₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
He has gathered His worshipers globally as His WITNESSES {Isaiah 43:10} we now have one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers from different nations throughout the earth! Isaiah 2:2-4

So all you need to do is present a better organization than the organization that has removed weapons in the hearts of all their members!

Smh, he wants to jet, dodge and leap away from the point, as usual. You can't solve life's problems by running from them, my dear .

How can a God who plays infantile, selective hide-and-seek games, with his own creation that he loves so much, be the foundation of objective morality?

Can you answer the question please ?

MaxInDHouse:
Failed reference!

Almighty: power to do all things but can't do evil.
Omnipotent: can do both evil and good.

Provide a reputable academic source to back up your claim. So far, the reality is stacked against you .

MaxInDHouse:
Back and forth shey?

He is ALMIGHTY not OMNIPOTENT!

They're the same thing. Try again !

DeepSightZ:
[*Prays against ban]

No be small thing .

Currently at an event. Will respond once I get home.

MaxInDHouse:
Bible God performed signs to prove that He is the Almighty as those challenging His authority believes they have options when it comes to the God they will obey.
But in the case of you people there's nothing to establish so God won't show you any sign He will neither speak not act!

Also, you've portrayed your God here as lacking infinite goodness. In that case, what then makes him a source of morality?

MaxInDHouse:
Bible God performed signs to prove that He is the Almighty as those challenging His authority believes they have options when it comes to the God they will obey.
But in the case of you people there's nothing to establish so God won't show you any sign He will neither speak not act!

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of his omnipotence, though. So we're back to the question I asked you earlier, if your God clearly lacks omnipotence, then why is he called "God"? Can you give a sufficient answer this time, lol?

tctrills:
You and I just watched a video where the FBI director says he is repulsed by the actions of his men that alone destroys all the argument you made in red.

Is it out of the realm of possibility, for a leader to be repulsed by his subordinates' poor judgement, but still maintain, with his ten toes down, that there was no anti-Catholic crusade being staged? I'm sorry, but nothing was destroyed here. You just seem to be having a hard time, making nuanced distinctions between certain positions.

If the FBI director under probe agreed that his boys were wrong then you clearly don't have a point here. We both can agree right?

Actually, the FBI director acknowledging wrongdoing on his agents' part, only reinforces my point in spectacular fashion, as it inherently demonstrates pure evidence of institutional accountability, as opposed to institutional bias. When you can identify a specific problem, honestly admit it, and take wilful steps to correct it immediately, that is the very definition of responsible governance, and that's why I scoff at any narrative/s of persecution, being peddled with this case.

Now you write that this was not deliberate? According to you, the FBI mistakenly investigated Catholics? How does that sound.

This is a drastic oversimplification, lmao. You are committing reductio ad absurdum. The only mistake those FBI chaps made, was to take a legitimate investigation into one specific individual with extremist ties, and broaden the scope too widely. I hope you can understand the distinction here.

The FBI's Richmond Field Office memorandum painted so-called certain "radical-traditionalist Catholics" (RTCs) as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of "threat mitigation.

Okay, and this is exactly why the memo was immediately rescinded. The FBI recognized this overreach and killed it asap, so no matter how many times you wish to quote it, it's not the smoking gun you want it to be. Which part of "promptly removed and disavowed" isn't registering for you here?

If the FBI director in public says he regretted the action of his boys but you and the people you choose to quote from say the FBI did no wrong, clearly something is not making sense here.

The only thing "not making sense here", is your odd interpretation of what organizational accountability is. When a leader acknowledges a mistake and corrects it, then it exemplifies honesty and integrity. Just because I recognize the situation as an error that was rectified, instead of some sinister plot, doesn't conflict with the director's regret, at all.

When you say you have no issue with the FBI actions, I find that funny.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Do you also find it "funny", that firefighters use waterhoses to put out fires? The method of investigating is not the problem here, it was their framework of analysis. Are you familiar with research methodology?

Anyway Trump's executive order will ensure that such action will not go unpunished next time.

No wahala. But don't forget that executive orders don't solve problems instantly and/or magically overnight, and they can be modified, or reversed faster than you can turn your head.

Remember, the officers involved went unpunished, it will not be so next time.

Stop being dramatic. A policy mistake is not a criminal act.

So explain why you think such officers shouldn't be punished even when their boss is ashamed of their actions?

Because the "punishment" has been meted out already, via institutional correction and revision of policy. Do you lock up your kids in their rooms, or toilets, and deny them food for days, when they mop your kitchen, without sweeping it first? Must everything be a witch-hunt with you lot?

About the LGBT, the job of the Chaplin is both official and religions. It is clearly an abuse if a Chaplin who's religion is against gay marriages is forced to conduct such.

Again, you're not getting the full picture. Yes, the role of a military chaplain's role is indeed both official AND religious, and it is precisely for this same reason, that they must serve ALL service members, without exception! If indeed, they struggle to fulfill both aspects of their duty, then I'm sorry, but they might as well consider a different career path. It's the bitter truth. You surely don't expect waltz right into the military, and decide to pick and choose which soldiers deserve your service, as if it's a buffet of religious beliefs.

There are many clergyman who allow and accept gay marriage so why punish one who it is against the principles of his religion to do such. Make that make sense.

You're having way too much fun, with this merry-go-round logic, lol. Some clergy WILL perform same-sex marriages, but it doesn't justify discrimination by those who won't. You folks need to understand, that the military has never been, and can never be your local church potluck. It is a federal institution with equal service requirements, and it will remain that way.

Is the army a place that forces men to go against their religion? Think about that for a moment.

Honestly, I don't think the army has any fúcks to give about your religious feelz. Like I noted earlier, if your religious beliefs prevent you from treating ALL soldiers equally, then beat it. Find another job that will cater to your religious needs. It's really not that complicated, my dear.

In your words, it is a professional obligation, as public servants, so judging by that, will you count it wise to ask an Imam to perform a gay marriage?

If an Imam happens to join the military chaplaincy, then he is agreeing to serve ALL soldiers, as it is literally in the job description. Lobatan!

Should the professional obligations of the army have zero regard and respect for religious beliefs?

