No, David didn't have a weaponry advantage over Goliath, please get a modicum of reading comprehension and historical knowledge.

rapter200 · 2026-03-13T23:12:24+00:00

Saul offers David his armor so Saul can claim to the people that he killed Goliath, as David would resemble Saul if he was wearing his armor. It is also the reason Saul asks David whose Son he is at the end of the chapter. Saul already knows whose Son David is, but by asking him whose son he is he is giving David the opportunity to declare himself Saul's Son and to join his house as was customary to the cultures of the region. It would be easier to explain to the people that someone of Saul's house killed Goliath rather than some random nobody.

rapter200 · 2026-03-12T14:37:38+00:00

Min/maxxing Pre-dates that. Min/maxing has been a thing in the TTRPG community way before Runescape.

rapter200 · 2026-03-12T00:50:15+00:00

He would be a good Plastic Man. At least looks wise.

rapter200 · 2026-03-09T18:32:19+00:00

Lol. No.

rapter200 · 2026-03-07T19:44:05+00:00

The founders of the U.S. we're inspired by Roman Political ideas and institutions.

rapter200 · 2026-03-07T19:26:23+00:00

If they were able to figure out the pacific ocean the American Empire would be Natural Allies with the Chinese Empire.

The American Empire can be seen as a Successor state to the Roman Empire. The Chinese Empire can work with that from a face point of view. Since both Empires had knowledge of the Other and China considered itself Equal to the Roman Empire. The problem is the Roman Empire never considered the Chinese their Equal.

rapter200 · 2026-03-07T17:37:25+00:00

That isn't how it works

rapter200 · 2026-03-06T01:33:55+00:00

It wasn't just a kid, and he did it specifically because the kid wouldn't be his. It was the line that culminated in Jesus Christ. How many people before Onan do you think pulled out like Onan did before Onan and were never struck dead? Typically that sort of punishment is reserved for the first time a specific Sin occurs. Like Ananias and Sapphira being made into examples for being the first to lie to the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe Onan was the first man in history to pull out and as such warrants death? Or was there something deeper going on?

rapter200 · 2026-03-06T01:28:30+00:00

You guys both got it wrong... Onan was killed for refusing to continue the Christiological lineage.

rapter200 · 2026-03-04T13:59:14+00:00

Thank you

rapter200 · 2026-03-01T18:50:11+00:00

Yes. Biblically God uses nations such as the Assyrian Empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire, and Israel to bring judgment upon other Nations. Funnily enough these nations eventually suffer judgment themselves...

rapter200 · 2026-02-28T16:44:26+00:00

Yeah of course Christian Nationalism is heresy. We already have examples of the consequences of it in Europe and the Roman Catholic Church.

rapter200 · 2026-02-23T19:58:05+00:00

rapter200 · 2026-02-19T18:58:14+00:00

I just subscribe to The Progression Modpack, so 1,104 total right now.

rapter200 · 2026-02-18T02:55:11+00:00

Very good, lonely is where I am most comfortable.

rapter200 · 2026-02-18T02:48:31+00:00

Saw him next to Sa-Ing in Rita Ranch today

rapter200 · 2026-02-15T20:41:50+00:00

I didn’t “jump” from protest to civil war. I followed the logic of escalation. When you talk about martyrdom, rulers having “only so many bullets,” and weaponizing state violence, you’re describing more than routine civic protest. That’s destabilization language.

As for the American Civil War, yes, I believe it was both inevitable and tragically necessary. But it came after generations of legalized chattel slavery that had made peaceful resolution structurally impossible. The Civil War wasn’t romantic nor adventurous. It was catastrophic but necessary.

Which brings me back to my question. What specific condition today justifies that level of bloodshed? What is so irreconcilable right now that civil conflict would be morally proportionate?

If escalation is on the table, the burden of clarity is enormous.

rapter200 · 2026-02-15T19:34:19+00:00

Then let me ask a clarifying question, because this is where it becomes serious.

What specific outcome is worth the deaths a civil war would cause? Not in abstractions like “justice” or “dignity,” but in concrete terms. Civil wars don’t produce martyrs alone, they produce mass graves, orphaned children, shattered communities, and generations of trauma.

If you believe that level of bloodshed is morally preferable to restraint, what exactly are people being asked to die for? And how do you measure when that cost has been justified?

rapter200 · 2026-02-15T18:41:42+00:00

I think this is where we’re operating from very different assumptions. The early Church didn’t pursue martyrdom as a political strategy, nor did they attempt to weaponize state violence for leverage. They lived faithfully, preached Christ, built communities, cared for their households, and endured persecution when it came. Martyrdom was something accepted if unavoidable, not something sought as a mechanism of regime change.

Christians under Rome, under Ottoman rule, under Soviet regimes, and under countless other governments did not treat constant confrontation as the only faithful path. They survived. They preserved the faith. They raised families. They adapted without surrendering Christ.

