The Postwar Consensus is why evil is tolerated

[lifepsyop]

I've been trying to distill the reigning postwar ideology down into simple explanations:


We have an alternative code of morality that has been allowed to flourish for the last 60+ years.

The only truly unpardonable sin of this new moral system is "racism". As long as you're not being "racist", then you're basically okay and will be tolerated.

The only true form of blasphemy is to use a particular racial slur. No other forms of blasphemy exist. You can say practically anything else. All sense of "true evil" has been loaded into this one particular part of speech.

For example:
Why is pornography mass produced and saturated throughout society?

Because pornographers aren't racists. A lot of us don't like pornography, but we accept it as part of a society that values peoples' freedom to do what they want.

Before the Postwar Consensus, pornography was recognized as an extreme source of immorality and was simply not openly tolerated in society.

For another example:
Why is violent crime allowed to run unchecked throughout our cities? Because a severe crackdown on violent crime would be racist.

Before the Postwar Consensus, the kind of violent crime we see happening daily would have been met with immediate and harsh retribution.

Crime is still bad, and frowned upon, but it is generally tolerated as a part of living in a pluralistic society. However, a racial "hate-crime" (i.e. white on black violence), would not be tolerated for a moment. All the institutional gears of society would immediately begin turning to bring the harshest punishment upon the perpetrator.


The explanation for this is that our moral 'lexicon' of good and evil has been uprooted from a more traditional, Biblical landscape, and replaced with the Postwar Consensus that came into being in 1945, was ascendant in the 1960's, but really became solidified as Totalitarian ideology in the 1990s.


Regarding Christianity.... known practicing homosexuals could sit comfortably in most churches in America. Tolerance would be preached. "Jesus ate with sinners"...

However, try having a known "racist" come into your church and you will suddenly find yourself in a church reminiscent of the middle ages, with the church leadership ready to immediately cast out and excommunicate the evildoer and blaspheming racist.


So, all manner of traditional concepts of evil are allowed to flourish openly because our senses for seeing and responding evil have been compressed into this one small area we call 'racism'.

Does anyone doubt this or question it? Please discuss.

Thanks for reading.



Also, there was an excellent video made related to this topic, by Jonathan Pageau at Symbolic World.

"Th World War 2 Consensus is Breaking Down"

 

[Richard T]

The post war consensus is globalism. But to be global you can't be racist. Universal human rights are still in vogue, lots of conformity to the NWO is best to not be punished. It may seem to be breaking apart, but it remains to be seen if Trump's departure from this path, will be prosperous or will fail leading to even more globalism.

 

[lifepsyop]

The post war consensus is globalism. But to be global you can't be racist. Universal human rights are still in vogue, lots of conformity to the NWO is best to not be punished.

for sure... the liberal world order desires a single interchangeable "universal person" that has been stripped of all particularity. (sex, race/ethnicity, nation, tradition)

It may seem to be breaking apart, but it remains to be seen if Trump's departure from this path, will be prosperous or will fail leading to even more globalism.

i think it is breaking apart regardless, and will be happening long after Trump, but he and Vance certainly have an opportunity to make the transition more peaceful instead of cracking down on it.

Vance has definitely shown strong sympathy with those rejecting the postwar consensus, in that he emphasizes that Americans are an actual particular people, and America is not just a universal abstract idea of freedom and liberty, etc.

 

[PloverWing]

Does anyone doubt this or question it? Please discuss.

I agree that cultures change over time, and that different cultures can make different judgments about which actions are morally acceptable, which actions are minor sins, and which are major sins. (I disagree with some of your specifics -- for example, murder was illegal a century ago, and it's still illegal now -- but I'll agree that there have been some cultural shifts in the last century.)

I don't, however, follow the argument you're making about racism. You seem to be saying that it's bad to oppose racism; that if only we could be more tolerant of racism, society would be much better -- there'd be less pornography, and so forth. But that doesn't make sense to me.

Or maybe you're saying that racism is bad, but that we're focused so much on that one sin that we forget about the others?

Please clarify your argument for me.

