This is my thought, as well. It seems many refuse to consider that people in a position like Vivek could possibly be duped the same as any normie; he MUST know everything about the deepstate/cabal and be doing everything with full knowledge.
Yet, it seems to me he’s doing everything someone who has recently awakened would do.
Is a rapist a criminal? Is a murderer a criminal?
Even if it were disrespectful to call a criminal a criminal, what else do we call them?
Oh, wait, I see the problem: Only Trump supporters are criminals... the FBI said so!
In this case, you'd have people lining up for their mRNA shot absolutely freewillingly
And what about those who don't? Force them to get it? Force them to social distance? Force them to stay home? Or allow them to kill grandma because "freedom"?
It is synonymous though, and honestly, would actually be reasonable in this line of thought:
Maybe so. It would be hard to actually know who has it or not, and fuck some kind of gay ass "registry". Privacy is important, and privacy doesn't mesh well with detailed tracking of every citizen, obviously.
Though I'd say, it's absolutely possible to identify people who are going out in public with symptoms and tell them to go home, somewhere alone, somewhere with other sick people, or somewhere with people who don't mind. It'd be no different from the police booting someone out of Walmart for indecent exposure. They address it when they see it, but don't go to nude beaches and start making mass arrests.
There can absolutely be a middle ground between freedom to do what you want during an alleged pandemic and a medical tyranny. It shouldn't be a free-for-all if an actual deadly disease appears, but we don't need to lock down the world and force inject people, either.
The option shouldn't be "let me do whatever I want, or you might as well shoot me". It should be "let me take my unvaxxed grandma who isn't afraid of dying of the coof to the empty beach near my house". That's freedom properly understood.
if I understand right, around half your country, and all of blue cities, would gladly feel righteous and just again, drowning in tingles as they are better than those grandma murdering freedom lovers, so this thought experiment may materialize faster than anybody of us would want.
I think it's less than half. They like to make it seem like it's half or a majority, though.
And the difference would be that, while in my thought experiment the coof was deadly and the vax is safe, in reality, the coof is benign and the vax is deadly, so they can feel how they want, but it's not just and righteous to reimplement their bullshit.
Their feelings don't matter. Just like feelings don't matter in science, feelings don't matter when determining the right course of action in government. It's about what is true, and that CAN be discovered.
Yes, it would be nice to know when you can intervene and when not; however, apart for reasons like stated above you'd need a crystal ball to predict what will the outcome be, was it ever worth the price. Also, do this a few times and nobody will even bother with freedom anymore, as precedent has been set.
But would we need a crystal ball? We all knew COVID was bullshit from the beginning. We were right. It certainly wasn't proven to be oh-so-dangerous like they claim. Obviously, to limit freedom for the greater good would require actual good evidence, not just unsubstantiated claims and mass hysteria like with the coof.
And so in that situation, we correctly predicted the outcome of their and our views. We predicted that ours would lead to a good outcome and theirs to a bad outcome. So it is absolutely possible to predict the outcomes, and if we do fuck up, we change it. This isn't hard in a properly functioning system.
Now, in the case where the government implements intentional tyranny with the support of most people, it doesn't matter what system you have. The fact that people will claim they are doing the righteous and just thing, even when they knowingly or unknowingly aren't, isn't an argument against any specific system. The system has to have integrity, or it doesn't matter.
So, if it is OK to throw away freedom for noble causes, it is OK to do so now. No higher principle.
It is absolutely ok to throw away freedom for noble causes, for two reasons:
-
Freedom is a means to an end, the end being a good society. If it was the other way around, freedom would include the freedom to infringe on other people's rights. As we both know, it doesn't, and the reason it doesn't is because that doesn't lead to a good society and is unjust.
-
Any society that allows immorality collapses. It is inevitably overcome by immorality, and that evidently leads to collapse. Just compare historically Muslim countries to historically Christian countries. One religion was created by Satan, and the other one is true and good. If you allow immorality for freedom's sake, collapse will follow.
