Celtic
No. The Trinity doctrine dates from the first century with a well known history in patristics.
It’s primary citation is from Scripture in the Gospels. Take Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1-4.
The earliest model for the understanding the meaning of the Bible verses in discussion was Logos Christology which called Jesus and the Holy Spirit the “hands” of God. It was further refined by the Cappadocians (who formalized the teaching) and Tertullian (who appeared to coin the phrase) before it was debated formally at Nicaea in 325 against Arianism. (Which preached the alternative idea that Jesus was God’s “right hand man” instead of a personal aspect)
Rather, St. Patrick used the Celtic analogy to combat Druidism and establish the Catholic Church in Ireland. The theology already existed.
Think about this: Eastern Orthodoxy is Trinitarian but had zero contact with the Celts.
I'd reckon Lin Wood doesn't fear defamation cases since he started his career with one. If he's going to make a claim against CJSCOTUS we can surmise that it would at least stand up in court.
I've seen this. That photo was a fakeup with Anthony Bourdain probably. I don't think that Epstein is still walking around though. (If he is what I think he is, he's transferred to a new body at least...)
Good idea, but personally I like nitter better because it takes the ad revenue stream away from Twatter.
To be consistent he should be condemning his own Qur'an talking about Maryam being the mother of Isa.
If one says they have no sin, they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them. Every group has had some kind of flaws in their history. Jewish people are no exception. And why should anyone assume that they ever were?
Let me break down the issue in 4 broad strokes:
- A people group claims to be innocent and without fault and all bad things happening are the fault of other people.
- Digging through history you find the claims of innocence are not entirely true.
- Some people falsely apply that guilt to all members of the group because they assume those who are innocent are merely covering for the guilty.
- The people react by covering up their guilt rather than acknowledging their guilt, further inflaming the anger of those accusing them.
Issues #1 and #2 are reality and can't be changed.
Issue #3 is a decision point for non-Jews. Either we are simply following the facts or we incorrectly project the sins of some onto the whole. This is what led Nazis to wrongly assume all Jews were part of the Communist problem.
Issue #4 operates much the same way but the other direction. It blinds some people to the uglier facts of their own history and causes them to react by covering up and punishing those who talk about them. This is what leads the ADL to sue people for "anti-semitism" for talking about facts and the JIDF to infiltrate and poison these discussions which further inflames the frustration of people acting under issue #3.
The whole thing creates a vicious cycle as long as the "bad apples" continue to use this anger and defense reaction to their advantage. The fact is some very bad apples do exist. Think about the Rothschilds, George Soros, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and the large contingent of the mainstream press who abuse the Jewish ethnicity and use it as their shield for their wrongdoing.
However, all people are capable of making decisions. The judgment must be made at the individual level not at the group level. Despite the stupid meme to the contrary, silence isn't always complicity. These reactions can just as easily be done from ignorance or fear. (either of the evildoers themselves, or of the reactions of those who will hear about it)
But many people are willing to forgive "skeletons" in the closet as long as there's a sincere admission and some sense that the person is not happy about the sins that have been committed. The Jews at some level recognize this with their teachings about "t'shuvah" or repentance but it's hard getting anyone to that point without falling into the temptations to scapegoat or cover it up.
If you want some reading material about the "bad apples" of history... dig into the following words: The Holodomor (esp. its date and size...) ethnicity of the Bolsheviks ethnicity of Karl Marx the Armenian Genocide The Donmeh Jacob Frank and Sabbati Zevi the Rothschild family the majority owners of western banks the majority owners of Hollywood the Havaara Agreement The Weimar republic and cultural degeneracy The Talmudic discussion of the marriageability of children
To be clear, then, this is really a problem of improperly addressed guilt which leads people to do stupid things in response to it.
What's with the weird Chinese knockoff Duplo set? Did the CCP cut the Pope's budget so soon?
A member of Q meets a man who attempted to usurp Q. Interesting times.
Yeah that’s the tell that made it obvious.
If the aliens turn out to be what I've heard, then there's two main groups to be concerned about: The Consortium which harvests humans like a product. The Assembly which follows God. If that's true, the Consortium (or their sycophants in the Deep State) may stage something to make themselves look like the good guys.
