Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
You'll understand it yourself. Just not now, but in about N years, if you continue to delve into this question.
I simply went through all of this myself – first, you become fascinated by some concept, but the more you examine and study it, the more contradictions you find in it, and over time you realize that almost everything is wrong.
This does not mean that such concepts should not be studied – on the contrary, it is very useful, as it develops the mind, especially through overcoming one's own misconceptions. Besides, these concepts, although to a small extent, contain some truth, which must be separated from everything else and boldly used.
One of the most well-known examples is the alternative historians Suvorov and Fomenko. At one time, they were very popular, but time has put everything in its place. There are valuable ideas in their works, and they openly declare and illustrate with their own example the most valuable one – that history is an object for manipulation, often quite brazen, so it should be believed very cautiously, and one should try to study different sources.
Lider1
Auto-translated
I see that sermons about a god have already begun here, which means everything is going according to plan. The heat is on :D
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
Well, the authors lead to the conclusion that it is quite possible.
They show both those who claim that giants could have easily existed in the past, and those who claim that all this is fabrication, a forgery, and that there were no giants.
But the evidence of those who claim they could have existed is, in my view, more rational and logical; plus, what about the discovered skeletons of huge size? The existence of which is being actively suppressed by the biased authority of official science.
In the book "The Unknown History of Mankind," there are many facts and evidence of the existence of such finds (huge skeletons). ______
But for me personally, the main evidence is the sacred scriptures: the Bible, the Quran, Vedic literature, Buddhist sutras, etc.
KostyaN
As for your literally 2-meter-long post - it mentions the abominable Mendel and Einstein; thanks to the first, we have GMOs - is that not an analogue to the situation with vaccines? The second is an agent of the ZOG, urgently mobilized to "close" the concept of "ether," from which Nikola Tesla, apparently, learned to extract practically free energy! What do you have to say to that?
ah, are you also worried about sizes :)? well, nobody is forcing you to read. I won't even be offended if nobody reads it.
To be honest, I know practically nothing about Mendel; I mentioned his name because he positioned himself as a believing, religious person. Perhaps his works were simply used later to create GMOs and to use these GMOs for cannibalistic purposes.
I also allow for the possibility that he himself was involved in the creation of GMOs with cannibalistic goals; perhaps initially he pursued other goals, but subsequently his works were used differently.
____ Yes, Tesla is a very interesting personality, because the vast majority of his statements and works align perfectly with Vedic literature.
Einstein's works could also have been used for purposes other than those Einstein himself pursued.
In my view, his conscious participation in the discredit and silencing of Tesla's work is also possible.
But even without Mendel and Einstein - among the prominent (from a material standpoint) scientists - there is a huge number of deeply religious people.
KostyaN
By the way, Christ naturally didn't live 2000 years ago, but in the 12th century; I can dig up the evidence base (in your style)..
Yes, it is quite possible that it was exactly so, precisely in the 12th century.
________________ But may I ask, in what "style" of mine is this? :)
For me, the main authoritative source of knowledge is the sacred scriptures. If someone provides excerpts from divinely revealed literature as evidence, I will be forced to accept it, even if it does not correspond to my current ideas.
Everything described in Vedic literature is finding more and more confirmation - in the scientific community, both official and unofficial. In the field of archaeology, there is simply a huge number of discoveries and excavations that correspond to the descriptions.
In the Vimanika Shastra - for example, all flying apparatuses, which are called unidentified, are described and classified. Exact names and designs are given there - Wernher von Braun - the father of modern rocketry, did not hide that he took his V-2 rocket specifically from the Vimanika Shastra (shastra - literal translation from Sanskrit - weapon).
to do this, he just needs to abandon his imperial ideas about this structure of the world and turn to an authoritative source of knowledge - the Bible, the Quran, Vedic literature, Buddhist sutras, etc. (s)
I'm rolling on the floor laughing :smile52. Here is the true authoritative source. Flying elephants in orbit come from there too. Will the myths of ancient Greece work as an authoritative source? :D LeBron
hmm ariputra=bajan?
Bayan vs. Ariputra is epic even in the conclusion:D
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
You'll understand yourself. Just not now, but in N years, if you keep digging into this question.
In general, you have a convenient position for answering questions — "you'll understand yourself!" :) Well, one can understand you; what else is left for you?
Fine, please name specifically what in my opinion does not correspond to reality from what I wrote! Lie %$#*lie and provocation №1, Lie %$#*lie and provocation №2, Lie %$#*lie and provocation №3, etc. And why?
And credit must be given to you: you know how to write so that it's not entirely clear what you mean! Do you do this on purpose or is it because of a lack of understanding that it's still not quite clear.. Wicc
I simply went through all this myself — first you get hooked on some concept, but the more you examine and study it, the more contradictions you find in it, and over time you realize that everything there is slightly less than crooked.
So you are claiming that in any case, by studying any concept, you will find flaws and contradictions?
