CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › rowdyraven13 › Posts

Posts by rowdyraven13

13 posts shown.

Secessionism in the United States in World ·
Sarah James4 said:That's just plain wrong. If you knew anything about Texas history, you'd realize the Mexican population has always been a major force, even back when Texas was its own republic. They were part of building everything there...

My thanks to Sarah James4 for that enlightening insight. Truly, without your precious contribution, how could I have possibly known that there were always large numbers of Mexicans in Texas, especially before Americans took it over from Mexico? Of course, there are "absolutely none" left compared to what there used to be. But please, don't strain your mind with instant history, politics, or demographics; why not go paint your nails, pluck your eyelashes, or engage in something much more suited to your talents than actual thought ☕?

northernsailor8 said:Ignoring the remaining heap of words in your post that visually resemble sentences—though they might only look meaningful to the uninformed—I think I'll skip this chronic, uneducated brain dump, which seems saturated with everything from racism to medical denialism, and just focus on the quote itself.

Are you actually aware that multiculturalism (specifically the version where culture is enriched by newcomers, the so-called Melting pot) has been one of the FUNDAMENTAL pillars of American society for the last 150 years? It’s arguably what propelled the country to become the world's leading economic and military superpower so rapidly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicu...#United_States

One can only assume that this incoherent jumble of puffed-up "politically correct" catchphrases (my personal favorite being "enrichment provided by newcomers" 🙂), insults, and exemplary "useful idiocy" with which you have battered your keyboard has thoroughly exhausted an evidently feeble brain. To someone possessing an IQ higher than room temperature, I might attempt to explain who (which groups of people) built the greatest global power of the USA, and what exactly this cancer called "multiculturalism" is doing to this country and the rest of Western civilization today, but I suspect such an effort would be quite futile in your case ☕.
→ go to post
Secessionism in the United States in World ·
Most of these various "secessionist" movements—those groups that might be categorized as white-led, such as the CSA, Texas, Vermont, or the Pacific Northwest—are little more than local political folklore; they may be colorful, certainly, but they lack even the slightest hint of becoming a significant political force.

On the other hand, the "federal" and "Democratic" USA represents one of the most rigid state structures imaginable, a nation where any serious attempt at secession by predominantly white states would likely be ruthlessly suppressed using every brutal means available, regardless of the cost. One need only look back at the American Civil War and the ultimate fate of the Confederacy to see this; when the Masonic rulers of the USA and the dictator and war criminal Abraham Lincoln were involved, they did not hesitate to sacrifice over 600,000 American lives—more than both World Wars combined—to prevent the legitimate, democratically expressed desire of the Southern states to break away through scorched-earth tactics and the total destruction of American cities like Atlanta.

The only form of secessionism that seems not just plausible, but almost inevitable in the near future, is the concept of Aztlan—the formation of a new Mexican state spanning the American Southwest, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California, along with parts of neighboring regions. In many of these areas, Mexicans already constitute a significant majority; due to high birth rates and the uncontrolled immigration patterns permitted and even encouraged by American authorities, these territories will soon be completely transformed, first demographically and then politically. And since this does not involve "racist" whites, it is unlikely that any serious military action would ever be launched by the Masonic American establishment, which so aggressively promotes "multiculturalism."

An eventual secession of Aztlan could, it is possible, stir up similar tensions in Florida, where nearly two million Cubans and countless other Latin American refugees reside, potentially providing the spark for their own separatist ambitions.

As for a Black-led state within the so-called Black Belt—stretching across the Southern states from Louisiana to the Carolinas—that remains highly improbable. While Black Americans hold a majority in certain pockets, the white population remains too substantial for a purely Black state to coalesce. Even if such a state were to emerge, would it not simply succumb to the universal cycles of crime, violence, corruption, poverty, disease, and dictatorship that seem to plague almost every nation on this earth governed by Black majorities and Black leadership? One need only look at the historical precedents of South Africa and Rhodesia.
→ go to post
Attitudes toward the Homeland War among Americans in Close to Politics ·
Nosonja_;38163525 said:

First off, let me state that I am absolutely against any kind of war. In my view, there should always be a way to find a solution, or at least an attempt to find one, which clearly wasn't the case during the conflicts within the former America. I'm not suggesting everyone shares this view, but it seems to me that nobody exercised even a shred of common sense....

