Is it demonic to feed citizens in your cunt?
if they are not family yes
Timothy Daniel Pool (born March 9, 1986) is an American right-wing[1][2] political commentator and podcast host. He first became known for live streaming the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests.[3][4] He joined Vice Media and Fusion TV in 2014, later working on YouTube and other platforms.Pool was born in Chicago, Illinois, and grew up in a middle class family. His father was a firefighter and his mother sold cars.[5] His maternal grandmother is Korean.[6]Pool attended a Catholic school until completing the fifth grade[7] and left school at the age of 14.[5][8]Occupy Wall StreetAfter watching a viral video from Occupy Wall Street, Pool purchased a one-way bus ticket to New York.[9] Pool joined the Occupy Wall Street protestors on September 20, 2011. Shortly thereafter, he met Henry Ferry, a former realtor and sales manager, with whom he founded media company The Other 99.[10] Pool also began livestreaming the protests with his cell phone and quickly assumed an on-camera role.[9] Pool used a live-chat stream to respond to questions from viewers while reporting on Occupy Wall Street.[11] Pool also let his viewers direct him on where to shoot footage.[12] He modified a toy remote-controlled Parrot AR.Drone for aerial surveillance and modified software for live streaming into a system called DroneStream.[13][14] In mid-November 2011, Pool broadcast live streams, one of which reached 21 hours in length, of Occupy Wall Street's eviction from Zuccotti Park.[15] Pool's use of live streaming video and aerial drones during Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011 led to an article in The Guardian querying whether such activities could take the form of counterproductive surveillance.In January 2012, he was physically accosted by a masked assailant. Also in January 2012, The Other 99 was disbanded following a feud between Pool and Ferry. Pool had also planned on livestreaming occupy protests across the United States for a documentary called Occumentary, but it was never filmed.
The most dangerous lies are half-truths.
American MAGA christians are all apostates and trump is the literal antichrist
>>520425348She's a demon because she shills for mudslimes.
this was tim pool's peak
>>520425348>food aid is literally called "snap" in America>*snap*
>>520425348why do americans always clutch their pearls and call anything or anyone they don't like 'demonic' or 'demons'?
>>520425348>(((Rachel)))Nothing to see here.
>>520425357Because their country has Corn Syrup fed inbred soyboy morons who love to praise da laaaaawwwwd sometimes who make up an important part of voters
>>520425357Because demons are real? You think human beings have autonomously calculated and planned out the last few decades of cultural change? This complete and total apostasy? This culture of castration, assassination, infanticide, sodomy and tyranny? No, it's Satan. He has always been our enemy. The second the people stopped committing God's Word to heart, stopped repeating the creeds and sanctifying their waking, eating, and sleeping, the devil moved right in and took over.
No matter what you say about snap, you can't fault the US still spending money on their master. I bet even if the US were in the middle of a civil war, both parts would keep setting aside part of their budget to israel
>>520425360>this process isn’t meticulously planned out and carried out by humans?>wallahi must be sheitan o algo
>>520425348This bald faggot got $400k by Russia to make 4 shitty videos and I'm also bald but have to actually work like a retard for a living.
>>520425362Your ill-considered philosophical materialism blinds you to the actual struggle going on in this world, even as we fall rapidly into the most extreme depravity. I'm sure you think it's all the Jews and bankers and rich people, and that if we just slaughter all of them things will magically get better, like all the rest of the idiot neopagans on this website?
>>520425352She's only speaking full truths>>520425354>most civilized Spaniard >>520425361They kinda have to though.
>Your ill-considered philosophical materialism blinds you to the actual struggle going on in this world, even as we fall rapidly into the most extreme depravity. I'm sure you think it's all the Jews and bankers and rich people, and that if we just slaughter all of them things will magically get better, like all the rest of the idiot neopagans on this website?>or whatever
>>520425366I literally only believe what our grandparents did. Make contact with one sound-minded elder and you will realize just how far we have fallen.
>>520425367>thinking that the nigga who quoted you even read your post>or someburger
>>520425348I think at this point it's obvious the ones in charge are demons. They are trying to accelerate the Apocalypse.
>>520425364>Your ill-considered philosophical materialism blinds you to the actual struggle going on in this worldYou accuse others of what you're guilty of yourself. You cannot see the world in a clear light if you take something unprovable as a given truth
>feed laquesha and her 6 thug children chud
>>520425348Empathy is a sin o algo.
