₦airaland Forum

TheDevilsBride:
...and you're relying on a primary misunderstanding of the difference between evidence and opinion.



...coming from someone with a persecution complex so elaborate, it deserves its own Netflix series.



The structure of your assessment here is amusing: "Was it wrong? Yes. Was it bias? Yes because I say so". A true testament to the non-existence of your logical rigor.



Defending the concept of institutional accountability isn't quite the same as defending the FBI itself, but then again, you've already shown repeatedly, that nuance isn't exactly your strongest suit.



If you seriously think executive orders are famously permanent, and are unassailable pieces of governance, as opposed to basic political tools that change with each coming administration, then I can only smh, and laugh at your naive presumptions, lol.



The irony here is thick enough, to spread on toast, given that your entire case, rests firmly on your creative interpretation of the facts.

tctrills:
This idea that you are on the side of institutional response is just a cover. If the institutional response of the FBI is no longer in line with your argument, will you still accept it.

We now have a new FBI director with a very different opinion and institutional response from the formal so are you still on the side of institutional response or was it only a pretense to protect your argument?

It's funny that you decide that your opinion is evidence.
All through the discussion, you have only depended on your opinion.

Was the FBI bias in it's action against catholics? Yes it was. And the evidence say so.
Let me lay the evidence below. You tell me if it is opinion or clear evidence.

1. The FBI’s leaked Richmond memo labeled "radical-traditionalist Catholics" (RTCs) as potential extremists, suggesting they could be monitored for domestic terrorism. This singled out a specific religious group based on their beliefs rather than actual threats.

2. Reports indicated that the FBI considered using informants or sources within Catholic churches to monitor members, a tactic that echoes historical abuses against religious minorities and implies unwarranted suspicion.

3. While many extremist groups exist across various religious and ideological backgrounds, the FBI’s disproportionate focus on Catholics raises questions about why similar scrutiny wasn't applied to comparable groups with a history of violence or radicalization.

4. After public backlash, the FBI distanced itself from the Richmond memo, with officials acknowledging that it did not meet investigative standards. This suggests an initial willingness to act on anti-Catholic bias until it was publicly exposed.

Now I have given you clear evidence and not opinion.

Lastly, institutional response always depends on who is in charge of the institution. If you only accept certain institutional response, it's dishonest to use institutional response as your argument.

Look for a better reason.

Let me ask you, was the FBI"s institutional response biased to Muslims after 9/11?
Do we have evidence that it was biased?

I really want to see you support the FBI 9/11 response since you must always be on the side of the instructions.

We can also discuss the CIA's actions in the so called Banana republics since you must always take side with institutional response?

TheDevilsBride:
It is a documented fact that the previous FBI leadership already acknowledged the error, and corrected it, irregardless of future leadership changes, so you're still fighting ghosts my dear.



Just because there's a new nominee for the office of FBI director, who has potentially different views, doesn't retroactively validate or invalidate any previous actions. Each institutional response is evaluated independently based on its own alignment with the constitutional principles and law enforcement standards that have been established. So what are you on about, hmmm?



You may keep telling yourself that, until you're purple in the face, but the reality here is that in this discussion, I have cited documented actions, such as the creation of the memo review, it's rescission, official statements from the director etc etc, while you're here inferring institutional bias from a simple administrative error. Methodology: that's the key distinction in the way we have both approached the evidence.



You're asking the wrong questions, I'm afraid. The question of whether the FBI made a mistake is completely irrelevant, as they clearly did and have admitted it. The question here, is whether that mistake constitutes evidence of systematic bias. A single corrected error doesn't offer enough gas to support that broader claim, just as a single rainy day does not necessarily prove a climate pattern.



...and for the umpteenth time, this is exactly the reason for which it was rescinded. You're conflating a withdrawn analytical framework, with active surveillance.



Going undercover is arguably the primary investigative method of the FBI, lol. They use it in investigations across all demographics, from Wall Street, all the way to Walmart parking lots, so this is a puerile charge. Are we to clutch our pearls and cry persecution every single time law enforcement agencies use investigative methods that are well established? Perhaps you'd prefer them to send a formal RSVP before conducting surveillance, hmmm? "Dear Potential Suspects, We cordially request your attendance at your own investigation...", lmao.



