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.
We'll see I guess. It's useless to argue with someone who doesn't even understand what BTC is.
What's the point in criticizing something that you don't even understand? The point is to discredit it obviously, because you're a shill.
Again ignoring the fundamental difference between CBDC and BTC/decentralized and anonymous cryptos.
How? By shitting on alternatives like BTC? Isn't it strange that leftist globalist owned media share your lack of enthusiasm about BTC? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/18/the-guardian-view-on-cryptos-latest-crash-it-reveals-who-pays-the-price-for-a-failing-economy
But then you can't have any knowledge. There has to be a starting point which isn't properly justified. We already have these starting points within our minds so we may as well just be explicit about them instead of pretend everything we think has some justification.
In epistemology, that would be assuming the classic foundationalist position. There are two other possible options - infinite regression and coherentism. I reject foundationalism because it's ad hoc. Foundationalism (like Descartes' famous cogito) got nuked during the Enlightenment by skeptics like Hume and later Kant and became an untannable position. If being ad hoc is allowed, then all argumentation and philosophical discourse about truth, existence and the good becomes impossible.
Your starting point is that it's OK for you to kill babies? Great, but we're going to judge you according to our standards, not yours.
That's an appeal to irrelevancy and an appeal to authority/majority. Nothing about this has to do with the position being true or not.
You still do work stuff out for yourself, which is how you arrived at your views. You're no different from everyone else trying to figure stuff out and judging other people's views to be wrong.
Sure, how we arrive to knowledge depends on our worldview but worldviews aren't equal. I already demonstrated how the materialist worldview can't justify it's basic principles and assumptions. The point is that the laws of logic and thought are objective. Just because I'm the one making the claim or the argument doesn't make it a subjective claim. If I can demonstrate that competing worldviews are incoherent, unjustified and lack explanatory power, while making the case that my worldview is coherent and grounds the things we all appeal to (reason, logic, meaning, purpose, free will, universals, etc), then my worldview is true.
You think these are good explanations for the way things are? No, of course not. The fact people can come up with dumb theories doesn't tell us that we can't work anything out for ourselves.
They may be dumb, but you still have to demonstrate why they're false. That something seems dumb or unlikely to you is not an argument about it being true or not. Atheists think all religious claims are equally dumb and made up. So what?
Nature is the only thing that everyone who believes in a creator can agree is the work of the creator. So are we going to judge things by nature that we know is from the creator or are we going to judge things - including nature - by something which claims to be from the creator but cannot definitively prove it and doesn't live up to its claims? So are we going to judge things by nature that we know is from the creator or are we going to judge things - including nature - by something which claims to be from the creator but cannot definitively prove it and doesn't live up to its claims?
Saying we all believe in nature therefore belief in nature is the common ground doesn't work. Nature to a Christian is an entirely different concept than what nature means to a materialist, new age gnostic or a Buddhist. This is a word-concept fallacy - just because the same word is used (like God, creator, nature, etc) it doesn't follow that it points to the same idea. Nature itself is a metaphysical concept. How you interpret nature depends on things that are not found in nature itself - this ties back to what Hume is/ought problem and Thomas Kuhn's ideas about paradigms and theory-ladenness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness).
This is why broad generic theism (like perennialism, theosophy and freemasonry) doesn't work in making a coherent worldview because it's riddled with incompatible core beliefs. There's no "lowest common denominator God".
Low effort troll just like the name suggests. Is anyone a real thinking human being and not AI, schizos and NATO/Mossad cognitive warfare operative running psy ops on this board?
"Everyone disagreeing with me is a talmudic jew" logic. Even though I'm the one critiquing the current Fed system that was set up by the international jews. I've red Mullin's and Coleman's books on the Fed and I'm very aware who's behind it. How does that solve the problem of getting off that system?
The problem we face is not digitalization but centralization. The internet is digital and that's fine as long as it's not centralized. Same goes for money. Digitalization is dangerous because it facilitates centralization. But the Fed system is already fully centralized even if cash is the last bastion preventing full on tracking and tracing.
So you don't think they will transition us to digital money in the near future?
The irony is what I'm saying is exactly the opposite - don't submit to the techno-gulag and make sure you have an alternative to the coming CBDC social credit system. What you refuse to understand is that if you go on using the fiat money as you do right now because it's cash, you will certainly be transitioned to CBDC. Your cash makes you 100% reliant on the Fed system. I'd take digital BTC over cash fake and gay printer money anytime.
It's coming either way. As of 2022, 12% of Transactions within the US are in cash. Cash will be completely fazed out and discontinued by 2030 and there's nothing you can do about it.
Your choice is between centralized Fedcoin or decentralized BTC.
The ledger stores transactions from on wallet to another. Wallets are just a hash code - no name, address, bio-data, ID number. How is that not anonymous?
Instead of speculating where it came from, look at what BTC represents - an alternative to the usury debt-slave fiat system - and judge it according to that.
Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.
Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.
How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system.
The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy. It's an irrational cult of the self veiled as Christianity that delusional people fall for. I can understand being a cradle prot for lack of information, but there's no excuse for one who doubles down on their mistakes after hearing the truth. At this point you are a heretic and you'll be judged accordingly. Consider yourself - you have all the knowledge you need about Church history and Scripture but you still decide to do your own thing and come up with your own way to the faith. This is willful rejection of the Church but we always pray for God to bring back the schismatics and heretics to His Body, so hope is not lost.
That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.
I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.
Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called.
I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.
No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.
Only retards who don't know the meaning of words disagree, my dear troll. Probably your alts.
usury /ˈjuːʒ(ə)ri/ noun the action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest.
lending /ˈlɛndɪŋ/ noun the action of allowing a person or organization the use of a sum of money under an agreement to pay it back later.
So your allegiance is with the current system. Good to know.
So? Appeal to (fallible) authority? I like to call this The Catholic Fallacy.
So where was the Church hiding in the meantime?
No earthly authority holds the correct interpretation. There is one Truth that none of us are privy to; all we can do is seek it. By seeking with the simple, and indisputable, assumption that God is Good, the bible can set you on the right path.
Who of the millions of protestants reading the Bible is on the right path and holds the correct doctrines and how do you determine that if each person is their personal authority on interpretation.
Seriously, I don't think the bible is infallible either, being recorded and propagated by men. I'm not literalist by any means. The bible, to me, is a map that can set you in motion. It's still up to you to take the journey, and maybe go astray and find your way back, but the only infallible thing that we know of is God Himself and his creations. The only way to Truth is by putting yourself in alignment with God; no amount to interpretation will help you if you don't do that.
So you're not even Sola Scripture guy? This is actually the muslim line of argumentation. What's the criteria that you use to discern which parts of the Bible are true? How do you know you're aligned with God and not in delusion? Based on feelz?
How about people who purposefully obfuscate the text so that they can claim the authority of God? Do they not have their own "baggage"? Do they not constantly make concessions to earthly powers to maintain their positions?
That's a tu quoque. Even if they do that doesn't help your case.
If I'm wrong (and, ultimately, I am) only I reap the consequences. I'm not misleading others for my own aggrandizement
Not exactly. If you spread false teachings publicly and misleading others it's not just about you, regardless of your intentions which I believe are good.
Borrowing at fair interest is not usury, kike.
You may need to look up the definition of usury, bud.
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.