It's just that you don't know what Vedic literature is (it is the science of sciences and religions); it is an instruction for interacting with surrounding reality from the general designer. Or maybe you do know, but you're just singing your own song :)
And have you not thought that contradictions, and "crookedness" as you put it, are often not in the concepts we study (yes, they undoubtedly can be in them), but rather most likely in us, in our mind. And we automatically and inevitably project our own mind onto everything we encounter. That is, whatever our mind is, that is how we see the surrounding reality and various concepts.
If one wishes, flaws can be found in any concept. Even in God, flaws can be found with sufficient desire.
If a person wants to find a flaw, they will certainly find it. ;) The question is: what is the goal and motive?! Is our psychology that of a Fly or a Bee?
Is the reverse process possible? First you start studying some concept and see many different contradictions, inconsistencies, flaws — but as you study more deeply, you come to a conclusion, you begin to understand — that all contradictions were due to insufficient or incorrect understanding. Is it possible for it to be like that?
A thief always suspects those around him of one main flaw — that everyone wants to steal from him! But why does he suspect other people specifically of this? Wicc
This doesn't mean that such concepts should not be studied — they very much should; it develops the brain, especially through overcoming one's own delusions. Moreover, these concepts, although only a little, contain truth; it must be separated from everything else and used boldly.
Which specific concepts are you talking about?
Generally, purely theoretically, do you admit that you could be mistaken in this case, in these matters? In the assessment of those concepts which you described as lies
You wrote there about brain development: I'm almost afraid to write: the process of thinking occurs not in the brain, but in the subtle mental body — which in Sanskrit is called Manas — the mind. And the brain is merely an organ of the mind. Just as the Ear is an organ of hearing, the Eye an organ of vision, receptors are organs of touch, the nose an organ of smell, and the tongue an organ of taste. Wicc
Among the most well-known examples are alternative historians Suvorov and Fomenko. At one time they were very popular, but time put everything in its place. There are valuable thoughts in their works, and moreover, they openly declare the most valuable one and illustrate it with their own example — that history is an object for manipulation, often quite brazen ones, therefore it must be believed very cautiously, and one should try to study different sources.
Well, and where is the proof that time specifically put everything in its place? And have people really lost interest in their works and conclusions?
Further you write about value — meaning some statements you defined and classified for yourself as valuable (useful, interesting), and others as not valuable or not very valuable. But on what basis do you determine value? On the basis of your established matrix of understanding, on the basis of your own ideas!? Considering that our senses are imperfect and limited, is it reasonable to rely on one's empirical experience obtained through imperfect senses?
What if this matrix of understanding, these ideas are erroneous? What if your (my, our) understanding of value in this matter is wrong? And consequently everything that you or I defined as valuable (plausible, possibly corresponding to reality) — on the contrary, does not correspond to it. And consequently what I considered nonsense based on an erroneous understanding — is not nonsense at all. Is such a version even permissible in your understanding of reality?
Do you not admit the possibility that interest in their works and conclusions was artificially suppressed by "science" engaged by the state, security structures, media, artificially forgotten — due to the disadvantage or danger to those at the helm?
An ordinary person is absolutely capable of understanding the true structure of the world; for this, he only needs to abandon his empirical ideas about this world structure and turn to an authoritative source of knowledge — the Bible, the Quran, Vedic literature, Buddhist sutras, etc. — to the general designer's instructions!
I'm rolling :smile52: . Now that is a truly authoritative source. That's also where flying elephants on orbit come from. Would myths of ancient Greece work as an authoritative source? :D
You promised not to read my messages anymore! ai ai ai, you're still reading them :)
__________________________ Givi, I wonder how this apparatus works? How is it turned on? Gogi, there's an instruction right there — read it! What am I, a fool, as if I needed to read some instruction, that I'm stupider than the one who wrote this instruction? Vakh! I'll figure it all out myself by trial and error. Gogi, you only have three fingers left, maybe it's better to read the instruction after all?
_________________ Troy was considered a fairy tale for a very long time, the nonsense of a grey mare, a fiction — in high scientific circles they didn't want to hear anything about it; anyone who spoke seriously about it was ridiculed.
"Myths" of ancient Greece are naturally no more than a fairy tale in our minds (because we were convinced of this), Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey" and the Troy praised in them — naturally also children's tales, and everything written there is accordingly — at best, tales.
And the self-taught German merchant Heinrich Schliemann perceived mentions of it not as a fairy tale, and who turned out to be right?
A Jew is not permitted to sell an akuma (Christian) clothing that has tzitzit (tassels at the edges of the garment worn by a Jew during morning prayer, see Num. XV, 38). He must not give such clothing to an akuma even in pledge or even just so that he may temporarily keep it, because when an akuma possesses such clothing, then one must fear lest he deceive the Jew, saying that he is also a Jew. In this case, if the Jew trusted him and went with him alone — the akuma would kill him.
Law 2
Everything that a Jew requires by rite for divine service, such as the aforementioned tassels etc., can be manufactured only by a Jew, and not an akuma, because it must be made by people — whereas akumas should not be regarded by Jews as people.
