Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
I would disagree on the basis that Latin America lacks the capability to support a productive economic society and still relies on aristocratic designs lacking a functional aristocracy, it operates more like Russia, except way less organized, and nobody considers Russia as part of the Western world, culture does not define being a westerner, seems a lot of people here have been misunderstanding that, when we refer to a western nation, its not about where they derive their culture from, if it did, France, Britain, Australia, the US, Canada, and Spain don't share anything that compares a common culture or society which means they lack a distinct capability to be considered western if you use that metric to measure any specific one. But they do share a common basic principle of economic and socio-political designs which derive from a western manner of thought, for which Latin America has never picked up on, and for which nations like China and Russia have also never picked up on, you could debatably consider Japan and Korea sometimes in that sphere, however because their economic and socio-political designs derive power still from a illusionary autocracy and independence in society isn't considered a public virtue, that puts them on a strange rich and non-corrupt version of autocracy.
25
-
22
-
@worldcomicsreview354
"as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;" - Romans 3:10
"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." - Psalm 14:3
"And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." - Mark 10:18
"And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” - Matthew 19:17
"And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." - Luke 18:19
And just to clarify for those who do not understand this or who would manipulate what God said, He is outright telling the rich man that if you merely assume Him as a man then there is no good manner to assume He is good. This what the rich man thought of Him, as being merely a good teacher, not God, and thus He told him off for not being good for if He wasn't God then He can't be good. But if He is God then being prideful in himself to follow the commands as he interpreted them should've brought fear to him and had him ask for forgiveness.
3
-
As a Christian, Plato was correct in a lot of cases, for whatever reason, he was kinda right about the idea of the perfect realm theologically (though he wouldn't know it and had no grasp over that) as in Christianity has the concept of shadow and types, where the perfect representation is reflected upon the mortal reality giving us consciousness to recognize a specific subject acting imperfectly.
Plato was also right about the incapability for man to rule himself, for man himself is not inherently capable of being a king, his solution was incorrect, but his recognition of the issue was still right. (and his solution isn't that far off from what many would consider the righteous rule, of course he was incapable of getting to that point because he was not of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob)
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Conspiracy theory isn't semantically correct since speculating in regards to theories of conspiracy, which includes investigators and detectives, is conspiracy theory. The correct phrasing would be theoretical delusion/paranoia.
As an aside I am unironically a staunch libertarian monarchist, though not for the sake of power but in centering guilt and shame upon rulers to be held to account when they fail without a shifting tide of politics and policy. You could call me quite radical since in the sense I have surface level agreements with a few authoritarian precepts however I disagree with them most especially in the respect of the divine, and thus rights derived of the divine, being the penultimate above any state or authority. I don't agree with concepts of democratic nor republican values principally because I don't believe the people have capability to understand how to structure a government to rule them and that individuals need to be built and perhaps even grown to that, which suggests the first few rulers will be utter garbage anyway, they are capable to manage themselves and thus be left to their own, but not decide the rulership and authorities. It should at best be expected that such authorities reach out voluntarily but not interfere beyond the judgement to punish the wicked and reward the righteous. The expectation of such systems is that protests with light threats keep the powers in line, should this fail perhaps violence (against the state) becomes justified upon governing loss of the divine justification to rule by violating justice and righteousness itself, (which is not just doing one slightly wrong thing, think seizing someone's property without a court order and they defend said property) and should that fail the system itself shall fall quickly judging the people for corrupting their society against its moral framework. Simple systems work best.
