1
SpaceManBob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Whether or not one chooses to believe in God or to be good or evil is only a couple of scenarios. What if, for example, someone prays every single day that their family will wake up to the MSM propaganda? How is it possible for God to answer such a prayer without impeding on someone's free will?

Whether it's placing thoughts inside their head to make them think about MSM differently, or by controlling the world around them to make them be in the right place at the right time (while also simultaneously controlling the people who end up presenting that information to have them do it at the right time) to see certain information that changes their view.

In fact, thinking about it now, the entire idea of praying for other people (in terms of situations like the one I presented above as opposed to praying for someone else to recover from an injury which wouldn't violate free will in any way) seems pointless as any action taken by God to answer any of those prayers would violate the free will of someone.

Then there are situations where people attribute some kind of happening to God. How could He control certain outcomes without stamping on people's free will by making them do certain things to achieve that outcome?

Kyle Rittenhouse surviving the attack is one thing that I've seen many people say is divine intervention. How would this work? Controlling Kyle to make him survive the encounter? Controlling his attackers to prevent them from succeeding in their goal?

The "Armor of God". How can God protect anybody from anybody else without controlling people or impeding on free will somewhere along the line?

Yes, there are plenty of examples of things God can do that don't impede on free will but there's also plenty of things that do. And from what I've seen people seem to make no distinction between the two.

1
SpaceManBob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why WOULD we go back? What's the point? Just because it's easy to get there doesn't mean there's a reason to go. As BasedPeace pointed out, time, risk, and I'd say cost as well, are the big factors.

1
SpaceManBob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Definitely agree to a certain extent. Some stuff just doesn't land me with at all. On the other hand, I much prefer it here to some leftist shithole forum where they fervently hate God and anything good and attack anyone who disagrees with them (or somewhere like Patriots.win where it's doom central 24/7). The people here are good people and actually focused on solving problems and making the world a better place as well as digging deep and researching to try and interpret what's truly going on around us. And compared to the left, actually have good, concrete morals.

So the way I see it is, regardless of differences in beliefs, we all share the same goal. Save America, save the world.

8
SpaceManBob 8 points ago +9 / -1

This is something I've never understood. Do we have free will or does God grant prayers and enact His will upon the world? In most cases, they're mutually exclusive. The only way for many prayers to be granted or for God to do anything to change or control the world around us would be to ignore our free will entirely.

1
SpaceManBob 1 point ago +1 / -0

I absolutely want to live forever. Seems preferable to the possibility that there's nothing after death. But I also don't waste my time "never enjoying life because you're always seeking ways to beat the system". Medicine (real medicine, not COVID quackery) will either advance enough in my lifetime to delay/cure aging, or it won't. Not much else I can do about it so I'm certainly not failing to enjoy life as a result of this.

3
SpaceManBob 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, him having 666k followers is a fucking coincidence. A month ago he had less and a month from now he'll likely have more. Everyone with over 666 followers has at some point had 666 followers. If they surpass 666k followers they'll have had the number twice (or 3 times if you count 66.6k in between), so on and so forth. It means quite literally nothing. I've numerous times seen YouTube likes or Reddit upvote counts be at 666 or upvoted/liked something myself only to realize that I was the 666th. I've also upvoted or liked posts on 665k (same for 66.5k) wondering if I'd be the one that pushes it up by one. A few times it did, I thought "ooh spooky", and then moved on as it means nothing.

Now if Joe Biden's Twitter account magically goes to 666 million (example, could be 666k, 666, etc.) followers and just sits there for months on end then you may have something, but until then it means nothing as thousands or even millions of people have had 666 as their follow count at some time or another (including Trump and many, many, many other patriots we trust).

0
SpaceManBob 0 points ago +1 / -1

Banning murder is a good thing. Banning abortion is a good thing. You don't not ban murder/abortion because there will be issues, you ban it and then work out the issues after. Anything else is itself immoral.

If we never made any changes without first ensuring that everything regarding the situation was perfect society would be completely stagnant. Not only because everyone would give up when they realize it'll never be perfect, but also because we're basing change on an unrealistic expectation of perfection that isn't possible nor attainable.

2
SpaceManBob 2 points ago +2 / -0

We can and we should just make it illegal. People still committing murder isn't an excuse to not make murder illegal. The same goes for murdering unborn children.

