- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He's basically an ethot, a dancing monkey for our amusement. Dance, Balldo, dance!
"I have some flaws, like King David from the Bible. But actually, I'm even better than King David. Take that, David, you fucking bozo."
Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.
- Thread starter Himedall All-seeing Waifu
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
It is drawn out from 1 Thessalonians 5:22.
22 - Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Except this did not happen... David was at war for the rest of his life and had a coup led against him by his favourite son Absalom (who cucked him with all his concubines in a very public manner), and it was masterminded by his most capable counsellor, Ahithophel, who was the grandfather of Bathsheba. He had to leave Jerusalem in disgrace before he was able to rally enough troops to take back the capital.
This does not even include the fact that another of his sons, Amnon, raped his half-sister Tamar. Amnon was then subsequently killed by Absalom, her brother.
Another son, Adonijah, was killed when he attempted to claim the crown before Solomon was set upon the throne.
With the death of the original son of Bathsheba, David's judgement of 'four-fold' recompense for Uriah (One of his OG commandoes from the time he was on the run from Saul) is complete. Plus all the family issues and constant problems.
The idea is that God is the origin and definition of 'Good', so it is His rules you are breaking. Every offense against another is an offense against God first. There is also some poetic hyperbole going on here.
But he never SAID he was a theologian of pastor! YOU just inferred it! Since he never SAID it, he cannot be held to the same standard! He can say whatever he wants, and NO ONE should take him seriously! If people listen to him, that is THEIR choice!
This is what he has argued in the past.
He is trying to generalise, downplay, and deflect. 'Everybody makes mistakes (so mine are not that bad!)' 'Everyone sins (so quit judging me already!)'
Nick uses strictly true statements to indirectly make claims. This is the same thing he did when he messaged Josh about his thread--he was implying what he wanted done with the 'I just want to let you know'.
Men, when your GF/SO/Wife says: 'We are low on cat food', or you are sat on the couch and 'I am thirsty', what do they want you to do?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Basically Russell Greer with his "I moved on, why can't you?" thing he does while continuing to do exactly what got him his shit reputation. I know, I know, it's getting tiresome pointing out how Nick is basically glomming onto and genestealing the negative traits of every other cow after being possessed by the Sonichu Demon, but it's increasingly hard not to see it.
Literally everything this weirdo does is something some other lolcow did previously.
Essentially, you can't "sin" against a person, because a person does not have that attribute. So for instance if David were justified in what he did to Uriah, it would not have been a sin.
Think of it like the way that every criminal case is not "Victim v. Perp," but "State of Minnesota v. Perp."
A crime is a crime against the sovereign, in the U.S. often something like "the People of the State of California," and God is the ultimate sovereign, so all sins would be against Him.
Note, this is what Nick admitted in his gay diary entry posted to the world like a 14 year old girl would do. He admitted he revels in defying God.
This is basically Sadean, Satanic shit.
And look what it's earned him. The wages of sin are coming, buddy boy.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
All I took from the David story Nick told is he’s upset he couldn’t kill Aaron before Aaron told the world
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2021
Oh, yes, but I stopped the analysis where I think Nick's mind likely goes.
After all, he said his sons haven't risen up against him (yet). And, afaik, he hasn't killed anyone, so again, he is superior to David!(And srsly, you know far more than I on Biblical lore, but I did think it interesting that the post-repentance period included some material success. And that he wasn't so repentant as not to stick with Bathsheba as his wife* (spoils of his sin). Also that he (David) was relieved when Bathsheba's first baby with him finally died, indicating (to me) that his core was still rotten and he didn't get it. I should read (and think) more, but one wonders if the later strife really mattered. A combative narcissist would still think it was worth it.)
* I'm sure there are cultural things at play here, but the bottom line is that he kept what he had stolen.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2018
Except the happiness you got from sinning was directly proportional to the amount of hardship your children faced, you smug, shit-stained asshole.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
Just as glimpses of self-awareness appear, Nick begins to excuse himself and minimalize his sins and crimes.
Nicholas should focus less on David and more on Solomon, as his life is closer to last years of Solomon's reigns.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2022
Indeed. Nick doesn't place anyone higher than himself, which essentially translates to Nick counting himself among the highest in Scripture. He needs to think that David and the Christ are flawed and misunderstood sinners because Nick wants to identify with that. This way Nick can still sin and be "unjustly" held to account for it.
If Nick were to accept that David was repentant and held to account for his transgressions and that the Christ was a sinless savior then their lives wouldn't apply to him in such a conveniently self-serving way.
The reality is that Nick isn't experiencing any kind of misunderstood greatness. The more Nick tries to force this the more embarrassing it gets.
