@GoyGirl @beardalaxy yeah my dad fully quit believing in god after the Catholic pedophile priest scandal came out

Never let a hypocrite stand between you & God, but I get it, too... churches CAN be very strange.

My same-age nieces got very devout in their late teens. Sweet largely, but their then boyfriends (now husbands) & themselves had a pastor that gave me the ick. I was a bridesmaid at one of their weddings & he kept following me around. 25-30 yrs older, married.

A year or so later, he got caught in an affair with his son-in-law's mom (also married). Wrecked two families. If you get the ick, get out.

@Ghislaine@poa.st @GoyGirl@nicecrew.digital @beardalaxy@gameliberty.club

and he's still a decent guy who loves his family?

based.

Is that true though? According to the bible Jesus's last act on the cross was to forgive his unrepentant murderers.

Forgiving unrepentant murderers is the most christian thing you can possibly do, it's literally living according to his example. It's also going to get us all killed.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy he was referring to the Romans crucifying him who were doing their (brutal) jobs imo. Romans 13 the ruler does not bare the sword in vain. God burns unrepentant murderers in hell. The bible is very clear on how this works.

So we should forgive our unrepentant murderers provided they got paid to do it?

Even then I wouldn't say it's clear that he was referring exclusively to the romans. They weren't the only ones who crucified him.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy it's not murder when it's the hangman doing his job. Killing Jesus is a serious fuck up nonetheless.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy Plus I mean the bible is very clear that people are not forgiven before they repent and believe! God loves everybody and wants everyone to be forgiven (john 3:16) but he only forgives the people who ask for forgiveness. Like I said elsewhere you could pray for him to come around but forgiving him is wrong imo

Unless they're a government employee apparently.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy God likes capital punishment btw. he doesn't hold a grudge against lawful executioners.

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed - for in God's image made he man."

That line makes no mention of lawful executioners getting a pass. It demands vengeance against murderers.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy well he tells people repeatedly to lawfully execute criminals in the OT and the same principle is repeated again in Romans 13

And then he showed up in person to prevent such an execution and suggested that no one has the right to carry one out unless they are morally perfect, which no one is but him.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy referring to the woman taken in adultery? that was in violation of OT law not Roman law. he was being asked to consent to her lynching - which then would have been brought before the romans to have him legally and rightfully executed. he wisely did not fall for the obvious trap or extrajudicially execute her. if she was actually in violation of the law they could have brought her to the romans and had her put to death.

when they were gone he told her to quit the adultery and forgave her.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy I'll add that referring to your comment about how he implied that nobody has the right to execute unless theyre morally perfect: that would imply that the law he gave in the old testament was immoral and wrongheaded. Jesus explicitly endorsed the old testament and the law repeatedly (Matthew 5:17-19 off the top of my head). Any interpretation that implies Jesus considered the old testament immoral is ipso facto incorrect.

I fully agree it's a massive contradiction, but it's nonetheless what the bible records him as saying.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine

> it's a massive contradiction

That's what makes cherry picking according to one's personal preferences all the easier and supposedly justifiable, because pseudohistorical fantasy novel said so...

If moral standards require a woman to be executed then she should be executed. Hiding behind "but our occupiers might not sign off on it" is moral cowardice.

Anyhow that's not the argument he made. He suggested that no one who was morally imperfect (ie. all humans) had the right to execute anyone.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy ok what if I brought lon horiuchi to your house and gave you a gun. then I take out my phone and start filming with the obvious intention to get you locked up if you do it. do you shoot him?

"I don't want to do the right thing because it might get me in trouble"

Is not the same as

"It's only the right thing if I call myself a government first."

@Eiregoat @Ghislaine @beardalaxy From personal experience; calling oneself a government virtually never works

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine very interesting and Eiregoat on the money as usual.
It's probably not how he meant it but you got him saying "actually, Jesus only said 'he who is without sin, cast the first stone' because the feds were trying to entrap him."
wild

@WandererUber @Eiregoat @beardalaxy It's true, Jesus likes the death penalty in general. He can make exceptions whenever he chooses though of course.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy no literally, what would you do? clearly you believe horiuchi deserves some form of punishment. if you don't believe in the death penalty you could still shoot him in the knees or lock him in your basement for the rest of his life or something.

@Ghislaine @Eiregoat @beardalaxy I think there’s a very real risk in these sorts of discussions, to get God’s Forgiveness, mixed up with mortal Man’s. Because the Almighty God is Limitless, lacking nothing, wanting nothing, with absolute mastery over all time and space for all eternity - it’s a bit of a category fallacy to think that’s applicable to us in the same way.

