Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Wow, Jenni, you have been through a lot. A lot that you did not deserve to go through. I am glad you are in such a better position now. You have a lot to discover ahead of you! FWIW a thought about the anger: Aristotle says it's a response to a perceived injustice. There is a lot of injustice in the whole bundle of Christianity as a system. I think it's legitimate for you to be angry against that and the people who profit from its injustices. That is enough to explain your anger, so I don't think you have to feel that you are "mad at God," the way Christians like to accuse ex-Christians of being. And I think you can say something like, "I defend A's right to belief and practice her/his faith, but I deny that Christians have the right to control everyone else, and their attempts to control the rest of us make me angry - and my anger gives me energy to resist!" Or something like that. Hope to hear more from you, F
  3. Anything that lasts forever would be hell. Just existing forever would be hell. There's just not enough to do. I guess that's why bible god is such a dick. The only way this works is if your mind is fundamentally altered to just enjoy things but then you're not really you anymore so who cares at that point? The new you may as well sit back and enjoy the eternal ride. The old, actual, you will be long dead and won't care anyway. mwc
  4. See: transcendental numbers. This is the point: you're right, I can't imagine the details of such an experience, but I can imagine that an experience that I can't fully conceive of could be possible, or could be made possible. Moreover, I can imagine new possibilities being continuously created.
  5. Hi, Jenni... I'm sorry that you had to go through all that adversity. Processing what you've been through can take time, for sure. Thing is, your healing started when you left the cult. Glad you found your way out.
  6. Leia, I wish you well. Thank you. Walter.
  7. Thanks for sharing... And Welcome! I'm sorry for all that you endured - especially all of the judgment for leaving an obviously unhealthy marriage. I, too, first lost faith in Providence. I always believed IN SPITE of all of the mounting inconsistencies i kept observing within the Bible and between the Bible and reality. But I chose to keep trusting despite my doubts. Once my faith in providence crumbled, i no longer had reason to rationalize away my doubts in order to sustain belief... I am a happy agnostic - fortunate to not be angry. Something that helps me not be angry at "God" is that i am now 99.9999% sure that if some version of God exists, it's not the fundamental-evangelical-bible version that let me down - that god does not exist, so there isn't anyone to be angry at... I hope that made sense. Anyway, glad you are here. I hope that, with time, your anger can pass - so that you can more fully enjoy this precious but fleeting existence. Maybe in a reply you can talk more about the details of your anger - get it all written out. It can be healing.
  8. Jacob grappled by the Jabbok in the night Filled with doubts and howling whys and interrogation lies No submission to the angels in his head Do you also lie awake and ask God why Why are floods and droughts reversed and why does coffee taste so good Why there are no answers in the back of that black book Do you live between the question and the mark Do your eyes see in the dark, does your face resent the mask ‘Cos there’s no time between the future and the past Do you see the puzzle pieces do not fit Do you pull your stomach in, grin and bear the heels that pinch Knowing God is love and made a place called hell Do you hug that angel fiercely through the night Dislocate your devious mind, calling this a limp of faith Do you surrender but keep wrestling for your life Do you?
  9. I kind of like to be like John Walsh in that way acceptance hunting criminals fighting cults. And I will try to enjoy my life outside this battle
  10. I spoke in tongues as a Christian, and I can still do it if I want to. I rarely do, but yesterday I did (I have a choice, it is not outside my control) which made me wonder whether other ex Christians have the same experience. I think that now, my speaking in tongues is more limited than before. It is as though it has got stuck in a rut and I repeat the same sorts of phrases, and when I was a believer there was more variety, but that was a long time ago now so it is hard to say. It's an interesting phenomenon and i was wondering what other people think?
  11. Stab me in the heart, why doncha! jk You sound young and full of energy. The reddit sub you have sounds helpful. Try to be moderate and enjoy life, even though you have a crusade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walsh_(television_host) John Walsh was pretty successful in his crusade. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― There! Hows that?
  12. Yes because I think you're wrong about this particular matter
  13. Thanks for all of your advice. I believe I'm doing the right thing.if I had any questions about It i would not be doing it.
  14. No it isn't these are two very different concepts ,proportionality matters.
  15. Exactly I'm fighting against brainwashing not indoctrination writ large.I'm not sure about that claim of liberal Christians not being indoctrinated but they're definitely not brainwashed .also my beliefs about magick are based on my first-hand experience. Which is not something I can duplicate a laboratory to prove things to you.
