# Has Social Justice supplanted Religion?



## Medicated (Mar 13, 2019)

I believe in Social Justice
I believe in equality
Believe Victims

How many times have you heard statements similar to these?  Sure seems like a lot of believes for something that's not a religion or cult.

I've wondered often if humanity actually craves a religion of some sort.  After all most of the greatest civilizations and monuments came off the backs of worshipping a deity of some kind.  I just find it odd in the age of "logic and reason" there seem to be so many people blindly following Social Justice tenets of some type on Twitter, often repeating phrases over and over, like a prayer, as if it's gospel scripture and can't be disputed.

You'd think for people that have criticized religion for being corrupt and controlling the populace, it seems like they have simply fallen for the same thing under a different name.  Remember how the media tried to use disgruntled old Ghostbusters fans and reframe them and angry white non-progressive dinosaurs attacking the new way of life?  Seems like accusing someone of being a heretic doesn't it?

I really do wonder if many of these people, if they existed in the past, would've been going door to door trying to save peoples souls from hell every sunday.


----------



## Clockwork_PurBle (Mar 13, 2019)

It definitely has, or at least for the SJWs/progressives/whatevers. No doubt that a great portion of these people, had they been around in the 1970s, would've been on the first plane ride to Jonestown, Guyana. It has supplanted religion for them in the same way atheism did for militant/passionate atheists. 

That comic may be used as meme material, but it's right in saying everybody has/needs a god.


----------



## BILLY MAYS (Mar 13, 2019)

who needs social justice when you have this as religion:


----------



## Foxxo (Mar 13, 2019)

hood LOLCOW said:


> who needs social justice when you have this as religion:


Where are you keeping those kids?


----------



## Lord of the Large Pants (Mar 13, 2019)

It's a religion of a sort. The bad kind. You know, a cult. What's the difference, you ask?

A religion allows you to leave.


----------



## flexedupicedout (Mar 13, 2019)

the short answer is yes. the long answer is hell yeah nigga they crazy


----------



## Meat Poultry Veg (Mar 13, 2019)

Lord of the Large Pants said:


> A religion allows you to leave.


The ummah should take notes.


----------



## Foxxo (Mar 13, 2019)

Lord of the Large Pants said:


> It's a religion of a sort. The bad kind. You know, a cult. What's the difference, you ask?
> 
> A religion allows you to leave.


That definition's kinda subjective. Islam _technically_ allows you to leave, but you have to turn in your body to do so.


----------



## CrunkLord420 (Mar 13, 2019)

I agree with the idea that social justice is a kind of religion, but compatible with other religions. Like Atheism+ without the atheism.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Mar 14, 2019)

I've heard some say there's an agenda to remove religion, and identity politics replacing it seems to fit in with that theory.



Lord of the Large Pants said:


> You know, a cult.


American culture can sometimes promote creepy cultlike thinking, and identity politics seems to be mostly an American thing. Or at least it came from there.


----------



## Wallace (Mar 14, 2019)

You may be right.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Mar 14, 2019)

Nietszche unironically predicted all this


----------



## Clop (Mar 14, 2019)

I don't think it's religion that humanity craves but someone to follow and having a purpose. Religions and causes are packs where you can feel belonging to. Reason and logic are unnatural things that just kind of happened because of our brains' size compared to our bodies, thinking's super hard you guys. Everyone's looking for an excuse to go back in the fucking trees and fling shit.

I fucking wish these people would make like a tree.


----------



## Pickle Inspector (Mar 14, 2019)

TBH all fits in with the theory of Ernest Becker, humans innately want an ‘immortality project’ to stop them feeling existential dread (What Terror Managment Theory is based on):


Spoiler



Becker describes human pursuit of “immortality projects” (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things.



			Theories – Ernest Becker Foundation
		







Spoiler



TMT is derived from anthropologist Ernest Becker's 1973 Pulitzer Prize-winning work of nonfiction The Denial of Death, in which Becker argues most human action is taken to ignore or avoid the inevitability of death. The terror of absolute annihilation creates such a profound – albeit subconscious – anxiety in people that they spend their lives attempting to make sense of it. On large scales, societies build symbols: laws, religious meaning systems, cultures, and belief systems to explain the significance of life, define what makes certain characteristics, skills, and talents extraordinary, reward others whom they find exemplify certain attributes, and punish or kill others who do not adhere to their cultural worldview. On an individual level, self-esteem provides a buffer against death-related anxiety.






						Terror management theory - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				







Before it was religion on a societal scale (With also personal creative things such as art, music or writing) but now with people believing less in religion they focus more on changing culture, especially those with low self esteem, are depressed or have other mental health issues.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 14, 2019)

Clop said:


> I don't think it's religion that humanity craves but someone to follow and having a purpose. Religions and causes are packs where you can feel belonging to. Reason and logic are unnatural things that just kind of happened because of our brains' size compared to our bodies, thinking's super hard you guys. Everyone's looking for an excuse to go back in the fucking trees and fling shit.


There's nothing unnatural about reason and logic, though there is a reason that it's not the first things our brains developed to do. Our tendency to see threats everywhere is actually a very healthy survival mechanism. The fact that we're terrified of our own potential, whether it's by creating AI, or nukes, is also a very healthy part of our mind.

A rational argument could easily be made that once you a group first attains nuclear weaponry, that it should use it to maintain dominance and prevent any other group from attaining nuclear weaponry, by use of nuclear weaponry if need be.

Reason and logic are no less terrifying than the more primitive emotional responses. And I see no fewer examples of people escaping into rationalizations or scientism (not to be confused with science).


----------



## Clop (Mar 14, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> There's nothing unnatural about reason and logic, though there is a reason that it's not the first things our brains developed to do. Our tendency to see threats everywhere is actually a very healthy survival mechanism. The fact that we're terrified of our own potential, whether it's by creating AI, or nukes, is also a very healthy part of our mind.
> 
> A rational argument could easily be made that once you a group first attains nuclear weaponry, that it should use it to maintain dominance and prevent any other group from attaining nuclear weaponry, by use of nuclear weaponry if need be.
> 
> Reason and logic are no less terrifying than the more primitive emotional responses. And I see no fewer examples of people escaping into rationalizations or scientism (not to be confused with science).


I'm sorry, that's my fault for not wording sarcasm as hard as I usually do. I'll try again:

_"Durrrr thinking's super hard you guys! Logic and reason are for HEATHENS! My God which I have not and will not ever see is the smart one here and his teachings are in this handy-dandy book that wasn't written by him! DURRR! What would I do without him?"_

Sorry about that, I'll keep this in mind next time. Very thoughtful response, though.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Mar 14, 2019)

Lord of the Large Pants said:


> It's a religion of a sort. The bad kind. You know, a cult. What's the difference, you ask?
> 
> A religion allows you to leave.


Scientology and Jehovah don't, but they're pieces of shit.


----------



## Medicated (Mar 14, 2019)

CrunkLord420 said:


> I agree with the idea that social justice is a kind of religion, but compatible with other religions. Like Atheism+ without the atheism.



Well it seems they have just as many pedophiles as any catholic church so far


----------



## Krokodil Overdose (Mar 14, 2019)

OP: "Has religion supplanted religion?"
Me: "I don't understand the question."

In all seriousness, though, the answer is yes and no because social justice is a religion in all meaningful senses. Think of it this way: if they were to put "and God says" in front of all the crazy shit they believe, would it actually change the nature of their beliefs or policy prescriptions? Of course not. Despite having dogma, original sin, and so on and so forth, they don't call themselves a religion because that would mean all their useful idiots in academia couldn't openly promulgate the gospel social criticism. This comes from the folly of trying to separate church and state; the state requires a ruling philosophy, whether it calls itself a religion or not, and if you forbid all the formal religions, informal ones will emerge to fill the void. Like nature, power abhors a vacuum.


----------



## queue-anon (Mar 14, 2019)

Pickle Inspector said:


> TBH all fits in with the theory of Ernest Becker, humans innately want an ‘immortality project’ to stop them feeling existential dread (What Terror Managment Theory is based on):
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



I'm just here to have a good time.


----------



## von Hapasbourg (Mar 14, 2019)

More like these """progressives""" used Christian humanist teachings and co-opted it with their masonic movement. This is what real social justice would look like


----------



## Spatula (Mar 14, 2019)

When one is part of a religion, ultimately their end goal is to be a good person to go to heaven. 


What I don't understand is what is the end game of social justice people?


----------



## wrangled tard (Mar 14, 2019)

Medicated said:


> I believe in Social Justice
> I believe in equality
> Believe Victims
> 
> ...



Most things in society follow the same pattern as a religion. You have the hierarchy of people on top and people bellow all following one main figure, even if said figure doesn't really have any power. Whether it be Yahweh praise be unto his blessed name to continue my wealth, The President, a CEO or even just a personal role model, people need something to follow and somewhere to aim, something to dedicate themselves to. But where there's one Church, another is just around the corner to take the basic learnings of one religion and expand upon them or bastardize them depending on your perspective. Things will always be like this, it's human nature, we are essentially just advanced pack animals and when there's a pack there's an alpha. Just replace the Pope with Bernie Sanders and God with Carl Marx and you pretty much have the current social justice movement.



Pickle Inspector said:


> TBH all fits in with the theory of Ernest Becker, humans innately want an ‘immortality project’ to stop them feeling existential dread (What Terror Managment Theory is based on):
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



The same policy applies for pretty much any social movement that doesn't effect us directly right now like global warming and hopping on a social movement that only applies to another group. People need a reason to make themselves feel good about what they do, thinking that they'll help others in the future so even when they die their efforts will live on. While what they do could possibly eventually help someone, the effects would be minor unless you're a massive figurehead. The same thought process goes into karma and being good in life to end up in heaven. People in general need a reason to do things otherwise why do them, even if that reason is as retarded as muh social justice. Maybe I'm just self centred but I genuinely don't understand the rationale behind doing shit that will never effect me personally.


----------



## Mysterious Capitalist (Mar 14, 2019)

Medicated said:


> You'd think for people that have criticized religion for being corrupt and controlling the populace, it seems like they have simply fallen for the same thing under a different name.



The more things change, the more they stay the same


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 14, 2019)

Spatula said:


> When one is part of a religion, ultimately their end goal is to be a good person to go to heaven.



To be seen as a good person and be on the right side of history.

It's almost entirely built on vanity and depression.

On the one hand you have life ruining practices, from transgenderism, to caligula like sex overindulgance, to indulging and broadcasting every degenerate fetish, to selling sex for women, to acting overly emotional for men and not getting career in order, and then on the other hand you have programs like the daily show telling you how much smarter you are, how silly the people who are different from you are, a whole network and billion dollar lobby to your brain to convince you that you are doing the right thing, that you are on the right side of history, clowns in suits telling you how silly the people who disagree with you are, habituazing you to laughing every 20 seconds at them.

It's attractive because on the one hand you are hollow inside by the poor choices you made and there is a propaganda tower urging you to take a little extra step in that direction every time.

You don't need an afterlife with social justice, because the hell is readily apparent as soon as you leave the deathmarch; people unfriend you. You've seen what happened to others who break faith. They're maligned, rejected, their secrets are laid bare and exaggerated. That one rough sex session is now rape and considering everyone fucks each other, those are now five rape stories floating around about you.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Mar 14, 2019)

At the risk of sounding like Jordan Peterson, it's hard to define what a religion even is.

But, to keep from sounding too much like the Canuck Doctor, I'll tell you "no" right now, and here's why:



Spoiler



There are religions where idolotry is the worst thing you can do (Islam), and religions where it's the best thing you can do (Hinduism). There are religions where only God can provide salvation and enlightenment (Christianity), and religions where the gods are incidental to both those things when they're not outright obstacles (Buddhism). There are religions where converts are forbidden from joining (Zoroastrianism), religions where they're explicitly discouraged (Judaism), and religions where converts are better than sex (Mormonism). Then there are systems which their followers will cut a bitch for saying are religions, but the systems still have more in common with religions than differences (Marxism and Objectivism).

It's hard to say what they all have in common, but I'll venture a guess anyway.

Unlike Reason, religions are explicitly about what's always true, which is why reason can never substitute nor supplant them. Religions are formed in response to finding solutions to observed problems. Solutions which are usually contradictory to other religions, but they still manage to produce the same results fairly often: social stability; action plans; societal continuity; and, most importantly, devotion.

Social Justice does a few of these things. They're big on devotion and action plans, and is fills a hole found in every traditional religion: all of them, Dharmic to Semitic, were founded before the concept of human rights existed. No traditional religion, except the ultimately unworkable Jainism, forbids slavery or torture implicitly. No traditional religion supports freedom of expression, nor free society, implicitly. Fucked up as they are by modern standards, Islam and Orthodox Judaism are by far the most sexually liberated of traditional religions; including Jainism, which forbids adultery, fornication, masturbation, non-vaginal intercourse, and divorce, and encourages celibacy. Though at least they're better to widows than other Dharmic religions.