 

[lifepsyop]

I agree that cultures change over time, and that different cultures can make different judgments about which actions are morally acceptable, which actions are minor sins, and which are major sins. (I disagree with some of your specifics -- for example, murder was illegal a century ago, and it's still illegal now -- but I'll agree that there have been some cultural shifts in the last century.)

murder and violent crime in general is dealt with far more leniently than it was a century ago. many of the wicked acts that occur routinely now, captured on video, would have had you swinging from a rope not too long ago. today sometimes the perpetrators are out walking free again within a few years, if they're locked up at all.

put simply, we live in a time where the evildoer has very little fear of the sword of justice.

I don't, however, follow the argument you're making about racism. You seem to be saying that it's bad to oppose racism; that if only we could be more tolerant of racism, society would be much better -- there'd be less pornography, and so forth. But that doesn't make sense to me.

Do you think it is only a coincidence that license to sexual immorality rose in tandem with peoples' obsession with anti-racism ?
It's possible it's only a coincidence, but do you believe that?

Why did all sorts of social behaviors that would have been shunned from open society for the last thousand years, suddenly become tolerable after the 1950's?

You may have your own argument for this, but I think what makes most sense is that peoples' framing of morality changed. Importantly, peoples' consciences still needed a Good/Evil framework, but the identification of Evil was now satisfied with perpetration of racism. The devil came to be associated with the specter of "white supremacy".

This part is really important I think. You could try and blame all this moral loosening on some vague notion of a rise of liberalism in society after WW2, but certain things, particular the subject of race, did not move in the same liberal direction. Instead of people being more free and open to talk about race, it became extremely strict and heretical to deviate even slightly on acceptable opinions, backed by the force of law.

So just saying "people became more liberal in everything" doesn't cut it. The better explanation is that people became more liberal in many things because they had a new bogeyman/scapegoat to associate with Evil. If all the Evil people are over there (in the racism camp)... it makes one feel like they have a lot more license to this or that deviant behavior.

The resultant framing was eventually something like this "yea, I may be a thief, drug addict and a pornographer, but at least I'm not a racist." That sentiment is undoubtedly still upheld today (or was until very recently)... The other things may be 'bad' but they aren't truly 'evil' like racism supposedly is.

I suddenly recall some video recordings of interviews with the cult leader/murderer Charles Manson... as he spoke casually about killing people, you could see him become visibly agitated about the suggestion that he might be at all racist. Even a mass murderer understood that there was now a much worse form of evil he did not wish to be associated with.

So yea, with this moral frameshift, many things we considered intolerable in society became tolerable, e.g. mass pornography.

Hope that helps it make more sense to you, but feel free to offer a counterargument otherwise.

Or maybe you're saying that racism is bad, but that we're focused so much on that one sin that we forget about the others?

Please clarify your argument for me.

it depends what you mean by racism. Hating other races/ethnicities of people, or excluding them from the Gospel, is certainly sinful.

Noticing differences/strengths/weaknesses/benefits/problems based on race is certainly *not* sinful.... and was not considered sinful at all by the church until perhaps the end of the 20th century, where Christian influencers began claiming to even notice these things was evil.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It is nice to see the postwar consensus as having less and less power each year.

 

[PloverWing]

Do you think it is only a coincidence that license to sexual immorality rose in tandem with peoples' obsession with anti-racism ?
It's possible it's only a coincidence, but do you believe that?

I think that some of it is coincidence, and some of it is related.


The coincidence part: American culture seems to swing back and forth between being more reserved and being more free. The "Roaring Twenties" and the Sixties were both times when the pendulum swung towards sexual freedom. It's probably coincidence that this pendulum swing happened at the same time as the civil rights movement.

I'll note that men have been seeking out prostitutes and taking second wives and concubines since ancient times. Non-monogamy didn't begin in the 20th century.

I'll also note that before Internet porn, there were photographs of nudes and painted nudes and sculptures of nudes. The Internet just provides technology.


The it's-related part: In the last half century or so, we saw several formerly-oppressed groups pushing for, and winning, civil rights. In the US, this was Black Americans, and women, and gay people. Overseas, African and Asian countries won their independence from various empires. Each of these is a slightly different situation, but there is a common ethical theme. In this way, the realizations that we should treat Black people like people, and women like people, and gay people like people, and non-Americans like people are all related.

