https://www.brighteon.com/c3c52dd7-7db9-4e1c-b386-58b9a6c97f5b
I keep hearing the warnings. And I don’t know what to do with them. These cover issues that I have no firsthand knowledge of, but the clarion alarm keeps ringing out: the people who have been injected with the experimental gene therapy treatment erroneously called “covid vaccines” are at serious risk in terms of future health. Some people predict severe health outcomes. Others predict death. People say that certain serious ailments are turning up at hospitals from people previously injected. They claim that autumn to winter may be terrible in terms of the human cost of the experiment with our genes and cells.
My skeptical side steps in. I can’t trust many predictions because I don’t know about the hidden world inside the body or the microscopic world in general and I find it harder and harder to trust people on any side of the covid injection debate. Although I can look at evidence from the past to make conclusions on the past or the present, what evidence can I ask for about the future that would give me so solid a conviction?
Both sides of the debate have made many predictions, and many people in the past have made predictions on other issues. Although some come to pass, many fail. So how could I put all my eggs in one basket and say “Yes, many of the injected people are gonna die or be horribly affected by their foolish choice to take part in an experience that has already negatively impacted millions with only promises of invisible rewards?” I can already look at the fuzzy data from the past, videos and reports from those injured from the injections and the relatives of those who died after having one of the injection and see evidence provided by hostile witnesses, such as the MHRA and the CDC, in order to draw the conclusion that these injections are not safe. I already have reports from hostile witnesses, like the mainstream media that appears to be backed by the pharmaceutical industry or influenced by them, that many places with high rates of people being injected with the experimental formula have had “outbreaks” of positive results from a technique that doesn’t test for infection or infectiousness, the accursed RT-PCR procedure. Just to add, there is no such thing as an outbreak of positive test results. But there are still hospitalisations and deaths related to the unreliable PCR procedure after ignorant human lab rats have been injected. So the injections are not effective either.
So the injections are not safe and they are not effective with regards to alleged “infection and transmission” or hospitalisations and deaths.
In this way, I can see the data from the past to draw conclusions about past and present. But this does not give me leeway to make such definitive conclusions about the future. Sure, I can see the signs like reports of other issues occurring related to injection such as higher rates of clotting, stroke or cancer amongst other things (see here and here and here). But to say that I may be standing at the other side of a form of genocide by the end of winter, I just don’t know. I don’t trust.
It doesn’t help that a few people close to me have been injected once or twice with the experimental formula and there may come a time when I’m properly pressured or forced to be injected.
I just don’t know. That’s the best I can say right now.
Seven Laws Blog UK 
19 replies on “Hard to believe”
Do you care to comment on this supposed refutation of the Kuzary Argument?:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/kuzariflaws.cfm
Why? What do you think of the attempted refutation?
It looks compelling (to me) unless refuted.
So you knew & studied the Kuzari argument as presented by the Kuzary, Dovid Gottlieb & Lawrence Kelemen before you got to this attempted refutation?
Ok, since the article is compelling to you, meaning you understand it in conjunction with the Kuzary, tell me in short that central points where the Kuzary argument fails. Me personally, if I understand something, then I’m able to state it in my own words. So go on. Summarise the fatal failings of Gottlieb’s, Lawrence’s and the Kuzary’s arguments.
I’ll reply to this again since I’m at a loss. You found this article compelling??? Unless refuted??? That’s called an argument from ignorance, “here’s my view, now prove me wrong.” Or “here’s this article, prove it wrong.” You’ve given no evidence that it’s correct. I read through it, looking for something strong to grasp and I found it to be empty. So I do really need for you to show me what made it so compelling to you, as it’s kinda worthless to me. If it’s a position that you accept, then that’s on you, it doesn’t bother me. If it’s something you’re trying to put to me as if it’s worth something, that means you’ve embraced it. If you’ve embraced it, then you must have sufficient reason/evidence. Provide it or drop it. Your choice.
Well said. I really do have nothing and will continue to accept the truth of the Kuzary Argument.
If you really had nothing, then why did you start this? Why did you say it was compelling unless refuted? Why even bring up the article? The way you’ve been for some time now has been more suspicious. I’ll have to consider how to deal with your comments in future.
What do you mean by suspicious? (And yes, that was pretty dumb, me bringing up the article the way I did)
I skimmed the “refutation” of the Kuzary Argument. Seeing Mary, the sun and leprechauns is theologically irrelevant because God is not a woman, a sun and a leprechaun. As regards the Irish gods, if there are multiple gods, they are necessarily limited by a body and form, which means they are idols.
Good points to bring up, HRV. Not much substance to it at all. >
You mentioned once that the Talmud says that a gentile was rewarded for honoring his father. Because of its proximity with the Jewish law (where one must almost always honor their father), are there places where a gentile is doing something that isn’t immoral (even by disrespecting or being harsh to their father), where a Jew who does that is sinnning? Is it even important?
Doing various tasks on the seventh day which is the Jewish Sabbath. Eating unclean meat. Eating meat and milk together.
It’s important in that it distinguishes a Gentile from a Jew.
Some of the arguments from the [Kuzary-Argument-related] article:
1: The revelation story could have evolved from something more simple.
2: It provides two supposed examples of false experiencial traditions: one about Irish gods, and one about Mary.
3: (Partially my idea) The revelation could have been an instance of mass sociogenic illness.
Ah, now you’re finding reasons. Thanks. So, if you’ve rejected the Jewish tradition, why are you still messaging me? Just want conversation? Are you gonna say something’s compelling again?
I am wondering what the refutations to those arguments are. How could the revelation story have not evolved from somethings simpler?
You’ve supplied no decent arguments to refute yet. All you’ve said is “well this could have happened, and [people claim] it happened somewhere else, and it could have been some shared mental illness.” That’s your three attempts at an argument. In order to think of refutations, first you have to have decent arguments. You can’t just have “could have” or just possibilities, which is all you’ve provided. The argument that “this could have happened somewhere else” is just a fairy story, a plausible story conceived in the imagination of your mind, which would mean nothing to a person who already has a historical tradition. Your arguments don’t mean much to me, and I don’t even have that historical tradition. I think Dovid Gottlieb makes a good point about this wishy-washy, “coulda-woulda-shoulda” approach to argumentation (and it appears that you’ve spent more time focused on the wishy-washy before fully understanding the Kuzary argument). The decent argument against what the Jews believe is to say “this DID happen to YOU and here is the proof.” You haven’t even come close to doing that, so there’s nothing to refute.
But you have given me, by what you’ve asked, an example of why outsiders will work hard to undermine the experiences and history of a people.
Why should we assume that because we don’t have a natural explanation, God certainly caused it?
Strawman fallacy. Premise of the question is “we should assume that because we don’t have a natural explanation, God certainly caused it.” I never stated such an assumption, so you’re misrepresenting me.
Fallacy of the false dichotomy. The question implies that either God did it or nature did. There are other alternatives such as God is the basis of nature, therefore he can work both within its limits and beyond its limits.
Dude, just stop. Stop. I’ve kinda had it with these interactions. For me, they are fruitless. So I’m stopping these interactions. I no longer wish to interact with you.
I’ll end this by saying that I much appreciate those responses to my arguments. I also still do accept Jewish tradition. Thanks.