temptations, distractions, addictions, deadly sins, etc.
This is what I mean - you can't rid yourself of religious dogma. For example, what is the meaning of sin outside Christianity? The concept of virtue or sin assumes objective moral law and knowledge of the good. One can't get such knowledge purely from observation or experience.
You are at a point where you have bought onto the idea that we cannot explore spirituality so you haven't. You don't know the good that is out there within yourself. You give your mind and soul away to man made traditions that are just controlled opposition by the same powers that you despise.
You can naval-gaze all you want, but that won't give you an objective standard for morality. Why do "spiritual non religious" people act as any spiritual endevour (aside from organized religion because it's considered unauthentic, because it's not entirely individualistic and subjective), is always positive for the individual? Isn't it possible that what you encounter in your spiritual pursuits are evil entities or at least entities that can be harmful for you? But no, new age people always consider their spiritual experience to be beneficial and leading them to growth (whatever they decide that means). It's self-worship and it appeals to one's pride and vanity. No wonder it's so prevalent in our narcissistic degenerate society.
About the "man made traditions" argument - it comes out of protestant criticism of the Catholic Church, making it part of a man made tradition itself. And what does that even mean? What is not man made in your worldview? Aren't you a man and aren't the traditions you make (even just for yourself) man made traditions too? The problem you have with traditional religion is that it's other men and not you making them up and that it's a tradition, meaning that it predates you and is not born out of your mind (but of course every idea you hold about the world also predates you and you just adopted it, or rather it won you over; what matters then is that you are the one who gets to pick and choose which ideas you prefer, i.e. consumerism).
Besides, no Christian would agree that Christianity is a man-made tradition because that would assume Christ is not God. So I don't follow a man-made tradition to begin with. I think people can get some truth outside the Christian tradition but it's not the whole package and it's intermixed with lies and deceptions. In the end the only thing that matters is what is true and I believe Buddhism or any other religion or ideology doesn't have a strong case for that (and I've come to Christianity late in life while being a pretty convinced atheist before that). Man is weak and susceptible to manipulation (Christianity explains this by our fallen nature) and should know better than to put all our faith in himself or his kind.
The shitheads, or TPTB, do not provide or teach "do as thou wilt".
They are an illuminist luciferian "man as god" cult. Alister Crowley was one of their prophets and this is the main pillar of his Thelema. This creed applies to the initiated into their cabal. They may sell it to the masses through pop culture to corrupt them, but obviously the masses can't be allowed such liberty because it would lead to pure chaos and they are all about controlling chaos.
it's a big bunch of shitheads ruining life for us without clear rhyme or reason.
Just because you don't comprehend the reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Of course they're motivated by something. The easiest answer would be that they want power for power's sake (as stated in 1984). If one digs deeper it becomes apparent it's more than that and that the true reasons are spiritual in nature - they are moved by demonic principalities who hate everything good and true and humanity itself and want it destroyed.
There is nothing wrong with not adhering to dogma from a religion and you can still be a great person with a great life and still your soul will go the same place as any Christian, Muslim or atheist. Ie, no one knows.
What makes "a great person" differs depending on your worldview. Bill Gates may believe he's a great person and ultimately doing good for humanity. That's the whole point. If you don't adhere to a traditional dogma, you make your own piecemeal relativistic dogma in a individualistic and consumerist manner ("my truth is mine, but you can have yours - just don't be dogmatic about it"). Such "custom-tailored worldviews" are always riddled with contradictions because they borrow from incompatible worldviews. In the end it doesn't make one unique, but makes them another special snowflakes with "unique take" (much like how consumerism sells fake identities to people tied to preferences of fashion, pop music, movies, style, politics, etc - as if what you consoom is what makes you "you").
But that idea is also born out of a certain worldview which happens to be very prevalent in western society. It's by no means something natural or self-evident but a recent invention promoted by jews and masons like Crowley of course. There's even a 1970's Tavistock/SRI paper on the promotion of "challenging tradition and dogma" and suggesting secular or new-age substitutes for traditional religion among the young called Changing images of man.
Take what you like, don't be dogmatic.
That's the dogma of relativism and subjectivism. Can't escape that.
If the basis of your moral law is "do as thou wilt" you're just like tptb, so wtf are you here for even? What are you fighting?
OP, blood transfusion is not the same as blood consumption. You got creative with interpretation.
Governments use blockchain technology for bad purposes => blockchain technology bad. Wait till you hear about electricity and how they use it for their smart surveillance grid.
Governments don't want BTC because it's decentralized and not programmable. They'd rather get back on the gold standard (as Rothchild and the Milner circles pushed for) than adopt BTC.
Judeo-Christian
You do know this term originates from 19th c. zionist propaganda, right?
