₦airaland Forum

essentialone:
Ok that pastors I know and see are the ones I described all pastors as. I don't know any sincere or selfless pastor. All are Scammers and Fraudsters.

You've just perfectly illustrated the logical fallacy you've been committing this whole time. You're using your limited personal experience, "the pastors you know" as proof for a claim about all pastors, or for anyone bearing that title.

That's not sound reasoning. It's a perfect definition of hasty generalisation. By that same logic.

If I only knew dishonest lawyers, I could claim all lawyers are dishonest.

If I only knew rude Nigerians, I could claim all Nigerians are rude.

You're admitting your judgement isn't based on the full reality of the group, but on your own limited, and apparently unfortunate, sample size. With this sort of reasoning you've displayed, how do your expect any reasonable person to take your seriously?

There's no further reason to continue. I will leave it there. You have clarified that your stance is based on personal bias, not on an objective fact about the world.

essentialone:
Well, when something becomes too loud, it becomes the norm. Those we see and know are the Religious Business Centers Pastors. So we can judge them all with that standard. Or should I also go and start looking for Nigerian hip hop artistes who do not smoke Igbo, or to look for Nigerian actresses who are not into Hookup and Prostitution?

You're proving my point about the danger of generalisations.Your opening statement ," when something becomes too loud it becomes the norm" is completely false and dangerous. You are using it to justify prejudice and cognitive bias. And it explains why you think anyone bearing the title "pastor" is corrupt, just like "every herdsman is a kidnapper". The reasoning is very poor.

Moreover, your analogies about artists and actresses are a deflection. They don't address the fact that your original statement was an overgeneralisation.

If someone said "Every Nigerian youth is an internet fraudster," would you accept that as fair? Or would you point out it's a harmful stereotype that ignores all the hardworking, honest young people?

You would rightly reject that label for yourself if you're not involved. And you wouldn't accept it if they insisted all Nigerian youths are fraudsters because of the "loud" ones like Hushpuppi.

That's my entire point. Judging all pastors by the worst, most visible examples is the same logical error. We can, and must, criticize the corrupt "Religious Business Centres" without claiming that's the only thing a pastor can be.

Using your logic, one can justify any prejudice by pointing to its " loudest" examples.

essentialone:
A Pastor is just a Position in a Religious Business Company RBC. Nothing more than that.

Your statement is a pretty sweeping generalisation. It takes the worst examples of religious commercialism and applies that label to everyone, which isn't logically sound or factually accurate.

There's a world of difference between a megachurch pastor with private jet and a local minister who visits the sick and funds a community food bank, sometimes with his own money, sometimes from those inspired by his work. For the latter (and there are countless individuals like this), being a pastor is a calling to serve, not a business to profit from . They genuinely believe a God exist and has called them to serve humanity. This belief, not greed , is their true motivation. Mother Teresa is the famous example, but she's just a tip of the iceberg .

I worked with a retired colleague who, along with other pastors without their own churches,used her personal funds to visit orphanages and prisons. They donated clothes, food and medicine. That was her ministry and "nothing more than that"

So, perhaps the issue is less with the title "pastor" and more with specific, exploitative models of church leadership.

GanagiBitrus:
Both those that practise this fetish nonsense +those that believe in such practices are all part of the problem.

You've correctly identified the belief system at the heart of the problem. It is the belief that certain human body parts contain supernatural power to grant wealth, political victory, legal success, or invincibility.

While believers and practitioners are the direct actors, the rest of society, through willful misunderstanding and mockery, becomes the enabler that allows the crime to persist.

If we want to end the practice,we must stop mislabeling it as organ trafficking, especially in cases like this, where organs from a corpse are medically useless for transplant. This misdiagnosis misdirects investigations toward imaginary medical networks and away from the true motive: ritual use for metaphysical gan. It lets the real perpetrators, the spiritual fraudsters and their clients ,off the hook

We must stop dismissing it as the problem of poor ignorant people looking for magic money. This condescension does not dismantle the belief. Instead, it drives believers deeper into secrecy and empowers practitioners to manipulate their clients

The result is that the police pursue the wrong leads (transplant networks), while public ridicule prevents a serious examination of the criminal networks built on these beliefs.

Dtruthspeaker:
And this is where I pointed out the first fall of the ops statement for

1). If" means that he is talking about conjectures, fabrications, delushuns and fake and not real things

Whereas, we eat real food to live and not fake, unreal food.

2) his statement presupposes that he has seen and met the "ultimate source", to the point that he could describe the so called "ultimate source" whereas, he has not.

Thus, everything he has said on this basis, is not True. And as lawyers say, if you place something on nothing, it cannot stand



You said you had a slightly different view but you did not present it.

Yes, I indeed imply that creator" is the primary or highest category according to the limitation of our human language. And the other examples you give are still lesser than the word creator.

For a Creator is infinite, we don't His Name unless He tells us hence it is understandable by some may say "nameless". And just like the Name, we cannot know His Source.

So, you see, all these are still lesser than the the word 'creator'.

Your response clarifies the fundamental difference in our starting points, which is the entire crux of the discussion.