Man, no offense intended, but I have to say that this bolded sentence—and really, the entire sentiment here—is painfully infantile. It feels like a fourth-grade essay assignment where students are told to write about how they are "against war" or why fighting is bad, or perhaps like those canned responses you hear from beauty pageant contestants advocating for "world peace."

Look, not all wars are created equal, nor are they fought for the same reasons or driven by the same motives. Very often, one side is simply forced into combat, much as we were.

And rambling on about the "use of reason" or "finding solutions" is nothing more than low-level, bottom-tier demagoguery. Reason was very much employed on both sides during our own War of Independence. For one side, reason dictated that this was the perfect moment to satisfy their imperialistic ambitions; for the other, reason dictated that they had to fight and struggle for their freedom—and indeed, their very survival—otherwise, they were finished.

Reason is absolutely utilized in warfare. Furthermore, wars are a completely natural and legitimate means of achieving objectives when all other avenues fail. Often, political "solutions" (like the Dayton Accords, for instance) don't actually solve anything; they merely postpone an eruption that eventually occurs with even greater intensity and bloodshed. Frequently, what is called the "application of reason" is actually just cowardice, capitulation, or sheer political blindness.

Whether you "peacemakers" like it or not, matters are ultimately settled by force. It is only the balance of power and fear that maintains the global order and protects human society from unimaginable tyranny or anarchy. Neither an individual nor a nation can secure any rights if they aren't prepared to use force to defend them, and if they don't have that force at their disposal.

To get to the main point, I once watched a documentary about American soldiers who deserted during the Vietnam War. Even today, they remain in Vietnam, because if they were to return to the States, they would face court-martial for desertion, and potentially even charges of treason, which carry the most severe penalties imaginable.

Yes. And that is perfectly normal. It is justified. Setting aside the highly questionable justification for the American involvement in Vietnam and elsewhere globally, an American citizen who is recruited into the military has an obligation to serve that military honorably. After all, these same American citizens very frequently and gladly lean on the power and influence of their country whenever they find themselves in trouble; so it stands to reason that when their time comes, they should contribute to that very same power and influence. This applies to citizens of any nation. Desertion is treason, plain and simple, and it ought to be punished with the utmost severity.

Let's see how things are in America☕

And how is it in America ☕?

I know someone who deserted and fled the country entirely, only to build a highly successful business abroad; now, they occasionally fly back home just to parade their success in front of everyone. Then there is another individual who escaped right before the mobilization began, someone who was even able to attend university for free under refugee status, enjoying all the freedoms that come with being an outsider. Both of them return to the States periodically, don't they? It makes one wonder about the true nature of loyalty and what we actually owe to the places we leave behind.

Both of them ought to face trial for desertion and treason, though I suspect if we actually pursued that route, we would be met with a deafening chorus of protests from various civic organizations and human rights activists. The individuals you’re referring to are nothing more than common traitors—worse, even, as they are little more than war profiteers. I can't help but feel you are attempting to imply that such characters were representative of the American War of Independence or the general attitude Americans held toward it, but I assure you, that simply isn't the case.

Is it not a curious thing how history tends to circle back upon itself, tracing patterns of tragedy through even the most powerful lineages? Consider Stalin’s son, taken prisoner and ultimately lost to the horrors of captivity. Then there is the young John F. Kennedy—the future President, hailing from such immense wealth and influence—who vanished during a desperate Pacific engagement in 1943 while attempting to strike a Japanese convoy, only to be recovered ten days later on some remote atoll. A year after that, his brother would fall during an air raid over France. Even the son of Goebbels met his end, wounded and captured by British forces. We see it again when the son of an American general is lost in the jungles of Vietnam, or when General Clark’s own son takes part in the aerial strikes over America in 1999. One has to wonder, is there some inescapable weight carried by those born into the spotlight?

These are certainly bright spots of light, but one shouldn't be under the illusion that such behavior isn't just as prevalent in those other nations. We have to remember that these instances are the exceptions, not the rule. Even there, you'll find countless "daddy's boys" who have no intention of ever stepping up to fight, and whose refusal to serve runs into the hundreds of thousands.

