Re: El Idiot alert.
Kurt Nicklas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.california,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian |
|---|---|
| Organization | Rudella "The Senile, Incel Usenet Dwarf" Canoza School of Fisticuffs and Frantic Retreat |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 07:53:59 -0800 (PST), Tim <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:43:27 AM UTC-5, aaa wrote: >> On 2022-01-30 9:51 a.m., Tim wrote: >> > On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:41:12 AM UTC-5, aaa wrote: >> >> On 2022-01-30 8:26 a.m., Tim wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 9:58:15 PM UTC-5, aaa wrote: >> >>>> On 2022-01-29 8:14 p.m., Tim wrote: >> >>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 5:07:07 PM UTC-5, aaa >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> On 2022-01-29 1:45 p.m., Tim wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 12:52:35 PM UTC-5, aaa >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On 2022-01-29 11:19 a.m., Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> aaa <[email protected]> wrote in >> >>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-29 10:13 a.m., Viktor Tandofsky wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:48:39 AM >> >>>>>>>>>>> UTC-8, aaa wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-29 9:23 a.m., Mitchell Holman >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> aaa <[email protected]> wrote in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-28 9:27 p.m., Mitchell Holman >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aaa <[email protected]> wrote in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-28 2:04 p.m., Mitchell >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holman wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aaa <[email protected]> wrote in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-28 9:06 a.m., Mitchell >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holman wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aaa <[email protected]> wrote >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On 2022-01-28 12:57 a.m., Cloud >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hobbit wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 7:35:59 PM UTC-8, aaa >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-27 9:49 p.m., >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Christ wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2022 9:48 am, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aaa wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-01-27 5:33 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p.m., El Kabong wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Christ >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baptist was >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> converting >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews out of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judaism. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baptizing Jews, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes. Converting >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them out of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judaism, no. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JtB began >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baptizing Jews >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before Jesus even >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started his >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ministry. What >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was there for him >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convert Jews >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to? Brianism? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even Jesus >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't convert >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jews "out of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judaism". Jesus >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always remained >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an observant Jew. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He never told >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone to give it >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you have to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be told?? Stay >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your stupid >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lane, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dickhead. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many times >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to you need >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheists to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scripture to you, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MX? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh. What an >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoranimus. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stay in your own >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lane, Atheist, you >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know anything >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about God and His >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know, right? It's >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embarrassing to be >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected by >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheists on what >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bible says. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aaa >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No atheist has been >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to even comprehend >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spiritual and >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical meaning >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Bible >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the minds of some of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these "expert atheists," >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are biblical >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scholars. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except they have no basic >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy, let >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> alone >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bible philosophy. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone needs to tell >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them the Bible is not an >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheist religious book! >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-). More to the point, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the atheists here need to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> told >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :they are atheists. :-). >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best thing atheists can >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do is to laugh at the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bible. According to Laozi, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the lower men heard >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Tao, they >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> laugh >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greatly. No laughing, then >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not the real Tao. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheists >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laugh at the Bible, it's >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that the Bible is >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the great Tao. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laozi? Tao? Are these things >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you learned about in some new >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books you haven't read? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I happen to learn both. In >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, I believe the greatest >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tao is actually found in the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bible. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where in the Bible is Taoism >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recognized or realized the Tao >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the teaching of the Bible. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just back your claim that Taoism is >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even mentioned in the Bible. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what I said. