Right, they conflate divine providence (everything is ultimately in God's hands which of course it is) with a form of divine determinism, ignoring that every person has a free will and acts as a secondary cause agent in the world.
Meanwhile some of the commenters (and her herself) are more concerned about how SHE is doing. "I'm already doing better, thanks". "Don't let it ruin your peace".
That's such a bizarre thing to say. As if being peaceful and accepting death as natural is in any way Christian. Sounds more like zen Buddhism but with the ego - Live and let die (as long as it's not me). This is what happens when people don't even know what they're practicing because all the religions have melded in one giant worldly consumerist mix-and-match blob of a worldview.
Stop spamming the same idiotic post. This anon is either a shill or he's seething because he failed to get on the bandwagon and has to wageslave for some faceless corporation to get by. I was shitting on BTC until recently, but there is a point where one has to do a reality check, admit they were the idiot and humble themselves. I don't care for other crypto and I do think they are potentially a scam. BTC is in another category.
Dude, we're already halfway there in Australia and the big cities of Europe. They are constantly building the infrastructure of the smart city surveillance grid - 5G, CBDC, surveillance, centralization, digitalization of government, buying all residential property. Who is gonna stop them? I'm making plans for moving to the country in the near future because I'm sure things will get much worse.
You're assuming BTC is a good ol' bubble but it's a unique thing. You can't predict a black swan.
Things are becoming digital whether we like it or not. I use cash as often as I can but normies fall for convenience and social engineering. Every city will be Brave new world in a decade or two.
BTC is not centralized or programable. It is finite and anonymous (as much as anything can be anonymous these days). The only thing in common it has with CBDC is that they are both digital and use blockchain. Get educated ffs.
It seems the psy op is people putting down BTC for being unreliable, volatile, inconvenient, used for criminal activity and not backed by anything while CBDC will be reliable, easy to use, safe and effective and backed by your favorite technocrats and central bankers - basically digital fiat money with a few perks. At least that's what msm wants normies to think.
I keep hearing about it and yet BTC is decentralized, limited and encrypted which would make the worst CDBC there is. If anything BTC will assume a much more important role as an alternative currency once the legacy currencies like the USD are rebooted to CBDC. Let's face it, as much as I love gold, we're not going back to the 1600's.
That's correct. It's not being used as currency as much. It's more of an asset that will appreciate in value given the current economic climate and the inevitable future demise of the legacy currencies.
It will drop back to around 60k and OP and other financial gurus here will piss themselves posting about it. Little do they know this will be the new bottom and we'll be ready to stack up and go ride the bull to 250-500k next year.
And who holds most of the gold? It was exactly the banksters who pushed for the gold standard back in the early 20th century. Guys like Rothschild, Warburg and J.P. Morgan. I'm not against it and stack it but it's definitely not the silver bullet some think it is.
I literally have doubled my investment. I don't think that's how logic works, bud. Poor people don't hold BTC because they wouldn't be poor if they were smart enough to invest in it.
"Just two more weeks and it's bursting, I promise". Meanwhile I'll laugh my way to the bank with my BTC winnings.
Ok boomer. The USD is the real shitcoin controlled by the Fed and their money printer, while BTC is the future.
Logic, scientific method. These are tools you can use to determine truth for yourself. It's not some new age fag definition, truth is true from every angle.
How did you use logic and the scientific method to determine your worldview to be correct and that God not real?
Ones own truth isn't truth. It's just belief. Faith isn't truth. It's faith. It's true for you, but to someone else.
Is this statement your own truth or an objective truth?
So if God isn't real, and I can't prove that, then I would also not need to provide a new worldview that makes you feel good.
You're missing the point. There is a reason why you consider God not to be real - because you hold assumptions about the world being a certain way. Your worldview is the lens through which you observe the world and it determines what you consider to be possible, impossible, true, false, etc. That's why I go after the underlying assumptions about reality you have which are based on faith. No one can escape grounding their worldview on faith. I only argue on the worldview level because any other debates about God's existence lead to nowhere.
But for the simple things that we can determine with logic and observation and experience and everyone applies those tools will have to agree with something is true.
And what happens when people apply the same tools and arrive at different conclusions? We don't share the same conclusions. How is that reconciled?
Not all things are proven the same way though. If we argue whether it's raining we can check out the window and see. If we argue about universal concepts and the nature of reality the approach is different. I go the transcendental (meta) argument way and ask: what world does it take so that knowledge, the laws of logic, truth, etc are even possible? Which worldview can justify the things we both appeal to in our debate? You see, you can't escape from making a positive claim about reality.
I don't think there is an achievable universal truth, but I did want to bring up how much we limit ourselves from truth with things like religions dogma. Or pseudoscience.
"We shouldn't have dogmatic beliefs because they are limiting us" is a dogmatic belief itself. How do you know we're limiting ourselves, when you don't have access to universal truth? What if the religion's dogma is the truth? Is abiding by truth limiting oneself and should we not do that, because it makes us less free?
