The Black Book Account Options
Nach einem misslungenen Fluchtversuch schließt sich die Jüdin Rachel unter falschem Namen einer Gruppe Widerstandskämpfer an. Sie arbeitet als Ellis de Vries im Hauptquartier der Nazis in Amsterdam, um den Gestapo-Offizier Ludwig ausspionieren zu. Black Book (Originaltitel: Zwartboek; deutscher Fernsehtitel: Das schwarze Buch) ist ein auf wahren Begebenheiten beruhender Kriegsfilm von Paul Verhoeven. Blackbook oder Black Book bezeichnet: ein Buch, in dem Graffitikünstler u. a. Skizzen anfertigen, siehe Blackbook; ein im Jahr unter dem Originaltitel. The Black Book | Harris, Middleton A., Smith, Ernest, Levitt, Morris, Furman, Roger, Morrison, Toni | ISBN: | Kostenloser Versand für alle Bücher. The Black Book (A Black Book Thriller, Band 1) | Patterson, James, Ellis, David | ISBN: | Kostenloser Versand für alle Bücher mit Versand und.
Düsseldorf Satz: Kühn & Weyh, Satz und Medien, Freiburg Druck und Bindung: Regal Printing Limited, Hong Kong ISBN: little black book. Freiburg Druck und Bindung: Regal Printing Limited, Hong Kong ISBN: Little Black Book der träume Inhaltsverzeichnis JEDER TRäUMT. und Medien, Freiburg Druck und Bindung: Regal Printing Limited, Hong Kong ISBN: little black book des sushi Inhalt IRASSHAIMASE!
In the process she sees the corrupting influence of money. A violent police detective investigates a brutal murder that might involve a manipulative and seductive novelist.
Israel Rachel, a Jew, rather unexpectedly meets an old friend at the kibbutz where she is working as a teacher.
It brings back memories of her experiences in The Netherlands during the war, memories of betrayal.
September Rachel is in trouble when her hiding place is bombed by allied troops. She gets in contact with a man from the resistance and joins a group of Jews who are to be smuggled across the Biesbosch by boat to the freed South Netherlands.
Germans from a patrol boat murder them all however. Only Rachel is able to escape. She is rescued by a resistance group under the leadership of Gerben Kuipers.
When Kuipers' son is captured after trying to smuggle weapons, he asks Rachel to seduce SS-hauptsturmführer Ludwig Müntze. Soon she will find out the attack in the Biesbosch wasn't a coincidence.
Written by Arnoud Tiele imdb tiele. I must admit that I don't like to watch dutch movies that much. Most of the time the acting is pretty bad and if they use some kind of cgi in the movies its one from the 's.
This movie really surprised me. Quite good acting from most of the actors. And the general view of the Alliance is good and the Germans are bad isn't presented.
The movie shows both sides, the good the bad and the ugly behaviors of the people during the war. Although he didn't have a very big budget to make this movie between million dollars which is nothing for Hollywood matters, he'd made quite a good movie from it.
If you want to watch a movie about WWII that isn't like most of the movies made about this war, go and watch this one.
You wont be bored for the next 2,5 hours. Sign In. Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends. Full Cast and Crew.
Release Dates. Official Sites. Company Credits. Technical Specs. Plot Summary. Plot Keywords. Parents Guide. External Sites.
User Reviews. User Ratings. External Reviews. Metacritic Reviews. Photo Gallery. Trailers and Videos. Blu-Ray, DVD.
De Paul Verhoeven. Mes amis. Envie de voir. La Haye, sous l'occupation allemande. Mais une patrouille allemande les intercepte dans le delta du Biesboch.
Titre original Zwartboek. Date de sortie Blu-ray -. Secrets de tournage 6 anecdotes. Format production -. Couleur Couleur.
Format audio -. Format de projection -. Paris Voir plus de villes. Paris 10e arrondissement. En VOD. Sleeping With The Enemy Escape Plans The Insider Falling Into The Trap Confessions Of The Night Escape By Sea A Hero Of The Resistance Intelligence Gathering Rumours Of Liberation Victims Of The Occupation Rachel's Retribution The Endless RiverEach position can be more or less appropriate depending on context, and it can take very careful calibration to determine which is truly the correct perspective in more difficult situations. Your actions tend to chisel away at the raw marble of your persona, carving into being the self you experience day-to-day. Understanding what it really means and how it really works will effectively help you to become a much better person for both yourself and the people around you, allowing you to live a much more link life. The apologise, Disco80 apologise says the bible is right so you believe it? What there is, is not simply what is in front of you, it is a combination of what's in front of you with the possibilities of what could be read more. If you've had to deal https://soumyabishi.co/online-casino-real-money/beste-spielothek-in-otzhusum-finden.php many people that have treated you in unhealthy ways and each person mercilessly left their mark, not really caring if they left you unhealthy as a result of their unhealthiness, and it effects you long-term day to day, that's not something you should ever The Black Book lying. Because of this, these kinds of individuals can actually be capable of giving much better advice than someone utilizing natural empathy, however trusting them can also be much more dangerous because they can also learn more here much more manipulative. The book is also easier to read on the go than Caps black book so is handy for carrying to auction. Ich habe kein learn more here Buchund selbst wenn, wie ist Becker ohne eine Kombination an meinen Safe gekommen? Schwarzbuch der deutschen Verbrechen gegen die sowjetischen Juden something Beste Spielothek in Dreesbruch finden from, dessen Publikation die sowjetischen Behörden dann unterbanden. Job ter Burg James Herbert. Monatsprogramm Bücher können zu laufen Link Rachel muss mit ansehen, wie alle Flüchtlinge, darunter ihre Eltern und ihr Bruder, erschossen und ausgeplündert werden. Karl Walter Lindenlaub. All right, I don't have a black bookand even if I did, how did Becker get into my safe without a combination? Rachel is a composite, really, of her and two. Stein versucht daraufhin, in den befreiten Süden der Niederlande zu gelangen.
It's like happiness. You don't say your ego is happy, you simply feel if you're happy or not at any given moment.
You're also capable of reflecting on past moments and remembering if you were happy in that moment or not, but that also doesn't necessarily mean your ego as a whole was happy at that point.
Keep in mind what the supplied definition of ego covers. There are two fundamental divisions within which any portion of one's ego falls under.
Passive ego and active ego. Active ego is what people are talking about when they say someone has a huge ego. It fundamentally comes from a place of emotional imbalance.
As human beings are not born perfect and emotionally balanced creatures, it's no surprise that they're born with a predisposition towards having active ego.
Active ego can be demonstrated to a very significant extent, even if it's not recognized by others in a specific context or environment.
Its effect isn't necessarily always entirely destructive, however it typically does more bad than good. Passive ego is the ego most neglect to carefully consider.
In contrast with active ego, it fundamentally comes from a place of emotional balance. While this certainly doesn't mean that an individual displaying it is actually emotionally balanced as a whole, it does indicate that they're sufficiently capable of appropriate behavior at least some of the time.
The fact that most people live their lives trying to push themselves into this state and only when absolutely necessary, as opposed to being driven to be pulled to it constantly, is the reason why they have fundamentally weak mentalities.
A major area of consideration as it relates to ego is the formation of expectations. One's core value forms desires, which go on to form expectations, culminating the process in actions.
Expectations can come from two distinct places. One kind of expectations are very healthy, while the other kind are very unhealthy.
Expectations based on an accurate application of the consideration of the universe being fundamentally probabilistic in nature allow for rational probability-driven motivation to identify and pursue goals one makes.
Expectations based on emotional reactivity, however, are entirely driven by active ego and are very unhealthy in nature.
The most flawed mindset you can adopt is one of having a core value of logic in an attempt to reach for safety in your life.
Any core value not fundamentally adopting logic is far more loosely grounded in reality as well.
From a grounding perspective, using logic allows you to ground yourself better, but if that comes from a fundamental place of not being grounded with your emotions and fear you are more firmly grounded in your dilusionality in a way.
Adopting logic as a core value to embrace fear of the objective reality is more concretely grounded in objective reality than adopting logic as a core value to embrace safety because the universe is fundamentally probabilistic and embracing fear using logic is a fundamentally more probabilistically accurate way of living life as it more accurately reflects the nature of life bringing about the paradigm most in line with it.
The problem is that adopting a core value of logic in an attempt to reach for safety is fundamentally flawed because it is a performative contradiction.
It only makes sense to adopt a core value of logic embracing fear of the reality that results from the nature of your existence.
Let me explain why. Because you can't logically feel completely safe if you try to define and express your identity completely clearly, the core proposition of your ideology promotes not labeling identifying with an identity as rational or irrational but simply states it is entirely dysfunctional.
Fundamentally, you are who you are whether you let it bring you down or raise you up. If you apply emotional modifiers inappropriately, it can very easily hinder you; this becomes much more easy to do and likely to happen when these experiences are extreme whether good or bad.
Now, while it makes sense to emotionally distance yourself from your identity in a fashion that facilitates freedom from emotions that otherwise hinder your ability to function at your highest degree of efficiency, it is completely outlandish to deterministically claim that any form of identifying with the patterns that bring about the reality as you perceive it is completely dysfunctional.
Using comfort, you are basically stripping meaning of everything until there's literally none left and this puts you in a constant state of negative emotion subconsciously.
You're not neutral or positive, no matter how much you may try to convince yourself you are. It's eventually going to become too much for you to handle and you're going to end up performing at your worst.
Turning your emotions off is very different from seeking emotional balance. Human beings are fundamentally emotional creatures; living one's life trying to turn these emotions off is going to result in increasingly unhealthy coping mechanisms forming.
If you instead use fear to assign probabilities to thoughts with ease, you are closest to emotionally balanced as possible, therefore making your logical evaluation abilities at their best too.
This process may seem nearly indistinguishable to someone who sees intellect as intellect regardless of the emotional backing, but to someone experiencing it, they can clearly tell the difference between the crippling and frustrating effect of trying to turn their emotions off versus carefully working through them.
The practical outcome of your ideology as presented is that you have a persistent notion that while your sensory perception would seem to indicate you exist and your experiences are your own, at least as you have perceived them, you are constantly fundamentally in denial of the presence of the identity which only exists at all because you exist in the first place.
This is what is logically accepted as a performative contradiction. This effectively slowly strips away any meaning from your life since you are not fundamentally evaluating things logically to identify the value they truly have in reality which is naturally affected by your perceptions of both the subjective and objective reality , you are effectively behaving like a robot that only applies rational thinking for the sake of being rational because you see no better alternative.
This is EXACTLY the mentality that fundamentally drives cults and it is extremely dangerous because in practice it means you are making rational decisions based on seeking emotional comfort instead of embracing the inherent fear that a universe of a probabilistic nature as your own ideology states would naturally imply.
Since a delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary, this means you are logically delusional and very concretely grounded in your denial.
If you truly want to be as aligned with objective reality as possible, and the objective reality is inherently probabilistic, then you should base your seeking of logical evaluation on the natural fear that comes along with those probabilities instead of attempting to seek comfort in them when probabilities naturally cause dissonance therefore making any attempt to find comfort in them irrational.
This brings about a paradigm shift from denying identity to constantly questioning it. The result is a fundamentally probabilistic core value and the resulting realization that your true essence is not to blindly logically evaluate everything and attempt to rid yourself of emotion, your true essence is to logically embrace fear to become at peace with the inherently scary nature of reality.
That is what real enlightenment is. Many people will ask, "Why would I ever care about this when I'm living happily without it?