The absurdity of this position rather speaks for itself, since the FBI concentrates mainly on specific leads and threats, and not demographic quotas. It's almost like you ignored the true origin of how this investigation started in the first place, from an extremist member of a subgroup with bizarre ideologies, who relate strongly to the Catholic faith. Based on the circumstances and nature of the case, the FBI needed to focus their investigation on Catholic extremists/radicals. But I'm guessing based on your logic, they should have gone ahead the find some Buddhist rascals to balance the books, even though the case had literally nothing to do with Buddhists or Buddhism.



So essentially, this is your argument: When an institution makes a mistake and corrects it, this somehow constitutes proof of their initial malicious intent. Now, read that last sentence over and over again, and if it still makes any sense to you, please walk me through the logic behind it. Maybe you can even break it down using syllogisms, because right now, and truly no offense intended, I think this is the most braindead, disingenuous, absolutely retardéd argument I've seen anyone make this year, with a straight face, no less.



Then perhaps, you have mixed up the definitions of those two words "evidence" and "opinion", in your head, because what you've provided here is simply your own interpretation of the case, and your interpretations don't magically transmute from subjective analysis into objective fact, by simply calling them "clear evidence".



Are you suggesting that just because institutional responses vary based on leadership, we should therefore, not consider institutional responses as valid arguments unless of course, presumably, they happen to align with your preferred narrative?



The reasons have long been provided. You just pretend not to see them, because you don't like the taste of defeat, lol.



False equivocation. This is yet another instance of you loading up bullets to shoot yourself in your own foot with, just like you did when you brought up JWs in the army discourse, lmao. If you were the least bit aware, of the vast difference in scale, scope, duration, and institutional entrenchment between those two situations, you wouldn't even think of comparing them. Now look at you here, attempting to draw a spurious parallel between a case of years-long systematic targeting, which included warrantless wiretapping, religious and ethnic profiling, and even the creation of entire programs specifically aimed at targeting Muslim communities, and comparing it to a single memo that was promptly rescinded, the moment its overreach was identified. Abi did you forget, that the targeting of Muslims continued, even in spite of mounting evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of their approach?

I mean, the singular fact that we can readily acknowledge and criticize the FBI's post-9/11 overreach, while also recognizing their swift correction of the Catholic memo, curiously enough, serves to demonstrate a proper example, of institutional evolution and learning which is precisely the opposite of what you've been trying to prove here, lmao.



The fact that I can recognize when an institution makes a mistake, and promptly corrects it, is not the same as me blindly supporting everything it has ever done, and this rather desperate attempt from you to try and pigeonhole me with a particular viewpoint, reveals more about your binary thinking, than my position.



The fact that you felt the need to reach out for such dramatically disparate comparisons, from 9/11 surveillance to banana republics, is a very spectacular demonstration of how shallow your original argument was. I've never seen someone reach so much, without actually getting anywhere, lmao.

27 Religious Groups Sue Trump Administration To Shield Houses Of Worship From Immigration Arrests
Trump

February 11, 2025
NEWS

No fewer than two dozen Christian and Jewish organisations, representing millions of Americans, have filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration.

The suit is challenging a new policy that grants immigration agents broader authority to conduct arrests at houses of worship, according to Reuters.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, argues that the policy instills fear among congregants, leading to decreased attendance at worship services and essential community programs.

The plaintiffs claim this infringes on their religious freedom, specifically their ability to minister to migrants, including undocumented individuals.

“We have immigrants, refugees, people who are documented and undocumented,” said Most Rev. Sean Rowe, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church.

“We cannot worship freely if some of us are living in fear,” he told The Associated Press. “By joining this lawsuit, we’re seeking the ability to gather and fully practice our faith, to follow Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include major faith organizations such as: The Episcopal Church (1.5 million members); Union for Reform Judaism (over 1 million members); Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (1.1 million members); African Methodist Episcopal Church (1.5 million members); Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Church of the Brethren

Others are: Convención Bautista Hispana de Texas (1,100 Hispanic Baptist churches); Friends General Conference (Quakers); Mennonite Church USA (50,000 members); Unitarian Universalist Association; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and United Methodist Church and United Church of Christ

The lawsuit builds on a similar legal challenge filed on January 27 by five Quaker congregations, which was later joined by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and a Sikh temple. That case is currently pending in U.S. District Court in Maryland.