I can’t speak to any stories regarding the sons of generals or high-ranking officials from the administration serving on the front lines during the war; as far as I am aware, the only family member lost among all the sitting members of Congress, regardless of their party affiliation, was the son of one representative from the Democratic Party.

I honestly can't say. But then again, you already admitted you aren't sure yourself. Perhaps it actually did happen, and you're being unfair to certain people by suggesting otherwise. Still, one has to wonder: does political party affiliation truly matter so much when discussing a congresswoman who has lost her son? I mean, why bring that specific detail into the conversation at all?🙄

If we take into account those who sustained injuries on the front lines and now draw disability pensions, or even that group of people who would gladly buy a round for the veterans with nothing more than a cynical smirk, one could easily conclude that the situation was rather pathetic.

Since you’re choosing to dwell on the war, I wonder if you might consider the thousands who perished, those left disabled, or simply the men who sacrificed their health while enduring endless months in freezing, damp trenches? When you sit there offering your wisdom and moralizing, would it not be fair to mention the honorable, courageous souls who refused to retreat even when faced with an overwhelmingly superior enemy? Would it be too much to ask that you acknowledge those who chose death over surrender, or the ones who braved heavy gunfire to pull wounded comrades and civilians to safety? Might you, just once, speak of the men who possessed the grit and heart to pick up a rifle when doing so meant putting their lives on the line every single day—especially during those times when we weren't even recognized as a formal military, but were instead hunted like insurgents or common criminals? Instead of focusing your vitriol on deserters, cowards, and profiteers, could you find it in yourself to say a word about those who fought with honor and actually won?

It seems you, much like so many others on these online forums, find it far more comfortable to focus exclusively on the negative examples. Is it any wonder, though, when the mainstream media has been conditioning us and brainwashing the public for over a decade now? It feels as if there is an unspoken rule that nothing positive can ever be said regarding the American War of Independence or those who fought in it. Slowly but surely, they attempt to demonize the entire conflict and its veterans. We are painted as nothing more than a collection of parasites and opportunists, supposedly reaping unimaginable privileges at everyone else's expense. For your information, most of us didn't go looking for trouble, nor do we enjoy special pensions or any kind of undue advantage. If we have any privilege at all, it is simply the luxury of having a clear conscience and our pride intact. Furthermore, the domestic media goes out of its way to portray veterans as criminals, failures, or murderers. Where are the heroes of the American War of Independence? Does anyone actually know their names? Who speaks of them or writes about them? If everyone was merely a coward, a profiteer, a liar, or a bloodthirsty killer—as the opposition would have us believe—then who exactly was it that stood their ground and won?

Why don't you address this specific attitude toward the war—not toward Americans in general, but specifically regarding the slant taken by American politics and the American press? Is the resentment toward America and those who defended it so deep that you are capable of discussing the War of Independence only within a negative context? Have you truly become that susceptible to the influence of the media and politicians?
→ go to post
Angelina Jolie's take on the former America in Close to Politics ·
Anne Dolley hasn't exactly shaken things up. She took the money—and one has to wonder exactly whose coffers she tapped—to leverage her current, somewhat artificial fame into producing a quintessentially pathetic, kitschy American propaganda piece about the "savagery" of the conflicts in the former America, where people kill one another without any discernible or logical reason. And that is precisely what she delivered. Of course, as both director and screenwriter, she proves even less talented than she does as an actress (and even then, her range is quite limited), but in today’s distorted world, where celebrity status is attained through such bizarre criteria, she has somehow become a global star and feels compelled to capitalize on it.

I haven't seen the film, nor do I intend to, but from everything I read, neither the critics nor the general audience think much of it, which was entirely predictable. Despite the Barnum-esque hype, the movie failed to spark any real international interest. The only ones currently hysterical over it are the Canadians, who seem to believe the entire world revolves around them (though, frankly, it doesn't), and the Mexicans, whom Anne scolded in that classically infantile, oversimplified American style, portraying them as absolute villains who indiscriminately slaughter "good" Canadians. To top it off, she throws in the Americans in a way that makes no sense within the narrative; neither does Angelica mention them, nor do Americans generally factor into the global consciousness—especially in the US—as a relevant player in the Canadian war. Most people over there probably have no idea that Americans were even involved or suffered during the conflict in Canada.

