This reminds me of something Julian Assange said. Basically, he was explaining how everything he was doing was testing a single hypothesis. The hypothesis is that power centers need secrecy to operate. So by eliminating secrecy, if you could do it completely, you could inadvertently shut them down. He was an anarchist after all, so he was open to publishing every email sent within the federal bureaucracy if he had the ability to. If that had the consequence of hampering the government, he was open to that.
How tightly does it relate to this? I don't know. But I think it has at least some relationship to the ability to pretend to be the nice guys with one face, and plot the destruction of others and the forced participation of other groups in that without losing that face. Maybe they couldn't do that if it was very easy for a large number of people to read their internal conversations.
I believe it. Anyone who says "we have special world changing data, we will not release it until X", is a fraud. If they really cared they would just release it asap. Also, promiscuity is for whores and I don't trust whores.
To be fair, most politicians and bureaucrats are worse whores than Julian Assange. Whores do sex for money. Politicians kill people and steal money. They do both on a massive scale for money. I think the second one is significantly more immoral.
How would you rank these morally? Giving one person a blowjob for money, killing one person for money, giving a blowjob to 1 million people for money, killing 1 million people for money.
I'm pretty sure anyone who would participate in the last one for money is the lowest whore on Earth.
You're looking at it wrong. If you want a moral and just society, you can not rank people by the greatness of their immorality. Not even God did that, saying sin is sin and it makes no difference.
A person that perpetuates immorality in a small capacity, will not response when they see immorality on a greater scale. They accept it and do not go against it. Removing a 15 cent part can destroy a $100,000 car. Alternatively, you can just drive that car of a cliff in its entirely.
What is worse, a tiny handful of super rich people being immoral, or millions of people doing nothing about it?
Jesus did do that, rank people. He said that a man who is flawed but admits before God that he has flaws, while still flawed, is greater than a man who thinks he is better than others for his obedience to 1 or 2 commandments. So Jesus himself ranked people and their sins. The top of which is thinking you are better than others because of their sins vs yours. Or maybe you don't actually care about what Jesus said on the matter.
He also said that if a person wrongs another, and the second person doesn't forgive the offender, then the second person has committed the greater sin. Not equal. Greater. So there he is ranking sins.
But remember. According to him, thinking that you are better than others for adherence to a commandment is ranked higher than most of them. But that's just according to the J-man. I'm sure his perspective on Christianity is just one perspective.
No. He didn't. A binary option of salvation is not a rank. It's either, condemned by their sin, or not. A man who is flawed (sinful) and admits he is sinful (to god) will be saved. The other guy will not be.
There is no ranking of sins in the face of salvation. It doesn't matter. The person who commits the supposed greater sin, is only considered a "greater" sinner, because there is no salvation by choice. He chooses to sin voluntarily and thus can not be saved.
There is no "perspective" with Christianity. It is all there. The ONLY argument that can be made for ranking people by sin, is the two unforgivable sins. Which is really just a binary option again, salvation or no salvation. In the end, if a person kills 100 people and spits on children every day and another person commits adultery, the salvation achieved is the same. Zero. If the person who killed and spits on children achieves salvation, he is greater than the person who commits adultery and is not saved. But, if the person who commits adultery becomes saved, then they are equals again in salvation.
When someone uses the word "greater" is that not a ranking? Maybe instead of fitting Jesus to your theology you should fit your theology to Jesus. You need to find some way to fit the idea that a one sin can be greater than another. We also have Jesus responding to Pilot.
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Greater sin. A comparison of sins.
But if you do think that all sins are equal do you think you are better than a prostitute? After all, their sins are only equal to yours. Either path my point is proven. So either sins have comparison and thinking that you are better than another sinner is the higher sin. Or all sins are equal and thinking that you are better than another sinner is an equal sin. Either way, thinking that you are more moral than a prostitute makes you either equal to or worse than a prostitute yourself.
At least that is true if you want to measure by a Christian standard.
Log in
This reminds me of something Julian Assange said. Basically, he was explaining how everything he was doing was testing a single hypothesis. The hypothesis is that power centers need secrecy to operate. So by eliminating secrecy, if you could do it completely, you could inadvertently shut them down. He was an anarchist after all, so he was open to publishing every email sent within the federal bureaucracy if he had the ability to. If that had the consequence of hampering the government, he was open to that.
