Kyle Rittenhouse = Based God

[Donkey Hotay]

Riots bad. Duly elected officials refusing to maintain order. Citizens who fill the breach are arrested and imprisoned. Civil war now good.

Sorry this puts a damper on your RV plans, boomer. Did the three Jews Kyle shot thank you for your service in their wars yet, by the way?

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are stupid people. That’s truly unfortunate. I’m not sure what you’d like me to say? You have someone advocating civil war in this thread and you’re still purposefully missing my very simple point that violence begets violence

Why do you think I keep saying Seek Christ? Because as serious as all of this is, it isn’t serious enough for any of you to, for EVEN ONE SECOND, consider thinking that taking a human life is justifiable for any reason. I’ve seen both civil war and an Arab invasion buddy, you do not want to see America descend into civil conflict

I respect that and I don't doubt it for a second. This however is a different situation. "Violence begets violence" is a clear tautology. Violence is also often concluded with violence; see almost every war that has ever occurred. Which, again, is the whole point of the american 2nd amendment. A lot of 2a nuts think it's about like, defending your barn from government tank invasion, which it kinda is, but practically speaking it's about setting a legal rubric for when you are allowed to defend your own life against an immediate threat to it. Rittenhouse may be guilty of things (being a larping dork), but murder is not one of them and it's overwhelmingly clear.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Gwaihir [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Read the names of God translation of the Bible and ask yourself why the creation account is detailed twice

I think everyone in this thread should do what you suggest. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The purpose of the first narrative (Gen 1:1–2:4a) is about establishing a relationship
between God and humans, and the second account (Gen 2:4b-25) is about building
a relationship in the most essential human bond, marriage. These two relationships,
vertical and horizontal, are complementary and must always come in the described
ordered sequence so that life can be meaningful, beautiful, and happy. First comes a
cultivation of a loving relationship with God, then with our marriage partner, and finally
with others. The closer we are to God, the closer we should be to our spouses and to
others. Only God can provide all the resources for life so we can be a contribution and
blessing to each other. We were created in total dependency upon God; therefore, only
from him can we receive all we need for building deep and lasting relationships.

Source: A fresh look at two genesis creation accounts.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Topgunben [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God commands "thou shalt not kill" but other times he commands to "utterly destroy".

In Is God A Moral Monster it's argued that Joshua describes his battles using “ancient Near Eastern exaggeration rhetoric. Like his ancient Near Eastern contemporaries, Joshua used the language of conventional warfare rhetoric.”

In the later fifteenth century (BC so its backwards remember hehe) Tuthmosis III could boast “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally” but, historically the forces of Mitanni lived to fight many another day, in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries… meaning annihilated totally = exist as an empire for another 200 years.

Under "Ancient Near East Warfare Rhetoric" theory, the language "Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." is exaggeration. God is not actually expecting or commanding Saul to hunt down every last living thing under every tree and kill them all. Instead, God's purpose is that their entire society (their religion and immoral practices) would be destroyed.

The language "utterly destroy" is often referred to as an act of worship to God. That is, by removing the religion and practices which directly oppose God, they are offering sacrifice to God.

Originally Posted by Topgunben [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It all depends on the context, if you cant see the difference between self defense and the murder of an innocent person, you are actually retarded.

Just as we might say that a sports team “blew their opponents away” or “slaughtered” or “annihilated” them, the author (editor) likewise followed the rhetoric of his day.

The fact is, Youtube & biblical scholars have allowed themselves to be swept away by the upbeat, rhetorical element present in Joshua, a persistent feature of most war reports in ancient Near Eastern sources that they are not accustomed to understand and properly handle.

(edit: that said maybe the bible is a horcrux and once you figure out the correct meaning behind the words it will unlock a new doorway, what do I know!)

Edit edit: But for context of this thread? Self defense, does not mean traveling to a riot and shooting people. Hope some thing, any of this, helps someone see the light!

Love thy neighbor, keep the sabbath, follow the 10 commandments. That is all, then the rest is easy! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Topgunben]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In Is God A Moral Monster it's argued that Joshua describes his battles using “ancient Near Eastern exaggeration rhetoric. Like his ancient Near Eastern contemporaries, Joshua used the language of conventional warfare rhetoric.”

In the later fifteenth century (BC so its backwards remember hehe) Tuthmosis III could boast “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally” but, historically the forces of Mitanni lived to fight many another day, in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries… meaning annihilated totally = exist as an empire for another 200 years.

Under "Ancient Near East Warfare Rhetoric" theory, the language "Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." is exaggeration. God is not actually expecting or commanding Saul to hunt down every last living thing under every tree and kill them all. Instead, God's purpose is that their entire society (their religion and immoral practices) would be destroyed.

The language "utterly destroy" is often referred to as an act of worship to God. That is, by removing the religion and practices which directly oppose God, they are offering sacrifice to God.



Just as we might say that a sports team “blew their opponents away” or “slaughtered” or “annihilated” them, the author (editor) likewise followed the rhetoric of his day.

The fact is, Youtube & biblical scholars have allowed themselves to be swept away by the upbeat, rhetorical element present in Joshua, a persistent feature of most war reports in ancient Near Eastern sources that they are not accustomed to understand and properly handle.

(edit: that said maybe the bible is a horcrux and once you figure out the correct meaning behind the words it will unlock a new doorway, what do I know!)

Edit edit: But for context of this thread? Self defense, does not mean traveling to a riot and shooting people. Hope some thing, any of this, helps someone see the light!

Love thy neighbor, keep the sabbath, follow the 10 commandments. That is all, then the rest is easy! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am a believer myself, but I find it difficult to navigate what it literal and what is figurative.

