Except you keep appealing to it and saying everything needs to be justified.
I just told you there are two more resolutions to the epistemological problem (Münchhausen trilemma). I go the coherentism route where the whole system itself serves as justification. That's why my argument is at the worldview level. Ultimately it's TAG - demonstrating that the Triune God is the necessary precondition for metaphysics, logic, ethics and epistemology which is the basis of every possible worldview.
The majority have consciences that function according to God's principles, that is my point.
That's begging the question. You have to justify this belief (i.e. where do you get it from)? The point is ultimately you have to appeal to divine revelation to justify it.
So as I said you're no different to everyone else who has to argue for their views and argue against others. You didn't mention the Bible as part of this process because it doesn't prove anything unless one already accepts its veracity.
Exactly. This is a philosophical argument, not a theological one. Asserting your worldview is true is meaningless so that can't be the starting point. The starting point are those things that both sides assume by necessity and by virtue of debating (logic, knowledge, truth, etc.)
On the other hand if one believes in a creator then nature is already accepted to be from the creator and then one either has to accept the wisdom of nature or provide reasons for why they reject it.
The problem is you have to justify those assertions. Christians have direct knowledge of the Creator and His wisdom because He has revealed Himself. So divine revelation serves as justification. The creation itself can't reveal anything on it's own because it's subject to interpretation. When looking at nature you see a wise Creator but a materialist sees seemingly purposeless matter governed by laws of physics and cause and effect that has led to all this.
Christians reject it because they have a story of how nature became corrupted, but they have no evidence for this story so it amounts to an unjustified rejection.
The evidence for the Bible story is the Christian worldview itself - it's ability to justify metaphysics, epistemology, logic and ethics.
But I never argued that nature means the same thing to all these people. My argument is that the natural world or universe (planets, plants, animals and so on) was made by the creator, and almost everyone believed that before philosophy sought absolute proof of everything and found God (along with everything else) can't be absolutely proven. Therefore we can learn about God through the natural world, which came from God, rather than anything else of which we have no good evidence God is the proximate cause. Yes there are different ways of extracting knowledge from nature which lead to bad and contradictory conclusions, but this doesn't invalidate my claim and that some ways are better than others.
Many people believing somthing is an appeal to majority and it doesn't tell us if that something is true. Again, there's no such a thing as generic common denominator God - if such an entity exists it has to have certain properties that define it. Is it personal (a he, she, they/them) or unpersonal force or realm like Plato's monad. Is he/it uncreated or created (part of the creation). Did he create the world ex nihilo or out of prima materia (meaning matter preceded it/him). Is he the sole creator or are there others like him/them? Does he have providence and participation in the creation, or is the creation a wound-up mechanism that is left on its own device as deists believe? Is he moral or amoral? Did he create everything out of necessity or out of his own free will (assuming he has it)? Etc...
I'll close with this thought experiment:
Imagine you're a disembodied psychic alien coming from another realm, who's never heard of humans. You see a painting without prior knowledge of what paintings are or where they come from. How would you come to the conclusion that paintings are produced by humans and what can the painting itself tell you about what a human is like?
Now swap the painting with the creation and the human with the creator.
That's circular, Patrick! What if First Century Bible Church, the parent ministry of Swamp Rangers, is the singular Church which holds the correct interpretation? I've got our apostolic succession around here somewhere. More particularly, Catholics argue exactly the same way.
What if God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and we're all wrong?
The answer is simply that it was not the case because we know what the early Church looked like and what they taught based on the Church fathers and Scripture (Acts and Epistles).
And you test your experience against your interpretation of the words of Scripture And Tradition. Everyone has the same epistemological lack, which cannot be made up by humans alone but only by God reaching in and delivering regeneration and faith.
No, I appeal to the interpretation of the Church. I don't hold my own interpretation because I'm not the appropriate authority to do that. You can't apply the same critique to systems that have different epistemology and metaphysics. The Orthodox hold that the Church is infallible because it has Christ as its Head and is guided by the Spirit. Individuals within the Church are fallible.
I do not count on myself to be right but only on God to be right in giving faith to fallible me.
But so do all Protestants, and they hold contrary beliefs to yours. There's no way to arbiter between all those position when you all hold the same epistemological presupposition. How do you justify the belief that one Protestant (or a whole denomination) is true and not the other ones over there?
Seems to me nobody can have the whole wholeness, or else all Christians partake of sufficient wholeness. It's very interesting and the debate about circularity has gone on a long time.
Can you justify that claim? Historically Jesus established one universal apostolic Church that encompassed all of the Christians so even if you believe the Church was split later on, it logically follows that it was united in it's beginning at Pentecost. Sufficiency is problematic too, because it assumes a criterion for what's sufficient. But that has to be justified too.
As I've already said in another thread, the current system is ultimately digital and ran on servers. Real money creation is 1s and 0s on bank servers. Cash comes downstream to this system and its 10% of all money in circulation.
We've been over this. It's not the same. You're the one who wants to keep the current system, as long as it's cash, which is ran by the Fed.
All of this literally happens through the current fiat system as we speak. I wonder who profits from ATM transactions, interest rates and bank accounts? Do we pretend this never happened?
Sure but BTC isn't centralized. My point was we can't escape the power grid and digitalization but can escape money centralization in the hands of international jews and their ghouls.
You are either retarded, a subversive, or both.
Ad hominem instead of addressing what I wrote is a fallacy. It seems you're the retarded/subversive one.
You're helping your neighbor. Not that you'd understand the importance of community. It's not even charity because you're not sacrificing anything - just lending money you don't use that you'll get back. Charging interest on that is immoral kikery.