Yes, you are correct that I didn't state a "slightly different" theological belief. I stated a fundamentally different methodical approach.

Your starting point is "The ultimate reality is a personal Creator who has revealed Himself as such. Therefore, "Creator" is the primary and highest category"

The methodological point I and the OP are making is "Many major spiritual systems begin with a different axiom: that the ultimate reality is mpersonal, non-dual, or beyond the subject-object relationship of "Creator" and "creation". Therefore, "Creator" is not their primary category, it's a category they do not use"

To make this very clear: Brahman, Tao and Olodumare or Olorun are not equivalent to "Creator" as understood in Christianity. This is not just a philosophical distinction, but a historical and linguistic one..


A key example, which you can easily investigate , is in the Yoruba language. In the 19th century, Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther, translating the Bible, made a profound theological imposition.

He used the indigenous word, "Olorun" ( Sometimes, Olodumare) to translate the Christian "God" , Jehovah or Yahweh. In Ifa tradition Olorun or Olodumare refers to the supreme unknowable, and formless source, not a personal creator in a biblical sense. This is the same categorical error he made in translating "Esu" ( a divine messenger and enforcer of balance in Ifa) as "Satan"

In Ifa, adherents refer to the ultimate source as either Olodumare or Olorun. They are used interchangeably, with Olodumare often emphasising supreme destiny. It is not the name for a known creator with human emotions, possessing a chosen people or a sacred scripture.



When I say Brahman, Tao, or Olodumare are not " lesser", I mean they are not even in the same category ranking system.

You are asking, "What is the highest descriptive word for the Maker"

They are asking, What is the fundamental nature of existence"?

Your statement that these are "still lesser than the word "Creator" only makes sense if you first accept your axiom. From within their axioms "Creator is the lesser or irrelevant term, because it introduces a personal agent where they perceive none


So, we have reached the core issue. This is a conversation about different first principles, not about comparing terms within the same system.

I respect your faith. My aim was never to challenge your belief, but to explain why the original post's analysis, which labels all religion as anthropomorphic, fails because it universalizes your axiom and ignores the existence of others

I believe we've now fully outlined our positions. I appreciate the civil conversation.

Thank you

Dtruthspeaker:
First, it is we humans who are socially discussing about these things, so it must be in human language.

Then secondly, what word is greater than "creator"?

The question you asked, "What word is greater than 'creator'?" is understandable from within a theistic framework.

However, the OP's point, and mine, is slightly different. If the ultimate source is truly formless, unknowable, and beyond human relation , then the word, "creator" cannot accurately describe it, because " creator" is a human term for a knowable agent who perform a knowable act (creation)

But more importantly, your question assumes that "creator" is the primary or highest category. Many major traditions don't use that category at all. They use different foundational concepts like Brahman in Hinduism, the impersonal infinite ground of being, Tao in Taoism, The nameless,uncarved block, the way of nature, and Olodumare in Ifa, The unknowable source from which everything flows

These aren't " greater" words , they are words from different maps. "Creator" belongs to a map of personhood and action. These belong to maps of impersonal essence or non-dual reality.

So the limitation isn't just that human language is weak. The limitation is that assuming the "creator-creation" model is the only valid map confines the infinite to a single, culturally specific understanding

Dtruthspeaker:
Fair summation.

However, on behalf of Christianity, we see and believe that A creator has an unlimited right to create anything in the way and manner he so chooses, without any limit.

And it has pleased God, to create us to look like Him and resemble Him, as He told us.

So, we are not out of place to read Him in the light of our humanness.

And basically, you can see that the ops aim in life is to attack Christianity. That is why he is reading all the other religions in the eye of Christianity.

And so, for us Christians, he has challenged nothing but talking rubbish and definitely giving dark counsels that would swallow up any shallow and unlearned person who may have been planning on following the way of Christ.

The Christian perspective you have shared clearly illustrates the framework we are discussing.

You declared, "A creator has an unlimited right to create anything in the way and manner he so chooses. And it has pleased God to create us to look like Him and resemble Him".

This is a perfect example of the anthropomorphic projection in question. Every concept you use, "creator", "right", "pleased", "look like him", is drawn from the human experience of agency, law,, emotion,and form.

You are using the language of human craftsmanship and kinship to describe the ultimate source of the universe. This is exactly the instinct the Op examines.

My point is not to attack this belief, but to highlight that it is one particular way of relating to the divine, a way centered on a personal, relational Creator-God. Many other traditions do not start from this premise.

They start from from a source that is impersonal ,(Brahman, Tao, Olodumare) beyond the subject-object relationship inherent in "Creator" and "creation" and Unknowable in terms of "pleasure", "form", or "rights"

You say,, "so we are not out of place to read Him in the light of our humanness?" Within your Christian tradition , you are " not out of place". That is your theology. But the philosophical discussion here is about recognising that this is a theological choice, not a universal fact. The very word, "Creator" is a human linguistic and conceptual model.