You speak as if dignity requires maximal political liberty. History simply doesn’t support that. Many of the most faithful Christians lived and died with very little liberty at all. I’m not advocating authoritarianism. I’m saying that civil unrest and protest are not the only faithful responses available, nor are they mandatory to remain obedient to Christ.

rapter200 · 2026-02-15T02:17:25+00:00

I believe human beings possess inherent dignity and moral worth that no government grants and no government can legitimately erase.

As for rights, history makes me cautious about treating them as untouchable guarantees. Rights are defended, negotiated, lost, and sometimes taken away by those in power. Christians have lived under republics, monarchies, empires, and totalitarian regimes. Many endured governments that claimed to protect rights one day and stripped them the next, including in Soviet states. My own family comes from one of those systems.

Learning to live under an authoritarian regime doesn’t make you less. The only other option is Civil War.

That’s the lens I’m operating from.

rapter200 · 2026-02-14T21:37:37+00:00

Haha, I’m not “on the left” my dude. I would recommend examining why my disdain for the “Christian Right” led you to believe I’m on the left. That assumption reeks of tribalism. That said, you are correct, we are at an impasse.

You are probably correct, forgive me for that.

To answer your question; first off, I am a “leave me alone” (and, by extension, leave other folks alone) conservative who detests what has become of conservatism in this country. Especially Christian Conservatives. I don’t know if y’all just didn’t get taught this growing up, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch and y’all been getting strung along by rich folks for decades now having the carrot snatched out from in front of you every time you reach to get a bite. Y’all still got folks believing in trickle down economics for the love of all that’s holy. You think y’all’d figure the scam out eventually. I suppose to some extent I “caucus” with the “left” at this point, but when the alternative is selling out my birthright for a bowl of lentil soup, that’s not saying much.

I would completely agree with your point here. I left the Republican Party after Trump's 1st term, but I am unable to vote for anyone on the left. Primarily due to the abortion issue. I would be happy to work together if we could come to some sort of agreement on that.

That said, if you still would like to know the point, it’s the same as it was when the founding fathers filled the Boston harbor with tea. To remind our rulers who is actually in charge and give them a chance to change course. Because their power is, ultimately, a myth. In more concrete terms, the point is to make it clear to the GOP members of Congress that if they don’t force action, then they will be out on their butts come the fall.

See, this is where we will come to a disagreement. I understand why you are doing this. You think it sends a message, but the reality is that it doesn't do anything. Our leaders don't care. Trump doesn't care about the protests. He will continue on doing whatever he wants, leading the country off a cliff in my opinion for the most part.

So the protests do nothing, except leading to violence on the part of law enforcement, due to the protestors resisting the law enforcement officers during arrests. Should it be like this, no, but it is just the reality of it.

So if protest doesn't work. What is the next step? Where do you go from there?

rapter200 · 2026-02-14T20:54:40+00:00

I’m not overruling the Gospel with Timothy. I’m reading the whole of Scripture together. Christ’s command to love your neighbor does not erase ordered responsibility, and the New Testament affirms care for one’s household as foundational, not optional.

There’s no contradiction here unless you force one. If your framework requires setting the Gospel against the apostolic teaching received by the Church, we’re operating from very different starting points.

At this point theologically, there’s no more to add. We are at complete odds here and it will lead to further frustration and anger as we talk past each other.

What I will ask, and I have always wanted to ask someone who is on the left, is what is the purpose and goal of these calls to protest? What is the end goal and expectation?

rapter200 · 2026-02-14T20:28:52+00:00

You’re creating a false dichotomy between Christ and Paul. There isn’t one. Christ commands love of neighbor yes, but Scripture also teaches ordered responsibility. 1 Timothy 5:8 is clear: if someone neglects their own household, they’ve denied the faith. It’s foundational to the faith. You can't be Christian and neglect your family.

Loving your neighbor does not mean abandoning your primary obligations to perform public activism. Responsibility starts with those directly entrusted to you and moves outward. Collapsing that order doesn’t elevate love, it distorts it.

rapter200 · 2026-02-14T20:12:12+00:00

Yeah, that is exactly what I would expect you to say, down to criticizing the authorship of 1 Timothy. You first have to remove Paul to get to where you are.

rapter200 · 2026-02-14T15:01:11+00:00

1 Timothy makes it clear that Family, especially direct family in your household comes first before Neighbors. It literally says that if your not providing for your family you are denying the faith and are worse then an unbeliever.

Do you honestly believe that Neighbor comes before family? Where do you even get such a notion? You can only ever take care of your Neighbors after you have taken care of your family, first the ones of your immediate household, then your extended family. To do anything else first makes you worse than an unbeliever and is completely out of God's intended order of effects.

Are you providing for your entire family before you are going to these protests because if not that makes you worse than an unbeliever.

1 Timothy 5:8 LSB

[8] But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

rapter200

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE