Christian Moral Hygiene

Mt. McLoughlin from Lower Table Rock.

It is common knowledge that Christianity encourages lying, gossiping and backbiting. I think this is a silly sacrament, and try to discourage it when I come into contact with the faithful. I also often feel sort of bad picking on the halfwits of Dalrock, but in this case, I’m honestly surprised at the stupidity of these particular contributors. It’s not that I expect better from scroungy Christians, but that these men have struck me as exceptions in the past.

Screen Shot 2019-05-29 at 20.41.32

The problem with this childish argument is that “innocent” is subjective and impossible to define. Thus we see scum on Dalrock constantly making up wild, sexually-charged accusations against all and sundry, with no basis in fact. Jesus approves of such stuff, we’re sure, since the target-du-jour is “evil” for winning an argument against the webmaster, or some other shit.

When someone wins an argument against Dalrock, Cane Caldo, or one of the other scroungers, that someone is not “innocent,” and all bets are off.

Screen Shot 2019-05-29 at 20.42.05

This is really some next-level sophistry. I’m all for a symbolic read of the more far-out sections of the Bible (virgin birth, transubstantiation, etc,) as it’s asking a lot for a grown man to take some of it at face-value; but, do you really believe that “thou shalt not lie” means deceiving people is cool, provided it’s done outside the courtroom? Fuck’n lol.

As an unbeliever, I find the most valuable parts of the Bible are the practical suggestions about living a clean life, behaving oneself, and getting along with his neighbor. Trying to redefine dishonesty into something so formal that most of us only have the opportunity to do it a few times in our lives is breaking the text.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

11 thoughts on “Christian Moral Hygiene”

  1. but, do you really believe that “thou shalt not lie” means deceiving people is cool, provided it’s done outside the courtroom?

    When Moses got the commandments from God…I didn’t see anything that stated ‘thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, unless it’s outside a court of law’. I also didn’t see Jesus command ‘love one another as I have loved you, when you are in a court of law’.

  2. “This is really some next-level sophistry….I find the most valuable parts of the Bible are the practical suggestions about living a clean life, behaving oneself, and getting along with his neighbor.”

    Such absolutist, legalistic thinking is typical of the bureaucratic, cult-religious, and political. Consider Artisanal Toad’s exegetical philosophy: anything not explicitly militated against is completely fine (e.g. male-male sex is death-penalty wrong, but female-female sex is totally cool and exciting).

    TheDeti—normally a consistently sensible voice at Dalrock—is falling into that same trap. Even if the commandment is in the legal context, it does not preclude applicability to non-legal contexts. Indeed, if you read the Bible, OT or NT, this is the obvious conclusion.

    I read critically. I value the practical suggestions—the wisdom. I don’t blindly accept everything at merely the apparent face value, I look at what is meant. The underlying precept of the commandment is that lying is damaging. If it is damaging in a court of law, it is also damaging outside the court.

    The legal code applies moral concepts to a legal context and not the other way around.

  3. Dear Derek:

    Thanks for the first-rate articles on child-murder, of late. I’m so busy as to appear to be absent, but I’ve really enjoyed them.

    Such absolutist, legalistic thinking is typical of the bureaucratic, cult-religious, and political. Consider Artisanal Toad’s exegetical philosophy: anything not explicitly militated against is completely fine (e.g. male-male sex is death-penalty wrong, but female-female sex is totally cool and exciting).

    I always thought my nigga AT was indulging in a bit of Freudian wish-fulfillment with his pro-bulldagger rhetoric. He’s clearly got some sort of weird paraphilia going on involving group sex with dykes. I have no problem with such stuff, provided everyone is of age to participate consensually, but it’s sorta silly to pretend the Bible prescribes it.

    The legal code applies moral concepts to a legal context and not the other way around.

    A a brilliant guy named Joel Feinberg wrote a paper entitled “Moral Limits in Criminal Law,” which agrees with your take. The following book is not by Feinberg, but touches on the same territory in a number of different places, and is suitable for laymen.

    https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9461.html

  4. King David .. said in his haste all men liars .. I believe he could’ve taken his time and still come to the same conclusion.

