|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 7, 2019 19:06:44 GMT
We know that Christ is the son of God, but what about the rest of us? Are we God's children?
In Mathews, among the other commandments of bliss, we read: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (5:9, NIV). In John's writings there's a text: "...Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (8:34-36 NIV).
I don't be so sure about derivation "we're children of God" from those text places in Gospels. However, I continue to think that all the people are children of God in some sense. He's the creator of everything, including an act of birth. Well, if Jesus is His son, why should it not concern us all?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 7, 2019 19:16:39 GMT
Yes. There are children of God and there are children of satan. Children of God live by His commandments and the children of satan don't. We all belong to Him because He created us but we are not all His children.
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John:3:10
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1 John:5:2
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jun 8, 2019 4:52:09 GMT
However, I continue to think that all the people are children of God in some sense. He's the creator of everything, including an act of birth. By that logic, cockroaches are also children of God, which makes sense since most people are much like cockroaches.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 8, 2019 14:46:19 GMT
Yes. There are children of God and there are children of satan. Children of God live by His commandments and the children of satan don't. We all belong to Him because He created us but we are not all His children. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John:3:10 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1 John:5:2 Thank you for very good quotes! (Silly me, how could I forget about those quotes?!!) ...Anyway, I tried to think about it a lot wider. What about the rest of those who will decide not to join God? Would they stop being God's children? (On conditions that they were the ones.)
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 8, 2019 15:05:15 GMT
However, I continue to think that all the people are children of God in some sense. He's the creator of everything, including an act of birth. By that logic, cockroaches are also children of God, which makes sense since most people are much like cockroaches. Thank your for answering. I'd like to response in this way: A. The situation in the world is not normal; B. For some people, a large part of humanity is cockroaches (aka "people-cockroaches"), because of A; C. I think that many people would prefer "people-cockroaches" to "cockroaches", because of B; D. I think that all the people would prefer "people-cockroaches" to "cockroaches", if ~A; E. And just a part of people would prefer "cockroaches" to "people-cockroaches" whichever the situation would be.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jun 8, 2019 18:40:34 GMT
A. The situation in the world is not normal; B. For some people, a large part of humanity is cockroaches (aka "people-cockroaches"), because of A; C. I think that many people would prefer "people-cockroaches" to "cockroaches", because of B; D. I think that all the people would prefer "people-cockroaches" to "cockroaches", if ~A; E. And just a part of people would prefer "cockroaches" to "people-cockroaches" whichever the situation would be. If ~A then most people wouldn't be "people-cockroaches" in which case I wouldn't hate most of humanity. But D would still be false because I would always prefer "cockroaches" over "people-cockroaches" regardless of how many or few "people-cockroaches" there are. Dear God, please be the pest exterminator that I know you can be.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 8, 2019 18:56:21 GMT
Yes. There are children of God and there are children of satan. Children of God live by His commandments and the children of satan don't. We all belong to Him because He created us but we are not all His children. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John:3:10 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1 John:5:2 Thank you for very good quotes! (Silly me, how could I forget about those quotes?!!) ...Anyway, I tried to think about it a lot wider. What about the rest of those who will decide not to join God? Would they stop being God's children? (On conditions that they were the ones.) Yes, they will not be God's children but it's by their own decision. He doesn't force you into what you don't want. And since He sees the future He let's us know that many are called to be His children but only few get chosen so His children because only a few sincerely want to be. I can quote those verses if you'd like
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 9, 2019 9:27:53 GMT
A. The situation in the world is not normal; B. For some people, a large part of humanity is cockroaches (aka "people-cockroaches"), because of A; C. I think that many people would prefer "people-cockroaches" to "cockroaches", because of B; D. I think that all the people would prefer "people-cockroaches" to "cockroaches", if ~A; E. And just a part of people would prefer "cockroaches" to "people-cockroaches" whichever the situation would be. If ~A then most people wouldn't be "people-cockroaches" in which case I wouldn't hate most of humanity. But D would still be false because I would always prefer "cockroaches" over "people-cockroaches" regardless of how many or few "people-cockroaches" there are. Dear God, please be the pest exterminator that I know you can be. Saying that "most of the people are such cockroaches" (or in a more strong way "...are cockroaches") your words could be easily interpreted as "most of the people are such bears" or "...are such goats", or "...are such bees" etc. But even if almost everyone were ants, it wouldn't mean "the ones were bad", it would be rather similar to "the ones were not like me". Putting yourself on the top (or just in some high privilege place) over everyone else is not the way out. Dugin, for example, says that many people today (especially in the I-net social medias) are "morons" in a medical sense. He says that to be a moron one needn't understand any semantics features (not understand any sense of the words), but it's ok for the one to act in a formal way - to understand common