Social Justice exists because of that chasm I just mentioned, but it's not a religion because it offers no solutions. Partially because solutions make SJWs squeamish. Marxism was founded in the human rights era, and shares many of the same concerns as Social Justice; but Marxists like Stalin and Mao in the past and Xi Jinping today were more than willing to take action to solve their problems, up to and including the annihilation of entire cultures (Chechens, Tibetans, the Uyghur) whose values were incompatible for the sake of Marxism.

Social Justice doesn't have that: there's a surface-level deference to "marginalized" groups; but no SJW actually knows about any tradition older than the 1980s beyond the most superficial, and no amount of wokeness is enough to get them to live a lifestyle that demands any restrictions they'd actually have difficulty obeying.

"Not having solutions" isn't a minor problem. Joseph Smith Jr. had several solutions by the time Mormonism took off to counter for the inadequicies of Protestantism, even though the Catholic Church mostly had superior solutions anyway. L. Ron Hubbard had several solutions at the Dianetics' stage of Scientology, even though he plagarized many and his own additions cause worse psychological harm than any prior religion in history. Ayn Rand had several solutions all the way back with The Collective, even though she plagiarized more than Hubbard and her own additions are even less workable than L. Ron's.

All religions run into problems that can't be solved from within, but they're still significant steps up from Social Justice, and these people could use real faith in their lives. After that, they can make the next step, realize that systems themselves are tools to be used, accept that the contradictions never wind up being dealbreskers, and make use of the best systems for the best times.



'Til they come up with solutions, Social Justice'll never be a religion. And they won't, since all solutions lead to problematic outcomes.


----------



## GethN7 (Mar 14, 2019)

I'd argue Social Justice is a substitute for religion more than a religion in and of itself.

It lacks a godhead, there is no afterlife or concept of concepts beyond the mortal, and it has no agreed upon theological basis.

However, it does have some core tenets, a psuedo saints/venerated figures (that unlike religion can change on a whim), and it has a bastardized parody of morals.

I'd argue if it resembles anything, it's like a really asshole inverse version of Confucianism.

Kong Fuzi established a system of morals to set a framework for societal harmony based on a series of relations between people, and it was firmly based on dealing with men in the mortal world. It promoted a societal hierarchy, such as child-parent, subordinate-superior, and so on, but in order to ensure societal harmony.

Social Justice takes this, but replaces societal harmony as the goal with societal hierarchy as the primary goal, with the harmony coming AFTER this, at least in theory.

The result is that while most religions say effort won't make you perfect but exerting it is still a noble goal, social justice says the best you can do is ensure your betters have their efforts be more rewarded than your own, especially if you are lower on the social scale. Unlike Kong Fuzi's teaching, which were bilateral, as in, both sides benefited from following their side of the bargain in ensuring their relations led to societal harmony, Social Justice is constant sacrifice so those perceived better than you benefit, meaning it's a constant crab bucket of people sacrificing pride and dignity for others, not seeking mutual pride and dignity.


----------



## Medicated (Mar 14, 2019)

Truthspeaker said:


> 'Til they come up with solutions, Social Justice'll never be a religion. And they won't, since all solutions lead to problematic outcomes.



Isn't that like Sunday service though?  You are inherently sinful, therefore you must repent?




GethN7 said:


> However, it does have some core tenets, a psuedo saints/venerated figures (that unlike religion can change on a whim), and it has a bastardized parody of morals.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 14, 2019)

Truthspeaker said:


> 'Til they come up with solutions, Social Justice'll never be a religion. And they won't, since all solutions lead to problematic outcomes.



The solutions don't need to actually work. When more moderate muslims discover their son is gay, instead of throwing him off a rooftop, they sometimes send him to an imam to purge the devil out of him. Christians have their conversion camps. They may offer solutions, but the solutions don't work.

Scientology, when you're enough of an insider to be receive more secret truths... and you don't believe them, they tell you: "It's okay if you don't believe them, but you have to act like you do"

Of course social justice will fail inevitably; much like modern christianity or islam fail inevitably. You can't build a religion when you oppose truth. Islam and Christianity were built when there were no obvious holes in the truth they told. However, evolution more than anything has pierced that mirage. Too much scripture has to be abandoned to be able to unite christianity with truth.

The same holds true for social justice. Of course social justice like christianity is a whole host of different ideas and the lack of a holy book allows it to off-load responsibility for some of its claims, but some of the central, commonly held, long championed ones are the very root of its downfall: Clamping to the the idea that everything is socialization, that we are tabula rasa formed purely by the way we are raised; that anyone can be "re-educated", which is not such a nice term if you've looked read about the practices of communist re-education camps, which are built on a similar understanding. They too get to the scientology position; you have to act like you believe.

I think one of the reasons social justice warriors are so spastic is that their very own being revolts against what they at some level know to be untruths; so they overcompensate, like many of the male sjw types being convicted of sexual offences, similar to the image of the virulantly anti-gay priest.

Social justice is poised to be in a state of permanent resolution, to be permanently opposed to those who seek to build order and bring justice, as social justice, by it's definition and practice, is opposed to justice.

All solutions in social justice are utopian and unreachable and thus a constant demand for change is achieved. Though this is really not different from other religions, as the demands of any other religion can not be perfectly fulfilled either, even if it's your life goal with all your energy and passion poured towards it.


----------



## GethN7 (Mar 14, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> The solutions don't need to actually work. When more moderate muslims discover their son is gay, instead of throwing him off a rooftop, they sometimes send him to an imam to purge the devil out of him. Christians have their conversion camps. They may offer solutions, but the solutions don't work.
> 
> Scientology, when you're enough of an insider to be receive more secret truths... and you don't believe them, they tell you: "It's okay if you don't believe them, but you have to act like you do"
> 
> ...



Decent analysis, but with some key differences.

Social Justice and most religions say perfection is unattainable, but at least most of the latter reward people who try. SJ only insists you give more effort with no long term reward and very fleeting short term rewards at best.

Another difference is that the hierarchical aspect of SJ (a black tranny is more important than a mere black person for example) means the rules change constantly, whereas most religious faiths have the rules set in stone regardless what you are.

Even in a caste based religion like Hinduism, the rules generally tend to cover the same basic ground with little core variation, but rules for thee but not more me is an endemic flaw in SJ, as it's utter lack of consistent creed and ever changing standard of who is better and deserving of certain conduct and rules means moral consistency is a clusterfuck at best.

Christianity and even Islam can adapt to the modern world just fine, they even have built in mechanism for it, as Jesus pretty much did away with the ritualized aspects and just said following the basics of the moral code was sufficient (and a lot of said moral code is pretty easy to adapt to any time period), and the bureaucratic aspects of Islam (the word of Allah can always be modified to fit X situation depanding on the interpretation the local authority on Islam says it is) mean in theory Islam could adapt to the modern world if it so chose.

Social Justice, however, lacks consistent rules nor a mechanism for adapting in a manner that can be orderly or rationalized, as a large basis of it is pure kneejerk emotion, while most religions tend towards some things being objectively wrong, like saying theft is a sin and is punishable by certain legal and moral circumstances.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 14, 2019)

GethN7 said:


> Social Justice and most religions say perfection is unattainable, but at least most of the latter reward people who try. SJ only insists you give more effort with no long term reward and very fleeting short term rewards at best.



In what ways do different religions reward you for doing so? The reward of christianity is heaven, the reward of buddhism is nirvana, the rewards are no less hypothetical.



> Another difference is that the hierarchical aspect of SJ (a black tranny is more important than a mere black person for example) means the rules change constantly, whereas most religious faiths have the rules set in stone regardless what you are.


But that's not how the hierarchy in SJ really works. A black tranny can fuck off if they don't prescribe subscribe to the tenets and says we should listen or debate what that republican over there has to say, or if there is a suggestion that the wage gap as commonly understood is fictional.

And it's not like these other religions didn't have their rule changes in their formative years; the entire life of muhammed after conceiving islam is riddled with ad-hoc changes to suit his current needs and christianity went through many formal changes. It took christianity 300 years before it had its first council of nicaea, which created the first uniform christian doctrine.


----------



## GethN7 (Mar 14, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> In what ways do different religions reward you for doing so? The reward of christianity is heaven, the reward of buddhism is nirvana, the rewards are no less hypothetical.



I phrased that poorly. I meant to state that religions in general reward effort with the things you mentioned. Social Justice doesn't really provide any long term benefit regardless of any level of effort.

For example, even Jesus said just doing the bare minimum would get one into Heaven, albeit their place there would likely be the lowest they could have, whereas you can bust your ass for Social Justice and still be damned if even one misstep is committed, and redemption is iffy for SJ while religions allow for it by guaranteed rules.



> But that's not how the hierarchy in SJ really works. A black tranny can fuck off if they don't prescribe to the tenets and says we should listen or debate what that republican over there has to say, or if there is a suggestion that the wage gap as commonly understood is fictional.
> 
> And it's not like these other religions didn't have their rule changes in their formative years; the entire life of muhammed after conceiving islam is riddled with ad-hoc changes to suit his current needs and christianity went through many formal changes. It took christianity 300 years before it had its first council of nicaea, which created the first uniform christian doctrine.



Again, poor example by me.

The hierarchical aspects of SJ are constantly in flux, meaning it's critically flawed in that regard.

As for rule changing, "love your neighbor" is a Christian tenet that has survived intact since it was first coined. The finer details of Christianity have changed for sure, but the core tenets have remain the same, much like the five pillars of Islam have survived since their founding despite all the modifications Islam has had since.

Social Justice, however, even the core tenets are in flux because hardly anyone who practices them can agree on their most rudimentary implementations most of the time.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 14, 2019)

GethN7 said:


> As for rule changing, "love your neighbor" is a Christian tenet that has survived intact since it was first coined. The finer details of Christianity have changed for sure, but the core tenets have remain the same, much like the five pillars of Islam have survived since their founding despite all the modifications Islam has had since.


Right, but those are the parts that were codified. Pointing to those is survivor's bias. We won't know what parts of SJ will be the surviving part. And due to its various parts that point toward constant revolution, it might not ever have any such codified part, simply an ever-evolving revolution.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Mar 14, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> In what ways do different religions reward you for doing so? The reward of christianity is heaven, the reward of buddhism is nirvana, the rewards are no less hypothetical.


Earthly rewards are huge components of all traditional religion. The pious are themselves rewarded with communal prestige, but more earthly rewards include answers as not only how to act, but how to behave in daily life. For Catholics and Muslims, the immortal soul means that troubling youself with time or status is no longer necessary, since God judges all souls the same way, and kings have no better chance of getting into Heaven than serfs. For Jews and Protestants, God rewards prosperity in this life, so seeking it out's encouraged.

The heavier and more intimate practices -- such as hypnosis, fasting, enthenogens, magic, even meditation and prayer -- can be quite dangerous, and have been abused terribly by the likes of Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh. Indeed, they're so dangerous, at least a few of 'em are discouraged by all mainstream religious figures. To the extent they survive, they're rendered extremely bland to keep the dumb dumbs ftom starting a compound in Oregon. But we live in a sophisticated world, where information is plentiful, so more risk should be explored in intelligent fashion.


----------



## Cool kitties club (Mar 21, 2019)

Nietzsche wrote about how the fundamental ideas of Christianity has transcended the vessel of Christianity and turned into new forms.
From On the Genealogy of Morals:


> What, in all strictness, has really conquered the Christian God? The answer may be found in my Gay Science (section 357): "Christian morality "itself, the concept of truthfulness taken more and more strictly, the confessional subtlety of the Christian con .. science translated and sublimated into the scientific conscience, into intellectual cleanliness at any price. To view nature as if it were a proof of the goodness and providence of a God; to interpret history to the glory of a divine reason, as the perpetual witness to a moral world order and moral intentions; to interpret one's own experiences, as pious men long interpreted them, as if everything were preordained, everything a sign, everything sent for the salvation of the soul-that now belongs to the past, that has the conscience against it, that seems to every more sensitive conscience indecent, dishonest, mendacious, feminism, weakness, cowardice: it is this rigor if anything that makes us good Europeans and the heirs of Europe's longest and bravest selfovercoming.





> In this way Christianity as a dogma was destroyed by its own morality; in the same way Christianity as morality must now perish, too: we stand on the threshold of this event.


----------



## Mewtwo_Rain (Mar 21, 2019)

To me personally all ideologies, religions, philosophies, belief systems, opinions end up at a threshold of dogma and conformity (psychosis I guess?)...