/sings.... What's Q got to do... got to do with it?
unreliable source
First of all, it's a bit disingenuous to assume the thing you intend to prove. That's called circular logic.
But what standard of reliability are you seeking here? I can exclude the obvious ones but what do you really expect out of Q? In my case, I don't think reliability involves the same things you do. Perhaps I just accept far more chaotic inputs than you do. Or perhaps I think I can sanitize information that you don't think you can. Or perhaps you are willfully choosing not to engage the information. Regardless.
The data that comes out of Q and what the "chans" dig up allows me a far broader perspective on information than willful ignorance of them permits. Nor am I compelled to blindly agree with them either. However, a mind that cannot accept perspectives different from one's own is closed and learns very little.
So, I weigh the value of Q or (more generally) the 'chans' is more in the diversity of opinion and providing potential interpretations that may correspond to reality. I don't think shutting down Nazis (and by God, there are actually Nazis there on those boards...) helps me understand why they think what they do or how anything they say might be meaningful to them. In understanding them I can choose to reject or accept what I find to be valid. So even the silly things people say can still be useful for making good, informed decisions. The problem with "cancel culture" is these varying opinions are shut out of the analysis and we're pigeonholed down one narrow corridor of thinking for our "overton window" analysis.
I don't learn from "clean room" perfectionism. I learn from reality which as not only 1s and 0s but also gradients, superpositions, entanglements, myths, legends, rumors and habits. Some more rational some less. All parts of a larger fractal of experience that I'm going to have to put into a coherent pattern but stuff I still need to be aware of when making such choices.
I'm repeating what you are saying in that quote, not claiming that everyone who is skeptical of the MSM are Q followers.
Fine, but let me focus it this way. The MSM claims to be the source of truth who may determine what we're allowed to think and their "fact checkers" claim anything they don't want to agree with is false. They are gatekeepers.
I don't take kindly to gatekeepers of information. I am not stupid. I am capable of making up my own mind without their censors.
Q doesn't claim to be a gatekeeper of truth. He says things and lets you decide whether you accept them. I find, on net, the MSM is doing far more damage to the truth than anything Q might be doing here. Why would someone providing me another alternative interpretation of information constitute harm? All it does is inform my ability to come to my own conclusion without being pigeonholed into one "narrative" or another. I'll read any narrative I damn well choose and make my own conclusions. Why should I limit myself only to things that the MSM or people like you choose to limit themselves to? I can make my own mind up.
So, really... what is Q doing that's so bad that you must raise questions to people following them?
Cheerleading Trump? Well, you've said you aren't against him so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Claiming that the government is fighting against Trump? Really? You have a problem with THAT? 4 years of RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA built on a dossier demonstrably paid for by Hillary Rodham Clinton and somehow there's no Deep State fighting Trump? Please wake up.
Claiming that our systems are corrupted by globalist corporate interests? Really, you think Pharmaceuticals are all good? Have you looked at the fuckin' labels on those things for all the side-effects? And yet none of these "dark, suicidal thoughts" from SSRIs could possibly be involved in making kids into school shooters? Again, please wake up.
Claiming that a lot of these corporate interests are involved in dark practices? Do you really think there is no such thing as real Luciferianism or Satanism? I've seen plenty of evidence of dark practices like human trafficking and other evil occult behaviors that would make most people shudder. Oh, but just for a quick one: Tell me again why the Emmy awards run by an organization called the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. (hint: NATAS = Satan backwards) Tell me again how Epstein was totally unconnected to people like Bill Clinton. Tell me again how Joe Biden just totally randomly decided on the phone service number 30330 = 2020/666. From my perspective, you're just ignoring the pattern because it's not something they couldn't just deny plausibly as "chance."
[... and let me head off a potential argument: yes Trump was on the list. But one of these are not like the others. Bill visited multiple times and Epstein even had a picture of Bill in a blue dress... really saucy. Trump apparently only once had anything to do with Epstein and clearly developed a hostile impression toward him given Trump's current positions... fuck the MSM for trying to equivocate the two cases.]
Obviously businesses are trying to get profit from it, so again, if HCQ is unpatented, why are businesses not pouncing?