logic, being able to solve math puzzles, etc. If you equals "cockroaches" to those "morons", then I agree with you. However, I still think that it is a problem. Yes, I don't think I'm the one who will solve it, but I feel responsible for my neighbors too. Why shouldn't I care for the other people? If I would meet a girl I like, and I'd had known that her parents had some problems with their finances or something else, why shouldn't I help her? I know that I would be able to say that "why would those morons not to be so stupid to do their own business yourselves?", or something like that, but would it be fair? I could live on my own giving no one anything, trying to do everything just for myself, and laughing on everyone who doesn't like me, and would this life be ok? - Such a life wouldn't be different from an animal - the worst of the worst one - life. And yes, I know that this ideology of "curing" not "killing" those who are sick in society is rather a loosing game, the path leading to Nothingness, to the Emptiness. No one would say anything good after my death, and maybe no one would even remember me, but should I consider this position as something bad and abnormal? I see not normal position to feel pity for someone else lying to myself that I don't want to help him; I'd say I feel my weakness, rather than pointless if I didn't do anything. And, for God's sake, why to kill? There are so many aggression including killing: mafia, maniacs, desperados, lunatics... Even if I'd die like a god, I wouldn't be the worst if I did help someone, offered someone a help. P.S. Yes, I know my words seem like "sweet" ones; however, in this mad world there's nothing left just to do something to sweat this reality up, at least, for a tiny bit.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 9, 2019 9:32:45 GMT
Thank you for very good quotes! (Silly me, how could I forget about those quotes?!!) ...Anyway, I tried to think about it a lot wider. What about the rest of those who will decide not to join God? Would they stop being God's children? (On conditions that they were the ones.) Yes, they will not be God's children but it's by their own decision. He doesn't force you into what you don't want. And since He sees the future He let's us know that many are called to be His children but only few get chosen so His children because only a few sincerely want to be. I can quote those verses if you'd like Doesn't it mean that the ones who decided to join God's places, are not the real children, but, hmm... let's just say - adopted children? And Jesus is the only one real son of God? Or we were God's children, and then the part of us would decided not to join God?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 9, 2019 14:48:13 GMT
Yes, they will not be God's children but it's by their own decision. He doesn't force you into what you don't want. And since He sees the future He let's us know that many are called to be His children but only few get chosen so His children because only a few sincerely want to be. I can quote those verses if you'd like Doesn't it mean that the ones who decided to join God's places, are not the real children, but, hmm... let's just say - adopted children? And Jesus is the only one real son of God? Or we were God's children, and then the part of us would decided not to join God? Jesus is God though. He became flesh for a short while but returned back to His normal God form. God has 3 forms which are Father, Son, and Spirit. But all 3 make up the fullness of God. So God's children are Jesus' children. And adopted only for now until the marriage of the Lamb because bible says there's technically 2 real families. The family of God and the family of satan. So the blood family only exists on earth so while it exists temporarily for now then we're adopted but in the next life we are heirs by His blood so real family. Makes sense? Some verses...God the Father calling Jesus God.. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrews:1:8 So God's kingdom is forever. Who's is God does it say? The Son. Who is the Son? Jesus. God's seed or DNA is in His children that's how we are traced to Him because we were born from Him. So if born from a parent then not really adopted anymore. Adopted in the bible is just used as saying switched from one family into another but with bible for for adopted you become fully son with new real birth parents so not the adopted we're used to using. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John:3:9 Those not born of God are the seed of Satan...the corruptible seed. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter:1:23 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Romans:9:8 So in the end there are 2 families. We are born into Satan's family but we can switched over (adopt) into God's family by a new birth so we became real children of God now. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John:3:7 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John:3:3 Human adoption definition doesn't get you to heaven. God's adoption definition is what gets you to heaven which is a new birth requirement into His family as heirs. You must actually be born into His family not "adopted" by human definitions of just given new parents without a birth requirement. God's adoption definition requires a birth requirement. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Romans:8:17 But that's the birth requirement part that confused people. How can you go back into your mother and be born to another family? Jesus explains... Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? John:3:4 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John:3:5 Earthly blood family is temporally and ends at death but God's family is forever and of spirit not blood. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John:1:13 And if born of God then God's real children forever. Which is more powerful then being born of blood since blood families are temporarily and end at death.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 9, 2019 16:20:43 GMT
