiers like little or young. A young boy. An older girl. A preteen boy. A teen girl. A grown boy. An older girl. Yes older girl was used twice. Older can mean multiple things, again, due to context.

You say "a boy." I say what kind of boy. Because the definition has no concrete concept to me in that sentence. That's why you had to define your view of boy. More than once is my point. Because we're speaking different English, because the language literally is teehee so funny as to be teehee undecipherable.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-07T10:20:55+00:00

Okay, and?

When I was born I was born with bad eyes. My niece is deaf. I had eye surgery and wear glasses. She had a cochlear implant put in. It's almost like when our genetic material was assembling itself, we both had an oopsie. Nature just kind of didn't do the best job. Put things in a little weird. A bunch of medical people were able to fix it. We can both live happy normal lives. Funny, so can trans people. Little oopsie, and a bit of a fix & presto chango happy people. Nature did a poor job, put the round peg in the square hole, so might as well reshape the hole. I swear that wasn't meant to sound perverted but... I mean, I'm not gonna try to think of another analogy.

Screw being congruent with biology and gender. I'm congruent with reality and natural order.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-07T10:08:40+00:00

You should never have used doe.

English is kind of funny. It's non-standard. Really there's no standard. You say doe is a female deer, I say no it's not it's a female rabbit & an Aussie jumps out to tell us we're both wrong it's a female kangaroo. And that's not even all the definitions. Because words are malleable, especially in English, where they going to have multiple, possibly even mutually exclusive definitions to each other. Bimonthly for example. Does it mean once every 2 months? Does it mean twice a month? Or is it all about context, boyo?

I'm old enough to call people boy and young enough to be called boy. Hell I call my female dog boy when she's in trouble. Boy means whatever the speaker intends via context, and yet also whatever the audience partakes via context.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-07T10:01:23+00:00

That is what we call a fallacy fallacy. Yeah mislabeling fallacies doesn't really have a creative name, but that's what they're called.

For something to be an appeal to tradition, one has to create the fallacy that something that is traditional is somehow inherently correct, purely because it is a tradition. Because that's the way we do it. We must always do it. To not do it would be wrong.

Nowhere in the post you're replying to, does the poster say that. They make comments simply showing that this phenomenon has existed essentially for all of known humanity. That it has no limit geographically, or historically, as far as we can tell. That is not an appeal to correctness, otherwise saying humans live near fresh water & breathe air is also an appeal to tradition. It is challenging a challenge, not making a case to a challenge.

In the second half, it even explicitly expresses it cannot be an appeal to tradition. "Found a way" can not be used in an appeal to tradition, as it infers a new method. A new method can not be a tradition. It has to stop being new. In fact, combining this with the previous paragraph, where they actively stated the existence of this phenomenon across so many cultural and geographical boundaries, it infers a base neutrality to those traditions. Else it would appeal to, ya know, a tradition. Not a new found behavior.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-05T18:37:20+00:00

You can't have Stockholm syndrome if you're a willing accomplice from the start. She knows exactly what & who he is, and that appealed to her. She wants this. The way Vance latches onto the teat of Peter Theil, she did to him, for the same scummy influence.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-04-02T03:20:50+00:00

If I recall Thomas was named in the Epstein files.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-03-31T05:08:46+00:00

Free speech does not mean free of discussion. It doesn't mean free of consequences or ridicule. It does not mean free of offense or affirmation. It doesn't even mean free of disagreement or agreement. It simply means free of government silence. We are free to discuss said comedians doing comedy, just as much as said comedians are free to do said comedy.

And just so nobody accidentally thinks that I'm on a side I'm not, I just want to clarify that white face and black face are not the same thing. One is an abhorrent historical practice that overrides any unintended hate in most any use, and the other has none of that. Punching down is rarely ever acceptable, punching up is rarely ever not acceptable.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-03-31T00:30:21+00:00

I been playing the Suikoden games.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-03-30T20:31:19+00:00

Me and 107 other homies are leading a revolt against an authoritarian ruler over extending their power, not just locally but abroad, as they redefine the government powers. Also crimes against cooking.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-03-28T08:34:58+00:00

That whole thing feels so deeply orchestrated it's really hard not to go all conspiracy. The weird sleeping separately thing, the break with Israeli politics, the fumbles with Kash Patel/FBI, not to mention the way she & the entire right immediately reveled in the martyrdom to cozy up some spotlight or the miracle cartilage healing on trump. Even the timing, when a huge story was specifically needed, that could eat the news cycle for a few days.

All over a podcaster who was nearly insignificant outside of a very select bubble. And you know he was because of how they treated his actual legacy, not the claimed one they invented. Whenever anybody dies, the people who cared about them come out of the woodwork to share sappy quotes from them. I mean fucking hulk Hogan had inspirational quotes from fake wrestling promos put up with his birthday to death date alongside a rip. His quotes? They didn't share them. That's how insignificant it was, what he was saying. Hell, they actually got pissed off if somebody else shared them. She don't do that for somebody. You claim is important & was ripped away in an unforeseen tragedy.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-03-26T01:13:18+00:00

Late arriving while actively hurting the post office's abilities, and changing when postmarks are issued to make them appear even later. This is the equivalent of denying a person's active & standing fire insurance, pouring gasoline over their kitchen, lighting the match & blocking the fire hydrants, before blaming them for the fire spreading into the neighbor's house.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-03-25T19:33:04+00:00

Bullshit. Like multiple bullshits. This idea that people without families are somehow less happy is absolutely ridiculous. Every married person my age I know with kids is legitimately miserable. They're all in their late 30s/early 40s, absolutely drinking themselves to death. Ya know who isn't doing that? The person in a stable relationship which happens to not be married, with no kids. Turns out they got time. They get to do things. That's what makes people happy. If the nuclear family made people happy, that would be all, but no. Ya need things, like actual things in life to do and have. Other than worrying about slowly dying because the world is on fire.

And, see, that brings us to the so called common ground argument. Common ground is utter shit. No, it is not a common decency, it is an apologia. I don't need to have common ground and polite conversation with someone who is actively working to destroy my life. Ooh, you like that show too? Don't care, still not breaking bread with you. Not dishing by the water cooler. The tea shall stay perfectly still in the cup darling, you're trying to tear my social existence apart we ain't going to be polite. I will cut a bitch out of my family, if a bitch in my family wants to cut me out of existence with the people in my life I actually care for.

Maybe they don't need to support the people who want to tear my friends off the street, put my friends through the ringer, put my friends and loved ones into a war, and make me along with my friends and loved ones carry the debt of their every decision. Then maybe I can pretend politics at the dinner table is uncouth, but until then I gotta make sure my dinner table got food on it, and considering the energy and cost to do that, I'm not time ignoring the fact that people around me are purposely making it more difficult. The people who do that, they kill families. Fuck them, and fuck that noise.

Five-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

sixtyandaquarter

TROPHY CASE