Exodus 22:25 “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.”
Explain what's wrong about lending money with no interest?
No, it means that some who believe they have the Spirit are wrong, so belief must be continuously tested.
Exactly. That's why the standard has to be the objective authority of the Church which holds the correct interpretation (singular). Pluralism leads to the aforementioned contradiction.
Heretics from Orthodoxy also believed they had the Spirit and thought themselves continuing to be Orthodox after they were excommunicated. So failure is not a theological corollary, it's an endemic risk that attacks the Protestants more easily (just as the risk of tyranny attacks central hierarchies more easily).
Again, it doesn't matter what individuals believe about the faith. They are not the standard. It's not only that Protestants run a risk of being wrong - their problem is that they lack an epistemological standard that can tell them if they are following the true faith or not. It's all personal subjective belief informed by personal interpretation of Scripture. Protestants lack epistemological grounding. It's all floating in circular space within their head.
Correct if held; but ultimately then the answer is I constantly test my experience against Word and Spirit, and have substantial (possibly fluctuant) assurance of salvation, not perfect assurance.
You mean against YOUR interpretation of Scripture. That's a circle.
A logical issue is that you're making charges against "Protestant theology" when it's a myriad, and I too am defending "theology" when it's still a myriad. We have many official practices that are "best", and "worst". It seems that we must both retreat a bit to "what Protestant theology should be" and when we do that we find it very harmonious with Orthodoxy. In that case I'd agree on most all your charges that Protestantism shouldn't be that, and I'd disown sects that do teach that (and you might agree with some of my statements what Protestants should be and occasionally are). We might then only disagree on why the two don't rejoin, which is good because then we could give steps for both sides to advance union in Christ that would address current concerns (as the Orthodox have lately done with other groups), without being "ecumenicalists".
I'm arguing against the basic presuppositions of Protestantism. In this case their epistemology which is informed by the Sola Scriptura doctrine. I'm doing an internal critique of the Protestant system which is shared by pretty much all denominations and I exposed it's internal contradictions and fallacious logic.
Protestants still can come to correct teachings but that doesn't make their paradigm correct. Even atheists can come to true beliefs about the world. But only the correct paradigm, and I'd argue that's the Orthodox Church, has the wholeness of the faith. This is why branch theory doesn't work.
Lol what does FTX has to do with BTC? "Oh no, there are people running crypto scams, therefore the whole system is corrupt". Do you think banks were free of corruption prior to Wall Str.? Seems like a double standard to me.
Same for cash. Again, you have zero idea how the money system works. The Fed money printer doesn't print cash, it prints 1 and 0 on a server. All banks do that. The fiat paper money that you worship are downstream to that enormous centralized digital system. You don't even begin to understand how hypocritical and idiotic your criticism of BTC is.
Just read on the subject and stop embarrassing yourself.
That's a false dichotomy. Money is not the problem - money debasement is the problem. Sound money is a requirement for any economy. Jefferson may have promoted barter, but how come he and the rest of the daddies didn't transition the states to a barter system only? Barter is appropriate in some occasions but no state economy can run on barter, this is idiocy.
What you wrote makes no sense. Extract what for real money? BTC is real money. Your cash will be good for toilet paper only if the grid comes down. Today's cash is wholly dependent on the power grid, do you realize that?
They need to hire smarter people for the cognitive warfare unit. You and Goebbels (probably one guy) are not doing great. Trolling still requires some skill.
BTC is stored in offline wallets. The current system (or any viable system you could think of that will work today) will still be dependent on the power grid. Maybe learn some basics first and then we can talk.
If barter alone worked money wouldn't be a thing. This is economics 101, but you wouldn't know that considering your stance on BTC.
Btw, the true definition of usury is lending money with interest. This was prohibited in the OT and later on in all Christian nations. But jews did it and that's how they came to rule over global finance. Why I'm not surprised your kind supports it?
Ad homs are useless. Time will tell who's right. Enjoy your coming CBDC.
You don't - that's the whole point. You use it as money, because it is sound money and will have wide adoption in the future.
Why would I sell real money that store value and only appreciate in time due to real scarcity for Fed inflationary goy shekels?
That's exactly what I will do too but I will still have gold and BTC to have leverage against the beast system.
I haven't. What is it exactly? I've heard about people using ivermectin and other anti-parasitic drugs for the purpose.
You're so dumb that you quoted a text that says BTC transactions are anonymous and thought it said the opposite. Come on, dude.
You know the current fiat system is ran by computers too, right? When the system goes, your monopoly money will be used to wipe your ass with - ask Venezuela. As if the paper itself holds any real value... I hope you're a shill and not that stupid in reality.
Don't have time rn so I'll answer this only.
Interpretation of the Church is not just written word - it's the teaching of the Church and the living tradition as a whole. For example icons are no less important than the texts. Dogma is very concise for the purpose of conveying the correct teaching. But even the Nicaean creed could be misinterpreted so it is always to be understood within the Church tradition. The crux of the matter is this - Orthodox claim that the Spirit was sent to the Church at Pentecost and provides it with His guidance, making sure the faith is kept
Such judgments are done by the Church, not by individuals. The decision to condemn a teaching as heretical is debated and justified and argumented by the council. We can go over all condemned heresies and look at how the Church came to its judgment in each case and the reasons given. No one argues based on the Spirit because it's question begging - where the Spirit resides becomes apparent by exposing the heresy and the Church successfully keeping the true apostolic faith intact. The verification method is not adding or making up stuff that was not there before - it's that simple.
We'll know that when they abandon their false teachings and come to the Orthodox faith. In fact, the dying away of those movements is a testament to their falsity because the Church will exist to the end of time.