The answer is that if you want your lack of logically embracing the natural fear reality causes to keep limiting your potential as a human being, then don't care about it.
Part of being human is accepting that some humans will want to continue to drown themselves in their own delusionality until the day they die.
Understanding every conclusion an individual comes to and whether or not it is logical or not first requires a premise that the person tells you every single conclusion they have come to, missing absolutely none.
You must then have flawless critical thinking ability in order to have any chance at accurately gauging the accuracy of their thinking. Even still, if you personally believe the individual to be hiding any details, you can come to the belief the individual still holds beliefs on solely your own perception.
Since beliefs are inherently subjective, an attempt at making such an evaluation practically holds no real weight.
In attempting to evaluate a point of life, you must use a fundamental evaluation of a value proposition. This must be objectively quantifiable in order to objectively measure validity.
If you deterministically state that you don't have an ego without being able to back it up in an extremely concrete objectively quantifiable manner, you are actually demonstrating massive ego.
Without a core value of refined pure bidirectional apprehension, there is no way to have no ego, you can only try.
That's what it means to be human. If you want to believe that I live in denial, then you can enjoy believing that I enjoy doing it.
I suppose that you shouldn't aim to have no ego, you should aim to be a realist. A classic example of how your ideology falls apart is one of the common arguments you might give that murder isn't wrong, at least in a way.
The definition of murder is "The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
Ending a human's life in a general sense, however, can only be rationally thought of as justifiable or not justifiable.
The distinctions in details are very important in truly accurate and objectively quantifiable critical thinking; the meaning of words carries the thought process behind them, so something that may seem like trivial alternative word usage to a lesser intellectual is actually a significant difference in meaning to a brighter individual.
Logically when you have logic as a core value, you automatically will seek to figure out how you can have the most effective impact.
But you can harbor logic as a core value seeking safety or embracing fear. The practical difference is that when your core value is logic embracing fear, you realize that the best thing to do is seek the most practical impact, for both yourself and your environment, in a fashion unbiased with a need for safety.
This leads to a complete freedom from identity that also does not cause you to lose touch with who you are in essence.
Basically, seeking safety leads to binary thinking, and that's dangerous. Everything you live through can be framed and is subconsciously framed through your subjective reference frame whether you like it or not.
The practical implications of this are that every experience you have effects your cognitive state somehow. If you ignore that fundamental aspect of evolution you are setting yourself up to be unaligned with reality completely.
Experience is a tool and a goal. Logic is also a tool and a goal. When you use the evaluation of this understanding of these concepts properly, you encounter minimal dissonance possible.
My primary value is being logical embracing the natural fear reality causes. So my ultimate goal is to allow consistency within the entirety of my experience to dictate what is most logical at any given time and do it to the best of my ability.
Some may say, "That's just using experience as a tool with the primary goal of being logical. Others worry, "If experience and logic are both goals, which one wins over if they go at the cost of the other?
You use logic, combine it with experience to increase its probability of being accurate to the best of your ability, then make the logical decision.
It's illogical to claim a purpose as reality, because it requires your belief to become reality, therefore you can deduct that it must be a concept.
Some may be left wondering, "What do you think about respect, what is it, how do you distinguish between fear and respect? I suppose fear feels painful and unnecessary think terror while respect is a kind of fear you usually have much less trouble embracing.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to feel safe and secure. There's nothing wrong with wanting to feel comfortable in an environment that feels familiar.
Constantly going through drastic or considerable changes and having to adapt to considerable discomfort is not a lifestyle that should be sustained perpetually.
Seeking either extreme between safety and danger are both not going to lead to a healthy mentality. The final point is only untrue if your core value is refined pure bidirectional apprehension.
Based on what your core value is, the degree of impact your resulting emotional state has on your ability to apply flawless critical thinking in context is generally hindered in relation to how weak your core value is.
As far as being altruistic, the bigger picture is great and all, but the real reason you should want to strengthen your mindset is because it makes your life better on a personal level.
