I agree with the crux of the article: it's evident that modern humiliation rituals are the result of a Christian heresy where forgiveness has become an idol, itself. I wrote about the Christian view of punishing the guilty/evil in my most recent post, but I'll just paste the most relevant part (it's still really long so apologies for flooding the comment section):
A more apt reference for a Christian society is the infamous story of King Saul and the Amalekites, found in 1 Samuel 15. As a crude background, the Amalekites had attacked, murdered, and cursed the Israelites with black magic for 400 years. God, speaking through the Prophet Sameul, thus ordered King Saul to execute His Divine Wrath on the Amalekites: “utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” God is directly using King Saul and his armies to be the sword of godly punishment, bring justice to those who wronged His people.
While the Amalekites were utterly destroyed, King Saul disobeyed God. He had spared King Agog and kept the best of the Amalekite sheep, oxen, fatlings, and spoils for himself. As Saul enjoyed the spoils of God’s victory, God spoke to Samuel, deriding King Saul’s disobedience and revoked his blessing to be ruler. Samuel then went to reprimand King Saul for his disobedience, informing him that God has “rejected thee from being king over Israel… and hath given it to a neighbor of thine that is better than thee.” Immediately thereafter, Samuel took the murderous Agog, pronouncing his savagery and guilt before God before “hewing [him] in pieces” with a sword.
What is to be learned from this story? According to the Constitution of the Holy Apostles (2.10), he who spares those deserving of punishment acts contrary to justice. This ruler is “unjust before God and men,” and because of the bad example he sets to his country, followers, and family, he deserves a “millstone about his neck.” The Holy Apostles go on to say:
“For observing what a person their governor is, through his wickedness and neglect of justice, [the people] will grow skeptical, thus indulging in the same disease and be compelled to perish with him in such injustice.”
In sum, punishing the guilty is a mandatory duty of the State. It cannot be negotiated with, nor can it even be contained. Those who wish to subvert our people, our religion, and dismantle our way of life especially must be destroyed. We must never succumb to crocodile tears or fake Christian piety in calls for mercy for those guilty of such heinous crimes. Agog even tried to appeal to Samuel that he was pardoned by King Saul, only for the Holy Prophet to summarily execute him, finally bringing justice to the people. Following in such an example, a responsible Christian society must be on the lookout for subversive ideologies and destructive forces. When found, they must never be reasoned with, only “utterly destroyed.”
Conclusion
There is perhaps no better way to summarize this article than with the words of the Lord found in Jeremiah 5 and St. Paul’s warning to the Corinthians:
For among My people are found wicked men;
They lie in wait as one who sets snares;
They set a trap;
They catch men….
Therefore they [the people of Israel] have become great and grown rich.
They have grown fat, they are sleek;
Yes, they surpass the deeds of the wicked;
They do not plead the cause,
The cause of the fatherless;
Yet they prosper,
And the right of the needy they do not defend.
Shall I not punish them for these things?’ says the Lord.
‘Shall I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this?’
Jeremiah 5:26-29
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
2 Corinthians 6:14-15
In the preceding passages, we find God angry not only at the insidious elements who have infiltrated Israel, but also at the people for failing to deliver justice. In fact, Israel’s failure to punish the wicked men, coupled with their preoccupation on their own welfare, entails that “they surpass the deeds of the wicked.” As a result, God promises to punish Israel for their carelessness towards evil. God then allows the Babylonians to invade Jerusalem, destroy the temple, and enslave the Jews for their insolence.
St. Paul goes a step further. Not only is it our duty to punish wickedness and root out evil, but also must we never coexist with such darkness.
It is clear then that conservatism is not only a failing philosophy, but one that leads to our destruction. Slow, gradual reform whilst keeping our traditional institutions alive means nothing if such reform means that evil festers in those institutions. Like the Israelites in Jeremiah, our conservatives have grown rich and fat, caring not about justice or truth. Confronting evil threatens their state of luxury. It is much easier to spout sweet words of “bi-partisan dialogue” when the fruits of conservatism have made our leaders so rich. These conservatives see the evil that has demographically and spiritually ravaged our homelands and would rather have a debate/compromise with it.