SJW's are a mix of extreme self-righteous beliefs as Lemmingwise made mention of vanity I have to agree there. However, it's also part of brainwashing (Yuri Besmenov --->Communist infiltration) and misguided Utopian over protective parenting.  Most SJW's are just useful idiots for the communist infiltration and undermining of our culture, and the over protective parenting they observed growing up gave them a world view of needing to treat everyone and everything like children and to either create or become a nanny state within their own threshold.

Another seeming requirement is a lack of self-reflection or I'd even argue a devolving into heavy handed sociopath/psychopathic traits.  Which could have happened to humanity outside of social media as a defense mechanism, in a sense evolution from being targets for said groups has led people to evolving to adapt similar traits from said groups.  Not as far fetched as it seems as empathy is sliding downhill in recent studies, sympathy is at all times low, along side other emotional stabilities.

Most of these people could have easily have been religious followers, cultist (which they are in a sense), subverters (Also which they are in a sense), regular towns folk.

Personally, I think what seperates normal people from SJw's is even the most ignorant "normal person" has some sense of self-reflection. Some more than others, but SJW's and their ilk seem to lack it so strong, it's basically like having a rod attached to your back and a steak in front of your nose leading you through life . They act on bare impulse with no care to facts or any regard for things that question their manufactured version of reality.

The problem is at the extreme level for SJW's is this ends up forcing purity tests that no SJW can live up to which is where we see them eat each other alive. It's also why I call most of them useless foot soldiers or useful idiots because whoever is fully pulling the strings is trying to use them to force change, and the best part is since they have no real grop cohesion other than being vain about themselves,  if they succeed they'd be the first ones to eat a bullet from the puppet master themselves. Using their own self-importance, and heavily misguided moral compass as a means to an end. 

They are dangerous fanatics, and it also explains why they have such a heavy handed love for Islam, because in a sense they see a reflection of themselves and how they act within it. Almost like looking in a mirror I would assume. Just that they see themselves as "protective parents of society/enforcers of justice" with extreme actions instead of "Wretches following an angry violent god." Why they see themselves as superior to everyone who doesn't live up to their code of conduct, when in reality I'd argue they are not only dumber than the opposite group but possibly the lowest common denominator of any group. Sure suicidal people are suicidal but these people are suicidal merely because they seem to have no full concept of cause and effect.

To reanswer the topic title:

It's less that it's supplanted religion, dogmatic groups have always existed and in a world where religion doesn't' exist would still do as such. SJW's as far as can be seen are almost like a pure dogmatic view becoming the focal center of a cult/ideology with the irony the group can't stomach its own members or handle it's own beliefs but manages to become en-rooted in these cultist because of their beliefs it will make them known in history (Delusions of grandeur ) or because they lack any self-reflection to realize they can neither live up to its expectations or end goals in a literal fashion, it would be suicidal.

One other thing I contemplate is maybe this is what happens when there are too many stupid people allowed to populate the Earth or come together without another means of control within society. Many authoritarians have postulated throughout history that most of general society is idiotic, and self-destructive, and often times I come back wondering if SJW's  and this extreme self-sabotage from within western nations. Maybe Mother nature is correcting itself from such a poor imbalance. If so SJW's would be a great case study in the future if they don't destroy us all with them.


----------



## QI 541 (Mar 21, 2019)

Yes, but it's not really unprecedented for culture, religion, and political ideologies to blend together.  A large portion of western culture derives from Christianity.


----------



## The best and greatest (Mar 21, 2019)

First of all "Social Justice" is a tautology. Justice is an inherently societal concern necessary to hold things together so we don't all kill each other over our differences. I also take issue with describing these individuals as "Justice warriors" generally as that gives them too much credit at best, and disparages the concept of justice at worst.

Social Justice Warrior(Ism?) is not a religion, more of a political zeitgeist than anything.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 21, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> First of all "Social Justice" is a tautology. Justice is an inherently societal concern necessary to hold things together so we don't all kill each other over our differences. I also take issue with describing these individuals as "Justice warriors" generally as that gives them too much credit at best, and disparages the concept of justice at worst.
> 
> Social Justice Warrior(Ism?) is not a religion, more of a political zeitgeist than anything.


Social justice, is justice taking modern sociology into account, that the west is inherently oppressive, that white people are inherently racist and so forth, which is why social justice is not a tautology. It is an inversion of justice; it's codified prejudice.


----------



## The best and greatest (Mar 21, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Social justice, is justice taking modern sociology into account, that the west is inherently oppressive, that white people are inherently racist and so forth, which is why social justice is not a tautology. It is an inversion of justice; it's codified prejudice.


Okay but if their position isn't actually just then why even give them that much? Seems overly charitable imo.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 21, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> Okay but if their position isn't actually just then why even give them that much? Seems overly charitable imo.




I don't understand what you mean by "give them that much"?


----------



## The best and greatest (Mar 21, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I don't understand what you mean by "give them that much"?


I could think of worse things to be called than a warrior for justice. It ain't no "Pro-life versus the baby killers" put it that way.


----------



## Ted_Breakfast (Mar 22, 2019)

Social Justice, for all its disdain for Christianity, is essentially a sort of anti-Confucianism.


----------



## Medicated (Mar 22, 2019)

I've seen a lot of people put forth that Social Justice isn't a religion because it's lacking some of the "laws" that make religions what they are.  So are they more like a cult?  Since the main idea is about pushing forward their viewpoint, and manipulating whoever or whatever nearby to make sure they "win".


----------



## Chexxchunk (Mar 22, 2019)

Yes, they are basically the same, it's an evolution of a social strategy that has existed since shamanism. Everyone wants something from society and develops a strategy for getting it. Politics are about self-interested "social strategy specialists" acting at odds with each other. However, there are always alliances of convenience, and even more confusingly, _it's in everyone's interest to appear like they're acting in someone else's interest as well_, so everything is a confusing muddle of constantly shifting "definitions" based on who is trying to get what from whom at any given time.

So, to clear things up, it's more important to talk about core strategies rather than ideologies.

I've heard people say that "left libertarianism doesn't exist", and thought for a long time about what that means and what left libertarianism actually could mean.  Spoiler: It doesn't mean anything because it's internally contradictory and deliberately confusing--it's a phantasm created by Priests and Merchants who pretended to act in the interest of Farmers during the industrial revolution, because they both want resources from Farmers, but not on the Farmers' terms.

tldr: various strategy specialists can both actually cooperate or pretend to cooperate while deceiving each other, and that's politics.


----------



## Watcher (Mar 22, 2019)

It certainly illicits a lot of the same mental hangups that religion does. Like original sin, a form of catholic guilt etc.

It also causes confirmation bias and a refusal to acknowledge the other argument even as a possibility. And provokes a victim "us vs them" mentality toward anyone who disagrees or even just wants to not get involved in the debate.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Mar 22, 2019)

Spatula said:


> When one is part of a religion, ultimately their end goal is to be a good person to go to heaven.
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is what is the end game of social justice people?



Social position, specially online. Being regarded as good, caring, woke. There are religious people like this (I know, I'm religious myself). Some straight-forward ask you, after doing a good deed "I'm so good, right?". The reward is being considered virtuous on the eyes of the rest of people.



Medicated said:


> I've seen a lot of people put forth that Social Justice isn't a religion because it's lacking some of the "laws" that make religions what they are.  So are they more like a cult?  Since the main idea is about pushing forward their viewpoint, and manipulating whoever or whatever nearby to make sure they "win".



Religions are nothing but ideologies at the end. It is a set of doctrines to rule your life. All ideologies look to be the dominant ideology, either it's religious ideology or politics. Social Justice qualifies, but it goes to the extreme of becoming a cult not for the belief but for the behavior, which is the prominent difference between a religion and a cult. This is a list of behaviors of cults:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leaders​​‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.​​‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).​​‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel​​‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members​​‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.​​‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities​​‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary.​​‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members.​​‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.​​‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.​​‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.​​‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.​​‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.​​‪ The most loyal members feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.​
How many of these fit with what we've seen among SJWs?


----------



## theo102 (Mar 24, 2019)

Medicated said:


> I just find it odd in the age of "logic and reason" there seem to be so many people blindly following Social Justice tenets of some type on Twitter, often repeating phrases over and over, like a prayer, as if it's gospel scripture and can't be disputed.


Social justice is a religion because atheism is a religion. Justice at common law is theistic. Atheism is a religion because it involves the belief that deity doesn't exist. Someone with no beliefs about deity (the default position) is agnostic, not an atheist.


----------



## I Love Beef (Mar 24, 2019)

Medicated said:


> I really do wonder if many of these people, if they existed in the past, would've been going door to door trying to save peoples souls from hell every sunday.



In honesty the paradigm/subconscious way most brains think have yet to adjust, and you're on the head with this. 100 years ago, many ancestors of today's modern world really were either hardcore or pious yet easy going religious people, the USA without any doubt full blown Christian. I'm not even going into genetics; this straight up still is a major undercurrent in first world society because it's what the founders prior have been weaned on. Society around everyone follows these major instilled paradigms no matter how much denial is spewed.

Today, neckbeards touting atheism and SJWs going on about their virtues like it's a doctrine show those exact ways of thinking haven't left their parent's nor grandparents nor great grandparents perception of reality, processing information, and even better yet, actual internal and spiritual introspection to become self aware and understand how one acts and thinks in life. Despite how better they think they are from "the hicks and sticks in redneck county and the fundies in the ivory towers off of old money and their religious ways", they came exactly from the same source.


----------



## Jeremy Galt (Mar 27, 2019)

It's easier for most just to parrot the current talking points without any regard for their relationship to reality. Global Warming is a good example. Once reality intruded it quickly morphed to Climate Change. My guess the next iteration will be Global Cooling followed by Global Ice.

Per the Great Prophet, Al Gore, most of our coastal cities and many islands are already under water, as he predicted 10 years ago.

This is the religion of idiots....... and as it turns out, most SJWs are also part of this religion, and by an odd coincidence, so are liberals.
I  just say to them what Satan said to Jesus in the desert:  Bow down before me and all this will be yours......


----------



## AverageAnimeWatcher (Apr 2, 2019)

Many atheists would say Social justice isn't technically a religion, because it doesn't have a deity. But, lack of gods aside, it works exactly like a religion in every way.

They even have that weird thing where those guys acting holier than thou are actually are secretly hiding a lot of shit. The equivalent of an adulterer preacher, for them, is the male feminist that is secretly abusive with women.

Only the technicality of not having a god saves them for being classified as a religion or maybe even a cult.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Apr 4, 2019)

Pixy Misa said:


> Many atheists would say Social justice isn't technically a religion, because it doesn't have a deity.



Many religions don't have a deity. The term "Atheist religion" actually exists and it's not a contradiction. 

The problem with certain atheist groups is that they were never against religion or religious behavior: they were against Christianity. That's why they're so quick to defend Judaism, Islam, and end up being caught up themselves with radical behavior that you could only find among fundamentalism and fanatics.


----------



## AverageAnimeWatcher (Apr 4, 2019)

Tasty Tatty said:


> Many religions don't have a deity. The term "Atheist religion" actually exists and it's not a contradiction.



I don't necessarily disagree.

But, I've to mention many atheists do use the "it isn' a religion if you don't have a deity" defense a lot. Or "calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color".  

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen the dictionary definition used as a defense to deny cult-like behavior being used to deny being like a religion...


----------



## silentprincess (Jan 20, 2020)

Wokeness makes my blood boil, and be angry. And I don't like getting angry.


----------



## The Fool (Jan 20, 2020)

I already refer to modern politics as a religion, maybe even a religion replacing classical religions. Christianity is weakening, but that doesn't mean some sort of age of enlightenment, but a new religion is taking it's place. I avoid people who show interest in politics like I avoid mad cultists. And Twitter is their church (compound?)


----------



## JosephStalin (Jan 20, 2020)

"Wokeness" has taken something inherently good - being considerate of other people and turned it into something evil - allowing "feelings" to replace common sense and consideration of others.  

People see this, where "wokeness" has gone overboard.  "Get woke, go broke."  

But while we're at it, "wokeness" can work in more than one way.  One can be "woke" to truly bad things happening in society, and want to do good, but one can also be "woke" to those trying to force their politically correct, Communistic values upon society, which must be defeated.   I like to think I'm "woke" to both, in my eyes.  Hope you are also "woke" both ways, as well.  

Know the difference between right and wrong.  Not sure?  Your gut will tell you.  And never accept ANYONE saying wrong is right.  We all have an internal bullshit detector.  Use it, trust it, call people on it, act on it if need be.  But don't go around trying to tell anyone wrong is right.  That isn't being "woke", that's being an insufferable asshole.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Jan 20, 2020)

Short answer is yes. The only major difference is that instead of a deity, prophet or other focal point of worship the woke worship their subjective interpretation of reality and feel no corresponding fear of their master.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 20, 2020)

JosephStalin said:


> That isn't being "woke", that's being an insufferable asshole.