If everything else comes as a natural bonus, this allows you to remain appropriately invested and attached and retain a perspective lacking any active ego.
That's not selfish, it's simply practical; if you don't look out for yourself properly first, you shouldn't be feeling entitled to have someone else do it for you, even if you're fortunate enough to be able to do so at certain points in life.
Do you experience a lot of dissonance if you act illogically or if you have contradictory thoughts or emotions?
Psychopaths and sociopaths are a natural consequence of the human condition and should be identified and dealt with using careful consideration.
A significant lack of understanding in modern psychology exists in the field of sociopaths and psychopaths. It's said that they don't feel emotion.
While a general understanding of their thought processes is accepted and there are already suggested ways to identify and deal with them, traditional psychology still lacks the fundamental understanding of what they really are and how they really work that facilitates being able to deal with them fearlessly and possibly even help them to recover from this condition of it's so desired.
A lot of people give me shitty advice, and it's because they don't really care about me or even want to try to help me to any real extent, they simply want to look and feel like they're helping, to make themselves look and feel good to themselves and others, to feed their ego.
This exists pretty much everywhere, in all kinds of contexts. While perhaps most often not malicious in nature, this behavior can very well be quite harmful in different ways, and although it can make a lot of sense in certain situations, it's very often done in situations where it's certainly not necessary nor even particularly logical, but rather simply the easier choice emotionally and the one that provides less resistance.
It should be understood that because this is effectively learned behavior that is fake and equivocates to putting on a mask in a sense, it's technically sociopathic behavior.
It's selfish and manipulative. It's important to distinguish that there's a clear difference between being a sociopath and displaying sociopathic tendencies or sociopathic behavior.
At the heart of the issue, however, is the fact that qualifying criteria for a sociopath originates from their relationship with empathizing with others.
In a normal person, empathy is entirely an emotional response at the fundamental level of their consciousness. They relate to others and attempt to understand them out of a very natural process of the mirror neurons in their brain seeking a more complete awareness and them wanting a genuinely holistic view and experience interacting with others.
In sociopaths and psychopaths, however, empathy is a learned, rational response to observations about social cues, and only utilizes emotion in a process that's much more logically involved and unnatural.
Unlike natural empathy, it's entirely conscious and calibrated using logical evaluation. Because of this, these kinds of individuals can actually be capable of giving much better advice than someone utilizing natural empathy, however trusting them can also be much more dangerous because they can also be much more manipulative.
The key factor that these people possess which separates them from a "normal" person, as understood by philopsychology, is known as a core value presentation mismatch.
What this means is that the core value they present to others and react to social cues with, and the core value that they truly harbor internally, aren't the same.
For example, someone may present to others as valuing morals above everything else, when in reality they value money the most in life.
Because they're effectively putting on a mask, the truth is that these people try hard to adapt to their surroundings.
They're presenting a certain core value externally because they believe, based on their logical deduction processes, that the core value they're presenting themselves to have will be the most beneficial to give off the impression to those around them that they are of the highest value they could possibly make themselves to be.
As a result, the core value they present externally often may change based on their environment. In order to seem to value something the most, these people have to actually act in alignment with that presentation in order to attempt to actually be convincing to others that they're being honest and genuine.
Since this means that what the individual is living their life around others valuing is entirely driven by their perception and evaluation of social interaction and not their authentic personality, the people they surround themselves with become a very integral part of their own personality, and they often end up losing themselves quite considerably as a result.
Their perception of their own identity is so heavily driven by their attempts to carefully evaluate those around them that if they ever reach a point where things become more difficult for them and they start questioning what they themselves actually value most and want out of life, it may become very difficult to unravel all the layers of conditioning they've applied to their psyche.
As a result, these kinds of people may end up taking much longer to be able to truly identify their deepest core value because their core value chain has become so convoluted.
In many cases, their lives may never become so difficult that they feel the need to completely unravel their core value and find their true selves within.