The Trump administration has not issued an immediate response to the new lawsuit. However, a Department of Justice (DOJ) memorandum opposing the earlier Quaker lawsuit suggests a likely legal defense.

The DOJ argues that the lawsuit is based on “hypothetical future harm”, which does not justify blocking the policy. The memo also notes that immigration enforcement at houses of worship has been allowed for decades, and the new rule only removes the requirement for pre-approval from supervisors.

Kelsi Corkran, lead counsel for the lawsuit and a lawyer at Georgetown University Law Center, warned that the policy gives immigration agents unrestricted authority.

“Now it’s go anywhere, any time,” she told AP. “They have broad authority to swoop in — they’ve made it very clear they’ll get every undocumented person.”

She cited a case where a Honduran man was arrested outside his family’s church in Atlanta while a service was ongoing.

Plaintiffs argue that the policy endangers community outreach efforts, including food banks, meal programs, and homeless shelters.

The Latino Christian National Network, another plaintiff, described a rise in fear among immigrant communities.

https://saharareporters.com/2025/02/11/27-religious-groups-sue-trump-administration-shield-houses-worship-immigration-arrests

tctrills:
Do you really know anything about the case? Let's be sincere you really knew nothing about this case until I brought it up.

The FBI leadership did nothing about the case until its documents leaked to the public. Please educate yourself better on the case.

Before the leak, the FBI didn’t take visible action to address concerns. It was only after public backlash that the FBI retracted the memo, with Director Christopher Wray stating it was against agency policy and should never have been issued.

That's not how you want the FBI to be run. You don't want your FBI to react to bias only after pubic outcry.

Secondly, the evil officers involved were not sacked.

Now your institutional response argument makes less Sense the more your make it.

Remember, you said you only believe in institutional response.
Trump's executive orders all fall under institutional response. How come you are not in support.

You pick and choose which institutional response to agree with.
In essence, you have zero regards for institutional response unless it aligns with your beliefs.

That means your entire argument is really based on nothing except you don't like Trump's executive order.
Your support of the FBI is base on those same emotions.

Do you know why the FBI director was saddened by the actions of his boys?
It is because their actions clearly showed bias.

They investigated a people because of their beliefs and branded them as radical. Oga, that's the definition of bias.

If the evidence is not clear enough for you then nothing can.

If you investigate me because of my religion, how is that not bias.

Again, I disagree with you. A single corrected error could be enough to show bias. Especially if it was not corrected until public outcry and hearings.

The FBI corrected it's single bias against japanese Americans in WW2. Would your u erase history because it was just one error?

The after 9/11 Muslim bias was just one error and it has been corrected so let's delete history and claim it never happened.

Learn to apply your theories all through. If it doesn't make sense in one case then discard it.

Lastly, you call my argument shallow because you can't provide answers. Anyone can call the other persons argument shallow. It doesn't mean anything if you can't provide answers to simple questions.

Oga, are you ok with the institutional response of the FBI in the case of the 9/11 Muslims or in the banana republic era?

If no, then your institutional response argument in nonsense but if yes then I can say your argument is coming from an honest please.

I will accept that you take institutional response very serious and I will try to educate you on the dangers of accepting the institutional response.

Tightpussy2024:
Which God? The God that led him to be a felon( over 30 cases) or the God that led him to rape a 13 year old girl and sexually harass women? Or the God that made him malign and insult people? Or the God that made him divorce three times? Which of the God?

TheDevilsBride:
It is a documented fact that the previous FBI leadership already acknowledged the error, and corrected it, irregardless of future leadership changes, so you're still fighting ghosts my dear.



Just because there's a new nominee for the office of FBI director, who has potentially different views, doesn't retroactively validate or invalidate any previous actions. Each institutional response is evaluated independently based on its own alignment with the constitutional principles and law enforcement standards that have been established. So what are you on about, hmmm?



