Заметки алкоголика и придурка
23. Jūnijs 2019
04:58 - socialist media [[[current year]]]
man patīk tā jaunā Racounters dziesma, kur ir "oh, Nietzsche, where do you go"
07:02 - The Raconteurs pēdējā apļa rēvija
Ļoti krietns ieraksts.
(gribēju ar to arī pabeigt, bet vārdu uzplūdi)
Forši ir tā enerģija un kaisle, dusmīgs rociņš, kas nav kārtējais kļesik ruok rivaival figņa, ko dara daudzi mūsdienu jaunēkļi ar ierobežotu iztēli un apšaubāmu talantu. Nebūt nenolieku pēdējos, jo ir forši, ka pastāv milzīgs mūzikas baseins, kurā ik pa laikam akunutsa. Neesmu kursā vai tas ir čista Vaits vai tieši citi, vai viss kopā, bet banda skan ļoti klasiski, bet tajā pašā laikā svaigi, ar novelitātēm, visādām quirky idejām un, kā jau teicu, spraigumu. Man nepatīk savītuša vecu tēmu atspēlēšana. Apspēlēšana toties ļoti. Īpaši, ja ar iedvesmu un reālu vēlmi izspiest no akmens (teh rock) pēdējo sulu. Tā turēt, cāļi!
(varētu uzrakstīt vairāk, bet nahuj)
(Donvana "Hey Gyp" kavers zaibis)
14:18 - da troof
We are talking about the primary means by which Christianity spread, which was definitely not the sword given that Christianity spread among people who were on top at every turn, starting with the Romans and extending to almost all of the barbarian tribes. Most of those people converted spontaneously even though they were the ones wielding the sword.
Now of course this is not the same as saying NO Christian ever attempted to enforce his religion on others either through violence or by other means, but that's neither here nor there, because as i said the main point Fredoras are trying to make is that there's nothing intrinsically valuable about Christianity in and of itself. From their perspective, it is impossible that anyone ever decided to become Christian because they found the religion attractive in some way. But the only alternative to a spontaneous conversion is an enforced conversion and for most of its early history Christians were in no position to enforce anything on anyone, which is where the Fedora narrative falls apart. Arguing that Christian authorities imposed themselves on people centuries AFTER the fact is disingenuous because it says nothing about the means by which the religion spread in the beginning or any intrinsic value within the belief system itself regardless of its exclusionist perspective in regards to other faiths, not the least because pagans weren't any different, witness the treatment of Christians themselves during the first centuries of their existence. Even an "open" religion like Hinduism felt the need to suppress a competing tradition like Buddhism. Once a religion becomes part of the main cultural identity of a nation, competing faiths are seen as a treat to the established order. That's true for every tradition and singling out Christianity as being unique in this regard is the height of hypocrisy, not the least because Fedoras themselves, despite all their "enlightened" pretensions would love to do nothing else but squash systems of beliefs that are contrary to their own, which is exactly what happened whenever atheist regimes took power.