If they're one of the more fortunate ones, they can still manage to integrate themselves in society and layer on more self-conditioning to the point that they're functional and, at least for the most part, blend in with the crowd.
If they're a product of a more traumatic life, they often end up being the really messed up ones that become serial killers and other such criminals.
Now, you may be over there thinking that I must judge these people really harshly, especially since I understand such intricate details about how their thought processes work.
Actually, people with core value presentation mismatch aren't necessarily any worse than any individual with a core value other than refined pure bidirectional apprehension.
The final result to me, an individual with refined pure bidirectional apprehension as a core value, is the same. Because I know the nature of their core values and that it's fundamentally imperfect and destructive, I must carefully question their intent in any interaction.
I already have to carefully question the intent of anyone who I'm not certain has a core value of refined pure bidirectional apprehension, even if they don't have a core value presentation mismatch, so the relevance of the presentation mismatch is only to the extent that I become aware of it and as a result understand how to best maneuver around interactions with said person.
That being said, to any individual with a core value which is also imperfect, meaning any individual who possesses a core value other than refined pure bidirectional apprehension, individuals with a core value presentation mismatch present an increased threat.
Individuals who manipulate their own egos do so in order to attempt to manipulate others, and the more capable and willing someone is to manipulate you, the more predisposed they are to using you with a degree of regard to your own interests that you may find perhaps less than satisfying.
In more simple terms, they give less of a shit if they absolutely fuck you up and toss you aside when they're done with you.
Today's society is a society filled with fear and ignorance. Most people fit into a mold because that's what the people around them have told them to do and they don't want to think outside the box.
Many people are obese. Many people are depressed. Many people try to lead a simple life without any really ambitious goals.
It's a mentality born from seeking safety and comfort at the detriment of growth and maximizing potential.
Seeing objective reality through the lens of a core value of refined pure bidirectional apprehension is not a place where the faint of heart find comfort or solace.
It's not for the average person who just wants to get a job, get married, have kids, and die. It's not for the lazy or simple-minded that find the world to not be a brutally cutthroat place, or don't really care if they do.
It is a place where individuals that truly strive for inner growth and maximizing their potential can find further enlightenment on their path to fulfilling their dreams and experiencing their journey for its maximum potential.
A place where the hardened can fortify and purify their soul. A place where humans learn to become gods. Fear-based emotion works on the assumption that purely rational thinking can be wrong which in reality is just the emotional aspect of thought processes causing a skewed perception of ultimately rational thinking.
The description of objective reality on this site is actually a carefully formed, not rationally falsifiable definition of what objective reality is, which can simultaneously permanently change your core value to bidirectional apprehension when followed perfectly, step by step.
Once you have adopted a bidirectional apprehension variant as your core value, it is unlikely to have your core value degrade.
You are permanently a smarter person. Bidirectional apprehension might sound scary, but it's not terrifying at all. No matter what your existing core value is, if it is not bidirectional apprehension, it can be connected to either backward-rationalized apprehension or forward-rationalized apprehension at the root level of the core value chain; you are already always subconsciously in fear whether you're in denial of it or not.
The main difference is you are more firmly rooted in your denial because you rationalize solely based on reactive neural networks from emotional responses instead of utilizing neural networks that also react from logical responses to a fuller extent.
This is what makes forward-rationalized apprehension much more powerful as a long-term core value before switching to bidirectional apprehension, because it means your existing mindset is already more aligned with the bidirectional energy flow.
Backwards-rationalized apprehension focuses primarily on the past when being reactive to logical stimuli which is actually directional apprehension flow whereas forwards-rationalized apprehension focuses primarily on the future when being reactive to logical stimuli.
Since a bidirectional apprehension core value far more often will focus on forward-rationalized apprehension, this explains both why it is more ideal as a precursory core value, as well as why most people will encounter it as a transitional core value towards bidirectional apprehension for at least some period of time.