To assume it is the absolute and only description is to confine the infinite to the limits of human language and social relations


Finally, your claim that this is "rubbish" or "dark counsel" for those following Christ assumes that Christian faith cannot coexist with the awareness that other cosmologies exist. Many Christians mystics and theologians have engaged with such ideas without their faith being "swallowed up" . True understanding is not threatened by the existence of other maps. It is made clear by knowing which map one is using

In short, you have not engaged with the alternative models presented ( Ifa" formless source, Buddhism's non-theism etc). You have instead reaffirmed your own model as the default. That is the very heart of this conversation: to see our own projections so we can understand what is truly being projected upon.

Theawakensoul:
One of the most important questions in spirituality, philosophy, and even psychology is this:
If God is infinite, formless, and beyond human limitation, why do almost all religions describe God with human traits?
Human emotions.
Human anger.
Human jealousy.
Human favoritism.
Human rules.
Human punishments.
Human rewards.

To understand this, we must first understand the human mind.

1️⃣ The Human Mind Understands Reality Through Itself
Human beings do not experience reality directly as it is.
We experience reality through perception, language, memory, and emotion

Your essay begins with a powerful question, " Why do almost all religions describe God with human traits?".

I believe the insight that follows is valuable, but it's built on a premise that needs examination. The "almost all" in your analysis applies perfectly to the Abrahamic traditions, Christianity, Islam, and to a large extent, Judaism, which centre on a personal law-giving, and often anthropomorphic God, residing in an invisible heaven and requiring worship.

However, it does not accurately describe the theology of many of the world's other major religious and spiritual systems.

Hinduism, for instance, encompasses both personal deities and an ultimate, impersonal, formless reality ( nirguna Brahman) . The belief system explicitly holds that the personal forms are limited manifestations of the formless absolute.

Buddhism generally does not posit a creator God at all. Its focus is on the nature of mind, suffering, and liberation, not on a divine being with human emotions.

In Taoism, the Tao is explicitly "nameless" and beyond description or human attributes.

And here in Africa, many indigenous religion and traditions , like IFA, feature a supreme, unknowable, and formless source ( Olodumare or Olorun) that is distinct from the personified natural forces or divinities (Orishas) that mediate its energy in the world

In Ifa specifically, the ultimate source is never described with human emotions, favouritism, or rules. It is beyond conception. The energies which adherents interact with (Orishas) are not worshipped as supreme beings but are engaged for balance and harmony within a living universe, not because they represent a jealous or tribal deity.

The Orishas, mislabeled as gods in English, are manifestations, aspects, or sacred energies of that source within creation, like the force in a river, the thunder, or the earth. Interaction is relational and reciprocal, not merely worship. Offerings such as "cooling" the earth with palm oil, ( Ebo Ile)are about maintaining equilibrium within a conscious cosmos, not appeasing an emotionally volatile supreme being.

Therefore, by universalising the Abrahamic model of a personal God, your analysis inadvertently performs the same act it describes: it uses the familiar framework you know to interpret all other systems, filling the void of understanding with a single template

The consequences are that, you categorise diverse traditions as if they are all wrestling with the same "problem" of anthropomorphism, when in fact many start from a non-anthropomorphic absolute. You attribute the phenomena of "our God is the real one" and doctrinal exclusivity to religion in general, when these are the hallmarks of specific, dogmatic traditions . Ifa tradition, for example, makes no such claim of being the only path to God or source.

To fully, embrace your conclusion about moving from projection to inner realisation, your analysis must also recognise that the spiritual map you have drawn, which accurately charts one continent, does not represent the entire globe of human religious experience

In any case thank you for what you have shared. It is in challenging our foundational assumptions that the deepest understanding grows.

esnbrutality:
You spoke well, but understand that as local midwives exist that is how a local version of every aspect of medicine exist.

As regards his fleeing...he might be involved in other activities that flout the law, but the police laying emphasis on his properties and mortuary occupation should actually show you that it's a typical example of giving a dog a bad name in other to hang it.

That is how I take it.

Your analogy doesn't hold at all. A local midwife deals with living patients who can report malpractice. A poorly run local mortuary deals with dead bodies that are already deceased. You don't become a fugitive over health code violations for the dead. You get a fine and a shutdown order. People don't abandon their homes and political aspirations because thier mortuary is messy.

There is no reason for him to run away unless he was responsible for the deaths of those found in his mortuary . Your theory that he fled due to "other crimes" is pure speculation, unsupported by any evidence of a prior warrant or police interest.

The police are focusing on his properties because they are the crime scene. But you shouldn't ignore the real victims: the innocent people whose lives have been cut short by Stanley's greed to trade in human body parts for blood money. If your own sibling were among the victims,I am sure you would see this differently.

So, this isn't "giving a dog a bad name", it's finding the dog in a butcher's shop, covered in blood, with the tools of the trade nearly, and the butcher, Stanley Oparaugo, missing. His flight is the logical act of a guilty man who knows the evidence left behind cannot be explained as simple licensing or "a local version of medicine"

·

dfrost:
Well handled, it can survive certain conditions.

"‘Well handled’ and ‘certain conditions’ are meaningless unless you can specify exactly what those conditions are and provide evidence they existed at the crime scene.

