Objective morality is not that simple, few thousand years ago it would be totally moral to smash a stranger's head with a rock because he is on your hunting territory.
For some reason, as I watched the very first video where it's old footage of a crucifixion in a movie, the fact that it was so old made it unconsciously feel like I was looking at actual footage from ancient roman times.
when being christian unironically gives you a meaning in life and makes you motivated again. i still have questions about the existence of god, but i cannot deny that the words written by the bibilical authors/propehts saved me in a spiritual level.
It's easy; Matter cannot be created from nothing For something to exist there must be a cause Whatever created the cause is "God" or perhaps the "gods" God exists, it's up to us to decide if he's worth praising or not
@@leonhauptmann3301 The point of Ersatzprodukt is that it is a product, a commodity. I don't have a better translation, but replacing commodity sounds a bit more accurate to me
You completely skipped modern Christian memes and you just covered the 2017 style of them. New Christian memes are almost completely based around being based and has a lot of crossover with the lifter memes. I was curious and now my day is ruined and my disappointment is immeasurable
I love that version. For me it shows that embracing the spiritual and philosophical aspects of life is not ignorant of science, but a good, Chad thing.
@@LeoRex13 The only Megan I know is an old classmate of mine that gave birth to a severely mentally and physically handicapped child at age 17 cause she kept partying while pregnant. Who is this Megan???
i Remember in the 2017 when there was that arabic meme about the Return of the Umayad caliphate thinking of it after watching your video made me realize how similar it is to the Deus vult .I think that it is about a time of glory and unification regardless of religion .
As an atheist I do have to say that while the death of religion can lead to loss of meaning that fufilliment itself is unarbritrary and and achievable unlike the illusion of meaning. While meaning is supposed to be an endpoint, something you work for then achieve, leading a fufilling life is a constant battle which rewards itself through struggle. I think the advent of political correctness and toxicity is direclty connected to the rise of consumerism. People will attempt to channel their rage through idealologies and partisanism not because they want to change other people or change the world but because they refuse to change themselves and are trying to establish a sense of identity. This corresponds with purchasing habits which can market ideals and turn an aspect of a person into a purchasable product. We are seeing a day and age where the illusion of an achievable and perfect unconscious state of existence has been shattered. This has lead to people channeling their libido through the internet and clutching desperate at their identity through consumerism. This has lead people to market themselves as products and products to market themselves as people. The first step from escaping ego fueled denial is accepting that fulfillment is a process and that identity is fluid in nature. I guess this comment is pretty ironic because this is the kind of ego dump that I was warning against.
I agree with your statement. I was also disappointed with how meme analysis depicted atheism. Sure, religion can offer a sense of community and social cohesion. But considering what we know and what we can do as a species at present, the myths and stories from ancient belief systems just aren't gonna cut it in terms of our reality and current moral standards. We have to move on from them. Meaning and purpose can't be given to us forever. We are capable now. Surely we can formulate our own reason for living, can't we?
Truth, never perishes. It dissolves in the background, deep beneath the ground, underneath the rocks. But, then emerges a man, feeling empty, seeking something which can fulfill his soul for he has consumed and indulged in everything his conscious body can enjoy and yet he isn't fulfilled. Then he seeks something simpler and goes on a journey to find it, after much hard work, he finds the truth hidden deep beneath the ground. Broken by the tough task his self seeks to open the treasure box and could not for he lacks the strength to open an old rustic box. He needs the key to it. He realises that he can have the key, but it requires much sacrifice. For the key he must go on another journey which is a long one to the land afar in which he might lose his identity, his current sense of being and might have to sacrifice his subjective reality but when he finds the key and returns from the journey he has formed a new Being and when finally he opens the treasure box, he finds the objective truth which is the same yesterday, today and forever and it liberates his soul from the subjective Truth which has been holding him back.
And I think you're right on the sense of that Christianity has been trying to I guess return to a certain tradition and it's been doing that a lot with greater emphasis on apologetics, theology expansionand more scholarly approachment to scripture a lot it's a lot more mainstream now for pastors and scholars to not see Genesis for example as a literal description of creation but more of just a symbolic interpretation of creation and also at that same juncture they have an abandoned the supernatural aspects the theological push basically spearheaded by Dr Michael Heiser to understand biblical writings through The eyes of an ancient Israelite
@yes,i’m happy That's one way of viewing it, but here's another. It's a very clever way to undermine Christianity's foundation. The entire story rests upon the snake deceiving Eve and causing Adam and Eve to sin. Without that there's no need to Jesus to come down in the first place. Really, teaching that the book of Genesis is purely symbolic hurts Christianity more than anything outsiders could do.
@neon demon well to be fair the bible does consists of 66 books. Some are poetry some are songs of worship. Evans in books that are meant to be taken literally a lot of them have parables or other figures of speech so it's kind of no brainer that some scriptures are meant to be literal and some figurative. It's hard tell sometimes considering the language used and how the Hebrews liked to use hyperbole.
I said it once and I say it again, true meme reviewer right here, isn't afraid to state the clear strength of Christian symbolism on all of us and its power to make us lead a dignified life, unlike OTHER meme reviewers who are thirsty for that ad rev and can't be "diViSivE".
@Jacob Adams No you are not gonna trample me in a debate. I am breaking the endless youtube comment section cycle. I just disagree, you ride off into the sunset with your beliefs and I ride off with mines, we all win.
Love the video, I hate to see the Carl Jung one disappear since I thought it was quite good. Keep up the awesome work and glad to see another deep dive into Christianity!
Not to mention the fact that old gods are coming back reimagined for the the 21sr century or as something to use for nationalism and " pride in ones race "
One of the biggest memes around is the sign of Jonah and the Whale. You can be the smallest fish in this ocean and still be swallowed up in the maelstrom. I’m currently working on a story that has about 5 or 6 whales feeling like I am going to die if I get too deep into this life.
I was surprised you didn't dive more into the association between the astrological "Age of Pisces" - which started with the rise, and peaked under the world dominance, of Christianity - and the Christian fish symbolism.
Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give to thee a crown of life. Rev 2:10 What is described as mere "death seeking" seems something much more to me; trading what one can't keep for what one cannot truly live eternally without. When you're going out, go out with a bang, and not a whimper. I'm not aware of any verses that encourage the reader to seek death meaninglessly, but I probably just need some context on the Nietzsche passage.
Protestantism is less than a Chad, and still worse to even be the virgin. It's more like the original Jewish-Christianity (Nazarenes) was Chad, then later on from the Paulian and Peter streams of social memetics the Catholic came into existence as the virgin. Then through Martin Luther (and other "reformers" after him) we have the virgin degenerating further back into a baby sucking on it's mother's tit. As Protestantism grew into it's teenage years though, it became Atheism (circa 1800s - 2020) Between Jesus the man and the many interations of Christianity, all it is is a process of degeneration which reinterprets itself further and further away from anything that reflects the actual Jesus, and further represents stronger levels of repression and psycho-cultural degeneracy.