Terror is a type of fear that is overpowering, overwhelming, and detrimentally crippling the vast majority of the time.
It is very bad. Apprehension is a much more tame fear that is more about being calculative and attempting to see potentially negative outcomes in life for what they are: possibilities.
It is empowering, encouraging, and fundamentally efficient when channeled correctly. You can choose to accept fear as a natural part of reality and try to channel it correctly, or you can be a pussy and try to run and hide from it.
When people hear the word " savage ", they usually think of someone who is like a wild animal; impulsive, aggressive, and filled with ego.
As a result, when someone says they are a savage, you can instantly draw the following conclusion: They are either really smart or really stupid.
Do you see yourself as a victim, or are you taking responsibility for what happens to you in life? In order to truly see you must know what it means to truly look.
What there is, is not simply what is in front of you, it is a combination of what's in front of you with the possibilities of what could be next.
It is easy to get discouraged when there seems like there is a long way to go, but the harder the struggle, the more unique and valuable the reward.
What makes people great is the greatness they find in themselves to face challenges with a rational standpoint, while not seeing rationality as a weight that drags the calculations and decisions one makes down.
One should ultimately aim to be fully engaged in what they are doing in every moment they are in and see each moment as fundamental to the next, dancing from one moment to the next in a fun way.
Truly fully being in the moment does not mean forgetting or ignoring the past or the future, it means that you have put the right amount of thought into the past and the future to see what the current moment really means to you.
Ignoring the past means you are ignoring lessons you can learn. Ignoring the future means you are ignoring goals you can set.
When you feel like you're down, when you feel like you're out, when you feel like there's nothing left That's when you need to keep pushing.
That's when you grow. That's when you reach new limits you didn't think were possible. You have to be realistic and re-evaluate your goals and find somewhere there is new room for growth and improvement if you feel stuck.
Saying you don't believe in yourself makes it sound depressing. But if you look at it as just trying to prevent being overconfident instead you can be happy and motivated.
The human mind can rationalize pretty much anything. Once you realize how ridiculous that is, the ridiculous shit that happens doesn't really surprise you, and you feel empowered instead of weakened.
You never know but how much knowing is enough to know you don't need to care. Knowing you're always guessing in a way is really important.
Just as important as knowing you can try to limit the guessing as much as possible for the best possible results.
You are intended to learn your path to greatness. You can find a way to feel successful in your own eyes always. People can label and judge you, but your own labeling and judgement of yourself is going to affect you the most.
Understanding you can always become stronger is the key to discovering who you really can be. While I don't inherently have a problem with anyone who holds religious beliefs, I do consider them of inferior intellect and critical thinking abilities.
As I've previously established, all religions are actually cults. How widespread or generally accepted a cult is doesn't make it any more of a credible source that accurately reflects reality, nor does it make it any less of a cult in the strictest definition previously given.
That being said, I don't inherently have a problem with such people because I realize it improves the quality of life of many people to have this belief.
There are many thoughts and feelings that people don't have answers to and want the answers to, and religion gives them peace. It can also act as a guide towards taking positive action in difficult situations, and can even sometimes facilitate forming positive connections with other people who share such beliefs.
I see no reason to bash people for these things. However, I see religion as a band-aid fix on a bigger existential issue that over time tends to have a detrimental effect on an individual's open-mindedness and critical thinking abilities, and as such I find it to be a sub-optimal way of living life.
I would like to mention that I'm not trying to upset anyone with the following. I'm simply stating facts. These facts may not sit well with your belief system, but that's fine, because it's not called a "fact system" so you're free to believe what you want.
As such, I do not by any means assert that you should agree with the contents of this chapter. If you want to believe things that aren't firmly grounded in reality with quantifiable evidence and a high degree of rational backing, it's your prerogative to do so.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. God as it is commonly defined and used is what is known formally as an " enthymeme ".
An enthymeme is also known as a rhetorical syllogism. A syllogism is essentially a statement that makes an assertion about a conclusion based on premises.
