What percentage of "white people" do you have to be to actually qualify as "white people"?
Just curious if I pass the bar or not...
Quote the person who said this anywhere in this whole post.
I rarely say this, but: I'll wait.
And to be clear here, I have no patience for people reading shit into other people's comments that they never actually said.
It seems like every comment I see from you is some pseudo-intellectual, snide, bullshit remark that isn't made with an ounce of good faith. And that is usually missing some glaring aspect of the issue entirely.
For example, this "observation" you've made isn't nearly as smart as you must think it is.
Operation Paperclip
If something like that happened back then, and they successfully destroyed any historical evidence of it, how would you ever know?
And do you really think that the fall of empires completely destroys all the people within? Or do those people begrudgingly accept the fact their great society fell and go into the shadows of what now reigns over them to either plot something else or die?
If China successfully invaded and took over America, with full control of our military, police, federal government, and state and local governments, what would you do? Lay down and proclaim Xi Jinping as your new Emperor?
Of course you wouldn't do that. And it's no different. Anyone who survives something like that, and is thus still alive under the new order, whether it's the leaders or the citizens; they will fight back in some way.
When Donald Trump won the presidency did the entire deepstate apparatus just go "oh darn! I guess he got us!" and give up? Or did they work to stop him despite what the law says?
Obviously, they didn't just give up. Do you think they would if we completely took the country over from them but failed to execute them all for treason? Maybe some are successful in fleeing to some safe haven island or other country. Surely they'll just call it a day and become good people or something, right?
And of course, any group that successfully builds an empire, even one that falls to outside forces in its time, is a group that is to be treated with the utmost respect towards their abilities. To discount them even in seeming defeat would be foolish.
We can all convince each other. This is why debate is possible.
Not caring about what people think sounds all well and good, "muh freedom" after all, until the beliefs you allowed to go unchallenged come crashing down when the "do" catches up with the "think".
For example, the lefties think Trump supporters are evil racist Nazis. Up until a certain point, these were only thoughts. That is, until they are at a moment's notice turned into actions and certain lefties start committing violent acts or other crimes against Trump supporters as a direct result of what they think about hem.
As another example, I absolutely care if someone's belief is "Satan is very good". I'm not just going to sit around and wait until this person starts raping kids and sacrificing babies. I'm going to attempt to convince them they are wrong before they are too far gone into it. It might not work, but so what?
Waiting until a problem exists as a justification for a shit solution, that you might not have even needed to employ if you didn't wait, is retarded.
The site appears to be some kind of online place for local communities and neighbors to communicate with each other. Guess it would kind of defeat the purpose if Raj was on there saying he lives 3 doors down, meanwhile he actually lives in India.
From the site: "It's where communities come together to greet newcomers, exchange recommendations, and read the latest local news. Where neighbors support local businesses and get updates from public agencies. Where neighbors borrow tools and sell couches. It's how to get the most out of everything nearby. Welcome, neighbor."
It would still be nice if you could read the posts without needing to sign up, but it doesn't seem that out of the ordinary that they want that kind of verification based on what the site is.
Thanks, and certainly.
What I mean by figment of the imagination is that if Jimmy says God told him X while Billy says God told him Y, but X and Y contradict each other fundamentally, then one or both of them are imagining that God is talking to them. Because God wouldn't contradict himself.
I'd say it's more reasonable to assume they're both imagining hearing God, rather than pick and choose which one I agree with based on my own arbitrary opinion of what "sounds right". What sounds right to me will sound wrong to someone else. It's wholly subjective.
However, that's not to say I don't think God communicates with people directly, necessarily. I just think we have to filter that through some objective and external source, since we aren't fully objective beings and are instead very fallible beings.
I certainly agree we're more than physical bodies, though we are still that. We are mind, body, and spirit. All of them make the whole Human, not just one. As far as 10% of our brain, from what I recall, that is conscious usage at any one time. We still use the other 90% for unconscious tasks.
As for Shamanism, I wouldn't say it's the oldest. I'd say the oldest was Adam and Eve, who had full knowledge of God because they communicated directly with Him before the fall.
And from a brief look at Shamanism and the tie to Jesus, it seems to not have to do with God but with worshiping nature. But Jesus worshiped the Father, so I don't know how He could be considered a Shaman. It depends on what you mean, I guess. He certainly performed miracles, cast out demons, healed people. But the source of that power wasn't nature or some magical thing, it was a result of the fact that He is God, and He always called upon the Father before performing any miracles. Though this could certainly just be a case of us saying the same thing in a different way. One person I just read talking about it pointed out the tower of babel story where the languages were confused could be at fault. So we're basically all saying the same thing but with different words, and then yelling heretic at each other over it, lol (though to be clear I'm not saying you're accusing anyone of heresy. That'd be more on the Christian side, I suppose I must admit.)
