To be fair, it's not always easy for people on the outside to keep track of who Q people consider to be allies.
Session and Pompeo have been bouncing in and out of favor for years, the President of China is being floated as a possible ally of Trump's against the Cabal, Musk is assumed to be a wildcard, people like Wood, Powell, and Greene cause all sorts of confusion, and so forth.
So while I get blaming people for being "misinformed" on Q stuff, the list of Trusted People in Q World can be notoriously fickle and definitely differs from person to person. I am sure there are some Q people here who are "thinking mirror" on Abe, just in case there's something to find.
To be fair, we understand it's not going to be easy for people in that Qult sub to understand, especially when they expect their mainstream media propaganda to hand them their opinions on a plate at 5pm daily.
It's better to not build foundations on propaganda, but instead build a solid foundation like faith in God which helps people rightly divide the truth. Then you can be nimble and work with many different possibilities without attaching to any until you can solidly confirm to be true. This is something the Qult sub folks will struggle with, for example they're still prattling on about 'horse paste' like their propaganda drilled into them, even 2 years later when most of us are aware of the evidence that stands against their propaganda.
It's better to not build foundations on propaganda, but instead build a solid foundation like faith in God which helps people rightly divide the truth. Then you can be nimble and work with many different possibilities without attaching to any until you can solidly confirm to be true.
Do you believe it's more difficult to propagandize religion than it is to propagandize political information?
I don't think it's a red herring. When you told me it's better to put my faith in God, I am trying to understand the argument you're making.
Beyond what I know from religious intuition and personal prayer, literally everything I know about God comes from what I was taught by a person, or what was written by a human hand.
Yes, I know that Christians believe that the Bible was written by God using humans directly, but that faith still is justified by what those people themselves wrote. "This book of rules I'm writing is not actually by me, but by God, so you can trust me to do a good job, because God is controlling me."
A skeptic would say, "And how do I know they didn't lie?"
And a Christian says, "Because God wouldn't let them."
And a skeptic says, "And these people wrote this proof in the Bible?"
And round and round.
We all have to rely in some sense on getting much of our information about the world from others in which we have some measure of trust. We can't directly know or observe everything, so we rely on second-hand information.
Sometimes, that second-hand information comes from someone telling me what happened in Japan. Sometimes, it's what someone is telling me the vote totals were in 2020. Sometimes, it's someone telling me information about their medical studies.
Sometimes, it's someone telling me that they translated with unimpeachable accuracy an ancient collection of religious texts from its original language, into a few more languages, and finally into your language, over the course of thousands of years with no deliberate or unintentional modifications from the original, allegedly-divinely-inspired primary document.
Literally any information I have to accept from a human source is susceptible to propaganda. I understand that. The possibility of humans manipulating ANY information I accept from them is first and foremost in my mind literally any time I learn anything. Religious, political, whatever.
Being a critical thinker requires that you never fully trust ANY information from ANY human source, even if you're willing to consider it.
So that's why I asked. You said it's best to put your faith in religion. Clearly, then, religion must have some protection from human influence, and that protection must obviously be guaranteed by some power outside of humanity's control, and that power must obviously be demonstrated in some way that is observable outside of faith that humans wouldn't lie about it.
Can you explain what makes religion less vulnerable to propagandizing efforts and human corruption than any other information that humans are responsible for sharing?
To be fair, it's not always easy for people on the outside to keep track of who Q people consider to be allies.
Session and Pompeo have been bouncing in and out of favor for years, the President of China is being floated as a possible ally of Trump's against the Cabal, Musk is assumed to be a wildcard, people like Wood, Powell, and Greene cause all sorts of confusion, and so forth.
So while I get blaming people for being "misinformed" on Q stuff, the list of Trusted People in Q World can be notoriously fickle and definitely differs from person to person. I am sure there are some Q people here who are "thinking mirror" on Abe, just in case there's something to find.
To be fair, we understand it's not going to be easy for people in that Qult sub to understand, especially when they expect their mainstream media propaganda to hand them their opinions on a plate at 5pm daily.
It's better to not build foundations on propaganda, but instead build a solid foundation like faith in God which helps people rightly divide the truth. Then you can be nimble and work with many different possibilities without attaching to any until you can solidly confirm to be true. This is something the Qult sub folks will struggle with, for example they're still prattling on about 'horse paste' like their propaganda drilled into them, even 2 years later when most of us are aware of the evidence that stands against their propaganda.
Do you believe it's more difficult to propagandize religion than it is to propagandize political information?
I believe some people think it's easier to make red herrings than it is to directly discuss the key point, such as their Qult being propagandized.
I don't think it's a red herring. When you told me it's better to put my faith in God, I am trying to understand the argument you're making.
Beyond what I know from religious intuition and personal prayer, literally everything I know about God comes from what I was taught by a person, or what was written by a human hand.
Yes, I know that Christians believe that the Bible was written by God using humans directly, but that faith still is justified by what those people themselves wrote. "This book of rules I'm writing is not actually by me, but by God, so you can trust me to do a good job, because God is controlling me."
A skeptic would say, "And how do I know they didn't lie?"
And a Christian says, "Because God wouldn't let them."
And a skeptic says, "And these people wrote this proof in the Bible?"
And round and round.
We all have to rely in some sense on getting much of our information about the world from others in which we have some measure of trust. We can't directly know or observe everything, so we rely on second-hand information.
Sometimes, that second-hand information comes from someone telling me what happened in Japan. Sometimes, it's what someone is telling me the vote totals were in 2020. Sometimes, it's someone telling me information about their medical studies.
Sometimes, it's someone telling me that they translated with unimpeachable accuracy an ancient collection of religious texts from its original language, into a few more languages, and finally into your language, over the course of thousands of years with no deliberate or unintentional modifications from the original, allegedly-divinely-inspired primary document.
Literally any information I have to accept from a human source is susceptible to propaganda. I understand that. The possibility of humans manipulating ANY information I accept from them is first and foremost in my mind literally any time I learn anything. Religious, political, whatever.
Being a critical thinker requires that you never fully trust ANY information from ANY human source, even if you're willing to consider it.
So that's why I asked. You said it's best to put your faith in religion. Clearly, then, religion must have some protection from human influence, and that protection must obviously be guaranteed by some power outside of humanity's control, and that power must obviously be demonstrated in some way that is observable outside of faith that humans wouldn't lie about it.
Can you explain what makes religion less vulnerable to propagandizing efforts and human corruption than any other information that humans are responsible for sharing?