The military accords due respect to every, and all religious beliefs, of individual service members practicing their faith. That being said, the moment you put on that uniform and accept that government paycheck, you have implicitly agreed, without hesitation, to serve the entire military family. Your religious freedom doesn't trump the rights of other soldiers to fair and equal treatment under the federal law.

You seem to be saying that once we join the army, we need to forget those beliefs we held dear.

If you wilfully joined the military, knowing that it requires equal service to all, then act all surprised when you're simply asked, to serve everyone equally, then I'd just tell you to grow a pair of balls and suck it up. It's like joining a swimming team, and crying about getting wet. Like, duh... what did you have in mind lmao?

But then you forget that religious beliefs are protected by the constitution.

...in the First Amendment. You forgot about equal protection being covered in the Fourteenth, lol.

The US constitution is so heavy on religious freedom that Jehovah witnesses are not drafted into the army because their religion is against war. Their religion is protected.

Yes, JWs are exempted from military service entirely, because their beliefs actually prevent them from fulfilling any military duties. But they don't join, and then turn around, to demand special treatment. That's the fundamental difference you missed. Perhaps you should have left JWs out of this, because you've started scoring own goals against your own position in this debate.

People with your school of thought will make us go against our religion to please LGBT.

Mate, just do your job without having to discriminate against other people. If serving all Americans equally feels like persecution, perhaps public service should not be your calling.

Let's go back to your words.

Go back? Have I left my position?

You claim that your argument is rooted in the principles of a democratic society. But your argument is clearly going against it.

In what way? I must confess, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with your weak grasp of democratic principles, as you've demonstrated thus far. Do you think democracy is just about majority rule? What about the protection minority rights? What about ensuring equal treatment under the law?

If a democratic society will force people to go against the dictates of their religion, how is that rooted in the principles of democracy. That's what you expect from china and north Korea.

This is such a terrible, and unnecessary hyperbole. Demands for equal service, being likened to North Korea? What ?!

Finally you brought in an unnecessary argument asking if these freedoms extends to Muslims and Hindus. I say it's an unnecessary argument because you are simply against religious freedom be it christian or Muslim.

I'm pretty sure you're the one who's been trying to justify selective discrimination against other members of your society, not me. So the only thing I'll say in response to you here is, go get a mirror, smh, lol.

You believe that Muslims should be made to perform gay marriages in the army so don't act like you are advocating for them.

This habit of you constantly putting words in my mouth, is so blatantly dishonest, I'm starting to wonder if you have an ulterior motive in this discussion. For the avoidance of doubt, I never said Muslims "should be made to perform gay marriages". What I said, was that IF any individual/s voluntarily join the military chaplaincy, they have agreed to serve ALL service members equally. Observe the word "voluntarily". It's like you're deliberately missing my point, and I'm wondering to what end. What's the goal here, hmmm?

I will hate the day I see a Muslim being forced to conduct a gay marriage in the army. It's evil and should not be celebrated.

For the 99,997th time today, nobody is being forced to do anything, however they're being asked to fulfill the duties they VOLUNTARILY signed up for. If that's what qualifies as "evil" to you, then maybe consider, that your moral compass needs recalibrating rather desperately.

On there other hand, you will celebrate the day Muslims are forced to wed gay men. While I will see it as a failure for democracy, you will view it as a great democratic success.

Smh, more nonsensical strawmen fallacies, coupled with mind reading.

To qualify for a religious marriage, you need to meet the religions requirements. We shouldn't lower or change religious standards in the army and gay men have plenty of options.

Religious requirements in a government institution, lol? Can you even listen to yourself? Military chaplains only serve in an official capacity, not running their own private congregations. The only standards they are required to meet here, are federal.

I am a Christian, I don't qualify for a Muslim marriage. And the army should not force me on them. Under Trump's executive order no religion with be forced to perform gay marriages if it doesn't align with their standards.

Irrelevant. Once again, nobody's forcing anybody to do anything.

I love your brilliant arguments, I respect them but I don't agree with them.

I appreciate your attempts at having a civilized conversation, inasmuch as you kept twisting and turning my statements every which way, lol.

I don't agree that the actions of the FBI officers should go unpunished and I don't agree that any religion should be forced to marry gay people that's why I support the executive order.

Well, <1> You're still hammering away at the drum of "punishment" for an administrative error, that has already been corrected, and <2> You're just championing an executive order that essentially serves to codify discrimination. But what more can I say? Do you, bro.

I understand you don't want to see a law that would have made the FBI'S action a crime or that would make any religion reject gay marriage so you can never accept the executive order. Fair enough.

Of course, it's only fitting in a debate, where you've consistently taken my words, and re-arranged them to conjure up an entirely different argument, that you would conclude your post, with yet another strawman fallacy, smh. Let's make one thing clear: I do NOT oppose accountability in any government agencies, and neither do I oppose religious freedom. What I oppose, without remorse or pity, is turning religion, in particular, into a weapon for discrimination, but then again you've demonstrated countless times, that you have a remarkable talent for missing that particular distinction, with the precision of a blindfolded archer.

MaxInDHouse:
You guys are very funny walahi talahi!

It's flattering that even you, find our evisceration of your ridiculous arguments amusing .

Challenging God's authority to you mean someone who is fighting for his own God against another God

Still confusing yourself, I see. Challenging God's authority means questioning or opposing the will or commands of a deity. It has absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, to do with fighting on behalf one god, against another. You're trying your best, but it's not enough .

whereas in reality it means someone who doesn't believe in the existence of supernatural because whether it's the God of Israel or that of Greek they are all Gods so you can't equate such a person with you guys.

The way some of you so-called Christians completely disregard, sabotage your theology, just to create your own narratives, will never stop being funny to me, lol. Are you alleging that even believers, can not question God's will, or his authority, whenever they experience something that rattles them? Are you denying what the average Christian calls "spiritual struggles"? Be careful how you approach this question, as there are Christians that might be following this here exchange, lmao.

Do you get it now?

I get that you're stranded, flailing about, trying to hold on to your sunken ship of an argument. I get that you're so desperate, you can't help but shift the goalposts and change the subject, whenever you encounter a glaring contradiction you can't reconcile. I get that you're wilfully dishonest, and are only interested in asserting your lies, with total disregard for honest and valid criticism. I get that you've lost the plot totally, and that you're losing this argument, and losing it badly, lol.