Red Dye #5
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2024
Nick pls stop. My family hasn’t seen me in a month
- Joined
- May 28, 2024
Do you think Nick means "literally every person cheats on their spouses and gives their kid cocaine!" Or "a married man thinking an actress is hot but not acting on it is as bad as me cheating on my spouse and giving my kid cocaine!"
Either way he is retarded, pathetic, and irredeemable because he continues to refuse to take accountability for his actions
A true lolcow
fggt_mcdckface
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2024
I hate him more every day, it’s amazing.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2020
Sermon LXIX
The Cuckpope spaketh:“Most sin is done with a smile.”
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2021
Didn’t Jesus also have flaws? Really when you think about it, Baldo could be favorably compared to the Son of God.
- Joined
- May 31, 2024
Exactly. It means she wants to go to the shopping mall and buy clothes and shoes and that I shouldn't make plans for the next 6 hours while I watch the kids.
Melty Butter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2024
From a popular Baptist website and a pastor and professor of Religion & Philosophy (my bold):
- Joined
- May 28, 2024
When I think of Jesus's Crucifixion it always reminds me of the St. Andrews sex cross
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
Oh, yes, but I stopped the analysis where I think Nick's mind likely goes.
(And srsly, you know far more than I on Biblical lore, but I did think it interesting that the post-repentance period included some material success. And that he wasn't so repentant as not to stick with Bathsheba as his wife* (spoils of his sin). Also that he (David) was relieved when Bathsheba's first baby with him finally died, indicating (to me) that his core was still rotten and he didn't get it. I should read (and think) more, but one wonders if the later strife really mattered. A combative narcissist would still think it was worth it.)
* I'm sure there are cultural things at play here, but the bottom line is that he kept what he had stolen.
Oh, certainly! I failed to pick up on the sarcasm. I would not be the first time! I was part of a study that pored autistically over David, his family, and life weekly for 3-4 years, so Nick is really treading on a ground that pisses me off by lying.
The main issue Nick (and we today) have is that we get the Cliff Notes version of these people's stories, and we do not get to see the lifetime of suffering and regret play out in most cases. If you read the Psalms David wrote when he was on the run from Absalom and in his later troubles, you will get an idea of what his feeligns were.
SPOILER: He felt really bad, and did not call his critics out for being too harsh on him. He wondered if this trouble he was having was not the JUST outcome of his actions and what he deserved.
The interpretation I have seen of his actions with Bathsheeba is that David was repentant and asking for mercy while the out-of-wedlock child was alive (despite the fact that it's death was pronounced by Nathan), then after it died David realised he had to 'man up' and run the kingdom and own his mistakes. While it was alive, he had hope that God might spare it, but it was a moot point after. Also, he went directly to the tabernacle of God afterwards, so that indicates he was seeking to repair that relationship.
Culturally, taking a woman into your tent/household meant you had responsibility for her--if not legally, it was enforced socially. Tossing her out was an insult to her and she would be unable to find another to take her in with her reputation.
Culturally, taking a woman into your tent/household meant you had responsibility for her--if not legally, it was enforced socially. Tossing her out was an insult to her and she would be unable to find another to take her in with her reputation.
14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."
15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.
16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground.
17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."
19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked. "Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.
16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground.
17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."
19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked. "Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
Thread sleuths, I have some historical Nick media that may be interesting:
Here is Nick with 'Peaches' Rekieta and his mother and uncles. That looks like financial and business documentation on the table in front of them. Related to the trusts perhaps?
Also, have some Nick thoughts on ministers speaking outside their area of expertise!
Rekieta Phasic-Timetable Theory: Bridging science and creation
There’s an ongoing struggle in our world between two indomitable and un-falsifiable foes. The argument is either relatively new or relatively old (depending on which side you fall). Simplified, the argument is pitched as evolutionism vs. creationism. Really, though, that doesn’t encompass the true question or adequately detail the major factions; the real question is old earth vs. young earth.
Evolution vs. creation is too broad-brush. Many creationists believe in a divinely manifested evolution; finding God as creator doesn’t preclude the tools he may have used to develop his creation. So, if the rift isn’t believers vs. non-believers it must lie somewhere else. On the surface, many would say the rift is between biblical literalists, and everyone else. I think this is incomplete (as I will illustrate) but it’s a good distinction to start from because many of us have had a discussion where someone views the creation story of the bible as a positive, literal assertion of history.
I can jive with this viewpoint. I run into trouble because I have a basic disagreement, not with the literal truth of the biblical record, but with the problems associated with assumptions made by young-earth creationists and with the functional problems of ancient-author understandings of the universe we know exists. I think the Genesis account of creation is true, but I would imagine (and have personally experienced) that my reading of Genesis varies greatly from many young-earth creationists out there. I think Genesis, first and foremost, is not intended as a science lesson. It establishes God as creator, man as caretaker, man in the image of God, and it establishes man as flawed.