Seems relevant to post this article Philosophical Liberalism : As defined by Bode Lang, conservative thinker and academic Excerpts from Bode's 'Liberal Falseness' series [After reading the works by people like] John Dewey, Karl Marx, John Mayer Keynes, Professor Charles Frankel and Professor Jacob Salwyn Schapiro [Any individual studying can see that] one of the key identifying features of the liberal belief, which is 'that man is intrinsically good' and nothing about human nature stands in the way of achieving a perfectly good [and] peaceful society. This is contrary to previous belief systems along with modern conservative believe that believes 'original sin' (or a 'sin nature' in every individual) is unavoidable, that man is flawed, capable of great good and great evil; and that fact is inescapable. Liberalism does not share this belief, liberalism believes that man is a perfectly rational being, and can focus on science for enlightenment. = [a truly unfounded] Faith in Man = Faith in Science [-tism as an authority] . [Liberalism has] faith in man's ability to reason and solve problems and [liberalism believes] that religions and traditional customs are what has led to the destruction of peace and a world that could get rid of this belief in religion or 'original sin' will be a step towards the "good society" according to liberals. " 'Man' according to liberalism, is born ignorant, not wicked. " J. Salwyn Schapiro, Liberalism: Its Meaning and History (pg 12) They believe the reason for the poor social conditions and much of the evils in the world are because of 'old customs' and 'traditions'. "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." - Bertrand Russell [That] since these "old traditions and religion have caused these errors in our history and have caused ignorance" all traditions and customs should be considered "highly suspicious". While a peaceful, virtuous and prosperous society is a nice goal, it can only be achieved by "accepting the liberal doctrine" [according to devout liberals]. And while the vision of what the world free from all ailments, disease and poverty actually looks like is somewhat obscure... But nonetheless liberals believe [everybody must view reality] through reason-freed from : [1.] superstition, from [2.] authority [even nature, liberals think they can transcend natural constraints], from [3.] customs [in that formalities] or from [4.] traditions [then and through those means] 'mankind can achieve the betterment of society'. But by being attached to this optimistic view of human nature, that man can actually achieve this utopian bliss, the liberal has no answer for the unexplained hardships and the genuine tragedies of life. Liberals cannot and will not face this, so when there was no ready-explanation they (unjustly) make one up. This belief in the intrinsic "good of mankind", that would blossom into fruition if only ignorance were removed is not a statement that comes from fact but from their prior commitment to the liberal doctrine. (this makes it quite an interesting religious institution, which some have compared to scientism itself) 1/4
They believe that liberalism stands for "independence of mind in all occasions, for thought free-from obligation to any authority [even nature] , [to have] an optimistic attitude towards the future and a skeptical one of the past [is somehow the key to utopia]" [however] this line of thinking convinces itself that since the liberal mind has "no rooted beliefs" it [somehow] leaves them free to use reason that is not prior attached to any dogma, and [thus] can always see and judge objectively and free from any bias. (which is literally the most arrogant acting-contradiction recorded in the history of philosophy) As Michael Oakeshott put it, in his document Rationalism and Politics (pg. 14) "...independence of mind on all occasions, for thought free from obligation to any authority, save the authority of 'reason' … His mental attitude is at once skeptical and optimistic: skeptical, because there is no opinion, no habit, no belief, nothing so firmly rooted or widely held that he hesitates to question it and to judge it on what he calls his 'reason'..." Because according to liberalism it is not human nature to have biases because humans are perfectly rational beings. So the liberal according to its own belief system, which opposes traditions and customs-from the past, is committed to constant change! Not just accepting it, but actively fostering this constant change… ( Progressivism for the sake of progressivism… ) Their own belief is dedicated to doing something about any and every social problem. And this provides the fuel for always having something on their schedule to be outraged about, and [thus] ultimately to be fighting to change. They believe ignorance has been caused by faulty institutions of the past along with traditions and customs and the [supposed] cure for this is 'universal education'. What liberal education is supposed to do is provide the antidote for the causes of ignorance, which are [supposed to be] old customs and all non rational belief. Since "man is not inherently flawed" as the conservative does [have a positive belief that man truly is], with the right education and the removal of this ignorance "the perfect society will be achieved". In removing old customs and belief systems all differences can be removed as well, [lineage/ethnicities], genders, nationalities, etc. [are assumed] to all be irrelevant. We are all "just man" and "can be cured". [Just only] with the right education to remove the ignorance that had taught us these differences. The liberal assumes that with the proper education [and] use of reason, men will select the choice for peace and that no one would ever choose trouble, pain or greed because that would be irrational and with the right education you can teach against all non-rational behavior. 2/4
( Basically the worldview of philosophical liberalism makes nurture primary over nature instead of the inversion, where nurture is very relevant but is secondary to nature ) So that once education gets rid of ignorance, prejudice, superstition and all other [sometimes frustrating] customs, [then somehow] human beings will conduct themselves reasonably and will be able to this build a peaceful society with freedom, [remain in perpetual] justice and [maintain] material well-being. But there are problems with this, most notably all facts and history available to us do not support this [super-]hypothesis of man being 'intrinsically good'. While the liberal will dismiss the religious beliefs [people often hold] as unfounded superstition[s] and that the idea 'original sin' [is something to be passed off as] simply as an old folk tale, [meanwhile] the concept of 'humankind being inherently flawed' has been seen and carried out in great detail throughout the entire history of man. ( and coincidentally almost every ancient belief system on record holds to philosophical conservatism not philosophical liberalism, which further attests to the rationality that humankind has recognized that suffering is by all evidence inseparable from the human condition and that it'd likely take some supernatural miracle to save anybody from the condition, which testifies to religion as a practice is often very healthy for individuals, this flies in the face of the liberal claim and gives credence to the conservative's perennial philosophy ) ( side note : Philosophical conservatism is not a religious position, it's rather comparable to realism or in some cases rational pessimism. It is every bit compatible with ideas like arts and sciences, and compatible with atheism, naturalism and nihilism. So no it doesn't necessitate any traditional spiritual faith in its tenets, rather it recognizes that traditions and ideologies can be fairly flawed to even very wrong but the traditions cannot be solely blamed for realities being so inverted from every common and natural ideal. Philosophical conservatism holds to the notion that abolishing traditions doesn't make any total change to reality, it'll mitigate evil to some degree and work only for a time and area of effect. So conservatism holds to having a development of society and development of ideas in society, but there's not going to be a single step nor a series of steps that will launch any individual let alone the world into utopia. So developments might, in terms of suffering, result in better periods of time and also potentially worse periods of time. While the thought of resolving suffering isn't a rational goal as there's no promise on the horizon other than a wishful miracle. And what's actually highly suspicious is a person telling you that their snake oil is what we should be thinking about, buying into and demand that all people recognize it's the cure all ) On every continent, in every "race", in every religion and every [kind of] society on Earth [this has been consistently true], from primitive tribes with spears and arrowheads to empires capable of building great Coliseums or great pyramid structures, the belief system that man is capable of great good as well as read evil has been proven true-to-form in the [known] history of mankind. To assert that crime, corruption, [persecution], cruelty and deaths at the hands of other men are exceptions to normal human rule, one has to be completely blind to all of the world's history. So the liberal doctrine that paints this picture of the utopian bliss [with a wide and blotting brush] , while it may warm the heart and give hope of a perfectly peaceful society [it still] directly contradicts what man across all [sides of] societies and belief systems, has proven to be true at every turn. Liberals [in terms of policies] believe they're the party of reason as they [assume that they] are free from any traditional customs, most notably [their apprehension towards adhering to the strict tenets of spiritual practices in] religion and by focusing on 'reason' and [making people believe they're using] the scientific method, liberalism makes claim to be the guardian and sheppard of all science. ( and here we thought there wasn't an authority in liberalism, seems like no ideology can remove themselves from natural errors or contradictions ) However one of the fundamental principles of [the true method of] science is that what happens in the future will probably resemble what has been observed in the past. ( what I like to call 'consistent phenomena' ) [However] a belief that requires one to assume that the future will be dramatically different than the past is false on the evidence in every regard. ( scientism is a fickel beast isn't she? ) Since the only evidence available to [hu]man[kind] in regard to societies and government rule is the history of other societies [and] of other governments [from] before, to suggest a future government or society that will be so radically different and impervious to the falls of societies and governments of the past is unscientific, unreasonable and irrational, and [thus it] should not be taken seriously as a legitimate hypothesis [and definitely not a theorem] even if the party making the irrational claim tells you they are "the gatekeeper[s] of science". It's ironic that liberalism has convinced themselvess of such strict adherence to "reason" and "science" because all recorded history provides an undeniable refutation to the liberal interpretation of 'man being intrinsically good'. All evidence available to us from history explains a very different story, one that supports the conservative claim that [on the intrinsic level] humans can be irrational, aggressive, disruptive, abusive and not committed even once ignorance is removed to reason and rationale. 3/4
