A Discussion with an Idiot
Thomas Allen, editor
Below is a discussion between me and an idiot. This discussion resulted from a comment that I made to a comment that another person made to an article. The article is titled “Police Officer Arrests Man Reciting Bible Verse at Pride Rally” at https://wltreport.com/2023/06/06/police-officer-arrests-man-reciting-bible-verse-at-pride-rally/#comment-6210524182. [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.]
The idiot is somewhat arrogant and a racial nihilist. As a racial nihilist, she does not care about persevering the American Negro and seems to rejoice in the Negro’s demise. On the contrary, she denies that the Negro race, the White race, and any other race exists. (I use “she” and “her” for pronouns for this idiot because she did not specify which one of the 100 plus pronouns is her preferred pronoun.)
Moreover, this idiot is a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine and probably considers herself a conservative. Further, she is convinced that King had a high moral standard, was a strict follower of biblical morality because that is where King got his morality, and was faithful to his wife. Thus, she has a weird understanding of the Bible and seems to believe that the Bible does not condemn illicit sex. For someone who mentions the Bible as frequently as she does, she has a shallow understanding of the Bible. Also, she understands the Bible through the lens of wokeism.
Moreover, although she idolizes King, her comments show that she knows little about him. One would think that anyone who idolizes King as much as she does would know about his infidelity, which is common knowledge. Either she is too stupid to know or she rejects what she knows is true because it tarnishes her idol.
Originally, I thought that this person was ignorant. Later, I discovered that she was stupid. Ignorance can be fixed with knowledge; stupidity cannot be fixed. However, I did not find her stupid because she disagreed with me. I found her stupid by the way that she disagreed and what she wrote. (I have had many people disagree with me whom I do not consider stupid. An example is King.)
Furthermore, this person is not the only idiot that I have encountered. For example, one moronic person claims that he knows more about what a clause in the Constitution means than does the person who wrote it.
I have left the idiot’s comments and the other comments as they were posted. To one of my comments, I have added some clarification and have enclosed it in brackets. I have substituted “Idiot” for her pseudonym, “Me” for my pseudonym, “Original Commenter” for the person who commented on the article, and “Third Party” for the person who commented during our discussion.
The comments are not in chronological order but are in the order that they appear in the comment section. The discussion follows.
Original Commenter: In the Last Days what is good will be called evil and what is evil will be called good. This is a fine example of that scripture. The good man was trying to warn of the consequences of sin. We don’t make the laws, God does and still have consequences for disobedience.
Me: Martin Luther King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” Thus, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. According to King, people should not obey unjust laws. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-real-king.html
Idiot: Em, the ten commandments are the laws that God gave mankind for mankind’s benefit. Which of these laws would you propose we not obey, and why? Just curious ...
Thou shall not murder perhaps? Thou shall not bear false witness? Do these seem “unjust” to you?
Me: I did not say that we should not follow the ten commandments. I am saying that the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine said that no one is obliged to obey any law that they did not help make by voting for those who made the law.
Idiot: oh, btw, Martin Luther King said we are not obliged to follow IMMORAL laws. Big difference.
“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Martin Luther King Jr.
Note the “MORAL responsibility” - WHERE do you suppose REVEREND King got his “morality” from, hmmm?
Idiot: I didn’t say to not follow the ten commandments either.
YOU said any law we didn’t have a part in making, we are not obliged to follow.
We didn’t have a part in making the ten commandments, so we shouldn’t be obliged to follow them.
So I asked YOU which of these laws would you NOT follow?
Soooo?
Me: I did not say that we are not obliged to follow laws that we didn’t have a part in making. King said that. King defines an unjust law as one in which people had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote. According to King’s definition, the ten commandments are unjust because people had no part in making them and, therefore, they are not obliged to obey them.
Idiot: The quote YOU provided was about something totally different. People who are denied the right to vote shouldn’t have to follow laws they had no say in making. We actually fought an American Revolution for this very reason. Britain throwing people in jail without trial by jury and imposing tax laws on Americans when Americans had no say in parliament, where the laws were coming from.
It was a quote about people who are denied the right vote.
Me: But the principle is still applicable to OT laws since people were denied the right to vote and neither the Israelites nor anyone else beyond God had a say in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.
Idiot: No, it does not apply. That was not even close to what King was referring to. For one, he definitely said we have a moral responsibility to follow just laws. Where did REVEREND King get his morality, and just laws from? THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Me: “Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.” Then, “I don’t expect that anything I write will change the minds enclosed in concrete already...."