Doesn't it mean that the ones who decided to join God's places, are not the real children, but, hmm... let's just say - adopted children? And Jesus is the only one real son of God? Or we were God's children, and then the part of us would decided not to join God? Jesus is God though. He became flesh for a short while but returned back to His normal God form. God has 3 forms which are Father, Son, and Spirit. But all 3 make up the fullness of God. So God's children are Jesus' children. And adopted only for now until the marriage of the Lamb because bible says there's technically 2 real families. The family of God and the family of satan. So the blood family only exists on earth so while it exists temporarily for now then we're adopted but in the next life we are heirs by His blood so real family. Makes sense? Some verses...God the Father calling Jesus God.. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrews:1:8 So God's kingdom is forever. Who's is God does it say? The Son. Who is the Son? Jesus. God's seed or DNA is in His children that's how we are traced to Him because we were born from Him. So if born from a parent then not really adopted anymore. Adopted in the bible is just used as saying switched from one family into another but with bible for for adopted you become fully son with new real birth parents so not the adopted we're used to using. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John:3:9 Those not born of God are the seed of Satan...the corruptible seed. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter:1:23 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Romans:9:8 So in the end there are 2 families. We are born into Satan's family but we can switched over (adopt) into God's family by a new birth so we became real children of God now. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John:3:7 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John:3:3 Human adoption definition doesn't get you to heaven. God's adoption definition is what gets you to heaven which is a new birth requirement into His family as heirs. You must actually be born into His family not "adopted" by human definitions of just given new parents without a birth requirement. God's adoption definition requires a birth requirement. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Romans:8:17 But that's the birth requirement part that confused people. How can you go back into your mother and be born to another family? Jesus explains... Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? John:3:4 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John:3:5 Earthly blood family is temporally and ends at death but God's family is forever and of spirit not blood. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John:1:13 And if born of God then God's real children forever. Which is more powerful then being born of blood since blood families are temporarily and end at death. Thank you, Elizabeth again for this very detailed info. It helps me now. Yes, your thoughts rang the bell for me. Now I can see clear why do something good for your neighbor makes me closer to God. And yes, our real father is God, but being born in sins we haven't been "cleaned" yet for another life. And this explains why parents don't need to be so close to their children (taking control over their children and parenting them is in their charge though). Thank you Lisa (I apologize that I call you "Lisa" now; I like it )!
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 9, 2019 17:18:09 GMT
Yes. There are children of God and there are children of satan. Children of God live by His commandments and the children of satan don't. We all belong to Him because He created us but we are not all His children. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John:3:10 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1 John:5:2 Elizabeth, I am going to express my reactions to what you wrote, but I wish you to know that I do not intend to attack your faith or to make you acquire a new faith.
You are using "children" in two senses: literally (when you refer to being generated or created) and metaphorically or "spiritually" (when you refer to "listening to" or obeying either God or Satan). However, even by remaining within the Judeo-Christian mythology or religion, it is incorrect to say that we humans are created by God; only our oldest ancestors were created or produced directly by God. Furthermore, as Genesis-1 is in Aramaic and in line with the Arabo-Syrian (Ugaritic) theology, we should assume that the earliest humans were ethnically "Araboid" (brown, long-nosed, etc.) The Caucasoid or "White" people are ethnically different and, as I mentioned on other occasions, cannot be descendants of Araboid/Semitic people. (I believe in the polygenesis of the human races, since racial traits are inherited. The earliest-found human fossils were found in Africa, and even scientists assume that all the present human races are derived from the Black race. Actually there is no evidence that those fossils are of "Black" people, just because today we think of Africa as the land of Blacks.)
Jesus was a Galilean, and we have at least one quotation that he spoke Aramaic. His God was El(Eloah) or Ugaritic Il. He must have been Arab-looking. Anyway, the Biblically supported view that he was literally the Son of God, makes him a God-Man (like Dionysos, the son of Zeus and a human female). It is impossible for him to give up his divine nature for a while and then get it back again after his death and resurrection. The Arian heresy was precisely about this point, that he was fully human and could not be divine at the same time. (The Trinitarian position about God posits that God is eternally Creator, Logos/Word, and Breath/Spirit. As per John's theology, the Logos was incarnated, took on the human flesh, and was both human and divine --just like the old and forgotten Dionysos. For the Greeks, Christianity was a revival of their old religion, and God was simply called Theos, never expressed as either El or Jahweh.)
Satan is not in the Genesis list of creatures, but he is certain in the Ugaritic theology as Satana-El, which Jews and Christians inadvertendly followed. Etc., etc.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 9, 2019 21:52:55 GMT
Yes. There are children of God and there are children of satan. Children of God live by His commandments and the children of satan don't. We all belong to Him because He created us but we are not all His children. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John:3:10 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1 John:5:2 Elizabeth, I am going to express my reactions to what you wrote, but I wish you to know that I do not intend to attack your faith or to make you acquire a new faith.