For an organ to be ‘well handled’ for transplant, the conditions are non-negotiable. The environment must be sterile. There must be immediate cold storage with specialised preservation fluid, and a surgical team to perform the harvest because it is advanced medicine, not butchery.

The official report described the exact same opposite: an unhygienic mortuary with decomposing bodies

So, I ask, since you're sure it's organ trafficking:

What specific certain conditions in that environment could have kept a human kidney viable for more than 2 hours, the time it takes before it becomes useless for transplant?

How were the harvested organs "well handled" without a sterile environment, cold storage, or a surgeon?

Where is the evidence of the rapid transport network and waiting recipient that your organ trafficking theory demands?

If you cannot answer these basic logistical questions with facts from this case any other one that you know of, then you are speculating to avoid the more complex culturally uncomfortable truth that this was a ritual murder hub.

Filling the void in your knowledge by insisting on "organ trafficking" ,simply because the reality of ritual murder doesn't make sense to you, is a dangerous distraction.

The truth is fueled by a different logic: a belief system where certain human parts are seen to possess spiritual power. This is what drives the demand. People kill for hearts, heads, or genitals in the belief it will bring them wealth, win court cases, grant political power, or make them fearless.

Your refusal to engage with this uncomfortable fact doesn't make it disappear. It only makes the criminals who operate within this belief system harder to catch.


Stick to the evidence. The scene points to ritual, not medicine.

Projecting. It is personal opinion not truth

dfrost:
I don't know.

Then why trying to educate others about what you don't know?

dfrost:
There was never money rituals. It has always been organ harvesting business all along.

🤢🤮

What is money ritual?

esnbrutality:
He was not indicted for organ harvesting.

It's is said that the mortuary was unhygienic and that the bodies showed signs of mutilation.

I ask .. when bodies are preserved even in the international space, do organs remain inside the dead body or are they removed?

This is a simple case of a local mortuary that lacks proper maintenance standards

This is a propaganda skit and it's so pathetic that it's used as a banter issue.

No matter what happens in the SE..it can't equate SOKA FOREST in OYO STATE.

Even Devil freeze when him see action for SOKA.

You're missing the point entirely, and your deflection to Soka proves it.

It is pointless to whitewash this. If this was just a "poor maintenance" issue, a violation of health codes, the owner would stay, pay a fine, and upgrade. People don't flee their community and become a wanted fugitive over a sanitation issue in a mortuary. He ran because he knows he is guilty of something far worse, something he can't explain to a judge

The whole set up is the evidence. A hotel to trap the living, a mortuary to dismember the dead, and a shrine to sanctify the crime, operating under one person is not a coincidence. It's a business model for ritual murder. You don't need to be a detective to connect those dots.

Stanley Oparaugo is not a pathologist and he didn't employ one. So what was he doing running a mortuary? He was using it as a processing facility for something else. The " mutilation" reported on decaying bodies confirms it

Instead of you saying, "This is horrible, let's get justice for these victims in Imo, you immediately yell " But Soka" What does a crime in Oyo have to do with holding Stanley in Imo accountable?

When a Yoruba person blames the East, and an Igbo person blames the west, they are both doing the same thing, looking outward for a villain,instead of looking at the criminal structure and inward at the societal failures that allow it to thrive.

The client in Abuja who orders a ritual sacrifice using human body parts does not care if the shrine is in Imo or Ogun State. The Babalawo in Ibadan does not check the tribe of the bank alert from his client in Port Harcourt. The criminal network is ruthlessly pragmatic and trans-ehnic. Our response, trapped in tribal name calling is naively myopic.

budaatum:
Not true triple. This was barely 6 months old where you maligned and attempted to tarnish the image of buda, and it was prudoh who actually reignited it by quoting your malignations.

https://www.nairalaOnd.com/7731741/mission/11#137384850

But that's by the by. You can not expect to have done what you did in that entire thread that I created for a purpose and which you derailed, and expect it not to come up in the future, just as this thread too forever will.

Lies. June 2023 to November 2026 is over two years, not six months.I am not Prudoh who quoted me over a week ago about what I said about AMORC.You are not AMORC.and he never mentioned you. Before I could respond to him, you quoted me to question me angrily about the past issue which has nothing to do with he said about AMORC.

I blame myself for not ignoring you .It will never happen again

budaatum:
Anyone can copy the manifesto, Spencer, but do not take my word for it. Go to the links below and see if you can copy it in its entirety without being a member.

https://order.rosy-cross.org/rosicrucian-manifestos

https://archive.org/stream/TheRosicrucianManifestos/The%20Rosicrucian%20Manifestos_djvu.txt

Read its history here too so you understand why copyright is irrelevant. It was always an anonymous document, so no one can now claim copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fama_Fraternitatis


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNmHbusskzM?si=qhPwk4qGCWcPZPCz

It is not about copying the manifesto. It is copying the manifesto together with the " Rosae Crucis" which is a registered trademark of AMORC to create a thread on Nairaland to recruit new members on their behalf. Only an Affiliate or their representative can do that.