What's the difference?


----------



## Shoggoth (Jan 20, 2020)

I've been claiming for years modern wokeness is actually an expression of American puritanism as secular religious hysteria. You seem right on pretty much all counts.


JosephStalin said:


> "Wokeness" has taken something inherently good - being considerate of other people and turned it into something evil - allowing "feelings" to replace common sense and consideration of others.


Allow me to bounce off your point a bit here, I don't think wokeness has taken being considerate and turned it evil, I think it works a bit more like an exploit in a computer game, where people dread appearing inconsiderate so they appease. They take advantage of unsafe cultural programming, so to say. And their whole spiel about sensitivity, inclusion, etc, is their in-group shiboleth, which becomes appearant when they show zero sensitivity or understanding towards folks with way less social skills then them, who are very much social animals, and tend to put their food in their mouths and generally be "insensitive". A legitimate challenge to their assumption is this: do they have space in their ideology to be sensitive and accepting towards people who lack sensitivity? Towards people who care less, and maybe even aren't emotionally equipped to deal with all their bullshit? Unless they're taken aback and tell you you're right, they're damn hypocrites just playing social power games.


----------



## heyilikeyourmom (Jan 20, 2020)

Body count isn’t high enough yet to make it a religion.  They need at least one crusade against non-believers, five terror attacks against infidels, or ten staged suicides of vocal dissenters before I’d support the IRS giving them a tax break.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 20, 2020)

heyilikeyourmom said:


> Body count isn’t high enough yet to make it a religion.


That's because we're not yet counting the transgender suicides and abortions towards that death count.


----------



## heyilikeyourmom (Jan 20, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> That's because we're not yet counting the transgender suicides and abortions towards that death count.


I’m talking about the number of enemies they’re willing to put into the ground for their beliefs.  Suicides don’t count because all parties involved want to be dead.  There’s no interpersonal conflict.


----------



## The Fool (Jan 20, 2020)

heyilikeyourmom said:


> Body count isn’t high enough yet to make it a religion.  They need at least one crusade against non-believers, five terror attacks against infidels, or ten staged suicides of vocal dissenters before I’d support the IRS giving them a tax break.



how many idiotic riots have they had about nothing? Maybe no bodycount but it's definitely a display. There probably would be a bodycount if they weren't so impotent.


----------



## Give Her The D (Jan 20, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> That's because we're not yet counting the transgender suicides and abortions towards that death count.



I've always wondered what the non-religious reasons people would be against abortion for. What would those be? 

Because religious purposes are the big one I think of.


----------



## Dutch Courage (Jan 20, 2020)

It's just a modernized hippie bullshit fad that will wind up turning on itself and imploding.  There is already evidence that is starting to happen.  There is no overarching framework, and it is self-contradictory in multiple ways. The very meaning of the term woke is not even agreed upon by those who use it.   It also tends to crumple in the face of any pushback.


----------



## Give Her The D (Jan 20, 2020)

Dutch Courage said:


> It's just a modernized hippie bullshit fad that will wind up turning on itself and imploding.  There is already evidence that is starting to happen.  There is no overarching framework, and it is self-contradictory in multiple ways. The very meaning of the term woke is not even agreed upon by those who use it.   It also tends to crumple in the face of any pushback.



It's just a fad that'll wear itself out like the hippies of the 1960's.


----------



## The Fool (Jan 20, 2020)

Dutch Courage said:


> It's just a modernized hippie bullshit fad that will wind up turning on itself and imploding.  There is already evidence that is starting to happen.  There is no overarching framework, and it is self-contradictory in multiple ways. The very meaning of the term woke is not even agreed upon by those who use it.   It also tends to crumple in the face of any pushback.





Kacchan said:


> It's just a fad that'll wear itself out like the hippies of the 1960's.



I want to agree and under ordinary circumstances I would, but now we have the issue of the corporate machine ensuring this culture is enforced upon society whether they like it or not. Alternatives are basically impossible at this point, look at how secluded and hidden we are at this site. Even if it dies on a cultural level, we'll be forced to comply with it on a business/social level.


----------



## Foxxo (Jan 20, 2020)

The Fool said:


> I want to agree and under ordinary circumstances I would, but now we have the issue of the corporate machine ensuring this culture is enforced upon society whether they like it or not. Alternatives are basically impossible at this point, look at how secluded and hidden we are at this site. Even if it dies on a cultural level, we'll be forced to comply with it on a business/social level.


The trend shall die, just wait for an economic recession.


----------



## Jozef (Jan 20, 2020)

heyilikeyourmom said:


> Body count isn’t high enough yet to make it a religion.  They need at least one crusade against non-believers, five terror attacks against infidels, or ten staged suicides of vocal dissenters before I’d support the IRS giving them a tax break.


The way they defend all aspects of Islam, we might as well just refer to Islamic extremism as woke, left-wing ideology.


----------



## Foxxo (Jan 20, 2020)

The Fool said:


> I already refer to modern politics as a religion, maybe even a religion replacing classical religions. Christianity is weakening, but that doesn't mean some sort of age of enlightenment, but a new religion is taking it's place. I avoid people who show interest in politics like I avoid mad cultists. And Twitter is their church (compound?)


Atheism is dying out worldwide, by the way, as the "new religions" don't encourage having kids.


----------



## Give Her The D (Jan 20, 2020)

Jozef said:


> The way they defend all aspects of Islam, we might as well just refer to Islamic extremism as woke, left-wing ideology.



Islam will save the west. - no sane individual, probably


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jan 20, 2020)

The Fool said:


> I want to agree and under ordinary circumstances I would, but now we have the issue of the corporate machine ensuring this culture is enforced upon society whether they like it or not. Alternatives are basically impossible at this point, look at how secluded and hidden we are at this site. Even if it dies on a cultural level, we'll be forced to comply with it on a business/social level.



I don't know about that.

While I think Wokeness has the makings of a new religion, I do think there is a potential for a pushback. Christianity itself looked like it was doomed for two years when Emperor Julian took over and decided to make it his personal mission to shit all over Christianity from the top down; had he not died on campaign it's very likely he would have succeeded. 

Both America and the UK have very loudly declared a distaste of Wokeness in refusing to elect their respective left wing parties that espouse these views. It's becoming increasingly clear elsewhere such as France that they've not appetite for several core woke tenants such as the stance on immigration since people have been trying to assassinate Macron on a semi-regular basis. There were protests and riots in Ireland and Germany this week against the EU on this aspect. 

I think it's possible Wokeness could see the rise of its own Charlemagne, but it's not guaranteed since wokeness while making some grounds is also reciving significant pushback as other religions have. Some triumph as Islam and Christianity did, others like Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism as ancient and venerable as some of them are fade into obscurity.


----------



## Sperghetti (Jan 20, 2020)

That's really interesting. I never knew about those "seven dimensions" before, so thank you. I've often thought of wokeness or the social justice movement as a sort of a cult: Among other things, it exhibits a lot of the earmarks of an abusive relationship (lovebombing, isolation, volatility, guilting/manipulation, etc.) while also professing strict moral guidelines that need to be adhered to.

I would also say that for wokeness, "supernatural" can likely  be substituted with "public opinion". Their driving goal isn't to get an entity or force to acknowledge that they've lived a virtuous life, it's to get _other people_ to acknowledge it. They use the phrase "right side of history" in the same way fundamentalist Christians talk about God: An omnipotent force that is someday going to reward them, and prove that they were right all along.

And here's some food for thought: Nearly all major religions provide some way that sinners can redeem themselves, either through ritual, repenting for their former behavior, adhering to strict guidelines, etc. However, sin in wokeness is correlated to innate characteristics that are unchangable... _except _in the case of trooning out.


----------



## Oskar Dirlewanger (Jan 20, 2020)

It's not a new religion, it's still the same religion. 

- weakness is better than strength
- weakness is sacred, something to be proud of 
- all weak, degenerate subgroups are special, it's a badge of honour to be a member of these groups
- all instincts born out of strength and striving for strength are bad (or "evil", "problematic", "racist" etc.)
- all instincts born out of weakness and striving for weakness are good (or "tolerant", "progressive" etc.)

The jews have been pushing the exact same shit for the last 2000 years. From time to time the surface level gets "soft rebooted", but the underlying motiff remains untouched.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 20, 2020)

Kacchan said:


> I've always wondered what the non-religious reasons people would be against abortion for. What would those be?




Let me approach it by asking a couple of questions.

Is it worse to kill a pregnant woman than a non-pregnant woman?

(There are 38 American states that count it as a double murder).

If I push a clearly pregnant woman down the stairs maliciously and this causes her to miscarriage, is that crime equal to pushing a non-pregnant woman down the stairs, all injuries being equal?

---

I think abortion is morally indefensible. What's inside is alive, human and vulnerable. Before I ever thought about it in depth, abortion seemed reasonable and responsible.

In the end it mostly comes down to the weird question of when it becomes human, at conception, at x weeks, at birth. Many countries that legalize abortion have a limit at how many weeks it can be done.

Though from a personal perspective I have to say that I was influenced by one experience. During the time where I was overthinking this issue (I tend to spend a month or two researching subjects in spare time), overhearing a doctor reassure a patient that if the baby came out alive "he would take care of it". The inflection in his voice made clear what he meant; to end its life.

It really was the nail in the coffin.

I think there are some gray areas, like rape conception, where I would make it legally permissable murder, but I can't see how one can argue it isn't a type of murder.

I don't see how one needs religion to reason about this subject. Though I must admit that changing my mind on this subject has given me a greater respect for the people that respectfully protest against abortion, which are almost invariably religious people.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jan 20, 2020)

More like a cult than religion:
1. Wokeness encourages its members to cut ties with family that question it doctorine.
2. Members of the Wokeness can have their lives ruined over trying to quit it or question it.
3. Wokeness is the source of good, anything that goes against it must be evil. There is no black and white.
4. You must support Wokeness financially/politically, usually by consuming things made by the right people.
5. Wokeness is completely contradictory and changes its tenents to be the most beneficial in a given moment.
6. Your worth is measured by how much you can constribute. If you are a big person politically or financially then you get a larger stage.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jan 20, 2020)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> More like a cult than religion:
> 1. Wokeness encourages its members to cut ties with family that question it doctorine.
> 2. Members of the Wokeness can have their lives ruined over trying to quit it or question it.
> 3. Wokeness is the source of good, anything that goes against it must be evil. There is no black and white.
> ...



Does it need to be one or the other? There's a similar framework used by scholars to classify cults, and several minor religions including the Jehova's Witnesses and Moonies have been controversially classified as just that.  While I agree with your list above, all of those points apply just as equally to Christianity (I don't intend that as a slur, more that various denominations have been found doing most if not all of the above).


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jan 20, 2020)

Fagatron said:


> Does it need to be one or the other? There's a similar framework used by scholars to classify cults, and several minor religions including the Jehova's Witnesses and Moonies have been controversially classified as just that.  While I agree with your list above, all of those points apply just as equally to Christianity (I don't intend that as a slur, more that various denominations have been found doing most if not all of the above).


I think that for modern religions (at least in the west) the vast majority of believers don't fall into what I mentioned. Yeah, there will be some outliers of assholes using the religion as a way to abuse others, but for everyone else the religion gives a sense of community and help without ever changing that much.
With wokeness it is the opposite. There is no real community, just people scrambling to appease the guys at the top.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 20, 2020)

heyilikeyourmom said:


> I’m talking about the number of enemies they’re willing to put into the ground for their beliefs.  Suicides don’t count because all parties involved want to be dead.  There’s no interpersonal conflict.



Some like the Reimer boys are too young to know what theyre choosing.


----------



## Comandante Marcos (Jan 20, 2020)

Perusing the "tenets" of Wokeness as y'all have postulated them, I'm thinking that we may be looking at a neo-Crowleyite leaderless cult. It is similar to, say, LaVey Satanism where the ego (self) of the Woke person is akin to a deity (LaVey said that the only true god is the ego and pleasuring the ego is the point of existence). IIRC the whole basis of Crowley's worldview was that narcissistic worship (worship of the self) was the point of life and that "Do as thou wilt is the whole of the Law", meaning that there were no limits on the Divine Self's behavior. 

There are also some elements of Nazism/Hitlerism too, where the things that divide "worthy" from "unworthy" are biological and immutable. (For many centuries, Jews could avoid persecution by converting to Christianity or Islam. Hitler said that the qualities that make a Jew Jewish are biological and not based on a belief system. This was utterly unique in the history of European antisemitism.) Hitler was rumored to be into Crowleyite "Black Magick", so he may have taken Crowley's self-worship and made it a worship of self based on tribal lineage. 

