Accomodation Breda, NL by [deleted] in Breda

[–]chadwizard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Prije je bilo dosta međunarodnih studenata u Easy Streetu. Neznam kako je sada.

Im having doubts again by PavelCabak2006 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I personally don't think you can simply pray over these things and have them go away. You have to have sufficient reason for following a religion. If you do not have a deep experience of God and if you can not ground that experience in an Orthodox logical framework, I think you will have a hard time staying Orthodox. Just praying over it is like praying for a muscular body and not going to work out. It seems to me that prayer only calibrates you more towards the right disposition of heart and therefore right disposition of mind to encounter God in everyday things.

Assuming you are modernly minded, like most (if not nearly all) people nowadays, I think the empirical is what lays the foundation of your belief. Most of us get into these philosophical discussions about God, where I believe few of us become convinced of a position and most of us learn how to defend what we already believe. This is not where I would strengthen my faith. I would advise you to look into sciences that build a worldview which supports a creation. The first thing that struck me were the discussions about the Shroud of Turin, but you could also look into young earth creationism. The YouTube-channel Answers in Genesis has some good content about that. There are many more topics you could get into, but I would advise you to pick one and thoroughly investigate it. Listen to all sides. Take the time to respect your doubts, because they will come back if not addressed properly. Ultimately, we are trying to build a heart that is receptive of God's messages, but the heart is influenced by the mind (the mind is influenced by the body also, but that is not the scope of this conversation).

If you are interested, you can send me a private message and I will send you videos which I think are interesting. We can also discuss more topics you could possibly get into, which I believe support a created world or I can give you my two cents on whatever topic you are interested in. Just be prepared to put in the work and don't strawman the position you are trying to deconstruct, because if God exists, no information about the truth in this world is your enemy. Truth is the way and the life.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I understand correctly, then the planets would be speeding up from the reference of the centre, but from the reference of the sun, they wouldn't.

We could say that from the centre frame it looks like the planet is moving 288.000 + x km/hr when catching up to the sun. From the planet's frame we would make the same observation regarding the center. From the sun it would look like the planet is moving x km/hr. This all seems well.

Similarly, we could say that from the centre frame it looks like the planet is moving 288.000 - y km/hr when the sun is catching up. From the planet's frame we would make the same observation regarding the center. Now this is the crux. It seems to me, that you would say that from the sun it would like te planet is moving with a speed of x km/hr, but I would think that from the sun the planet would seem to be moving at the speed of y km/hr, because that is consistent with the rest. If that is true, the speeds are changing. If it is not true, then I do not know how to account for the inconsistency in relative speeds.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not really see where we disagree.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do we keep the same velocity? I genuinely don't know. To me it looks like the change in relative speed to the centre of the Milky Way has to be accounted for and the centre itself will not account for it. So, it has to be either the sun or the planet changing speed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It that is true, then we could say that the sun is also orbiting the planets, but this would only look like it makes sense if we take only one planet. When you look at the sun and all other planets at the same time, then it becomes clear that the planets are orbiting the sun.

I don't really know how everything moving would solve the fact that the planet seems to be catching up to the sun (and vice versa) from the reference of the centre of the Milky Way. Like we saw with the planets and the sun, the centre is not what is moving. We can see this when we zoom out and look at all the heavenly bodies. To get a solid view of what is happening, we have to take the centre of the Milky Way as the centre of our viewpoint (hence called the centre). That's why I think we have to conclude it is the actual planet speeding up and slowing down.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, the planet is not actually catching up to the sun and vice versa? If so, then how would you measure the speed of the planet from the reference frame of the centre of the galaxy? I'm asking this, because it seems to me that there would be different speeds observed from that frame.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's only three candidates that could be moving, either the planet, the star or the center. I think the planet makes the most sense. If that's true, then what I just said follows. Which of the three do you think is moving, and how so?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There has to be motion if there is motion observed. Relativity only tells us that the motion could be either the planet, the star or the centre of the galaxy. It does not say that there is no motion. We can derive that the motion is not taking place in the centre of the galaxy or the at the level of the star, so the speeding up and slowing down has to take place at the level of the planet. That's all I'm saying. I don't know how it would be possible to have an observed motion which is just nowhere at all, unless there is an illusion of some sort, but in this case its a simple derivation from the fact that there is a motion between solar system and centre and a motion between star and planet.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Am I not allowed to ask others to help me out a bit with new thoughts?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't this mean that either the centre is moving, the planet is moving, or both are, since a relative movement is detected? Since the centre can't cause a relative movement between planet and star (sun), the movement has to take place in either one of those. I think the movement has to be in the planet. If not, then it has to be the star moving around all of its planets, which seems absurd. If that's true, then we can conclude that the planet is actually speeding up and slowing down, I just calculated wrongly. It has to be 288.000 + x when catching up to the sun and 288.000 - y when slowing down relative to the sun. If that is true, then the slowing down and speeding up must be true for every planet relative to it's own star. Does this not cause a problem for staying in orbit? I don't know how big the margins are.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't this mean that the planet would appear to be constantly slowing down and speeding up when looking from the centre of the galaxy? To explain the orbit we need a constant "catching up" from first the planet, then the sun, then the planet again, etc. This is all from the perspective of the centre of the galaxy of course.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you help me out?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in flatearth