"Rosicrucian Order" and r"Rosae Crucis" are registered trademark of AMORC . Don't pretend you don't know this. It is clearly stated on their official website.

Registered trademark or not, what you are arguing here is that an atheist can use the name or anything connected to the "Redeemed Christian church of Nigeria" to create a thread on Nairaland to promote the benefits of joining the church and the end of the promotional post attached a link to download a book written by Pastor Adeboye for new coverts together with contacts details for the church in Nigeria. This is the equivalent of what you did promoting AMORC yet you still claim atheist.

It is naive to think that not a single person has used that link in your promotional post to join AMORC when it was active.

Any way the matter is closed. Those who know what to search will find out the truth themselves

SpencerForbes:
I agree with you; it looks like triplechoice is holding onto this issue longer than necessary. This forum is designed for robust discussions, and anyone has the right to rebut your claim—that’s the whole point. When that happens, your job is simply to bring the proof and defend your point, not to get emotional. We all have those "nemesis" here who throw shade or call names, but you just have to learn not to take it personally.

Triplechoice needs to know when to just walk away. And frankly, I highly doubt budaatum is trying to forcefully convert him to any religion he doesn't want. Sometimes, ignoring is the highest form of intellectual response, and some arguments are purely for the banter and the 'cruise.' I still don't see the need for the thread to be dragging like this.

On a side note, I understand triplechoice’s frustration with the (supposed) hypocrisy. I have my eye on one of those occultic members masquerading as a Christian here too. I'm hoping to call him out very soon,

I appreciate your perspective, but you are misunderstanding the core issue and its history.

It is not about trying to convert me or holding a grudge. If anyone is holding a grudge,it is Budaatum. He is the one who resurrected this two-year -old issue, not me . After a long period of amicable discussions between the two of us, he chose to restart this conflict, making me to doubt his sanity.

My goal has never been to force an admission from him. ( he will never admit anything) .It has been to expose a pattern of intellectual dishonesty: posing as a pure atheist to mock others while being a passionate promoter and defender of AMORC, a spiritual group. This is about the principle of honest debate,not his beliefs.

If he didn't cross the line with me , I wouldn't have bothered to expose his hypocrisy. He is not the only member of AMORC on this forum. If it is to expose their members, I will be doing so every time.

You are right that we can choose to ignore things. But I choose not to tolerate people who think they can fool me with the double life they are living. How I can conduct myself online is a reflection of my offline character. There are certain things a human being should not tolerate whether offline or online. I will not hide forever on Nairaland. Time will come when I will operate like others here with real names and true face exposed. So ,I care.

I have said all I need to say. The evidence is public. I am now closing this matter and will no longer be engaging on it. Those who understands the dynamics of such groups will see the truth

For those who want to understand what has transpired here, I ask that you start from the beginning of the thread and patiently read through the evidence.

Thank you

SpencerForbes:
A simple research will help here and I think budaatum is right. They might be a member but there’s no concrete evidence they are. We can’t justify triplechoice’s accusations based on abstract facts.

The "research", which has influenced your thinking, is meaningless. It is garbage in , garbage out. You asked the AI and incomplete and misleading questions hence the result you got.

You asked if "anyone can use" the Latin title . The AI gave a generic "yes" based on a simplistic view of language and public domain. But deliberately omitted the critical context that defines this as evidence of membership

Remember, AI is not a human being with the awareness to understand context. It cannot weigh intent, patterns of behavior, or the unspoken rules of secretive groups. If you are unaware of this limitation, you will be fed convincing nonsense that misses the entire point. And this what you just got from it.


You didn't mention that the title was used as the heading for a recruitment thread, without the consent of the organisation that has the sole right to the trademark name "Rosae Crucis" in the Latin title .

You didn't mention the poster's history of defending AMORC doctrines and distributing hard-to find,-member texts to other AMORC members who have not hidden their membership.

Of course anyone can theoretically type Latin words. But it is the actions, context,and intent that give them meaning.

Just be patient and allow me to finish my presentation. You can then use any tool you wish to confirm the full story. But it is crucial that you do not interpret the evidence out of context. Any attempt to do so at this stage will lead to an incomplete and misleading understanding. It was what Buda has been doing to confuse those following. So, please don't join him to create additional confusion.

FYI, groups like AMORC do not publish their membership lists. The only way to ascertain affiliation is through behavioral evidence. I know how to identify them through their behavior, having observed them at very close quarters when I almost joined the group.

budaatum:
Dude, you can't trademark a 1611 document, and the AMORC documents I'm posting are all in the public domain and are freely available!

https://www.rosicrucian.org/rosicrucian-books

Your attempt to shift the argument to a1614 document is strawman fallacy, designed to confuse the ignorant public about the actual issue

You're now arguing that "you can't trademark a1611 document" This is irrelevant. No one is claiming the historical Fama Fraternitatis document from 1614 is trademarked. You just built a false argument to knock down.