Likewise, Wokeness emphasizes the supremacy of tribal lineage in determining one's place in the hierarchy. White women are inferior to Black women due to the Black woman's greater history of oppression. In that sense, Wokeness is similar to the Black Supremacist cults of the Caribbean, especially Rastafarianism where whites are scum and blacks are supreme. It's a form of inverted Nazism, where white men are at the bottom and black women (especially lesbians) are at the top. 

The interesting thing about Wokeness is that it lacks a defining source, such as a prophet. The vast majority of human faiths revere a giver of the revealed Truth. Wokeness does not, and the only other major faith I can think of that is likewise is Hinduism, which is popular in some form among many young Americans. The problem with cults in general is that they revere a single person as the source of Wisdom, and when that person dies the cult usually dissolves since their deity is no longer present. Wokeness doesn't have this issue, so it may last where other faiths fail. 

As for the problem of discouraging reproduction, the Shakers solved that by operating orphanages where abandoned youths were indoctrinated into the faith. The end of the American orphanage system after WW2 destroyed the last remnants of the Shakers. It remains to be seen how the Woke solve the issue. This is their biggest achilles heel IMO.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jan 20, 2020)

Comandante Marcos said:


> As for the problem of discouraging reproduction, the Shakers solved that by operating orphanages where abandoned youths were indoctrinated into the faith. The end of the American orphanage system after WW2 destroyed the last remnants of the Shakers. It remains to be seen how the Woke solve the issue. This is their biggest achilles heel IMO.



There's a lot to process in this; your words on Neo-Crowleyism, Hitlerism and LaVey particularly struck a cord with me and has provided me with a lot of food for thought. Thank you for taking the time to share this.

While I mull that over, I might have an answer to this last bit. Wokeness might not be " officially aware" its not reproducing in the same way a centralized authority like the Mormons would know their membership lists but perhaps this is why they are so desperate to move into fields involving children?

It's usually only the oldest, and usually as a result the most trusted, institutions that try and move directly into the realms of childcare and education. In Europe at least, while Catholics and State Churches might have the tradition that grants them the right to organize schools with mandatory attendance less established powers tend to restrain themselves to optional Sunday schools, camps and weekend activities and only very gently offer their "services" to outside agencies.

It's not unusual for a cult to have a missionary aspect, but I can't think of one that prioritizes children above all other converts; there are people ready to convert and induct people of all ages in other religions but when it comes to wokeness it's almost entirely directed at minors and college kids. Missionary activity in the form of Drag Queen book readings, LGBTQ/Race themed lessons, Bias training, Privilege awareness sessions...A lot of them purposefully bypass the older generation with little to no effort to convert them with the now infamous refrain of "Ok Boomer". Woke twitter will go out of its way to destroy heathens, but it's very rare they try and evangelize an older person ("It's not my job to educate you").

It feels almost as if it's trying to bypass the need to reproduce entirely; cut the head off the snake and maybe people will forget that there even was an alternative to begin with. It's not as if they will have easy access to another opinion if Wokeness/Twitter further expanded and their cancellation powers/ability to proclaim their equivalents of a Fatwah increased.


----------



## Comandante Marcos (Jan 20, 2020)

@Fagatron, this may be partially due to the intense focus on children and teens in American culture. Dinesh D'Souza, for example, has noted how in much more long lived cultures (such as his own, Hinduist/East Indian, whose roots go back into the mists of ancient time), the healthy, mature, productive adult is at the center of society, but that in America "the whole culture seems oriented around 14 year olds" (paraphrased off my head, but he said something very much like it in one of his books).

He has also noted such American oddities as senior citizens heartily pursuing sexual gratification, which is unheard of in India. And also, just look around the Farms, there is no shortage of 35 year old "men" with rooms full of Transformers and Legos, living off their parents or the government, whose largesse they use to purchase more toys and vidya. And the Woke themselves tend to live on Twitter, whining all day about muh oppression.

I wonder if it's the endgame of a teen-infatuated culture: people who never grew up trying to get people who are the same age physically as they are mentally into their cult of childishness. I can't recall a civilization that has faced this precise cause of decline-the institutionalization of immaturity to the point where the leaders are all very elderly, as are the people who put them into office. The subsequent generations have no clue how the world works, just that they know when the internet goes down.

I deleted a bunch of shit as I pondered your last paragraph: the idea that Wokeness seems to want adherents to remain children forever, apparently believing that they can live forever if they never grow up. OPL never seems to ponder the future, certainly, even as 14BLC crumbles around him and his mom slowly rots away in the next room. And he is not unique. The new thing in American society is to disregard the future-and the old-entirely (OK BOOMER!) in favor of keeping an eternal childhood going. Maybe it's some sort of "crisis cult"-the belief in retreating to an idyllic past to avoid the oncoming trainwreck of civilizational collapse.


----------



## heyilikeyourmom (Jan 20, 2020)

The Fool said:


> There probably would be a bodycount if they weren't so impotent.


Well when they stop being impotent they can be a religion.  Until then, as long as their detractors continue to breathe, I’m questioning their commitment.


----------



## Dom Cruise (Jan 20, 2020)

It is, it's filling the vacuum left by a secular society.

Human beings want their lives to have meaning, whether atheists are right or wrong most people will not be able to live their lives as if life is just a random, meaningless accident.


----------



## Shoggoth (Jan 20, 2020)

Comandante Marcos said:


> Likewise, Wokeness emphasizes the supremacy of tribal lineage in determining one's place in the hierarchy


In risk of sounding like "dem's de real ray-zists", I'm not surprised, the progressive movement has always been obsessed with race.
While they put black people higher up morally on this incarnation, by everything say say and do, they imply they still believe white people are superior.


----------



## 5t3n0g0ph3r (Jan 21, 2020)

For adherents of SocJus, it is their creed they live by (however hypocritical they can be at times) and their zealots are quick to perform inquisitions on those who fail to live up to their standards (or should I say "tenets"?). Nonbelievers are condemned in the Court of Public Opinion and punished by having their reputations crucified.
While they may not have deities, they do have saints (minor ethnic groups and the alphabet soup lifestyle people) and devils (white Christian males). If there is a deified entity, then I think there is a corrupted form of Humanism at the center of it.


----------



## queerape (Jan 21, 2020)

White privilege (or cis straight male whatever else have you) privilege is the new doctrine of original sin.


----------



## Mr. Skeltal (Jan 21, 2020)

Kacchan said:


> I've always wondered what the non-religious reasons people would be against abortion for. What would those be?
> 
> Because religious purposes are the big one I think of.


I'm in the pickle of reconciling my eugenicist views with my Catholic faith.

As a eugenicist, I firmly believe that the world would be better off if congenital defects were screened for and selected against. I believe that no woman should have to carry a rape baby to term and raise the pitiful soul. Moreover rapists should have their genetics selected against and their ill-gotten offspring should be dashed against the rocks. Incest is straightforward, Habsburg jaws are bad and people who want to make them should feel bad. Also their incest babies should not be allowed to go to term and pollute the gene pool.

As a Catholic I believe life begins at conception. Making decisions about life and death of the innocent is by scripture the domain of the Almighty. Playing God is beyond arrogant, never a good thing, and often leads to truly horrific outcomes. Getting down to brass tacks, abortion is sanctioned infanticide. Wanton killing is a repugnant act, wantonly killing an innocent child -- in-utero or postnatal -- is truly evil. Trying to reconcile the evil desire to screen out the lame and the meek from existence with a faith that explicitly proclaims how evil it is isn't exactly easy for someone to do. To be honest, it's funadamentally impossible to reconcile both stances without being a hypocrite.

That being said, society is built on hypocrisy after hypocrisy, so what's one more to throw on the pile?
The best compromise I can think of is that the three pro-eugenics scenarios I mentioned are the only options for allowing an abortion, all other pregnancies should go to term. Furthermore, all terminations should be carried out in the 1st trimester before key neurologic pathways develop for the hollow sake of being humane. The only exception would be a case of 'terminate the pregnancy or both mother and child die'. Even so the act of ripping a human child apart in the womb isn't something to be taken lightly, every option should be explored prior to termination. Abortion should be a last resort, not birth control. Unwanted children should be put up for adoption, not ripped from their mother's womb and their desecrated bodies sold to the highest bidder. 

As for a nonreligious rebuttal to abortion, killing your offspring is actively detrimental to mental health of all parties involved, women's physical reproductive health, and a society's future. A few others in this thread have pointed out that modern leftist ideologies-turned-faith are already beginning to die off due to either tacit support or outright encouragement of childlessness and abortion. Environmentalism is this way, feminism is this way, athiesm is as well.

I suspect that Woke SJW culture will peter out like its antecedents but metastasize into something just as pervasive and intolerable.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jan 21, 2020)

From what I've seen, I can certainly buy into SJW culture being just like the Fundie "EVERYTHING IS A PRODUCT OF SATAN! YOU'RE A PRODUCT OF SATAN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US!" scare of the 1980s. Just swap out demonism with forced diversity.

Either way it'll die out eventually, it's just a matter of when, not if. Because way things are going, It'll be just like the Fundamentalist scare and last for a good 15 or so years before people realize "Wait, this is stupid" and stop fucking things over for everyone.


----------



## The Fool (Jan 21, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> From what I've seen, I can certainly buy into SJW culture being just like the Fundie "EVERYTHING IS A PRODUCT OF SATAN! YOU'RE A PRODUCT OF SATAN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US!" scare of the 1980s. Just swap out demonism with forced diversity.
> 
> Either way it'll die out eventually, it's just a matter of when, not if. Because way things are going, I'll be just like the Fundimentalist scare and last for a good 15 or so years before people realize "Wait, this is stupid" and stop fucking things over for everyone.



This is what people call "the pendulum".

One generation, you're a satanist for not agreeing with the conservatives. The next generation, you're a racist for not agreeing with the liberals. Repeat ad nausium. You, the average man, will forever be vilified for merely existing.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jan 21, 2020)

Mr. Skeltal said:


> I'm in the pickle of reconciling my eugenicist views with my Catholic faith.
> 
> As a eugenicist, I firmly believe that the world would be better off if congenital defects were screened for and selected against. I believe that no woman should have to carry a rape baby to term and raise the pitiful soul. Moreover rapists should have their genetics selected against and their ill-gotten offspring should be dashed against the rocks. Incest is straightforward, Habsburg jaws are bad and people who want to make them should feel bad. Also their incest babies should not be allowed to go to term and pollute the gene pool.
> 
> ...


There is historical precedent, the shakers, a group of people who lives in some cult like group as brothers and sisters with sexual intercourse prohibited. That group no longer exists. Now with the catholic church, yes there are monks and nuns but the church also encourages procreation of more children so I guess the surplus ones ended up there but they are slowly dying out from what I understand unless they make up for it with Africans.


----------



## Slimy Time (Jan 21, 2020)

Moreso in the US I think. They are to the lefty equivalent to the fundamentalist christians of Bush era politics. Remember when people wanted Creationism in the classroom? Now instead of learning about God they want kids to learn about the Cock. 

In the UK it's more symbolic of a swing to the left than anything religious. If anything SJWs works in tandem with their rose tinted idea of Islam.


----------



## MAPK phosphatase (Jan 21, 2020)

Comandante Marcos said:


> @Fagatron, this may be partially due to the intense focus on children and teens in American culture. Dinesh D'Souza, for example, has noted how in much more long lived cultures (such as his own, Hinduist/East Indian, whose roots go back into the mists of ancient time), the healthy, mature, productive adult is at the center of society, but that in America "the whole culture seems oriented around 14 year olds" (paraphrased off my head, but he said something very much like it in one of his books).
> 
> He has also noted such American oddities as senior citizens heartily pursuing sexual gratification, which is unheard of in India. And also, just look around the Farms, there is no shortage of 35 year old "men" with rooms full of Transformers and Legos, living off their parents or the government, whose largesse they use to purchase more toys and vidya. And the Woke themselves tend to live on Twitter, whining all day about muh oppression.
> 
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coddling_of_the_American_Mind


> Lukianoff and Haidt argue that many problems on campus have their origins in three "great untruths" that have become prominent in education: "What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker"; "always trust your feelings"; and "life is a battle between good people and evil people". The authors state that these three "great untruths" contradict modern psychology and ancient wisdom from many cultures.
> [...]
> The authors define safetyism as a culture or belief system in which safety (which includes "emotional safety") has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. They argue that embracing the culture of safetyism has interfered with young people’s social, emotional, and intellectual development.


