Kyle Rittenhouse = Based God

[Woke Locc]

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

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

Marxism is irrefutable in Western logos

We still shouldn't do it it's bad

Hope this helps

[BlackBellamy]

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

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

Are you sure you're living in the right society with all that unconditional aversion to killing?

I'm not sure how many other national anthems specifically reference bombs. Which are bursting. In the air. Think about all that shrapnel. Hot metal cutting flesh, the floors awash in blood, the surgeons rushing around the screaming men. But the flag is still waving above, through the smoke. Now those are some pretty powerful visuals, no?

I'm looking through other national constitutions, other founding documents, trying to see any other ones where they specifically say oh yeah, we're going to make sure everyone is armed. With guns.

Do you know what happens when Americans disagree on an idea?

Here's some particularly disagreeable days:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When we turned all those Japanese into ash, do you think the men slept well at night?

"I have no regrets, no remorse about it." -- Lieutenant Jacob Beser, the only man to fly in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima missions.

I bet they did.

We're a violent nation born of violent men. A Christian bullet is still a bullet.

[BallzDeep]

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

You took my bait. So, here's my issue with Kyle:

Literally went to a riot zone, armed, to "quell rioting" as you put it. That's not his job. Not even remotely close. Some dude with a misguided view of patriotism. No one knows, he some dude and then "self-defense" kicked in when he shot the second two (the video that's been widely shared and we've all seen). Hopefully the jury does the right thing and convicts him as he should rightly be.

I fucking love guns. I own several. I believe firmly in the second amendment. I also happen to be a democrat and believe that people shouldn't be murdered in their apartments while they sleep, and believe that everyone should have access to healthcare and basic necessities (Note: some of you will call me a socialist for this -- I believe in capitalism, but I believe we should pay a bit more to take care of people who can't afford it, so go fuck yourself). However, I'm not willing to kill republicans or people I disagree with politically -- something the right can't really make a claim to.

Showing up in a city that you're driven to *by your mother* to "quell rioting", are you fucking kidding me? That's the defense? And that he's a patriotic American doing his job? Hopefully he gets skewered for this.

I don't understand how you are a gun owner and don't know the history behind defending property. Did you not read the post prior about staying philosophically consistent for property defense? This is why we say "A democrat with a gun, is an idiot with a gun."

Let me ask you. Do you consider the Asian's during the LA riots that picked up guns and defended their property to be immoral and breaking the law? Do you consider the blacks during Black Wallstreet who attempted to pick up their guns to use show of force to dissuade people? Do you think people have that right to defend their community? I can already tell you I would make you look pretty stupid since you would have several contradictions going on there in philosophy, and your applied ethics.

The second question would be well then, what is your community that you have a right to defend? Well, it's different for everyone. So, the law is laid down, you have the right to show of force AKA open carry to defend anything YOU deem your community as long as you have a legal right to be there and are not the agitator. For Kyle, being a member of the community there, working there and even contributing community service there PRIOR to the incident shows he did consider it his community.

On the murdered in your sleep, I assume you are talking about Breonna Taylor and just shows how severely misinformed you are. Here is the case report for that:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/re...mary-redacted1

Read it.

[BlackBellamy]

Here is Chicago. Last night or some bullshit.

https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status...20082403254272

Listen to that.

Listen to the gunfire.

If I was a mayor of a town where that was happening I would go get my police chief and we would go down there with all the cops and physically stand on every corner 24/7 and go into every single trap house with our surplus M113s and bulldoze the place later until there was no more gunfire at all.

I cannot understand how someone can be in charge and allow this to happen and people are like well they're doing an ok job otherwise let's not carry them out of the city hall and throw them in the river.

[Patriam1066]

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

Are you sure you're living in the right society with all that unconditional aversion to killing?

I'm not sure how many other national anthems specifically reference bombs. Which are bursting. In the air. Think about all that shrapnel. Hot metal cutting flesh, the floors awash in blood, the surgeons rushing around the screaming men. But the flag is still waving above, through the smoke. Now those are some pretty powerful visuals, no?