Third Party: You cannot use reason to debate or convince or inform someone who has rejected reason.
If reason is your argument, and he won’t hear it, you are wasting your breath and conceding any hope before you begin.
Idiot addressing Third Party: Yep, you perfectly described why Me has desperately avoided answering where Reverend King got his morality from. :-) When you avoid reasoning and facts you have rejected them. When your mind is that closed, you will never be able to learn anything new. Sad, isn't it?
Idiot: Oh Lord, I don’t want to admit where Reverend King got his morality from! Noooo! It'll make me look stupid!
Me: I don’t know where King got his morality and just laws from, but I do know that he did not get them from the Bible.
Idiot: You don’t know where REVEREND King got his morality from, but you somehow do know it wasn’t from the Bible??????
Liar. You tried to avoid the question because you DO know, and didn’t want to answer. :-)
I suspect that you know exactly where King got his morality from. Everybody else does.
You just exposed yourself, dear. Good job!
Me: Where did King get his morality? Although you seem to think that he got it from the Bible, he did not. King was an integrationist and hated segregationists. The God of the Bible is the great segregationist; therefore, King loathes him. Proof that God is a segregationist: The world’s two greatest segregationist events were the Noachian Flood (where God segregated Noah and his family from the rest of the people) and the Tower of Babel. God was the cause of both of them. Further, God told the Israelites that when they entered Canaan not to integrate with the inhabitants, i.e., segregate themselves. Also, God segregates the saved from the unsaved. Thus, while God teaches segregation, King teaches integration.
According to Acts 17:26, when God created the races, He determined the boundaries of the habitats. Did God create the races of man, or did they evolve? The Bible supports creation; you probably support evolution. King's racial policy of integrating the races leads to amalgamation and, therefore, the destruction of the races. Do you support the deliberate destruction of what God created? God so despises amalgamation that He forbids mongrels, multiracial people, to enter His assembly. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html
King seems to have got his morality from Satan, but that is speculation on my part.
Idiot: God forbids “mongrels” and “multi-racial” people from His assembly??
Quote the Chapter and verse FROM THE BIBLE that proves this????
Good luck with that one, dear. :-)
Me: The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” The Hebrew word translated “half-bred” means “mongrel.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned this. [I did fail to cite the verse, which is Deuteronomy 23:2; however, it was cited in the link of my previous comment. Obviously, she had not read the linked article.]
Idiot: Once again you have failed. Source? Chapter and verse please.
Idiot: You also know nothing of the Bible but you are revealing yourself in very profound ways.
oh, btw. The Bible NEVER mentions anything about different "races."
Different people groups, such as the Hittites, Cushites (African tribes), Israelites, etc. But NEVER different races because there is only ONE race in the Bible. THE HUMAN RACE.
The ONLY segregationist here honey, is YOU.
God separated the people at the tower of Babel because His plan was NEVER for a “one world order.” Thank God for that!
And different races don’t “evolve.” That's a non-sensical [sic], totally UN scientific statement. DUH! What is WRONG with you???? Doesn’t even relate to “evolution or creation.” The ignorance here is astounding.
And how the hell does God “dispise amalgamation????”
So glad you posted that last post. You discredited yourself beyond repair. My dear, you are your own worst enemy.
Reverend King, and ALL Christians, get their morality from the BIBLE. The living word of God. Period. Now go back to your mummy's basement before you hurt yourself.
Me: Obviously, you suffer from intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility. People like you are causing the dying of the country, the decaying of Christianity, and the growing genocide.
Further, your knowledge of the Bible is appalling. Cush is Arabia (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/03/cush-and-ethiopia.html) The Bible NEVER mentions anything about “the United States,” “Russia,” “nuclear war,” and many other things that people find in the Bible. Some translations do use the word race in the sense of ethnicities. Also, the Bible speaks of tribes and nations. Ethnicities, tribes, and nations are monoracial in the biological sense and are subdivisions of a race — thus, implying race in the biological sense.
When God separated the people at Babel, He segregated them; He certainly did not integrate them. “How the hell does God ‘dispise amalgamation”?” He told the Israelites not to integrate (amalgamate) themselves with the people of the promised land; instead, He told them to segregate from them.
I never said that the races evolved. God created them; therefore, we should promote policies that protect and preserve them (segregation and separation) and not policies that genocide them (miscegenation and amalgamation). Why do you want to destroy the races that God created? You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.