Do you understand intellectual property? The entire point of patents is to give a monopoly to someone. No patent means no monopoly. You have to deal with competition and that means less profitability because you need to market and you have to deal with efficiency optimization as part of the costs. Soros is a big money manipulator. He's not looking for chump profits. This guy manipulated the Bank of England. He's not playing silly games that he thinks he'd lose out on.
There's obviously a sort of aristocracy when it comes to the people at the top 1 percent, but I don't understand why you're trying to find Deep State in everything
No, the narrative is not just "The Deep State did it all." In fact, the concept of a Deep State itself is very nebulous. Which "deep state?" Even Trump has his internal supporters in Military and Industry. That's just a natural function of how special interests work. Academic, religious, social and political cliques of all kinds exist underneath the hood. But this so-called Deep State that we're fingering at is a very specific one. The globalist deep state which believes that nations are bad and that Chinese style socialism is the best system to manage the world. This is what is operating to subvert the American democracy/republic at this time.
Through corrupted politicians on both sides of the aisle: A so called "duopoly" or "purple party" which comprises both RINO Republicans and corrupt Democrats (and even some third party candidates) acting as the political tools for their ambitions to subjugate American interests to the Globalist program which is now being presented as the "Great Reset" after COVID prepared the way. We've built the webs of connections and the organs all sing the same tune whenever we look. The Globalist Deep State aligned with the Rothschild banking systems and the Clinton and Biden campaigns is indeed a system that exists. Whether or not you choose to believe in its existence is immaterial. Go ahead, deny it exists... but from my perspective it's like an ostrich burying its head in a sand to deny a reality that it doesn't like.
If Q is the source who lies occasionally, is that really a source then? [...] I know people can't be right all the time
If people can't be right all the time, it's obvious that any potential "source" would be susceptible to that problem wouldn't they? Unless you posit some kind of Divine revelation that was immune to that you'd have to conclude that there was no valid "source" at all. In which case why would you acknowledge anything as facts? Down that road lies the insanity of willful ignorance.
You're saying balance the medias lies with Q's lies
You act as if the only reason people oppose the MSM is Q. The MSM is falsely depicting all manner of things that can be seen even from people's lived experiences. Such as the lived experiences of workers who lost their jobs to Obama and Biden's economies exporting jobs to China.
Do you really think Q is the reason for all this? Really?
The MSM claims white people are racist beyond measure these days and the only cure is "checking privilege." Yet another data point they are blowing out their rectal holes. How about how bringing in migrants into Europe is "safe" and they don't murder people and commit rapes? Must I continue down the train of falsehoods that the MSM represents? And all of that doesn't rely one lick on Q's claims.
Q came into a fruitful environment where people already agree with 90% of what he says. It's merely a reinforcement of the existing rejection of the corporate globalist narrative by the people themselves who see it as a sack of shit.
John McCain is going to die
Interesting you want to drag another discussion thread into this. Q was definitely talking smack about McCain but that obviously isn't a certain proof. It's a possible interpretation that MI was involved with some circumstantial evidence but no real proof. As most of this is, honestly.
Trump's legal team has shown us thus far (and how the courts have reacted), he will not prevail in his election challenges.
And the assumption that this is just about the legal cases is also misplaced. Q opened the door to considering the possibility the Military might get involved at some point. The cases themselves reinforce this point as some of the witnesses and lawyers are directly tied to people Q already made us aware of like General Flynn and the Military Intelligence crowd. Not proof, but definitely an open possibility we consider that those who reject Q don't normally even consider an option and assume that Biden is just going to steal it all without consequences.
I'm not saying that HCQ doesn't work, I'm saying it hasn't been proven to work.
You keep going back to this proof thing as though it's something we can even hope to do in this environment. The corruption in this world has already set the system so that truth and falsehood are so impossible to discern that we have to resort to these mechanisms of imperfect analysis.
Remdesivir and Regeneron be released?
I can give a decent speculation given the data I have seen. Remdesivir is backed by one of their big people. (George Soros is an investor) People being encouraged to use it would benefit these backers. I found it rather unsettling Trump chose to use it but I perceived it as a convenient concession. What they don't cover are the drawbacks I've seen to Remdesivir. The omission is just as telling here as it was to HCQ. HCQ is not patented. Soros and his allies get nothing from it. And it's not just from this that I infer the pattern here. There's an article where a banking investor was quoted as saying "how can we make a profit from it" as well as a patter of Rockefeller suppression of alternative cures that demonstrate a degree of effectiveness.