In fact, it's expected. If something isn't a crime and people do it, once you make it a crime the rate of people committing that crime goes up. Though the point is that, in the beginning, some people will now not do it, thus reducing the rate at which it happens overall. As time goes on and people are raised understanding that it's a crime and immoral thing to do, it should drop off even more to where it's a much, much smaller issue than it used to be. There are always people who will do bad things and/or break the law, that doesn't mean you just say "fuck it" and toss all the laws out. The point of laws isn't only to prevent people from doing something bad, it's also to punish the people who inevitably do.

Also, you didn't answer my question; Is murder being illegal a state issue as well?

7
SpaceManBob 7 points ago +7 / -0

Why don't you make your own post if you think it's such a big deal? State your case there. Instead of hijacking this post and in the process deflecting from literal child sacrifice.

Like seriously, of all the places you could have mentioned this you decided to play the "but but but what about this" game on a comment talking about PP slaughtering fucking children.

You're equating the slaughter of Human children to animals. I hope you see how fucking degenerate that is.

4
SpaceManBob 4 points ago +4 / -0

These tards are scared of a frog, a fucking frog lmao

1
SpaceManBob 1 point ago +2 / -1

Just because they posted on Facebook doesn't mean that the actual reason they vaccinated their kids was just to do that. They were lied to by the media and even worse by their doctors. There's a very significant difference between jabbing your kid to virtue signal on Facebook vs jabbing your kid because you think it's "safe and effective" and the right thing to do to protect them and then virtue signaling on Facebook after. One of these is half decent and an attempt at good parenting while the other is effectively treating your child as a prop to carry around and show off. I highly, highly doubt there's any significant group of people who actually do the latter.

Facebook is also a massive minority of nutjobs. It's also filled with bots to push a narrative. So if someone for example posts a picture of their kid after getting the shot and you get dozens of people responding saying they did or are going to do the same, you could reasonably assume that dozens of people haven't actually done this as only the original person posted a picture. The rest could simply be bots keeping the echo chamber alive.

Then there's this person: https://greatawakening.win/p/13zzaW9t5e/its-a-bitter-pill-/c/

They posted their kid after getting the jab but it's exceedingly clear after reading her descent into madness (Read: reality) that she cares about her kid and was lied to by a world that makes it possible to live in a thick, protected bubble that's completely separate from any form of truth. Lied to by the media, by the doctors, by the schools, by other people calling """ani-vaxxers""" "conspiracy theorist flat earthers". By the end, she seems to realize her mistake and likely regret it. If she only did it to virtue signal that wouldn't have happened. So even among the minority of people posting their kids on Facebook and Twitter some among that small subgroup can't even be pinned down as jabbing their kid to virtue signal.

Bonus point, the kid even says "yes" he's happy to be jabbed. Now imagine he didn't get any adverse reaction (in fact, I just reread and he said yes he was happy AFTER the myocarditis diagnosis), he'd grow up into the perfect little drone who's fully submerged in the fantasy world, ready to be controlled and weaponized against the truth. Not because he wants to virtue signal, but because it's all he knows.

42
SpaceManBob 42 points ago +44 / -2

Can we stop pushing this nonsense narrative? Most parents who are jabbing their kids are so wholly brainwashed they have no concept of the vaccine even possibly being dangerous. They're not vaccinating their children to virtue signal, they're doing it because they quite literally live in a different reality perpetuated by media and think they're protecting their children.

1
SpaceManBob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Disney bought Marvel in 2009 (Winter Soldier released in 2014). Their first movie was absolutely not "Black Panther" (which was, frankly, a perfectly fine movie).

3
SpaceManBob 3 points ago +3 / -0

No it doesn't and it's been explained to you dozens of times at this point.

3
SpaceManBob 3 points ago +3 / -0

How hard is it to read the Q post? Nobody here is doing anything other than apply the Q post in a logical way.

3
SpaceManBob 3 points ago +3 / -0

The distinction is literally in the Q post. This is basic stuff.

1
SpaceManBob 1 point ago +1 / -0

One is military intel the other is random autists on the internet.

2
SpaceManBob 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not "harder to spin". The argument isn't weak.

It's all laid out in the OP.

0
SpaceManBob 0 points ago +1 / -1

What the fuck are you smoking? Dude posts a picture of Flynn and asks "Flynn exonerated soon?".

Q responds: "In the end, all will be right. Patriots protect Patriots. Q"

How much more cleat-cut do you need it to be?

view more: Next ›