Insofar as some of these categories are related to gender and sexuality, that's one link that fits your theory.

it depends what you mean by racism. Hating other races/ethnicities of people, or excluding them from the Gospel, is certainly sinful.

Noticing differences/strengths/weaknesses/benefits/problems based on race is certainly *not* sinful.... and was not considered sinful at all by the church until perhaps the end of the 20th century, where Christian influencers began claiming to even notice these things was evil.

Noticing that some people sunburn more easily than others is not sinful. Beyond that, the belief that some groups of people are innately smarter or stupider or more violent or whatever on account of their skin color can result in sinful actions.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

.




Noticing that some people sunburn more easily than others is not sinful. Beyond that, the belief that some groups of people are innately smarter or stupider or more violent or whatever on account of their skin color can result in sinful actions.

Do you not believe genetic predispositions exist?

 

[PloverWing]

Do you not believe genetic predispositions exist?

There are genes for things like height and hair color, and those are passed parent to child. Some talents and personality traits seem to be passed from parent to child as well.

There are also genetic predispositions toward behaviors common to most humans: the ability to learn language, the ability to make and use tools, etc.

But if you start talking about personality traits of Italians as a group, or Canadians as a group, etc., then no, I don't think there's a significant genetic component. Culture, yes; humans are social, and we pick up behavior patterns from each other. Genetics, no.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There are genes for things like height and hair color, and those are passed parent to child. Some talents and personality traits seem to be passed from parent to child as well.

There are also genetic predispositions toward behaviors common to most humans: the ability to learn language, the ability to make and use tools, etc.

But if you start talking about personality traits of Italians as a group, or Canadians as a group, etc., then no, I don't think there's a significant genetic component. Culture, yes; humans are social, and we pick up behavior patterns from each other. Genetics, no.

There are no genetic factors to our behavior?

 

[PloverWing]

There are no genetic factors to our behavior?

Why do you ask this? I said that "Some talents and personality traits seem to be passed from parent to child" and "There are also genetic predispositions toward behaviors common to most humans: the ability to learn language, the ability to make and use tools, etc." What are you disagreeing with?

 

[lifepsyop]

I think that some of it is coincidence, and some of it is related.

The coincidence part: American culture seems to swing back and forth between being more reserved and being more free. The "Roaring Twenties" and the Sixties were both times when the pendulum swung towards sexual freedom. It's probably coincidence that this pendulum swing happened at the same time as the civil rights movement.

I'll note that men have been seeking out prostitutes and taking second wives and concubines since ancient times. Non-monogamy didn't begin in the 20th century.

I'll also note that before Internet porn, there were photographs of nudes and painted nudes and sculptures of nudes. The Internet just provides technology.

Yes, but degenerate behavior tended to be shunned from 'polite society'. It is now practiced openly and unashamedly. Big difference.

The it's-related part: In the last half century or so, we saw several formerly-oppressed groups pushing for, and winning, civil rights. In the US, this was Black Americans, and women, and gay people. Overseas, African and Asian countries won their independence from various empires. Each of these is a slightly different situation, but there is a common ethical theme. In this way, the realizations that we should treat Black people like people, and women like people, and gay people like people, and non-Americans like people are all related.

Insofar as some of these categories are related to gender and sexuality, that's one link that fits your theory.

I would say the "Civil Rights Regime" definitely plays a central role in the Postwar Consensus. Though I wouldn't agree with your characterization of it. Women are more objectified as sexual objects post-civil rights than probably anytime in history. Homosexuality is an abomination that should never have been accepted, much less celebrated and enforced. And how are black people doing these days?

Noticing that some people sunburn more easily than others is not sinful. Beyond that, the belief that some groups of people are innately smarter or stupider or more violent or whatever on account of their skin color can result in sinful actions.

The belief that all peoples are 100% identical in their attributes (besides skin color) is a pretty radical commitment to unreality. (it's something akin to believing that all dog breeds have exactly the same behaviors).. I have trouble believing that you actually believe that, but maybe it's because you think it would be a sin if you thought otherwise?