The issue here isn't throwing away freedom for noble causes. It's throwing away freedom for ignoble causes. To conflate the two is asinine. To reject the idea that we can discern between the two is to accept the modernist leftist ideology that says we can't know objective truth and all the shit that comes along with that, like "men can become women" and "some children actually "want" to be in a sexual relationship with a 40-year-old gay man".
Nobody is arguing you should be free to break neighbour's windows because you are free. That's the argument of the left, and why you can do less and less shit, all for noble causes.
Firstly, yes, that is why I presented that statement as a supporting argument to my other statement that calling something just doesn't make it just, which itself was a supporting argument to my prior claim which is that we can know what is actually just versus unjust despite the covid crazies also thinking they're right.
Secondly, all laws obviously reduce freedom. All laws also legislate morality. The problem isn't reducing freedom, it's reducing freedom in an unjust and immoral manner. And justice and morality don't only cover things that "infringe" upon other people.
And as a bonus, I find these statements to be bullshit. My initial thought is always, "who the fuck are you, and how do you know what anybody other than yourself is arguing?"
Also, it's the same argument lefties use when they try to ban guns.
Also, also, I'm sure I could get plenty of people to argue that, in a hypothetical world where the coof is extremely deadly and masks work perfectly, freedom still means being able to go to the store without a mask and kill grandma.
I feel that for last couple for decades, freedom didn't have the best press. Actually, people insisted on being the smarter, righteous and other nice sounding adjectives, freedom was for rednecks or other local slur.
This argument is one of the best I've seen. It's admittedly hard to make any claims about the effects of the increasing freedom of society after the enlightenment, when in reality we have a facade of freedom at best (it'd be like commies calling free market capitalism bad. We don't have it, so how do they know it's bad).
Still, it's quite evident that many of the problems are the result of the increased "freedom". Sure, it's hard to tell what society would look like under a truly free system, but it's still possible to identify that reduced freedom isn't why so many are obese and addicted, nor is it why virtue is nearly non-existent. People live maybe the most hedonistic and narcissistic lives in human history, and if you asked them why, their answer would most likely be some variant of the word "freedom". e.g. "Because I can", "how does it affect you", etc.
And another thing is, you're using positive words in a negative way. Obviously, you're making it out that the people using these words to justify reducing freedom are full of shit, but if it was indeed the case that reducing freedom would make us smarter, more righteous, and any other nice sounding adjectives, that's 100% what we should do as a society. The alternative is living in a shit, but free, society. That's the result of freedom being the end and not the means.
So I'd argue it is the case that society would be better banning certain things. The goal should be to figure out what those things are. Currently, it seems only one side is trying to do this, and it's the delusional side that contains so little true virtue that all they can do is signal fake virtue. Meanwhile, our side is split seemingly between conservative-leaning and libertarian-leaning types, which means while the left acts as a tyrannical bloc, we can't agree what is actually worth legislating. No wonder we've been failing for so long.
How's the social decay going?
I don't know, take a look around any leftist shithole city where freedom runs rampant. You know, the freedom to piss in the streets, shoot up heroin in the streets, have sex in the streets, live on the streets in a shitty tent, steal anything you want as long as it doesn't cost too much, murder people, show your dick to children as long as you have enough rainbow flags with you, chop off your own genitals, etc.
Freedom is clearly not a virtue. Most of those things don't even infringe on anyone else except for the theft, murder, and child abuse.
If they made all those things illegal, and actually enforced the laws, their cities would improve massively. This would happen because it isn't about freedom, but morality. If all your laws ban everything good and allow everything bad, your society will suck. If all your laws ban everything bad and allow everything good, your society will flourish. And again, this includes banning bad things that don't infringe on anyone else.
They're people, and God can save anyone.
Certainly, the truth determines the approach.
However, if the truth of covid was exactly as they claimed, it would be immoral to not do what would protect everybody.
In the hypothetical case where the vaccine is 100% safe and effective, and covid is real and highly lethal, claiming "freedom" actually does just mean "freedom to kill grandma".
