Vengeance is the New Justice

More screenshots today, Readers.

Because, as usual, you just won’t believe me without picture proof.

Have you ever heard someone use the word “justice” and wondered which type they meant?  There’s a big difference between a person whose concept of justice comes from God and those who think humans are in charge of it…

I’m about to demonstrate why (as usual) adopting godless/humanist values will make you look like an idiot.

For the record, I’m trying to avoid constructing a saga of 20,000 words, because the pictures require a lot of reading.   But I also want to make sure I give enough background info.

Suffice it to say, the following conversation revolves around the Hensley Scandal, which I’ve written about here and here.

Now, as fellow students try to figure out the best way to support abuse survivors, there have been some concerns that a desire for “justice” may cross into gossip and vendictive behavior.

A good friend of mine, here represented in pink, was brave enough to ask whether we’re doing the right thing by encouraging people to “share their Hensley stories”…  …or if it’s doing more harm to victims.   (Summary below the picture.)

7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #1)

So the TL:DR version is,  Pink: “How is this helping the victims?”   and Blue: “Victims need to be heard.”



7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #2)

Pink continues with very reasonable concerns, basically saying we need to encourage the victims to receive REAL help–and not allow ‘support’ to become a dog pile of hatred.

But, while Pink was trying to engage, I was having a parralel conversation with Blue…

7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #3)

7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #4)


Summary: I was trying to explain that social media shaming IS ANOTHER FORM OF ABUSE.  And that two wrongs don’t make a right.  But I didn’t get anywhere.

In fact, Blue admitted he doesn’t “feel sorry” for Hensley, as if feelings are the deciding factor in whether Christians show mercy.  (I can say for certain that I didn’t FEEL like responding charitably at that moment.)


7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #5)


Meanwhile, Pink wanted to try again:

7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #6)

Once again, I shouldn’t have said anything… because Blue only wanted to respond to MY comments (even my comments directed at Pink.)

He didn’t want to answer Pink, so he kept being distracted by me:


7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #7)

Pay special attention to that first comment, where Blue used the word “publicly” twice.  Talking about self-identified victims publicly is bad–but being publicly “indignant” toward anyone deemed an abuser is good.

I found this uncited declaration interesting.

Where does his flowchart of acceptable social media “justice” come from, I wonder?

Can I get a copy of The Rulebook he’s quoting?

And on what page can I find the commandment,  “Close friends and family and professionals” are the only ones allowed to talk with victims about forgiveness.” ?

EVEN when those victims are sharing their story on Twitter and Facebook, even when they’re soliciting secular magazines to buy their story, and even when they’re seeking lawsuits to have judges (strangers) decide their case… even then, no one in the public is allowed to say anything.


Not discouraged by being ignored, Pink spoke up again:

7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #8)


Mic drop.

The only possible mistake Pink made was to assume she was talking to “the Christian community” when far too many people in that “community” actually have Secular Humanist values.

(Later Pink told me privately, “There really isn’t much to argue against the fact that Christ called us to love them both, and show concern for Hensley’s soul, too…”)

But when you’re dealing with people who only talk about “Christ” when it’s convenient, it’s always possible to argue.


7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #10)

So, Green wants to make sure Hensley never gets forgiven.

And Brown repeats The Rule again, even more firmly.  “You don’t get to decide an abuser has been flogged enough.”

Reader, have you ever heard this nonsense spelled out so plainly?

Hear ye, hear ye: “Vengeance is the self-identified victim’s, declares Blue/Green/Brown.”

Apparently, if someone wants to burn down his house, we can’t object.


Paul of Tarsus disagrees. (1 Corinthians 6)

Pink tries to offer something true and encouraging again:

7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #12)

After reading this comment, I literally couldn’t speak.

Pink is a RAPE SURVIVOR… and she’s being lectured about pain and forgiveness by the guy who is “bleeding” because his writing prof fell off his pedestal.

“Sit back and listen to us.”

“A time will come when we will ask for advice…”

He wants to get a few more juicy details and hopefully hold the University accountable for believing Hensley was nice, exactly like he did. (Maybe the victims can burn down the campus, too!)

And then there’s this gem, from somebody who popped in out of nowhere:

7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #13)

Yes–now PINK is the “abuser” because she shared Bible verses…

And Brown has something to add before Pink can defend herself:


7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit #14)

No words.

No words!

All I could do was laugh in bitter irony and frustration! This man identifies as the bigger victim than someone who was forcibly raped!

These yahoos don’t even use their own imaginary Rule Book consistently…

I’ve never seen somebody be this honest about wanting to keep their pain before.

