Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E started this discussion 10 years ago#48,855
I have had a lot of strange dreams where I often cut myself open under the rib cage. I then remove everything i can get my hands on from that opening. Then after i can't pull anything out anymore, i put my organs and puddles of blood back inside.
Today I think I have achieved something like that. I no longer feel as powerless as i often do, because I have decided to trust God when it comes to avenging that which I simply can't.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later[^][v]#636,712
The physical are, and ironic to their imposition as internal entities, encumberances to self-fufilment with respect to the intrinsic, whether these fulfilments are to come by way of the meta-physical, the spiritual, or the determination of will.
This is why we must be unrepentant in our smashing of atomistic redunctionism.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,717
> implying god exists
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,718
@previous (C)
One most certainly does, theological consensus - or a lack, of righteous place, let alone itself, thereof - notwithstanding.
Get lost you spiritually illiterate, emotionally blind automaton.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,719
@previous (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs)
Proof of his existence?
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,721
Is there proof that it's wrong to believe in unproven belief?
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 5 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,722
@636,719 (C)
You presume him to be deistic in property, or that there's a conceivable entity such that a pronoun can describe to speak of.
Existence as we deine it has no referential frame in the supernatural.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs double-posted this 10 years ago, 16 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,723
@636,721 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
Also, this, a thousand times.
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,724
@636,722 (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs) @636,721 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
So, in other words, you have no proof. Thanks.
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,725
And in your own words, you don't either have proof that it's wrong to believe in the unproven.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,727
@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
Science is an immoral disease. It can't answer to such ethical concerns as righteousness of practice. It's only concerned with usurping itself as the unquestioning authority on all matters, and this is what makes the aggressive technocratic paradigm dangerous.
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,728
Well there is science and then there is "science". Science brings us both bad and good but mostly good. And "science" brings us people who demand we believe that it's wrong to believe in the unproven, they say it's wrong even though they have not proven it. Ironic.
Anyway, those people are just atheists who have yet to let go of the injustice every man in different ways goes through.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,729
@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
Scientific modernity as we've been nudged to in a politicized way was primarily what I was referring to, the movement is merely the byproduct of a slavish allegiance to such.
It has produced a litany of inventive fancies that might take a superficial attraction as being attributed to for being the reason behind societal progression, and the very idea of that in itself has its own issues that I'm laboured to discuss concisely so I'd rather spare you the tangent. More simply put though: the various material and technological artifices we've been gifted under its auspices, especially in recent decades, could more or less easily be disposed of if we're to ever see hope of returning to a more sanitized, less disruptively corrupt (as you might say, 'degenerate') order.
A lot of recent technological advance was merely the releases of those pre-emptively drafted blueprints (we're talking hundresds of years in advance, and we have theoretical grounding for more of it, that's also being obscured from public view), withheld by diplomatic league bound internationalists who had peacemeal agendas for the dissemination of each advancement, associated social movements therewith, etc.
Allan Watt, a conspiracy theorist homegrown from my own native locale, who now lives in Canada and used to have his own radio segment I'd listened to daily until a few years ago when it was axed, is a good resource on this crass, Fabio-technocratic agenda of the "grand modernization push".
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#636,735
Yeah that's the attitude i get from a lot of people. That's it's all just about "modernizing" people to progress society into a golden age. It's like it's their fetish, reminds me of a clip from one of those Adam Curtis documentaries....
There was some kind of a musician that believed his music to be scientific and he called it rational music.
Edit: it was a clip from what happened in the Soviet Union.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#636,736
@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E) > There was some kind of a musician that believed his music to be scientific and he called it rational music.
Post-modernists like to co-opt the thematic typologies of scientific mythlore to give their art a more 'upbeat' feel on the front of cutting-edginess.
Also yes, if you mean that one documentary series where he criticizes Bernay for using feminism as a launching pad for peripheral associated, societally degenerative subversion movements, it's one of my favourites.
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#636,739
I don't recall that part in any of his documentaries.
But one of my favorites is perhaps his newest, a bitter lake.
The basic message was that this whole narrative of good vs evil no longer makes sense. When he said that, I instantly thought of the privileged vs the victims.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#636,741
@previous (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
The entire narrative of a dichotomy between good and evil was highly misinterpreted from main Talmudic lore anyway, which clearly stipulates the technicality of its synonymousness. Lucifer fell from the heavens and desired to emulate God to his exact; his failing wasn't in being more evil but not having commensurate power to exact due punishment against transgressions. Similarly, although often mistaken for Satan, this is actually often implied to be God's (pitifully less effectual) avatar.
There is actually a passage within it which essentially boils down to "good is evil, and evil is good".
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#636,749
Seems like you know a lot about this subject, lucifer, satan etc..
How did you acquire it? Because in any gathering of religious people that I have been to, it's a taboo to discuss these matters in detail and any mentioning of hell or satan is quietly turned into a discussion of why one would even mention it.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#636,750
@636,741 (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs)
Denmark guy, take a long look at this post. This is your main ideological ally on this BBS. The person you have allied yourself with.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#636,751
@636,749 (Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E)
A mentor from the States who was heavily immersed in Christian identity, Pauline scripture, the New World Order's mythological origins in the Levite, etc. He'd taught me, in fact, the bulk of my ideology.
Denmarkguy joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#636,754
@636,723 (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs)
Ah, so that explains your pseudo-science racism. Okay.
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#636,766
Take a long look at the second comment. Someone pretending to be me. You know, Sophie could be Hitler himself and I wouldn't just automatically give him the power to structure my thoughts by avoiding all that he thinks.
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 36 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#636,775