  16. As an atheist, one of the key issues I had with religious belief was the idea for whatever we don't understand or have answers for, we can insert God. Also known as God of the Gaps thinking. I've had several religious friends over the years make it clear that they are still saying "I don't know" but they have confidence that God has things handled and that is good enough. No, you are not saying I don't know. You are still acting with some level of presumed certainty. This kind of thinking leaves us vulnerable to compartmentalized thought and cognitive dissonance. This kind of thinking makes it unacceptable to say, "I don't know." Not being able to say "I don't know" hampers finding solutions to very real issues. Funny enough, we suffer from our own "god of the gaps" thinking in many circles outside of religion, as well. Conspiracy theory is a glaring example of this reasoning that has shown itself time and time again throughout the centuries among our most illuminated peers out there. God of the gaps thinking is a method to express the frustration of our more primitive emotional self that can't handle not having certainty. This process heavily affects our supposedly logical thinking. Like it or not, we are emotional beings, and this isn't a detriment by any means, or we'd likely not have survived all the challenges our ancestors faced. Finding the balance in the application of our emotional self is vital. A point I would like to try and make with this bit of discussion is how our desire for certainty can go so far as to alienate and endanger others for the sake of helping our logical brain satisfy our emotional survival instincts. Take for example the divisiveness about masking in public to minimize further spreading of COVID by those who are asymptomatic. Masking is the new hotbed of debate. And it's a fierce arena that even I have taken a few swings. One side argues it's all about precaution and safety, while the other says it's the promotion of fear and baseless science. Both sides present the same argument though, which is highly ironic in my view, but nonetheless: Masking is good or Masking is bad because----health authorities don't know for sure how much effect it will have on COVID since transmission of the disease is still being sorted out. We know some of how it works, but not all of it. There isn't 100% certainty, and this makes some suspicious. The ONLY study that is recognized and used by the medical community regarding the efficacy of masking is here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 And by the way, it doesn't bring any certainty to the game for either side. Now, before you fire off in the comments below with certainty about masking, whether by your emotional side or what you believe is just your logical, understand I support masking. The reality is the study shows it helps to prevent some spread to others. I don't care if it's only a 20% reduction in spread; that is still worth it to me. So, ease your response, and keep reading. Also, read the study, because many of your cloth masks are absolute shit and you don't know it. It's a simple fix. My point is the certainty that data gives us, and how in our efforts to get that much-needed certainty, we drive away others. So, what happens when we already have suspicions against authority, to begin with? We see the economic impact the response to this virus has taken. For some, the logical response is that health authorities don't know what the hell they are doing and now we have gone over the edge and ruined ourselves. For others, safer than sorry outweighs the longterm economical ramifications because what good is a country if it is unable to get control of a virus? The economy will tank anyway. My point of view is that there are two sides to the debate on the world's response to COVID. One side can accept that this disease, while not completely new, has features to it we haven't dealt with before when it comes to transmission and illness. This side accepts that we have a lack of certainty on how to treat it, and we will have to go through a lot of trial and error to get it right but is willing to err on the side of caution at any cost. This side finds it offensive to not consider the well-being of others when deciding to not wear a mask and shares copious amounts of government and health org data to justify wearing one at all costs. For maskers, trusting these authorities to determine care makes logical sense since they are the only ones with the resources to study and determine treatment. Maskers are suspicious of organizations claiming authority that are not generally supported by authoritative sources and tear apart treatment information that directly contradicts organizations with a history of successful outcomes. Those who are against masking typically can't accept that this disease is anything new or as bad as claimed. Anti-maskers can't accept the uncertainty of how to treat it, or that we should be subjected to trial and error to figure it out. There is distrust towards larger organizational authorities because of the fluidity of the COVID pandemic and information on how to deal with the disease. Some on this side believe that nature should take its course based on past understandings of how similar diseases work. This side feels it is wrong to determine the personal freedom of others in the name of preventing a disease that health officials don't have certainty about. Some believe it's purposeful overreach into their lives to take away personal freedom. It's an almost a my body, my choice argument. Anti-maskers are keenly aware of the current impact on the economy, the overall health of the public due to being locked down and fear, and their emotional side can't justify the actions of authoritative organizations that adjust information constantly. So, they look elsewhere for what they believe is a consistent certainty on what the situation is and how to deal with it. This group wants a final answer on the COVID pandemic and doesn't accept not knowing. The majority of supporting resources they use involve discredited or partially true assumptions from outlier groups that go against the norm and who claim are victims of government censorship, bullying, and threats. So, let's talk about these latter groups of marginalized authorities aka "woke" scientists who peddle alternative theories. I hate to break it