Why not Albert Pike?

[Zoologistkid]

Hey guys, I noticed something awhile now and wondered what you all thought. Remember those social justice smurfs running around destroying statues of Confederate generals under the belief that all of them stood for racism and slavery, which isn't true. They are trying to destroy the true history of the United States believing that they are going to make a utopia on earth.

But issues like that aside, I found something strange: why aren't the smurfs going after Albert Pike's statue? Pike was not only a Confederate general but also a leader of the KKK, and a true racist. A simple look online would reveal Pike to the world, so why aren't these annoying smurfs going after him? According to them, they want to destroy racist men from history but not Pike, anybody but Pike. Isn't this a little strange?

[zachshrader]

Im not sure what to say...  Arent they all just idols?  What man deserves a statue anyways?

[Zoologistkid]

I know that he was a wicked man, but it just makes me confused, the Smurfs go after anyone connected to the Confederacy except for Pike. It's just a strange thing to notice.

[zachshrader]

I wonder if the majority even knows who albert pike is.  I was talking to my mom about free masonry and i asked her if she had ever heard of Albert Pike and she never had. 

[Jeanne]

The social justice smurfs are funded by secret societies such as the Freemasons. (Mainly by people like George Soros; not sure if he's a Mason or not...) So, OF COURSE, they're not going to let their puppets go after one of their own!

[Zoologistkid]

Jeanne, I figured that was the case, however, these kind of people are hard to control, even their masters have to be careful because they are as uncontrollable as a honey badger. So they keep their pet smurfs in the dark about their master, I wonder though, what would happen if the Smurfs found out about Pike?

[Jeanne]

If they're only protesting because they're getting paid to do so, then it's not a problem. Some of them might actually be hardcore nut cases, but they won't really do much on their own if they're not being supported in some manner--either financially, or with media attention.

[Timothy]

"Remember those social justice smurfs..."

"why aren't the smurfs going after Albert Pike's statue?"

"...so why aren't these annoying smurfs going after him?"

"...the Smurfs go after anyone..."

"The social justice smurfs..."

"So they keep their pet smurfs in the dark..."

"...what would happen if the Smurfs found out about Pike?"

I have to ask because I'm out of the loop of what a 'smurf' is. Is this an actual term a group of people call themselves or is it derogatory? And if the latter what justification is there for Christians to do that? 'Cause I'm pretty sure none of you are talking about little blue people.

1 Peter 3:Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

This needs to stop.

[Masha]

Totally agree with Timothy.

[creationliberty]

Then that is my fault, not theirs. I have said that in prior days. I'm not sure if I should apologize or not because, as I've stated before, there is difference between truth and railing. When Jesus called men vipers, everyone knows what a viper is, and he also explained the details of why they were vipers. When I called the social justice warriors "smurfs," I explained why in specific detail. In these posts, no one has any context, and therefore, it can be taken as railing.
railing (adj): clamoring [loud noises] with insulting [contemptuous/despising] language; uttering [speaking] reproachful [finding fault] words
Even the "loud noises/clamoring" part can be sensed in a written setting, depending on how it is written, and the frequency with which the words are used. Therefore, if I set a bad example at any point, I will take the fault on myself and ask forgiveness, and there needs be no correction of them because they only followed the example I set. If, however, I did things the right way in the past, then let's all learn to adjust our speech to be fitting in the Lord Jesus Christ, and make sure we explain ourselves thoroughly, remembering that we are held accountable to the Lord God for our words, and that we teach other Christians by our words.

[Zoologistkid]

Chris, I should be apologizing it is my fault for using such a word, I put the word of smurfs, instead of calling them warriors. They prefer to call themselves warriors because they really do imagine themselves as being warriors of truth, good, and other terms they have no understanding. Looks like I goofed it again, giving even more reason as to write how to communicate properly, I'm sorry once again.

[Timothy]

Then that is my fault, not theirs. I have said that in prior days. I'm not sure if I should apologize or not because, as I've stated before, there is difference between truth and railing. When Jesus called men vipers, everyone knows what a viper is, and he also explained the details of why they were vipers. When I called the social justice warriors "smurfs," I explained why in specific detail. In these posts, no one has any context, and therefore, it can be taken as railing.
railing (adj): clamoring [loud noises] with insulting [contemptuous/despising] language; uttering [speaking] reproachful [finding fault] words
Even the "loud noises/clamoring" part can be sensed in a written setting, depending on how it is written, and the frequency with which the words are used. Therefore, if I set a bad example at any point, I will take the fault on myself and ask forgiveness, and there needs be no correction of them because they only followed the example I set. If, however, I did things the right way in the past, then let's all learn to adjust our speech to be fitting in the Lord Jesus Christ, and make sure we explain ourselves thoroughly, remembering that we are held accountable to the Lord God for our words, and that we teach other Christians by our words.

I don't remember you calling them smurfs and I still don't understand what is meant by that name. I had a hunch that someone would bring up Jesus calling men vipers and I do agree with you that Christ explained why they were vipers, but I don't see any explanation here for calling anyone a smurf and I don't want that being an offense to others with this being in the public section because of that.

Chris, I should be apologizing it is my fault for using such a word, I put the word of smurfs, instead of calling them warriors. They prefer to call themselves warriors because they really do imagine themselves as being warriors of truth, good, and other terms they have no understanding. Looks like I goofed it again, giving even more reason as to write how to communicate properly, I'm sorry once again.

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad and if I ever come off too harshly please let me know.

[Zoologistkid]

Timothy, I called them Smurfs because they act like them. The social justice warriors, as they like to be called, are like the Smurfs because they are both always getting into situations where they need Papa (i.e. the government) to get them out of it. The original smurf show had communistic themes in it and when Chris called them social justice smurfs, I thought that was a better name compared to their "warrior" bravado. I'm sorry if I offended any of you.

[TheChickenWhisperer]

Tim, no, you were truthful.  You told all of us what we were doing was not right.  After my own recent experiences, I welcome that.

Chris, I appreciate another wonderful example of repentance.  Thank you for always challenging us to do what is right.