I saw an interesting video with a person who is a former psychic. She claimed that it was all real, but that it was all demonic. So it's not that these things are just all fake, but what is the source of the power that is being gained? Is it good? Or is it bad? You can use it for good, maybe, but if the source is evil you won't be doing good with the power for long. I don't intend to be the crazy guy on the street corner screaming about how everything is Satan, just something to consider. (and here is the video if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbDE_BEHREU (it is an interview by Michael Knowles, who to be clear is staunchly Catholic. He's done a few others with different kinds of, I guess "occultists", that I haven't watched yet))
And my thing with the spiritual awakening, is that it certainly can be weird and confusing for some. I was quite lucky in that I didn't really struggle to find my place. But the way I see it, people should be guided to the truth, and since from my perspective that is God's perfect Word in the Bible; well I suppose I'm just eager to point out that perspective and give it the defense I think it deserves.
And it ties into my problem with the "spiritual but not religious" thing. To me, that is self-worship. A complete rejection of any authority. "I'll just figure it out on my own, I don't need some book or some priest to tell me what is true!". But God is an authority. And I believe he gives us authoritative ways to know what is true and to know Him. That should precede any kind of personal interaction, and any personal interaction or event should be contrasted with the objective standard. We need a strong basis of truth to know God, and I believe He provides that for us.
Apologies again for my initially crass tone. I definitely appreciate that you're on here putting out these deep dive posts trying to help people further their understanding, regardless of any disagreements I may have. This is how truth is found, discussion and debate using our God given intellects. You have a good evening!
Edit: By the way, I've seen you around over the months/years and have always wondered if you're DeepFuckingValue, or if he just inspired your name kek
"There are a bunch of Republicans in office that are doing bad things like denying the election and defending J6!!!!
...
And for this reason I will not be running for reelection, thereby preventing myself from acting as a counterweight to these radical MAGA extremists."
That, or he was put into submission. I think I'm going with Q on this one, kek
Being indoctrinated is great when the doctrine is true ;)
100%.
Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world and trusting in God isn't always easy for many. Frankly, it's not surprising that many fail to trust Him, considering the state of the world and seeming corruption of everything.
The very logic is in the original post: "If everything else is corrupted, why not God's word?"
#1 Yes, the reason I wrote my comment in such the way I did. You come across extremely abrasively and hide it behind a veneer of politeness. Forgive my harsh tone, but all your comments rub me extremely the wrong way. You mix politeness, snide comments, and matter-of-fact statements which in some cases aren't much more than truisms, all with the undertone of "if you don't agree you're just closed-minded and brainwashed by the control structures".
#2 Post evidence. And a logical argument that centers around the idea that what you're saying must have been what existed/what was known before the "current narrative" since that narrative is "only" 2000–4000 years old is not evidence, even if it's logically plausible.
#2.5 And it is all new-age stuff. Some appeal to what-ifs and hypotheticals from 200,000 years ago doesn't change that. How old even is the Earth? Are you sure? Or is that just another of their lies? How do you know? Are quantum physics even real? Are you sure? Or is that just another of their lies? How do you know? It seems to me that there is a picking and choosing going on here of which of their narratives to believe. Is RNA real? Are you sure? Or is that just another of their lies? How do you know?
My accusation, I guess, really boils down to this: It's new age because it is all exclusively recent argumentation by modern humans. Nobody has believed this stuff going back thousands of years. And that doesn't compute with God for this reason: God is true, in every sense of the word. God is more powerful than the cabal. God is sovereign over His creation. By His nature, independent of any holy books, these things are true. This makes the idea that people have been living absent of truth for 2000+ years completely untenable in my mind. God would not allow this.
It is also a total and absolute lack of faith in God to believe He allowed His objective revelation to Man to be corrupted. I stress the objective and external revelation very often in my arguments on God because it is the only reliable truth. Not tainted by our clearly fallible minds. Not up for independent interpretation, but bound by the rules of the language it was written perfectly in. The two options I see are that God gave us no such revelation, and as such wants no relationship with us, or that God wants a relationship with us and so gave us an objective way to know Him.