I would say that is a perfect representation of the way Postwar Consensus has reshaped our morality. We are more concerned with the slightest hint of racial awareness than we are of rank sin that overflows in our present society.

Noticing that people groups are different does not mean you hate them. Paul had no problem calling out an entire ethnic group (Cretans) as having a propensity to lie. People who live in distinct cultures for centuries or millenia, develop distinct genetic patterns and distinct patterns of behavior. That's just how life works.

 

[stevevw]

We know that we can trace critical race theory to academics coming out of Uni around the 70's and 80s. Which came off the back of the womens movement of the 70s and the civil rights movement ofthe 60s. As well as the sexual revolution around the same time. Which fed into the critical theories like race and queer theory. We see the works of mostly feminist authors which led into the institutions in the 90's.

But I think there is something to a buildup to these revolutions after the 2nd WW. There was peace, celebration and a brave new world. This was the time the world came together to create the UN Human Rights Charter and treaties. Which soon included political and civil rights.

This I think began the idea of rights based politics and activism that brought the revolutions. I think out of this came a sort of humanist ideology that humans could be the gods of what was moral and the measure was human rights according to a world body that determined what was right and wrong based on human determinations. Which became more political as any world body will.

This was opposed to previously for most of our history basing human worth on being created in Gods image with natural born rights.

Race was the dominant civil rights revolution. But also sex, sexual orientation and in more recent years gender. Along with race these are the new identity markers by which we measure morality. But I agree race is still predominant. These are the new social norms and morals that are putting pressure on the church to conform.

Prior to the revolutions I think the social norms were more aligned with Christian morals. But in the later part of the 20th century and especially post year 2000 society have moved away from God and the new social morals and norms conflict with Christian morals now. What society once thought was sin is now an accpetable way of life or being.

Basically I think the emphasis and priority of what is moral has to conform and align with human ideas and expressions of what is good according to feeling and experiences of good about self in the world. Whereas Christians its about living according to Gods law and order and will beyond this world. Two different ideas about morality and reality for that matter. Pardon the pun.

So in a way it is playing out exactly as the bible says. The worlds desires are opposed to Christs spirit. The two cannot live in the same body or temple of worship. You either worshop God or worship the flesh and the world. The two will come into conflict more and more.

 

[lifepsyop]

We know that we can trace critical race theory to academics coming out of Uni around the 70's and 80s. Which came off the back of the womens movement of the 70s and the civil rights movement ofthe 60s. As well as the sexual revolution around the same time. Which fed into the critical theories like race and queer theory. We see the works of mostly feminist authors which led into the institutions in the 90's.

yea Feminism is also at the core of this... I think the new moral order / civil rights-regime is essentially led by women, and effeminate men trying to stay in their good graces.

Race was the dominant civil rights revolution. But also sex, sexual orientation and in more recent years gender. Along with race these are the new identity markers by which we measure morality. But I agree race is still predominant. These are the new social norms and morals that are putting pressure on the church to conform.

yes, and I would say the church generally has conformed to that new morality. traditional sin (sexual immorality, atheism, murder, etc.) is typically regarded as just the natural byproduct of a fallen world, something we all just need to get used to living around because we're all sinful creatures. Pastors will say that we just need to keep trying to reach peoples' hearts with the Gospel, in order to help them turn away from those sins.

but when it comes to "racism", it's something totally different... it's like an intolerable evil super-sin and anyone perceived guilty of it must be excommunicated/punished as the worst form of heretic.

I guess this is because the church feels the secular/liberal wind in their sails, that this is one of the only "sins" that they are actually allowed to show intolerance for...

but the contrast with how they react to all other sins in society shows how much they've surrendered to the new morality

 

[stevevw]

yea Feminism is also at the core of this... I think the new moral order / civil rights-regime is essentially led by women, and effeminate men trying to stay in their good graces.

Yes in some ways this is correct. Feminism basically is less confrontational, more inclusive, easy going and egalitarian. This ideology has widespread appeal and has spread to all identities and not just race. If there is one moral imperative its egalitarianism where all identities are realities in the world and have equal rights to exist.