If abortion is murder, and it 100% is, it should be illegal, because it's wrong. So why should going out with hypothetical super deadly covid while taking zero extra precautions not also be illegal? If someone wants to do nothing and stay in their house or go be in nature, that's one thing, but forcefully exposing others to super deadly covid is more akin to spitting on people, which is illegal, than it is exercising any supposed "rights".
To be clear, I'm not saying in this hypothetical that the government should send the goony squad to force inject anyone or lock people in their houses. If someone wants to go to an abandoned lake and fish, or meet up with other people who are aware of the risk, that's fine. But if someone wants to waltz into the store with a bunch of people who aren't fine with being near someone with super deadly covid, why should that not be disallowed in a moral and just society? There is no "right to go into the local Walmart and buy a can of tuna", nor is there a "right to cough up a massive loogie in the town square".
Now luckily, everything they say about covid is nonsense, so this is nothing more than a thought experiment.
And, to be fair, I'd be hesitant to actually apply this hypothetical in a medical scenario. Big pharma are mass murderers. I very much don't like the idea of the government regulating medical decisions. I simply stuck with the covid example for the consistency of the discussion.
So, I suppose the gist of my argument is this: Even just 100 years ago, "freedom" was not understood as the satanic "do what thou wilt" kind of freedom.
Except objective reality shows us that the COVID vaccine is complete bullshit.
So it doesn't really mesh the way you say. Sure, the COVID crazies can apply the terms to that topic, but they're simply wrong.
Saying something is just and righteous doesn't make it just and righteous. Just like calling something freedom doesn't make it freedom (i.e. freedom to infringe on other people's rights).
And freedom has to be a mean to an end. If it's the end, it will always result in social decay and societal collapse, since society operates on the rule of law, and not freedom.
Insane that the entire purpose of history and writing things down is to build on the knowledge of our ancestors, yet most normies don't understand that America's economy was a million times better even just 50ish years ago. They don't even need to read a book, their parents/grandparents could tell them since they were alive for it.
But I guess that's when they pull out all the "late-stage capitalism" retardation.
There is no shame if a family takes in an adult son or daughter, or grandparent to help with expenses, and help each other. It was the way life in the country was done a long time ago.
This is a big problem, I think. So many buy into the "move out as soon as humanly (legally) possible" mentality, which too often achieves nothing more than pushing people into financial hardship and a survivor mentality. It's hard to fight a global cabal if you can barely survive day-to-day, after all.
And aside from the financial aspect, what's frankly even worse is that the idea of needing to "get your own place" directly implies that our place isn't together with our families. The cabal love to destroy everything that is good, such as family.
Glad to see someone point this out. Usually this goes unsaid and everyone just, sorry to say it, bleats along in agreement at the notion of freedom being the greatest thing to exist.
Also, all laws exist to legislate morality. All of them. So unless anyone here supports total anarchy with zero government of any kind, freedom is not the ultimate goal nor is it "the greater good".
The greater good is a just and righteous society. This necessarily involves hampering freedom, but also protecting freedom.
Very astute observation fren
kek
"The U.S. gives more vaccines than most developed countries, yet we have the sickest kids"
We also have a severe problem with people's ability to observe obvious realities around them.
It's almost like living in the most unnatural and synthetic way possible isn't good for us.
No, blame me! Blame me! I'll gladly take it all!
Dude, you're fucking full of shit.
I don't need some asshat telling me I'm a fucking brainwashed robot just running programs because he thinks he's some intellectual juggernaut. Your ego is fucking massive. And maybe you are smarter than me, I'll give you that. But my argumentation thus far has been far superior to the abject drivel you've levied.
And yes, I am 100% triggered. Moreover, I don't do passive-aggressive. If you want to throw accusations as a prime method of argument, I'm going to tell you what I think. I think you're a tool.
Now, with that out of the way:
I grew up with the same brainwashing and never questioned that Jesus was a real person. Then I questioned it and the bible. I'm aware the bible has some accuracy, but it literally is not proof. It's just text. Historical record would mean that Jesus appears in historical sources, like in a journal or in some artwork from the time, and zero. This is well know too. But it's logical fallacy to claim it matters in proving Jesus exists or not. The numbers of people who believe one way or the other, doesn't matter.