How tightly does it relate to this? I don't know. But I think it has at least some relationship to the ability to pretend to be the nice guys with one face, and plot the destruction of others and the forced participation of other groups in that without losing that face. Maybe they couldn't do that if it was very easy for a large number of people to read their internal conversations.
Here is something else Julian said (indirectly), promiscuity is ok!
https://projex.wiki/wiki/Political_Saviours_Are_Not_A_Thing#Julian_Assange
I believe it. Anyone who says "we have special world changing data, we will not release it until X", is a fraud. If they really cared they would just release it asap. Also, promiscuity is for whores and I don't trust whores.
To be fair, most politicians and bureaucrats are worse whores than Julian Assange. Whores do sex for money. Politicians kill people and steal money. They do both on a massive scale for money. I think the second one is significantly more immoral.
How would you rank these morally? Giving one person a blowjob for money, killing one person for money, giving a blowjob to 1 million people for money, killing 1 million people for money.
I'm pretty sure anyone who would participate in the last one for money is the lowest whore on Earth.
You're looking at it wrong. If you want a moral and just society, you can not rank people by the greatness of their immorality. Not even God did that, saying sin is sin and it makes no difference.
A person that perpetuates immorality in a small capacity, will not response when they see immorality on a greater scale. They accept it and do not go against it. Removing a 15 cent part can destroy a $100,000 car. Alternatively, you can just drive that car of a cliff in its entirely.
What is worse, a tiny handful of super rich people being immoral, or millions of people doing nothing about it?
Jesus did do that, rank people. He said that a man who is flawed but admits before God that he has flaws, while still flawed, is greater than a man who thinks he is better than others for his obedience to 1 or 2 commandments. So Jesus himself ranked people and their sins. The top of which is thinking you are better than others because of their sins vs yours. Or maybe you don't actually care about what Jesus said on the matter.
He also said that if a person wrongs another, and the second person doesn't forgive the offender, then the second person has committed the greater sin. Not equal. Greater. So there he is ranking sins.
But remember. According to him, thinking that you are better than others for adherence to a commandment is ranked higher than most of them. But that's just according to the J-man. I'm sure his perspective on Christianity is just one perspective.
No. He didn't. A binary option of salvation is not a rank. It's either, condemned by their sin, or not. A man who is flawed (sinful) and admits he is sinful (to god) will be saved. The other guy will not be.
There is no ranking of sins in the face of salvation. It doesn't matter. The person who commits the supposed greater sin, is only considered a "greater" sinner, because there is no salvation by choice. He chooses to sin voluntarily and thus can not be saved.
There is no "perspective" with Christianity. It is all there. The ONLY argument that can be made for ranking people by sin, is the two unforgivable sins. Which is really just a binary option again, salvation or no salvation. In the end, if a person kills 100 people and spits on children every day and another person commits adultery, the salvation achieved is the same. Zero. If the person who killed and spits on children achieves salvation, he is greater than the person who commits adultery and is not saved. But, if the person who commits adultery becomes saved, then they are equals again in salvation.
When someone uses the word "greater" is that not a ranking? Maybe instead of fitting Jesus to your theology you should fit your theology to Jesus. You need to find some way to fit the idea that a one sin can be greater than another. We also have Jesus responding to Pilot.
Greater sin. A comparison of sins.
But if you do think that all sins are equal do you think you are better than a prostitute? After all, their sins are only equal to yours. Either path my point is proven. So either sins have comparison and thinking that you are better than another sinner is the higher sin. Or all sins are equal and thinking that you are better than another sinner is an equal sin. Either way, thinking that you are more moral than a prostitute makes you either equal to or worse than a prostitute yourself.
At least that is true if you want to measure by a Christian standard.
So maybe the Zionist Heebs shouldn't be inaccurate, literally be evil, and call for violence.
“Woke Right” Ben Shapiro Rips Tucker For Interviewing Nick Fuentes! (18:10) ~ The Jimmy Dore Show
I'll stop calling them Heebs when they stop calling everyone else Goyim.