>>520425370The existence of the immaterial is the most immediate fact of experience. Tell me, what is the mass of one fourth of the sweetness of an apple? What is the velocity of love? Where in the brain is intention located? Tell me, how is anything intelligible without reference to ideal objects? How can any class or particular be differentiated objectively from anything else without reference to them? How could our language and our discourse have any meaning whatsoever without them? It is the empirical, inductive reasoning of contemporary science that is uncertain. Because I do not see a demon with my eyes, he does not exist? Because I cannot taste a mind, they are not real? Because I cannot smell a universal, they have no substance? Because I have not observed an interruption to the "laws" of nature, they cannot be interrupted whatsoever? Tell me, what even IS a natural law on the materialist model? For Christians, a natural law is the regular and orderly operation of God's will in sustaining creation. What is it for you? "Brute fact"? What complete nonsense.
>Ms RachelIs this the new Mr Roger?
>>520425348Yea they look hungry
>>520425373>Tell me, what is the mass of one fourth of the sweetness of an apple?Take whatever molecules make an apple sweet, take 1/4 of them and weigh what you have.>What is the velocity of love?Nonsensical question. I guess you can consider how fast hormones move in the brain.>Where in the brain is intention located?I'm not a neuroscientist.>Tell me, how is anything intelligible without reference to ideal objects?"Ideal objects" are human constructs made to make it easier to classify things. There are no actual ideal objects. Humans have a general idea of what a given thing is supposed to look and act like, but the idea is nothing concrete. There's no platonic heaven of actual objects. If there were, then there would be no vagueness in language. In reality, people tend to have some small differences in how they understand what something is supposed to be like.>How could our language and our discourse have any meaning whatsoever without them?It doesn't need them to have meaning. Languages are vague and dynamic. If things were as you describe, then there wouldn't be any language evolution. Why would there be, everything idea has an ideal form that everyone adheres to.>It is the empirical, inductive reasoning of contemporary science that is uncertain.It's the most certain thing there is.>Because I do not see a demon with my eyes, he does not exist? He is assumed to not exist until there is proof that he does.
>>520425376>take whatever molecules make an apple sweet and weigh themAbsolute and complete nonsense. The subjective experience of sweetness is not a molecule. That experience is not extended across space, it does not have weight. To deny this is to make the worst and most obvious sort of category error. What does red taste like? Nothing at all. Red isn't a taste. The question is wrong-headed. What does red weigh? An equally nonsensical question. Red is a subjective representation, an experience. It has no mass.>nonsensical questionExactly! The materialist philosophy is NONSENSE. Love is a spiritual reality, not a material one.>consider how fast hormones move in the brainNo. This is measuring how fast the hormones sometimes associated with love move. Not measuring the velocity of love. The association of a spiritual with a material reality does not establish an identity.>I'm not a neuroscientistA neuroscientist couldn't answer this question, either. Intention is not a physical object. The will is not a physical object. It does not exist anywhere in the brain.>Ideal objects are human constructsThen there is nothing to differentiate anything from anything else objectively. There is no humanity; nothing can be predicated of men. There is no you; nothing can be predicated of you. For things to be predicated of men in general objectively, there must be an essence of man. For things to be predicated of you objectively, you must be an objectively distinguishable and stable instantiation of the universal essence "human." Your position is not only the denial of the reality of ideal objects but of the reality of all being. You make the world only so much undifferentiated "stuff.">it doesn't need them to have meaningIt does need them for language to have any actual bearing on reality. Where does the rubber meet the road, in your view? Nowhere. Every universal and particular are arbitrarily distinguished from the general mass of existence.
>>520425373Genesis 15:7Yahweh to Abraham: I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.Exodus 6:3Yahweh to Moses: And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.which fragment of the bible contains the truth? it can't be both at the same time. you believe that the bible was written under the divine inspiration. so is yahweh a liar, or is the bible not reliable?
>>520425376>>520425377>it's the most certain thing there isNo, it obviously isn't. The more immediately intuitive fact is the fact of your own existence, and the fact of the distinction of your ego from your body, and the fact of your willing, which implies value, axiology, which implies, goods, the maximum of that genus being the Good, the most high, God.>he is assumed to not exist until there is proof that he doesIf the inability of the secular model to explain the plain evidence of spiritual warfare in our own cultural life doesn't cut it for you, know that God has spoken. The devil is real.
