This is pretty much exactly my point. I don't really disagree with anything you've said other than the semantics of the whole thing.
I think others have it in the wrong terms. As I said, my definition of "proof" expands past what you can see or point to.
The way I see it, when someone says you can't prove a negative, they are simply wrong. Doesn't mean people should start having to prove their innocence in court, but it's still a very narrow view of the topic, I think, to say a negative can't be proven.
What's the functional difference between proving a negative, and proving a positive that necessarily excludes something which asserts the negative.
As with my original example, for all intents and purposes the negative that proof was requested for was proven. Or whatever word you want to use to describe the fact that what was being asked for was received and satisfied. Again, proving innocence is unjust, but you can certainly apply this principle in other areas.
There is no lie, and it is truth.
God is perfection. God is just. Sin is not perfection. Allowing Sin to go unpunished is unjust. God can not exist with sin. How could He? How could the Perfect Creator of All Things be just and not punish sin? And this means any sin. Any sin, including one lie, is less than perfection. It is the opposite of what is good and right. And so it requires bearing the consequence, or God is unjust.
We dismiss things like children lying as a result of our sin, not because it is right. It is a result of our imperfection that we consider these things to be normal or consequence-free mistakes. God is different. He is perfect. And again, perfection can not dwell with imperfection. To "let that one go" because we stopped sinning, were that even possible, would be the antithesis of justice. And therefore the only fitting punishment is being destroyed. Cast out from the creation. That is the eternal punishment. Eternal destruction. The wages of sin is death.
But God loves us and gives us a way to be saved from our sin and to be forgiven. That way is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus satisfied the wages of sin with His death on the cross. And He asks only one thing, our faith in Him. If we can't give Him even that, why do we deserve to be saved? We would reject the personification and literal embodiment of goodness and perfection, and then expect God to forgive us?
God is the Bible. Its Words are His Words. He preserves it through all time for all to see the truth of the world. If He didn't, why would I even want to read a corrupted book to learn to commune with God? I'd surely be communing with the Devil if I did that.
Would God allow those wicked Men to alter the scriptures? Why?
Or would the Holy Spirit convict all the true believers in Christ to reject abhorrent and changed theology and doctrine?
What if you're crazy? Genuinely. What if the voice is not God, but simply your own imagination? How could you know? What is the objective measure? Observational reality tells us we are fallible. This is incompatible with the "I just know" response, because that could simply be the fallibility we all suffer from.
You likely aren't crazy, but what if it's Satan? Leading you to eternal damnation by invoking in you a question towards God's power to preserve His word?
Maybe it's not Satan, and you're simply wrong, and interpreting your own thoughts as that of God? This is the problem. How could it be possible to tell? There must be an objective standard. We aren't that.
And what of Psalm 12:6-7? Is that corrupted? Why would God give his revelation to man, only to not preserve it for all to see in its true glory?
What about 2 Timothy 3:16?
What about the words of Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 5:18?
I could just as easily claim you lack faith in God's ability to preserve His word, or don't have faith that He did, as well as in His ability to save Paul. What better way for God to assert His Supreme Authority than to reveal Himself to Paul and instill in him the unbreakable conviction of the Truth? Were any of the other Apostles perfect? No, but God still used them.
I could certainly be wrong, but so could you.
Is that not still proof? Must "proof" be something you can hold or see or point to? That is surely one form, and a strong one at that, of proof. But I don't discount logical extrapolation as a form of proof.
The evidence that an event didn't happen, would be inherently tied in as an extension of the evidence of what did happen.
A strenuous analogy.
Either way, I never said it makes sense, and it certainly is not something that should be required in a just justice system.
It's possible, doesn't mean it should be the primary method of proof.
And yet no one lives a life totally free of sin. So even if once they are older they stop lying (I certainly have, though I used to lie unprompted, and without being taught, to not get in trouble) there will still be something.
So, at no point is anyone totally guilt-free.
Even if it were possible to eradicate sin in your life, well, you lied once? Hell it is.
How did Trump win in 2016?
You can absolutely prove a negative, by proving a positive that excludes the possibility of the negative.
"Prove that you didn't rob that store"
"Here are airline and hotel receipts, as well as photos taken during my trip, showing I was in a different country on vacation during the time of the robbery"
By proving that you did do something, you prove that you couldn't have and didn't do something else.
So do you make yourself out to be the ultimate authority, above even God, in determining what is truly His Word? Or has God personally told you that the Bible is corrupt and that "this and that" book aren't real?
It is Satan.
That is the truth, and we can't win until people accept it.
One of their greatest lies was convincing people that pure evil doesn't exist. That they "must have had a terrible childhood or something!". Satan loves being able to play with people while they are blissfully ignorant of the fact it is him leading them to their doom.
It's what the infallible Word of God says.
It seems like many here have more faith in the cabal's ability to destroy than in God's ability to preserve.
