![Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qHDfBL.jpg){kind=link}
it seems like you are simply using roundabout logic & jibberish to downplay the reality that there is no proof or evidence of what you 'believe' (as defined by said reality in whereby you have no proof or evidence - hence relying on 'faith').
why not just cut to the chase and reject all ideas, beliefs, or faith based systems (and thus lies & deceptions) - particularly from those with zero repeatable, tangible hard evidence - offered by that of 'higher authority' (including your god idol) ?
Maybe then we could have a civilization that can withstand (((infiltration))) since the infiltration (and subsequent exploitation) is made only possible via the open door that is 'open mindedness' to ideas of another; the selfish act of giving away ones own authority and thus the empowerment of those who will assume 'godlike' power whether a rabbi who teaches you are 'chosen' and thus can rape & pillage the goy or a government who demands you pay taxes (so those taxes can be given to those 'chosen' to rape & pillage the goy).
History lesson: the Catholic Church is the only force this world has ever seen that effectively kept the Jews at bay long-term; it was only after turning away from the Church and embracing Reason as our "new God" in the "Enlightenment" that the Jews got a foothold - it was the post-Enlightenment Napoleon who first emancipated them, after all. Read .
You seem to have missed my point that there is, conceptually, certain knowledge that cannot be proven, given the fact that its subject itself transcends reason's scope. It is this knowledge, and this knowledge only, to which faith applies.
Furthermore, "belief" is one of the rational responses to propositions, along with knowledge, doubt, and opinion. The latter two assent or deny the proposition, while leaving room for the possibility of being wrong about the assent or denial. Knowledge leaves no room for error, since it is belief through demonstration. Belief is belief without demonstration, yet still leaving no more room for error than there would be with a demonstration. It is the difference between someone who has seen a proof of the Pythagorean theorem, and someone who just uses it. Both people are rational, since the one who "just believes" does so on the basis of natural faith in the mathematicians who encourage the theorem's use. Likewise, one may justify faith in Divinity claims on the basis of a tradition of witness testimony, the historicity of their recordings, and the subsequent recorded actions taken by those who actually witnessed and believed in the same faith. While not proof, it is evidence - just like the math student lacks knowledge of a proof of the theorem, and yet believes, since he has the evidence of competent authorities who make use of the same theorem. Of course you could say the situations are different, because they are; in the student's case, there is at least the possibility of learning the proof if they are so inclined. But this is my point. The subject / proposition to which we must assent in the former case is not actually knowable by reason, unlike the mathematical proof. And so evidence is the best we can do. No one asks that we have faith in the Divinity of Christ without any reason at all. Scripture itself implores Christians to be ready to give their reasons ().
The point is we must recognize the type of knowledge we are dealing with, and the available rational responses to the propositions we have. Knowledge (science) per se is not an option. Doubt is, and you choose that. I have faith. Both of our responses are rational.
One of us is right.
Doubt is prudent & logical, yet you choose faith and so your habbit of allowing your world to be defined by the terms of others will determine your 'fate'.
The Catholic Church would not have been needed to help keep Jews 'at bay' ie- from not exploiting the masses had the masses simply rejected the offers of the Jews that effectively led to these problems. Instead, for a short while - people diverted their selfish beliefs into the idol that is the Catholiic Church which offered protection and 'salvation' among many other things ie- terms which could simply be re-defined and developed whenever convenient and thus eventually corrupting and being used as a tool once again by those who (((infiltrated))) said church and who could then re-define what it means to 'believe' and what is being believed.
Your belief in the 'church' is nothing more than a juicy attack surface for those parasites to latch on to and to destroy you; and those others selfish (lazy) enough to join you.
Stop believing and giving energy to the parasites.
had the masses simply rejected the offers
Interesting.
You're being prescriptive, so you're making a moral claim.
On what grounds do you make the claim?
As a doubter in all things but science, which does not - in fact, cannot in principle - acknowledge the reality of value, where are you staking authority for the claim that people should have resisted the offers of the Jews? Why should they have? If the proposition that they should have rejected the offers was true by point of fact, what way of knowing this would have been available to Europeans a priori?
These arguments like yours always cannibalize themselves. For it to go through you'd require a moral theory rooting good action in something more than self-interest, which it is profoundly difficult to establish on a folk empiricism (or some rule-based imperative without teeth).
That 'idol' you are talking about, i.e. the Catholic Church, was a stronghold of western morality that united people beneath the protectionism of one set of shared values and doctrine emanating from a single source of universal authority. If you can come up with a better way to unify a group of people against a common enemy, I'd love to hear it. After all, the human species has yet to...so you'd have a trillion dollar answer in your head.
btw i am following the general line of logic you establihed earlier in this thread and clarified here in this post but it comes across as not so much as logic but rather just window dressing and excusing yourself for investing into the ideas of others; ie- mathematics and hearsay.
of course there are things we have to engage in from time to time that are impossible to know - and if we have limited information to work from then our decisions will be limited - and often we have to concede authority to another for the purpose of surivival... yet these can be seen as temporary concessions; small fuckups we are to learn from as with over-eating or dabbling in alchohol or drugs. If it develops as a habbitual problem (ie- your 'faith' in god) that is when the serious problems occur.
As an operting principal we can execute vigilance in maintaining authority over-oneself and not giving it away so quickly; I question whether your life was on the line that you needed Pythagorean theorem or that you needed to believe those stories of others to live just one more day. More likely, those selfish releases of authority/consents to the ideas of others were a result of you 'wanting something'.
You dismiss my justifiable true belief as a "habitual problem", seemingly a priori. I sense the usual strains of cynical bias in you. Besides an ability to dream up the least charitable (and consequently least accurate) interpretation of what I believe, which is all that cynicism really is, what reason to you have for believing that belief such as mine is such a problem? If we are in agreement that the subject in question is beyond reason's scope, then the best way at allowing one gnosis to confront another may be to begin with the evidence of which each of us are aware in support of our position - not to say that gnosis reduces to such evidence. I've already listed certain circumstantial evidence lending credence to my gnosis.
In other words, justify thyself.
Maybe you want to bring forward the problem of evil, but I don't get that impression from you. More likely, I suspect you think the Church, and anything Christian, is just some diabolical concoction by the Jews to weaken the West and open the way for their subversion of it. But I have already tried to explain that this reeks of historical ignorance. You seem to think the Church can change her doctrines at a whim, and that this amenability makes the Church and anything under her dominion ripe for the subverting, but this is not the case. The true doctrines of the Church are as immutable as God Himself, since rooted in Truth they share the same essence. To enforce such Truth is to prevent Jewish subversion; to abandon it is to open oneself up to subversion. The Jews have the power they do now not because the Church enabled it by following Church doctrines; but because the world enabled it by rejecting Church doctrines.
Furthermore, what constitutes "the Jew" is something more than a collection of genes and a racial history - though these are a part of it. The Jew is what he is primarily according to his beliefs and his identity - these are the things that determine behaviour, not one's DNA, as is clear when comparing a white Antifa terrorist to , or comparing to the leftists doing the marching. Obviously the beliefs held by these people are influencing their behaviour more than their equally European DNA. Likewise with the Jew, but the problem with the Jew is that their very identity, and thus their revolutionary beliefs, are founded on the rejection of Jesus Christ as the Logos and Lord.
So I think your dismissal of the truth and importance of the Catholic faith is founded on a misunderstanding of the immutability of true Catholic doctrine, and a misunderstanding of the primary reason that the Jews are subversive in the first place.
(post is archived)