An absolutist stance is a godly stance. If the Lord, Himself, brought wrath down upon His own people for their failure to punish evil, how much more will we be punished for allowing evil to rise to positions of power? What good are traditional institutions if they are controlled by our enemies? What good is compromise if it is between good and evil? Our societal failure to stand zealously against leftism, international finance, and anything that is against our God and our people is the cause of our own downfall. In that sense, our weakness has become our own existential threat. Therefore, I urge you to be absolutist. I urge you to be uncompromising. I urge you to follow the example of St. Michael the Archangel in wielding the sword of God to drive evil down to Hell from whence it came.
Do not drag me away with the wicked, with those who do evil,
who speak cordially with their neighbors but harbor malice in their hearts.
Repay them for their deeds and for their evil work;
repay them for what their hands have done and bring back on them what they deserve.
This argument would be moot if it were not for Christianity. There is no crisis of conscience about punishing evil-doers in the Ancestral, Pre-Christian Faiths. In fact, it was dignified as an offering to the Gods. IMO, the modern Christians and the Modern Progressives are just better at taking the Bible seriously because they no longer have to live in the real world and form a political system (such as the feudal system). Nietzsche was correct in The Anti-Christ when he stated there was only ever one "Christian" and He "died on the Cross."
Vengeance belongs to God, not to humans. Forgiveness should be practiced even unto death, for it is ultimate expression of complete selflessness, absolute selfdenial which is an essential part of God’s character. By that rationale, Martha was in principle following God’s will and will be added among the Righteous.
Exactly. Just as Jesus was wiped out on the cross. But His victory wasn’t in survival. It was in the resurrection. That is the secret of self sacrifice. “He who wants to keep his life will lose it. But if he loses his life for me, will find it.”
Look man we appreciate the youth pastor strides but we are looking at a few levels of interpretation above this
Like I said in the article I don't even claim to understand or dispute the ways Christian interpret personal forgiveness. I do say that the way it is employed today has negative effects for justice in this country, and that we should look to medieval or ancient attitudes to mediate.
I hear you, and as I have read the article through, I do think it is well written piece. (I should have emphasized that earlier.) I do appreciate your effort of finding examples you pulled from history and the conclusion that old societies depended on the currency of honour to ensure social justice. Its a sad thing that our communal societies have been all but eradicated and the honour currency is almost all devalued in these days. And it is true that a man needs to show his backbone sometimes and protect his heritage, his tradition and culture because that represents in a large part our true identity. As a father i would have hard time to forgive anyone that would invade my home and hurt my children. But i do have a problem with the quote from that St. Bernard (who was definitely not a saint, nor a true follower of Christ for sure), as the God did not gave us a calling to eradicate evil for the sake of vengeance or justice. Example from OT where Saul slaughtered Amalekites is misunderstood, the command was not given because they were evil, it was given because they were not genetic humans, as their animals were also genetically tainted and had to die. My point is we can lobby and decide as a society what would be best amount of forgiveness vs justice to fellow humans, but we can’t use God as excuse, He did not gave us mandate to dispense His vengeance in any shape and form.
I’m not trying to get into politics, i do believe i understand the true reasons behind contemporary Israeli politics, but it doesnt make it justified. However i would always refrain from passing judgement on any group of people, because i don’t think any group of people or nation, including my own, is inherently better or worse than any other group in God’s eyes. We are accountable for our own duty and conduct first before all.
Declaring that you have the right to murder anyone on the land you want to steal because god said they're bad is very political.