You may keep telling yourself that, until you're purple in the face, but the reality here is that in this discussion, I have cited documented actions, such as the creation of the memo review, it's rescission, official statements from the director etc etc, while you're here inferring institutional bias from a simple administrative error. Methodology: that's the key distinction in the way we have both approached the evidence.



You're asking the wrong questions, I'm afraid. The question of whether the FBI made a mistake is completely irrelevant, as they clearly did and have admitted it. The question here, is whether that mistake constitutes evidence of systematic bias. A single corrected error doesn't offer enough gas to support that broader claim, just as a single rainy day does not necessarily prove a climate pattern.



...and for the umpteenth time, this is exactly the reason for which it was rescinded. You're conflating a withdrawn analytical framework, with active surveillance.



Going undercover is arguably the primary investigative method of the FBI, lol. They use it in investigations across all demographics, from Wall Street, all the way to Walmart parking lots, so this is a puerile charge. Are we to clutch our pearls and cry persecution every single time law enforcement agencies use investigative methods that are well established? Perhaps you'd prefer them to send a formal RSVP before conducting surveillance, hmmm? "Dear Potential Suspects, We cordially request your attendance at your own investigation...", lmao.



The absurdity of this position rather speaks for itself, since the FBI concentrates mainly on specific leads and threats, and not demographic quotas. It's almost like you ignored the true origin of how this investigation started in the first place, from an extremist member of a subgroup with bizarre ideologies, who relate strongly to the Catholic faith. Based on the circumstances and nature of the case, the FBI needed to focus their investigation on Catholic extremists/radicals. But I'm guessing based on your logic, they should have gone ahead to find some Buddhist rascals to balance the books, even though the case had literally nothing to do with Buddhists or Buddhism.



So essentially, this is your argument: When an institution makes a mistake and corrects it, this somehow constitutes proof of their initial malicious intent. Now, read that last sentence over and over again, and if it still makes any sense to you, please walk me through the logic behind it. Maybe you can even break it down using syllogisms, because right now, and truly no offense intended, I think this is the most braindead, disingenuous, absolutely retardéd argument I've seen anyone make this year, with a straight face, no less.



Then perhaps, you have mixed up the definitions of those two words "evidence" and "opinion", in your head, because what you've provided here is simply your own interpretation of the case, and your interpretations don't magically transmute from subjective analysis into objective fact, by simply calling them "clear evidence".



Are you suggesting that just because institutional responses vary based on leadership, we should therefore, not consider institutional responses as valid arguments unless of course, presumably, they happen to align with your preferred narrative?



The reasons have long been provided. You just pretend not to see them, because you don't like the taste of defeat, lol.



False equivocation. This is yet another instance of you loading up bullets to shoot yourself in your own foot with, just like you did when you brought up JWs in the army discourse, lmao. If you were the least bit aware, of the vast difference in scale, scope, duration, and institutional entrenchment between those two situations, you wouldn't even think of comparing them. Now look at you here, attempting to draw a spurious parallel between a case of years-long systematic targeting, which included warrantless wiretapping, religious and ethnic profiling, and even the creation of entire programs specifically aimed at targeting Muslim communities, and comparing it to a single memo that was promptly rescinded, the moment its overreach was identified. Abi did you forget, that the targeting of Muslims continued, even in spite of mounting evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of their approach?

I mean, the singular fact that we can readily acknowledge and criticize the FBI's post-9/11 overreach, while also recognizing their swift correction of the Catholic memo, curiously enough, serves to demonstrate a proper example, of institutional evolution and learning which is precisely the opposite of what you've been trying to prove here, lmao.



I can recognize when an institution makes a mistake, and promptly corrects it, but how this translates to me blindly supporting everything it has ever done, is a puzzle you have to solve for me by yourself, lol. Also, this rather desperate attempt from you to try and pigeonhole me with a particular viewpoint, reveals more about your binary thinking, than my position.



The fact that you felt the need to reach out for such dramatically disparate comparisons, from 9/11 surveillance to banana republics, is a very spectacular demonstration of how shallow your original argument was. I've never seen someone reach so much, without actually getting anywhere, lmao.

tctrills:
Let's summarize everything you are saying and see how much sense it makes.