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I believe the greatest explanation of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tao is actually found in the Bible" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Post your proof. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof is for you to find out yourself. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Numbers 1 and 5 on our list. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to convince you. You have to >> >>>>>>>>>>>> convince yourself one way or the other. It's >> >>>>>>>>>>>> your choice for your own benefit. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The "aaa" evasions: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) "Figure it out yourself." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) "It is just common sense" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) "It is self-evident" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) "It is in my sig line" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) "You know the Bible, look it up yourself" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) "I already posted it". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) "It is my personal understanding". >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 8) "It is your job to verify my claim" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 9) "You are welcome to prove me wrong." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10) "It is already a fact so it dosn't need >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be proven." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 11) "I don't need to prove it, you just need >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to realize it" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 13) "The proof is found in your own heart. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't need to ask me for it." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 14) "That's something you have to find out >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for yourself" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 15) "I made my point" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 16) "Sorry, I don't have to debate web >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> links" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 17) "That's just your willful ignorance" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 18) "That's just your blind denial" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 19) "That's just your misinterpretation" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 20) "It's meaningless to ask such question" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 21) "That is a false question" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 22) "The proof of my claim is open to all" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 23) "The proof is itself" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 24) "It's the common sense written in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone's heart." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 25) "The spiritual is already the proof" >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- God's spiritual evidence: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness, intelligence, happiness, faith, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life >> >>>>>>>>>>>> itself. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> God's spiritual evidence is evident in >> >>>>>>>>>>>> everyone. Find it and treasure it because it's >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the covenant of God. It's the reason why we are >> >>>>>>>>>>>> given this life on earth. It's the foundation >> >>>>>>>>>>>> why we can have meaning in life. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence >> >>>>>>>>>>>> of God for the sake of Christ! >> >>>>>>>>>>> Holman likes to make demands. When he does that< >> >>>>>>>>>>> i ignore him >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have just realized that atheists are good >> >>>>>>>>>> at making both blind denials and blind demands. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> :-) >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Theists only demand proof, they don't provide it. >> >>>>>>>> The spiritual proof has been listed in my signature, >> >>>>>>>> but you have to acquire them yourself in your own life >> >>>>>>>> by following Jesus. There is nothing I can do. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Listing off a bunch of human proclivities, states of >> >>>>>>> mind, and emotions isn't proof of anything. >> >>>>>> These things do exist, and they are not physical. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Most truths are absolutely physical. Please feel free to >> >>>>> step into traffic and prove me wrong. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> Philosophical truth is not physical. Your empirical truth is >> >>>> not the study of philosophy. It's the study of science instead. >> >>>> The philosophical truth is about life or death and right or >> >>>> wrong. It is moral truth. It's the spiritual truth found in the >> >>>> realm of spiritual reality. >> >>> >> >>> Again, I'm fully aware of what philosophy is. Your personal >> >>> definitions I find to be vacuous and unconnected to the actual >> >>> subject. >> >> Too bad you can't even comment on my actual point. You have nothing >> >> but empty claim and blind denial when I have just shown where you >> >> are wrong. >> > >> > I did comment on your point. I pointed out that your personal >> > definitions are irrelevant. >> You have pointed out nothing. All you have is blind denial. > >Blind assertion. > >> > >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> And go. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Love is a relationship between at least one physical thing >> >>>>> and either something else or itself. Some only love >> >>>>> themselves - Michael Christ comes to mind. Other people love >> >>>>> other things. All of which are physical or occur in the minds >> >>>>> of physical things. >> >>>> Love has nothing to do with physical desire. It's a spiritual >> >>>> energy. >> >>> >> >>> "spiritual energy" lacks any meaningful referent. >> >> Not to those who have actually had such energy. To those who have >> >> never had such energy, no meaning is possible to be understood >> >> anyway. If you have been there, you know what I'm talking about. If >> >> you have not been there, you can't know anything no matter how I >> >> describe it. >> > >> > More word salad. Where's the beef? >> I don't think there is anything difficult to understand in what I said. >> What's your problem? > >Blind assertion. > >> > >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Wisdom: knowing how to live well. Last time I checked all >> >>>>> living things were real, physical, actual, and factual. >> >>>> That doesn't make wisdom physical. >> >>> >> >>> It's a state of mind and states of mind are physical. >> >> A mental state is affected by the physical, but it is not physical >> >> itself. >> > >> > >> > Yes it is. It involves real neurons and real chemicals in real >> > brains. All physical and no spiritual woo-woo to be found. >> The neurons and chemicals are used and controlled by the mind instead of >> the other way around. They are not the mind. > >Blind assertion. > >> > >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Compassion: caring for other _THINGS_. >> >>>> That is not physical either. >> >>> >> >>> Yes it is. It's a state of mind between one thing and another. >> >> Nope. >> > >> > How so? If you care for something you care for a thing. How is that >> > not physical? >> Because it is emotion in the mind. > >Mind is brain activity. Brains are real, ergo all you have is a blind assertion. Blind assertion. "Without evidence it's a lie." ---"Tim"(Beesley) 10/1/19 >> > >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Any sane person can see where I'm going with this. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Let's get to the point: >> >>>> The point is you can't make them physical. >> >>> >> >>> I don't need to. They already are. >> >> If they were physical, you would be able to measure them >> >> physically. You can't. >> > >> > They can be measured. >> Never happened. > >Blind assertion. A PhD candidate is measured on their work. Their work shows their intelligence. Nonsense. To whom does it "show" their intelligence? Someone else? The candidate's advisor? What about *his* intelligence to recognize it? Rethink this example and repost, Timmy-Tablette. >Courage is observed - someone rushing into a burning building to help others for example. Also utter nonsense. A fireman rushing in is just doing his job. A father, sole support of a family, is irresponsible if it's not his family. Rethink. Repost. >So, it does and has happened. In your view, it's nothing more than random electro-chemical reactions that may happen one day and may not the next. >You lose. Oh, the irony!