Speech is violence?

These days the New Left claim that speech is violence - or, more precisely, that it can be.

So, true to form, in typical reaction, the Right claim that as a matter of fact it is not

Speech is not violence? the trouble is the Bible says something quite contrary: Life and death is in the power of the tongue: Proverbs 18:21. As this passage does not mean that the tongue is the conduit for supernatural energies which absurdity is what the positive confession types say, it has to mean something else.

And what? That you can destroy a person with cruel words or build them up with kind words.

Anyone who has felt the agony of cruel verbal rebuke knows this, and it is only indicative of the callousness of the Right that they deny this - unless of course they are so perfect and well beloved as to never have been bawled out, rebuked etc etc or have never been harassed online, or bullied in anyway that stopped short of physical beating

Scripture also adds James chapter 3, all of it - including this So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire!(verse 5) Also the Sermon on the mount - he who calls his brother raca - any term of contempt -   is guilty of (ie worthy of - hellfire Matthew 5:22 IOW speech IS violence. The Bible says so. What then is wrong with the Left when they state this? they define violence only to suit themselves, to excuse and exempt their own violent speech; and they think that legal stricture will correct it when it appears in anyone else other than themselves. But of course they hold their violent speech is righteous and this excuses all things. If those of the Right call themselves christian and profess to believe the Bible to be the word of God then they really have no right to deny this fact here. If some are atheistic and Right Wing - rare perhaps but they do exist - , well that is no business of mine' As for the Left's wanting to legislate hate speech: if Law could solve anything there was no need for a New Covenant. if the Right had any sense at all they will oppose the Left's legalism, not its more or less valid appeal to a true fact, namely that speech is - ie can be - violence. But if they, the Right want to blaspheme the name of the Lord, a Right Wing predilection and this because they confuse Right Wing politics with godliness and the left being mostly atheist, do not , well . . . . .

Be my guest

The Thunberg Outburst

if HOW DARE YOU? were a real question instead of an outburst of outrage she should be prepared to listen to the answer,

"we dare because the science you - ie Ms Thunberg - appeal to is junk

"we dare because even if you were right terrorizing people - ie other children - into a panic is criminal

"we dare because questions of science are nuanced, and you are incapable of such, by your own admission of having Asbergers

"we dare because even if you are right - but you are not - if it doesn't get paid for it does NOT GET DONE, so concerns about money are crucial. But you, child, are too young to know that money is what makes the world work, like it or not

"we dare because as regards truth -did your handlers ever teach you such an outlandish notion - your feelings have no relevance whatsoever but you offered nothing but feelings, hence your outburst is utterly irrelevant

"we dare because some of us who actually grew up know that the self righteousness of teenagers is something we all went through, in my case nearly 40 years ago, and that it shows shallowness and narrowness of mind so counts for nothing"

and if she were to ask HOW DARE YOU? to my face

I would answer this poor spoiled child in this aforementioned manner

after all it really would not be kind to ask her some questions about science: namely about outgassing, albedo. photosynthesis, Milankovich cycles, cosmic rays, the geologic record, and also about world history which is relevant to the question. I say this because I know she knows nothing about these and to humiliate a disturbed child would really be cruel

New Liberal and SJW Politics

It has been said that modern liberal thought is a christian construct.  Yes indeed. it never rose in lands that were never nominally christian.

Individual liberty was never a part of non Western cultures, nor human rights

I don't think much of G K Chesterton but he did come up with some real gems.

one of them was "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting because it has never been tried"

This is more true than i suspect even he would admit to.

What has been lost in the West is not christian faith but the hypocrisy of a society which held to some aspects of a christian worldview and thought that justified pretending to believe the Gospel of Christ. But though the gospel requires the christian worldview to make sense it is not the same thing as said world view

That being so all that remains is the heretical remnants of a Christianity gutted by removing the Holy Spirit - and this was done long long ago, long before the so called Age of Reason. Indeed the gutted remnant of the forms of faith is essentially the course of church history.

But some of these remnants have been fetishized - love, kindness, justice. When made idols or fetishes of they become twisted; and because with the reality of the Holy Spirit rejected our attempts to be loving kind and just will come up hard against our own inclinations to the contrary. This hate cruelty and injustice in all of us has to go somewhere so the New Left will vent it on their opponents, thinking it is righteous anger. It is of course nothing of the kind.

this is the liberalism of the new class of SJW fanatics.

someone said the cults were the unpaid bills of the church, that is to say the cults got traction because we the church had only own unbelief and hypocrisy and people had to go somewhere to have their real needs met

so we brought and paid for this latest SJW mania. it is the inevitable outcome of our own history