But I agree with your last statement. Trust God above all and love God. And I trust in God's ability to preserve far more than I trust in the cabal's ability to corrupt.
And respond to my first and main point/question. It's an honest question. I can't comprehend how I could possibly believe in a god that is seemingly just, respectfully, a figment of the imagination of the person claiming to be hearing it/saying what it told them. Particularly when it is always different.
Why does your "personal god" always disagree with itself person to person?
You worship yourself. Get off your hypocritical and condescending "you just have a massive ego" high horse. Your level of opinionatedness and ego is astronomical. You're in no position to call anyone else out on these things.
The chance that any of this new-age junk is true is virtually zero. You haven't discovered some special, hidden truth, just proved the 2000-year-old book you think is corrupted right once again. Nothing new under the sun.
Edit to add: I find it ironic you say to trust God yet you don't trust Him to preserve His Word, His Church, or give us a way to truly know Him outside of some esoteric, new-age investigation that virtually no one, throughout let's say our "enslaved history", has ever conducted.
Does it need to be exciting? Or true? I'll admit that some of it can be just a tad boring, as unpleasant as it is to admit. But it's also extremely exciting to read the Gospels or to read a passage in the Old Testament that is clearly talking about Jesus Christ hundreds of years before he lived.
The Emerald Tablets piqued my interest because they were less well known. More esoteric. Not accepted and hidden away. This doesn't make them true, and is the perfect recipe to be led astray by the "fun" or "exciting" thing rather than lead to truth by the "boring" but true thing.
Truth is not to be based on feeling. Our feelings are not only often wrong or irrational, but they also contradict each other's feelings. This is why we need an objective standard.
I don't only believe things that I find agreeable. I do trust my intuition, to be clear, but when the Bible says something I didn't think was true, I look into it and find that the Bible is right or at least makes a perfectly valid and compelling case. So I change for God, I don't find a "god" that fits me. Because without an objective source of truth, something that I am not, there is no truth at all.
And the way I see it, if I always agree with God, I'm not agreeing with God. I'm just agreeing with myself. The notion that I'd get everything right exactly as God ordained it is highly unlikely in my mind.
To be clear, I always found this quite easy. I went from an agnostic to a hardliner Christian in a couple of months. It really feels more like a day. I realized one day I believed and everything changed. I found it exceptionally easy to just believe the Bible and cede my authority to God, which was quite the opposite of the mindset I'd been fostering spending a lot of time here on GAW, and of my general mindset all my life.
So I don't know what it is like to face the opposite problem of not wanting to cede my authority to God, or not finding it compelling. But I still think that to believe in God is to deny what you know to some degree. Some stuff will align, but we don't know everything and God does, so every truth we learn shouldn't necessarily go down easy, so to speak. There's going to be some big red pills in there. Some big ways of thinking that we aren't correct on.
And respectfully, how can you possibly believe you have found some kind of personal, spiritual truth when there are a dozen other people who claim the same thing, but they claim they were led to an exclusionary truth? Islam isn't compatible with Christianity, which isn't compatible with Judaism, which I'd assume isn't compatible with your spiritual beliefs.
Many of these "truths" contradict each other. They can not all be true. And if Islam is right, I'm going to Hell. Is Christianity is right, that could very well be your path. I don't intend to be one of those fire and brimstone "you're going to hell! Repent!" types, but it's a real possibility if you're wrong.
And what even is truth? If it comes from God, it is objective. Not something one gets to pick between several options on.
I mean, the truth I have found is that the only way to the Father is through the Lord Jesus Christ. This excludes every Muslim, every Jew, every Atheist, and every "spiritual but not religious" person. This certainly isn't the same truth you have found. So who is right? How do we know? Can we know?
I think we can, and I think God gives us exactly what we need in the Bible and His Church.
For one, the Bible makes verifiable, historical claims. The Gospels in particular lay out Jesus' life in a way that we can verify. And history does verify Christ's life as the Bible lays it out.
For another, it's uniquely based on salvation by grace and by Jesus' death on the cross to pay the price for our sins.
If you honestly just can't muster up the attention/focus/interest to read the Bible, I'd suggest going to Church. There was quite some time when the commoners were illiterate and relied on the Church for their teachings. Though, they were still getting the Word of God from the Bible, just in a way they understood. It may be more digestible if you find reading it yourself too boring.
What can be proven accurate? How? Is it really proven? What if it isn't?
Proven accurate by whom? Man? Yourself (i.e. Man)?
And we are not a spirit. We are mind, body, and spirit. To only address one is to miss the fullness and Truth of God's creation.