to you, but these folks are snake-oil salesmen playing on your uncertainty even more sinister than your government health offices. Conspiracy theories have an agenda that has nothing to do with public safety. Many times, conspiracy theories purposely breed mistrust to help undermine authority because history has shown that too much power leads to abuse. This sounds noble, doesn't it? Unfortunately, they also want a piece of that power pie to have enough weight in public and political circles to get money. Counter-culturism, anti-government philosophy, anti-intellectualism, and religion are all politically motivated and operate this way. Behind every plandemic or NWO documentary, you will find a think-tank that is funding it so that they can get more money to influence (lobby) government. What you believe to be a revolution in thinking that gives a solution to the gap in certainty you can't fill, is 9 times out of 10, a political hack job selling you cherry-picked information out of context. Anti-Masking is a prime example of this. When we have the answer we need served to us on a neat little plate without having to do any true scientific research, it isn't being lazy. We naturally want a leader to trust, but we have personal standards, and sometimes we prefer to choose a leader that aligns with our beliefs more than reality. When you choose an outlier group, a revolutionary group even, often their resources do come from the very government agencies we don't trust. These groups will even, at the same time, accuse government resources of being bought out, and we don't realize this paradox because we either don't check their data, don't have enough knowledge about the subject to verify the data, or don't have anyone else we can trust in that field to verify that data. This situation is a signal that it's time to step back and think: What the fuck am I thinking? Plandemic used CDC data, WHO data, governmental data--but they cherry-picked it to manipulate your understanding by lack of appropriate context. If you don't know what cherry-picking is, let me give you an example. Imagine you are eating a hotdog at a restaurant, and the waitress asks if you want some ketchup. You say, "No, I don't like ketchup on my hotdogs." The waitress then says to everyone else in the diner that you don't like ketchup, and she then proceeds to tell them about how ketchup isn't healthy, that tomatoes are a carcinogen, that other diners who ate ketchup eventually got obese and had heart attacks, and so on. Well, it's not true you don't like ketchup. You just don't like ketchup with hotdogs. That waitress took your statement, cherry-picked it, and then pushed her own agenda. That is exactly what a lot of these faux documentaries do. But why did your waitress push this agenda? This question..the WHY behind the motivation is critical. Turns out, there's a mustard representative that has offered her a huge kickback for supporting their view that mustard is better on a hotdog than ketchup. BUT, she just thinks it's about the health effects of ketchup and she is thrilled someone finally supports her view. The mustard company doesn't tell her it's really just about selling more of their products. The people she is sharing her information with already had an underlying doubt about whether they LIKED ketchup or not, and now she just gave them even more reason to decide they didn't. We see this practiced on the political level in health, science, and even the food market every day. Now, I'm sure you're ready to counter my thoughts here, and please, again, stay your urge to type. Because, yes, the government does this to us too about a lot of things. When it comes to funding, influencing elections, and accepting standards of healthcare, we get manipulated a lot. We get manipulated by our favorite clothing brands, too. Our trusted news sources? Oh, you best believe it. My question is this: Is it all sinister intentions? Of course not. This is where we have to accept we aren't as advanced as a species as you would like to believe. Companies and governments have to make money to operate, have to have some level of compliance to be successful for whatever initiative (good or bad) that is being proposed. We are a herd of beasts influenced by the well-being of our families and communities. Just like when trying to herd chickens into a pen to get away from a nearby coyote, we too have to be controlled. Many times for our own good. This is where our need for certainty comes into play. Either we stay outside of the coop and face the threat we know minimal information about in smaller numbers with the wrong tools and solutions, and or we join the rest and work together in a bit more controlled environment and try to find some answers. We have this amazing disconnect between our individuality and our being a part of a hive. We are and always will be part of a hive. This is not an insult or a display of weakness. Our country wouldn't be what it is today if we operated solely as individuals all the time. I promise you that the liberty you fiercely claim to have wouldn't exist as you know it if we decided to operate independently of one another. We know how shitty we are as individuals, and we certainly wouldn't get everything done if we operated alone. I understand that some say that rogues helped to create change, but many of these so-called rogues weren't rogues though. They actively participated in society as a whole. The outliers like Mikovitz haven't accomplished fuck all because they have been dishonest to get ahead. They peddle their mustard while peddling fear. You don't need to fear your government, you need to be aware of what tyranny actually looks like and decide, is this really a sinister plot to control the masses further or is it the horrifying reality that we don't have the certainty necessary to treat COVID effectively? Is it a mix of both? Which is more likely? A conspiracy to control the masses that involves literally BILLIONS of people to pull it off? Or a disease we don't have the capabilities to quickly get control of because we aren't advanced enough of in science and medicine to deal with it effectively? Which is more likely? Occam's Razor is heavily at play here, and you need to apply this to your reasoning. Are you looking up the sources for your information through outlets that you can be sure isn't pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with your concern? Stacking data, especially information that is not scientifically accurate and isn't corrected for those inaccuracies, is a huge flag you have a bad source and need to re-evaluate your standards for certainty. If a scientist claims that ketchup causes heart attacks and is proven false, and changes his science to meet that finding, that's a good source to trust. There is a dedication to providing accurate information. When a scientist won't change their findings based on the new evidence and insist they are still right, you don't have a good source to trust. Christ, the bible says if you have two animals fuck in front of a stick painted with stripes that the offspring will come out striped. Science has proven this false. Would you still believe the Bible's claim for that subject? I would hope not. The same goes for Plandemic. Some information is cherry-picked to then justify a finding. That isn't how science works. You can claim Fauci has more authority than any world leader and personally drummed her out of her field. What's more likely? Fauci has the authority and influence of a world leader, has millions of scientists under his control, and they all conspired against her? Now Bill Gates is on to her trying to undermine his 5G chip implanting vaccination program that is funded by the NWO with millions of operatives worldwide. Or, she got greedy and thought she could use her reputation alone to push fraudulent work? What is more likely? The work she did is still available. All she had to do was go back, do her work over again and resubmit. She didn't do that. Instead, she found another way to make money and now gets paid by anti-vaxx firms. And yes, there's an actual money trail for that, and she states she's anti-vaxx on her personally controlled bio page. This is all easily found with any search platform, and you can view her own personal work for yourself. So, there you go. My point is, when we have uncertainty coupled with frustration, whether about government control or the healthcare industry, we lean towards what makes our emotional self - our instinctive self - feel secure. Our logical self then tries to rationalize it. We fill that gap of uncertainty because IT FEELS GOOD. This is our survival instinct at our most basic. I don't mean feels good like "let's go have beers and celebrate", I mean feels good as in gaining security and understanding how the world is operating around us. I don't know if you realize this, but the universe isn't predictable, and we barely understand our planet. With the age of information we are in, maybe step back and realize it isn't an age of information at all, but simply an age of communication. I would challenge that the 21st century is leading us to better understand how we reason, and so far, I'm very scared. I don't know what it takes for us to learn how to be comfortable being uncomfortable. I don't know what it will take for us to embrace uncertainty and accept that there are many things out of our control. We're new to the earth's ecosystem. Keep that in perspective. For the billions of years our planet has been here, we've existed for less than 4 million of them. Think how long we lived in caves, used leeches to bleed out demons, and believed the earth was flat. Think how recently we understood the earth is round, that disease isn't a fairy tale beast in our blood, and that the universe is expanding. We have a very steep learning curve, and as infants in this terrarium, we call home, we still barely understand how our bodies work and respond to mutations in our environment through toxins and disease. There are no sacred cows. Be skeptical, but don't make decisions blindly. I see the increase in suicides, people suffering heart attacks, and avoiding treatment out of the ironic fear of contracting COVID. Should we have been locked down this long? No. Could we trust each other to do the right thing? Probably not. There are too many blindsides to know with 100% certainty the right action to take, but at least we have resources that are willing to adapt with new findings and admit when something isn't working. To not be willing to adjust is biblical suicide. Relying on organizations peddling false information to justify your personal bias and actions is reckless too. We are better than this. We are in a catch 22 situation that will have long-term outcomes we can't even predict. There is only one certainty in this scenario: Hindsight is always 2020.
  17. Leia has denied our most excellent tutelage? Well, shit.
  18. Guys, I think, at this point, we have all made our points. We have given her the advice, warnings, and wisdom we have gained from our experience. It is clear, also, that she intends to go her own way with this thing. Let's not turn this thread into a dogpile. Sometimes the best support we can give to someone is to move put of the way and let them learn for themselves. Some do learn; some don't. Either way, and however difficult it may be to watch, Leia is one of us, and we have each done the best we could for her.
  19. Beliefs based on evidence that is verifiable aren't abstract and subjective.
  20. Justice can just be another convenient name for revenge.
  21. By that standard I suppose you think I am brainwashed for being a witch (Wicca) . I believe in my Gods as much as the Christians believe in their God. The liberal Christians aren't brainwashed and neither am I . Brainwashing is something I define based on the BITE model of cult behavior not some abstract and subjective standard. I tend to think Leia is right here in reference to the term "brainwashed". Brainwashing is different from indoctrination, and I'm not even sure you could claim liberal Christians are indoctrinated. Some versions of their Christianity is so pink and fluffy that its hard to find reference to God or Jesus. Those types believe simply because it makes them feel good, or they want to, not because they were indoctrinated as kids. However, Leia, I will say you are just as wrong as Christians in your belief's. Not brainwashed sure, but I think you are believing something without good evidence to believe it. Though I'm sure you'll disagree. Of course you are free to believe whatever you like so long as you do not harm others with your belief.
  1. Load more activity


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.