You are using "children" in two senses: literally (when you refer to being generated or created) and metaphorically or "spiritually" (when you refer to "listening to" or obeying either God or Satan). However, even by remaining within the Judeo-Christian mythology or religion, it is incorrect to say that we humans are created by God; only our oldest ancestors were created or produced directly by God. Furthermore, as Genesis-1 is in Aramaic and in line with the Arabo-Syrian (Ugaritic) theology, we should assume that the earliest humans were ethnically "Araboid" (brown, long-nosed, etc.) The Caucasoid or "White" people are ethnically different and, as I mentioned on other occasions, cannot be descendants of Araboid/Semitic people. (I believe in the polygenesis of the human races, since racial traits are inherited. The earliest-found human fossils were found in Africa, and even scientists assume that all the present human races are derived from the Black race. Actually there is no evidence that those fossils are of "Black" people, just because today we think of Africa as the land of Blacks.)
Jesus was a Galilean, and we have at least one quotation that he spoke Aramaic. His God was El(Eloah) or Ugaritic Il. He must have been Arab-looking. Anyway, the Biblically supported view that he was literally the Son of God, makes him a God-Man (like Dionysos, the son of Zeus and a human female). It is impossible for him to give up his divine nature for a while and then get it back again after his death and resurrection. The Arian heresy was precisely about this point, that he was fully human and could not be divine at the same time. (The Trinitarian position about God posits that God is eternally Creator, Logos/Word, and Breath/Spirit. As per John's theology, the Logos was incarnated, took on the human flesh, and was both human and divine --just like the old and forgotten Dionysos. For the Greeks, Christianity was a revival of their old religion, and God was simply called Theos, never expressed as either El or Jahweh.)
Satan is not in the Genesis list of creatures, but he is certain in the Ugaritic theology as Satana-El, which Jews and Christians inadvertendly followed. Etc., etc.
You're using more than Christianity/new testament/ne covenant there. I am just a Christian so only new testament covenant. And yes I'm using children both ways because both ways are true. Look here...God created everything. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Colossians:1:16 We can bring in Old testament/old covenant too if you wish. Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: Isaiah:42:5 So with that established now that God created everything. Here's why I use children the way that I use it with my Christian/New Testament faith. First as I was telling Eugene that there are two seeds or two sets of children. One belonging to God and one to Satan. Here's another verse about it. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 John:3:10 What are the results of being the children of God? New testament/covenant says that it's our faith in Christ Jesus. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians:3:26 So children of God it says are those with faith in Jesus, the Christians. So no it has nothing to do with Gentiles not being children of God. Because they are. The requirement to be a child of God is faith in Jesus. Here's the verse that confirms Gentiles as God's children in the faith. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Ephesians:3:6 Gentiles are fellow heirs. And heirs are children of God. To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Colossians:1:27 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians:12:13 So it matters not if you're Jew or Gentile but if you're in the faith. The things is you bring in Old testament and that covenant which a Christian doesn't not follow. Christians are not found in Old testament/old covenant. They are only mentioned in new testament under new covenant. So to a Christian the old Testament is just a history book only. The stuff they we need are carried over into new covenent so we don't even need to bother with old testament covenant. God warned us that He would remove the old testmant covenant one day. God started saying in old testament that He will change the old covenant to a new one. The day was coming. The warning was set forth. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jeremiah:31:31 Notice that the covenant doesnt include just Israel. Israel isn't important. This new covenant will be forever so cannot be replaced like the old covenant. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Jeremiah:32:40 This new covenant breaks the old one and it is expired. The levites and everything in old covenant will be destroyed. Levites will no longer be the priesthood as they were in old testament. Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. Jeremiah:33:21 Now new testament covenant removed the old. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews:8:13 If I followed the old testament covenant then I would not be saved and end up in hell. It profits me nothing to follow the history old testament book of the old covenant. It's actually a danger to my soul to do so. It's faulty and bad and no way will I use something expired, not even expired milk. Gross. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Hebrews:8:7
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jun 10, 2019 8:07:16 GMT
