You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
HerrBBQ on scored.co
2 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)3 children
Whether or not someone is "bad" is entirely subjective. It's equally retarded to either ask for a "source" that someone is bad or claim that such sources exist. All three of these posters are retards. But at least the second retard is funny.
2 days ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)1 child
>Whether or not someone is "bad" is entirely subjective
No, its completely objective, the issue is that (((they))) have muddled and inverted morality to the point that normies cannot distinguish good from evil, because the jews have changed the reference point for good and evil from objective acts to however something makes you "feel". Judaized morality is based entirely on feelings, because jews are effeminates.
There is no moral realm separate from reality. Something is good or evil because it either helps you live strong and gain power or makes you sick or weak and dead.
Smoking cigarettes is evil because it makes you sick and weak. Satan is bad because he wants you to suffer and die. Jesus casts out devils (mental illness) and raises the dead, so he's good.
In the ancient world, good and evil was defined by whether you survived or not. Being rich and fat was good. Starvation was evil. It was very objective.
Somewhere along the line someone subverted Christian morality and made being poor and weak and sick a virtue, when it it clear Jesus's mission was to eliminate those things.
>Somewhere along the line someone subverted Christian morality and made being poor and weak and sick a virtue
Seems to have happened right along the time the (((Scofield Bible))) went mainstream, because the Church actually burned some monks at the stake for claiming poverty was inherently virtuous, which of course it clearly isnt. Actually, the official teaching of the Church is that any voluntary spiritual weakness is an evil, so poverty is only good if its being utilized to become more detached from physical things, as opposed to someone becoming poor because they dont want to work (which is evil, because its the result of sloth).
No, its completely objective, the issue is that (((they))) have muddled and inverted morality to the point that normies cannot distinguish good from evil, because the jews have changed the reference point for good and evil from objective acts to however something makes you "feel". Judaized morality is based entirely on feelings, because jews are effeminates.
There is no moral realm separate from reality. Something is good or evil because it either helps you live strong and gain power or makes you sick or weak and dead.
Smoking cigarettes is evil because it makes you sick and weak. Satan is bad because he wants you to suffer and die. Jesus casts out devils (mental illness) and raises the dead, so he's good.
Somewhere along the line someone subverted Christian morality and made being poor and weak and sick a virtue, when it it clear Jesus's mission was to eliminate those things.
Nietzsche has a lot more to say on this.
Seems to have happened right along the time the (((Scofield Bible))) went mainstream, because the Church actually burned some monks at the stake for claiming poverty was inherently virtuous, which of course it clearly isnt. Actually, the official teaching of the Church is that any voluntary spiritual weakness is an evil, so poverty is only good if its being utilized to become more detached from physical things, as opposed to someone becoming poor because they dont want to work (which is evil, because its the result of sloth).