1
-
Nothing morally good came out of feminism, most especially because the women of the time that were forming feminism weren't being taught proper principles according to God's command so they intended to violate God's order by natural intent, they didn't respect their husbands nor their fathers and it became clear that the true root of feminism is a hate and disrespect of men and masculinity, as was the natural intent of that wicked ideology from the start. Men and women are not equal in anything but moral value, they share different roles and purposes and do not share traits that enable them to be proficient at the same tasks. Women can't even function appropriately without a masculine authority over them because they need a foundation, that being authority of a man, in order to live. They need a foundation of rock that the man provides and without it they degrade on the foundation of sand. Else they will be ruled by their nature which is fickle and fairly deceptive/manipulative. (this is not a case of saying that women are unique in their failures of their wicked nature but instead just this response being focused only women in particular, men suffer from aggressive and blunt behavior among other things and it is the job of women to help curb these things as they are uniquely designed to do just that in marriage just as it is the job of the men to [lovingly] curb the failures of women, this is complementarism) It is also the failure of men that did not love their women as they are called (by God) to do and did not provide the proper foundation for them causing feminism as well. As a result men have become feminized and subservient to their wives (how often do you hear "apologize to your wife even if you did nothing wrong" as a general principle, this is why) following the sin of Adam and Eve, for what did God say to Adam after he took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;" - Genesis 3:17 (excerpt)
The original sin was foremost in a man following the whims of his wife after he had already failed to protect her twice, for Adam was responsible to keep the serpent out of the garden and further he was responsible to keep the serpent from deceiving his wife, and then even in knowing his wife was deceived into eating of the fruit he listened to her violating the one command God had given him. Once again men have fallen back into this deception listening to what the women tell them to do and claim to want instead of considering what is good for them. Its also a shit test that men have failed to an extent for men are supposed to demonstrate that they will not be pushed around, not in a manner that's unloving to their women or that causes her scorn, but in a manner that demonstrates that he is the rock that will rest her life upon. In failing this charge (which women often are unaware of) they have been led into anything for they can not stand for anything as women are not designed to do such things. (and if they do which is an uncommon trait among the flesh of women it is condemnation upon the men, it does not demonstrate a capacity of women for she who does such a thing is rare enough and they should know the position is not meant for them and only given to them because the men have failed)
In any case this all says that men and women have once again failed and made themselves enemies of God and feminism is another condemnation for such acts. It would be better for all that men would never compete with women and women never compete with men, for they will only drag each other down, making themselves at war with each other when they should be unified in one flesh. As for addressing women being at home, they would not have to be bored if not for the failures of both and for schooling to exist, for without public schooling there would be little for a housewife to not do, and even more she is meant to manage the whole of the house, that means that increasing in wealth requires that she be given more work to do, not to change her job, there are many avenues that never required her to leave the home, they were just too lazy or foolish, the men and the women, to commit to such things.
1
-
Response to the points made (couldn't fit them next to point 5 and that one is the most important for fallacious arguments like this about Christ):
5. Science is not at odds with Christ, its the people who make up ideals and philosophies of the world about what science is that is at odds with Christ. They make themselves the authority and claim that those that oppose them violate any truth. In reality they are as many of Christ have said robbing from the Christian worldview to make their own.
Saint Augustine never disagreed with literal interpretations of the Biblical text as you make it out to be and I don't see where Gregory of Tours did so, (and even if they did that wouldn't validate your claim either) his arguments do not stand as truth in regards to Origin in Genesis being six days but he never disagreed with God forming the world within that but instead that it was formed as it would be instantly which, if we're honest, is more ridiculous against what you say in your claims but whatever. He also claimed Adam and Eve as inherently mortal in their first form which is actually demonstrably untrue when God explains their punishment for the eating of the fruit, but that's not allegory. He also never refuted that Noah built the Ark. In all this neither of them demonstrated a case of allegorical interpretation as we say. And Jesus already spoke on this issue:
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47
If Jesus is saying that Moses not only lived as a real person who spoke and gave commandments and you call him and his words, that being half of the Old Testament, as allegory then you must reject Jesus. You can't be of Christ unless you accept the OT as it was written.
You are utterly wrong about what faith was for the sake of the people, Augustine most certainly wouldn't have agreed with that and I'm certain neither would Gregory of Tours. Lets see what the Bible says:
"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’? “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment. From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken. “Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this. “Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great! “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war? What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth? “Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt, to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man, to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground sprout with grass? “Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew? From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the frost of heaven? The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth? “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you? Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’? Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind? Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, when the dust runs into a mass and the clods stick fast together? “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?" - Job 38
Not one word of this allows allegorical interpretation, and even more it does not allow a moment of secret knowledge given to the "wise" as the first phrase God gave to Job "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" Such claims are violations to God. So are you suggesting that Augustine and Gregory never believed in Jesus? Are you to say that they trusted in the words of John, Paul, James, Luke, and Peter as fabricating Jesus and his resurrection for allegory? Despite having even evidences of the original text going back to the period when eyewitnesses and their disciples and children would've been alive? We have records of John that go back that far which do not divert. So is Jesus a liar then? Why call Him the Son of God, the Christ then?
"Jesus literally says the kingdom of heaven is not of this world or plane of existence"
no, He had said
"Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36
This does not mean Jesus did not make truth claims, it is saying you are not to fight against Rome to save Him from persecution and death. You didn't even bother to read the text slightly close to correct (or at all) and made a wholly incorrect assumption on what it says. He literally says not to fight, He is not saying that His Kingdom is not come upon the world, it is not of this world. Let me show you what is said to demonstrate this. Why does Jesus tell you to literally believe in the words of Moses else you can't believe in Him? Read John 5:45-47 again. It is quite clear.
"But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." - Luke 11:17-23
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” - Matthew 3:2
"Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” - Luke 17:20-21
"And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” - Mark 9:1
"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." - Matthew 6:10
You interpretation violates each of these as it does the the version you pulled it from.