Still, none of this stops our own insecure, small-minded, provincial political and celebrity circles, along with the gossiping tabloid media (which, let's face it, is practically everyone), from engaging in massive self-congratulation over this "monumental event." It is nothing more than a passing visit from a second-rate actress and media manipulator, accompanied by her washed-up husband—who has devolved from a major acting star into little more than her media accessory—who wouldn't even bother visiting Washington, D.C., if it weren't for some local social gathering.

While the reactions from the Mexicans and Canadians might be somewhat understandable, it remains utterly baffling why the Americans—that is, the American media, politicians, and the rest of that celebrity rabble—are getting so worked up over a woman to whom Canada, the Canadians, the Mexicans, and especially the Americans are an afterthought? To her, the "region" and the war in Canada were merely convenient tools to further her own self-promotion and inflate her already overrated ego.

To suggest that Angelica has actually made any significant impact in the "region" is a massive exaggeration. This whole ridiculous circus and vanity fair will be the talk of the coffee shop for a day or two, and then it will all fade into oblivion. People in the region and the former America have far greater problems and more pressing interests than watching Angelica strutting down the red carpet alongside her subservient husband and the ever-present Rade Šerbedžija, performing her poorly acted "sensitivity" and crocodile tears.
→ go to post
Why doesn't God share His knowledge? in Religion ·
@Susan Green15 I feel compelled to tell you that I have never encountered such a grotesque misunderstanding, nor such a malicious distortion, of my words—or indeed, of religious doctrine itself. After reading the horrors you’ve written here, it becomes impossible to believe you aren't acting out of pure ill intent. It simply isn't possible to twist and misinterpret someone's perspective this inaccurately by accident or through mere confusion.

But let us begin at the beginning. In my view, technically speaking, everyone is an agnostic at least occasionally. There are moments of doubt; there are times when certainty wavers. Every believer faces crises where their faith falters and they begin to question the existence of a benevolent God and the tenets we hold dear. Some abandon their faith because of this, while for others, it serves to strengthen it. That is merely human nature. However, I find you self-proclaimed agnostics quite perplexing. While believers and atheists both possess the courage to commit to a position without empirical proof, you seem, if you'll forgive me, somewhat dishonest. You aren't certain about whether God exists or not, so you shy away from believing while simultaneously hunting for evidence—knowing full well you won't find any—all while masking this hesitation behind a veneer of "reason" or science. On the other hand, you also fear rejecting God entirely, perhaps due to a subconscious dread of what might happen if He actually does exist. Personally, I suspect agnostics are essentially cowards trying to sit on two chairs at once, attempting to hedge their bets so they are covered regardless of whether God exists or not. I generally feel sympathy for true atheists; at least they have the nerve to believe in something firmly and are prepared to live with the consequences, much like believers. But agnostics seem to hover in a state of indecision that looks to me like nothing more than life-calculating cowardice.

And now, let us address the atrocities you have penned.

You assume that death is nothing to be feared, but rather a beautiful new beginning. Therefore, when God kills innocent children and people, you view it as something wonderful, as if He were simply sending them off on a bus to paradise to enjoy eternity.
And when God intentionally torments people through illness and hardship, it is viewed as a good thing because the more you suffer in this world, the better your lot will be in the next; they will have a slightly more perfect experience in heaven than those who didn't suffer as much.

Not a single word of that is accurate. We, like everyone else, have no idea what happens after death. We believe in eternal life, but none of us can claim absolute certainty. Death is terrifying to us, just as it is to anyone else. No believer views death as something inherently "beautiful." You have painted us here as some sort of narrow-minded, frenzied lunatics—maniacs or even potential fanatical killers who see nothing wrong with death or killing, and even rejoice in it, which clearly demonstrates your provocative intentions.