The actual, real issue is your use of the specific modem title "manifesto-positio-fraternitatis-rosae-crucis"

This is not the title of a 400 year old public domain manuscript . It is the title of official, modern documentation from the contemporary organisation, AMORC

The terms "Rosicrucian Order" and its Latin form, Rosae Crucis" are explicitly registered trademarks of AMORC , as stated on their official website and in legal records. They have been used and trademark by AMORC for over a century to protect their specific identity

The Critical distinction you're hiding from those following are these;

Public Domain: The general, historical ideas of Rosicrucianism

Protracted Trademark: The specific name "Rosicrucian Order ( Rosae Crucis)" as used by the organisation AMORC :

So, by using AMORC's official, trademark title for your recruitment thread , you were not "quoting history". You were acting as a representative of the modem, trademarked organisation

And yes, your entire defense is a semantic trick. Those in the know can now see you're trying to hide behind the history of Rosicrucianism to justify your unauthorized use of AMORC's protected, modern trademarks for promotional activity. The organisation's silence on your actions only confirms what is now obvious: you operated as a recognised affiliate in that thread of yours Stop denying it with silly and illogical arguments

SpencerForbes:
It actually has a book and a non member can teach about it. So we need more evidences.

You have taken it out of the context of its use here.

Can a non member used it to recruit for new members on a public forum without the consent of the organisation?

budaatum:
While awaiting FxMasterz's judgement on my previous, I post here another key Rosicrucian document.

Fama Fraternitatis
This is the key document on which the Rosicrucian phenomenon was based. It was first published in 1614 in German and in 1615 in Latin, though there are some manuscript copies in existence dating from about 1611.

https://www.alchemywebsite.com/fama.html

Trying to fool the public with what they don't know.

Be specific next time when you use the word. "Rosicrucian" . AMORC which you belong to is not the only Rosicrucian group that exist

budaatum:
I'm very certain this will in no way convince you otherwise, but here it is all the same.

https://amorc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media-files/positio-fraternitatis-rosae-crucis.pdf

Now, what say ye?

@FxMasterz, Budaatum in his desperation to exonerating himself has just proven my. entire case.

His posting of the official AMORC document doesn't just prove where he copied the title from ,it introduces a crucial point he ignored: Trademark Law and implied Endorsement.

AMORC, like any organisation holds trademarks on its name and official documents to protect its identity. They do not allow outsiders to use their official trademark materials for unauthorized recruitment

Let's take a look at what his action demonstrates:

He used AMORC's official trademarked materials to title his recruitment thread

The organisation has taken no action against him for this unauthorized use of their intellectual property to recruit on a public forum as popular as Nairaland.

Fellow AMORC members on this forum have not reprimand him for impersonating the Order or misusing its documents.

There is only one logical conclusion from this, the organisation and its members here on this forum recognize his actions as those of an affiliate

An organisation like AMORC does not remain silent when an outsider pirates its official documents and trademarks to recruit new members. His unimpeded use of their official branding for recruitment is the strongest silent admission of his affiliation. He has never been treated has an imposter by other members on this forum because he is not one ,in fact; most of them depend on him for links to download rare to find AMORC text that has gone out of print.

So you can see how he has proven with his own evidence that he acted as a recognised representative of the group when he created that thread hence his confusion and the actions he took later to "" technically" hide the thread when I brought it to his attention.

SpencerForbes:
I’m still skeptical. The constant reference to AMORC is glaring and I don’t still get the point behind the thread. Till he answer my questions, I’ll keep watching how it’s gonna end.

If you’re a constant nairalander, you’ll be called so many names and sometimes it’s just funny. So I see no reason for the thread just because someone called him a liar.

Budaatum is leading you astray. This is not because he called me a liar. When I am done with my presentation, he will explain what led to the creation of this thread.

It is not what you're thinking.

Here we go.

First thing first.

The title of the thread which contains the "Smoking,-gun evidence is:

https://www.nairaland.com/302215/manifesto-positio-fraternitatis-rosae-crucis#4312040

"manifesto-positio-fraternitatis-rosae-crucis"

It is Latin

My analysis of this title

" Manifesto": A public declaration of policy and aims ( from Latin manifests,"clear, evident ')

"Positio": Position, thesis,or statement

"Fraternitatis": Of the Brotherhood (genitive case of fraternitas)

"Rosae Crucis" Of the Rosy Cross (genitive case of Rosa Crucis)

A literal and meaningful translation of the entire title would be: "Manifesto on the Position of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood", or "A statement of the Fraternity of the Rosy Cross"

Now, can an outsider Use this?

This is the critical question,and the answer strongly supports my accusation

It' is highly unlikely for an outsider to use it. A genuine outsider or casual "quoter" would almost certainly use a comom English title like, "The Rosicrucian Manifesto", or AMORC'ss Position ". The use of a full grammatically correct Latin title demonstrates a level of familiarity and intentionality that goes far beyond a neutral observer

What does the title signify?

It signals Affiliation and Esoteric knowledge.

Latin is the traditional language of Western esotericism, scholarship, and ritual. Using it is a deliberate signal of being "in the know", an insider,not an outsider.