Final/4 But the liberal creates an alibi to history's massive refutation to the liberal interpretation of man being 'intrinsically good' , they simply say that "all those societies of the past were not educated and handicapped by the ignorant customs and institutions of the past." But there is no response to that sort of claim because it isn't based on any facts or evidence (it's unfalsifiable), because here the liberal's speaking as an ideologue and [for the sake of maintaining their ideology] no amount of evidence or facts can prove them wrong. But the fact that this happens, again, demonstrates the falseness, again we see the irony that the ideology "committed to reason and science" can refute facts and evidence with theoretical concepts and abstractions. John Adams wrote : Human passions are insatiable... self-interest, private avidity, ambition and avarice will exist in every state of society and under every form of government… reason, justice and equity never had weight enough on the face of the Earth to govern the councils of men." According to the liberal creed, 'the only thing standing between man and the utopian bliss, is ignorance. And the only way we cure this ignorance is to replace the old customs of a past with schooling and education.' By its own principles, liberalism cannot accept a solution for the world's ills [by any] old traditions and customs, [nothing] learned from home, family or religion. ( Isn't that anti-freedom to put oneself into biases that act like a bondage for the sake of ignoring traditional wisdom? Like ignoring that a solution to understanding humankind's suffering might actually be a cosmonogical and cosmogonical constant, such as a 'sin nature'? And wouldn't atoning for transgressions and not being blind to failures be a healthier response for individuals? That redemption and for restoration towards those who've survived afflictions on either end of oppression be a way to make closure and move on from grief? ) ( In light of Bode's preponderance of evidence I thought it's time for a necessary insert of my own opinions : When we examine the motto of "change is always the answer" we can easily see that there's no stability or tried and true mitigation of evil. Thus when addressing the logic of it's own premises, by that I rather mean when the fallacious premises are carried out, any competent individual can see that's it's already made itself and continues making itself, the ultimate ideology for believing itself to be tolerant, and especially tolerant of anything new while actually being the most intolerant ideology in history, because in all truth it's never accepting of anything after it's been established. Just as the moment has become past, it's while knowing that the present is fleeting, and at once, at the same time one knows the future's emerging, this is an exemplary recognition one could apply to the liberal ideologue, whom has trouble recognizing their own failures, not recognizing the timelessness of abstractions within ideology versus what the real physical world truly is. And failing to recognize that the real world indeed is often devolved to a state which is unable to be easily improved, let alone perfected, it's by their own assertions and failed attempts to resolve anything that they shift blame around but never really do anything that can be claimed as very scientific, truly progressive or actually productive. All of this ideology, without attested for applications, inevitably makes the ideologue continue to defend any kind of evil under the names of "new" or "radical". And today it's come to a height of 'immediate respect' as if they're deserving for such, in favor of any evil culture that claims that it's been oppressed by anything already established. They'll indeed go on to inevitably recognize something's wrong with that culture brought in, the liberal either reluctantly calls it "bad" but simultaneously claim that they don't know how the issue originated and wonders how it got all around in the environment, or the modern liberal will express that it's wrong with the most extreme varieties of outrage against it, but still it cannot be identified as 'what they helped bring in to fold'… So whilst the liberal conveniently is forgetting that their ideology aided in the initial acceptance to bring a tradition into the fold they continue to criticize traditions. Always appealing to the causes for diversity but then always also rejects its effects. But their notion of 'what is progressivism' wasn't the issue, NO! They must blame others who were always critical of the "new radicals" to begin with.. In contemporary times, according to the common liberal, it's "only ever the conservative who's at fault" if they're indeed partially responsible for allowing something or even if they're not at all responsible, they'll scapegoat them anyway. And if enough time has passed before they recognize the faults of a new tradition, those same ones they incognitively actually helped establish, they'll blame both liberals [usually they're unaware they were liberals] and always especially conservatives who livd in the past. But it's really about them choosing to not see that 'there's problems with everything in the world', what some Christians, for example, call 'total depravity' [let me know if you'd like my definition and/or a book reference]. But they won't settle for the imperfection of anything, especially with the concept of 'imperfection with everything in the world as it is' it's really because they cannot settle with the fact that no humanistic solution can resolve the blight of evil infecting everything that they're causing themselves and others much grief. A little poetry : The liberal invariably digs their own grave, but while going deeper they cannot say a single kind word and all that's left on their tombstone are curses they've uttered. These realities of the insanity of the doctrine are what shows every true intellectual the problem of the liberal ideology. That it turns out it's actually for their cognitive dissonance and blatant denial of reality that will cause them to spend countless hours and resources, further contradicting themselves about their supposed causes, etc. They'll go on campaigning to rally members for the already failed causes and do mental gymnastics to intellectually convince themselves and others that they are not in the wrong. While most of all the premises of the ideology the liberal holds won't allow for the recognition of the liberal's own faulty biases. Any capable thinker will convert away from the circular reasoning, they'll recognize the flaws in themselves, and they'll see the insanity of the liberal ideology. And eventually the competent convert will understand how to identify the thought patterns in themselves so well that they'll prevent themselves from doing it so unconsciously and even notice when the assertions of others who are in the liberal echo chamber, like when they are appealing to logical fallacies that liberalism as a mentality results in. I'll omit examples for now. Please ask and I'll demonstrate further what I mean. ) Bode Lang again : Since these more traditional institutions were prevalent in the past and the world's problems still exist, there is a corelated hostility towards tradition. Its often extreme distaste for 'ways of the past' is often the one of the most identifiable and obvious features of liberalism. This hostility towards the past propels the motivation for constant change. Because there needs to be change to remove these old beliefs and install new ones, most notably through universal education. But not only is its hypothesis unsupported by history it conveniently dismisses the potential for education to indoctrinate and corrupt minds with evil. An educated man is just as susceptible if not more so to propaganda just as much as he is to the truth. Which is why some of the most educated peoples and nations have still created the greatest evils. Germany was one of most literate and educated nations of the 20th century but Hitler still rose to power. Vladimir Lenin, Alger Hiss, Hassan Al-Banna, [Mao], etc. They were all very educated men. We see Isis and many of these terrorism organizations are compiled by many, some estimates more than half, of highly educated men. But even so the liberal belief system isn't phased by these facts and so they often refuse to look directly at them. After indoctrinating young minds with this belief system liberalism is actively recruiting young soldiers for its crusade against western civilization and the elimination of traditional customs because it has taught the young and the malleable that these customs are the causes of problems. They thus have more bodies for protest and more support in the reform of all levels of government and policy in order to "equalize and offset" these great ills.
Thomas Sowell, now conservative economist, a consistently independent party individualist and former Marxist was interviewed by Fred Barnes about what I call 'philosophical liberalism' and 'philosophical conservatism'. In the interview he answered the two positions by comparison very succinctly. Barnes : What is the liberal premise? Sowell : I guess the 'Rousseau notion' y'know that man is born free but is everywhere in chains. But the real problem of the world is that the institutions are wrong. If the institutions were right then man-there's nothing in human nature that would cause us to be unhappy it's [only] the fact that we have the wrong institutions. Barnes : What is the conservative premise? Sowell : That man is flawed, from day one and that there are no solutions they're only trade-offs and that whatever you do to deal with one of man's flaws it creates another problem. But that you try to get the best trade-off you can get and that's all you can hope for.
I think one interesting thing with the fish is that in a very very small way very surface level because I don't really buy the old Christianity is the the age of of the Pisces but on a certain level I do agree with there is a certain symbol of rebirth is in the Christian faith we do emphasize the idea of the new man that when you accept the holy Spirit into your heart that there is a rebirth that happens that the old part of you dies off and you're supposed to liken yourself to a new nature hence rebirth imagery I guess some would call this Christ consciousness but I do not like using that term because a lot of new age thinkers bastardize the concept into something that it's not
New T Shirts! : teespring.com/stores/memeanalysis Patreon: www.patreon.com/MemeAnalysis I read from Carl Jung's book Aion: archive.org/stream/collectedworksof92cgju/collectedworksof92cgju_djvu.txt and Nietzsche's Will to Power: archive.org/details/FriedrichNietzscheTheWillToPower
@@rajanick8218 Terrorism does nothing, i'm thinking of philosify to show these fellow "Christians" the truth about God so they ACTUALY FUCKING READ THE BOOK THEY ARE USING TO WORSHIP GOD RATHER THAN JUST LISTENING TO THE DAMN RADIO.