Problem #1
I didn't grow up with shit. I was agnostic until AFTER I joined GAW. And became Catholic AFTER that. If I got brainwashed, it was by anti-authority sentiment on GAW, and anti-Vatican sentiment on GAW. And DESPITE that, I became Roman Catholic. My predisposition was AGAINST all these things, yet I still came to believe them. Get bent with this "you're brainwashed" crap, you poser.
Problem #2
There is no logical fallacy involved in claiming that a primary document is evidence of a claim. And the only thing that's well known is the several secular sources outside the Bible that confirm the historicity of Christ: https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources
Also, name one formal logical fallacy I've committed. You can't (or maybe you can. I'd love to see it so I can improve my argumentation going forward). Logic is my specialty. I may not know everything, and you may be smarter, but logic is what I use to close the gap, where appropriate.
And I'm not ignorant about the bible at all. My claim that it's bullshit comes from the fact that it can't be proven to be truth.
You can't prove you're smart, either. You can't prove you aren't a brain in a jar. You can't prove you won't get hit by a bus next time you leave your house. We can't prove Joe Biden isn't a man in a mask. We can't prove Joe Biden is a man in a mask. We can't prove Trump is a good guy. We can't prove Q is real.
Proof is imaginary. Evidence is all that counts. And as far as the evidence goes, Christ being Lord has plenty. You choose to reject is based on some other criteria, not because it has an insufficient amount of evidence compared to anything else.
You pointed that if we exclude history then we cannot prove Jesus existed. That's all I was saying. History is the only thing that says he existed and history is missing verified, unbiased evidence.
There is more evidence for Christ than historical. The historical evidence verifies what we're seeing. The evidence present in all the creation verifies the historical account. They confirm each other as a result of their inherent truthfulness. God is self-evident. The Bible explains which God, and does it in a way that can't be refuted. You can't name one thing that the Bible is wrong about.
Also, this was my whole point. If you reject history and I don't, this discussion has little potential to bear fruit. Our entire base worldviews are different.
I find the historical evidence to be perfectly acceptable in light of the evident realities of the creation.
And another program you ran was saying the rebellion against God is worship of the self. I was "taught" the same thing. And it's no feat that people can predict a rebellion against God results in self worship in most cases. But not in my case.
The Bible was written 2000 years ago, yet it's got you pinned down to a tee. But ok, if you don't worship the self, who is your authority on truth? Be specific.
And about where we are. It does make a huge difference. You just have not put it together that this really is a plane. And we really are trapped, and all the national leaders know it, they always have.
Cool, never said it wasn't.
And I never said it doesn't matter, because it does. I said it doesn't disprove the Bible, and even fits with it potentially better (as you admit).
So it changes everything. We go from our planet and our destiny to being slaves in a wheel. Religion and most of the knowledge we think we have, could have been planted to make our society easier to manipulate and manage.
Rebellion from God. I'm going to stop posing theory and stating fact: God gave His revelation to Man and you can't see it or hear it because of your inherent sin nature that drives you away from God.
Also, you can't prove any of that.
Also, also, your observation is correct. Religion exists to tell us what to do. Your problem is your rebellion from God that prevents you from understanding why that's a good thing. Unrestricted freedom is why evil exists. Freedom is not a virtue.
To use that observation as some kind of evidence against religion is asinine. Yes, control is the point of religion. That doesn't make the claims of the religion false.
I really am pretty smart person. I'm not gonna call you dumb though. But maybe make some room for other people to teach you things instead of assuming you're the shit. You would be surprised how much you are wrong about still, even after all these struggles to understand the world. Im ahead of you at the moment, and once you take the flat pill, your perspective on everything slowly adapts the the new reality.
You called me every synonym for dumb, or at least you might as well have, but thanks, I guess.
Though, it appears to me that an unbiased review would reveal that you're the one with the ego problem here, man. As evidenced by, well... your inability to write three sentences without puffing yourself up. You couldn't even refrain from doing it in the selfsame paragraph that you accused ME of thinking I'm "the shit" in. In fact, you sandwiched that claim in between TWO statements stroking your own ego.