You believe you believe that as long as a wrong action is corrected, it doesn't qualify as bias. By your argument, slavery of blacks was not bias. It was corrected.

Whenever your argument is extended to any other event, it stops making sense. It's a very shallow argument.

The fact that you are scare to compare this to any event I mentioned shows that your argument can't stand the test if time. It is very weak.

Again you have clearly changed your thoughts on institutional response. I am happy I was able to correct you Abit. Please go back and read your first thoughts on institutional response. It was very funny.

The FBI'S Post 9/11 actions where corrected does that not qualify as bias? If it does, point out how it is different from this case. That would be an intelligent response from you.

You say I am guilty of False equivocation and the major difference you were able to spot out is that one took a longer time than the other. By your measure, everything is false equivocation. No two events are exactly the same or take the exact time. So that's not a serious argument.

Now let's look at the similarities.
Specific religious groups were wrongly targeted for investigation and were spied upon. The 2 cases are extremely similar coming from an organization with such history.

Again you have a slim point when you say wiretapping was involved in the Muslim case. But I guess you don't know that wiretapping is only a form of spying. Spies were planted in the Catholic case also.

Another huge difference you spotted was that just one memo was all it took to enforce the Catholic targeting. You did not state how many memos were needed in the post 9/11 case. I guess you think that the more the memos the more serious the case. You are only being childish with your argument.

Let's get a bit serious and point out the similarities.
In both cases, groups were targeted because of religion. That called bias.
In both cases spying was involved. And it was hidden from the public until it was leaked.

It was you who proved that institutional response is not a valid point because it is only used when the response aligns with your emotions. So yes, it's not a valid argument. It's a nonsense argument.

Clearly you don't understand what evidence is. I never gave you my opinion, I gave you the facts as they are.

I know that if not for this argument, you will agree that when people are targeted for their religion it is bias. But we are arguing, so you can never agree.

To you, a corrected mistake can no longer be labeled as bias. We both know that you are only inventing things for the sake of argument. If not, by your definition, black slavery was not bias, it was corrected.

Less I forget, you said something about the taste of defeat. I really hope you were not insinuating that you won the argument because that would be a very unwise thing to say.
Declaring yourself victorious without an umpire is very dumb. Imagine students in charge of grading their exams, no one would ever fail. Or imagine a professional football game without a ref.
I cannot declare victory because I have not been able to pull you over to my side. To me, that's the purpose of these public discussions. I don't see the point in killing a goat and declaring victory when you are still where I met you. You still believe that targeting a particular religion in not bias.

TheDevilsBride:
Forgive me as I laugh at this statement, because I believe you've already attempted, not once, not twice, but thrice, to distill my position into a coherent mess, and each time, your words have ended up in a jumbled heap, like a laundry basket. I'm starting to think that the greater illness here, lies not in my argument, but in your inability to grasp it.



Smh, there you go again, cross-eyed, misrepresenting a clearly written position. If I see someone making a biased statement and I immediately retract it after realizing that error, that's a large row of planets away, from someone who maintains and defends racist views for years, or an institution that systematically enforces discriminatory policies. The scale, duration, intent, and institutional entrenchment matter enormously when analyzing bias, but you don't wish to hear this. Your brain simply can't grasp the concept of nuance, lmao.



Failure to distinguish a rescinded memo, from centuries of institutionalized oppression suggests to me that you're the one, doing the shallow diving here, into the kiddie pool of false equivalences. What's the point of summarizing what I say, when you're fully committed to rhetorical jijutsus, and context-free analysis, hmmm? At this point, mate, just hang your coat.



All you've being doing here can be likened to stubbing your toe on the kitchen stool, and crying that it is exactly the same as being hit by a meteorite, because they both involve impact. I'm not obligated to entertain such ridiculous equivocations.



I've maintained throughout my submissions, that institutional response must be evaluated within its proper context, but no matter how times it is pointed out to you, alas, it must elude you like water through a sieve. My position never changed; you're just not poised enough to understand how complex the topic really is, as opposed to the simplified strawman you've been so enthusiastically tilting at. Your amusement is expected though, when you're accustomed to seeing everything in black and white, red becomes so fascinating, lol.