Hmmm meme analysis is usually good at dissection but I don’t believe he hit the bullseye, trying to say that Christianity is selling out and adding to much nietzche (I cannot spell his name for the life of me) it’s actually the complete opposite I’d say Christianity today is defending itself and also nietzche is such a defeatist it’s why his teachings always lead people to suicidal ideations. The man wasn’t that wise as people believe.
I feel like you've misrepresented science here. Math and physics are full of symbols and they describe the nature of reality. Sicence isn't in itself a religion, but people can be dogmatic about it. I've had the thought before, "mathematics makes a great religion. Math exercises are like prayers and divine knowledge is given to us from the nature of reality itself." If it was a religion, it might be the best.
A plus sign is also a cross: a cross which quickly transcends you from counting on your fingers to adding huge numbers faster than you can ever count them. This act of adding is divine and magical on its own except it's real and it works every single time you use it. It's better than Christianity. It actually works.
Imaginary and negative numbers (i = sqrt -1) are products of the Faustian civilizational mind .and illustrate the non-universality and ultimately unreal nature of mathematics.
@Paraselene_Tao see, that's the issue with mathematics, it is inherently formulaic. It always works because it is based on God's universal laws, which He established upon creating the world. The physical world always conducts itself according to these laws, while the spiritual world has a completely different set of laws.
MemeAnalysis i trip once per year around Christmas. if you turn the experience into a ritual, taking for granted that you have continued to further your philosophical/psychological knowledge, it can be truly enlightening for those who are prone to routinization of perception/thought
So the current christianity is like the Jedi order. Due to them serving the Republic and not the force they ultimately destroy themselves. Just like christianity that try to attract the masses but forget what they stood for. ( am I correct or completely wrong)
This is such a shallow simplistic and absolutely senseless view of the world, to prevent yourself from aknowledging the reality that maybe there is indeed a God.
Daniel Azevedo and how would the existence of God prove christianity? If anything, it would prove that an objective divine force/energy was interpreted in varying ways by differing cultures (hence religions). No one is discounting the memetic power of the narrative or its utility in structuring one’s life to achieve happiness (as elaborated on by Rene Girard). Christianity is unique in its scapegoat mechanism, but all of this = / objective truth. Unless you want to argue that objective truth is what we perceive to be objective truth.. in which case, even more interesting questions arise
@@jamestheado6327 What I mean is that his reason for discounting the bible is a complete cop-out. There are ancient texts out there that were written as fiction, some argue that even some stories of the bible were written as fiction, but anyone who actually studies the bible in historical terms will very quickly realize that it was written and meant to be taken as a historical document, and not as a simple fable. I'm mostly against describing the bible as a fantasy novel, and any serious historian would back this up. Also, most of it's books were written by different authors and only compiled centuries after being written. I think it's extremely disingenuous to chalk a whole collection of books / actual historical documents by different authors as a simple fantasy novel
Daniel Azevedo any serious historian would also note the moderate amount of historical inaccuracies in the bible. Its overall historicity is remarkable, but not infallible. Most of the old testament and gospel stories are akin to someone recounting WW2, but explaining the events in terms of of overlying mythology (like the Trojan War with Greek Gods). Imbuing historical events with added cultural meaning is probably inescapable, but its also important to note who those sources were and what their incentive structure was. Things verified via multiple cultural sources or archaeological evidence are substantiated, but to take more miraculous events at face value-substantiated only by christians-when taking into account human behavior/biology is naive.
jesus simply wanted peace for his palestinian and jewish people from the roman oppressors. accidentally kickstarted the greatest religion in the world though
Memes are necessary, to make the atheists laugh, make the believers more faithful and make agnostics question everything
I like the sound of that, very true
IF you read carefully you can read 2000jear old memes in the bible :)
Amen and R'amen
At least point me in some kind of direction, I beg you
@@alfatejpblind6498 he went that way 👈☝️👇👉 😅
I love the way you say “Memes”
He gives the word so much more gravity than most
Meeemmeee
mEmE
_M_*e*_M_*e*
ASMR!!!!!!!
*they hated Meme Analysis because he spoke the truth*
"shut up"
Can’t survive on yes chad forever. Need to stick to meaning in life, objective morality, and healthy sexual relationships
Objective morality is not that simple, few thousand years ago it would be totally moral to smash a stranger's head with a rock because he is on your hunting territory.
I say this as an agnostic atheist
AerisVahnEphelia glad someone already told him
Big Brother Thunder and
@UCT_XM_j6b56ZKgAitAIKmcw Why can't you conceptualize of an alien encounter that isn't imperialist?
Shoutout The Gospel According to Matthew, phenomenal movie
When are you going to bring up VeggieTales.
For some reason, as I watched the very first video where it's old footage of a crucifixion in a movie, the fact that it was so old made it unconsciously feel like I was looking at actual footage from ancient roman times.
A curious thing is that the said satanic cross (inverted), in reality is the cross of Saint Peter who died crucified upside down
the concept of gods is simple to understand. the concept of God is difficult to understand.
Spot on.
Not really man
@@alexandrapdlh9559 elaborate
@@admiralkeelhauled42 and It was not elaborated.
There is no convention on what the word "god" means.
when being christian unironically gives you a meaning in life and makes you motivated again.
i still have questions about the existence of god, but i cannot deny that the words written by the bibilical authors/propehts saved me in a spiritual level.
It's easy;
Matter cannot be created from nothing
For something to exist there must be a cause
Whatever created the cause is "God" or perhaps the "gods"
God exists, it's up to us to decide if he's worth praising or not
@@j-man8085 So what created god?
@@TheSm1thers nothing and no one created God. God is the beginning and the end
@@commonman9782 That's contradictory to the argument put forth that everything must have a cause, even the universe
@@TheSm1thers God is bigger than the universe. God doesn't has a cause
Catholic Gang where you at?
Here
At Church
7:20 "Our atheists are pious people" -Stirner
Also for anyone wondering "Ersatzprodukt" means replacement commodity
Translating Ersatzprodukt as replacement is very far fetched
@@generalrotholz977 Schlag was besseres vor.
@@leonhauptmann3301 The point of Ersatzprodukt is that it is a product, a commodity. I don't have a better translation, but replacing commodity sounds a bit more accurate to me
@@generalrotholz977 I assume its a freudomarxist term? If so then indeed.
Cross meme: love always requires sacrifice
And ressurection, the final meaning of christianity, to turn "death" into "life"
You completely skipped modern Christian memes and you just covered the 2017 style of them. New Christian memes are almost completely based around being based and has a lot of crossover with the lifter memes. I was curious and now my day is ruined and my disappointment is immeasurable
I love that version. For me it shows that embracing the spiritual and philosophical aspects of life is not ignorant of science, but a good, Chad thing.
@@flynntom8057 God bless you
Chi Rho is the best Christian meme, fight me.
IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
Megan?
Meg?
@@LeoRex13 who tf is megan
@@FubbleSmurf or was it Meagan?
@@LeoRex13 The only Megan I know is an old classmate of mine that gave birth to a severely mentally and physically handicapped child at age 17 cause she kept partying while pregnant. Who is this Megan???
Your videos are so interesting, as a catholic myself I love hearing you talk about it
hypnotized by visuals... forgot everything you said XD time to watch again, lol
Extremely high quality content. Keep doing this!
i Remember in the 2017 when there was that arabic meme about the Return of the Umayad caliphate thinking of it after watching your video made me realize how similar it is to the Deus vult .I think that it is about a time of glory and unification regardless of religion .
Love the new direction of the channel.