Young-earthers assert that the earth is approximately 10,000-15,000 years old, based on the biblical genealogy record. Again, as I will demonstrate, I’m ok with this estimation of the earth’s age, but not in any conventional sense or the sense shared by Young-earthers.
This is where my analysis gets a little heady, and probably overly wordy. I think that both old and young earth theories are concurrently true. I know, this seems weird, but follow me. We’ll start with some basic premises I need you to accept; I don’t think they’re much of a stretch (unless you are an atheist). I am operating under the premise that God created the universe; this necessarily means that God existed before and thus exists outside of our universe. I also need you to understand that time, as we understand it and as I discuss it, is a physical dimension of our universe.
Modern physics tells us that time is a physical dimension, much like the traditional X, Y, Z axes that we all hated in geometry. The key difference between temporal [time] dimensions and the spatial dimensions is our method for navigating them. We navigate time on an increasing axis and have not been able to travel in the opposite direction, yet. In the spatial dimensions we are free to traverse both positively and negatively (though, one could argue that this is not true if we look past relativistic physics, that’s a separate discussion). Many assume that this means we experience time on a fixed vector, but this isn’t true. The passage of time (both perceived and real) is subjective to our state of mind [perceived] and the speed we are travelling [real]. Relativity postulates and experiments have shown that objects moving at a higher velocity literally move through time at a slower rate.
Math is not hindered as we are in its time-travelling abilities and physicists use math to “travel back in time” with relative frequency. With math, and its ability to move forward or backward through time, we are able to travel along all dimensions both forward and backwards. I am spending a lot of time on this because it’s important to understand that our perception of time is limited to forward, but time itself is not limited to forward.
This temporal freedom tells us that time, both “past” and “future” (or positive and negative) exists already. We know that “now” is relative to your motion, so this instant isn’t the only instant that exists, but the totality of instants must exist for time to play out the way it does. Time exists inside our universe, not outside. This is important because it means that God is not affected by time; God created time at the same moment he created space.
I know this is getting really cerebral but you must understand this concept because time is exactly like space. If time is exactly like space, then the idea that time “started” at zero is false. There isn’t a “start” to space; there isn’t a start to time. Maybe that’s too simplistic, there isn’t a “linear” start to space that then progresses to an end of space; there is a starting point (as indefinable as a single point in the universe can be) but there is no ending point. Time is identical in that time must have started somewhere, but the start is irrespective of its existence.
Basically, when God created space, he created all of it; it follows that he must also have created all of time. We have labeled “the beginning of time” relative to our current position and our experience of time in only a positive direction. That, however, is like saying one end of a road is the beginning and the other is the end: this can only be true if you travel in one direction, but on a two way road, those points can be reversed. Further, we have no idea where the builders actually started when they made the road; they may have started in the middle.
This is where the phasic-timetable comes through. Since God created the totality of time in the same instant, his entry point into creation is irrelevant to the passage of time. God’s creation point has absolutely nothing to do with year zero. It’s like saying a baker made a loaf of bread starting from one end.
Since God’s entry into the timeline is irrelevant, there’s nothing precluding both a biblical timetable (including a literal six-day creation) and our current conceptions of an old-earth/old-universe existing concurrently. Both are possible simultaneously. When you want to get really heady, consider the physical possibility that the actual date of the creation is in the future.
There’s an ongoing struggle in our world between two indomitable and un-falsifiable foes. The argument is either relatively new or relatively old (depending on which side you fall). Simplified, the argument is pitched as evolutionism vs. creationism. Really, though, that doesn’t encompass the true question or adequately detail the major factions; the real question is old earth vs. young earth.
Evolution vs. creation is too broad-brush. Many creationists believe in a divinely manifested evolution; finding God as creator doesn’t preclude the tools he may have used to develop his creation. So, if the rift isn’t believers vs. non-believers it must lie somewhere else. On the surface, many would say the rift is between biblical literalists, and everyone else. I think this is incomplete (as I will illustrate) but it’s a good distinction to start from because many of us have had a discussion where someone views the creation story of the bible as a positive, literal assertion of history.
I can jive with this viewpoint. I run into trouble because I have a basic disagreement, not with the literal truth of the biblical record, but with the problems associated with assumptions made by young-earth creationists and with the functional problems of ancient-author understandings of the universe we know exists. I think the Genesis account of creation is true, but I would imagine (and have personally experienced) that my reading of Genesis varies greatly from many young-earth creationists out there. I think Genesis, first and foremost, is not intended as a science lesson. It establishes God as creator, man as caretaker, man in the image of God, and it establishes man as flawed.
