That is human nature just like the nature of wild animals. People use arrogance and ego for self belief that they are somehow always right. I believe Obama is a criminal and worse but the 8 years under Obama there was nonstop attacks from so called conservatives.
Which side is better? Neither side is better but there shouldn't be sides. Democrat and Republican are simply 2 sides of the same coin. I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I'm neither liberal or conservative.
I don't believe in god, satan, or any of that nonsense. Other people have the right to believe in what they choose to believe in. A person's belief system will cloud their judgement.
People can turn into a pack of wild animals in an instant, nothing new there. People will always say the other person or persons is wrong in attempt to make themselves feel as if they are right and not wrong.
Nihilism is the inevitable and logical destination of those who do not believe in a higher power.
When I took the time to construct my philosophy soundly, brick by brick, I took everything; what I feel, what I experience, what I know, and put it to the test. The best standard or measure to be used for that test is Nihilism. I can say definitively that nihilistic thinking is EXTREMELY exhausting, but exploring it is also, ultimately, extremely rewarding. Doing so enables you to build an impenetrable foundation of your beliefs.
When you admit that nothing can be absolutely proven, or absolutely known, faith becomes more than just optional; it becomes necessary. I believe in God for a lot of reasons; one of the most fundamental is that the alternative is effectively a null status; where nothing has meaning, there is no truth, nor objectivity, nor goals or morals. There, then, is no logical reason to NOT believe in a higher power; if you are wrong, and nihilism is the "correct" status of whatever plane of existence or lack thereof, then you literally can't be wrong, or right, because it doesn't exist.
If that word salad was too messy, basically: either God exists or nothing does; no point in not believing in God because if you're wrong, you basically don't exist and don't matter anyway. A higher power is the only truly philosophically logical stance to take.
I believe in forces and entities beyond our realm of perception or comprehension. Some good, some malevolent and evil. Call them God, Satan, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna, Kali, Gaia, whatever you want but I do not buy into any one religious doctrine as being the "right" one.
At one time people believed in the Greek Gods as much as Christians believe in God or Satan, yet today we call them "myths." We just happen to be in an age where the Abrahamic religions are the dominant ones on the planet.
Many have spoken of the "Macrobes" that Sir John Dee communed with that demand blood sacrifice. Such an entity could easily co-opt "Satan", it doesn't necessarily mean it is the Satan of the bible or a literal fallen angel.
Applying logic to metaphysics makes absolutely no sense. They are two competing philosophies that don't mix together well at all, and attempts to make them mesh are pretty much always doomed to fail. There's a reason why we say someone with a religious belief has "faith", as opposed to them having "drawn conclusions based on tangible and/or logical proofs."
I posit that many religions may have interpreted similar entities in different ways. So in that sense they can all be incorrect and correct simultaneously in a way.
Downvoted, not sure why. I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with you, but it's a fair stance to take that a literal entity of Satan does not exist, and that, instead, "Satan" is a figurative representation of the absence of God.
Given that goodness is defined by God, evil is inherently the absence of God. Satan need not be an entity, and hell need not be literally a universe/plane/"place" of fire and torture; if total separation from God is 100% "evil" (because total separation from God means total separation from goodness) then hell could literally be the state of the soul that has pushed away God, and then died, severing all ties to God. As God grants us free will, such separation should be possible; making hell literally a uniquely and individually self-imposed state of absolute and maximal suffering.
This has evidence in the real world, as well. Those who chose evil and sin typically are the most miserable people on this planet. They create their own personal hells; their conscience tortures them; in response, they push God and their own humanity as far away as possible.
Does this mean an entity of "satan" cannot exist, or that hell in the more traditional sense cannot? I don't believe so. I simply think we don't know enough; distinction, also, seems unnecessary; either way, God is good, and hell is to be avoided at all costs; something that can be done by turning to God.
You might want to learn a little more about the occult and their customs. They literally rent out Catholic Churches for black mass weddings where Satan appears in human form to “marry” one of his “brides”. Seven brides exist worldwide at any given time. I have read books of Christians who have escaped from this dark world of Satanism.