You can't find truth by shutting your mind and opening your soul, because then you aren't discerning what you are encountering. You're also rejecting the basis of the way God created us. At that point, truth is eluding you from the beginning, so you certainly won't find it later down the line.
In the end, it matters what God says. And if He says it in one holy book, then that book is His True Word. And since we are demonstrably fallible and incapable of attaining perfect truth, the only logical conclusion is that He would put His Word in an objective, external source that we can look to for guidance.
At that point, we only need have faith in Him and his Revelation, and not have faith in ourselves to try and figure out every little aspect of truth.
It isn't the work of men, it's the Gift of God. This is clearly a faith issue for many, and nothing else.
Why do you believe authority on truth belongs to the self? To the individual?
Seems quite useless for God to give us a book that got corrupted immediately (so did He lie when He said He'd preserve His word or was that also made up?) and then give us no other way to know what is true other than simply making it up as we go along in our own minds.
Your lack of faith in God is palpable. You worship the self instead of Him. Paying lip service to authority belonging to Christ doesn't change this because your belief in that is based on the self.
And the irony of you using only the parts of the Bible you agree with, while throwing the rest out because you don't like it. Meanwhile, without the Bible in its fullness you would believe none of the stuff you currently do, as there would be no reason to.
Then you attack other people for believing what they do and sharing that truth with others because they believe if they don't those people's blood will be on their hands when they go to Hell. Doesn't matter if you agree with them, but that is what they are doing, and you attack them for it with an ironically "holier than thou" attitude.
No, people clearly disagree with the first part of your statement, not the second part.
Why do people do this shit online? This is like that meme about how if you say "I like pancakes" everyone will respond "so you hate waffles?"
No, nobody said that.
So we are to replace the understanding of Man with the understanding of what? The self? So Man?
All we have is the understanding of Man. And I would much rather put my understanding up against the many, rather than just my fallible self. I am not an authority on Truth. No individual except for God is.
Jesus said that in the last days he will tell many that He never knew them.
One can not know Jesus Christ without the Bible. We wouldn't even know His name without It.
If someone can't see Him in His revelation to Man, then they don't truly know Him.
Not one of us here would even have an inkling of an idea about God without the "old book".
If the Bible is the perfect Truth, then it is impossible to know the truth and be awakened without reading It. On this topic, there are no opinions. It's far more important than that. Not something one can just approach however they feel like and be fine in the end if they weren't totally right.
The rejection of the Bible appears to me to be a total lack of faith in God. Instead, all that faith is being directed at the self. The self that we all know suffers from sin and from the fallibility of being human.
I saw reported that everyone left currently vying for the speakership voted against certifying the 2020 election.
Big if true.
Wtf. This might be one of the best developments in recent history. Maybe even better than the first speakership bout.
The deep state is salivating at the thought of replacing the word Hamas with Trump in that sentence.
Individuals form a collective.
No society stands on individualism alone. You can't have a society without a group, and you can't have a group without individuals. All must be respected, from top to bottom, as necessary to the continued existence of a functional society.
The problem is that the cabal wants only one collective or group to exist; theirs. And they want it to span the whole globe so no one can escape.
Instead, many different "collectives" can exist, all run by the individual constituents of each. And all strong and with a healthy respect of the sovereignty of each other. The highest level should be nation, not world.
Anything else is a misunderstanding of terms and of how a functional society works.
Nice argument.
Take it up with God, I guess. He knows much more than you and I do about His creation.
And remember, no objective standard outside of God (any alleged god) and an external revelation to Man (any alleged revelation to Man) exists to be able to accurately claim any sort of moral truth.
Without a god and an external, objective source, nothing we as fallible humans conclude is objectively valid, at least morally. For example, some people think lying is morally ok, even righteous, if it is only a little white-lie. Some think no lying is ok. There is no objectivity here. And this extends all the way up to every moral conundrum and fallible human view.
So frankly, the only position that is absurd is yours, which posits you as the sole arbiter of knowledge and as having ultimate authority in that knowledge. It is a position of extreme ego, where whatever you believe is the ultimate truth, and whatever anyone else says that is contradictory must be wrong because they couldn't possibly know more than you about whatever mystical universal morality you both subscribe to. And then of course anyone who posits that an objective source exists to provide us guidance is just written off immediately without consideration of whether or not the source is real or not. Because God couldn't possibly be real if He disagrees with your moral philosophy, oh great one!
Landfills used to be nature until they got turned into landfills.