Note that this is pretty much the troonsgender argument: "Your socially constructed truth is oppressing my individual truth - who knows better what gender I am than myself?" This is what happens when perceived personal freedom, and not truth, is the ultimate virtue. This is exactly why the world is the way it is - because people don't love the Truth who is a divine person, but instead love themselves. Everyone thinks they're some sort of a mini-god and reject the universal truth for their relative truth leading to ultimate lolbertism (which is demonic): "I'll leave you being your own god and have your little truth, if you don't bother me being my own god and have mine." This is the greatest delusion of all times and people buy into this because of pride and lack of humility (that's how the snake seduced Eve in the garden). This is what they mean by diversity - a war on truth and meaning.
You can only get truth by observation and experience.
Is this proposition true? Did you arrive to that truth through observation and experience?
If those fail you, you will make a deception into truth
What tells you your observation and experience is more true than someone else's observation and experience? How do you evaluate who is closer to the objective truth of the matter and how do you even have knowledge of that objective truth under your worldview?
Doing things because you can is the only good reason to do stuff. Helping other, learning new things, making the world better, working hard just to sweat or just to look good and catch more pussy.
Ok, enough Andrew Tate for this guy. Just don't start reading the Quran now.
Searching for truth also means changing, because as you learn you get refine.
Is truth subject to change and if not how so when everything in the experienced world is constantly changing?
Unlike you, who prefers not to investigate or challenge their world view because it fits their truth for the lack of a better way.
Lol, all of my questions are at the meta level and are challenges to any worldview there is. My worldview can justify truth, knowledge and meaning through God's existence. You were the one who started talking about universal objective truth and I asked you how it is justified under your worldview. You answered "through observance and experience" which is basic bitch empiricism that has been refuted hundreds of years ago by the likes of Hume and Kant.
I know we have a soul because I can feel it, hear it, know it. And I've read enough NDE books to see many confirmations from other people too.
What if you're deluding yourself and you're just a complex organic mechanism of inputs and outputs? Can't feelings be deceiving? People feel they are the opposite sex - are they really?
I studied the bible for years. You are church talking to me. But what if God as you know it, is a not real?
Then you'd have to present me with a worldview that accounts for everything we assume in our reality. What would that alternative be, is it coherent, logical and are there good reasons to believe in it?
What if we were planted here and grown into a profitable crop, for entertainment as slave away and they enjoy our money. Religions might be created just to keep us from uniting across geographies.
That's a funny "what if" but it doesn't make up a worldview. The word "religion" literally translates to "to bind together" from latin. People unite over some conviction they hold in common. There are people united in their faith in Christ all over the globe. Common faith in something unites - lack of faith or everyone having a different belief system divides.
The reason is geopolitical as always. CIA and NATO wants to get rid of this guy: https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1862167583912337542
Truth is what we can observe and experience. Not what we are told by humans to be true.
Experience and observance is all subjective. What you observe and experience is limited by your mode of existence in the world. Meaning your truth is not my truth, no universal principle that transcends us all and it all boils down to individual brain processes. So basically relativism.
I think it makes sense to pursue truth for the pure reason that why the f*** not?
Why the fuck not doesn't sound like a good reason to do anything.
But God is probably a Psy op. I am no atheist. Definitely a spiritual person connected to my higher self and I kind of call God, the All. I believe that all of us are one experience and when we go back home we upload essentially all of our experiences and it enhances the overall truth of our collective
What if being "spiritual non religious" is the actual psy op that allows for many to be deceived into adopting many different false beliefs by exploiting man's innate desire to become god and make their own rules and reality (and I can prove the elites are behind this psy op using their own writings)? What if God is personal, knowable and He has revealed to us our origin, nature, place in the world, purpose and future? What if God Himself is the Truth and the Good and serves as a universal standard for everything that exists because He created it? What if we were created in His image and that's what makes us unique beings with dignity, free will and immortal soul? The impersonal abstract deity you posit can't ground meaning, knowledge, truth, the laws of logic, the good or any universal we appeal to in this world, so it's not much different than the atheistic worldview.
Link is dead.
PS: Century of the Self is a great film, thanks for the recommendation.
Lol, I knew about Bernays and Freud but his nephew running Netflix is just poetry.
I'm Christian, dude. My cosmology and metaphysics is grounded in God as He has revealed Himself to us. Evolutionism and materialism are not a part of this worldview.
But since you talk about truth, let me ask you - what is truth? In what way does it exist (absolute or relative, physical or metaphysical)? What is it grounded in and how do we have knowledge of it? Why ought we pursue it?
Good one.
But seriously, people thinking 9/11 was about petty cash and insurance money are incredibly naive. This was a history-changing event and a well planned out geopolitical move by the controllers. Namely, it was part of the plan for the New American century where they clearly stated "we need another Pearl Harbor" to justify invasion, occupation and psy ops on sovereign states. That's just geopolitics.
On a deeper spiritual level, it was a trauma based mind control mass event (like WWI and II, the cold war, Vietnam and the coof) and a sacrificial ritual.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialist-viewpoint-us/jan_03/jan_03_4.html
Sheeple need to understand you don't have to keep your money in the banking system.
I thought elections don't matter because everything is governed and planned by the Deep state? Yet somehow Trump winning makes a difference for ZOG? Which one is it?
I love to hear about my religion from an atheist. Of course I know Orthodoxy is grounded in true unchanged apostolic tradition. I just came back from the liturgical service and yes, the priests dress appropriately and not in a suit and bow-tie.