Satan’s biggest accomplishment is fooling those who don’t believe in his existence.
I have been in tune with the paranormal my whole life and I can tell you for a fact that real demons exist and they fear the name of Jesus.
I'm not going to say much, I believe you've provided a great reply.
As I've gotten older and read more philosophy, I've sort of thought about the idea of hell from a few different view points.
I've noticed that when some, but not all, people talk about a satan/devil like being they put him on the opposite end of God, some being who is a rival to the Supreme, but God hasn't destroyed this evil being because 'reasons'.
But when I think about it, such a figure is more like an administrative position, dealing out punishments for sins as prescribed by God, I mean why else would Satan punish sinners if he was against God?
And when talking about God and his mercy and love why do we limit it?
Suffering in hell for all eternity?
Where is God's love and mercy there?
Does God only provide one life to people to get it right?
I know the Bible doesn't talk much about it, but a system of karma and reincarnation sounds merciful compared to hell for eternity.
As you probably can tell I'm not well versed in the Bible, but I believe Jesus is real and I believe he is the son of God.
Just seemed odd that people talk about God's great mercy and love, but they don't extend it to all living entities or even all humans for that matter.
I remember when the Q line was created in 1991, when the arpanet become the internet, this was right after the fall of the soviet union and the globalists started taking over the networks:
https://www.erisnet.org/erisnet_pressrelease.pdf
Now that huge amounts of sumerian cuneiform (who gave the alphabet to most of the middle east) have been translated, it appears Genesis, in any canon other than the Latin Vulgate, was wrong with Ninurta/Nimrod:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninurta
We know during the dark ages, there was many correctors of the canon, but they made a lot of mistakes. Was it Jerome? St Augustine, who wrote City of God, always criticized him for using so many Hebrew texts when he rewrote the canon (the vulgate was closer to what the zoroastrian texts but the romans and sasanid empire were basically in a 400 year war). The dead dead scrolls revealed a lot of truths.
Keep in mind that a LOT of text was recovered from that era, and even before that era, it wasn't until computers could do rosetta stone-like translation that a lot of the more ancient papyrus could be extracted. A lot of it is partially congruent with either the Talmud or the Old Testament (who knows what the explanation is but there were probably many sects who each passed on different cannons). Also, the Vatican has a lot of text digitized now (they hoarded it forever) that isn't in line with the Council of Trent's canon.
Atheism is just a facet of nihilism, which is the #1 TOOL of the left to destroy
Nietzsche warned against it a long time ago, but normies who call him Nee chee just read "god is dead" rollled with it and completely ignored the whole part about self determinism and the need for Christianity. The entire point of Uberman is easy to miss, but I am fully convinced Nietzsche died giving it all to Jesus Christ because he discovered the ultimate truth of the universe
I explained in more depth elsewhere, but basically, Nihilism is the natural logical conclusion for a philosophy that does not have a basis in God.
Therefore, understanding Nihilism should be important; not because it is right, but because in it's own way, it points TO God. While I've only read portions of Nietzsche's writings, I believe he understood this as well.
I could explain in more depth but you probably understand me without it! If someone wants to understand more of what I mean, feel free to ask!
Other people have the right to believe in what they choose to believe in. A person's belief system will cloud their judgement.
You’re speaking as though you don’t realise you also have a belief system and worldview. You know you have one whether you acknowledge it and explore it or not, right?
That is human nature just like the nature of wild animals. People use arrogance and ego for self belief that they are somehow always right. I believe Obama is a criminal and worse but the 8 years under Obama there was nonstop attacks from so called conservatives.
Which side is better? Neither side is better but there shouldn't be sides. Democrat and Republican are simply 2 sides of the same coin. I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I'm neither liberal or conservative.
I don't believe in god, satan, or any of that nonsense. Other people have the right to believe in what they choose to believe in. A person's belief system will cloud their judgement.