    Frankly .. all humans want to be lied to .. it’s just a slippery slope of rational-lies from there to exempt oneself from the behavior.

    The bible clearly states .. the tongue is an unruly evil .. who can restrain it .. hence why 3 men witnesses were necessary from the OT times.

    Nothing on Dal-Clown-World-Rock surprises me anymore. Nothing.

  5. Maybe .. just maybe .. we should focus on the “un-rehersed” moments in life ..

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7094061/Televangelist-Kenneth-Copeland-Inside-Edition-interview-defends-using-THREE-private-jets.html

    I mean .. as a pilot .. I can attest to the “demonic environment” (sic) onboard themz commercial aero-planez .. bwhaaaaaa .. reminds me of another equally bad (acting) thing on planes .. [1]

    Wild eyed televangelist Kenneth Copeland appears unhinged in interview where he defends his $760million fortune and says he needs to use THREE private jets because ‘demonic environment on commercial flights are not good for a preacher’

    Case in point ..

    Who is sending these idiots money?! /S

    [1] .. https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/9cbq4Hr30cQJ22fIjFdkE33vZzQ=/960×0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/2Y6LKXPREQ75HPHFLFBTHYF7UQ.jpg

  6. As someone who does a decent amount of air travel, I have to agree with Kenneth Copeland, at least when it comes to flying in coach. That’s why I almost always fly first class or using one of those Uber for private jets apps.

    Flying in coach can be especially bad during the summer or the holidays when families with kids are flying. The last time I flew in coach was many years ago, and there were lots of kids crying and causing problems. It was extremely “demonic” just like Kenneth Copeland says. That’s when I realized that saving a buck flying coach was not worth it.

    I’m sure Kenneth Copeland is a liar and fraud everywhere else, but when it comes to air travel, he is just being sensible.

  7. Off-topic but relevant.

    For those who say you can’t win an argument with Cane Caldo, I beg to differ. I did it with just one comment. Peruse comments by me, and Cane Caldo, in this thread (there aren’t many).

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/sex-sells/#comment-328073

    1) To further the point about the absence of female excellence even in cognitive sports. I provided the examples of Chess and Scrabble. In both cases, under 2% of the Top-100 are women. So far, so good.
    2) To my admitted surprise, a *lot* of the top scrabble players are men from African countries (Nigeria, Kenya, etc.). This tends to throw a wrench in the belief of White Nationalists that Africans have sub-human IQ. Apparently, this does not apply to verbal skills like Scrabble (which does contain a small bit of arithmetic as well).
    3) A drive-by White Nationalist refutes this without any real explanation other than ‘but blacks have low IQ, which means white women will always outperform black men’, despite the list of Scrabble champions already linked. I refute that White Nationalist in response.
    4) Then Cane Caldo, out of nowhere, jumps in, and accuses me of some ‘off topic’ rant against race nationalism, even though I was just responding to another White Nationalist. Now comes the good part.
    5) I correct Cane Caldo, and explain why he is drifting into White Nationalism, despite many aspects of it being diametrically opposed to anti-misandry.
    6) He fails to respond, since he was hoping others would jump in on his side. None did.
    7) THEN, three days later, he comes by with some passive-aggressive drive-by where he accuses anyone who proved him wrong of being a ‘Libertarian’. Note that ‘Libertarian’ is an insult only to leftists, not to anti-misandry people (who correctly realize that big government is the source of most ‘feminism’). He has no idea how loudly be broadcasted his butthurt and his defeat. Check it out for yourself.

    It is unsurprising that Cane Caldo is devolving into White Trashionalism. Anti-misandry requires far greater cognitive and moral heft than race trashionalism (which is just a form of ‘muh tribe! muh tribe!’ ooga booga chants). His dislike of Lyn87 was racially driven, as was his dislike for Boxer (i.e. a white man who likes black women is a heathen in the view of the White Nationalist).

    Anyway, I think Boxer would find this amusing.

Comments are closed.