I want it known that @Sophiologist_, a so-called philosopher, has blocked me after I responded to his tweet on the nature of the soul that he claimed to be "a fragile thing", like the feelings of him and his associates, presumably. I pointed out that the immortal soul if it exists is intended to survive death. This man is supposed to be Christian, by the way.
I had thought a middle class group of educated people claiming to be interested in philosophy would be better able to understand my ideas than the proletariat, but it seems they are in fact worse than wignats, more intellectually dishonest and more determined to censor and defame me.
They are no different to the liberal political establishment they are always complaining about. My comments are hidden on @PaulVanderKlay and @GrailCountry without explanation other than the personal dislike of "Joey A" - a moderator - and Shari Suter who likened me to potential killer.
For no reason at all that I can discern, she claimed I would entice people to go on walks with me and then push them off for the fun of it. I have never engaged with her. She has neither sought to to explain herself further nor retract her defamatory statements.
Among the other defamatory things she has said is that I am "the adversary" (presumably likening me to Satan), a behemoth and a snake in the garden, without explaining herself further while avoiding any engagement. Is this what intellectuals now do? Defame then disengage?
If she were just a fishwife, I'd just move on, but her associates are writers, teachers, religious leaders and a man claiming to be a philosopher called Michael Martin who thought the soul was "a fragile thing" rather than immortal, identifying himself as a Christian and a Druid!
Druids were mostly exterminated by the pre-Christian Romans, in case you did not know this timeline of history.
Michael Martin, the philosopher, Druid and Christian, was clearly not interested in rational discourse and neither are his associates. Shari Suter giving lessons in imagination is unable to imagine how God would regard people who think of Him as Jesus if He is not in fact Jesus and is unable to conceptualise idolatry as it is conceived of by Jews and Muslims.
If the Abrahamic God who created the Universe in fact exists, shouldn't the definition of idolatry be resolved as soon as possible as a matter of urgency? If He forbade idolatry, can it not be deduced by any reasonable person that He intends to punish global idolatry with WW3?
It cannot be denied that there have been three global Christian empires. If Christianity is indeed the idolatry of worshiping an executed blasphemer, then Christian idolatry and blasphemy has gone global three times with no pushback from Jews and Muslims at all.
I suppose we cannot expect idolaters who worship an executed blasphemer to be capable of rational thought or intellectual honesty. If they really do believe Jesus created the Universe, they must be ignorant, credulous, irrational or dishonest and nothing can be expected of them in the way of what ought to be natural feelings of remorse once they acknowledge that the Trinity is both morally and intellectually indefensible.
If you and your ancestors have been believing or pretending to believe in an absurdity for 2000 years, your thinking would be corrupted and questionable. Therefore we can't expect chauvinistic Christians who are overwhelmingly unacknowledged antisemites and Islamophobes to accept correction from either Jews or Muslims.
But what about Jews, Muslims and non-Christians who consider themselves to be reasonable and honourable people who acknowledge that Christo-Liberalism is kaput and should be likened to food unfit for human consumption? They have a duty to warn and advise, surely.
Those who share the earth with neurotic and arrogant white Westerners in denial still pretending to believe that Jesus is God whose global government is propagating the policies of Sodom and Gomorrah have a duty to avert the damage and destruction of WW3, do they not?
The Koran clearly states that Muslims have a duty to enjoin good and forbid evil. quran.com/3/110 But what do Christians have to do other than follow the religion of their monarch under the principle of cuius regio, eius religio?
The Age of Monarchy has now and gone. Christianity has utterly failed to support the divine right of kings or prevent the fall of Rome. It could not prevent itself from being colonised by liberalism in the past 250 years and now liberalism itself is also a spent force.
Why can't this be discussed in instead of the nonsense these pretentious men with positions in academia have been discussing, which is nothing more and nothing less than mutual intellectual masturbation?
No comments:
Post a Comment