As an atheist I do have to say that while the death of religion can lead to loss of meaning that fufilliment itself is unarbritrary and and achievable unlike the illusion of meaning. While meaning is supposed to be an endpoint, something you work for then achieve, leading a fufilling life is a constant battle which rewards itself through struggle. I think the advent of political correctness and toxicity is direclty connected to the rise of consumerism. People will attempt to channel their rage through idealologies and partisanism not because they want to change other people or change the world but because they refuse to change themselves and are trying to establish a sense of identity. This corresponds with purchasing habits which can market ideals and turn an aspect of a person into a purchasable product. We are seeing a day and age where the illusion of an achievable and perfect unconscious state of existence has been shattered. This has lead to people channeling their libido through the internet and clutching desperate at their identity through consumerism. This has lead people to market themselves as products and products to market themselves as people. The first step from escaping ego fueled denial is accepting that fulfillment is a process and that identity is fluid in nature. I guess this comment is pretty ironic because this is the kind of ego dump that I was warning against.
I agree with your statement. I was also disappointed with how meme analysis depicted atheism. Sure, religion can offer a sense of community and social cohesion. But considering what we know and what we can do as a species at present, the myths and stories from ancient belief systems just aren't gonna cut it in terms of our reality and current moral standards. We have to move on from them. Meaning and purpose can't be given to us forever. We are capable now. Surely we can formulate our own reason for living, can't we?
@@jessmosquera3080 no we cant
Real Christianity will never follow this world.
Truth, never perishes. It dissolves in the background, deep beneath the ground, underneath the rocks. But, then emerges a man, feeling empty, seeking something which can fulfill his soul for he has consumed and indulged in everything his conscious body can enjoy and yet he isn't fulfilled. Then he seeks something simpler and goes on a journey to find it, after much hard work, he finds the truth hidden deep beneath the ground. Broken by the tough task his self seeks to open the treasure box and could not for he lacks the strength to open an old rustic box. He needs the key to it. He realises that he can have the key, but it requires much sacrifice. For the key he must go on another journey which is a long one to the land afar in which he might lose his identity, his current sense of being and might have to sacrifice his subjective reality but when he finds the key and returns from the journey he has formed a new Being and when finally he opens the treasure box, he finds the objective truth which is the same yesterday, today and forever and it liberates his soul from the subjective Truth which has been holding him back.
I was just watching your christmas vid last night and wanting to know more about the jung's meditations on the ichthys
6:38 - 25th frame effect begins. Be careful on what he says there people.
What do you mean “frame effect”?
Explain?
Yo explain or delete comment
I don’t see anything
Sending this to my pope friend that can't stop talking about Jung right now
I'm not even joking, he quite heavily discussed your talking points (especially after 7') in his last book
It can be argued, the influence psychoanalysis had on the church is verh revealing of the its current disillusioned state
And I think you're right on the sense of that Christianity has been trying to I guess return to a certain tradition and it's been doing that a lot with greater emphasis on apologetics, theology expansionand more scholarly approachment to scripture a lot it's a lot more mainstream now for pastors and scholars to not see Genesis for example as a literal description of creation but more of just a symbolic interpretation of creation and also at that same juncture they have an abandoned the supernatural aspects the theological push basically spearheaded by Dr Michael Heiser to understand biblical writings through The eyes of an ancient Israelite
@yes,i’m happy That's one way of viewing it, but here's another.
It's a very clever way to undermine Christianity's foundation. The entire story rests upon the snake deceiving Eve and causing Adam and Eve to sin. Without that there's no need to Jesus to come down in the first place. Really, teaching that the book of Genesis is purely symbolic hurts Christianity more than anything outsiders could do.
@neon demon well to be fair the bible does consists of 66 books. Some are poetry some are songs of worship. Evans in books that are meant to be taken literally a lot of them have parables or other figures of speech so it's kind of no brainer that some scriptures are meant to be literal and some figurative. It's hard tell sometimes considering the language used and how the Hebrews liked to use hyperbole.
amgosu impostor when sus
amgosu impostor when sus
I said it once and I say it again, true meme reviewer right here, isn't afraid to state the clear strength of Christian symbolism on all of us and its power to make us lead a dignified life, unlike OTHER meme reviewers who are thirsty for that ad rev and can't be "diViSivE".
@Jacob Adams I disagree.
@Jacob Adams No
you are not gonna trample me in a debate.
I am breaking the endless youtube comment section cycle.
I just disagree, you ride off into the sunset with your beliefs and I ride off with mines, we all win.
@Jacob Adams Take your semantics with you.
@Jacob Adams le funnien reddit man
@Jacob Adams Der redditor
The Internet is now the light of thy countenance.
This made me chuckle
Love the video, I hate to see the Carl Jung one disappear since I thought it was quite good. Keep up the awesome work and glad to see another deep dive into Christianity!
Damn, this might be your most important video. Great work.
Not to mention the fact that old gods are coming back reimagined for the the 21sr century or as something to use for nationalism and " pride in ones race "
One of the biggest memes around is the sign of Jonah and the Whale. You can be the smallest fish in this ocean and still be swallowed up in the maelstrom. I’m currently working on a story that has about 5 or 6 whales feeling like I am going to die if I get too deep into this life.
*RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY*
*BOTTOM TEXT*
The square represents the earth, when the four corners of the world(cosmos) come together it's a cross.
Hey it would be great if you make a video about phenomena of FOMO (Fear of missing out) It is closely related with meme and memetics
.
I was surprised you didn't dive more into the association between the astrological "Age of Pisces" - which started with the rise, and peaked under the world dominance, of Christianity - and the Christian fish symbolism.
I talk more about the Aeon of Pisces in my Christmas special.
@@MemeAnalysis I see, that makes perfect sense!
Quick correction. The inverted cross is not satanic. It was adopted by them. However it is of saint peter.
Genius bro🙏
Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give to thee a crown of life. Rev 2:10
What is described as mere "death seeking" seems something much more to me; trading what one can't keep for what one cannot truly live eternally without. When you're going out, go out with a bang, and not a whimper. I'm not aware of any verses that encourage the reader to seek death meaninglessly, but I probably just need some context on the Nietzsche passage.
It's just Nietzsche's historical analysis, as a non-christian and as someone who doesn't understand suffering for what you believe.
Is a «Loss» a crucifix of 3rd millennium?
I didnt finish the video and I already liked
I was just watching your videos earlier today :0
Based and Informationalpilled
"Something known is never symbolized, but can only be expressed allegorically or semiotically"
Doesn't semiotic expression mean to symbolize it?
yes more videos to feed mother aenima yes
I'm not here to save you, I'm here to spread pestilence.
Less anima more enema
The Virgin Crusades vs. the Chad Reformation
If Martin Luther saw the world today he would not have nailed the thesis to the cathedral
Protestantism is less than a Chad, and still worse to even be the virgin.
It's more like the original Jewish-Christianity (Nazarenes) was Chad, then later on from the Paulian and Peter streams of social memetics the Catholic came into existence as the virgin.
Then through Martin Luther (and other "reformers" after him) we have the virgin degenerating further back into a baby sucking on it's mother's tit.
As Protestantism grew into it's teenage years though, it became Atheism (circa 1800s - 2020)
Between Jesus the man and the many interations of Christianity, all it is is a process of degeneration which reinterprets itself further and further away from anything that reflects the actual Jesus, and further represents stronger levels of repression and psycho-cultural degeneracy.
Reject modernity, Return to tradition
Return to Monke
Depends on the traditions.
How
Really like your your channel by the way pretty good s***
You are an internet priest. And a good one!
Loving this, but MAN I had to look away a couple times... trying to trigger a flashback strong enough to kill me with that undulating bs
Seems relevant to post this article
Philosophical Liberalism :
As defined by Bode Lang, conservative thinker and academic
Excerpts from Bode's 'Liberal Falseness' series
[After reading the works by people like] John Dewey, Karl Marx, John Mayer Keynes, Professor Charles Frankel and Professor Jacob Salwyn Schapiro
[Any individual studying can see that] one of the key identifying features of the liberal belief, which is 'that man is intrinsically good' and nothing about human nature stands in the way of achieving a perfectly good [and] peaceful society.