MaxInDHouse:
In ancient times that God do speak to people it's only those who believe in His existence, demons believe God exists as they have heard Him several times before their rebellion, Muslims, Hindu and all other religionists believe in the existence of God/Gods.

What i asked you guys is to provide the Bible verse where God spoke to someone because the person demanded it.

You atheists are fond of demanding God should speak to you whereas God never did that for anyone just to prove His existence that's why i said there's no need claiming God never existed simply because you haven't heard or seen Him.

In ancient times the reason why He sends messengers to tell others what He wants them to do is because He only speak to believers not just someone who claims He must see or hear Him to believe He exists!

It's almost poetic, that within four pages, you've managed to demonstrate four distinct ways, in which your capacity for logical thinking leaves much to be desired, lol.

So far, you have:

1> Cherry-picked biblical examples to support your claim, whilst ignoring those that counter it ✓
2> Moved the goalposts whenever you've conceded too many points on an argument ✓
3> Created strawman arguments to misrepresent what I and LordReed have been saying ✓
4> Displayed a profound, and pathetic lack of understanding about the actual nature of evidence and empirical inquiry ✓

If it wasn't clearer now than ever, that you don't care about honesty in your arguments, it sure is now. You've managed to embarrass yourself, over and over again, reinforcing every negative stereotype people have, about JW shills and Christian apologists in general. But keep going, don't let me stop you. I'm interested too see what next you're going to pull out, from your worn out bag of tricks, lmao.

tctrills:
It's seems this is vol 1 of your response. Let me wait for vol 2. But I hope it would not be shallow. The goal here isn't to make me look bad, it is to share and exchange ideas even when we disagree. I advise you spend more time selling your ideas and addresses that writing about me.

Nobody is wilfully making anybody look bad here. All I ask is for a rational exchange of ideas as well, without trying to second guess motives, and casting aspersions on people you've never even interacted with.

And don't just say I am wrong, show it.

To the best of my capacity, I believe I've demonstrated where, and how, you've defaulted. Ball's in your court now.

Again, I remember you claim it's perfectly in order to force a clergyman to perform a marriage that is an abomination in his religion could you explain a bit better?
Is it ok to force a Muslim Imam to marry 2 men?

I believe my most recent rejoinder, addresses the misconceptions that produced these questions.

tctrills:
You always choose to misunderstand. I was not looking for a gotcha moment. My only purpose is to inform you and others on the thread. Learn not to assume.

Who exactly, appointed you the Grand Illuminator of this thread, hmmm? Maybe instead of pontificating over my supposed shortcomings, you can actually just stick to providing the substantive information you're aiming to provide, alright?

When you claim that I am spreading misinformation, You should provide sources if not, we only end up accusing each other of misinformation.

Okay, so here are my findings on the FBI case. The very memo you cited, and are so exercised about, originated from the investigation of a kid named Xavier Lopez, who allegedly held extremist ideologies with religious elements. He described himself as a "Catholic clerical fascist", and was found with Molotov cocktails and illegal firearms, expressing intentions to "make total war against the Satanic occultist government". Plus, he was also a member of the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) -- a group that claims traditional Catholic ideologies, but are kept at arm's length, by the Vatican itself.

Early in 2022, the report says, he [Lopez] began attending a church that “associated with an international religious society that advocates traditional Catholic theology and liturgy but is not considered by the Vatican to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.” The “religious society,” identified as “Organization 1,” is clearly the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX. The local church is identified only as “Church 1.” Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Richmond, which is affiliated with SSPX, declined to comment and referred me to James Vogel, U.S. spokesman for SSPX. He didn’t return an email and phone messages.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/anti-catholic-memo-wasnt

From this information, I believe we can parse that the FBI's involvement with the church was specifically targeted to Lopez's activities, not a broad surveillance of the SSPX, and definitely also not a broad surveillance of traditional Catholics, as a whole. Quite unfortunately, the subsequent memo's analytical failures created the unfortunate appearance of religious targeting, which is probably why the FBI's national office removed it promptly, and without further ado, then explicitly stated that it failed to meet their standards.

The F.B.I. has said numerous times that the intelligence product did not meet our exacting standards and was quickly removed from F.B.I. systems,” it said. “We also have said there was no intent or actions taken to investigate Catholics or anyone based on religion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/politics/catholic-extremists-fbi.html

So I think we can conclude that this was NOT a deliberate, "anti-christian" witch-hunting, but simply a bureaucratic snafu that got corrected.

Re: YOUTUBE VIDEOS

I have watched the two videos you presented, tedious and boring as they were. I hope you watched them too, as I have a few things to contribute to the discourse therein. I'll start with the first one. Now, I want to begin by highlighting the fact that Josh Hawley's performance (and yes, I'm calling it a performance, because over the years, that's precisely what these congressional hearings seem to have devolved and regressed into), practically centers around a memo that:
1> Was created independently by one field office (Richmond, Virginia).
2> Was immediately rescinded after discovery, and...
3> Was explicitly disavowed by the FBI leadership.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'd argue that the very fact that the memo was immediately rescinded, after it was discovered by FBI leadership, has already undermined the bizarre narrative of institutional bias that Hawley was desperately trying to construct throughout the video. The memo, as flawed as it was shown to be, was particularly focused on a splinter group that even the mainstream Catholic Church itself, is wishy washy on, towards their worldview, so his righteous indignation about "targeting Catholics" is about as authentic, as a three-dollar bill, lol. Also, maybe it's me, but I don't understand the outrage behind the use of undercover agents to investigate. As long as they're not inducing members of the society to commit criminal offenses, what is wrong with interviewing people who might have relevant information about potential extremist, or criminal activities? Abi is it only an issue if the people involved are wearing religious pendants round their necks?

The second video was about Jim Jordan, on his jacket off, sleeves rolled up, ready to tackle down the deep state persona, doing pretty much the same thing Hawley was doing. Pretty much the same submissions were made, absent the self-awareness to understand the fact that even the FBI had disavowed the memo. So, again I ask, what gives? Kilo shele gan gan?

Only thing I can see being clearly demonstrated here, is what I would simply term political transmutation, frantically trying to turn a corrected mistake into evidence of what you think systemic persecution is. Basically a tiny little molehill, being conflated with a gigantic mountain of inconceivable proportions.