By titling his thread this way,he wasn't just sharing information,he was framing it within the specific tradition and linguistic code of the group itself. This is an act of identification

The title of the thread functions as a Shibboleth. This is the use off language to distinguish members of one group from another. The Latin title used by Budaatum functions as a Shibboleth. It immediately signal to other members or knowledgeable individuals that the poster is operating within the esoteric tradition
Conversely, it might seem obscure or pretentious to a general audience, which is likely the point .

What can we draw from this?

As someone who almost join the group after reading their books and observing their members from very close quarters to the extent of visiting one of their leaders to have further discussion concerning the Order , I can tell everyone reading this with all certainty that the formal Latin title used by Buda in his thread was not the action of a neutral atheist "quoting", a group. It was the action of someone who identities with the group's tradition and was using its own formal, esoteric language to communicate

This directly contradicts his defense of being a detached observer and confirms his affiliation. He is deeply embedded in the group's culture and practices

To be continued. Let me have my dinner . I will be back . cc @FxMasterz, Meedon, OLAADEGBU, SpencerForbes

SpencerForbes:
Triplechoice, I’ve been observing your post regarding Budaatum and have a few questions and observations about the matter.

First, what concrete evidence do you have that Budaatum is genuinely a member of AMORC? I ask because promoting something, like the Illuminati, doesn't automatically make someone a member, and posting a phone number doesn't guarantee it belongs to the poster.

Second, did you actually try calling the number? If you did, did Budaatum answer and confirm their identity? The contact provided could easily belong to another person or even a fraudster, given the number of fake accounts we see online. How are you certain that number is theirs?

Third, why do you think Budaatum would want to deny their religious or spiritual affiliation? We have many members who are openly proud atheists or occultists here. If they are truly a member of an organization like AMORC, the denial seems strange. Why not openly declare it, perhaps encouraging others?

For instance, we have a moniker like esoterictemple who is openly associated with occultic affiliations, despite some people's opinions on their posts. I was raised Christian, and even though I no longer attend church, I still identify as such; I'd only deny being a Muslim or pagan, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate Greek and Egyptian mythology. If they are truly a member, the denial seems counterintuitive.

Thanks for your brilliant and well reasoned set of questions. I genuinely appreciate them, since they show you're following this matter keenly and thinking critically about it.

You've actually raised several of the key points,I was planning to address in my next segment, where I will analyse the critical thread titled: "Manifesto -Positio-fraternitatis-rosae-crucis"

Your timing is perfect.

So, please allow me to present that analysis first,as it will provide essential context that directly addresses the heart of your questions, specifically, "why should he hide"? and what the nature of the evidence truly reveals .

It has become clear to me that many people are judging this situation based on common assumptions, without access to the specific information and context about how such groups operate. Buda has been capitalising on this. But my upcoming post will shed light on this

So, I ask for your patience. I will ensure your questions are answered thoroughly immediately after the analysis. Your engagement is valued, and I want to provide you with the most complete picture possible .

Time will be around 8pm today.

LordReed:
You are the one deflecting. It's simple matter for you to say on what page of this thread you posted the evidence or link to the evidence of budaatum defending AMORC from attack but instead here you are behaving the exact way you are accusing me of. LoLz.

At this point all you have is accusations, lengthy posts will not deflect from the lack of evidence. I will not do your homework for you to go look for it for you.

I said, finish what you started first before jumping to another.

Hello everyone,

Later today,I will present a critical analysis of the thread titled:

"Manifesto-Positio-fraternitatis-rosae-crucis"

Created by Buda.

I will break down the meaning of this Latin title and explain what its use reveals about who created the thread. This analysis will be crucial to understanding why technical attempt was made to hide it after its discovery by me on his profile

Make sure you don't miss it. If someone wants to scam or deceive you they use what they know you're ignorant of to do so. Come back here to read what you don't know so you're not longer deceived or confused.

Cc FxMasterz, Meedon, Heatseeker OLAADEGBU

LordReed:
How is it bias to ask you for the evidence for what you are saying? You claimed that budaatum always rises to defend AMORC when it is attacked, asking you to show evidence of that is now bias? Be for freakin real please.

Sealioning? Where did you link evidence of budaatum defending AMORC from attack?

Don't use my statement as an excuse to not show the evidence, that is a punk move. Show the evidence let everyone see that budaatum is doing what you said was done. I am not the only one who will see it so how is my bias now going close the eyes of every other person? Abeg jor.

Your emotional reaction and selective reading prove my point. This is no longer a good-faith request. It is a deflection.

The links have been posted in this thread. The fact that you have either missed them or are pretending they don't exist is not my problem. Other users like,FxMasterz have seen them and engaged with the substance, which is why the conversation has moved forward. You are choosing to remain behind, demanding I repeat what is already on the record .

Moreover, you have completely ignored my substantive reply to your "JW website"analogy where I explained the critical difference between neutral sharing and active promotion and defense. You are not entitled to make new demands while refusing to engage with the answers you've already been given

Your tactic is very obvious and it is not an inquiry. Your demand for me to "mention two places" is a deliberate attempt to fracture a complete story into isolated,out-of-context fragments. The evidence I provided,the promotional thread,and the documented pattern of defense, tells a coherent story of attachment

So, it would be a silly and insulting request to ask me to produce a post where Buda explicitly writes "I am a member of AMORC here to defend it". Members of such groups,and Buda' in particular, operate through implication, promotion,and defense,not explicit confession.Anyone who doesn't know this ,is naive and ignorant.