If King got his morality from the Bible, why was he a fornicator? Why was he, like you, a promoter of policies that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?
Idiot: What makes you think that King was a fornicator? oh, wait, are YOU judging him by BIBLICAL standards?
Whatever. What policies did King promote that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?
Name one. I dare ya.
Me: Since King’s morality comes from the Bible and since King had sex with women other than his wife, then, according to you, biblical morality approves of people having sex with women other than their wives.
King promoted integration. Integration leads to interracial marriages and mating. Interracial marriages and mating lead to the breeding of the races involved out of existence. And that is genocide. King promoted interracial marriages. You also want to genocide Blacks.
Idiot: So according to you, interracial marriage promotes genocide? wow. Just wow. How sick and pathetic.
You also need to educate yourself on the definition of “genocide.”
(Spoiler alert: the definition does not include interracial marriage)
Idiot: I don't know if King was faithful or not. Who was the other woman?
Well?
Idiot: “according to me???” Quote me where I said that the Bible supports adultery.
Waiting ....
Idiot: Em, no. The Cushites are descendants of CUSH. Grandson of Noah, and the father of Nimrod. The land of Cush in the Bible is ETHIOPIA.
The African lands south of Egypt. Please read a Bible before you post.
There is NO translation of the Bible that uses the term "race." Never. None, Nada, Zip, Zilch.
All Bibles were translated from the original Hebrew (and some Aramaic like the Book of Daniel) into the other languages DIRECTLY.
Hebrew > Greek
Hebrew > Latin
Hebrew > English
etc. etc etc.
So we know there is no reference to different “races” at all. Only different tribes. That is just a fact.
And yes you did say the races “evolved.” Try to be more clear and specific because when you pose a question about “creation vs evolution” in the same breath, that is the obvious assumption.
As for your idiotic question, “Why do you want to destroy the races that God created?”
I do not want to destroy anything. But as far as mixed marriages, I have no problem with that.
As for your “ass-umption,” it doesn’t even make sense, : “You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.”
What the hell does that even mean? What the hell policies would “protect and preserve races” without being blatantly racist???
And just explain to me how anyone would “genocide races??” Well?
Me: The American Standard Version, which may be the best literal translation of the Bible, uses the word “race.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned that Cush was Arabia and not a region south of Egypt.
Idiot: Actually, the best literal translation is The King James Bible.
And please quote chapter and verse where any Bible uses the word “race.”
Idiot: Whaaa !!! ????
Ok, so explain “intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility.”
What does any of that even mean, and how does it intellectually bolster your opinion?
Mmmmm? Waiting ...............................
Me: I thought that you were ignorant and could be educated. However, I have discovered that you are stupid and beyond hope. Therefore, I must follow Mark Twain’s advice.
Idiot: FAIL! Was Mark Twain’s advice to crawl away with your tail between your legs? LMAO!
Cya.
Me: Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. – Mark Twain
I have been arguing with an idiot and do not want to be dragged down to your level.
Idiot: LOL! Look at your posts dear. Do who see whole paragraphs of childish invectives in mine? Nope.
I did not let you drag me down to YOUR level, as evidenced by our posts for all the world to see.
Nice try, no fly. You're done here.
Idiot: Sorry kiddo. We ALL KNOW where pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from. THE BIBLE. EVERYBODY already knows that. You cannot deny that and maintain any illusion of credibility or integrity. End of that story.
Me: You claim that pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from the Bible. Consequently, homosexual pastors and fornicating pastors like King get their morality from the Bible — really?
Idiot: ??? We all know that Pastors and Reverends get their morality from the Bible, as do all Christians. Once again you are desperately trying to create a diversion to get out of the corner you are painted in to.
Yes, Reverend King got his morality from the Bible. It's that simple.
Idiot: OH Lord, I can’t answer the question, so let me divert with childish ad hominems [sic] so I don’t have to admit how closed my mind is! Worse than concrete! lmao!
Idiot: Actually YOU did say that. And ONLY you since you misquoted King.
Martin Luther King NEVER said we shouldn’t follow laws we didn’t vote for, except in the context of those who were DENIED the right to vote. It wasn’t a reference to the general population.
Martin Luther King said we had a duty to NOT follow *IMMORAL* laws. I provided his quote for you. And this pertained to EVERYONE.
Big difference.
And my question to you, was which laws that we did not vote for (ie; the Ten Commandments) should we not follow, since we obviously didn’t vote for these laws.
THE END
Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.
More religious articles.
