Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

People often assume that whoever their god is, that it is standing with them specifically. In the US, they often separate this view along party lines.

Conservatives to some extent imagine Jesus standing with them on the border with a rifle protecting Christendom against anarchy. Even if many of those immigrants are ::checks notes:: also Christians. If a "woke" bishop calls for compassion on immigrants and is not a fan of the twice-divorced President who can't name his favorite bible chapter and forgot to put his hand on the bible when being sworn in, she's somehow the baddie rather than him, even among Christians.

Progressives to some extent imagine Jesus walking around in Gaza or Haiti or Sudan attending to the least advantaged among us. He shuns the empire and tends to them. And yet, while Jesus called for pacifism and was a rhetorical saint among chill speakers, many of them find a way to mentally turn extremists into heroes. Anything the underdog society does against the dominant society is justified. Even if it's violent toward civilians. In our media rebels are cool, but in reality they often like to kill the gays or the civilians, so it gets awkward pretty fast rather than being like the cool Star Wars rebels vs the Empire.

I find myself in a weird camp that almost nobody is onboard with.

I'm like, "Yes, we actually need to secure our borders. We need to be more scrutinizing for our society's sake. We need slower, higher-end immigration. And we actually need to enforce the rule of law for theft on the streets."

But also,

"No, I don't think Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in text would be onboard with this border view. He'd view us like Rome. Let's not re-imagine him as onboard with this. We're rooting for ourselves; he'd root for the underdogs."

I'm too woke for the conservatives and too based for the progressives.

The US was involved with multiple coups in Latin America. We ran the reserve currency and tried to bend them to our will with their dollar-denominated debt 40 years ago by spiking the value of that debt. Some of them went into retarded socialism and rekt themselves throughout that time period too; it's not all our fault. But it's some of our fault.

And then we militarily entered the Middle East. We made deals with them, funded them against the Soviets, and then turned against them. We've invaded them at like a 100:1 ratio vs them invading us with one major incidence (9/11). And as much as I am a fan of Jews as a people (as someone who grew up in Northeastern USA where Jews are relatively dense, I'd happily have them settle all around here), Israel is a state is colonial; our western powers displaced Gazans to make it and have been fighting that reality ever since.

We're Rome. And like Rome, we think we are justified. And along those lines, we're probably partially right, and probably partially wrong.

When you take a view, imagine every possible view opposing it.

And as the US dominates as neo-Rome, I think we will realize how distant we are from Jesus the hippie.

Okay, I found it interesting, as I know it's not true but still, I love to think that Mahadev (a Hindu God) with his Trishul (an ancient weapon) is protecting me and my family when I hear a news of some communal clash, basically Hindu-Muslim riot, or perhaps a news of some innocent teen girl getting raped and killed. But at that same time, I am also like "Hey girl, save your own ass, Mahadev gave away his Trishul long ago!" Every time I go somewhere, specially after evening, and alone, I wish there is a strict,reliable police man standing nearby as I realize that I am not capable enough to save myself if something bad happens to me. But at the same time, I remember all the atrocities done by the Police personals in CAA protest and I am like "okay... may be just a having a peeper spray or keeping my phone camera ready would be a better option!"

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Krishna told Arjun that he must fight. And in the same way we got to act. But we must not be attached to the results, since the merit belongs to God. He told Arjun to focus his mind on him wile doing all the work. Same way Catholic intelectual GK Chesterton, said that our problem is not lack of modesty. But that we became modest with our convictions, and arrogant about ourselves and our own capabilities. When the man for himself is enough, he do not have the need to improve himself, to become better. So, we see nowadays a world of fragile, insecure people, who have no convictions, but got to show something to the others. In this context of world, I like to call modernity, I saw a video wich argues "aesthetics beat arguments" and makes total sense since people are focused on show something to others and that the others perceive then by the group aesthetics (colllectivism). As a libertarian I understand this feeling of being caught between crossfire, and think that things will only change, if we manage to put God and transcendency in first place. The Bible says to "look for God things first, and everything else will be added to your life". It is indeed very difficult acomplishing this, but must be the way...

Wow, that's really deep... šŸ™ but I still have some uncertainties... Like while deciding what to do and what not to do, we imagine the possible outcome of the action and based on that imagination, we decide whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to do. At least I do that all the time. So when Krishna says that don't worry about the result, I get confused, because if I don't think about the result than how am I supposed to know if the thing I am going to do would be good thing or not?

Most of the time either a possibility of getting rewarded or getting satisfactied is what empowers me to do all the required things. How can I get that motivation if I don't think about the result at first place?

"When the man for himself is enough, he do not have the need to improve himself, to become better." - that part is kind of confusing to me.

If we thing we are good enough, why would we become any better? So Chesterton says that tha man must doubt of his own capabilities, be modest about them...so in this way he will deliver his best, because he knows: what he intends to realize is not certain by his own capabilities...The man who thinks he is capable of everything, becomes useless, degenerate himself because he stop to try...he becomes demotivated, nut also, insecure...its a reflex of our time, when people start believing in things like "science is more important than philosopy or tradition" or "tradition ia not important at all"...these people deny the condition of existence of what they say they believe...I think it is something on this way

This question is very tricky indeed, is also kind a doubt for me, I am/was reading Bhagad Gita with comentaries of Paramahansa Vishwananda, and eventually it pops out for me too...My personal answer for this concern is that there is a ultimate goal and an ultimate result that is God...So we should keep this in mind as the intended result of our actions, by focusing our mind on Him, it could be praying, shanting mantra, remembering images, whatever...in this way things should make sense...But of course we are not saints, there should be a long way (or not) to get there, because the plenty of this state should only be achieved by God's Grace, and by our efforts, we could only give our tries to surrender the results of our efforts to Him, we will rise and fall until the moment comes and we attain His Grace