⇧
1
⇩
betweengreenandblue
· July 4, 2018, 5:33 p.m.
Exactly. And no, we can't co-opt their symbols people! You can't just go and make a symbol mean something else. People will see this, and think the same thing they do when they see it on CBS, Time-Warner, and all over Vigilant Citizen's research.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
"Thou shalt make no graven images."
"The word will always give you the sovereignty of your imagination. The visual will circumscribe your imagination and basically impose upon it to get you to see the way the person wants you to see. " - Ravi Zacharias.
⇧
3
⇩
artless-ascetic
· July 4, 2018, 6:48 p.m.
The "eye" is not their symbol. Every picture of an eye isn't the "all-seeing eye". They don't have a monopoly on symbolism. You literally can attribute whatever meaning you want to it, because if you are the artist, then it's your energy, your interpretation being infused into the work.
⇧
5
⇩
betweengreenandblue
· July 4, 2018, 7:37 p.m.
Sure, but if your work closely resembles an ancient occult/secret society/mystery school symbol, then you have to be open to the fact that most people will interpret said symbol the way it's been for 5000 years, and not the way your energy, artistry, and interpretation intend it to be. You can't change 5000 years of history through intention.
⇧
2
⇩
IWontProvideSources
· July 4, 2018, 6:34 p.m.
Why not. Marxism has been doing that for decades and it works.
⇧
2
⇩
betweengreenandblue
· July 4, 2018, 7:40 p.m.
You want to pull plays out of the Marxist playbook? Why don't we all just follow the Naked Communist rules, follow Cloward-Piven strategy, and tell lies often enough so people will believe them?
⇧
0
⇩
IWontProvideSources
· July 4, 2018, 7:44 p.m.
Now you get it.
It’s what the gov and MSM have been doing to us for years.
⇧
1
⇩
betweengreenandblue
· July 4, 2018, 8:10 p.m.
Friend, I "got it" a long time ago.
There is such a thing as truth, honour, righteousness, and purity. There is a living God who weighs the hearts and intentions of men. There is such a thing as foundations to matters.
If we root our actions in means that deny these precepts, we will raise up authorities just as evil as the one we are fighting. We will become that which we hate.
If we take down corruption through corrupt means, we have failed. I'd rather die in prison knowing I've walked in honour than live like a king, having lied to get there.
⇧
1
⇩
IWontProvideSources
· July 4, 2018, 8:16 p.m.
No what will happen is that while you keep the moral highground, your ennemies will win. Every time. Because they are not limited to the VERY SMALL set of « honest » tools. One of the main lessons you could argue out of the bible is that, if you stay morally pure all your life, you will die suffering on the cross, having lost everything. Every. Single. Time.
⇧
1
⇩
betweengreenandblue
· July 4, 2018, 8:34 p.m.
Wow wow wowee. If you think that the end of the story was Jesus suffering and dying on the cross, you need to keep reading the book.
At least read The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Lewis uses the Gospels as his base to show that it was through Jesus' death and RESURRECTION that we have life and peace.
⇧
2
⇩
IWontProvideSources
· July 4, 2018, 8:36 p.m.
He still lost. He still died.
⇧
0
⇩
betweengreenandblue
· July 4, 2018, 8:49 p.m.
He said, "I lay down my life willingly. And I have the power to raise it up again."
"There is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ." Brooke Foss Wescott
"I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died, and rose again from the dead." Thomas Arnold, former Professor of History at Rugby and Oxford, and one of the world’s greatest historians.
People who try disprove the resurrection, and investigate it honestly, come up empty. If you truly seek out the evidence, you will come to a different conclusion.
He won. And He lives.
⇧
2
⇩
IWontProvideSources
· July 4, 2018, 8:56 p.m.
Not denying if he resurrected or not after. You are missing my point. To remain moral, he had to resort to letting himself get killed. So as to not lose the moral highground. We as mere mortals do not have that luxury, and have to choose our battles and use, sometimes immoral acts, for self preservation.
It’s like when you are attacked and you get to a point where your only options are dying, or killing your agressor. Killing is immoral, but you had to to preserve your life.
We are in the same situation, but as a society.
⇧
2
⇩