>>4358557

>The old guard are dying of old age.

what's your point? that no need to deconstruct all (((their))) shit because theyre old? were you born stupid or did it require practice? fuck do you think hollywood, academia, and huge swaths of organized religion are other than how the old guard maintains a form power over the populous and the culture? the "old guard" isnt just some fucking wealthy old people. its a way of life. and we are part (a small part perhaps, though i think we are perhaps more important than some think) of the program that is attempting to marginalize and destroy that way of life.

>>4358938

>Perhaps build a new way of life first let people chose to join your new way or not

>

>the steal,kill and destroy mind set is not good for anyone

yeah, you practice your stupidity. i (and many anons here) already have a fucking way of life that has been working reasonably well for a long fucking time. its called western fucking culture. it is a way of life based on a synthesis of the classical greek poets and philosophers, with the texts of the christian church (Early church and here would include much that did not make the final cut of the bible). we are fighting because we got sold a bill of goods. that bill of goods said we should all just live together in peace regardless of the conflicts in our worldview. so we became tolerant. and (((they))), not being satisfied with tolerance and equality, have now taken the position that everyone must believe like them.

i (and i think its fair to "we" as well here) will continue to defend our way of life with vigor.

(((you))) really should fuck off and kys.

>>4359026

>Lot was a righteous man (2 Peter 2:7-8) who fucked his daughters (Genesis 19:32-36). But incest is wrong (Leviticus 18:6).

if this is your analysis then you are stupid af. anyone reading 4000 year old texts literally needs to find a new fucking hobby. the southern baptists though, along with scofield, would fucking love you.

and it is precisely the strength of the texts comprising the bible that they are exceedingly sensitive to changes in cultural norms. you seem to assume that there are no conditions under which it might be righteous to hold slaves. that would be a massive mistake. clearly there are conditions under which making someone a slave would be morally superior to any other available option. that this is so, will serve to undermine and undercut any argument you might have for the shit position you are trying to defend. further, much of what is said about slaves could be applied today to citizens and employees of big corporate.

>>4359106

>You've literally just sunk to the point of defending slavery as moral and just, in your attempt to defend the Bible at all cost.

no. try fuckin harder. i said there are conditions under which it would be moral. like several thousand fucking years ago when prisoners of war couldnt be indefinitely detained due to lack of resources. i assume youre ok with leaders then taking steps to ensure that the enemy cant regroup and attack again? if the choices are killing them all or making them slaves with some rules that potentially allow them to be freed (see jubileum year rules and shit) down the line, then it would seem that slavery is the moral choice.

see fuckwit…..it isnt me that's sunk morally….it is (((you))) that is either stupid af or playing intellectual faggot games.

>>4359117

>Why do anons attack questions?

because this is a somewhat socratic style forum fuckwit. and here's the thing. socrates thought questions so important (much more important than fucking answers) that he spent huge amounts of time trying to find the right questions.

he had exactly no patience with and gave exactly zero fucks to fuckwits with bad or disingenuous questions.

that's why the attacks come. your questions literally suck balls.