> However i would always refrain from passing judgement on any group of people, because i don’t think any group of people or nation, including my own, is inherently better or worse than any other group in God’s eyes
Individual sacrifice is extraordinarily praiseworthy. Without that kind of sacrifice families, tribes and nations would fail and we would stagnate as a species living like wild beasts without any hope of elevation, spiritual or otherwise.
However, sacrifice must be for a purpose. Individuals might sacrifice for their nation but the reverse should never be true. Doing so is the inversion of sacred order.
Extermination of Amalekites and their livestock has little to do with Jews, far more it had to do with a war on God’s creation. Just as God did not destroy the world with Flood just because men were evil. When Gen. 6:9 states that “Noah was a man perfect in his generation”, its because he was the last genetically pure human remaining on the Earth. If you would know who are humans really up against, you would make no difference between Jew and Arab, Chinese, African, European or American.
Sure, you can dispute any fact as you see fit, but scientific evidence suggests otherwise, Bantu people and any other current Homo Sapiens don’t possess enough difference in DNA to qualify as a separate species. Also, it appears you are suggesting that if some group of people does not behave morally, that entitles others to in turn also abandon morality. I wont judge your right to do so, but it has nothing to do with God’s laws and orders, His morality is perfect.
What difference in DNA would qualify them as a separate species exactly? You were happy to declare the amalekites non-human, why not the bantus?
It's a trick question of course, since that's not how speciation is classified. Species are distinguished when there's a clear enough difference in appearance and behaviour between two groups of animals and they typically form separate breeding pools (contrary to popular myth, inability to produce viable offspring is not a requirement).
All of those criteria apply to homo-sapiens-sapiens vs. bantus.
No god given me any order to embrace animals who hate me and want me dead as my kin. If they did I would begin to suspect they were a demon.
I agree with the crux of the article: it's evident that modern humiliation rituals are the result of a Christian heresy where forgiveness has become an idol, itself. I wrote about the Christian view of punishing the guilty/evil in my most recent post, but I'll just paste the most relevant part (it's still really long so apologies for flooding the comment section):
A more apt reference for a Christian society is the infamous story of King Saul and the Amalekites, found in 1 Samuel 15. As a crude background, the Amalekites had attacked, murdered, and cursed the Israelites with black magic for 400 years. God, speaking through the Prophet Sameul, thus ordered King Saul to execute His Divine Wrath on the Amalekites: “utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” God is directly using King Saul and his armies to be the sword of godly punishment, bring justice to those who wronged His people.
While the Amalekites were utterly destroyed, King Saul disobeyed God. He had spared King Agog and kept the best of the Amalekite sheep, oxen, fatlings, and spoils for himself. As Saul enjoyed the spoils of God’s victory, God spoke to Samuel, deriding King Saul’s disobedience and revoked his blessing to be ruler. Samuel then went to reprimand King Saul for his disobedience, informing him that God has “rejected thee from being king over Israel… and hath given it to a neighbor of thine that is better than thee.” Immediately thereafter, Samuel took the murderous Agog, pronouncing his savagery and guilt before God before “hewing [him] in pieces” with a sword.
What is to be learned from this story? According to the Constitution of the Holy Apostles (2.10), he who spares those deserving of punishment acts contrary to justice. This ruler is “unjust before God and men,” and because of the bad example he sets to his country, followers, and family, he deserves a “millstone about his neck.” The Holy Apostles go on to say:
“For observing what a person their governor is, through his wickedness and neglect of justice, [the people] will grow skeptical, thus indulging in the same disease and be compelled to perish with him in such injustice.”
In sum, punishing the guilty is a mandatory duty of the State. It cannot be negotiated with, nor can it even be contained. Those who wish to subvert our people, our religion, and dismantle our way of life especially must be destroyed. We must never succumb to crocodile tears or fake Christian piety in calls for mercy for those guilty of such heinous crimes. Agog even tried to appeal to Samuel that he was pardoned by King Saul, only for the Holy Prophet to summarily execute him, finally bringing justice to the people. Following in such an example, a responsible Christian society must be on the lookout for subversive ideologies and destructive forces. When found, they must never be reasoned with, only “utterly destroyed.”
Conclusion
There is perhaps no better way to summarize this article than with the words of the Lord found in Jeremiah 5 and St. Paul’s warning to the Corinthians:
For among My people are found wicked men;
They lie in wait as one who sets snares;
They set a trap;
They catch men….
Therefore they [the people of Israel] have become great and grown rich.
They have grown fat, they are sleek;
Yes, they surpass the deeds of the wicked;
They do not plead the cause,
The cause of the fatherless;
Yet they prosper,
And the right of the needy they do not defend.
Shall I not punish them for these things?’ says the Lord.
‘Shall I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this?’
Jeremiah 5:26-29
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
2 Corinthians 6:14-15
In the preceding passages, we find God angry not only at the insidious elements who have infiltrated Israel, but also at the people for failing to deliver justice. In fact, Israel’s failure to punish the wicked men, coupled with their preoccupation on their own welfare, entails that “they surpass the deeds of the wicked.” As a result, God promises to punish Israel for their carelessness towards evil. God then allows the Babylonians to invade Jerusalem, destroy the temple, and enslave the Jews for their insolence.
St. Paul goes a step further. Not only is it our duty to punish wickedness and root out evil, but also must we never coexist with such darkness.
It is clear then that conservatism is not only a failing philosophy, but one that leads to our destruction. Slow, gradual reform whilst keeping our traditional institutions alive means nothing if such reform means that evil festers in those institutions. Like the Israelites in Jeremiah, our conservatives have grown rich and fat, caring not about justice or truth. Confronting evil threatens their state of luxury. It is much easier to spout sweet words of “bi-partisan dialogue” when the fruits of conservatism have made our leaders so rich. These conservatives see the evil that has demographically and spiritually ravaged our homelands and would rather have a debate/compromise with it.
An absolutist stance is a godly stance. If the Lord, Himself, brought wrath down upon His own people for their failure to punish evil, how much more will we be punished for allowing evil to rise to positions of power? What good are traditional institutions if they are controlled by our enemies? What good is compromise if it is between good and evil? Our societal failure to stand zealously against leftism, international finance, and anything that is against our God and our people is the cause of our own downfall. In that sense, our weakness has become our own existential threat. Therefore, I urge you to be absolutist. I urge you to be uncompromising. I urge you to follow the example of St. Michael the Archangel in wielding the sword of God to drive evil down to Hell from whence it came.
Do not drag me away with the wicked, with those who do evil,
who speak cordially with their neighbors but harbor malice in their hearts.
Repay them for their deeds and for their evil work;
repay them for what their hands have done and bring back on them what they deserve.
Psalm 28:3-4
This argument would be moot if it were not for Christianity. There is no crisis of conscience about punishing evil-doers in the Ancestral, Pre-Christian Faiths. In fact, it was dignified as an offering to the Gods. IMO, the modern Christians and the Modern Progressives are just better at taking the Bible seriously because they no longer have to live in the real world and form a political system (such as the feudal system). Nietzsche was correct in The Anti-Christ when he stated there was only ever one "Christian" and He "died on the Cross."
Vengeance belongs to God, not to humans. Forgiveness should be practiced even unto death, for it is ultimate expression of complete selflessness, absolute selfdenial which is an essential part of God’s character. By that rationale, Martha was in principle following God’s will and will be added among the Righteous.
"All of that and a nickel would buy you a cup of coffee"
Any society that actually embodies that value will be wiped out. Plain and simple.
Exactly. Just as Jesus was wiped out on the cross. But His victory wasn’t in survival. It was in the resurrection. That is the secret of self sacrifice. “He who wants to keep his life will lose it. But if he loses his life for me, will find it.”
