Stiff upper lip

 

Why is everyone so upset after the Islamist terrorist attack, I mean the car mysteriously driving into a crowd, in Berlin recently? Why aren´t the pundits telling the Euro-homosexuals that obviously the suspect wasn´t a Muslim, that we should do nothing, that terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city, and that we should all have a "stiff upper lip"? After all, that´s what they told us after the ISIS-related attacks in the UK about ten years ago. 

Perhaps Euro-prides simply can´t be expected to have a stiff upper lip. Or maybe "They" know that nobody would buy it, so instead they are pretending to complain about *their own* broken justice system, which failed to stop the terrorist blah blah? 

Let´s see if that works out better for them. Probably not. I´m not a big fan of the pro-Russian AfD, but something tells me having a lezbo co-chair might prove to be a master stroke for the would-be Fourth Reich...

Die dummen Deutschen

 

Fjärde Riket verkar ha kommit av sig, jag menar, de verkar lika korkade som de svenska drontarna...

Efter terrorattacken i Berlin - kritik mot domstolen

Compassion fatigue?

 

Credit: punjabkesari

Overheard on the internet: "Protecting a victim from an unrepentant transgressor is the highest form of compassion you can offer to the victim."

Crown Ornament of Victory

 

I never heard of Ushnishavijaya before. Or "The Crown Ornament of Victory"...of all the Buddhas of all time. No less! The two short clips above deal with her Tibetan iconography. Apparently, Ushnishavijaya is associated with Amitayus and Amitabha. There seems to be an obvious family likeness with Tara. 

The maverick gospel

 

Well-known atheist Bible scholar Bart Ehrman argues that "Luke" didn´t believe in the atonement. That is, the New Testament writer known as Luke, who wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Paul, Mark and Matthew *did* believe that the death of Jesus was an atonement for sin, but Luke had a different perspective. (Ehrman doesn´t discuss John.)

Yes, people should repent of their sins (including the sin of killing Jesus). If they do, God will forgive them. However, "foregiveness" and "atonement" are two different concepts, usually blurred in later theology. In the Lukan scenario, God doesn´t demand a sin sacrifice as payment. Turning towards God with a repentant heart is enough to receive foregiveness.  

Ehrman believes that Luke´s perspective was the original message of Jesus himself. The notion that the crucifixion was an atonement was a response to the failure of Jesus to inaugurate the apocalypse during his lifetime.

Ehrman also points out that Luke had a stronger social message than Matthew. In Luke, Jesus says that the poor are blessed, in Matthew it´s "the poor in spirit". But note that both believe in work-based salvation!

Frankly a bit boring, but still interesting. 

God the Highest

 

Was Jesus actually Yahweh? In other words: was Yahweh the "Son" rather than the "Father"? According to early Christian theology, that is.

Which leads us to the follow up question: Who was the Father...?  

Ultimate reality?

 

Overheard from ChatGPT. Has the System cracked the world riddle and found...God? 

>>>Its supreme reality is Bhairava, not merely the fierce deity, but the infinite, ecstatic consciousness beyond all limitation. Interestingly: Lalitā Tripurasundarī is often portrayed as the supreme beauty of Śakti. Bhairava is the supreme freedom of Śiva. Their union is the ultimate reality. 

Amen to that. So how do I join in? 

Goodbye

 

This annoying character, "Star Soul Man" (who sometimes implies that he is Jesus or something to that effect), is apparently leaving the internet. LOL. How likely is *that*, exactly? He claims to be in the fourth dimension already. Well, he doesn´t curse as much as before, so maybe he *has* evolved? Goodbye, you fucking village idiot! 

Välkommen till apokalypsen

 

Håller med om att fotografiet högst upp kommer att bli en klassiker. Här är ett citat: 

>>>Vi står, konstaterar forskarna, inför ett moment 22: Vi behöver plantera mer skog för att begränsa klimatförändringarna – men om inte framtidens skogar planeras utifrån en kraftigt ökad brandrisk, riskerar de att brinna upp innan de hinner fungera som de kolsänkor som klimatstrategierna bygger på.>>>

Påminner om klimatkrisens mer generella "moment 22": om vi slutar att använda fossila bränslen kollapsar den moderna civilisationen, men om vi fortsätter kan den mycket väl kollapsa ändå. 

Välkommen till apokalypsen.

Bränderna rasar - men kaosåret har bara börjat

Älska dina fiender

 

Credit: Aftonbladet

Kvartssamtalet verkar ha misslyckats...