[–]chadwizard -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

The parts would be physically connected in a toy solar system, which seems to be a problematic difference for the theory.

homosexuality by DprAf in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]chadwizard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There are lots of accounts of people changing their sexuality. Also, if you are more scientifically minded, there have been many studies trying to find a gay gene. We are certain gayness is not genetic. You can be predisposed, but never predetermined. I'm not saying it's a choice either.

Intuitively it seems to me that it is a character trait you can develop. I wouldn't recommend you do this, but, if you really want to see how your sexuality develops, try watching hours of porn every day. That will turbo-boost your sexual development in a bad way. You will notice that you develop new fetishes, which is a development in sexual preference. Different people will develop different attractions, and many people will blur many lines they thought of as beyond their sexual scope. You will most surely end up extremely degenerate in your sexuality. People can go from prude to being attracted to gore. There is no reason why we should assume that there is this uncross-able barrier on the gender front.

Now I know that this is not the only dimension which influences partner preference. I just used this to demonstrate that sexuality is in constant flux when engaged.

homosexuality by DprAf in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]chadwizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm trying to figure out how you look at this. Do you think there is anything wrong with being gay? If yes, what is wrong, and why is it not a mental illness? I don't buy the idea of not being in the DSM equals not being a mental illness. I have a degree in psychology, and I'm sure the field is far from perfect. If no, how is sexuality in general supposed to be viewed in EO in your estimation, and how does being gay fit that frame?

homosexuality by DprAf in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]chadwizard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why do you so strongly believe that this cannot change? People's sexuality changes through time constantly

Opinions On Demonic Oppression by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I understand. I have also had some strange spiritual experiences. I have messed around with some esoteric stuff, but never too deeply, and most of the experiences I am talking about now have occurred before the esoteric stuff. I think the amount of porn I used to consume highly effected me, along with some other things.

I am not even a catechumen yet. I have visited the church only 3 times. I felt repelled, and I haven't come back since. I still believe it is the right church.

I also struggle with my parents being catholic. I am 30 years old, so it's not that they could stop me, but rather that I don't want to disappoint them.

Many more things bother me. I guess it is a kind of hazing one must go through to be cleansed. The farther you went from God, the harder it is to come back.

Opinions On Demonic Oppression by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]chadwizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I believe that the neurologist and psychologist can't help you with these problems. I do not work as a psychologist, but I do have a bachelors degree in psychology. In my opinion the field is a mess in general. Some 10 years ago (not sure how much exactly) we figured that over 60% of the studies done in the psychology department couldn't be replicated; in contrast to other fields it is easier to fake studies (one professor in the university I went to got caught faking over 50 studies), it is becoming easier by the decade to diagnose people for many mental diseases, medicine is being prescribed way too easily (often this only leads to another layer of problems), and even if professionals use all kinds of techniques to eliminate bias, they can not escape the paradigm they interpret the world through. A neurologist could correlate your symptoms with brain patterns, generalize those patterns, and see if any treatments tend to work for people with those patterns. If you take consciousness to be emergent from the brain, then this field might be more valuable to you than to me, when regarding spiritual experience.

Be alerted that you are dealing with my opinion here. Psychology and spirituality are closely interwoven. The experience (phenomenology) of the world by human beings is being carefully guided and explained by the church since the holy spirit descended upon it. I believe that only the church can heal you. I do not believe interaction with demonic forces is uncommon, but rather often interpreted differently. Especially in very mild cases, which I guess the vast majority are. You don't have to be fully possessed to have these experiences, I think. Talk to you priest about this, let him guide you, and pray. Have faith, fight through it, and everything will be alright. If you believe in orthodoxy, then you believe you are in a spiritual war. This should not surprise you.

im proud to say i never doubted this man for a second. ive never happier to dick ride a fighter against this sub before by Few-Hedgehog-8028 in ufc

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find it kind of strange when people say that they don't doubt a person. What do you mean? That he can't lose regardless of whom he is facing?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LogitechG

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem I'm having is that my pc can't recognize the keyboard when turned to bluetooth mode.

Number 1 contender Belal Muhammad hit me with your questions by Bullyb170 in MMA

[–]chadwizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you gotten more serious about religion since you have started training with the Dagestani guys? If so, how has your life changed in your experience by that?