Saying that "most of the people are such cockroaches" (or in a more strong way "...are cockroaches") your words could be easily interpreted as "most of the people are such bears" or "...are such goats", or "...are such bees" etc. But even if almost everyone were ants, it wouldn't mean "the ones were bad", it would be rather similar to "the ones were not like me". Putting yourself on the top (or just in some high privilege place) over everyone else is not the way out. Dugin, for example, says that many people today (especially in the I-net social medias) are "morons" in a medical sense. He says that to be a moron one needn't understand any semantics features (not understand any sense of the words), but it's ok for the one to act in a formal way - to understand common logic, being able to solve math puzzles, etc. If you equals "cockroaches" to those "morons", then I agree with you. However, I still think that it is a problem. Yes, I don't think I'm the one who will solve it, but I feel responsible for my neighbors too. Why shouldn't I care for the other people? If I would meet a girl I like, and I'd had known that her parents had some problems with their finances or something else, why shouldn't I help her? I know that I would be able to say that "why would those morons not to be so stupid to do their own business yourselves?", or something like that, but would it be fair? I could live on my own giving no one anything, trying to do everything just for myself, and laughing on everyone who doesn't like me, and would this life be ok? - Such a life wouldn't be different from an animal - the worst of the worst one - life. And yes, I know that this ideology of "curing" not "killing" those who are sick in society is rather a loosing game, the path leading to Nothingness, to the Emptiness. No one would say anything good after my death, and maybe no one would even remember me, but should I consider this position as something bad and abnormal? I see not normal position to feel pity for someone else lying to myself that I don't want to help him; I'd say I feel my weakness, rather than pointless if I didn't do anything. And, for God's sake, why to kill? There are so many aggression including killing: mafia, maniacs, desperados, lunatics... Even if I'd die like a god, I wouldn't be the worst if I did help someone, offered someone a help. P.S. Yes, I know my words seem like "sweet" ones; however, in this mad world there's nothing left just to do something to sweat this reality up, at least, for a tiny bit. Does it make more sense to help a rat carrying plague or to kill the rat? Modern people carry the plague of modern culture. Modern culture not only makes its carriers stupid, evil, and repulsive, but it spreads to other people of other cultures, causing the same. It is a plague on humanity and its carriers should be killed. Unfortunately there are too many of them to effectively eradicate them, so we just have to trust in God to do this for us. What we can do is to help those few people who are not yet infected, like religious Muslims and traditional Anabaptists. But in no case should any decent person ever help anyone infected with modern culture.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 10, 2019 14:56:25 GMT
Saying that "most of the people are such cockroaches" (or in a more strong way "...are cockroaches") your words could be easily interpreted as "most of the people are such bears" or "...are such goats", or "...are such bees" etc. But even if almost everyone were ants, it wouldn't mean "the ones were bad", it would be rather similar to "the ones were not like me". Putting yourself on the top (or just in some high privilege place) over everyone else is not the way out. Dugin, for example, says that many people today (especially in the I-net social medias) are "morons" in a medical sense. He says that to be a moron one needn't understand any semantics features (not understand any sense of the words), but it's ok for the one to act in a formal way - to understand common logic, being able to solve math puzzles, etc. If you equals "cockroaches" to those "morons", then I agree with you. However, I still think that it is a problem. Yes, I don't think I'm the one who will solve it, but I feel responsible for my neighbors too. Why shouldn't I care for the other people? If I would meet a girl I like, and I'd had known that her parents had some problems with their finances or something else, why shouldn't I help her? I know that I would be able to say that "why would those morons not to be so stupid to do their own business yourselves?", or something like that, but would it be fair? I could live on my own giving no one anything, trying to do everything just for myself, and laughing on everyone who doesn't like me, and would this life be ok? - Such a life wouldn't be different from an animal - the worst of the worst one - life. And yes, I know that this ideology of "curing" not "killing" those who are sick in society is rather a loosing game, the path leading to Nothingness, to the Emptiness. No one would say anything good after my death, and maybe no one would even remember me, but should I consider this position as something bad and abnormal? I see not normal position to feel pity for someone else lying to myself that I don't want to help him; I'd say I feel my weakness, rather than pointless if I didn't do anything. And, for God's sake, why to kill? There are so many aggression including killing: mafia, maniacs, desperados, lunatics... Even if I'd die like a god, I wouldn't be the worst if I did help someone, offered someone a help. P.S. Yes, I know my words seem like "sweet" ones; however, in this mad world there's nothing left just to do something to sweat this reality up, at least, for a tiny bit. Does it make more sense to help a rat carrying plague or to kill the rat? Modern people carry the plague of modern culture. Modern culture not only makes its carriers stupid, evil, and repulsive, but it spreads to other people of other cultures, causing the same. It is a plague on humanity and its carriers should be killed. Unfortunately there are too many of them to effectively eradicate them, so we just have to trust in God to do this for us. What we can do is to help those few people who are not yet infected, like religious Muslims and traditional Anabaptists. But in no case should any decent person ever help anyone infected with modern culture. What is MODERN CULTURE? How do you call the opposites of the Modernists? Traditionalists? Is your God on the side of (let us say) the Traditionalists?
|
|