Which makes identity the god over all else including God moral law and His nature (reality itself). A social construction that becomes the worldview which is how society and the world is ordered.

yes, and I would say the church generally has conformed to that new morality. traditional sin (sexual immorality, atheism, murder, etc.) is typically regarded as just the natural byproduct of a fallen world, something we all just need to get used to living around because we're all sinful creatures. Pastors will say that we just need to keep trying to reach peoples' hearts with the Gospel, in order to help them turn away from those sins.

There is a lot of pressure for the church to conform to social norms and ideology. Because its not as if at least on the surface that the world is being cruel or doing anything wrong. They offer what they call an inclusive and loving ideology the church will accept all.

In doing so to then tell people they must repent and stop a lifestyle of sinning would be a contradition to the all inclusive love and acceptance of those identities and the lifestyles that uphold them.

They get the first part right of love and inclusion but then forget the other part where we are not of the world and need to repent of it. Thats why the wolves can enter the church in sheeps clothing because the ideology looks and sounds similar.

but when it comes to "racism", it's something totally different... it's like an intolerable evil super-sin and anyone perceived guilty of it must be excommunicated/punished as the worst form of heretic.

Yes its been a blemmish in our history and is imprinted into our psyche. Or maybe passed down and kept alive. But I think we as a society have become less racist. Its the keeping of the evil alive by making out its more extreme and invasive than it is. Its seeing race when there is no need to do so that then makes it racism itself. Except this time its the other way around.

It use to be that though there was racism we were blind to race. I think it was more about envy, and plain old bigotry for indifference. But we never fixated so much on race. Now it has been pushed into societies psyche and people want to keep the evil alive by making out everyone is racist and racism is happening when its not. In doing so are being racist themselves.

So really the sin is making the color of peoples skin an issue in the name of morality when we should be seeing others as made in His iamge regardless of race, sex or gender.

Its a deceptive ploy in creating a new moral landscape based on racial identity as the measure. Its easy to then attach the same ideology to sex and gender or any identity that is subjectively percieved to be a real identity and victim.

When it becomes victims the sinners are anyone outside this identity group based also on their race, sex or gender and deemed as the sinning identities ie white, male and gender norm or binary or just plain man and women.

I guess this is because the church feels the secular/liberal wind in their sails, that this is one of the only "sins" that they are actually allowed to show intolerance for...

I think in some ways its more about creating a equal (equity), diverse and inclusive kingdom on earth than in heaven. Its all about critical social justice now. By creating an earthy community that shows all the signs of what they consider Christlike. Justice, equality, inclusion, feeling good and happy about life, achieving self fullfillment as the measure of goodness.

These all sound good but this is not Gods kingdom. Its a mimmick that looks and sounds good. Its attractive to society as a whole so the church remains relevant and they can then claim they are doing good because society agrees and welcomes them.

As opposed to the hateful and intolerant churches who insist that they are sinning and must repent. I think in this day and age if people truely stood with Christ then that church would be hated and attacked for not going along with these secular ideologies. They would be calling out sin in society which is basically what society thinks is not sin and is good.

but the contrast with how they react to all other sins in society shows how much they've surrendered to the new morality

I have always believed that if a church is truely of Christ especially in this day and age of anti God then that church should be persecuted and not loved. We know that society is more anti God and Christ today than say 70 years ago when we believed adultery was still a sin for our social norms.

So it stands to rewason if we stand on the same beliefs and morals its going to conflict with society. A church like this will either have to keep quiet in todays culture. Because if they stand up and make a noise they will attract conflict and attacks on them.

 

[PloverWing]

I would say the "Civil Rights Regime" definitely plays a central role in the Postwar Consensus. Though I wouldn't agree with your characterization of it. Women are more objectified as sexual objects post-civil rights than probably anytime in history. Homosexuality is an abomination that should never have been accepted, much less celebrated and enforced. And how are black people doing these days?