Same thing here. My dear if you are here to say I am wrong, you need to show that. Anyone with an internet connection and the ability to write some words can take the path you have chosen. I expect more from you.

It seems you're forgetting who has the burden of proof here? I'm not the one alleging anti-christian bias, you are. So far, you haven't really substantiated your allegations with concrete evidence.

the First Amendment, preventing the government from endorsing any particular religion, at the expense of another but nowhere does the First Amendment prevent individuals from publicly displaying their religious symbols or from prayer.

The Establishment Clause is quite clear: the government does not have the power to endorse any particular religion, and my dear, that includes displaying any form of religious symbol/s on public property, as well as leading public prayers on behalf of a specific faith. So don't even bother trying to spin this, because the law is definitely not on your side, lmao.

So when you talk about false equivocation you are the guilty one here.

Perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us, which category the LGBTQ+ symbols fall under: religious or civil rights? Let's find out who's falsely equivocating here.

I read the rest of your defense and it's all the same you are wrong I am right argument without you coming up with any substance. You can do better.

I provided constitutional law, and you came back round, empty handed. No counterarguments, no evidence, no logic, no coherent thought process. Just complaints and misapprehensions about everything I've been saying. So you better appraise your own position more properly, before you start waffling about "substance".

You added that as a Christian whose religion is against Gay marriage, I should be forced to marry gay people? Make that make sense? Have you heard about freedom of religion? wow

You've either misunderstood my statements, or worse yet, intentionally twisted and misrepresented what I said to craft a spurious narrative. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it's the former. Now, please go back and read my original post. When I submitted that military chaplains and government workers should "respect and serve all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or identity", I was saying that they have a professional obligation, as public servants, to provide services, and support, and respect to virtually all individuals, including all those who identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community.

It's just a basic expectation rooted in the principles of a democratic society like the US, which promote equality and justice. Same expectations are placed on government workers, so I don't see what calls for your outrage here. Stop pretending you're a victim, because you're not. You're just someone trying to justify and defend discrimination, and bigotry. By the way, I hope your "freedom of religion" extends to Muslims and Hindus, who respectively, refuse to serve alcohol, or handle beef, because if not, then you'd be a sanctimonious hypocrite. The First Amendment guarantees you, all the rights to practice your religion, but not to use it as a cudgel to vilify others, and deny them the very same rights, that you blissfully enjoy.

MaxInDHouse:
Mr & Mrs Atheists!
God doesn't speak to anyone who don't believe in His existence Paul believe God exists the reason why he was fighting those he thought were impostors unlike you people saying "there is no god"

So bring the example of someone who doesn't believe that God exists and how God spoke to such a person then i will agree with you that you know what you are demanding.

Smh, you always want to the move the goalposts, whenever you're losing steam on a particular line of conversation, lol. You just hop on to another argument like an overly excited monkey. I don't remember anyone here, remotely implying that Paul was an atheist, so that's just an absurd, defensive pivot you've conjured from the ether. We were simply talking about Paul, and whether he was challenging God's authority. I'm not even going to indulge your ridiculous demand for examples of God speaking to atheists, as it's entirely irrelevant to our original discussion about Paul's opposition to divine will. God speaking to atheists or not, has absolutely zero bearing on whether Paul was truly opposing God's authority, while believing in His existence.

Meanwhile, since you seem so fond of biblical references, why don't we talk about the fact that even the demons believe in God's existence?>>>

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
- James 2:19 NIV

This one is not KJV, so you have no excuse, lmao .

Belief in existence ≠ alignment with authority.

[quote author=tctrills post=134059511][/quote]This is not a full response to your latest comments, but I just thought I should note a few things down, as I haven't failed to observe that you're still wielding denial like a paper shield in a thunderstorm, while every fact I've presented to you sits readily available on the internet. I've only refrained from pepper-spraying you with the relevant links, because I don't want to trigger the crazy spam-bots, just in case.

Each point I made in my last response stands on its own merit, but if you really want to pretend as though I didn't do my due diligence, well, I'm happy that people reading will get to read for themselves, and be the judge/s.

I have seen your video manifestos by the way, and I've briefly skimmed through them. I'm already disappointed after watching a couple of minutes, but I'll reserve further judgement until I get home, and watch properly from beginning to the end.

MaxInDHouse:
Paul is a Jew one of God's people {Act 22:3} but he was blinded by the tradition of men {Galatians 1:14 compare to Romans 10:2-3} that is why Jesus spoke to him to show the confused man mercy {Romans 9:15} and he wasn't challenging God's authority ironically he was fighting for God's authority according to his own understanding back then.

If he was challenging God's authority he wouldn't have responded calling him "Lord" at a go! Act 9:5

More cognitive dissonance, lmao.

Let's not ignore the context, please. Paul (then Saul) went out of his own way, to actively persecute Christians, whom he viewed as heretics to his own understanding of God's will, as is being argued here. So if you insist that he was indeed, fighting to establish God's authority, then perhaps we may conclude that in his fervent, albeit misguided attempts to uphold God's authority, he was, in fact, opposing it! Else, why would God himself, make a cameo in the story to smite him, correct him, and then steer him towards the right path, lol?

As for your absurd allusions to Paul's instant recognition of Jesus as "Lord", it's absolutely banal and meaningless, as it doesn't absolve the fact that prior to his epiphany, he was a staunch, and avid adversary to what he perceived as a threat to his religious convictions. Whether Paul was "confused" or "misguided", he still fits the criteria of someone inadvertently opposing divine will, and posing a direct challenge to it, whether cognizant or not. So you're just being disingenuous, as per usual.

DeepSightZ:
The Devils Bride, I have been banned and banned and banned each time I try to post.
Let me first see if I will be banned before I respond properly to you.

Although I must say I am not encouraged to do so - reading a line which says that nothing causes a cup of cofee to come to become cold in the morning is too tiresome to contemplate responding to.

Hey now, don't get things misconstrued here. I never said "nothing" causes the coffee to become cold. I literally said there were no triggers necessary. The coffee cools, particularly due to the inherent nature of thermodynamic systems seeking out equilibrium.