Match:

> Institutional bias crystallized into policy, defended at every level, and maintained despite years of protest.

vs.

> An overreach that the institution's own safeguards caught out and corrected immediately.

If you still struggle to see the difference, then perhaps remedial classes are in order, lmao.



Let's go further into the distinctions here:

So, the post-9/11 surveillance was:
1> Deliberately planned and implemented as policy.
2> Defended and maintained despite clear evidence of bias.
3> Resisted change at multiple institutional levels.

The FBI memo was:
1> Promptly corrected when identified.
2> Acknowledged as inappropriate by the FBI leadership itself.
3> Not defended as policy.

QED



Scale and context, buddy. Scale and context. Do you even remember how this investigation started, hmmm?



By this logic, a security camera at a bank and the NSA's satellite network must basically be the same thing, lol.



Not that I'm surprised that you'll miss it, as you can't tell your left from your right anyways, but the quantity of memos was never the point. It's the institutional entrenchment and systemic nature of the policy that matters.



Is it your argument that the presence of similar elements, translates to two separate situations being equivalent? Do you realize how thick and shallow this assertion truly is?



Is there proof of this nonsense claim, or is this just another one of your cheap, unnecessary lies?



...he declares, by his own opinions, in a case of exquisite irony, lol, smh.



So you've graduated from mind reading to alternate reality construction. Incredible. Your talents are truly expanding .



...and here we go again with the trite and unfounded slavery comparison. It's starting to resemble the argumentative equivalent of you pulling the fire alarm because you can't make a convincing argument, lol.



Mate, you've just spent several paragraphs, over the last two days, declaring your own understanding to be superior. Your self-awareness here is approaching absolute zero.

tctrills:
You are now repeating yourself and going around in circles. I am sure we will have other discussions.

For you to say that because the 9/11 case was policy and the one against Catholics was not, hence there was no bias against Catholics shows how despite you are getting.

Just so you know, it is much easier to hide bias when it isn't policy and that's why it took someone from the inside to leak the whole thing.

So if a racist cop beats up a black kid, I guess you will say that it isn't racism since it's not police policy even if the police chief does nothing about it until it leaks to the public.

That argument is weak and pathetic even for your standard.

I noticed that you keep repeating and have not added any new points to the discussion.

I suggest we postpone until another topic connects us again.

What say you?

TheDevilsBride:
It's the only thing I can do, when my opponent insists on circular arguments, like a dog chasing its own tail.



Correlation doesn't equals causation, and that's a common truism. That you're unaware of it, is no one's fault but yours.



...because the most effective way to conceal institutional bias is to go ahead and write it down, then distribute it in memos, hmmm?



We're now comparing a corrected memo to unpunished police brutality? Are you, by any chance, planning to participate in the 2028 Olympic triple jump, lol?



Your own standards must be fascinating, I assume. Do they happen to include a section on professional projection, hmmm?



What will it profit me to add any new points when you're still struggling with the simple concept of "different things are different", lmao?



Taking your ball and going home then? It's just as well, seeing as you haven't managed to score any goals, thus far.



I say your timing is impeccable, especially given that you're quickly running out of false analogy ammos. I do hope our next encounter finds you better acquainted with the concept of nuance.

tctrills:
Again, this is you repeating all you have said.

Unfortunately, I could not convince you of the incorrectness of your thinking.

Till next time.Have a great day sir.

merits:
Trump second term is just for revenge nothing more than that executive order both left and right.It is well.

Elusive001:
Where are those Muslims who asked why Christians support Trump. Are they with me?

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger announces conversion from skeptic to Christianity
Bible 'withstands questioning,' Larry Sanger told Fox News Digital
By Kristine Parks Fox News
Published March 9, 2025 10:00am EDT | Updated March 9, 2025 10:11am EDT

Watch: Wikipedia co-founder announces conversion to Christianity
For Larry Sanger, finding faith in God was a surprise, even to him.