We see stories in the Old Testament of women being given to men as prizes or rewards or war plunder, the way one might give someone a cow or an acre of land. The OT isn't endorsing this behavior, just reporting it as part of its histories, but this does give us a picture of some aspects of Bronze Age culture. I think women have been seen as objects for a very long time.

The morality or immorality of homosexuality can't be discussed in Christian Forums.

Black Americans are doing better now than when it was legal to enslave them or to bar them from certain schools and jobs and neighborhoods. Not everything can be healed instantly, but legal protections are a start.

The belief that all peoples are 100% identical in their attributes (besides skin color) is a pretty radical commitment to unreality. (it's something akin to believing that all dog breeds have exactly the same behaviors).. I have trouble believing that you actually believe that, but maybe it's because you think it would be a sin if you thought otherwise?

To the contrary, you seem to be asserting that there is a statistical correlation between personality traits and physical features like eye color or hair texture, and I think that's a pretty radical commitment to unreality.

 

[lifepsyop]

We see stories in the Old Testament of women being given to men as prizes or rewards or war plunder, the way one might give someone a cow or an acre of land. The OT isn't endorsing this behavior, just reporting it as part of its histories, but this does give us a picture of some aspects of Bronze Age culture. I think women have been seen as objects for a very long time.

And now, since the 1960's onwards, that sexual objectification through pornography is openly celebrated as freedom. That was certainly not the case for several centuries prior, where sexual immorality certainly exited but had to be confined to the shadows for the most part.

Pretty much a disaster for Christian PWC (Postwar Consensus) defenders. It's hard to imagine a more worse off situation you could have put men, women, boys, and girls into. The deleterious effects are difficult to even put into words, they are so far reaching.

Black Americans are doing better now than when it was legal to enslave them or to bar them from certain schools and jobs and neighborhoods. Not everything can be healed instantly, but legal protections are a start.

That's a difficult subject, but I think your claim that black Americans are doing better now in the year 2025 than they were say in 1925, is highly, highly questionable.

To the contrary, you seem to be asserting that there is a statistical correlation between personality traits and physical features like eye color or hair texture, and I think that's a pretty radical commitment to unreality.

I'm not asserting that at all. You seem to be committed to only seeing the most superficial surface traits (e.g. the only difference between white and black people is that one suburns more easily) instead of dealing with deeper reality of distinct ethnic groups whose genetics, cultures, traditions are separated by thousands of years. Those differences are very real as much as you may wish to believe they don't exist.

On that note, I think that is the central sacred tenet of the Postwar Consensus, the quasi-religious willful blindness to the fact that people groups are significantly different, and you can't necessarily just mash them altogether however you want in one universal "open society". It's a boomer-age fantasy that is quickly crumbling and that younger generations see through effortlessly.

 

[lifepsyop]

Trying to distill this idea into some simple bullet points.

- People, Christian civilization especially, are hardwired to have a Good/Evil, Friend/Enemy, In-Group/Out-Group framework. Something has to serve as the locus for evil, so that people have a way of feeling like they are not evil.

- After World War 2, and most especially in the Civil Rights age, western, formerly Christian peoples 'locus of evil' came to be entirely occupied by the concept of Racism.
(Basically this is because any western people who show ethnic preference might turn into the next Hitler, who is the new Satan of the post-WW2 world. Likewise, things like "Patriarchy" or opposition to homosexuality are associated with "Authoritarianism" and Fascist-like thinking.)

- This is when all kinds of degenerate behavior and traditional concept of biblical sin became ascendant and socially acceptable. They lost their capacity to cause shame... because now the only thing that was truly shameful was being "racist".

- Even among Christian community, the only real unpardonable "sin" now is racism. Everything else is tolerable and accepted in society as an unfortunate part of living in a fallen world.

- Christian leaders largely abandoned their flock and sacrificed them to all the degenerate garbage we see around us, because the only thing those Christian leaders really genuinely policed was whether or not a congregant was being racist.

This all surrounds what is known as the Postwar Consensus.


It may sound strange to think about, but when Christians stop worrying so much about racism, that is when they will finally begin addressing real sin throughout their communities. That transformation is happening right now and will become much more visible in the coming years during the collapse of the Postwar Consensus.