This is contrary to previous belief systems along with modern conservative believe that believes 'original sin' (or a 'sin nature' in every individual) is unavoidable, that man is flawed, capable of great good and great evil; and that fact is inescapable.
Liberalism does not share this belief, liberalism believes that man is a perfectly rational being, and can focus on science for enlightenment. = [a truly unfounded] Faith in Man = Faith in Science [-tism as an authority] .
[Liberalism has] faith in man's ability to reason and solve problems and [liberalism believes] that religions and traditional customs are what has led to the destruction of peace and a world that could get rid of this belief in religion or 'original sin' will be a step towards the "good society" according to liberals.
" 'Man' according to liberalism, is born ignorant, not wicked. "
J. Salwyn Schapiro, Liberalism: Its Meaning and History (pg 12)
They believe the reason for the poor social conditions and much of the evils in the world are because of 'old customs' and 'traditions'.
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." - Bertrand Russell
[That] since these "old traditions and religion have caused these errors in our history and have caused ignorance" all traditions and customs should be considered "highly suspicious".
While a peaceful, virtuous and prosperous society is a nice goal, it can only be achieved by "accepting the liberal doctrine" [according to devout liberals].
And while the vision of what the world free from all ailments, disease and poverty actually looks like is somewhat obscure...
But nonetheless liberals believe [everybody must view reality] through reason-freed from :
[1.] superstition,
from [2.] authority [even nature, liberals think they can transcend natural constraints],
from [3.] customs [in that formalities] or from
[4.] traditions [then and through those means] 'mankind can achieve the betterment of society'.
But by being attached to this optimistic view of human nature, that man can actually achieve this utopian bliss, the liberal has no answer for the unexplained hardships and the genuine tragedies of life.
Liberals cannot and will not face this, so when there was no ready-explanation they (unjustly) make one up.
This belief in the intrinsic "good of mankind", that would blossom into fruition if only ignorance were removed is not a statement that comes from fact but from their prior commitment to the liberal doctrine.
(this makes it quite an interesting religious institution, which some have compared to scientism itself)
1/4
They believe that liberalism stands for "independence of mind in all occasions, for thought free-from obligation to any authority [even nature] , [to have] an optimistic attitude towards the future and a skeptical one of the past [is somehow the key to utopia]" [however] this line of thinking convinces itself that since the liberal mind has "no rooted beliefs" it [somehow] leaves them free to use reason that is not prior attached to any dogma, and [thus] can always see and judge objectively and free from any bias.
(which is literally the most arrogant acting-contradiction recorded in the history of philosophy)
As Michael Oakeshott put it, in his document Rationalism and Politics (pg. 14)
"...independence of mind on all occasions, for thought free from obligation to any authority, save the authority of 'reason' … His mental attitude is at once skeptical and optimistic: skeptical, because there is no opinion, no habit, no belief, nothing so firmly rooted or widely held that he hesitates to question it and to judge it on what he calls his 'reason'..."
Because according to liberalism it is not human nature to have biases because humans are perfectly rational beings.
So the liberal according to its own belief system, which opposes traditions and customs-from the past, is committed to constant change! Not just accepting it, but actively fostering this constant change…
( Progressivism for the sake of progressivism… )
Their own belief is dedicated to doing something about any and every social problem.
And this provides the fuel for always having something on their schedule to be outraged about, and [thus] ultimately to be fighting to change.
They believe ignorance has been caused by faulty institutions of the past along with traditions and customs and the [supposed] cure for this is 'universal education'.
What liberal education is supposed to do is provide the antidote for the causes of ignorance, which are [supposed to be] old customs and all non rational belief.
Since "man is not inherently flawed" as the conservative does [have a positive belief that man truly is], with the right education and the removal of this ignorance "the perfect society will be achieved".
In removing old customs and belief systems all differences can be removed as well, [lineage/ethnicities], genders, nationalities, etc. [are assumed] to all be irrelevant.
We are all "just man" and "can be cured".
[Just only] with the right education to remove the ignorance that had taught us these differences. The liberal assumes that with the proper education [and] use of reason, men will select the choice for peace and that no one would ever choose trouble, pain or greed because that would be irrational and with the right education you can teach against all non-rational behavior.
2/4
( Basically the worldview of philosophical liberalism makes nurture primary over nature instead of the inversion, where nurture is very relevant but is secondary to nature )
So that once education gets rid of ignorance, prejudice, superstition and all other [sometimes frustrating] customs, [then somehow] human beings will conduct themselves reasonably and will be able to this build a peaceful society with freedom, [remain in perpetual] justice and [maintain] material well-being.
But there are problems with this, most notably all facts and history available to us do not support this [super-]hypothesis of man being 'intrinsically good'.
While the liberal will dismiss the religious beliefs [people often hold] as unfounded superstition[s] and that the idea 'original sin' [is something to be passed off as] simply as an old folk tale, [meanwhile] the concept of 'humankind being inherently flawed' has been seen and carried out in great detail throughout the entire history of man.
( and coincidentally almost every ancient belief system on record holds to philosophical conservatism not philosophical liberalism, which further attests to the rationality that humankind has recognized that suffering is by all evidence inseparable from the human condition and that it'd likely take some supernatural miracle to save anybody from the condition, which testifies to religion as a practice is often very healthy for individuals, this flies in the face of the liberal claim and gives credence to the conservative's perennial philosophy )
( side note : Philosophical conservatism is not a religious position, it's rather comparable to realism or in some cases rational pessimism.
It is every bit compatible with ideas like arts and sciences, and compatible with atheism, naturalism and nihilism. So no it doesn't necessitate any traditional spiritual faith in its tenets, rather it recognizes that traditions and ideologies can be fairly flawed to even very wrong but the traditions cannot be solely blamed for realities being so inverted from every common and natural ideal.
Philosophical conservatism holds to the notion that abolishing traditions doesn't make any total change to reality, it'll mitigate evil to some degree and work only for a time and area of effect. So conservatism holds to having a development of society and development of ideas in society, but there's not going to be a single step nor a series of steps that will launch any individual let alone the world into utopia.
So developments might, in terms of suffering, result in better periods of time and also potentially worse periods of time. While the thought of resolving suffering isn't a rational goal as there's no promise on the horizon other than a wishful miracle. And what's actually highly suspicious is a person telling you that their snake oil is what we should be thinking about, buying into and demand that all people recognize it's the cure all )
On every continent, in every "race", in every religion and every [kind of] society on Earth [this has been consistently true], from primitive tribes with spears and arrowheads to empires capable of building great Coliseums or great pyramid structures, the belief system that man is capable of great good as well as read evil has been proven true-to-form in the [known] history of mankind.
To assert that crime, corruption, [persecution], cruelty and deaths at the hands of other men are exceptions to normal human rule, one has to be completely blind to all of the world's history.
So the liberal doctrine that paints this picture of the utopian bliss [with a wide and blotting brush] , while it may warm the heart and give hope of a perfectly peaceful society [it still] directly contradicts what man across all [sides of] societies and belief systems, has proven to be true at every turn.
Liberals [in terms of policies] believe they're the party of reason as they [assume that they] are free from any traditional customs, most notably [their apprehension towards adhering to the strict tenets of spiritual practices in] religion and by focusing on 'reason' and [making people believe they're using] the scientific method, liberalism makes claim to be the guardian and sheppard of all science.
( and here we thought there wasn't an authority in liberalism, seems like no ideology can remove themselves from natural errors or contradictions )
However one of the fundamental principles of [the true method of] science is that what happens in the future will probably resemble what has been observed in the past.
( what I like to call 'consistent phenomena' )
[However] a belief that requires one to assume that the future will be dramatically different than the past is false on the evidence in every regard.