Now, as for my perspective, I couldn't get much closer to thinking it's flat than I already am, without simply accepting the claim. I still reserve judgement until I can get out and do my own tests at the very least. But even if I can confirm say the 5+ mile laser tests that disprove curvature, it won't change much about my perspective.
Just like nothing changed when I came to reject evolution. All the same things are still true observationally, they just have a different explanation. Not much about my life changes if I accept flat Earth. I already don't accept any of the anti-human bullshit pushed by the cabal. I already accept the notion that God created us with and for a purpose, and that we aren't just dumb animals with no purpose waiting to be enslaved by the stronger monkeys or aliens or whatever crap.
And if you didn't understand all these things after learning about the Bible, you never really understood the Bible. Then again, it's impossible to understand the Bible and not see that it's true, so no one who rejects it understand it (or God).
For some, flat earth makes the story of God vs devil even more real. And by all possiblity, it could be. But, it's also possible that religions are planted here, since we must have been planted here.
Honest question, where does all this "we were seeded on Earth to be cattle" shit come from (I'm assuming that's what you are getting at)? I keep hearing this shit, and haven't seen a lick of evidence. It honestly just seems like some schizo shit that only makes sense in theory. But maybe evidence exists, and I just haven't seen it yet. So if you're really interested in teaching me anything, now is the time.
Of course you can use the Bible. It's a collection of primary sources that is proven to be the same today as it was back then, based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not to mention the secular sources of which several existed.
I pointed out that according to history, Christ existed. This is well known. If you reject history, then it obviously doesn't matter to you what the "accepted narrative" is. That's my whole point. I can't "prove" Christ existed to you if we don't agree on the validity of history.
But nonetheless, there is more evidence for Christ than for the emperor of Rome at the time. As I said, unless we throw out all of history, Christ existed. If you do want to throw out all of history, and many do subscribe to that perspective, that's fine. But based on everything I've seen and researched, that's not where I'm at, and it's not because I'm brainwashed (brainwashed people believe in evolution. I don't qualify.). Also, you don't possess some superior mind because you reject all of human history, which is exactly what the cabal wants, by the way. Believe what you want, but don't act like I'm some incompetent, brainwashed idiot for not agreeing.
And the Bible makes just as much sense if we aren't a planet in space, if not more sense. I'm as open as I've ever been to us existing on a plane instead of a planet in space, yet that doesn't change anything about the Bible. It's not even really a science book. You can find some truths about reality in there, but not any that really exclude any specific details.
Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Your own lack of understanding of the Bible or connection with what it says does not make it inherently bullshit. This gets back to my statement that this is just rebellion from God. That's exactly what the Bible says we do, and if the Bible is true, it got that one right too. You "tried" faith, but didn't like it, so it must be bullshit. But that's our sin nature, we're inherently rebellious and averse to faith in God. We're meant to hold to that faith in spite of our nature. If it were easy to have faith in God, the Bible would be wrong. You saying it's hard lends credibility to the Bible, not the other way around.
Also, the opposite of faith in God is worship of the self. This leads to all humans evil that have ever existed.
Finally, the bible is very obviously not bullshit from my perspective. This is why relying on our own senses to determine truth is futile (and also more self worship, by the way).
Nice selfie catsfive ;)
When you question all the foundations of history, we get into a sticky territory, because there's usually no alternative.
Without history, we don't know where we came from. We don't know who we are. The cabal love this. The question is did they already corrupt history, or is that what they're trying to do now. I'd lean towards the latter, as I believe God preserved at least what is necessary to prove the Bible.
This, by the way, is partially why I read this as rebellion from God. Instead of believing that God preserved His word over the cabals attempts at corruption, you believe the opposite. The opposite belief is a rebellion from God because it posits that He either doesn't exist, or neglected to preserve His word.
Ultimately, it is impossible for us to come to any shared understand if one of us rejects all history and the other doesn't. By all historical metrics, Jesus Christ existed. I can't do much more than point that out, and if you reject history at its core, there's not really anywhere to go.