Law 3
The "Kaddish" prayer (it begins with the words: "Inogaddal veiyosokadda") is permitted to be read only where ten Jews are together, and this must happen in such a way that no unclean thing, such as manure or an akuma, separates them from one another.
Law 4
When an akuma with a cross is encountered, then the Jew is strictly forbidden to bow his head, even if he were praying at that moment. Even if in his prayer he reached a point where it is necessary for him to bow his head (there are some places in Jewish prayers where it is necessary to bow), he must still avoid this.
Law 5
And now, since there is no longer either a Temple or sacrifice in Jerusalem, the sons of Aaron, the high priest, should use among scattered Jews the known distinctions and honors before other Jews and always possess the right of blessing (Jews) on every holiday. But when any child of such a family becomes an akuma, then the whole family is defiled, and therefore deprived of this sacred right.
Law 6
A Jew who has become an akuma is cursed to such an extent that even when he donates candles or something similar to the synagogue, it is forbidden to accept them.
Law 7
The Simun prayers (a Jew reads it after lunch; at the end of the prayer the host of the house is blessed) cannot be read in the house of an akuma, lest the akuma also be blessed.
Law 8
For every sensation of fragrance a Jew is obliged to read a Baraka — a short prayer of gratitude, except in cases where spices or something fragrant have already been in a toilet to remove a bad smell, or when fragrances were in the hands of a harlot who uses perfumes for the purpose of seducing people into sin, or finally, when fragrant substances are brought from a shrine (of akumas), then it is forbidden to pronounce the Baraka for fragrance, because it is already defiled by the toilet, the harlot, or the shrine (of akumas).
Law 9
Passing by a ruined temple of akumas, every Jew is obliged to say: "Glory to Thee, Lord, that Thou hast uprooted this house of idols from here." Passing by a temple not yet touched, he must say: "Glory to Thee, Lord, that Thou prolongest Thy wrath upon the evildoers." And when he sees 600,000 Jews together, he is obliged to say: "Glory to Thee, Wise God!" When he encounters an assembly of akumas, then he is obliged to pronounce: "In great shame shall be your mother, she who bore you shall blush!" When a Jew passes by a Jewish cemetery, he should exclaim: "Glory to Thee, Lord, that Thou hast created them so righteously!" And before the cemetery of akumas he must say: "In great shame shall be your mother etc." When a Jew sees well-built houses of akumas, he is obliged to exclaim: "The Lord shall destroy the houses of the haughty!" When ruins of akumas are before him, then he should pronounce: "The Lord is the God of vengeance!"
Law 10
In the evening, on the eve of Shabbat, every Jew, seeing illumination, is obliged to say: "Glory to Thee, Lord, who created light!", but where light comes from a temple of akumas, there it is forbidden to thank God for the use of such light.
You, Timofey, are doing a good job trying to prove something to someone. It's always nice to see someone defending their opinions, whether they are right or wrong.
But I don't think it's necessary to delve too deeply into trying to understand what a person means and respond to every jab. Also, it's not worth imposing anything on others.
Just be simpler. Take care!
С истиной где-то рядом...
Лето 2010.
Егор Коробейников
Auto-translated
Guys!!! I don't know what you're writing here! But Duty will be back in January, right???
You, Timofey, are doing a good job trying to prove something to someone. It's always nice to see someone defending their views, whether they are right or wrong.
But I don't think you should dig too deep trying to understand what a person means and responding to every jab.
Just be simpler. Hang in there.
But he himself doesn't say what he means – he actively hides it behind vague wording, which can be interpreted in different ways – so you have to "extract" information to understand what the person meant, what exactly their contradiction is, and what it is based on.
If a person defends beliefs that correspond to reality, then they can be understood. But the motive behind it is very important.
But defending false, mistaken beliefs, just because they are my own, dear beliefs, is extremely unwise.
I already know my own opinion; I want to know the opinion of another person – what it is based on. That's why I ask questions, so that the person has the opportunity to share their vision. Maybe I just have a lot of pride.
Guys!!! I don't know what you're writing here! But isn't Duty coming back in January???
I scheduled a match with him about 2 months ago!
Lider1
Auto-translated
ariputra
You promised you wouldn't read my messages anymore! Oh oh oh, you're still reading them.
The whole forum is laughing at you. Of course, I (as an exception) quickly skim through what you're doing!
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
Screamer1982
Auto-translated
Africa needs to acknowledge the benefits of vaccines. It seems they have been "helped" for quite some time now. In general, modern states are somewhat reminiscent of a good cook. A good cook can even make something edible out of… well, you know. And if you also advertise your actions, you can just keep serving… that. (Who can tell the difference in taste between black caviar if no one has ever tried it?). Wishing everyone well, and trust your loved ones, not the state.
Лучше дорого молчать, чем дешево говорить.
Ihtiandr
Auto-translated
Screamer1982
Africa should acknowledge the benefits of vaccines.
And Australia should acknowledge the fact that it doesn't exist.