The net picture seems to be: 1. Soros gets a cut, so Trump is allowed to use it without criticism. 2. The doctors are trained by that system. 3. The media won't suppress the info or create a buzz criticizing it.
This is the other thing you need to get. We're not playing a game of mere antagonism. We're seeing their rules confirmed in the world as we propose different "moves" and they show their "countermoves." If the move is one they seem to "like" it's one they "encourage." If the move is one they don't seem to "like" there is a clear pattern of discouragement. And the effects are eminently reproducible on multiple occasions. Trump chooses more often than not options that they "don't like" and we see a corresponding degree of animosity from the organs and instruments of this system in application.
What is being shown here is not, then, a single claim but a system of claims that correspond to an overall picture. The Deep State being invested in a grossly anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-human narrative that is based on Chinese style "corporate socialism."
Did I ask about burden of proof in legal cases?
The point of discussing that is to set forth a comparable example to my point so that I can demonstrate your unreasonable and invalid demands in your accusation which claims that we cannot prove Q is genuine.
The fact of the matter is very simply established in acknowledging that Q himself has admitted to being a source of disinformation sometimes. Given this, we cannot treat Q as a "knight who never lies." At best, Q is sometimes truthful and sometimes false. But that's true of any person we are talking to. Therefore, it is immaterial to use as a disproof. But it is a perfectly valid statement to reinforce an understanding of trustworthiness because it admits that Q is capable of "error."
Your unreasonable demand is that you are demanding that Q always present truth to be considered "authentic." This is impossible for any being with imperfect knowledge as Q logically seems to be. Therefore, the fact that Q sometimes doesn't pan out in predictions doesn't make Q false nor does it presume Q is truthful either.
What does commend Q as a truthful example is the fact that when we correlate the data that we have sanitized from Q's statements it corresponds to a valid picture of the events going on in the world. Therefore, it is a valid counterpresentation to a narrative given to us by the known "knights who lie to us nearly all the time" that we know the Mainstream Media to have become. Using imperfect to balance imperfect to create a more comprehensive picture of the situation. Just as one uses the left eye and the right eye to create a stereoscopic picture of the surrounding area.
Your assertion demands an impossibility: Proving someone who specifically said that some of their information was false is speaking truth sometimes. The burden of proof, therefore, should be flipped. We've demonstrated by our Q "breads" that Q has tangible data that is worthwhile for us. You, however, have not demonstrated that Q has no tangible data nor have you demonstrated why we should invalidate Q's tangible data that we have found. What motive have you to invalidate these "breads?"
Your mockery of Trump's attempt to demonstrate the election is invalid seems to give a motive for your activities. You seem rather enthusiastic about the possibility that Trump won't be able to win. Is that because you are against Trump?
Answer my question: if HCQ works, why did Trump not take it?
We weren't given this information so there's no need to speculate. His doctors chose Remdesivir and Regeneron for whatever reason their medical expertise dictated. That doesn't prove or disprove anything about HCQ other than the fact Trump did not use it for himself.
With regards to HCQ, the issue isn't about Trump anyway. Trump may have informed us about it but this is something that we have done our own independent research about. (At least I know I and my friends have) As we have actively researched the claims about HCQ we found them to be quite promising. HCQ is a Zinc ionophore that disrupts the reproduction of viruses and coupled with Zinc it is one possible mechanism of disrupting Coronavirus.
The historical use of HCQ is demonstrable and backed up by many studies. Yet, the studies that suddenly have come out "debunking HCQ" all seem to have appeared QUITE recently and are almost always tied to some financial benefit from some institution we've traced to be likely involved in misinforming the public. HCQ has been used since the 1940s and it's got one of the best safety records out there. Before Corona hit, it was used to treat Lyme Disease and MS. But suddenly it's the worst drug ever according to the Big Pharma corporate science. Coincidence? Not really. Money talks bullshit walks. The fact of the matter is that it is an option in the arsenal of people trying to help themselves fight the virus. Why should it be such a bugbear? What's so dangerous about letting people do their own research and come to their own conclusions?