It’s only In Christ, literally, that mortal Man can forgive. Does Erika here have the same qualifications, as does God ? Maybe she’d like us to believe she does; maybe she’s fooling herself - who knows ? In this situation, I can only say what it looks like, to me; another unfortunate misunderstanding and misapplication of Christian teaching to circumstances it isn’t meant to apply to.

@Ghislaine @Eiregoat @beardalaxy From what I can tell, the most Christian response would be for Erika to cry out for justice on behalf of her murdered husband - because if justice isn’t served, that makes this into the kind of place where women’s husbands get shot for their political views, and murderers walk with impunity. This is undesirable for everyone.

Well there's today's hottest take I guess. I'm genuinely speechless.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy I mean idk how you can score christian points by being "nicer" than God lol

According to your metric anyone who has ever killed anyone for any reason on the orders of anyone calling themselves a government did nothing wrong.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine He wasn't even really referring to the Romans primarily, they were more the means by which he died and no the cause.
The "forgive them father, they know not what they do" states plainly that they were ignorant of what the truly did, not that it was forgiven, and that they would be made aware of who the truly did kill before final judgment and repentance was possible.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine That was a request for mercy not a declaration of forgiveness, a chance to know what they did wrong and seek forgiveness of it or to deny the opportunity and wallow in ignorance.

No. He didn't say any of that. He himself requested that they be forgiven.

So the romans who killed him had no moral agency, they were just like a natural disaster or a wild animal or something.

And even though the son of god himself, who all christians are supposed to emulate, called for their forgiveness, we're not supposed to do the same?

This is some elite level mental gymnastics.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine A Roman soldier ordered to carry out an execution does not do wrong by following his orders.

So Lon Horiuchi did nothing wrong huh?

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine A lawful execution, of even an innocent man, is quite different than choosing to kill someone that does not threaten you. Do you hold the executioner who carries out the sentence on an innocent man the same as the one who made sure he was convicted?

Lon Horiuchi was just following orders and lawfully killing the people the government wanted dead. Was he or was he not responsible for following those orders?

> Do you hold the executioner who carries out the sentence on an innocent man the same as the one who made sure he was convicted?

Executioners are morally responsible for their actions, yes. This is even recognised in law, soldiers who are ordered to commit a warcrime are expected to recognise it as such and refuse. If they carry out the order anyhow then they're just as guilty as whoever issued the order.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine The "Nuremburg Principles" are not codified international law unto themselves and are subject to interpretation as legal principles. In common practice "just following orders" may or may not be a defensible position depending on if you knew the orders were illegal or compulsion to follow them.
For example: executing spies by firing squad is not a war crime. And if your commanding officer orders you and your fellows to do so but they aren't enemy combatants engaging in espionage but just prisoners of war, you wouldn't be held accountable for a war crime you committed unknowingly.

das RAYSIST BRUH!!

But nonetheless, if you receive an order to kill someone, you are responsible for assessing the morality of that order before you carry it out.

"I'm a government employee so it's ok" isn't a moral standard.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine Soldiers don't get a choice to follow orders. Lon Horiuchi, if didn't take that shot and disobeyed orders would have had a administrative disciplinary action taken against him as an ATF employee. A Roman soldier not following out on an order to execute someone would result in beatings or death, the latter punishment still technically a possibility for a WW2 era US GI as well, but prison more likely.
Soldiers don't have a choice to disobey orders, that's where the distinction with unlawful orders in the Geneva and other various Warfare conventions is so key. The only thing that could really excuse dereliction of duty by a soldier is said duty being unlawful, and why common soldiers are rarely charged for it but mostly officers.

> Soldiers don't get a choice to follow orders

The fuck? Yes they do, there's always a choice.

> Lon Horiuchi, if didn't take that shot and disobeyed orders would have had a administrative disciplinary action taken against him as an ATF employee.

He was FBI, not ATF. And that's still a choice. If my boss came to me and said "you're fired unless you kill that guy over there" then I am still required to say "no."

> A Roman soldier not following out on an order to execute someone would result in beatings or death, the latter punishment still technically a possibility for a WW2 era US GI as well, but prison more likely.

Again, someone threatening you to commit a crime does not absolve you of moral responsibility.

> Soldiers don't have a choice to disobey orders, that's where the distinction with unlawful orders in the Geneva and other various Warfare conventions is so key.

This is a massive contradiction. A moment ago you said soldiers have no choice because bad things might happen if they say no. Now you're saying that doesn't matter and they have to say no anyway if the order is illegal.

> The only thing that could really excuse dereliction of duty by a soldier is said duty being unlawful, and why common soldiers are rarely charged for it but mostly officers.