I'm looking through other national constitutions, other founding documents, trying to see any other ones where they specifically say oh yeah, we're going to make sure everyone is armed. With guns.

Do you know what happens when Americans disagree on an idea?

Here's some particularly disagreeable days:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When we turned all those Japanese into ash, do you think the men slept well at night?



I bet they did.

We're a violent nation born of violent men. A Christian bullet is still a bullet.

1. You shouldn’t revel in killing
2. Your victory isn’t assured.
3. Japan got nuked because they were a genocidal sneak attacking bunch of cock suckers

None of this is analogous to the wealthiest nation in history, during the best period to have ever been alive, going to hell in a hand basket because everyone is an obese diabetic pussy with a profound sense of entitlement. I’m sorry you were promised a lot by mommy and daddy and then you had to compete, became miserable, and popped opioids and Big Macs. There’s still time, however, to repent and save your immortal soul

[charmcitysking]

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

3. Japan got nuked because they were a genocidal sneak attacking bunch of cock suckers

Sorta. Plenty of Americans knew beforehand that Pearl Harbour was to be attacked.

Just not the Americans at Pearl Harbor.

[Gwaihir]

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!)

It absolutely is a "horcrux" with multifaceted meanings. That is why Psalms 119:130 states "the unfolding if your word gives light;it brings understanding to the simple"

This statement, in and of itself, is revealing, because it insinuates word choices have at least dual meanings. Some would state that at its root, the judeo-christian-islamic myth is one of Dualism;and by that measure syzygy applies to a large majority of the text.

Lets unpack ezekiel 16.

In ezekiel 16, God refers to Israel as the sisters of sodom, stating their transgressions make Sodom and Gomorrah look justified in his eyes, despite the fact that he destroyed sodom for their "pride".

He then goes on to state, the consequence for the israelites prideful transgressions is they must bear the burden of their shame. This relationship between Pride and Shame is compared and contrasted, because at its root God is describing the interrelated nature of pride and shame.

When you are full of pride, you think no one else can see it, but everyone else can: it just blinds the Self (in the Jungian sense)from seeing it.

When you are full of Shame, you think everyone else can see it, so you stole yourself away, withdrawing, hoping that others can not see it, and no one else can for the most part unless theyre sagastic enough to see the withdrawl as symptomatic of shame.

Now with that said pride and shame are sisters of each other; they exist along the same axiom with one being a conscious manifestation and the other being a subconscious repression of the same thing.

Now, to apply to the dualistic framework, the syzygy of pride is humility; that it to say humility exists on the same axiom as pride except it is its conjoined opposite, it has no meaning without relating to its counterpart.

Because it is the syzygy of pride, a conscious manifestation, it must therefore exist in the subconscious as being profusely humble actually leads to self-conceptualization of betterness than others which then finds itself paradoxically manifesting as arrogance/pride when exercised consciously, so how can one consciously embrace humility? By consciously manifesting the syzygy of pride's sister-sin:shame.

Shame's syzygy is strength, which is where the power of testimony and refusing to hide our shame away derives its strength.

So, unfolding "pride" reveals "shame", "humility" and "strength"as axiomatic. This axiom creates a 4 quadrant cross:this is the meaning of the symbology of the cross, aside from the actual act of Christ dying upon it, so that you could be metaphorically navigate through it as you increasingly take up Christ's yoke.

Syzygy etymologically means "to be yoked together" this is what is referenced in Matthew 11:29 when Christ says to take up his yoke and learn from him, for he is gentle and humble of heart and will bring rest to your soul.

Christendom is defined by only one truth, that Christ came, and died for our sins, fundamentally bridging the separation of space humanity places between themselves and God through sin; thats it. It doesn't matter if Christian pharisees had a bunch of ecumenical councils to further dilineate because there is only one truth.

[Pretzelle]

Yikes. Yikes yikes yikes.

[Asteria]

Resident forum tranny and their gay lover of the month still posting away in this section after 7 years I see

Yikes to infinity 😯

[douglas1999]

You know what's a really funny mental image? The smashmouth guy tumbling down a grassy hill trying to eat a big sub, and like as he tumbles the sub starts flying apart