Trump turned heel and now Hunter going face? I love me some pro politics!
if that's what you call fiat money you use to buy your food and pay your taxes, then yes.
Pretty much any major central bank currency.
And we should most definitely trust Forbes on that. If they mean stablecoins, yes they may. It's not BTC though.
Idc about Fed monopoly money. BTC has gone 500-600% up since 2020.
I'd say 2.5 and 6.5 but yeah, she's probably a honeypot sex op.
I have to wonder what's your sophisticated take on the matter?
Are there still people rooting for this nwo clown?
That's a strawman. How do you think one makes it big in the ((entertainment industry)) and becomes "a star" (very Crowlian concept btw)? Yes, Sydney Sweeny is in fact a whore of modern day Babylon aka Hollywood.
Lol at the downvotes. Some people here love their coomies more than the harsh truth. Porn is ran by the jews and is designed to enslave you through your lust. It's psychological warfare. the IDF literally hijacks enemy TV stations and streams porn to demoralize them.
They get to you while you're still a child in a typical jewish fashion. Parents, protect your children from this evil. Monitor their internet use.
Of course it makes sense - it would give them autonomy and it would cut costs.
If BTC was a top down technology and a stepping stone to CBDC as some people claim they would totally use the opportunity to push it on the gamers who are tech oriented to begin with, and yet they don't? It's almost as if they don't want to replace the centralized legacy system for a decentralized one. I wonder what the conspiratard explanation is for this?
It makes sense when the ruling regime is globalist and anti-white.
Exactly, pagans aren't masons. But pretty much everyone converted eventually (except for the jews of course).
So there is no way to determine the value of anything outside of using the fiat currency issued by government? This is like saying I can't know how long is something if I don't use the government sanctioned system of measurement - do you know how retarded that is, you absolute moron?
Can you prove that's the case and tell me what prevents people from using an alternative system of valuation?
Yeah, I overgeneralized. I'm sure there are exceptions. Clarke's Childhood's end is completely demonic. Hubbard was close with Jack Parsons and they were both Thelemist. I'd guess Frank Herbert is not clean also. Asimov is 100% satanic, he even reminds me of T.H. Huxley with those sideburns.
I'd eat bats if I had to survive, but yes.
First of all, context determines the meaning of symbols. We know for certain that Jesus was not a satanist by definition. We know that Ozzy was into the occult and wrote a song about Crowley and definitely knew the depiction of Baphomet by Eliphas Levi.
Second - who depicted Jesus that way? The RC Church? As far as I'm concerned this hand gesture is not canonical in the Eastern Orthodox Church and that's all that matters to me. I mean, some crazy cult may depict Jesus in an alien ship. Why would that matter?
Turns out the argument isn't moronic - you're just a sperg who doesn't understand context.
Because the term "Christian" has been so watered down by the jews and satanists that it's not referring to anything in particular for normies. Just vague ideas about love, peace, being kind, being tolerant, etc. They think Jesus was a hippy basically.
Also many people who consider themselves Christian believe it's enough to just profess faith in Christ as God (Sola Fide) and it doesn't matter how you live. My favorite example of this is OF "Christian" 304s. Without the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church, we'd all be deluded but true Christians have the Spirit and the Spirit testifies who Christ - the Truth - is.
I think you're just splitting hairs now. There's no need to absolutise everything. I meant this more like a general direction. Like an overall guideline. We can't know anything. Who knows, maybe all this is simulated? Maybe I'm dreaming all this. Or maybe I'm just a hallucination of the God.
I'm not splitting hairs. The position that nothing can be known for sure and that everything may be simulated is self-defeating because if that were the case, your belief that everything is an illusion is also an illusion.
However, if I see that it rains outside, for all intents and purposes, I do know that it rains outside. There are various levels of truth and reality.
So you choose to trust your senses. But on what grounds? How do you determine what the levels of truth and reality are when you yourself are limited by your subjectivity, physical/temporal existence and senses?
Well, I'm not in that camp although I do live in a country where Eastern Orthodoxy has significant amount of followers. That said, even Eastern Orthodox is not quite monolithic. There are Old Believers and there are general Eastern Orthodoxy, different countries practice differently, it is influenced by politics and so on, and so on.
There is only one EO Church and different dioceses are in communion. Their differences are not theological and are covered under what is called oeconomia. A Russian Orthodox person can go to an Orthodox Church on the other side of the world in Africa and get communion there.
Old believers are considered schismatics, although they may have a point. The thing is there can't be more than one true Church.
PS: If you're curious about why the Orthodox Church is the true one, I recommend checking Jay Dyer's videos on the subject like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvWvabTkPY
He meant peppers.