----------



## Sperghetti (Jan 21, 2020)

Fagatron said:


> It's not unusual for a cult to have a missionary aspect, but I can't think of one that prioritizes children above all other converts; there are people ready to convert and induct people of all ages in other religions but when it comes to wokeness it's almost entirely directed at minors and college kids. Missionary activity in the form of Drag Queen book readings, LGBTQ/Race themed lessons, Bias training, Privilege awareness sessions...A lot of them purposefully bypass the older generation with little to no effort to convert them with the now infamous refrain of "Ok Boomer". Woke twitter will go out of its way to destroy heathens, but it's very rare they try and evangelize an older person ("It's not my job to educate you").



I think that's a core part of woke dogma, though: Old people in general are dumb and out-of-touch and problematic, and young people are smart and tolerant. _Individual _old people might get recognized and praised as being woke disciples, but as a group, they're seen as being a hinderance to progress, at best. Hence why "right side of history" is their fundie-style god: They believe that once all those problematic old people die, the woke will _finally _be the ones in charge, and things will be a paradise. It's the same mentality as the hippies' "don't trust anyone over 30", except not as self-aware.


----------



## AnimeGirlConnoisseur (Jan 22, 2020)

I don't agree. Religion has to have some sort of unified doctrine and people who practice it and identify as being a part of that thing. I haven't really cared too much about this social justice stuff in awhile, but I don't really think they have a unified belief system. The way I see it 'SJW' is a broad term used to describe a lot of people. I'm not saying that as a lefty who thinks that anyone who says 'SJW' is an 'alt-right MAGA chud', I'm just looking at the people who get called SJW and I think that alot of them are different. TERFs get called SJWs, troons get called SJWs, BLM people get called SJWs, third wave feminists get called SJWs, white people who don't like the fact that they are white get called SJWs (and probably more types of people get called SJWs). All of these agree on some broad ideas and some of them might find some of the others very agreeable, but these are all different people pushing for different goals. Compare that with Protestants. Protestant Christians may disagree on more minor things, but they all originate from the idea that Jesus is good and sin is bad. 

Then there is the matter of how most people who are called SJWs never call themselves that. It's not an identity like 'Christian' or 'Muslim', it's just an insult.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Feb 6, 2020)




----------



## Otterly (Feb 6, 2020)

Comandante Marcos said:


> As for the problem of discouraging reproduction, the Shakers solved that by operating orphanages where abandoned youths were indoctrinated into the faith. The end of the American orphanage system after WW2 destroyed the last remnants of the Shakers. It remains to be seen how the Woke solve the issue. This is their biggest achilles heel IMO.


   The answer is intense grooming of children via private and state controlled interactions. In the UK there is a diversity program called ‘no outsiders’ which is being pushed in schools. It’s by a guy called Andrew Moffat who is a big proponent of queer theory and imo dodgy as. It’s extremely inappropriate in that it is introducing children to sexualised concepts at a very young age (4 onwards.) I think wrote about it elsewhere here, I’ll edit the link in in a minute.
  Kids are being exposed to this stuff with the blessing of the state. At school it’s fed to them, the NHS is onboard. For older kids and young adults the police are onboard and so are the judiciary. The BBC push gender ideology and wokeness. They swim in a sea of it.
That’s how they reproduce. It has the extra effect of alienating the child from the parent as well, and again in the UK we are putting legislation in place (named person in Scotland) that will weaken parental control over children and allow the state to remove them from parental care, not for abuse but effectively for wrongthink.
 Edited to add the post I wrote on this before. You don’t need orphanages when you’re in every state classroom in the land, on every social media outlet and have the state backing you.


			https://kiwifarms.net/threads/birmingham-school-lgbt-row-trial-date-set-over-protests.57263/post-4828535


----------



## MrJokerRager (Feb 6, 2020)

Otterly said:


> The answer is intense grooming of children via private and state controlled interactions. In the UK there is a diversity program called ‘no outsiders’ which is being pushed in schools. It’s by a guy called Andrew Moffat who is a big proponent of queer theory and imo dodgy as. It’s extremely inappropriate in that it is introducing children to sexualised concepts at a very young age (4 onwards.) I think wrote about it elsewhere here, I’ll edit the link in in a minute.
> Kids are being exposed to this stuff with the blessing of the state. At school it’s fed to them, the NHS is onboard. For older kids and young adults the police are onboard and so are the judiciary. The BBC push gender ideology and wokeness. They swim in a sea of it.
> That’s how they reproduce. It has the extra effect of alienating the child from the parent as well, and again in the UK we are putting legislation in place (named person in Scotland) that will weaken parental control over children and allow the state to remove them from parental care, not for abuse but effectively for wrongthink.
> Edited to add the post I wrote on this before. You don’t need orphanages when you’re in every state classroom in the land, on every social media outlet and have the state backing you.
> ...


So Boris Johnson is pushing for this?


----------



## Otterly (Feb 6, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> So Boris Johnson is pushing for this?


Boris hasn’t been in power long - this was something snuck through under previous administrations. I’m hoping he may have a different opinion but honestly I don’t know.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 6, 2020)

Otterly said:


> The answer is intense grooming of children via private and state controlled interactions. In the UK there is a diversity program called ‘no outsiders’ which is being pushed in schools. It’s by a guy called Andrew Moffat who is a big proponent of queer theory and imo dodgy as. It’s extremely inappropriate in that it is introducing children to sexualised concepts at a very young age (4 onwards.) I think wrote about it elsewhere here, I’ll edit the link in in a minute.
> Kids are being exposed to this stuff with the blessing of the state. At school it’s fed to them, the NHS is onboard. For older kids and young adults the police are onboard and so are the judiciary. The BBC push gender ideology and wokeness. They swim in a sea of it.
> That’s how they reproduce. It has the extra effect of alienating the child from the parent as well, and again in the UK we are putting legislation in place (named person in Scotland) that will weaken parental control over children and allow the state to remove them from parental care, not for abuse but effectively for wrongthink.
> Edited to add the post I wrote on this before. You don’t need orphanages when you’re in every state classroom in the land, on every social media outlet and have the state backing you.
> ...



Take this with a pinch of salt because I'm getting this as Chinese whispers from someone else who works in education....

Supposedly Moffat's LGBT program is getting pushed so hard and fast is to get around "The Muslim Problem". Religion is a protected quality under the Equality Act 2010 and the government is mostly powerless to move against beliefs that while extreme are perfectly normal within Islam; especially in their epicenters of Bradford, London and Birmingham. The very same places that were trialing and are the only places really pushing Moffat's scheme and similar programes like CHIPs.

It's illegal to criticize Islam's beliefs within UK Schools at the moment; even faith schools of other religious denominations can only say "We believe X", saying "X is a false doctrine" will get them a visit from Karen's legal team. But it's perfectly legal for the only political non-religious characteristic (Veganism has only very recently become a protected characteristic, long after Moffat's program began, and Atheism has been ruled not to be a protected belief back in the Blair era) to present a lifestyle in total opposition to all religions collectively (hence no discrimination/race legislation can be invoked) and directly challenge Waahabist/Salafist doctrine in those three hotspots.

I can see this being a work around the issue of not legally being able to say "You're wrong" to a religion that teaches the government is Satanic and everyone who lives under it deserves death. Do I think it will work? Not really, I think it'll just fan the flames and "confirm" what their parents teach them that Westerners are peverts who need to all die.


----------



## SpEd Kaczynski (Feb 7, 2020)

Comandante Marcos said:


> @Fagatron, this may be partially due to the intense focus on children and teens in American culture. Dinesh D'Souza, for example, has noted how in much more long lived cultures (such as his own, Hinduist/East Indian, whose roots go back into the mists of ancient time), the healthy, mature, productive adult is at the center of society, but that in America "the whole culture seems oriented around 14 year olds" (paraphrased off my head, but he said something very much like it in one of his books).



Prior to the 1950's there really wasn't any separate teenage culture in the USA, at least not like there is now. You were either a child, an older child becoming an adult, a young adult or an adult. There wasn't this teenage "limbo" that was separate from childhood and adulthood like we have today. After WW2, for the first time in America's history more families lived in suburban/urban environments than in rural environments and the middle class was booming, so there was suddenly this huge class of young people who had a lot more free time and a lot more spending money than before and so advertisers and marketing people pretty much created the idea of the "teenager" out of thin air mainly to create a new market to sell movies, magazines, fashion etc too. 

People talk about how drugs or a decline in religion or single parent families and all this other stuff has really harmed America, while those things surely have created problems I personally believe that the creation of the American teenager and its accompanying culture of arrested development where people reach a plateau of maturity in their late teens and then never advance beyond that, has caused more problems than all of those other things combined.


----------



## The Curmudgeon (Feb 8, 2020)

From my own experience with SJWs, their ideology seems to have a quasi-religious vibe to it. In the SJW thread on the Community board, I mentioned a former friend of mine who was a diehard SJW. One thing he told me that stood out was that he really does equate white guilt to original sin. In his words, it was about white people's collective guilt for historical wrongs. He believes this so much that he's okay with minorities and immigrants abusing and humiliating him. The way he described white guilt and social justice had a very religious aspect to it. For example:

White guilt = original sin
Abuse by minorities and immigrants =  acts of penance
Marching in protests = acts of faith
Singing at the protests = singing hymns
The Democratic Party platform = catechism

Also, I currently have a co-worker who is similar to this guy. They both fetishize diversity, uncritically support the Democratic Party, and unironically think they're on the "right side of history." If these guys had met me a long time ago, I would have seen eye to eye with them. It makes me feel embarrassed and ashamed that I used to be like that. In a way, it's kind of haunting.


----------



## jorgoth (Feb 8, 2020)

I would say that socjus is essentially Talmudic. Basically under a Talmudic order, there are Jews, and there are goyim, and rules that apply to goyim don't necessarily apply to Jews.

To me, the infinite moral obligation claimed by socjus is akin to compound interest. Every socjus narrative is based on the premise that
1. A great wrong was done a long time ago, incurring a great debt
2. This debt is so great it will never be repaid
3. You must repay it anyway


----------



## Oglooger (Feb 11, 2020)

SpEd Kaczynski said:


> Prior to the 1950's there really wasn't any separate teenage culture in the USA, at least not like there is now. You were either a child, an older child becoming an adult, a young adult or an adult. There wasn't this teenage "limbo" that was separate from childhood and adulthood like we have today. After WW2, for the first time in America's history more families lived in suburban/urban environments than in rural environments and the middle class was booming, so there was suddenly this huge class of young people who had a lot more free time and a lot more spending money than before and so advertisers and marketing people pretty much created the idea of the "teenager" out of thin air mainly to create a new market to sell movies, magazines, fashion etc too.
> 
> People talk about how drugs or a decline in religion or single parent families and all this other stuff has really harmed America, while those things surely have created problems I personally believe that the creation of the American teenager and its accompanying culture of arrested development where people reach a plateau of maturity in their late teens and then never advance beyond that, has caused more problems than all of those other things combined.


Anytime I hear the word "teenager" or especially "teen", all I can think who says that word are markerters trying to sell something to the youth or kids who consume such products while binging on high school movies or some shit.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I've kinda always had a dislike for the word.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 12, 2020)

I dunno, I'm hesitant to pin anything too much on the idea of the teenager causing problems since historically while we haven't had much of a concept of Childhood in the west let alone a teenager some signs that could be attributed to what we would now label a teenager still existed. The Roman Emperor Augustus at one point in his reign, for instance, instituted a tax upon men in their twenties and thirties who were without wife or child because rightly or wrongly in his opinion felt that "the youth" were too lazy and hedonistic and had to be forced to "become men". 

He wasn't the first or the last; I remember reading a diary of a middle class woman from the British Regency period (1811-1820) who was polite but nonetheless irked by the situation around her that many of the younger men were "shocking" their parents by whoring around and refusing to settle with a wife of good standing. 

Same shit, different century.


----------



## Amerika First (Feb 12, 2020)

No, there is a large problem with over accepting SJW Christians.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Feb 12, 2020)

The SJW culture is exactly like the culture of their parents just with Christ and televangelists replaced with Marx and Gamergate. This cannot be a coincidence.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Feb 12, 2020)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> The SJW culture is exactly like the culture of their parents just with Christ and televangelists replaced with Marx and Gamergate. This cannot be a coincidence.



They’re much, much worse.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Feb 12, 2020)

Shield Breaker said:


> They’re much, much worse.


Because they're in your social circle because you're presumably a millenial and not a boomer or gen x housewife.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Feb 12, 2020)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> Because they're in your social circle because you're presumably a millenial and not a boomer or gen x housewife.



No, because the fundies always sought conversion to joining their cause. This meant that most of them were not as extreme into destroying people. SJWs have  no concept of redemption, and so if you have ever stepped out of line, you must be ruined.


----------



## Crabbo (Feb 12, 2020)

Has there been a thread yet where we outline the tenants of the quasi religion, the beliefs, and such?
I agree that the concept of social justice shares many aspects of a religion, and seeing it written down may make it even more obvious.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Feb 12, 2020)

Shield Breaker said:


> No, because the fundies always sought conversion to joining their cause. This meant that most of them were not as extreme into destroying people. SJWs have  no concept of redemption, and so if you have ever stepped out of line, you must be ruined.