Meanwhile, I did notice your continuous failed attempts to submit your response. The spambots are ruthless, lmao. I think you could try screenshotting your post, just right after you hit send, and just before you refresh the page. Then you could attach the original response as it was before it got hidden, as an image. Just a thought.

tctrills:
Clearly, you are acting in bad faith

Ad hominems already? Tsk, why judge me before even presenting your case? Now, I'm starting to think you're about to serve a filled up, heaping plate of projection, trying to deflect attention from your own questionable arguments, before I even get the chance to respond, lol.

You began by saying that I am missing the forest, for the trees then you went ahead to ask me to enlighten you on the subject.

My dear, it's very possible to understand the broader context, while still seeking specific examples. They're not mutually exclusive, you know. I'm not sure what you were expecting, but this isn't the "gotcha" moment you seem to think it is.

Now to the answers you asked for.

Yes, please, let's delve into the substance of the matter here.

In 2023, a leaked FBI memo revealed that the agency was monitoring traditionalist Catholics, particularly those who attend Latin Mass, under the justification that they could be linked to "radical traditionalist" ideologies. The memo suggested that so-called "radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology" could be a breeding ground for extremism. Many saw this as a blatant attempt to criminalize deeply held religious beliefs, while similar scrutiny was not applied to other religious groups.

Okay, so this is the first example you've presented. Now, I don't know how much research you actually carried, to verify all the information you've posted here, because firstly, the memo you mentioned was quickly disavowed and rescinded by the FBI itself. Not only that, but the memo wasn't even targeted towards Catholicism as a whole in the first place, but potential extremist elements within the faith, particularly from one specific group which, get this, separated itself from the Catholic Church after the reforms of the Vatican ll Council.

Christian prayers and symbols removed: While other religious and secular symbols (such as LGBTQ pride flags) are widely permitted in schools and public institutions, Christian symbols like crosses, nativity scenes, or even voluntary public prayers have been repeatedly challenged.

But this is a blatant false equivocation you have committed. Smh, I already had my suspicions that a vast majority of your examples, will be chock full of misplaced outrage and aggression -- a very perfect illustration of the privileged mindset that right-wing glazers have. FYI, since some of you love to be ignorant, even in the face of available information, this is simply an enactment, of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, preventing the government from endorsing any particular religion, at the expense of another. I'm sure you can define terms for yourself, so please enlighten me, since when did LGBTQ+, become a religion? You mean you can't tell the simple difference between religious symbols, and civil rights symbols, lmao?

Students punished for faith expressions: Cases such as high school students being reprimanded for praying before football games or wearing Christian symbols highlight what many see as an unfair suppression of Christian beliefs.

What you lot always ignore, from these pearl-clutching narratives, is the distinction between personal religious expression and school-sponsored religious activities (not endorsed by the constitution), which has been made as clear as 9am in the morning, time and time again. You see, as a student, if you wish to express your faith, nobody gives a hoot, insofar as it is done in non-disruptive ways. Personal religious expression is legally protected and allowed. Basically, keep your beliefs in your church isles and pews, don't use it to burden non-believers, or proselytize to people who couldn't care less to be involved in whatever the heck you're doing.

The Biden administration has aggressively prosecuted pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, while at the same time, many attacks on churches and pro-life pregnancy centers have gone largely ignored.

Look, I'm not going to belabor myself on this point, because the on-going debate on abortion rights, is such a multifaceted topic, that would realistically require it's own thread. As for the church attacks, I fully condemn them too, as well as those on the pro-life centers, by the way. That being said, have the culprits responsible for these attacks been identified? If yes, then you're correct that they should be tried and prosecuted. If no, then I'm afraid I won't be partaking in your selective outrage here.

After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, dozens of churches and crisis pregnancy centers were firebombed or vandalized, yet few arrests were made.

But according to news articles online, the incidents were widely condemned by law enforcement, as well as political leaders across the spectrum, with ongoing investigations. What's the "anti-christian bias there"? Also, do you seriously think criminal investigations are resolved at the speed of Twitter rants?

When churches were attacked during the 2020 riots, many of the perpetrators faced little to no consequences. However, when a protest occurs outside of an abortion clinic or drag show, law enforcement often responds with heavy-handed arrests.

Maybe it's because one group has been hell bent on intimidating and harassing women merely seeking reproductive healthcare, while the other was rightfully fighting for racial justice and equality? Oh wait, let me even try to guess the true source of your ire in this example: because it was a church, right? What of all the shops, businesses, private residences, public properties, etc etc that were attacked during the 2020 riots, hmmm? Is it only the church you give a damn about? Is it only the church that's getting your knickers in a twist? Smh, lol, I'm starting to see a pattern here.

During the pandemic, many state and local governments imposed harsher restrictions on churches than on secular businesses:

It bothers me, that I have to spell out simple facts that I thought was generally obvious. The restrictions were issued on the basis of risk factors such as the number of people gathered together indoors, duration of contact, ventilation etc etc, and church meetings weren't the only gatherings that suffered similar restrictions, but many other public events as well. Plus, the Supreme Court actually stepped in when restrictions became genuinely discriminatory. What's really your gripe with this point?

In states like California and New York, churches were forced to close or limit attendance, while casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs were allowed to remain open.

Those are establishments with an entirely different risk profile: they typically operate with a handful of people in large, ventilated spaces, unlike churches, which involve hundreds of people, all gathering in close proximity, often dancing and singing (aerosol superspreading).

Pastors who defied restrictions were fined or even arrested, while large-scale protests and other gatherings were often exempted.

This particular complaint here is as nonsensical as it is dishonest. I'll highlight four things here, that you conveniently side-stepped:
> Outdoor vs. indoor gatherings (airborne disease transmission is a very, very massive risk).
> There exists constitutional protections for political protests.
> Many protest participants were actually arrested and they faced consequences.
> Nobody actually banned religious worship, it was the gathering method/s that was under scrutiny, so your faux outrage here is vapid.

Military chaplains have been disciplined or forced out for refusing to perform same-sex weddings or for sharing traditional Christian teachings on gender and sexuality.

Since when did expecting military chaplains, to respect and serve all personnel, without prejudice and regardless of their sexual orientation or identity, become an attack on Christianity? Can you properly demonstrate your logic here?

Government workers have been fired or sued for refusing to use preferred pronouns or declining to participate in LGBTQ-related activities that contradict their faith.