Thankfully, Pink replied one more time, much more nicely than I would have done:

7.20.18 Double Standards (Edit FINAL)

What kind of insane culture have we created, where someone has to defend herself against the accusation of “trying to make things easier” for victims?


If we’re not trying to help the victims, then what the hell are we doing?

Are we just joining whatever mob walks past with pitchforks, to make ourselves feel like good people?

Yeah, actually.

We’re godless sacks of warm particles now. That’s exactly what we’re doing: following our instincts and making up random “Rules” for absolutely no other reason than it feel good…

I’m sorry this is so long, Readers.

But this stupidity must be exposed.  Humanism has infiltrated the Church, and it’s doing far more damage than Hensley did.

Hensley tried to make advances on women who weren’t interested.

Humanism cuts their brains out.

Only someone who doesn’t understand morality could believe that humans are responsible for justice.  Only a brainless person could believe that being assaulted (or knowing a guy who’s accused of assault) makes you a “victim”…and that victimhood makes you responsible for justice.

It doesn’t hold up under critical thought, at all.

But, since we seem to agree that public outcry over misconduct is a good thing, I’m doing that now.  Readers–please let these gentlemen know that they’re harming people, and it will not be tolerated.

Please tell them how you feel about their treatment of Pink.

And please–please–be on guard against godless versions of “Justice.”

The last thing a hurting victim needs is an empty platitude and mindless feelings from self-righteous Atheists.

Keep your Religion of Rules to yourselves, guys! Godless “justice” is just more abuse.

7 thoughts on “Vengeance is the New Justice

  1. Μιχαήλ (Michael) | Nothing is impossible with God!

    Wow! This is amazing. One of the reasons I am not on Facebook I guess. 🙂

    This is the nub of it I think. “Keep your Religion of Rules to yourselves, guys! Godless “justice” is just more abuse.”

    You are right that it is way out of hand these days. Sexual abuse and rape are horrible. They ought to be called out and prosecuted, if possible. As followers of Jesus, we are to forgive. We aren’t to throw the first stone. Jesus puts it all on it’s head when He declares that lust is the same as adultery. I am guilty. I am a sinner. I need to forgive 70 times 70!

    Thanks for speaking the truth!


  2. insanitybytes22

    “Are we just joining whatever mob walks past with pitchforks, to make ourselves feel like good people?”

    Yes, amen! That is exactly what we are now doing.

    This may not go over very well, but this kind of behavior was actually modeled by the church, taught by the church, and endorsed by the church. Dalrock, red pills, Pastor Wilson are all people you already know of, who actively engage in and promote public shaming of primarily women. I know, I’ve been on the receiving end for years and so have many others. Victims of abuse, who are seeking vengeance rather than justice, are often responding to that very same public shaming and outright abuse they have experienced at the hands of the church.

    I’ve been on the internet for a long time. While atheists may be annoying, every self righteous, moralizing troll who has ever threatened to call my pastor, contact my employer, figure out who my kids are, and generally harass me IRL for having opinion, has been a Christian. And there have been dozens of them dedicated to that very thing, public shaming and silencing. This may sound harsh, but I believe “the church,” of which I happen to also be part of, is simply getting a dose of their own medicine. It’s not fair to the individuals who may get caught in the crossfire, but it is what it is.


      1. insanitybytes22

        I think so,yes. The problem being, I wrestle with the same issue myself! I want to stand in solidarity with all Christians and then they don’t act like Christians at all and to say nothing would clearly be wrong.

        I do indeed, mock and ridicule people, shame the shamers myself.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. mrsmcmommy Post author

        My understanding is that Dalrock and other Christian online “shamers” are reactionary–the way my blog post is reactionary.

        They are reacting to rampant Social Justice (especially unChristian Feminism) in the Church, and THEY are the ones giving a “taste of their own medicine” to the internet mobs who started it.

        I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do. Because, like you, I wrestle with myself.

        But, if I wanted to, I could reveal the names of the men in this conversation and demand their definition of “justice” on behalf of my friend, Pink.

        In my own experience, it’s the Atheists and Christians-in-name-only who are making things personal.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. insanitybytes22

        Okay, so they’re reactionary, but one problem with using that as a defense is that in the blink of an eye I am perceived as the feminist or the SJW, so now it’s allegedly okay to act like a fool towards me. I’m no longer human, I’m now a justified target. Those guys are SJW’s fighting against…social justice. Haters who have become what they hate.

        Same with abuse. It’s perceived as okay to shame, retaliate,seek revenge against someone labeled a perv because they aren’t really human anymore either. Victims can easily slide over the line and become abusers themselves.

        For myself, I have to just constantly check my motivations and intent. Like, am I mocking the behavior or attempting to murder someone’s soul? It’s a fine line sometimes.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s