Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Orthodox Christianity
Orthodox general
ROCOR
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="in.image.and.likeness" data-source="post: 1532412" data-attributes="member: 23775"><p>Just wanted to comment on your well meaning post with additional thoughts (beyond the focus on St Paisios as well).</p><p></p><p>1.</p><p>when people close to St Paisios got vaxed, does it insinuate that they trust the vax to not be the mark he was talking about? yes.</p><p></p><p>does it mean that they interpreted him correctly? no. </p><p>does it <em>automatically </em>mean that they are honest or good-willed? no. (bad actors in the Church obviously exist) </p><p>does it mean that the vax and the circumstances of its production and implementation is less suspicious? no.</p><p>does it change the totalitarian coercive nature of how things went and are still going? no.</p><p>does it deminish the obvious links to the known agendas? no.</p><p>does it mean that everyone who takes the is furthering the elite’s totalitarian plan of transhumanism and technocracy? yes.</p><p>does it therefore mean that to take the vax is morally wrong? yes, since morality comes from God and transhumanism is against God.</p><p></p><p>2.</p><p>people calling cov a hoax is to be viewed in context of the PLANdemic aka non-existant pandemic. cov is portrayed as a deadly rapidly spreading, highly contageous, unpredictable disease threatening the national medical systems in the whole world and thus serving as the justification for all measures to prevent said collapse and human catastrophe. </p><p>since cov objectively does not meet this criteria, it is fair to call it a hoax.</p><p></p><p>also:</p><p>any argument about someone „dying from“ or „getting“ the cov has no weight since this virus has never been isolated, which is one precondition to prove that a virus exists, hence it has never been scientifically proven to be what it is reported to be.</p><p>what we can by now reasonably say is that it is the normal „strong“ flu that can cause existing (undiagnosed and unknown) preconditions to lead to disease or death - as the flu does and always did.</p><p></p><p>another reasonable assertion is that of an artificial „booster“ in the form of something resembling a bio-weapon. but we don’t need to go that far.</p><p>it suffices to realize the detrimental effects of terror, stress, fear, social distancing, mask wearing, spiritual degradation, 5G and the overall enormous toxicity of contemporary life (food, air, water, chemicals, electro-magnetism, fine particles, lack of movement, porn, psy-ops) to accumulate and manifest into all kinds of diseases.</p><p>that’s actually how sickness works.</p><p></p><p>and:</p><p>the three postulates of Robert Koch to prove the contagion of viruses were actually never met by Koch himself in his founding experiments, see also Louis Pasteur for the lack of proof for the theory that germs and microbes cause disease - (two major science frauds). The rival theory was the terrain-theory (disease caused by toxicity not germs) which due to the cov narrative is getting more attention now.</p><p></p><p>so:</p><p>people dying from the flu means nothing in this context.</p><p></p><p>3.</p><p>A Doctor having a cure and his disciple dying „from the rona“ is a vage statement.</p><p>Did you mean to say that he got sick and the cure did not work on him?</p><p>If so, how does this singular anecdote disprove</p><p>a) the efficacy of the cure?</p><p>b) virus + vax + mandatory = exclusion from society („not able to buy and sell“) -> beast system?</p><p></p><p>4.</p><p>Living elders have authority but are not just as authoritative as saints.</p><p></p><p>5.</p><p>St Paisios did not talk about when the virus would pass, so an elder being wrong about his part is irrelevant.</p><p></p><p>6.</p><p>„ecclesial history reminds us“ that saints were wrong too, so “we are not bound to unconditionally share“ all their views.</p><p>Yes, this is absolutely correct and very important!</p><p></p><p>So then we look at the content of their words and at the evidence in the world and can gather that St Paisios prophecy seems to meet the main points so far.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In conclusion, I get and appreciate that you are trying to offer a balance to the intuitive conclusions which we might wish to be true. But I don’t see how your arguments counter the signs of the vax as a means to usher in a totalitarian system of control and St Paisios warning exactly about that.</p><p></p><p>thank you for your thoughts and God bless.</p><p></p><p>IC</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="in.image.and.likeness, post: 1532412, member: 23775"] Just wanted to comment on your well meaning post with additional thoughts (beyond the focus on St Paisios as well). 1. when people close to St Paisios got vaxed, does it insinuate that they trust the vax to not be the mark he was talking about? yes. does it mean that they interpreted him correctly? no. does it [I]automatically [/I]mean that they are honest or good-willed? no. (bad actors in the Church obviously exist) does it mean that the vax and the circumstances of its production and implementation is less suspicious? no. does it change the totalitarian coercive nature of how things went and are still going? no. does it deminish the obvious links to the known agendas? no. does it mean that everyone who takes the is furthering the elite’s totalitarian plan of transhumanism and technocracy? yes. does it therefore mean that to take the vax is morally wrong? yes, since morality comes from God and transhumanism is against God. 2. people calling cov a hoax is to be viewed in context of the PLANdemic aka non-existant pandemic. cov is portrayed as a deadly rapidly spreading, highly contageous, unpredictable disease threatening the national medical systems in the whole world and thus serving as the justification for all measures to prevent said collapse and human catastrophe. since cov objectively does not meet this criteria, it is fair to call it a hoax. also: any argument about someone „dying from“ or „getting“ the cov has no weight since this virus has never been isolated, which is one precondition to prove that a virus exists, hence it has never been scientifically proven to be what it is reported to be. what we can by now reasonably say is that it is the normal „strong“ flu that can cause existing (undiagnosed and unknown) preconditions to lead to disease or death - as the flu does and always did. another reasonable assertion is that of an artificial „booster“ in the form of something resembling a bio-weapon. but we don’t need to go that far. it suffices to realize the detrimental effects of terror, stress, fear, social distancing, mask wearing, spiritual degradation, 5G and the overall enormous toxicity of contemporary life (food, air, water, chemicals, electro-magnetism, fine particles, lack of movement, porn, psy-ops) to accumulate and manifest into all kinds of diseases. that’s actually how sickness works. and: the three postulates of Robert Koch to prove the contagion of viruses were actually never met by Koch himself in his founding experiments, see also Louis Pasteur for the lack of proof for the theory that germs and microbes cause disease - (two major science frauds). The rival theory was the terrain-theory (disease caused by toxicity not germs) which due to the cov narrative is getting more attention now. so: people dying from the flu means nothing in this context. 3. A Doctor having a cure and his disciple dying „from the rona“ is a vage statement. Did you mean to say that he got sick and the cure did not work on him? If so, how does this singular anecdote disprove a) the efficacy of the cure? b) virus + vax + mandatory = exclusion from society („not able to buy and sell“) -> beast system? 4. Living elders have authority but are not just as authoritative as saints. 5. St Paisios did not talk about when the virus would pass, so an elder being wrong about his part is irrelevant. 6. „ecclesial history reminds us“ that saints were wrong too, so “we are not bound to unconditionally share“ all their views. Yes, this is absolutely correct and very important! So then we look at the content of their words and at the evidence in the world and can gather that St Paisios prophecy seems to meet the main points so far. In conclusion, I get and appreciate that you are trying to offer a balance to the intuitive conclusions which we might wish to be true. But I don’t see how your arguments counter the signs of the vax as a means to usher in a totalitarian system of control and St Paisios warning exactly about that. thank you for your thoughts and God bless. IC [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Orthodox Christianity
Orthodox general
ROCOR
Top