Do children lie? (hint: the answer is yes, and without being taught to do so)
If truth turns people away from Christ, what other option is there?
Why is your name Knight Templar?
Compared to 2020? What is a lot? Plenty of people have woken up since then and more will before 2024.
And still with the disingenuous questions.
Here’s a question, though: If the economy must completely crash and burn before 2024, who would it be better to have in charge? Trump or Biden?
And why would the military ensure 2016 was secure but not any of the others?
And lest we forget when Q posted about the next 6 years of the operation, which puts us in 2025, when Trump would be president if 2020 was stolen and 2024 wasn’t.
Finally, acting like 2024 is the same as 2020 is asinine, not logical. To pretend that there are no differences in the entire scenario and context of the two and everything is the same is silly.
Reactionary tyranny is not a solution.
Who gets locked away for being mentally ill? Trump supporters that the deep state doesn’t like?
Why it happened is absolutely relevant and you’re a fool if you don’t care. If shitty institutions or child predators played a part in it, that is one angle to come at this multifaceted problem from.
Ignoring that these are people with unique experiences because they snapped and did some really bad shit does not make you a good person or one of the good guys, it just makes you useless in addressing the root cause of these issues.
Locking them away out of your sight so you can feel safe and pretend they don’t exist is morally unjust. Conflating broken people who needed help and never got it with evil people like the deep state is itself evil.
Someone who was groomed as a child, raped, and tortured is not the same as Bill Gates or George Soros. Acting like they are is the only thing that isn’t productive.
No secret here, just a gross misunderstanding of reality.
You think the universe is deterministic, it's not. We have free-will and choose what to believe. If you want to reject God when presented with every opportunity to accept Him, well, you get what you deserve. What we all deserve. Your main problem is your deep misunderstanding of sin, of the nature of God, and of justice.
You could right now choose to earnestly seek out God or simply choose to believe. You probably won't because you think you are smarter than your creator, but that is as always your choice.
You do.
It's just easier to do it because they are already unstable and looking for help. So the people they trust can easily turn them into weapons.
But you also have to brainwash them with the same propaganda everyone else requires first, which they failed to do with me and others on this board.
Those of us who can think critically and are naturally distrusting of authority likely do the best.
The problem is you ignore what people are saying to instead argue against the made up Christian in your mind.
I initially said you can't save yourself, yes, but the meaning here which is commonly understood (except by you) is that you can't save yourself through good works. This is what Christians are talking about when debating between salvation through faith and "doing something" to save yourself.
I absolutely do not agree that choosing to believe is a work. How is sitting in your house, and one day deciding to believe, a thing that you do in the world that is good? It's not. Going to your local soup kitchen and feeding poor people is a good work. But you will never save yourself no matter how much you do that. The only way to be saved is to accept the gift of salvation from God. In the most literal sense, yes, that is you saving yourself. It is done by accepting the salvation provided by Jesus Christ. No one disagreed with this. You simply don't know what is being discussed and are therefore ignorant of the topic. All the while pontificating on the illogicality of the people you ignorantly bash your head against.
And relating to your other comment about not being an atheist, you certainly come across as one. You act pompous and vain like you are better than the people you speak with because you think you know something they don't. You aren't here to learn or to convince, but simply to "win" the discussion and put those "dumb illogical Christians" in their place. This is the result of a lack of faith in the Lord. Anyone who has faith in Him sees Him and the Truth He presents in the Bible, which you flippantly dismiss because you think you know better than God.
Let me guess, 'muh personal relationship' and you "don't need no church"? Nor do you think you need an objective measure to base your belief in God on, and instead you somehow think you will come to the truth all on your own using your fallible eyes, fallible ears, fallible brain, and the rest of your fallible capabilities as a human?
Yes, all the flood stories are a little different. Only one is true. Why do you think it's your chosen one? And not the one written from God Himself?
Older does not mean better.
Generally what I have seen theorized is that the election was allowed to be stolen by the military. Whereas in 2016 they prevented it, in 2018, 2020, and 2022 they allowed it to happen for the purposes of waking people up and/or having people blame Biden for everything going to shit that must go to shit before we can win.
Military can be the only way, and that can include them securing 2024 for Trump and then rolling out once he is back in office.
I asked a clarifying question since I wasn't sure of your meaning and I still get hit with this trash lol
I can't argue because I don't even have any idea what you are saying.
What is "all" a key word in? Supporting or dispelling the notion of God's mercy not being available to everyone? If you are saying the latter, I fully agree. If not, I disagree.
You must believe to be saved. This is not the same as being saved through good works. Belief is not a work. It's not a thing you do in the world for the good of other people or for the good of the world.
You can't be good to be saved because we are not perfect and God's standard is perfection. i.e. you can't save yourself by being a good person because none of us are.
Some research I recall reading indicated that low sodium ALSO makes blood pressure go up.
The original backing for the claim that sodium causes high blood pressure was tenuous at best, anyway.