You remember the fundies much differently than I do.


----------



## SpEd Kaczynski (Feb 13, 2020)

Fagatron said:


> I dunno, I'm hesitant to pin anything too much on the idea of the teenager causing problems since historically while we haven't had much of a concept of Childhood in the west let alone a teenager some signs that could be attributed to what we would now label a teenager still existed. The Roman Emperor Augustus at one point in his reign, for instance, instituted a tax upon men in their twenties and thirties who were without wife or child because rightly or wrongly in his opinion felt that "the youth" were too lazy and hedonistic and had to be forced to "become men".
> 
> He wasn't the first or the last; I remember reading a diary of a middle class woman from the British Regency period (1811-1820) who was polite but nonetheless irked by the situation around her that many of the younger men were "shocking" their parents by whoring around and refusing to settle with a wife of good standing.
> 
> Same shit, different century.



Yeah, people in their teenage years are always going to have a higher chances of being shits than older more mature people, but I do still think that there is a difference between a 15 year old being a shit because of hormones/inexperience/etc versus a 15 year old being a shit because there is an active youth subculture  that he's a member of that encourages shitty behavior.


----------



## jorgoth (Feb 14, 2020)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> The SJW culture is exactly like the culture of their parents just with Christ and televangelists replaced with Marx and Gamergate. This cannot be a coincidence.



Notice how it's only ex-Christian countries that are feminist/trans-accepting. Bolshevism really is Christianity's bastard child. Or at least Protestantism's.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Feb 16, 2020)

Fagatron said:


> Take this with a pinch of salt because I'm getting this as Chinese whispers from someone else who works in education....
> 
> Supposedly Moffat's LGBT program is getting pushed so hard and fast is to get around "The Muslim Problem". Religion is a protected quality under the Equality Act 2010 and the government is mostly powerless to move against beliefs that while extreme are perfectly normal within Islam; especially in their epicenters of Bradford, London and Birmingham. The very same places that were trialing and are the only places really pushing Moffat's scheme and similar programes like CHIPs.
> 
> ...


I remember when liberals would challenge Islam but after the Iraq war fuck ups, liberals in the UK and USA have turned to fully embracing Islam in a superficial sense. 

Also reminder that Muslim nations did a better job than the nazis in destroying and killing off liberal and leftist movements. To give a non wahabbi example, the mass murder of communists after the Iranian revolution.


----------



## uncleShitHeel (Feb 16, 2020)

Logged in just to shitpost as I agree with OPs sentiment. 

I'd also add the notion of climate change to this as the fire and brimstone side of it. If a belief or set of beliefs is above criticism and critcism is shot down as a heresy then yeah you have religion. Figured this out as a child when I figured God had to be bullshit. It genuinely concerns me I live in a society full of supposedly educated people deride Christianity and or Judasim but will jump on this shit and uncricitically give Islam a free pass, because opressed or some shit.



Pickle Inspector said:


> TBH all fits in with the theory of Ernest Becker, humans innately want an ‘immortality project’ to stop them feeling existential dread (What Terror Managment Theory is based on):



My personal response to this was to simply say fuck it and embrace it. But I suppose that is birthed from a lifetime of being reminded I'm not as special, clever or as important as I believed myself as a child.


----------



## Pickle Inspector (Feb 16, 2020)

uncleShitHeel said:


> My personal response to this was to simply say fuck it and embrace it. But I suppose that is birthed from a lifetime of being reminded I'm not as special, clever or as important as I believed myself as a child.


I think most people as they grow up learn from experience they’re not special and they have to work hard if they want for example a desirable job in a overcrowded sector but many of these woke social justice warriors seem to come from privileged backrounds and either hit a wall and blame their minority status for not  getting their dream job immediately after graduating since they‘re taught to ignore all but the top 10 percent of white men who they compare their success to or if they’re of the stereotypical so called soy boy have a privileged backround and act like all straight cis white men have had an easy life where their parents paid for everything.


----------



## CheezzyMach (Feb 23, 2020)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> The SJW culture is exactly like the culture of their parents just with Christ and televangelists replaced with Marx and Gamergate. This cannot be a coincidence.


Hopefully that means they'll also burn out this decade like the RR did in the mid 90s.

I want my tiddes back.


----------



## HensKenKline (Feb 24, 2020)

Yeah I 100% think that SJWism is - at least on many/most levels - appealing to the same psychological "APIs" as religion.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (Jun 6, 2020)

Pixy Misa said:


> I don't necessarily disagree.
> 
> But, I've to mention many atheists do use the "it isn' a religion if you don't have a deity" defense a lot. Or "calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color".
> 
> If I had a dollar for every time I've seen the dictionary definition used as a defense to deny cult-like behavior being used to deny being like a religion...



Here's a true horror story, from about 10 years ago when I was very anti-religion and all that:

I sold something to some guy who came to pick it up, and he saw the "Man created God" sticker I had on my car at the time, and was like "Awesome dude, yea, fuck religion."
I was happy we clicked more than anything, until he kept going on, "Yeah, fuck religion so hard, we should start our own AGAINST religion, every Sunday."

And even back then, the red flags were going off, "You'd create a religion to spite religion? You don't see the hypocrisy?"
"But we won't have a God!"

And.... connection lost. It was the start of realizing that either extreme: mega religious, or anti-religious were _*both*_ pretty fucking stupid.


----------



## Mr. ShadowCreek (Jun 6, 2020)

I'm guessing many SJWS came from religious families. After having the Bible or whatever holy book pushed in their face all their life they fought turning on the values they grew up thinking they're doing what's right. Ironically they become what they hate by following in their parents footsteps just from the other side.


----------



## #zzz (Jun 12, 2020)




----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jun 13, 2020)

Mr. ShadowCreek said:


> I'm guessing many SJWS came from religious families. After having the Bible or whatever holy book pushed in their face all their life they fought turning on the values they grew up thinking they're doing what's right. Ironically they become what they hate by following in their parents footsteps just from the other side.


What is the answer though?

I've been on both sides of this, I went through seminary and then went on to volunteer for an European organization similar to the American "Freedom From Religion".

Do we sit quietly while the death cults continue to engage in genital mutilation (both male and female), bomb trains and skyscrapers full of people because "Muh rereigious wights", "Gawdlessness makes you a whore". or whatever feeble excuse they're peddling that week for being cunts?

Nobody listens when you talk, but shit sure isn't getting better when we don't talk. All the silent majority in the Western World has achieved by not being fedoras is it still has two large death cults breathing down their neck (I conceded Islam is the more dangerous of the two, but Christianity is far from done trying to take over the secular sphere in places like Ireland, Italy etc and elsewhere in the world it still holds overwhelming power and influence in the Philippines, South Korea, Uganda etc) and now also has Wokeness competing with the two for instituting increasingly regressive and theocratic measures in whatever orthodoxy they're pushing.

Despite hating Wokeness every bit as much as older religions, I remain convinced that the concept of the supernatural is the single most heinous, depraved and evil thing humanity has ever concocted.


----------



## Troonologist PhD (Jun 16, 2020)

More of a cult, or an evil religion, rather than a good religion. Religion is supposed to be a healthy thing as opposed to social justice and all its predecessors.

People also constantly get their comparisons wrong. Privilege isn’t original sin. Original sin is, dumbed down, that human nature is bad and humans can’t overcome it. It’s why the belief that we’ll eventually fix everything — Progress — is exceptional. You might as well expect dogs to do calculus. Privilege, on the other hand, is just gaslighting an entire society. A more apt comparison is Cluster-B’s and their victims.



Fagatron said:


> What is the answer though?
> 
> I've been on both sides of this, I went through seminary and then went on to volunteer for an European organization similar to the American "Freedom From Religion".
> 
> ...


Point to the doll where the bad sky man touched you.


----------



## 5t3n0g0ph3r (Jun 17, 2020)

jorgoth said:


> Notice how it's only ex-Christian countries that are feminist/trans-accepting. Bolshevism really is Christianity's bastard child. Or at least Protestantism's.



I would argue Marxism is a descendant of Jacobinism from the French Revolution. After all, Marx developed his theories in a post-Revolution France (actually, the July Revolution of 1830 would be more relevant as it occurred 13 years prior to Marx living in Paris. Also, the Revolutions of 1848 were occurring at the same time Marx published The Communist Manifesto).
Look at the insanity that occurred during the French Revolution and the rise of The Cult of the Supreme Being.
It was very Humanist and overthrew the traditional Catholicism that was part of France's culture for centuries.
I argue that France, if not Europe itself, has never recovered from this.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jun 17, 2020)

Troonologist PhD said:


> More of a cult, or an evil religion, rather than a good religion. Religion is supposed to be a healthy thing as opposed to social justice and all its predecessors.



I'm not looking to go fedora on this; more as a Theology/Divinity grad/post I have to question and think it would be an interesting topic.

Religion isn't meant to be healthy, in the western world at least. It's "Truth", the undeniable objective reality and order of the cosmos. The Abrahamic God not once has ever called anyone to be happy, he "calls" them to be holy. And to be holy is to follow the rules set down by the Lord Absolute right?

I'm sure the comparisons between the divine unquestionable dictatorship and a chosen people vs the learned woke masters and their PoC's isn't lost here.



Troonologist PhD said:


> People also constantly get their comparisons wrong. Privilege isn’t original sin. Original sin is, dumbed down, that human nature is bad and humans can’t overcome it. It’s why the belief that we’ll eventually fix everything — Progress — is exceptional. You might as well expect dogs to do calculus. Privilege, on the other hand, is just gaslighting an entire society. A more apt comparison is Cluster-B’s and their victims.



This one I would concede isn't a consistent point within the movement, but I would say the orthodoxy is that "Whiteness" is unforgivable is the norm.

Not only in historically white societies are we experiencing a call to "de-colonize"; to remove the history of the natives in favour of the dogma of the new religion but in societies where Wokeness has arrived where Whites are a minority such as Brazil there is still cries of "Colorism" and "Internalised Whiteness".

Even in a society where White people don't really exist, Wokeness still calls them out as the ultimate evil to be fought and purged at every possible turn. There is no forgiveness or redemption for it, and no matter what you do you are still a sinner.

Even if you do what Yahweh wants, you're still a sinner and slave to his will. Not unlike White, Jewish and Asian allies of the BLM movement...



Troonologist PhD said:


> Point to the doll where the bad sky man touched you.



It's not him so much, it's his minions who insist I need to get on my knees and put him in my mouth that-

.....Suddenly it doesn't sound half so bad. Which part of Jesus' human body is in the communion bread again? UwU


----------



## Troonologist PhD (Jun 17, 2020)

5t3n0g0ph3r said:


> I would argue Marxism is a descendant of Jacobinism from the French Revolution. After all, Marx developed his theories in a post-Revolution France (actually, the July Revolution of 1830 would be more relevant as it occurred 13 years prior to Marx living in Paris).
> Look at the insanity that occurred during the French Revolution and the rise of The Cult of the Supreme Being.
> It was very Humanist that disrupted and overthrew the traditional Catholicism that was part of France's culture for centuries.
> I argue that France, if not Europe itself, has never recovered from this.


“Christianity’s bastard child”
This is the most exceptional shit I’ve ever heard. It’s the atheist’s (Marx) answer to Judaism. You’d have to be exceptional to not see this. They even have their own version of gross, lazy, commies with the Ultra-Orthodox. Israel is arguably the only successful Marxist country because they have America to leech off of. They don’t have Marxism in their own country because Marxism is obviously a weapon, not an real philosophy.



Fagatron said:


> I'm not looking to go fedora on this; more as a Theology/Divinity grad/post I have to question and think it would be an interesting topic.
> 
> Religion isn't meant to be healthy, in the western world at least. It's "Truth", the undeniable objective reality and order of the cosmos. The Abrahamic God not once has ever called anyone to be happy, he "calls" them to be holy. And to be holy is to follow the rules set down by the Lord Absolute right?
> 
> ...


Your comparing humans to God. 

Where is your evidence that He doesn’t call you to be happy? And what is your definition of happiness anyway? The modern definition of “happiness” mostly seems to be pathetically chasing after fleeting pleasure and be a self-centered hedonist.

“Slave to his will” 

That’s your completely retarded take on it. How did what you just wrote strengthen your argument? Humans are always going to keep sinning/doing wrong but after being reborn in Christ one no longer has original sin. It’s like being cured of a drug addiction. In Wokeaism Privilege is immutable. It’s one of the only things that isn’t a “social construct,” which doesn’t mean what they think it means.