What you have presented here as "evidence" of religious persecution, is actually just basic enforcement of workplace harassment policies. Nobody's religious beliefs should give him/her the right, or permission to create a hostile work environment for people who do not subscribe to their faith, literally or in character.

You are welcome.

Don't bother with the smug sign-off, because you've not really accomplished anything here.

I deliberately took the time to read through, and research online concerning each instance you've cited here. At the end of the day, you've just drafted a list that not just manages to conflate equality with oppression, or mistake the loss of privilege for unfair persecution, but it also perfectly demonstrates the remarkable ability you and your other right-wing drama queens possess, to misunderstand both constitutional law and basic logic. You're all personifications of a spoilt little brat, from a wealthy home and living in a nice mansion, all the while complaining and bickering about having to share the neighborhood with new residents. You bully other kids in the playground, trying to hog all the toys, then throw a fit when things don't go your way. Anyway, it's all good now that Daddy Trump is around to give you everything you asked for, lmao.

When you're accustomed to privilege for as long as you have, equality feels like oppression, which develops into a persecution complex, and you've just proven that with your list.

MaxInDHouse:
He has never spoken directly to anyone who is challenging His authority so your argument is dead on arrival.

I see. So what happened then, with Paul on the road to Damascus, hmmm? Was he not literally persecuting Christians, when God decided to stop him and have a little chat, hmmm? Or was Paul already an enthusiastic, faith-filled supporter before his divine optometry appointment, ?

MaxInDHouse:
Ever seen a single representative of any of these religions you mentioned at your doorstep to discuss with you about his or her god?

Well this is what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob said about those gods in ancient times dragging supremacy with Him:

Their idols are silver and gold, The work of human hands.  A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes, but they cannot see; Ears they have, but they cannot hear; A nose, but they cannot smell; Hands they have, but they cannot feel; Feet, but they cannot walk; They make no sound with their throat. The people who make them will become just like them, As will all those who trust in them. Psalms 115:4-8

The highlighted in blue makes perfect sense to me, those gods are dumb, blind, deaf, can't perceive anything odor, can't touch, can't walk, they can't even make any sound so the true God said those trusting (believing) in them will later become like these dead gods!

Praise the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because this thing we are reading today was written when worshipers of all these gods were dragging territories with great armies back then claiming their gods are great but what about today? The Devils Bride can only mention their names their worshipers have become dumb, blind, deaf, no sense of smell, no feelings, immobile, can't even make any sound again while the worshipers of Jehovah are going all over the earth to make disciples preaching and teaching globally about the Kingdom of Christ who is the son of JEHOVAH!

Is it not ironic that you'd quote a passage about the folly of believing in silent gods, but you shockingly failed to notice that your God has been mute ever since the Bronze Age, lmao?

Abi, did you also fail to notice that Jehovah was apparently quite the chatterbox in the ancient times, always taking the opportunity to reveal himself, back when literacy was scarce and fact-checking was impossible, hmmm?

All of a sudden he has developed divine laryngitis since the invention of recording devices ?

I was going to comment on this thread, but after reading too many inane, and outrightly prejudiced, sanctimonious, hate-based assumptions on it, I'll just pick up my coat, and take a hike, lol. The level of intelligent discourse on this forum truly leaves a lot to be desired, smh.

tctrills:
You are not getting it. I don't care if Trump is a Christian or an Ogun worshipper. By the way our last vice president in Nigeria was a pastor and that was the worse administration Nigerians have ever witnessed that's if this one doesn't beat it.
The debate here is not about Trump or how you and I feel about him. It is about this particular executive order and how it affects the American people. Even if you feel Trump is a bad man, bad men sometimes make good laws. So forget the man and look at the law and it's impact on his people.
We can't criticize a law without understanding it.

I think you're missing the forest, for the trees here, as executive orders like this are almost wholly inseparable from the political context, in which they are given. Maybe if you could shed some light, and demonstrate the existence of this supposedly rampant "anti-Christian bias" in a nation where Christianity has always been, and remains the dominant cultural and political force, then we will not be having any misapprehensions about "understand[ing] the law", as you say.

So, can you properly enumerate, what are those specific protections Christians are currently lacking in America, that this executive order should meaningfully address? I'd love for you to fill me in on this, as I need to be sure exactly what is being contended here.

I just shook my head and laughed, when I saw the title of the thread. I fully expect conservatives, as usual, to willingly pull the wool right over their own eyes, by celebrating this blatant exemplar of performative Christianity, from a thrice-married, pussy-grabbing, mendacious demagogue, who's so engulfed in the cloud of his own narcissism, to see the delicious hypocrisy of him lecturing people about moral righteousness. Christians in the United States are not, nor have they ever been, a persecuted minority. For the longest time, they've been the most privileged religious group in the country, hogging disproportionate power in practically all sectors. So please, where is the "anti-christian bias"? Is there any evidence of such nonsense?

Are we talking of the very same organizations that are screaming frantically about religious liberty, yet are almost ALWAYS the first to demand the outright suppression of other religious practices, particularly those of minority faiths or no faith at all? You mean the same fúcking Christians who have no compunction about denying rights to women in need of reproductive healthcare, members of the LGBTQ+ community, etc etc? These are the people who need protection, lmao?

If I'm being honest, this executive order is just nothing more, than another political maneuver designed to stoke the embers of culture war greivance, simmering among Trump's base. I'm just going to say this, to any right-wing apologist reading this: if your conception of God requires governmental enforcement, maybe you should consider the fact that your faith is not as robust as you imagine.

He's washed up. Get him outta here, lol.

MaxInDHouse:
I don't know about you but since i was born until now none of these has been mentioned except in story books when people around me are travelling either to Jerusalem or Mecca in search of the Abrahamic God!

Are you trying to suggest that your singular personal experience trumps all the historical records compiled, all the anthropological studies made, and all the other lived experiences of billions of people across various parts of the world, besides yourself ?

If that's the case, then what are we still talking about here? Why aren't you penning a strongly worded letter to the Nobel committee, upon discovering this revolutionary new epistemology? We can arrange a meeting, and establish some contacts, you know. They might scoff at our audacity, but it's worth a try !