1
-
1. From the Biblical perspective its called the Imago Dei, the Image of God, for which all men who do good will act out of some desire to follow God even as they hate Him. This does not make them good people, no one is, all are wicked and without righteousness, but instead it says that we are gifted temperance from that evil by the hand of God who reigns in wickedness in our hearts to certain degrees. Those who do not listen are over time left less and less restrained as they are given over to depravity, all men are thus willing and capable but few are so far as to perform the worst acts against another, often out of fears of reprisal. The demonstration of people doing good to others does not describe an inherent good of themselves but instead demonstrates an otherwise unjust desire to seek good, it does not speak to what is in the heart but what is from the Spirit.
2. Agreed, the "ism" problem is a terrible result of secularization when man is made to be a worshiping creature. As a result man is inherently driven insane when he has no religion as it violates his core function. The result of this is a searching for a replacement that most people come to political identity for, often idententarianism. The reason I am a quasi-libertarian alongside many other liberty positions is that I treat every single position I consider as an extension of the first position I gained goodness, love, justice, and righteousness from, that being the doctrine of Christ. As a result I could very well be capable to throw away my positions if so necessary if I had reason to, as God said
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8
As a result there is only one position that matters to me and the rest are mere extensions for that one, and not in a manner for which I boast over someone nor insist in my ways for God also told us
"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;" - 1 Corinthians 13:4-5
With all this in mind Christ, and thus love and justice, come before any other identity I might have and thus I never feel threatened by opposition to my positions for I know them as not mine and I may not even be called to defend them but I do my best to perform apologetics in peace. As that is what I am called for, and everything is an extension of the source for that apologetics. It is in Christ I am granted both peace and wisdom. As an aside this also means I am humble enough to understand that what I know is limited by who I am and what I am and that I have a place not to be wrongly ambitious nor prideful, that others are above me just as there may be some below me, I am to learn from those above and give what I have received to those below.
3. Sort of, though I would say the understanding is distorted by a natural man's perspective and thus lacks capability to ever understand the wisdom. As it was said
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14
The result is your expected proposition would be incorrect as its directed at the wrong solution still, though closer then the conventional wisdom of men.
4. Protecting the downtrodden is only half the story, God never once describes mankind as inherently good, he says much the opposite, and most especially does not say a victim is innocent just because they're a victim. God's core grant to us is to love everyone, those above us and below us, those given wealth and power and those with neither, those who are violent enemies and dutiful friends.
“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." - Leviticus 19:15
"My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory." - James 2:1 (up to verse 13 it speaks about no partiality to the rich or poor, which aligns with more then just those metrics)
God speaks constantly about the preservation of life of the innocent, which may also include regulation and stunting those who are currently seen as innocent so as to protect themselves and others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498 God hasn't called warriors since the ancient Kingdom of Judea, with the birth and death of Christ we are not meant to actively fight as warriors, and no saint that actively does so and does not turn from their violent ways is a saint under the law reconstituted by the birth of Christ. For all brothers and sisters who do turn from wickedness are saints in the eyes of God.
Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. - Mark 12:17
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. - Matthew 5:38-42
It has been made clear through the Word and through the doctrines of faith that war and battle no longer stand as a movement for God but in opposition to him.
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. - Ephesians 6:12
It is made clear then that we are not asked to fight for the sake of Christ nor make the claim to. While we are not condemned for fighting or killing someone in a justifiable manner, say they threaten us with death or being conscripted into a military, we are asked not to justify ourselves by claiming it is God who has us fight for Him but man.
The world being in God's hands everything that happens is done in his control, but neither are we justified in such behavior either.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:14-21
1
-
@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498 No we can't, Joan of Arc voluntarily fought a war, she did not represent God doing it and claiming that God told her too is an afront to God and the doctrines of Christ, she was no more Christian then the Roman Empire ever was in fighting the war. It doesn't matter if it was a defensive war, Christ won't reject those who fight in a war but those claiming to fight a war in His name after His Coming He will reject because that is not who He is and that is not what He asks of us. Nations, cultures, societies, none of them matter in comparison to Christ even though they are put in place for our pleasure and judgement.
God will not inspire men to kill men after the coming of Christ because we are all capable of being Children of God who know His Word.
The Scripture I quoted stands for both, it speaks to the unrighteousness in seeking such meaningless the destruction of flesh for all realms as it means nothing in the eyes of God.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. - Romans 13:1-2
This speaks just as much to those who fight in war as those who live in peace, in fact speaking qualitatively to those who are losing or lost a war and to those who are civilians in a realm of war. While all things are held in the hand of God not all things done by man that produce the results for God were righteous for man to commit. In order to consider fighting these wars in the name of Christ Romans 13 must be never be considered.
1
-
1