Young-earthers assert that the earth is approximately 10,000-15,000 years old, based on the biblical genealogy record. Again, as I will demonstrate, I’m ok with this estimation of the earth’s age, but not in any conventional sense or the sense shared by Young-earthers.
This is where my analysis gets a little heady, and probably overly wordy. I think that both old and young earth theories are concurrently true. I know, this seems weird, but follow me. We’ll start with some basic premises I need you to accept; I don’t think they’re much of a stretch (unless you are an atheist). I am operating under the premise that God created the universe; this necessarily means that God existed before and thus exists outside of our universe. I also need you to understand that time, as we understand it and as I discuss it, is a physical dimension of our universe.
Modern physics tells us that time is a physical dimension, much like the traditional X, Y, Z axes that we all hated in geometry. The key difference between temporal [time] dimensions and the spatial dimensions is our method for navigating them. We navigate time on an increasing axis and have not been able to travel in the opposite direction, yet. In the spatial dimensions we are free to traverse both positively and negatively (though, one could argue that this is not true if we look past relativistic physics, that’s a separate discussion). Many assume that this means we experience time on a fixed vector, but this isn’t true. The passage of time (both perceived and real) is subjective to our state of mind [perceived] and the speed we are travelling [real]. Relativity postulates and experiments have shown that objects moving at a higher velocity literally move through time at a slower rate.
Math is not hindered as we are in its time-travelling abilities and physicists use math to “travel back in time” with relative frequency. With math, and its ability to move forward or backward through time, we are able to travel along all dimensions both forward and backwards. I am spending a lot of time on this because it’s important to understand that our perception of time is limited to forward, but time itself is not limited to forward.
This temporal freedom tells us that time, both “past” and “future” (or positive and negative) exists already. We know that “now” is relative to your motion, so this instant isn’t the only instant that exists, but the totality of instants must exist for time to play out the way it does. Time exists inside our universe, not outside. This is important because it means that God is not affected by time; God created time at the same moment he created space.
I know this is getting really cerebral but you must understand this concept because time is exactly like space. If time is exactly like space, then the idea that time “started” at zero is false. There isn’t a “start” to space; there isn’t a start to time. Maybe that’s too simplistic, there isn’t a “linear” start to space that then progresses to an end of space; there is a starting point (as indefinable as a single point in the universe can be) but there is no ending point. Time is identical in that time must have started somewhere, but the start is irrespective of its existence.
Basically, when God created space, he created all of it; it follows that he must also have created all of time. We have labeled “the beginning of time” relative to our current position and our experience of time in only a positive direction. That, however, is like saying one end of a road is the beginning and the other is the end: this can only be true if you travel in one direction, but on a two way road, those points can be reversed. Further, we have no idea where the builders actually started when they made the road; they may have started in the middle.
This is where the phasic-timetable comes through. Since God created the totality of time in the same instant, his entry point into creation is irrelevant to the passage of time. God’s creation point has absolutely nothing to do with year zero. It’s like saying a baker made a loaf of bread starting from one end.
Since God’s entry into the timeline is irrelevant, there’s nothing precluding both a biblical timetable (including a literal six-day creation) and our current conceptions of an old-earth/old-universe existing concurrently. Both are possible simultaneously. When you want to get really heady, consider the physical possibility that the actual date of the creation is in the future.
VERY interesting that he is offended when they do it, but he can...
ETA: Another theological rant
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2024
I discovered Nick during the Rittenhouse trial and due to a pretty easy job I had at the time, watched most of it. I’ll defer to the Kiwi law partners here, but every time I ran one of Nick’s legal theories past a defense attorney friend of mine that friend found them retarded. Nick was at one time a decent entertainer, but I don’t think he was ever that smart.
The statement is pretty good imo. When Balldo was a no one, he hated David for his abuse of power. When Balldo became sorta rich and famous, Balldo repeated (on a smaller scale) the sins of David. He’s not denying (in this post) his sins of the flesh; he’s acknowledging that he has committed adultery and more.
If he weren’t full of shit I’d think he might be making some progress. As it is he’s on the Internet seething at his former lover/bull and paypigging a bunch of pederasts, so we can probably discard this as another attempt to workshop an effective PR message.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
"Listen Nick, this is a good thing you're doing. This will generate goodwill in the community and really help out at sentencing." "Yeah sorry, Dad. But I'm not doing that anymore. I'll be honest, I was just tuning you out and placating you like usual. I didn't realize you meant I would be helping out at the summer camp that Petrofag sponsors for kids with AIDS. I thought Petrofag would be paying me to go to a summer camp and give the kids AIDS."
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
“You can’t criticize me, I wasn’t even trying to be intellectual!”
Nick is not doing well, this is another level of dumb than I’m used to with him.