>>520425348It is demonic to have children you cannot feed yourself.
>>520425378God reveals himself to the patriarchs as God Almighty, but does not reveal himself in his fullness as the I AM, as the self-existent One whose promises are sure and overcome all adversity and against all foreign cults as he did in delivering the Jews from slavery in Egypt. Where is the contradiction? See Exodus 6:6-8, 20:2.
>>520425381>Where is the contradiction?Genesis says that Yahweh revealed himself to Abraham as Yahweh.Exodus says that Yahweh revealed himself to Abraham only as El and not as Yahweh.Both can't be true. Either he did do it, or he didn't, so either fragment must contain a lie, in a book written under divine inspiration, on a topic of utmost importance, the identity of Yahweh.
>>520425380People like Tim Poole are the same retards that babble on about declining birthrates though
>>520425382You're not understanding the point. Yes, the patriarchs literally did know the name Yahweh, I AM. But they did not really know him as the self-existent and absolute One who overcomes all adversity, all oppression, all foreign cults, all demon worship, who delivers his people from slavery. This sort of repetition is not uncommon in the Bible, especially in the early books, because they were written to be read aloud and repeated because God wants you to commit his promises to memory deeply. God constantly re-enacts exactly the same covenant, makes exactly the same promise with Adam and then the patriarchs and with Israel down until it is finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ
>>520425379>If you can't explain one thing, then therefore my three gods in one god is actually realThe logical leaps of Christianity are hilarious. For the record Christianity has no actual answer the qualia either, beyond saying "it's the soul" but can't actually explain what that actually means.
>>520425385The doctrine of the Trinity is not tritheism. There is only one divine mind and will, and all divine action is harmonious. The three persons are subsistent relations within the one indivisible Godhead. God as arche, as Father, as absolute logical and ontological foundation of all, knows himself: this knowledge is perfect and infinite: this is the Son, the Logos. God, considering himself as known, loves himself as knower: likewise, as Father, knowing himself, he loves himself as known. This love is so perfect that it subsists eternally. This is the Holy Spirit.>no answer about qualia"These realities are spiritual" is a perfectly adequate answer. The question of how the spiritual and physical interact is a related but ultimately separate issue. You don't expect absolute explanatory completeness from the scientific models you worship; why do you expect them of us? We don't know everything. We confess as much. It's literally in the Athanasian Creed that we don't know how these sorts of unions work, lol, we just continue to confess them to be real because they obviously must be
>>520425386>The doctrine of the Trinity is not tritheism. There is only one divine mind and will, and all divine action is harmonious. The three persons are subsistent relations within the one indivisible Godhead. God as arche, as Father, as absolute logical and ontological foundation of all, knows himself: this knowledge is perfect and infinite: this is the Son, the Logos. God, considering himself as known, loves himself as knower: likewise, as Father, knowing himself, he loves himself as known. This love is so perfect that it subsists eternally. This is the Holy Spirit.This is your own version of the trinity and not the mainstream interpreation. The mainstream interpretation is he is literally three independent people in one god.
Fuck poor people. Stop giving them food for freeIts not rocket science.
>>520425348isnt helping the less fortunate one of the main points of christcuckery? i dont understand how can you call yourself a christcuck and be hateful towards the poor or immigrants
>>520425386>You don't expect absolute explanatory completeness from the scientific models you worship; why do you expect them of us?You were literally critiquing the scientific model for not being able to do this, now you admit you yourself can't do it either. Hmm.
>>520425387This is literally Nicene orthodoxy. Read Augustine's "De Trinitate." He also likens Father, Son and Spirit to memory, intellect and will, three formally distinguishable but ultimately inseparable faculties of one unitary mental substance.
>>520425348I'm going to starve libtards, make them suck dick on the street to survive
>>520425388>Stop giving them food for freeThen enjoy having people starving during work shifts/school and rising levels of discontent. Why are brats like you so short-sighted?
>>520425389Christianity is whatever you want it to be in America. It's why you have whores getting fucked up the ass by strangers with a cross necklace dangling around their neck. In America if you're greedy, then you just rabidly insist god wants you to be greedy.