People can turn into a pack of wild animals in an instant, nothing new there. People will always say the other person or persons is wrong in attempt to make themselves feel as if they are right and not wrong.
Oh... so you don't believe in or stand for anything. Got it.
He's a nihilist.....must be exhausting.
Nihilism is the inevitable and logical destination of those who do not believe in a higher power.
When I took the time to construct my philosophy soundly, brick by brick, I took everything; what I feel, what I experience, what I know, and put it to the test. The best standard or measure to be used for that test is Nihilism. I can say definitively that nihilistic thinking is EXTREMELY exhausting, but exploring it is also, ultimately, extremely rewarding. Doing so enables you to build an impenetrable foundation of your beliefs.
When you admit that nothing can be absolutely proven, or absolutely known, faith becomes more than just optional; it becomes necessary. I believe in God for a lot of reasons; one of the most fundamental is that the alternative is effectively a null status; where nothing has meaning, there is no truth, nor objectivity, nor goals or morals. There, then, is no logical reason to NOT believe in a higher power; if you are wrong, and nihilism is the "correct" status of whatever plane of existence or lack thereof, then you literally can't be wrong, or right, because it doesn't exist.
If that word salad was too messy, basically: either God exists or nothing does; no point in not believing in God because if you're wrong, you basically don't exist and don't matter anyway. A higher power is the only truly philosophically logical stance to take.
Obviously you're not a golfer...
If you don’t believe in God or Satan by now, you still have some serious redpilling to do.
I believe in forces and entities beyond our realm of perception or comprehension. Some good, some malevolent and evil. Call them God, Satan, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna, Kali, Gaia, whatever you want but I do not buy into any one religious doctrine as being the "right" one.
At one time people believed in the Greek Gods as much as Christians believe in God or Satan, yet today we call them "myths." We just happen to be in an age where the Abrahamic religions are the dominant ones on the planet.
Many have spoken of the "Macrobes" that Sir John Dee communed with that demand blood sacrifice. Such an entity could easily co-opt "Satan", it doesn't necessarily mean it is the Satan of the bible or a literal fallen angel.
Logically (since they have conflicting metaphysical assertions), either they are all incorrect, or one is correct.
https://youtu.be/RRyq6RwzlEM
This is what I've always said
Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. Jesus is God’s attempt to reach man.
Applying logic to metaphysics makes absolutely no sense. They are two competing philosophies that don't mix together well at all, and attempts to make them mesh are pretty much always doomed to fail. There's a reason why we say someone with a religious belief has "faith", as opposed to them having "drawn conclusions based on tangible and/or logical proofs."
I posit that many religions may have interpreted similar entities in different ways. So in that sense they can all be incorrect and correct simultaneously in a way.
I'm not who your talking to but I believe in God, I don't believe in some Satan dude being the root of evil.
Downvoted, not sure why. I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with you, but it's a fair stance to take that a literal entity of Satan does not exist, and that, instead, "Satan" is a figurative representation of the absence of God.
Given that goodness is defined by God, evil is inherently the absence of God. Satan need not be an entity, and hell need not be literally a universe/plane/"place" of fire and torture; if total separation from God is 100% "evil" (because total separation from God means total separation from goodness) then hell could literally be the state of the soul that has pushed away God, and then died, severing all ties to God. As God grants us free will, such separation should be possible; making hell literally a uniquely and individually self-imposed state of absolute and maximal suffering.
This has evidence in the real world, as well. Those who chose evil and sin typically are the most miserable people on this planet. They create their own personal hells; their conscience tortures them; in response, they push God and their own humanity as far away as possible.
Does this mean an entity of "satan" cannot exist, or that hell in the more traditional sense cannot? I don't believe so. I simply think we don't know enough; distinction, also, seems unnecessary; either way, God is good, and hell is to be avoided at all costs; something that can be done by turning to God.
You might want to learn a little more about the occult and their customs. They literally rent out Catholic Churches for black mass weddings where Satan appears in human form to “marry” one of his “brides”. Seven brides exist worldwide at any given time. I have read books of Christians who have escaped from this dark world of Satanism. Satan’s biggest accomplishment is fooling those who don’t believe in his existence. I have been in tune with the paranormal my whole life and I can tell you for a fact that real demons exist and they fear the name of Jesus.