----------



## 5t3n0g0ph3r (Jun 17, 2020)

Troonologist PhD said:


> It’s the atheist’s (Marx) answer to Judaism. You’d have to be exceptional to not see this.



THIS.
Marx was not just an atheist, he was a self-loathing Jew.
I would argue that he not only hated Judaism as a religion but as the center of Jewish culture as well.
It's no different from the SJWs.
Many of them come from Christian households and for one reason or another are lashing out against the values and norms of the culture that was upheld by their parents.
This includes how businesses operate, lawmaking, etc.
SJWs are self-loathing, privileged Westerners who wouldn't know true oppression if it hit them with the butt of a rifle.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Jun 17, 2020)

5t3n0g0ph3r said:


> THIS.
> Marx was not just an atheist, he was a self-loathing Jew.
> I would argue that he not only hated Judaism as a religion but as the center of Jewish culture as well.
> It's no different from the SJWs.
> ...



Marx was only half-Jewish by ethnicity and was raised Lutheran, but otherwise you're spot on

Really, Social Justice and Marxism in general is essentially a godless left-wing take on the more austere forms of Protestant moralism and this is especially true of modern SJW's


----------



## Samson Pumpkin Jr. (Jun 17, 2020)

Troonologist PhD said:


> More of a cult, or an evil religion, rather than a good religion. Religion is supposed to be a healthy thing as opposed to social justice and all its predecessors.
> 
> People also constantly get their comparisons wrong. Privilege isn’t original sin. Original sin is, dumbed down, that human nature is bad and humans can’t overcome it. It’s why the belief that we’ll eventually fix everything — Progress — is exceptional. You might as well expect dogs to do calculus. Privilege, on the other hand, is just gaslighting an entire society. A more apt comparison is Cluster-B’s and their victims.



Who says Social justice isn't healthy? it gives purpose to them and that in itself is good enough because it's a step above having an unplanned life, at least you have something in mind
Of course these aren't apples to apples comparison, but the comparison between original sin and privilege is close enough that  you can justify calling converted


----------



## Hux (Jun 17, 2020)

Syaoran Li said:


> Really, Social Justice and Marxism in general is essentially a godless left-wing take on the more austere forms of Protestant moralism and this is especially true of modern SJW's


Then you have to take into account how the loudest proponents of Marxism/leftism/sjwism/whateverthefuckism we have today are Millennials and Millennials are the offspring of the same generation that kick-started the Religious Right and the Satanic Panic. Try as they might to distance themselves from their Boomer fundie parents, this lot learned their dogmatic moralizing killjoy ways from watching them.

To once again bring up Raz0rfist's quote on these people, the Millennial Marxist/Leftist/SJW/Whateverthefuckist ran so hard from their parents that they became them _on crack_


----------



## 5t3n0g0ph3r (Jun 17, 2020)

Ironically, a Daily Beast (I know, LOL) article in *2015* regarding "AntiRacism" (the cudgel being used right now by SJWs) highlighted the cultish behaviors demonstrated by adherents:








						Antiracism, Our Flawed New Religion
					

Opposition to racism used to be a political stance. Now it has every marking of a religion, with both good and deleterious effects on American society.




					www.thedailybeast.com
				











						Antiracism, Our Flawed New Religion
					

archived 10 Jun 2020 03:21:55 UTC




					archive.vn
				






> Among educated Americans especially, Antiracism—it seriously merits capitalization at this point—is now what any naïve, unbiased anthropologist would describe as a new and increasingly dominant religion. It is what we worship, as sincerely and fervently as many worship God and Jesus and, among most Blue State Americans, more so.



The article compares Ta-Nehisi Coates and his essay, "The Case for Reparations," to that of a priest making a sermon to laymen:


> Its audience sought not counsel, but proclamation. Coates does not write with this formal intention, but for his readers, he is a preacher. A.O. Scott perfectly demonstrates Coates’s now clerical role in our discourse in saying that his new book is “essential, like water or air”—this is the kind of thing one formerly said of the Greatest Story Ever Told.



One of the more interesting comparisons given is when someone questions the narrative or, in this case, "the doctrine" of the faith:


> It is inherent to a religion that one is to accept certain suspensions of disbelief. Certain questions are not to be asked, or if asked, only politely—and the answer one gets, despite being somewhat half-cocked, is to be accepted as doing the job.
> “Why is the Bible so self-contradictory?” Well, God works in mysterious ways—what’s key is that you believe. “Why does God allows such terrible things to happen?” Well, because we have free will … and it’s complicated but really, just have faith.
> 
> It stops there: beyond this first round, one is to classify the issues as uniquely “complicated.” They are “deep,” one says, looking off into the air for a sec in a reflective mode, implying that thinking about this stuff just always leads to more questions, in an infinitely questing Talmudic exploration one cannot expect to yield an actual conclusion.
> ...



Translation: "REEEE! Don't question us!!!"

Now, some users in this thread have brought up the idea of SJW Cult having an Original Sin. Lo and Behold, that very thing is discussed:


> The Antiracism religion, then, has clergy, creed, and also even a conception of Original Sin. Note the current idea that the enlightened white person is to, I assume regularly (ritually?), “acknowledge” that they possess White Privilege. Classes, seminars, teach-ins are devoted to making whites understand the need for this. Nominally, this acknowledgment of White Privilege is couched as a prelude to activism, but in practice, the acknowledgment itself is treated as the main meal, as I have noted in this space. A typical presentation getting around lately is 11 Things White People Need to Realize About Race, where the purpose of the “acknowledgment” is couched as “moving the conversation forward.” A little vague, no? More conversation? About what? Why not actually say that the purpose is policy and legislation?
> 
> Because this isn’t what is actually on the Antiracists’ mind. The call for people to soberly “acknowledge” their White Privilege as a self-standing, totemic act is based on the same justification as acknowledging one’s fundamental sinfulness is as a Christian. One is born marked by original sin; to be white is to be born with the stain of unearned privilege.
> 
> ...



In this Cult, "White Devils" is an astute term. In the eyes of SJWs, white people are the "sinners" in need of repentance and must atone for their white privilege. The true believers and the fearful kneel before the "saints" to confess their sin before treading the path of penance. Yet, no real forgiveness is given. The saints will always remember the sins committed against them and will not relent until "justice" served (in whatever form that will be). These sinners are damned to be sacrificed on the Altar of "Virtue."

Throw in Marxist ideology into the mix, then there is a recipe for disaster.
And its not like Communists do not resort to similar devices.
Take Mao's Cultural Revolution for example.
Mao courted the college-age Chinese into the Red Guard after closing schools, colleges, and universities.
Then, he used them to eliminate political rivals and consolidate his power.
The Red Guard was also used to cleanse China of anything, to use a current term, "problematic."
Everything with Western influence was torn down and destroyed, priceless ancient Chinese artifacts were destroyed if Mao did not approve of them, and those who did not accept these changes were publicly humilated at first, then were later outright killed by the end of the decade.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jun 18, 2020)

Troonologist PhD said:


> “Christianity’s bastard child”
> This is the most exceptional shit I’ve ever heard. It’s the atheist’s (Marx) answer to Judaism. You’d have to be exceptional to not see this. They even have their own version of gross, lazy, commies with the Ultra-Orthodox. Israel is arguably the only successful Marxist country because they have America to leech off of. They don’t have Marxism in their own country because Marxism is obviously a weapon, not an real philosophy.



All this shows is that you've never actually read Marx, because you would know Marx had a very low opinion of Judaism.

You would also know about Israel's still firm connection with Socialism in their state geoforming programs still on progress from the very foundation of Eretz Israel such as the _Kibbutz _and associated communal parenting systems across many of them.

They do find it naturally easier to implement that said; sharing ethnic, religious and traumatic history between them there isn't as much internal conflict and open self-interest (against each other) than within other societies.



Troonologist PhD said:


> Your comparing humans to God.



_"Man is the Measure of all things"- Protagoras._

If your God is so perfect, he should behave in a superior manner to us, no? I'm sure I don't need to provide you with a litany of all the depraved and dark things Yahweh has ordered/done.

It's kinda awkward to think about the Ultimate Pure Good actually having a higher kill/main/torture count than Satan for one.


Troonologist PhD said:


> Where is your evidence that He doesn’t call you to be happy? And what is your definition of happiness anyway? The modern definition of “happiness” mostly seems to be pathetically chasing after fleeting pleasure and be a self-centered hedonist..



Where is your evidence that he does? You made the assertion freind, back it up with evidence.

But to humor you, I'll oblige with a detailed response. I've held back on some of the detail because I'm not aware of your theological training, but we can go deeper if you'd like.



Spoiler: Theological Sperging



I trust you can remember that Jesus was asked once which commandment of the Law was the greatest. He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. He also said ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:30–32; cf. Matthew 22:37–39). In other words, God wants is really quite simple: He wants you. All a Christian's service for God must flow from those two commands, or it is not real service; it is fleshly effort or a "Glittering Sin" as Augustine called it (he gave a detailed explanation why Good and Just non-Christians are still going to hell). And Romans 8:8 says that those who are “in the flesh cannot please God.”

The Christian God wants everyone to trust in His Son as Savior and Lord (Philippians 2:9–11). Second Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord . . . is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” People are told to come to know Jesus through repenting of their sins sin and accepting/submitting to him as a personal sacrifice (Romans 10:9; John 1:12). When Jesus’ disciples asked Him to show them the Father, He replied, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). God wants everyone to know Him, and everyone can only know Him through Jesus. Unless you're the Virgin Mary of course, then you can be born without sin and get an express pass.

Next, the Christian God wants us to “become conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29). The Father wants all of His children to be like Jesus. He brings situations into our lives to refine and chip away those flawed characteristics that are in the way of our becoming who He designed someone to be (Hebrews 12:7; James 1:12). As Jesus was obedient to the Father in everything, so the goal of every child of God should be to obey our Heavenly Father (John 8:29). First Peter 1:14–15 says, “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.* But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do.”*

Many people, in the Christian view, like the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, try to put the external action before the inner heart change (Luke 11:42). They place all the focus on what they _do_ rather than who they _are_. But, unless God is their motivation, outward displays of goodness only result in pride and legalism. Neither pleases God. When someone surrenders themself totally to Him, it is judged that his Holy Spirit empowers them to love God fully and serve Him from the right motive. True service and holiness are simply the outworking of the Spirit, the overflowing of a life dedicated to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 13:1–2).

The prophet Micah responded to the Israelites’ complaint that they didn’t know what God wanted from them. The prophet says, “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8, ESV).

David understood what God wanted when he prayed, “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise” (Psalm 51:16–17).





Troonologist PhD said:


> “Slave to his will”
> 
> That’s your completely retarded take on it. How did what you just wrote strengthen your argument? Humans are always going to keep sinning/doing wrong but after being reborn in Christ one no longer has original sin. It’s like being cured of a drug addiction. In Wokeaism Privilege is immutable. It’s one of the only things that isn’t a “social construct,” which doesn’t mean what they think it means.



You're called to serve him with unconditional questioning. It doesn't matter if you call it submission, serfdom or a participant in mandatory lifelong community service. You're a slave.
But if you knew anything about Christianity, you would know that the image of being a "Slave to God" is encouraged.



Spoiler: Why being a Slave makes you a Good Christian



Normally, the idea of being a “slave” is not all that desirable.  We are not as familiar with slavery in our day and age, but it is real and has caused extreme damage throughout the history of our world in many cultures and at many times.  The worst part about slavery is the cruelty with which the slaves are treated.  They are treated as objects and property which is completely contrary to their human dignity.

But imagine the scenario where a person is a slave to one who loves him perfectly and has as his primary mission to help that “slave” realize his true potential and fulfillment in life.  In this case, the master would “command” the slave to embrace love and happiness and would never violate his human dignity.

This is the way it is with God.  We should never fear the idea of being a slave of God.  Though this language may carry baggage from abuses of human dignity of the past, slavery to God should be our goal.  Why?  Because God is the one we should want as our master.  In fact, we should desire God as our master even more than we desire to be our own master.  God will treat us better than we treat ourselves!  He will dictate to us a perfect life of holiness and happiness and we will be humbly submissive to His divine will.  And what’s more, He will give us the necessary means to achieve all that He dictates to us if we let Him.  Being a “slave of God” is a good thing and should be our goal in life.



You're misconstruing Original Sin as well. Original Sin is an imperfection that becomes tolerated, not fixed,  via Baptism. After all, were that the case a baptized person shouldn't be able to infect their offspring with it but of course they always do. God could choose to accept you or love you automatically as he did with the Virgin Mary; but chooses to blame you for a crime (quite a minor one as well) committed generations ago that you as a child probably weren't even aware took place.

I'm not sure why someone like yourself dislikes the Woke, you actually have far more in common with them than many other posters in this thread.


----------