( scientism is a fickel beast isn't she? )
Since the only evidence available to [hu]man[kind] in regard to societies and government rule is the history of other societies [and] of other governments [from] before, to suggest a future government or society that will be so radically different and impervious to the falls of societies and governments of the past is unscientific, unreasonable and irrational, and [thus it] should not be taken seriously as a legitimate hypothesis [and definitely not a theorem] even if the party making the irrational claim tells you they are "the gatekeeper[s] of science".
It's ironic that liberalism has convinced themselvess of such strict adherence to "reason" and "science" because all recorded history provides an undeniable refutation to the liberal interpretation of 'man being intrinsically good'.
All evidence available to us from history explains a very different story, one that supports the conservative claim that [on the intrinsic level] humans can be irrational, aggressive, disruptive, abusive and not committed even once ignorance is removed to reason and rationale.
3/4
Final/4
But the liberal creates an alibi to history's massive refutation to the liberal interpretation of man being 'intrinsically good' , they simply say that "all those societies of the past were not educated and handicapped by the ignorant customs and institutions of the past."
But there is no response to that sort of claim because it isn't based on any facts or evidence (it's unfalsifiable), because here the liberal's speaking as an ideologue and [for the sake of maintaining their ideology] no amount of evidence or facts can prove them wrong.
But the fact that this happens, again, demonstrates the falseness, again we see the irony that the ideology "committed to reason and science" can refute facts and evidence with theoretical concepts and abstractions.
John Adams wrote :
Human passions are insatiable... self-interest, private avidity, ambition and avarice will exist in every state of society and under every form of government… reason, justice and equity never had weight enough on the face of the Earth to govern the councils of men."
According to the liberal creed, 'the only thing standing between man and the utopian bliss, is ignorance. And the only way we cure this ignorance is to replace the old customs of a past with schooling and education.'
By its own principles, liberalism cannot accept a solution for the world's ills [by any] old traditions and customs, [nothing] learned from home, family or religion.
( Isn't that anti-freedom to put oneself into biases that act like a bondage for the sake of ignoring traditional wisdom? Like ignoring that a solution to understanding humankind's suffering might actually be a cosmonogical and cosmogonical constant, such as a 'sin nature'? And wouldn't atoning for transgressions and not being blind to failures be a healthier response for individuals? That redemption and for restoration towards those who've survived afflictions on either end of oppression be a way to make closure and move on from grief? )
( In light of Bode's preponderance of evidence I thought it's time for a necessary insert of my own opinions :
When we examine the motto of "change is always the answer" we can easily see that there's no stability or tried and true mitigation of evil. Thus when addressing the logic of it's own premises, by that I rather mean when the fallacious premises are carried out, any competent individual can see that's it's already made itself and continues making itself, the ultimate ideology for believing itself to be tolerant, and especially tolerant of anything new while actually being the most intolerant ideology in history, because in all truth it's never accepting of anything after it's been established.
Just as the moment has become past, it's while knowing that the present is fleeting, and at once, at the same time one knows the future's emerging, this is an exemplary recognition one could apply to the liberal ideologue, whom has trouble recognizing their own failures, not recognizing the timelessness of abstractions within ideology versus what the real physical world truly is.
And failing to recognize that the real world indeed is often devolved to a state which is unable to be easily improved, let alone perfected, it's by their own assertions and failed attempts to resolve anything that they shift blame around but never really do anything that can be claimed as very scientific, truly progressive or actually productive.
All of this ideology, without attested for applications, inevitably makes the ideologue continue to defend any kind of evil under the names of "new" or "radical". And today it's come to a height of 'immediate respect' as if they're deserving for such, in favor of any evil culture that claims that it's been oppressed by anything already established.
They'll indeed go on to inevitably recognize something's wrong with that culture brought in, the liberal either reluctantly calls it "bad" but simultaneously claim that they don't know how the issue originated and wonders how it got all around in the environment, or the modern liberal will express that it's wrong with the most extreme varieties of outrage against it, but still it cannot be identified as 'what they helped bring in to fold'…
So whilst the liberal conveniently is forgetting that their ideology aided in the initial acceptance to bring a tradition into the fold they continue to criticize traditions. Always appealing to the causes for diversity but then always also rejects its effects.
But their notion of 'what is progressivism' wasn't the issue, NO! They must blame others who were always critical of the "new radicals" to begin with..
In contemporary times, according to the common liberal, it's "only ever the conservative who's at fault" if they're indeed partially responsible for allowing something or even if they're not at all responsible, they'll scapegoat them anyway.
And if enough time has passed before they recognize the faults of a new tradition, those same ones they incognitively actually helped establish, they'll blame both liberals [usually they're unaware they were liberals] and always especially conservatives who livd in the past.
But it's really about them choosing to not see that 'there's problems with everything in the world', what some Christians, for example, call 'total depravity' [let me know if you'd like my definition and/or a book reference].
But they won't settle for the imperfection of anything, especially with the concept of 'imperfection with everything in the world as it is' it's really because they cannot settle with the fact that no humanistic solution can resolve the blight of evil infecting everything that they're causing themselves and others much grief.
A little poetry : The liberal invariably digs their own grave, but while going deeper they cannot say a single kind word and all that's left on their tombstone are curses they've uttered.
These realities of the insanity of the doctrine are what shows every true intellectual the problem of the liberal ideology.
That it turns out it's actually for their cognitive dissonance and blatant denial of reality that will cause them to spend countless hours and resources, further contradicting themselves about their supposed causes, etc.
They'll go on campaigning to rally members for the already failed causes and do mental gymnastics to intellectually convince themselves and others that they are not in the wrong.
While most of all the premises of the ideology the liberal holds won't allow for the recognition of the liberal's own faulty biases. Any capable thinker will convert away from the circular reasoning, they'll recognize the flaws in themselves, and they'll see the insanity of the liberal ideology.
And eventually the competent convert will understand how to identify the thought patterns in themselves so well that they'll prevent themselves from doing it so unconsciously and even notice when the assertions of others who are in the liberal echo chamber, like when they are appealing to logical fallacies that liberalism as a mentality results in. I'll omit examples for now. Please ask and I'll demonstrate further what I mean. )
Bode Lang again :
Since these more traditional institutions were prevalent in the past and the world's problems still exist, there is a corelated hostility towards tradition.
Its often extreme distaste for 'ways of the past' is often the one of the most identifiable and obvious features of liberalism. This hostility towards the past propels the motivation for constant change.
Because there needs to be change to remove these old beliefs and install new ones, most notably through universal education.
But not only is its hypothesis unsupported by history it conveniently dismisses the potential for education to indoctrinate and corrupt minds with evil.
An educated man is just as susceptible if not more so to propaganda just as much as he is to the truth.
Which is why some of the most educated peoples and nations have still created the greatest evils.
Germany was one of most literate and educated nations of the 20th century but Hitler still rose to power.
Vladimir Lenin, Alger Hiss, Hassan Al-Banna, [Mao], etc. They were all very educated men. We see Isis and many of these terrorism organizations are compiled by many, some estimates more than half, of highly educated men.
But even so the liberal belief system isn't phased by these facts and so they often refuse to look directly at them.
After indoctrinating young minds with this belief system liberalism is actively recruiting young soldiers for its crusade against western civilization and the elimination of traditional customs because it has taught the young and the malleable that these customs are the causes of problems.
They thus have more bodies for protest and more support in the reform of all levels of government and policy in order to "equalize and offset" these great ills.
Thomas Sowell, now conservative economist, a consistently independent party individualist and former Marxist was interviewed by Fred Barnes about what I call 'philosophical liberalism' and 'philosophical conservatism'. In the interview he answered the two positions by comparison very succinctly.
Barnes : What is the liberal premise?
Sowell : I guess the 'Rousseau notion' y'know that man is born free but is everywhere in chains. But the real problem of the world is that the institutions are wrong. If the institutions were right then man-there's nothing in human nature that would cause us to be unhappy it's [only] the fact that we have the wrong institutions.
Barnes : What is the conservative premise?