MaxInDHouse:
He answered:
"Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me" Exodus 19:5
Israelites will serve as God's special possession as example for sincere and honest hearted people in other lands.
That's why people from different nations back then began traveling to Jerusalem for the worship of the Almighty God.

So if you were alive back then and have someone living close to you who always travel to Jerusalem for pure worship that has served as a witness already that there is a God greater than the one you worship in your locality.

But people also traveled to Delphi to consult the Oracle nau. Some travel to Egypt to worship Ra, and some to India to worship all the countless deities therein. Following your logic, I suppose we should conclude that Apollo, Ra, Vishnu, and Zeus are all simultaneously real, abi? Pray tell, what point are you even trying to make, except perhaps, the fact that humans are gullible enough to spend good, hard moolah on religious tourism, lmao?

Mate, your arguments are so inane, I'm not even taking this conversation serious anymore. I'm just wondering what the next joke is, that you're going to nibble me with. I'm not even going to speak on your all-powerful, all-knowing deity, that you're seriously doing no favors, by portraying him as an entity with the emotional security of an insecure parent, lmao.

DeepSightZ:
Spambot. Got banned for adding a link. A link to a nairaland page for heaven's sake.

Trust me, I understand your frustration, lol. This site's spambots are like wild mutts sometimes, causing a ruckus everywhere, lmao. One of the reasons I hardly post here, until recently.

Anyhoos, please check up for my rejoinder to your other sobriquet.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
Good morning. Let me set out my premises in brief bullet points and then perhaps we can deconstruct them in detail later. It will be crucial that you agree on basic principles of causality. If you seek refuge in unproven ideas in quantum physics it will be impossible to have a logical discussion.

I'm not sure why you've deemed it necessary, to commence your elucidation, with a preemptive strike against quantum physics. I feel like if there's any aspect, that could potentially contribute to the debate, it shouldn't be thrown out, or merely handwaved aside, without good cause. But at any rate, let's move on...

1. All physical motion requires a trigger (this is a reframing of the principle in the Kalam that whatever begins to exist must have a cause).

This honestly sounds like a sneaky "reframing" of the KCA, that actually makes it worse, tbh. No triggers are necessary and/or required, to make my coffee cold in the morning, it's simply just a natural manifestation of the laws of thermodynamics. You can't just smuggle in assumptions about the nature of causality, from our medium-sized, medium-speed, everyday experiences, and apply them to every single phenomenon, under the sun, lmao.

2. The universe being a physical moving object (or conglomeration of objects which as far as we know started as a singularity) required a trigger.

I'll need to clear up a subtle, albeit unstated misconception here, before we venture too far into the deep end, and waste further time: LordReed already pointed this out, but I'll reiterate, for the avoidance of doubt, that our universe isn't an object IN space and time - it IS space, time, and everything else. More importantly, we cannot pretend to know if it even "started" at all, in the first place, given that the singularity is a mathematical artifact where our current physics breaks down, and not necessarily a starting point. Planck time? Anyone?

3. If the Universe is all that is physical, then this trigger could not also be physical. That would be a contradiction in terms and amount to a thing being its own trigger, which is against the laws of motion.

Circular reasoning, my dear. Now, watch this: Ever heard the term "googwump"? No? If I define "googwump" as "everything that exists", then by definition, anything causing this googwump can't exist! Does it sound like I'm off my meds yet, lmao? If so, I hope, with all duly accorded respect and no offense intended, you can see how some of you folks sound, whenever you start these semantic games. Most of you define, or at least, seem to think of causation in the exact same way you'd think about billiard balls hitting each other. Quantum mechanics (you saw this coming, didn't you ?) shows us that causation at the fundamental level, is absolutely nothing like our everyday life experience.

4. We are therefore led to necessarily consider a non physical cause of the physical world - thus, an element that is transcendental. Namely: that is non physical and transcends the universe - i.e: is beyond the universe.

Smh, this is textbook special pleading, and "transcendental" is such an obtuse weasel word, void of any actual explanatory power.

5. We can conclude the first set of premises by saying that we logically deduce an immaterial and transcendental cause of the universe.

...except you can't logically deduce anything, after making several logical leaps.

6. The second set of premises starts with the fact that all physical things are mutable: i.e: subject to change.

I was satisfied when I read this, as it seemed as though we've finally managed to find a mutual ground in this conversation. What I didn't expect though, was for you to mutate this reasonable observation you've just made into something far less reasonable below...

7. That which is non-physical, is not subject to this same kind of mutability.

Here we can see you're still making stuff up. Can you elucidate how exactly you came about the knowledge of what non-physical things are, or aren't subject to? Have you perhaps, done extensive empirical studies of non-physical things? Do you possess a large, extensive database of non-physical objects to compare? Or are you just asserting properties about something you've invented, to solve an imaginary problem you've also invented, lmao?

8. For anything at all to exist in the physical, something immaterial must have preceded and triggered it.

Okay, so this is just like your number 1, but with a fancier hat. Once again, you're still stubbornly applying everyday mundane causation principles to everything, but simultaneously inventing a magical category of existence, out of thin air, that conveniently doesn't have to play by the same rules.

9. An infinite regress of causes is not possible.

Have you counted, just to make sure, hmmm? Besides, why is an infinite regress any more problematic to you, than your proposed solution of an eternal, uncaused cause? Ironically, the concept of "infinity" exists, for the exact purpose of questioning our intuitions, about what we think is possible.

10. There therefore necessarily exists a permanent, intangible, transcendental, immutable and uncaused element.

Mate, you're piling on every conceivable attribute, that would exempt your proposed entity from the inconvenience of having to explain itself.

11. Such an element must posess the attribute of self-existence - namely that it cannot but exist, it necessarily exists, its nature is such that it inherently permanently exists.

Again, circular logic. You cannot define something into existence by merely giving it the property of "necessary existence". Reality doesn't quite work like that, my dear.

12. Components of such a self existent thing are eternal time (eternity) and infinite space (infinity).

Okay, now you've picked up the ball, and moved from inventing attributes, to making attempts to peek in, observing your own imaginary construct and list its components. Also, your rather flippant equation of time with eternity, and space with infinity betrays such a shocking misunderstanding of both physics and mathematics, that has quite frankly, left me flabbergasted.