"If you did not know this change, and if you knew me before 2020, this might be a surprise," Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia, wrote in a recent blog post announcing his conversion to Christianity.

In the post on his website entitled, "How a Skeptical Philosopher Becomes a Christian," Sanger revealed how he had lost his childhood faith as a teenager and became a believer in "methodological skepticism." Over the years, his views began to slowly change as he re-examined the arguments for the existence of God, ultimately leading him to read the entire Bible and convert to Christianity.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Sanger explained how his inquisitive nature led him to have doubts about God as a young adult but later led him back to God and faith in Christ.

ACTOR MARK WAHLBERG EXPLAINS HIS FAITH JOURNEY AS LENT BEGINS

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/04/1440/810/LarrySanger.jpg
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger described his journey from skeptic to faith, in an interview with Fox News Digital. (Getty Images)

As a boy, Sanger said he often wore out the patience of his parents and other adults in his life by asking complicated theological questions.

He remembers asking his parents one day, "What is the difference between the mind, the spirit and the soul?"

But sometimes adult figures in his life had a hard time answering these questions. He remembers a certain pastor "brushing him off" after he posed theological questions, which left a bad impression on him and reinforced his skepticism toward God.

As a teen, he came to the conclusion that a person's worldview shaped the decisions they made, for good or bad. He told himself he would only adopt beliefs he had good reason to believe were true, in order to not make the same catastrophic mistakes he viewed others in his life making.

"I essentially razed all of my beliefs to the ground," Sanger told Fox News Digital. "That's what I told myself I was doing… and my belief in God went by the wayside at that time."

BIBLE FULL OF ‘HISTORICAL EVIDENCE’ FOR HOW EFFECTIVE PRAYER IS, STRESSES FAITH LEADER

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/11/1440/810/Hands-holding-a-cross.jpg
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger told Fox News Digital about how he went from a skeptic to Christian. (iStock)

Sanger's agnosticism was solidified in graduate school, he said. But pivotal events in his life spurred him to re-examine some of these beliefs.

After getting married and having his first child, he began to question his previous belief in rational self-interest, for example.

"I realized that I would be willing to die for these people… If I was willing to die for my wife and child, then I would be acting in their interest, not my interest… Then I thought, well, if I'm going to throw out that belief, what else was Ayn Rand wrong about?" he said.

Over several years, Sanger said his doubts about God began to fall away. He even found himself defending Christians in response to what he saw as an increasingly hostile attitude from atheists toward Christian beliefs.

He also became intrigued by the occult and the idea of a spirit world. This curiosity led him to read the Bible, cover-to-cover, in about 100 days, to understand its message from a Christian perspective.

At the same time, he began to re-examine arguments for the existence of God, such as the Argument from Causality, the Argument from Contingency, and the Argument from Design, and came to believe that these arguments fit together, like "pieces of a jigsaw puzzle."

To his surprise, Sanger found the Bible could withstand his questioning.

BIBLE SALES ARE BOOMING, DESPITE A DECLINE IN RELIGIOSITY. A FIRST-TIME BUYER SAYS IT'S ABOUT FINDING PURPOSE

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/10/1440/810/istock-2070403046.jpg
Larry Sanger said reading the entire Bible in about 100 days in 2020 led him to a belief in God and his conversion to Christianity. (iStock)

"I discovered, to my shock and consternation, that it actually makes a lot more sense than I understood. That all the questions that I had asked before had been asked by other people and answered in various ways, some more plausible than others. Nevertheless, there's a whole tradition of asking my questions and many more that I hadn't asked," Sanger told Fox News Digital.

"The thing that I hadn't understood is that the reason why there is a 2000-year-old tradition of theology is that the Bible withstands questioning. If it didn't, you wouldn't be able to go on talking about it in such detail and the doctrines behind it," he continued.

He started to pray to God and eventually accepted Christ as his Savior in 2020. Sanger admitted that he was initially stunned by his conversion. He's been relatively quiet about his faith until now, he said, because he wanted to feel prepared to articulate his faith and defend it.

The Wikipedia co-founder said that he has been working for several years on a book project compiling the arguments for the existence of God entitled, "God Exists: A Philosophical Case for the Christian God."

Source