It’s doubly impossible to discuss anything when one side rejects objective reality as a thing that exists (which, by the way, is a new-age humanist cabal ideology based on Satan's first act in the Bible (as is everything the cabal pushes. It's all the opposite of what the Bible says is good. I wonder why?)).
Also, it's a shit population management tool (religion = population control = rebellion from God) if that's what it is. The entire New Testament is Jesus calling out the hypocritical Pharisees for their legalism. Christ summarizes the law in two rules, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"
So as a population control tool its main purpose is to... checks notes... tell people to love each other?
Sounds like the opposite of the cabals division tactic, which is integral to its continued existence.
As for "love God", if God is real this isn't an unreasonable population control demand, it's just what we should do (once again my assertion that your belief is based in rebellion from God. You suspect that the reason the Bible tells us to do things is evil control schemes, not because God loves us and wants the best for us)
I'll finish by saying that, as you point out, some people choose to be evil, while you choose to be good. This is exactly the problem with self-worship, and why it's clearly the wrong way to operate a society. Even if God isn't real, it'd be better if everyone believed He was.
In that sense, the Bible absolutely seeks to control us. By telling us what to do. The question is: Is it God telling us or the cabal telling us? Seeing as the Bible itself presents God as giving us free will, and based on the unity aspect which the cabal hates, I'd say the former.
This is the ultimate basis for my assertion. The Bible is quite evidently the archetypal "loving but firm father", giving us firm guidance on what to do and how to live from a place of love. To call it some evil cabal control mechanism is, by definition, rebellion against that which is evidently good. It's a "do what thou wilt" attitude, which is the basis of Satanism and the evil cabal, the very thing we seek to destroy.
I suppose that is a reasonable argument, and you're right it fits with the verses I mentioned.
The only thing I'd wonder, is where does that leave the people who hold a strong conviction in Christ, believe they have True Faith, yet the works don't follow, and they stay stuck in unrepentant sin?
Maybe that simply doesn't happen, but it seems reasonable to me that there are people like that. So their faith is dead, I suppose, but this seems to establish that works are important for salvation, at least as evidence of faith. It almost seems more like we're arguing semantics than doctrine, kek.
So what really is the difference? How would we tell between the two you mention?
In either case, I think the above verses I mention make it clear that salvation can be lost; we can be cut off. The only difference is whether it happens because of ceasing belief or ceasing works. Though in your above equation, it seems there isn't much difference, since without the works, the faith isn't true.
Lastly, how can works, repentance, etc. be evidence for True Faith, while also coming after True Faith? In effect, it seems you'd be proving the faith with these things, so they can't come second.
P.S. I'd include God's work in the first equation. Without that, it still doesn't work. Only God's grace ultimately saves.
Awesome to hear, fren!
"Ask and it will be given to you" becomes a stark reality, especially in cases like ours.
And yea, certainly much more to learn. The more time passes, the more I realize how little I truly understand.
100%
Even after I came to believe, that wasn't simply it. Every so often, it's like God hits me upside the head with some new information and I end up having to change my view based on what He's presented to me.
Repent of Satan's lies.
Muh Ancient Aliens is cabal created nonsense to draw people away from God.
Jesus frequently claimed to be the Son of God, by the way.
Edit: Also, that last sentence basically reads as "I hope we learn that MY preconceived notions are correct and not that I've been duped this whole time by ancient aliens woo".
Dead Sea Scrolls. The Book is the same.
It is literally impossible for the cabal to subvert the will of God. Your lack of faith in God is not an argument in favor of some "fact of life" that the Bible is incorruptible.
Ask someone living in rural Africa who Jesus Christ is.
They'll tell you.
And yes, if God is real, and you worship the wrong God, you go to Hell. You because you don't like this doesn't mean it is false.
If we could understand nothing of God, the Bible wouldn't explain God to us. But it does.
Ignoring God is destroying our country. No political bullshit is going to fix this. Trump is not the savior. The Lord Jesus Christ is.
The Bible is clear. Abomination.