 

[com7fy8]

We have an alternative code of morality that has been allowed to flourish for the last 60+ years.

Well, my experience is that each person is unique. So, if you develop some idea which is general about people or some group . . . this can be lazy. What you are seeing might be what some number of people you know are showing, but how many people do you really know?? You can have the ability to connect with only certain people so you can see people to be like the ones you can connect with!

Plus, what you are calling Christian can be only the culture, not Jesus Christ's church. There might be a lot of people in your statistics, but how many have you personally confirmed are born-again and growing in Jesus?

The only truly unpardonable sin of this new moral system is "racism".

Well, racism can be very degrading to the one who is racist, so the person does not know how to love. That is losing and missing out on quite a lot. It can be a more obvious hate thing. Meanwhile fornication, for one example, might be more of a weakness thing, not so obviously a hate sin. So, I might be more concerned with someone being racist, since this is more obviously and directly against how God is all-loving.

Even so, any sin can keep us degraded so we are not living in God's all-loving love. And so, any of us in a sin can be in weakness so we are not able to relate strongly and well in love.

I note how it seems ones are making a choosy . . . cherry-picking? . . . list of what sins they are so concerned about . . . while not noticing how our own private sins at home could be what has helped to produce what is more public.

And, by the way, I note how ones anti-racist can have a way of not mentioning Jews. But ones can favor Muslims who can consider themselves superior to non-Muslims, and they can fight and kill ones not of their own Muslims groups; yet, they can be treated like poor innocent victims by liberals who handily seem to ignore or not know about how being gay can get the Muslim death penalty . . . depending on which persuasion of Muslim you are talking about. Or, their campaign against racism can concentrate on claiming to treat black people well because blacks are a bigger bloc of votes.

And meanwhile, what has a way of not getting attention?

arguing

complaining

unforgiveness

beauty discrimination

These can help to keep any person deeply weak and not in God's love. And so the person can fail in marriage and can break down in various emotional torments, including worry and fear and unforgiveness. And then the person can function only or mainly with others who share their preference for how to get pleasure. The pleasure is used to try to make them feel something nicer than their own deep trouble and confusion and misery.

By the way > pets can be used as a substitute for finding out how to love any and all people. Pets can be idols; and ones into this can be more or less isolated, not deeply strong and developed for handling loving any and all people like Jesus wants.

And so, with their desperation for pleasure, they can treasure things which lead to gay stuff and infidelity and racism and abortion and drugs and drinking and smoking.

But the weakness for such things started at home where parents did not know how to love, and so they could not feed their children with a good example of how to love in a close relationship. Instead, in their deep weakness they could give in to what I mention above, plus anger and wrath and bitterness.

So, I consider that home is where the real problem is, if ones do not know how to love. And then comes the more public and cultural failure. And then ones are pointing at the more public stuff, leaving the source sinning to not get attention.

 

[lifepsyop]

Well, my experience is that each person is unique. So, if you develop some idea which is general about people or some group . . . this can be lazy. What you are seeing might be what some number of people you know are showing, but how many people do you really know?? You can have the ability to connect with only certain people so you can see people to be like the ones you can connect with!

That's true, every person is unique. Simultaneously, distinct patterns between different people groups are also very real.

Well, racism can be very degrading to the one who is racist, so the person does not know how to love. That is losing and missing out on quite a lot. It can be a more obvious hate thing.

It seems like you are breaking your own advice here and generalizing ideas about "racists" ... how do you define a racist?, and how many do you personally know?

Of the supposed "racists" I've heard from, very few of them actually hate other ethnicities. Their motivation instead stems from a great love of their own heritage, and their own people group that goes back many centuries.

Is it possible for you to accept that people who think this way aren't actually motivated by hate? Or does your worldview require that you hold onto that generalization about other people?

Meanwhile fornication, for one example, might be more of a weakness thing, not so obviously a hate sin. So, I might be more concerned with someone being racist, since this is more obviously and directly against how God is all-loving.

Hmm, which sin did the apostles spend more time warning people about? "racism" or sexual immorality?

And which is the 21st century church more worried about?