I'm not going to say much, I believe you've provided a great reply.
As I've gotten older and read more philosophy, I've sort of thought about the idea of hell from a few different view points.
I've noticed that when some, but not all, people talk about a satan/devil like being they put him on the opposite end of God, some being who is a rival to the Supreme, but God hasn't destroyed this evil being because 'reasons'.
But when I think about it, such a figure is more like an administrative position, dealing out punishments for sins as prescribed by God, I mean why else would Satan punish sinners if he was against God?
And when talking about God and his mercy and love why do we limit it? Suffering in hell for all eternity? Where is God's love and mercy there? Does God only provide one life to people to get it right?
I know the Bible doesn't talk much about it, but a system of karma and reincarnation sounds merciful compared to hell for eternity.
As you probably can tell I'm not well versed in the Bible, but I believe Jesus is real and I believe he is the son of God.
Just seemed odd that people talk about God's great mercy and love, but they don't extend it to all living entities or even all humans for that matter.
Which of the red pills?
I remember when the Q line was created in 1991, when the arpanet become the internet, this was right after the fall of the soviet union and the globalists started taking over the networks: https://www.erisnet.org/erisnet_pressrelease.pdf
Then the world's information banks started exponential growth due to infinite digitization: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Hilbert_InfoGrowth.png
Now that huge amounts of sumerian cuneiform (who gave the alphabet to most of the middle east) have been translated, it appears Genesis, in any canon other than the Latin Vulgate, was wrong with Ninurta/Nimrod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninurta
We know during the dark ages, there was many correctors of the canon, but they made a lot of mistakes. Was it Jerome? St Augustine, who wrote City of God, always criticized him for using so many Hebrew texts when he rewrote the canon (the vulgate was closer to what the zoroastrian texts but the romans and sasanid empire were basically in a 400 year war). The dead dead scrolls revealed a lot of truths.
The Dead Sea Scrolls proved the Old Testament was preserved intact since before the birth of Christ.
Keep in mind that a LOT of text was recovered from that era, and even before that era, it wasn't until computers could do rosetta stone-like translation that a lot of the more ancient papyrus could be extracted. A lot of it is partially congruent with either the Talmud or the Old Testament (who knows what the explanation is but there were probably many sects who each passed on different cannons). Also, the Vatican has a lot of text digitized now (they hoarded it forever) that isn't in line with the Council of Trent's canon.
See the advanced books here: http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_bookstore.htm
I think a lot of Hebrew and Zoroastrian (the pre-Islamic religion of mesopotamia and persia) cannon mixed especially near Cestiphon because of the Romans, Sassans and Greek influences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Eschate
In modern times (the last 20 years), a lot more text has been recovered from places far flung like Ethiopia, India, and even China.
atheism is a tool used by the deep state to divide us fwiw
Atheism is just a facet of nihilism, which is the #1 TOOL of the left to destroy
Nietzsche warned against it a long time ago, but normies who call him Nee chee just read "god is dead" rollled with it and completely ignored the whole part about self determinism and the need for Christianity. The entire point of Uberman is easy to miss, but I am fully convinced Nietzsche died giving it all to Jesus Christ because he discovered the ultimate truth of the universe
I explained in more depth elsewhere, but basically, Nihilism is the natural logical conclusion for a philosophy that does not have a basis in God.
Therefore, understanding Nihilism should be important; not because it is right, but because in it's own way, it points TO God. While I've only read portions of Nietzsche's writings, I believe he understood this as well.
I could explain in more depth but you probably understand me without it! If someone wants to understand more of what I mean, feel free to ask!
You’re speaking as though you don’t realise you also have a belief system and worldview. You know you have one whether you acknowledge it and explore it or not, right?
Can, but only if we abandon reason. Like the GN forces showcased a complete absence of when they descended on GAW.