But its difficult to argue that God didnt command the slaughter of unrighteous groups, especially when Saul fell out of favor with Nathan(?) because he kept some of the spoils of war alive.

[Tethler]

Be mindful of taking the Bible literally. It has been translated a number of times over the years, and translators are often able to take liberties with the meanings of passages. This can be done intentionally or accidentally and tends to be compounded after several iterations of translation (think making a photocopy of a photocopy several times, the result is much less clear). But either way, taking phrases literally is bound to result in beliefs or actions that don't align with the original version of the text.

Long story short, use it as a general guide rather that picking apart the meaning of individual sections.

[zodium]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are stupid people. That’s truly unfortunate. I’m not sure what you’d like me to say? You have someone advocating civil war in this thread and you’re still purposefully missing my very simple point that violence begets violence

Why do you think I keep saying Seek Christ? Because as serious as all of this is, it isn’t serious enough for any of you to, for EVEN ONE SECOND, consider thinking that taking a human life is justifiable for any reason. I’ve seen both civil war and an Arab invasion buddy, you do not want to see America descend into civil conflict

america was asked to choose between socialism or barbarism, and they chose barbarism. buckle up.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Topgunben [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am a believer myself, but I find it difficult to navigate what it literal and what is figurative.

But its difficult to argue that God didnt command the slaughter of unrighteous groups, especially when Saul fell out of favor with Nathan(?) because he kept some of the spoils of war alive.

The Lord had told Saul to destroy everything. Saul just could not pass up a chance to make himself look good (he was extremely charismatic in the way its described people felt of him). And at the time it was a practice among heathen nations to keep a conquered kings alive. They would take him back to their country. In front of his people, the victor would put out the eyes of his captive king and otherwise humiliate him (it was a chill time).

Saul had become very proud, one of his many sins. He kept the Amalekite king alive, as well as the best of everything else it offered to gain favor of the people and wealth. When he returned to Israel, he even erected a monument to himself at Carmel (oops).

Samuel had to tell Saul of the Lord’s anger. Instead of repenting, Saul tried lying and then made excuses. He blamed the soldiers and then said that they only kept the animals alive to make sacrifices to the Lord. And pandered to his people for love.

Personally I have a way different take on this one than some folks, I dont think the message is kill or be killed (which is a very convincing sermon I will totally give it that!). Instead I think it means be penitent and do not flaunt mankind's will in the face of god, which is much more consistent with the bibles other teachings.

Saul was a great king, and people loved him, he was a man of earth and clay, but when he took it too far they (the people), Samuel (not Nathan hehe) and God fell out of favor with him.

Now about god commanding the death of the Amalekites? God has already killed everyone on this particular planet with a flood mind you. This period of time is biblically quite different than our current period of time, so taking things into context as you said is super important here:

to those that question the will of god is brutal, after being forgiven of our sins he no longer asks of that, so we confidently say that our God would never speak to us like he spoke to Saul through Samuel, demanding genocidal vengeance on anyone. It’s not possible because it’s no longer required. Because of Christ, we are currently in the eschatological period of amnesty. Awaiting that final judgement.

So god did say to kill the Amalekites, yes. And he did punish Saul for sin for not killing as he commanded. But no matter what reason god flooded the earth or thought he needed to commit genocide: It does not mean he is telling you to flood the earth or commit genocide (Ive heard the first strike, kill or be killed, argument with this sermon and I just dont think its for me).

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] FYI non theologists that are looking at this and puking hehe, if you think EQ lore is complicated, or like Game of Thrones I suggest the 6,000 year history of western mankind [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] It also connects with eastern too but oof there is a lot of history on this planet.

[PieOats]

Originally Posted by Kian [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For my money, it is weird he's got pure fentanyl in his system and no heroin/etc. Are people trading in pure fentanyl, now, knowingly? i guess it could be. The tox report reads like an intelligence/natsecurity edit to me, though. We're all still pretending things are all exactly as they seem though, so you can just write all that off with "tinfoil" and pretend I've never known anything.

Without any other downers in his system, and with a decent dose of meth to offset the downs, Big Doubt he died of fentanyl. Unless perhaps he was in withdrawal from methamphetamine. The only other variable I can't account for is time-to-tox-screen; there is such a thing as postmortem metabolism and I am not pretending it's a tiny dose. It's just that -- it takes a HUGE dose of opiates to overdose without assistance from the benzo or booze end of things. Fent does metabolise fast tho and if they didn't get his blood quick, and if the blood test is untampered-with, it's not an impossible scenario that he was under the influence of double the recorded dose.

In the end, so far as a court of law goes I'd call it reasonable doubt as to cause of death. But the whole thing stinks bad and the knee on the neck was obviously gross shit. Anyone calling the tox report a "case closed" for OD is selling something.

-her, neuroscientist molecular pharmacologist and sensual polymath

He had morphine too, which is a metabolite of heroin. And I agree about the knee even if I understand the intent of the technique and the reason for it being in the police manual. The whole video was saddening.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Donkey Hotay [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Riots bad. Duly elected officials refusing to maintain order. Citizens who fill the breach are arrested and imprisoned. Civil war now good.

Sorry this puts a damper on your RV plans, boomer. Did the three Jews Kyle shot thank you for your service in their wars yet, by the way?

I’m not afraid of you buddy, I fear for you. You misunderstand because the hatred in your heart guides you towards a dark path. Seek Christ, get some sleep tonight and wake up early, go to church, and repent your desire to kill Americans, God’s chosen, and your desire to topple the United States, God’s empire