Again, your standards are all over the place. If soldiers are responsible for refusing orders they believe are illegal then they are moral agents and are responsible for their decisions.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine International law specifically calls it out because there is no right for a soldier to disobey orders (provided they're lawful, but what enlisted man is a legal expert) and is trying to make a specific legal distinction and defense for a soldier disobeying orders to prevent a war crime. That's what I'm getting at.
All of this is basically in response to the "war crimes" trials that happened after WW2. Many prior legal standards considered the enlisted following the illegal orders of a superior officer not culpable if they didn't go beyond the order's scope, only the officer.

Yes, I'm aware of the legal arguments. But you can't simultaneously argue that soldiers are legally required to refuse bad orders regardless of the consequences and also that they can never refuse orders because there might be consequences.

The two positions are direct contradictions.

@Eiregoat @wgiwf @beardalaxy not super aware of the exact circumstances of horiuchi's killing but Wikipedia says this: "In 1997, Horiuchi was charged with manslaughter for killing Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, who was unarmed while carrying an infant child"

so it sounds like the equivalent would be the romans randomly crucifying Mary Magdalene for no reason. that would be murder and would get the death penalty. Maybe if he was explicitly ordered to do it and thought she was a threat you could argue it was ok? Like I said I'm not super familiar with the case

He was also present at waco where he murdered numerous civilians because the clintons wanted the siege warapped up asap.

As far as I'm concerned there's no shades of grey here, he's a murderer. He murdered innocent men, women and children for a paycheck. It doesn't matter whether the people who told him to do it won popularity contests or wear fancy costumes, it's not any morally different from a mafia goon being paid to do a hit, or me deciding to kill someone for my own petty reasons.

@Eiregoat @Ghislaine @beardalaxy No one here is Jesus.

But according to christianity we are supposed to live by his example.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine Yes. It's also not my job to forgive.

@brimshae @Eiregoat @Ghislaine we are to forgive all men. However, that is often taken out of context. We are to pass righteous judgement. We are required to forgive all men who repent. Repentance is a process, one that requires sacrifice and righting wrongs.

I find it interesting that Erika Kirk thinks that passing the sword of judgement on the shooter would decrease her chance of getting into heaven, but is still willing to let somebody else decide. That would lower their chances instead, according to her logic. Something like that is very self-serving, rather than serving your God.

I think a lot of the hippy dippy Christian stuff is major propaganda, coming from people who want to keep others weak and complacent. Both from inside and outside of the church. The threat of not going to heaven has long been held over people's heads by those who wish to wield power.

She should have just said it is for the courts to decide. Truly, it is. There is a reason why we have all of these systems in place, and it is to keep mankind as a whole on the straight and narrow. If we cannot recognize that, then we can have no repentance.

@beardalaxy @brimshae @Eiregoat @Ghislaine I think Erika Kirk is ignorant of her religion.

@beardalaxy @Eiregoat @Ghislaine @brimshae The whole "turn your other cheek" bullshit has been stamped into Christian heads for forever now.

@Immahnoob @Eiregoat @Ghislaine @brimshae you see, when Jesus said "turn the other cheek" what He REALLY meant was that you should just let people be unabashedly evil and run around sticking their balls in your mouth and killing your friends. If you don't let people do that, you're not a REAL Christian! It was all part of God's plan that your daughter got raped, you see? So you should TOTALLY forgive the rapist who still says he's not guilty even though it's a 100% DNA match!

@beardalaxy @Immahnoob @Eiregoat @brimshae Punishing people for their crimes is MEAN. Borders are MEAN. Not giving all your money to crying niggers is MEAN. Jesus said we were supposed to be nice.

@Eiregoat @beardalaxy @Ghislaine Also, just came across this. 100% relevant.

https://nicecrew.digital/objects/68feb87a-993b-4253-aa9e-4790729e486d

But that's not how it works. One cannot be forgiven of one does not accept it and continues in transgressions.

If forgiveness can be forced then why did Jesus tell the kikes of His day exactly what was going to happen to them? Telling them in matt 23 they make people twice the "child of geenna", that is to say child of eternal damnation as they. Implying they are damned and always will be.

I could go on but I doubt it will matter. The ultimate problems are Christians will 1. Severely misinterpret scripture be it taking it at face value and not doing due diligence to study original language, trust me bro or outright malicious reasons. 2. They, we, are largely cowards who cannot stand for anything. Most still think we are going to get raptured away, which won't happen, but that puts them in the state of mind of "why worry about anything when we will fly away any moment". And 3. They are emotional and cannot believe Jesus would harm a fly and they take forgiveness passages out of context to excuse themselves for holding anyone accountable. Finding themselves supporting the enemies of God but believing they are doing a good thing.

There will be no "atta boy" for supporting kikes in the next life for forgiving Satan.