Look man we appreciate the youth pastor strides but we are looking at a few levels of interpretation above this
Like I said in the article I don't even claim to understand or dispute the ways Christian interpret personal forgiveness. I do say that the way it is employed today has negative effects for justice in this country, and that we should look to medieval or ancient attitudes to mediate.
I hear you, and as I have read the article through, I do think it is well written piece. (I should have emphasized that earlier.) I do appreciate your effort of finding examples you pulled from history and the conclusion that old societies depended on the currency of honour to ensure social justice. Its a sad thing that our communal societies have been all but eradicated and the honour currency is almost all devalued in these days. And it is true that a man needs to show his backbone sometimes and protect his heritage, his tradition and culture because that represents in a large part our true identity. As a father i would have hard time to forgive anyone that would invade my home and hurt my children. But i do have a problem with the quote from that St. Bernard (who was definitely not a saint, nor a true follower of Christ for sure), as the God did not gave us a calling to eradicate evil for the sake of vengeance or justice. Example from OT where Saul slaughtered Amalekites is misunderstood, the command was not given because they were evil, it was given because they were not genetic humans, as their animals were also genetically tainted and had to die. My point is we can lobby and decide as a society what would be best amount of forgiveness vs justice to fellow humans, but we can’t use God as excuse, He did not gave us mandate to dispense His vengeance in any shape and form.
How convenient, the jews want a neighbouring tribe gone, so it turns out they're not really humans so it's ok to slaughter them all.
They already call all of us subhuman in their talmud. How long do you think it'll be before they decide we're the next amalekites?
I’m not trying to get into politics, i do believe i understand the true reasons behind contemporary Israeli politics, but it doesnt make it justified. However i would always refrain from passing judgement on any group of people, because i don’t think any group of people or nation, including my own, is inherently better or worse than any other group in God’s eyes. We are accountable for our own duty and conduct first before all.
Declaring that you have the right to murder anyone on the land you want to steal because god said they're bad is very political.
> However i would always refrain from passing judgement on any group of people, because i don’t think any group of people or nation, including my own, is inherently better or worse than any other group in God’s eyes
Why do you think you have the ability to judge?
Individual sacrifice is extraordinarily praiseworthy. Without that kind of sacrifice families, tribes and nations would fail and we would stagnate as a species living like wild beasts without any hope of elevation, spiritual or otherwise.
However, sacrifice must be for a purpose. Individuals might sacrifice for their nation but the reverse should never be true. Doing so is the inversion of sacred order.
Extermination of Amalekites and their livestock has little to do with Jews, far more it had to do with a war on God’s creation. Just as God did not destroy the world with Flood just because men were evil. When Gen. 6:9 states that “Noah was a man perfect in his generation”, its because he was the last genetically pure human remaining on the Earth. If you would know who are humans really up against, you would make no difference between Jew and Arab, Chinese, African, European or American.
I dispute that africans (as in bantus) are the same species as us.
Whether or not I make differences between the others, they make a difference between me and them. Unilaterally pretending they don't is suicidal.
Sure, you can dispute any fact as you see fit, but scientific evidence suggests otherwise, Bantu people and any other current Homo Sapiens don’t possess enough difference in DNA to qualify as a separate species. Also, it appears you are suggesting that if some group of people does not behave morally, that entitles others to in turn also abandon morality. I wont judge your right to do so, but it has nothing to do with God’s laws and orders, His morality is perfect.
What difference in DNA would qualify them as a separate species exactly? You were happy to declare the amalekites non-human, why not the bantus?
It's a trick question of course, since that's not how speciation is classified. Species are distinguished when there's a clear enough difference in appearance and behaviour between two groups of animals and they typically form separate breeding pools (contrary to popular myth, inability to produce viable offspring is not a requirement).
All of those criteria apply to homo-sapiens-sapiens vs. bantus.
No god given me any order to embrace animals who hate me and want me dead as my kin. If they did I would begin to suspect they were a demon.