https://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
-
The Many Ghosts of Murr — 2 years ago(September 25, 2023 12:55 PM)
You ask this like that's a bad thing. The Jews and Christians would do well to follow that one
I actually have a more realistic (though theoretical, but I am a nerd about this ****) interpretation, but it requires not taking it literally and everyone on every side of the religious debate seems to have trouble doing that, so meh -
Nimda's mom lol — 2 years ago(September 25, 2023 02:05 PM)
Read and be baptized
https://neo-christianity.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-new-bible.html?m=1
GILF cougar into incest horny af all the time give you love longtime all night long sucky sucky anal bukkakke gangbang orgy -
The Many Ghosts of Murr — 2 years ago(September 25, 2023 02:10 PM)
Fit goes on to say "of David", "rocks of David". You could interpret that figuratively (the power or strength or "righteousness" of David, etc…); or more literally (the rocks of Jerusalem, as onvz the psalm is about remembering Zion through the time in Babylon (remembering, keeping it part of one, not being corrupted, no losing "who you were" or how one sees the world) the rocks of Jerusalem, and taking the babies there and smashing them (but even that - "there" - becomes figurative quickly).
Also, it's a psalm, a song. Equating heroism with War and violence is an old - older than the OT - especially in poetic form (modern society seems to think it invented poetry, it's odd), trope we still use today… in music, film, TV, etc… Not a stretch to take it figuratively. Early Jewish people, the stories of, and those rooted in, the stories of the OT, were pretty nonviolent. The latest evidence - archeology, not even in religious studies - is that they didn't even view it as a religion, in the context followers today ascribe to it. More akin to native American "folklore" - tribal myths, understood to represent truth but not be taken literally (I doubt a single Pueblo person ever believed a literal raven literally was born a prince to steal the Moon [Sun? I forget] from captivity by the king).
The very concept of religiosity and intent we put onto religion in modern society is wholly different from what they believed and how.
My interpretation given that? Smash their infants on rocks means teach their kids the way of Zion, or at least away from Babylon - corrupt the minds of their young away from Babylon, using imagery perhaps done to them/that they found deplorable (poetically pumping oneself up, see: a good portion of hip-hop). Their infants will be smashed, dead little ****s… Dead to Babylon. It even goes on **** about God guarding dude with his right hand, when legit battle comes, it's clearly not a "let's fight!", but "trust in Zion/God"; and various references to singing songs of Zion (they were aiming for a social movement, and instead got the collapse of the Neo-Babylonian Empire… idk, they mightve been onto something) -
TaraDeS — 2 years ago(September 25, 2023 03:28 PM)
by The Many Ghosts of Murr (September 25, 2023 04:10 PM)
Member since August 23, 2023
Fit goes on to say "of David", "rocks of David". You could interpret that figuratively (the power or strength or "righteousness" of David, etc…); or more literally (the rocks of Jerusalem, as onvz the psalm is about remembering Zion through the time in Babylon (remembering, keeping it part of one, not being corrupted, no losing "who you were" or how one sees the world) the rocks of Jerusalem, and taking the babies there and smashing them (but even that - "there" - becomes figurative quickly).
Also, it's a psalm, a song. Equating heroism with War and violence is an old - older than the OT - especially in poetic form (modern society seems to think it invented poetry, it's odd), trope we still use today… in music, film, TV, etc… Not a stretch to take it figuratively. Early Jewish people, the stories of, and those rooted in, the stories of the OT, were pretty nonviolent. The latest evidence - archeology, not even in religious studies - is that they didn't even view it as a religion, in the context followers today ascribe to it. More akin to native American "folklore" - tribal myths, understood to represent truth but not be taken literally (I doubt a single Pueblo person ever believed a literal raven literally was born a prince to steal the Moon [Sun? I forget] from captivity by the king).
The very concept of religiosity and intent we put onto religion in modern society is wholly different from what they believed and how.
My interpretation given that? Smash their infants on rocks means teach their kids the way of Zion, or at least away from Babylon - corrupt the minds of their young away from Babylon, using imagery perhaps done to them/that they found deplorable (poetically pumping oneself up, see: a good portion of hip-hop). Their infants will be smashed, dead little ****s… Dead to Babylon. It even goes on **** about God guarding dude with his right hand, when legit battle comes, it's clearly not a "let's fight!", but "trust in Zion/God"; and various references to singing songs of Zion (they were aiming for a social movement, and instead got the collapse of the Neo-Babylonian Empire… idk, they mightve been onto something)
Very, very interesting analysis.
Yes, a kind of song, heroic song, epic poem.
While I still think the part
"smash them"
is exactly what it appears.
Kill them as they killed ours.
We were peaceful and they confused our kindness with weakness.
Show them who we are and what we're capable of, so that they'll never do that to us again.
Well, that's the
'problem'
with poetry.
Different views and interpretations, dependent on
The Life and Opinions
.
Possible (wrong) projections included.
The whole (psalm/background) reminds to
"Dragon's Gold"
.
MiesMies