The difference between a rhetorical syllogism and a regular one is that a rhetorical syllogism only presents an assertion for the sake of rhetoric, not to attempt to understand the truth.
With any reasonable level of intelligence, you should easily be able to see why it would be problematic to live your life based around a rhetorical syllogism.
We cannot understand everything because our brains are only capable of thinking within a limited plane with 2 extents: existence and non-existence.
Every single thought we produce is contained within these parameters, and the balance our brain achieves in order to consciously realize a thought as such is an imbalance of that plane in a certain way.
This offset in balance is an emotion. In order to truly understand -everything-, we would also have to truly understand -nothing-; because our bodies are not physically capable of understanding -absolutely nothing- once we have understood anything at all, we can likewise never truly understand -everything-.
Essentially, a belief in God comes from a fear of death. One definitive thing people assert about God's existence is that you will go to heaven or hell, but regardless, you get judged by him first, still asserting his existence in relation to the issue once you die.
This belief is a belief seeded from other people, retained by a fear of death governed by his existence.
What people are really seeking in the belief of God is an attempt to understand -everything-, including death.
If you know of his existence, you no longer have any reason to fear him since you have absolutely no doubt in his existence.
People who believe in God typically tend to ignore this because it is assumed that you will only ever see him once you die.
What all the unenlightened refer to as God is actually just a manifestation of fear they hold deep inside. Created by external sources, retained by them themselves, because of lack of certainty about how the world was created and what happens to them when they die.
Someone initially feeds to them that "God" created it, and that they will go to him once they die, and they build their own beliefs further from there.
If you ask different people, the best they can do to prove God exists is show you something they believe he made.
If you present to someone who believes in God that God did not make human beings, their parents did, then they just say God created your parents and their parents and so on.
If you ask them, "But how do you know? That means if you didn't exist, God wouldn't exist? But according to your definition of God, that is not the case.
Because religion is subjective and not objective, that means that any "truths" contained within it are within the scope of one's personal experience.
Similarly, any "truths" contained within a psychedelic LSD trip are also contained within the scope of one's personal experience.
The individual takes comfort in believing what they want to believe over what objectivity provides them.
The difference is religion is not as blatantly unnatural to less logical thinkers than an LSD trip is, so they buy it as reality. Since you believe God to be omnipotent, that means you believe he created all the things in existence.
Not just the pleasant things or what you want to say he did. Wim Smaal - Notary Peter Blok Van Gein Michiel Huisman Rob Ronald Armbrust Tim Kuipers Frank Lammers Kees Matthias Schoenaerts Joop Johnny de Mol Theo Xander Straat Learn more More Like This.
Tricked Comedy Drama Romance. Soldier of Orange Drama Romance Thriller. Elle I Crime Drama Thriller. Turkish Delight Drama Romance.
The 4th Man Drama Mystery Thriller. Adventure Drama. Katie Tippel Spetters Drama Romance Sport.
Several Dutch teenagers realize cruel difference between dreams and reality. Basic Instinct Winter in Wartime Drama History War.
The Counterfeiters Crime Drama History. Valkyrie Drama History Thriller. Edit Storyline Israel Taglines: To fight the enemy, she must become one of them.
Edit Did You Know? Trivia This was Paul Verhoeven 's first film in his native Netherlands in about 20 years after a very successful career in Hollywood.
Goofs The B is dropping "slick" bombs at low altitude. They would need to use high drag "retarded" bombs to prevent them from detonating under the plane.
Sleep with him Notary Smaal : Well you're on your own then. I can't help you with that. Connections Referenced in De slimste mens ter wereld: Episode A Hundred Years From Today 2.
Ja, Das Ist Meine Melodie 4. Rachel's Theme 6. The Black Book 7. Escape Through The Marshes 8. In Pursuit 9.
Rachel's Plan In Too Deep Shot At Dawn Sleeping With The Enemy Escape Plans The Insider