Sowell : That man is flawed, from day one and that there are no solutions they're only trade-offs and that whatever you do to deal with one of man's flaws it creates another problem. But that you try to get the best trade-off you can get and that's all you can hope for.
The key is defined by
() my own thoughts
[] embellishment or grammar
Very juicy
Where can I listen to the full version of the outro song?
I think one interesting thing with the fish is that in a very very small way very surface level because I don't really buy the old Christianity is the the age of of the Pisces but on a certain level I do agree with there is a certain symbol of rebirth is in the Christian faith we do emphasize the idea of the new man that when you accept the holy Spirit into your heart that there is a rebirth that happens that the old part of you dies off and you're supposed to liken yourself to a new nature hence rebirth imagery I guess some would call this Christ consciousness but I do not like using that term because a lot of new age thinkers bastardize the concept into something that it's not
New T Shirts! : teespring.com/stores/memeanalysis
Patreon: www.patreon.com/MemeAnalysis
I read from Carl Jung's book Aion: archive.org/stream/collectedworksof92cgju/collectedworksof92cgju_djvu.txt
and Nietzsche's Will to Power: archive.org/details/FriedrichNietzscheTheWillToPower
If Christianity will not survive on its own than i will force it to survive, that is my promise to you.
It needs to adapt on modern words like it did to fit on pagan believes ,but it doesn't need to go to far into a totalitarian religion, or a cult
With what terrorism? Already been done my dude.
@@rajanick8218 Terrorism does nothing, i'm thinking of philosify to show these fellow "Christians" the truth about God so they ACTUALY FUCKING READ THE BOOK THEY ARE USING TO WORSHIP GOD RATHER THAN JUST LISTENING TO THE DAMN RADIO.
Where's the line between 'semiotic expression' and 'symbolism'?
Why is Christianity the greatest story ever told?
Ultimate damnation, ultimate evil, ultimate goodness, ultimate salvation
@@alfatejpblind6498 Does that make it the greatest?
@@wonderpeter5231 I don't know
@@wonderpeter5231 we're still talking about it over 2000 years later.
@@alioth2021 we've been talking about The Iliad, The Oddyssee and The Epic of Gilgamesh for much longer. Does that make those even greater?
The cross a symbol of suffering
Weird... Going to the mass nowdays is something "edgy".
You're a fucking scholar.
❤️
Am i supposed to be turned on by the machines?
Phishe symbol
ngl deus vult has kind of become a reddit/larper meme but I still understand the sympathy for a more militant/agressive form of christianity
You will become православни хришћанин 🔫😏☦️
My man needs to do a kosovo je srbija analysis
In hoc signo vinces
others or yourself?
Don’t forget to turn on ALL notifications everybody!! RUclips had me on personalized and I didn’t get notified for this video. Just switched it
Dominus vobiscum
New Gods eh? I wonder if any of them are things like Media, Techo Boy, or Za Waldo!
I dont follow or believe in any religions, I only live to honor the lord and his father's word
Hmmm meme analysis is usually good at dissection but I don’t believe he hit the bullseye, trying to say that Christianity is selling out and adding to much nietzche (I cannot spell his name for the life of me) it’s actually the complete opposite I’d say Christianity today is defending itself and also nietzche is such a defeatist it’s why his teachings always lead people to suicidal ideations. The man wasn’t that wise as people believe.
You dropped the ball on this one.
JOIN MY CHRISTIAN MINECRAFT SERVER
Sorry, unrelated, kek
One of the most Redpilled YT channels
Ortho gang
Dude this overlay at 1:48 is really bad, makes it very annoying to watch the video... Otherwise good content
Lol I'ma dm my homie this cross
I don't quite understand, but good video.
SQUAD
I feel like you've misrepresented science here. Math and physics are full of symbols and they describe the nature of reality.
Sicence isn't in itself a religion, but people can be dogmatic about it. I've had the thought before, "mathematics makes a great religion. Math exercises are like prayers and divine knowledge is given to us from the nature of reality itself." If it was a religion, it might be the best.
A plus sign is also a cross: a cross which quickly transcends you from counting on your fingers to adding huge numbers faster than you can ever count them. This act of adding is divine and magical on its own except it's real and it works every single time you use it. It's better than Christianity. It actually works.
Imaginary and negative numbers (i = sqrt -1) are products of the Faustian civilizational mind .and illustrate the non-universality and ultimately unreal nature of mathematics.
@Paraselene_Tao see, that's the issue with mathematics, it is inherently formulaic. It always works because it is based on God's universal laws, which He established upon creating the world. The physical world always conducts itself according to these laws, while the spiritual world has a completely different set of laws.
Jehovah God disapproves of memetic idolatry (this is a joke, I am an ex-JW).
I was with you until the "greatest story ever told" line, but I must politely disagree as Sonichu exists.
Sonichu is the book after Revelations.
I am a monument to all your sins
why not use Christian sources when attempting to explain Christian memetics?
Not a Christian
i still cant get over that you think that" psychedelics has no value at all if one has no dEeP knowledge of psychology" lol
keep tripping bro, see what it gets you
MemeAnalysis i trip once per year around Christmas. if you turn the experience into a ritual, taking for granted that you have continued to further your philosophical/psychological knowledge, it can be truly enlightening for those who are prone to routinization of perception/thought
Virgin Crusaders vs Chad Reconquista
CROSS = IDOL
DEUS VULT
So the current christianity is like the Jedi order. Due to them serving the Republic and not the force they ultimately destroy themselves. Just like christianity that try to attract the masses but forget what they stood for. ( am I correct or completely wrong)
You are highly misrepresenting Fredrick. Just like a hypocrite with a bible.
3000 yr old fantasy novel: exists
some guy: *i guess this happened*
*tips fedora*
This is such a shallow simplistic and absolutely senseless view of the world, to prevent yourself from aknowledging the reality that maybe there is indeed a God.
Daniel Azevedo and how would the existence of God prove christianity? If anything, it would prove that an objective divine force/energy was interpreted in varying ways by differing cultures (hence religions). No one is discounting the memetic power of the narrative or its utility in structuring one’s life to achieve happiness (as elaborated on by Rene Girard). Christianity is unique in its scapegoat mechanism, but all of this = / objective truth. Unless you want to argue that objective truth is what we perceive to be objective truth.. in which case, even more interesting questions arise
@@jamestheado6327 What I mean is that his reason for discounting the bible is a complete cop-out. There are ancient texts out there that were written as fiction, some argue that even some stories of the bible were written as fiction, but anyone who actually studies the bible in historical terms will very quickly realize that it was written and meant to be taken as a historical document, and not as a simple fable. I'm mostly against describing the bible as a fantasy novel, and any serious historian would back this up. Also, most of it's books were written by different authors and only compiled centuries after being written. I think it's extremely disingenuous to chalk a whole collection of books / actual historical documents by different authors as a simple fantasy novel
Daniel Azevedo any serious historian would also note the moderate amount of historical inaccuracies in the bible. Its overall historicity is remarkable, but not infallible.
Most of the old testament and gospel stories are akin to someone recounting WW2, but explaining the events in terms of of overlying mythology (like the Trojan War with Greek Gods). Imbuing historical events with added cultural meaning is probably inescapable, but its also important to note who those sources were and what their incentive structure was. Things verified via multiple cultural sources or archaeological evidence are substantiated, but to take more miraculous events at face value-substantiated only by christians-when taking into account human behavior/biology is naive.
Humanity does not need organized religion anymore
@Saint Michael Maybe bro, I know nothing
jesus simply wanted peace for his palestinian and jewish people from the roman oppressors. accidentally kickstarted the greatest religion in the world though
PRANK ON THE ROMANS (GOES WRONG) (GOES RELIGIOUS) (ACCIDENTALLY SENT THOUSANDS IN CRUSADES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS) (LMAO) (+18)
He definitely wanted more than that and the will of his earliest followers shouldn't be ignored either.
Pagang
Can you talk about random/arab funny? Thx
DEUS VULT