>>520425390No, the problem with the scientific method is that it DENIES things which must obviously be true to try to fit them into increasingly improbable physicalist models. Scientists are very bad at being honest and saying "we don't know," or "this isn't a scientific question"
>>520425377>The subjective experience of sweetness is not a molecule.It's the molecule which is being interpreted by the brain. Both the molecule and the brain are material, nothing related to the ideal.>>nonsensical question>Exactly! The materialist philosophy is NONSENSE. No. Your question is meaningless, that is the issue. What is the afgdagfads of jngfafgsifhjg? We start by defining love. It's a special adoration for some other person. What causes it? Hormones, oxytocin. So what does the question "velocity of love" ask for? How fast do you develop an adoration for someone? How fast do love hormones move? You ask a retarded question and then declare yourself a winner.>Intention is not a physical objectIt arises from the material. No material = no intention. Take a computer program performing some action, which takes into account varying input. That is what the brain is. If you take away the code of the program, then there can be no action. If you ruin the neural wiring that is responsible for the intention, then there suddenly is no intention. Gravity is not a physical object either, yet it is created by physical objects.>Then there is nothing to differentiate anything from anything else objectively.What the fuck do you mean? Do you understand degrees of something? >It does need them for language to have any actual bearing on reality. No, it doesn't. As long as we're 99% on board, we can easily communicate.>>520425379>If the inability of the secular model to explain the plain evidence of spiritual warfare in our own cultural life doesn't cut it for you, know that God has spokenYour unwillingness to try to understand material processes has you making up insane and baseless theories. If you acknowledged the material as supreme and everything as being a descendant of it, then you'd begin to understand the world much better. But you are uncomfortable with the idea that there's nothing above the material to comfort us.
>>520425388It needs to be way more restrictive on what can be purchased, right now there's no incentive to try and get off SNAP because you can get nearly anything you want.
>>520425396>interpreted by the brainHow does a brain "interpret," exactly? You guys always do this. You try to attribute spiritual and subjective qualities to material objects to get around the obvious inability of the materialist model to explain basic facts of experience.>define your termsWhether we define love as a feeling or as the sincere willing of the good for another, the materialist model is equally incapable of any meaningful explanation of the phenomenon. Hormones may be associated with these realities, but they are NOT identical. It is obvious category error to try to collapse the latter into the former.>no material = no intentionNonsensical claim that cannot be substantiated. The brain is not a "computer program." There is no "code." Intention, will, choice, these are not faculties that any computer has or that any computer could possibly have. The fact that you can replicate the outward appearance or function of a thing does not mean it is possible for you to replicate the thing itself.>what the fuck do you meanIs "humanity" an objectively existent class, or is this an arbitrary categorization we make from the basically undifferentiated mass of material existence? Are you an objectively existent individual, a member of that class, or are you an arbitrarily distinguished mass of physical substance, fundamentally identical with everything else around you?>unwillingness to try to understand material processesI am unwilling to collapse all of reality into the categories of material process. This does not mean I know nothing about material processes.>you're uncomfortable with the ideaYes, actually. Because it's inhuman. You make us into computer programs. You make the world into a machine. You're absolutely psychotic. You have contracted a deadly mind virus and you need God's cure.
>>520425357demonic dubs...
>>520425398>How does a brain "interpret," exactly?The answer is provided later on>If you ruin the neural wiring that is responsible for the intention, then there suddenly is no intentionConnections between neurons, plus the overall material structure of the brain, that's what causes intentions, decisions, emotions.> You try to attribute spiritual and subjective qualities to material objects to get around the obvious inability of the materialist model to explain basic facts of experience.There's absolutely nothing spiritual or subjective in the materialist explanation for consciousness.>Hormones may be associated with these realities, but they are NOT identical.Again, you run into the same issue as with intention. No hormones = no love. So what are you talking about when you say that materialist model fails to explain the world? If everything is a descendant of something material (gravity - mass, intention - neural wiring, love - hormones), then how can you talk about something immaterial influencing the world?>Nonsensical claim that cannot be substantiated.What intentions or thoughts do lobotomy patients have? Why did they suddenly change after a metal rod pierced their material brain?>Is "humanity" an objectively existent class, or is this an arbitrary categorization we make from the basically undifferentiated mass of material existence?It is nothing absolutely definitive. It's based on a number of characteristics, but there is no ultimate consensus of what all of those are, what is and what isn't necessary. >I am unwilling to collapse all of reality into the categories of material process.Yes, because you're afraid of where it leads. But the idealist path leads to a dead end. Where we used to credit god, we understand now that there's a scientific, materialist explanation. God of the gaps and all that.>Yes, actually. Because it's inhuman. You make us into computer programs. But that's what we are. I do not make us into anything
>>520425398>Because it's inhuman>says me, because my feefees would be hurt if that were the casePearl clutching faggot, that's what you are
>>520425357I think it's like calling someone a monster, demonic just hits better because demons are ugly and want to kill anything pure.