At any rate, our basic problem is this: Military hides truth. Government hides truth. Media hides truth. People hide truth from themselves. If you are looking to treat Q or Trump as "knights who never lie" then you're clearly ignorant of reality. You cannot handle Q like a logic puzzle where one contradiction is the end of the analysis. If you do that you're kind of dumb because NOBODY is perfectly consistent in life. That's just fact.
You seem to want to treat the universe like it's a grand accident that somehow generated a huge Sudoku puzzle for man to solve by the use of his almighty reason. From my perspective, that's what's baloney....
Incorrect. A legal case where good faith has demonstrated a problem even though the burden of proof is not feasible shifts the burden of proof to the defense. Probatio diabolica.
A pattern of irregularities this vast is enough to warrant investigation of Biden’s ability to prove he got this fairly.
But shills ignore this point. Don’t they?
As far as HCQ, my friend is a former biomedical research scientist. He’s cross referencing the journals and the studying that are not being paid for by contrary interests conclude HCQ is safe and valid. Science is not immune to the problem of human nature: bribes and false ideologies cover up undesirable facts with misrepresentation and false datasets. Pressed for time so I’ll cut off there but you’re not off the hook.
The issue with Q is not about proof or disproof. Q posted things that already were plucking ideas that people had and asked people to think for themselves about them. Some of these led to very fruitful investigations. Others leave a lot of people scratching their heads. And sometimes we find that the stuff we were scratching our heads about suddenly makes a whole lot of sense like "these people are sick" and COVID-19.
The people who followed up on these things found facts that resonated with the things that were being said. The people who assumed Q was some kind of "divine revelation" found out that there was one point of data that they couldn't square and soon decided to ignore it entirely and mock the people who were still following up on the ideas.
This is the issue here. The Deep State glowies know full well that "plausible deniability" prevents anything of this kind from being released that is empirically provable. National Security and legal proceedings prevent any "provable" disclosures from ever being released to the public at this point under penalty of criminal or military prosecution.
So, let's look at something we, Joe Q Public, can really see. Like the election. People who are watching see a whole lot of statistical anomalies and allegations of inconsistency. All these convenient associations with Dominion. But here's the cigar butt... All of this is stuff that needs to be proven in a court. And SOMEONE somewhere is going to find some kind of "plausible deniability" for all of it. The existence of a counterpoint doesn't imply falsehood or truth. It simply implies that the interpretation of the facts are able to be contested.
But what is really being drawn out is the motive. Why contest the people trying to ensure the election is fair? We can only assume corruption. But could we ever PROVE it? That's the entire point of this exercise.
The criminals love the shill mantra of "PROVEITPROVEITPROVEIT" because it's a cover for people even LOOKING at the problem. Oh, it's all just "debunked" and "discredited" you're a loony conspiiiiiracy theorist. Oh excuse me. Who is the one blindly wearing a mask, ignoring known treatments like HCQ, and letting socialists take their freedoms in the name of "health safety"?
The issues that Q brings up are issues that bring us to look at the facts and hope that we might even solve the entire crime. Most of the public is too lazy or too brainwashed to care. They believe the stupid television over their own eyes and ears. Q's entire point was to FOLLOW THE FACTS along with a few hints to look at along the way.
The contemptible shill comments on POTUS’s Twitter just piss me off. Trump was being nice and wishing their Cheater in Chief well but these enemies still attack him. Nasty Chinese shills they are. I wouldn’t mind seeing all those people hanging from ropes.
Brennan. Where have I heard that name before?
As an old Linux hat I can say that the concern has always been an attempt at Embrace Extend Extinguish.
It’s true that MS is on the Linux Foundation and that’s swell but we cannot forget the past or assume enemies became friends. Not all is right in Open Source/Libre Software. Left wing Codes Of Conduct. Ousting the historic leadership. MS maybe isn’t the biggest threat now but it’s not earned my trust.
Isn’t the logo of the NROL-39 satellite a kraken? “Nothing is beyond our reach” it says.
I, for one, wonder why someone downvoted me for saying "Zorro Plateado." I wonder if I stumbled on something with that...