13. Eternity and infinity are uncreated and self existent.

I'm sorry, but you're still just playing philosophical mad libs. You've taken two mathematical concepts that, for some reason, you don't seem to understand properly, and granted them mystical properties out of nowhere. Do you therefore, suppose that we should ascribe divinity to numbers? Afterall, zero and pi, are both "uncreated and self-existent", isn't it? Look, let's not get carried away here. Infinity and eternity are human concepts that we use to describe limitlessness. That's all there is to it, my dear.

14. The summary of the foregoing, when absorbed carefully, logically leads us to the conclusion of the existence of a self existent, transcendental, immaterial, immutable cause of the physical universe - and this element is what is called God.

In all honesty, I find your argument to be insufficient, as it seems like you've just constructed an elaborate philosophical Rube Goldberg machine out of flimsy logic, that takes in questionable premises, runs them through a series of unwarranted assumptions, and spits out exactly what you wanted to prove in the first place all along, lol. I get what you're trying to do, but I'm afraid I can't just accept your dodgy re-definition of physics, where you casually invent new categories of existence. It's all a bit to abstract for my taste, thanks.

@THEDEEPSIGHT, what gives? Just noticed your post to me was hidden.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
Good morning. Let me set our my premises in brief bullet points and then perhaps we can deconstruct them in detail later. It will be crucial that you agree on basic principles of causality. If you seek refuge in unproven ideas in quantum physics it will be impossible to have a logical discussion.

1. All physical motion requires a trigger (this is a reframing of the principle in the Kalam that whatever begins to exist must have a cause).

2. The universe being a physical moving object (or conglomeration of objects which as far as we know started as a singularity) required a trigger.

3. If the Universe is all that is physical, then this trigger could not also be physical. That would be a contradiction in terms and amount to a thing being its own trigger, which is against the laws of motion.

4. We are therefore led to necessarily consider a non physical cause of the physical world - thus, an element that is transcendental. Namely: that is non physical and transcends the universe - i.e: is beyond the universe.

5. We can conclude the first set of premises by saying that we logically deduce an immaterial and transcendental cause of the universe.

6. The second set of premises starts with the fact that all physical things are mutable: i.e: subject to change.

7. That which is non-physical, is not subject to this same kind of mutability.

8. For anything at all to exist in the physical, something immaterial must have preceded and triggered it.

9. An infinite regress of causes is not possible.

10. There therefore necessarily exists a permanent, intangible, transcendental, immutable and uncaused element.

11. Such an element must posess the attribute of self-existence - namely that it cannot but exist, it necessarily exists, its nature is such that it inherently permanently exists.

12. Components of such a self existent thing are eternal time (eternity) and infinite space (infinity).

13. Eternity and infinity are uncreated and self existent.

14. The summary of the foregoing, when absorbed carefully, logically leads us to the conclusion of the existence of a self existent, transcendental, immaterial, immutable cause of the physical universe - and this element is what is called God.

Good morning. I have just seen this. I'll share my thoughts in a bit.

MaxInDHouse:
After reading the Bible where does He prove to be a bully?

Where do we begin, lol? How about the entire book of Job, where your loving God gives Satan full permission, and allows him to torment a blameless man just to win a bet? How about the great flood, where he wilfully, and without remorse, drowned entire cities of people? How about all the instances of infanticide in the Bible? So, we're going to act, and pretend, like none of those things happened, yeah?

There are many nations practicing what they want as religion but He only focused on Israel His special possession.

Okay, that's cool. An all-loving God who plays favorites with a single tribe, condemning everyone else to darkness and ignorance. Smh, at this point, I might as well go have a cup of tea, lean back and watch you talk, because you keep proving my point, with very little effort from my end.

So if you're truly a researcher as you claim how do you expect such a person to force people against their wishes?

Once again, thank you. Another contradiction in the Christian doctrine, between the concepts of free will and omnipotence, has been brought to the fore. Well done, lmao.

His being ALMIGHTY doesn't translate to forcing anyone to live by His standards!

Then tell us what's the point of being an all-powerful entity, if you're just going to sit back, and watch your own creation, ignore your standards, hmmm? You can't reconcile this conundrum, and judging from your subjective view of your own faith, I think you're on a long, long road, if you think you can.

LordReed:
T'o ba fe lo we omi l'o ma'lo
If you wan' go wash, na water you go use
T'o ba fe se'be omi l'o ma'lo
If you want cook soup, na water you go use
T'o ri ba n'gbona o omi l'ero re
If your head dey hot, na water go cool am
T'omo ba n'dagba omi l'o ma'lo
If your child dey grow, na water he go use
If water kill your child, na water you go use
T'omi ba p'omo e o omi na lo ma'lo
Ko s'ohun to'le se k'o ma lo'mi o
Nothing without water
Ko s'ohun to'le se k'o ma lo'mi o
Omi o l'ota o
Water, him not get enemy!
Omi o l'ota o
Water, him not get enemy!
If you fight am, unless you wan die
Water, him not get enemy!
I say water no get enemy
Water, him not get enemy!
If you fight am, unless you wan die
Water, him not get enemy!
Omi o l'ota o
Water, him not get enemy!
I dey talk of Black man power
Water, him not get enemy!
I dey talk of Black power, I say
Water, him not get enemy!
I say water no get enemy
Water, him not get enemy!
If you fight am, unless you wan die
Water, him not get enemy!
I say water no get enemy
Water, him not get enemy!
I say water no get enemy
Water, him not get enemy!
Omi o l'ota o
Water, him not get enemy!
Omi o l'ota o
Water, him not get enemy!

Kikikikikikikikikikiki .

Una no go use laugh kee pesin this night o !

Dtruthspeaker:
Do you not know that quotes and citations are for finding out facts which are not commonly known nor easily seen?

Nnamdi's thread, is still running, right in this section. It has not yet gone into page 2, yet you are looking for quotes and citations.

You really do not have any reasonable thing to say here.

Excuses after excuses, after excuses, after excuses .

MaxInDHouse:
Satan has the majority of mankind on his side because most of you are rebellious like him so the misinformed ones are many!

I hope you realize you're admitting that your God is not just incompetent, but he's definitely not omnipotent and/or almighty as well? So, in light of this concession, why then should we call him "God"? What's your definition of "God", if he's clearly not all-powerful?