>>520425400>the materialist explanation for consciousnessThere is no materialist explanation for consciousness. Your "explanation" is an attempt to conceptually obscure or eradicate.>that's what causes intentions, decisions, emotionsDo they CAUSE them, or are they IDENTICAL with them? These are two very different claims. Even if I were to admit, which I never would, that spiritual substance is somehow dependent on physical substance, they would still be distinct. It is obvious that they are not the same and they must somehow be distinguished. This is starting to come out in your own arguments.>how can you talk about something immaterial influencing the physical worldThe model you are now presenting is of an immaterial reality that emerges from a physical reality which has complete explanatory sufficiency in itself. So, the immaterial is something like a meaningless and inert waste product of the purely electrical and hormonal functioning of the brain. This is, however, nonsense, even on an intuitive level. The entire landscape of human experience is meaningless, having bearing on nothing external to itself? Our will is causally inert, every seeming choice really only being an epiphenomenal accessory to an underlying mechanical process? This results in a complete division of practical from theoretical reason, a deep and inescapable cognitive dissonance. It makes the entire mental world meaningless, and therefore a strange and inexplicable extra to the system of existence: that is, it fails to actually arrive at a sensible, logical explanation of all things, in which everything has its place organized under first principles, which is the basic purpose of philosophy and theosophy. It's a system of thinking riddled with internal contradictions. There is no unity whatsoever.>it is nothing absolutely definitiveThen nothing is objectively predicated of anything, our discourse has no meaningful bearing on reality, and this entire conversation is pointless!
>>520425401My revulsion to the moral implications of your views is not an irrational sentimentalism. It is founded on a recognition of the objective dignity of human beings, which you deny.
>>520425400>what about lobotomies, physical trauma to the brain, etc.This is from William Lane Craig, who is bad on theological issues, but good on this philosophical one:>DR. CRAIG: My heart goes out to you, Chris. I know what you're going through in seeing a parent decline through dementia. That is heartbreaking and difficult to bear. But in terms of your philosophical question, I think you're quite right to say that the mind and the soul are synonymous. The soul is the theological word for what philosophers call “the mind.” What is not identical is the mind and the brain. I think you appreciate and accept that fact. But the mind and the brain function intimately together for thought. When I was at the World Congress on Philosophy in Düsseldorf in 1978, I had the privilege of hearing the great Nobel prize-winning neurologist Sir John Eccles lecture on the relationship between the mind and the brain. He gave an analogy that has stuck with me ever since that so wonderfully illustrates this intimate connection. He said that the mind is like a pianist who plays a piano to produce music. In the same way that the piano is an instrument that the pianist uses to produce music, so the brain is an instrument which the mind uses to think. If the instrument is damaged – if the piano is out of tune or broken – then the musician, despite his ability and virtuosity, will not be able to produce any beautiful music. Similarly, if the brain is damaged or impaired then the mind will not be able to use the brain properly to think. I think what your mother is going through is this decline in the functioning of the brain that impairs the thought life of the soul or of the mind. But fortunately the mind or soul is not identical with the brain, and when the brain finally dies the soul will go to be with Christ.
>>520425380>have children you retarded gay Demonrat!!!!!
>>520425405OK I have to go to church nowI will reply again if the thread is still up when I get back this afternoon
>>520425404>irrational sentimentalismIt is, because you think dignity is incompatible with materialism, which is based on nothing but hurt feefees
>nondenominal sloptian church with services at 11:30 am>Walmart dress codelmao
I would make these benefits non tradeable. I have seen too many cases of people just selling their SNAP for money.
MAGA is a literal satanic cult intent on causing as much death and suffering as possible
>>520425358Stfu you smelly kid fucking kike faggot
>>520425371>dont spend that money on your sick and poor old people goy, give it pissrael instead