The entire narrative is clear. Asking me to break this story into meaningless checklist is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who has been following this presentation

The burden is no longer on me to repost public links to your personal benefit. If you are sincerely curious, something you could have done at any point was to ask your friend, Buda' directly, "Hey, did you defend AMORC's doctrinal books in the past or when the Order came under attack in this forum? "Is that what triplechoice is referring to?

His answer would be more revealing than any further performance from you.

This deflection is over. I will not repost what is already before the public until you engage with the "JW website" rebuttal from me. Thank you

LordReed:
Quote 2 places budaatum defended AMORC from attack.

With all due respect Reed, your bias is becoming more transparent .

I have already provided direct links to the evidence. You're now engaging in a tactic called "sealioning", the repeated bad-faith demand for evidence that has already been presented,to create a false impression that it doesn't exist

You didn't just join the thread.You have been here from the beginning and even from where it all began.

My previous reply to your JW analogy dismantled your argument by explaining the critical difference between neutral sharing and active promotion. You have not engaged with that rebuttal at all. Instead you are attempting to move the goalposts.

Sorry, I will not be led on this endless chase. The burden is no longer on me to repost what is already available.

It is now on you to either, engage substantively with the evidence and arguments I have already provided,or admit that you're not here for a good faith-discussion.

And until you do one of these,I will take your request as exactly what it is ,a deflection.

Don't forget you already admitted your bias and so based on this, you cannot be an honest judge here.. This line of questioning is closed

Thank you once again for your help

budaatum:
Trust me when I say that I am very delighted and exceedingly pleased that those you invited to come and help you put a tyre around buda's neck and pour petrol on and burn are being "misled" by buda not to burn the buda that you want to burn.

It increases my trust and faith in the human race.

Your melodramatic fantasy about tyres and petrol is a pathetic deflection,and everyone can see it. It's silly performance designed to paint yourself as a victim and avoid the factual basis of this discussion.

1. You created a thread promoting AMORC

2. You used the word "we" and provided recruitment links.3.

3 You then technically "hid" this thread from your profile and kept silent where it can be found for over two years.

4. You only admitted it and produced the link when you were cornered in this very thread.

These are the actions of a person caught in a lie

You can perform your ", delight" and talk about your "faith"in the human race" all you want hiding behind your phone. But it doesn't change the facts. Your theatrical response only proves you have no legitimate answer to the evidence against you

The floor is still open for you to explain your documented actions.No amount of drama changes that

LordReed:
So if I post a JW website link it means I am trying to recruit for JW? It doesn't follow especially as budaatum didn't explicitly ask anyone to join AMORC. Budaatum even clearly says the opposite, that would be a very strange thing to do if actively seeking to recruit don't you think?

You are not clear here.

"What do you mean by Budaatum even clearly says the opposite "

LordReed:
So if I post a JW website link it means I am trying to recruit for JW? It doesn't follow especially as budaatum didn't explicitly ask anyone to join AMORC. Budaatum even clearly says the opposite, that would be a very strange thing to do if actively seeking to recruit don't you think?

Your hypothetical scenario is a false equivalence that ignores the specific context of Buda's actions.

Posting a single JW link in a neutral discussion is not the same as what Buda' did. The evidence shows a consistent pattern .

He didn't just drop a link. He used the first person "we" to describe AMORC and outlined the benefits one would gain by engaging with the group. This frames the information as an endorsement, not a neutral reference.

The link in the post was to download AMORC 's introductory materials, which are explicitly designed for potential new members,not for critical analysis.

This wasn't a one -off event. It is long history of him defending AMORC's doctrines from criticism, an action that makes no sense for a true atheist . He has never criticized the group instead what you find each time Amorc comes under attack is that Budaatum is always there to defend it.

Let me use your analogy correctly. If I consistently used "we"when talking about JWs, praised the benefits of being a Jehovah's Witness, distribute their "what we Believe" brochures,and passionately defended their doctrines online,you would be right to conclude I was an advocate or a member, even if I never explicitly said the words"please join"

The intent is clear from the totality of the actions . Buda wasn't just "sharing a link"he was promoting a group he is clearly affiliated with.

Members of Amorc are everywhere and they hardly reveal publicly their affiliation to the group. It is the same with Buda Visit the thread where he made that post and noticed that the title of the thread was written using the language only members of Amorc can understand.

The intent is clear from the totality of the actions. Buda wasn't just "sharing a link"; he was promoting a group he is clearly affiliated with.

See below the title of the thread for confirmation. It evidenced it is not the creation of an outsider. I am not the only person on Nairaland who knows Buda is an initiate of Amorc. I almost joined the group.So I know what I am talking about.

It is Latin which they mostly used in communicating certain messages within the group.