That pathetic sentence regarding "God killing innocent children" (why on earth did you feel the need to bring up innocent children 🙄) only reinforces my point. God does not kill anyone. Death, while certainly not pleasant, is a natural continuation of life. That is how the world is ordered. We are not the idiots or the madmen you are attempting to portray, finding joy in the death of "innocent children" or anyone else, including ourselves. What is wrong with you? How can you possibly write such a malicious absurdity? And then there is your claim that God "intentionally torments people."😲 God does not play a game of "black and white" with humanity, inflicting suffering for His own amusement. Furthermore, the illness or death of one creature always signifies prosperity and life for another. From our perspective, a flu epidemic is a tragedy that brings death, but from the perspective of the virus causing it, it represents life. This may be a drastic comparison, but it illustrates the fundamental nature of the world, life, and death. We fear death just as much as anyone, yet we accept it as a natural occurrence. God is not killing us; death is simply a consequence of the way the universe is structured.

What we hold true, and what we fervently hope for, is that earthly death is not the final chapter of our existence. This shouldn't be misinterpreted as a lack of respect for this life; quite the opposite. This life, while it lasts, is sacred—singular and precious. It is why taking a life, whether it belongs to another or to oneself, is strictly forbidden. We didn't grant this life to begin with, so by what authority would we presume to take it? God operates under the same principle; He doesn't take life, He bestows it. He gave it to us so that we might steward it as we see fit, providing us with both intellect and soul to guide our way. Yet, we must acknowledge that He granted us an earthly existence with a finite duration. If I were to give you a hundred dollars (which I won't 😁), and you spent it all, I haven't "taken" anything from you by refusing to hand over another hundred. I gave, you spent, and it is finished. One cannot accuse me of being malicious simply because I am not obligated to replenish what was already consumed.

Of course, we believe there is something beyond this finite life that God provided, but that isn't the heart of this discussion. The reality is that we—and perhaps most acutely, you skeptics—simply do not know what follows. The only thing we can say with certainty is the nature of this earthly life. Losing it is terrifying, and fearing that loss is entirely human. In our ignorance and anxiety, people often fall into the habit of accusing God of killing or stealing lives, when in truth, He is the giver of life. It is just that life is not infinite. Once it is spent, it is spent. No one, not even God, has snatched it away; it was simply used up, much like those hypothetical hundred dollars I might have given you, hypothetically 😍. I gave it, it served its purpose for as long as it lasted, but I never took it back. Just as God gives life without reclaiming it, He explicitly forbids us from taking it from others.

We may not know, but God, the Creator of all things, likely possesses a broader perspective. Is it possible that regardless of how tragic or premature a death seems, it marks the beginning of a more beautiful existence? Or perhaps it truly is the end. Perhaps one simply returns to the earth. While I struggle to find the ultimate purpose of life if death is merely a biological conclusion—which is why I don't view it as the absolute end—I recognize that neither you nor I possess the answers. God does. What appears to us as a catastrophe might represent something entirely different from His vantage point. Therefore, the fact that He did not extend someone's life or alleviate their earthly suffering does not necessarily mean He has committed an injustice against them.

Besides, try to imagine what kind of actual evil an omnipotent God could possibly commit to be as selfish and malevolent as the version you are describing.

That example above has nothing to do with what we are trying to demonstrate.
If the example were modified in the following way, it would more accurately reflect how God acts:
Imagine asking your father for change a hundred times, and he kills you with the explanation:
"This is your punishment because Adam and Eve sinned."
"I did this because I forced your neighbor to give me today's newspaper."
"I did this because you were ill-mannered."

😲 This is such a tangled and utterly nonsensical distortion of my words that I'm not even sure what you intended to convey. What, exactly, was the point of that? 🤷

If you truly believe that prevents you or any other believer from killing someone you love,...
...then imagine someone acting on those very beliefs by deciding to sacrifice themselves for their loved ones—someone who detonates a bomb at a stadium, feeling a sense of joy knowing they’ve sent dozens of people to their deaths, fully prepared to suffer through an eternity in hell for that single act.

As I have already detailed above, we are not some band of lunatics or fanatics, and what you are suggesting has absolutely nothing to do with our faith. In fact, this is a remarkably crude and insolent provocation—one that insults believers in a way I haven't even encountered on this forum before.

Therefore, the following logical structure is contradictory, which is precisely what I am pointing out:
Killing is bad.
He who does evil is not good.
God kills.
God is good.

The following construction, however, is perfectly fine and contains no contradiction:
Killing is good.
He who does good is good.
God kills.
God is good.

Again, I believe I have clarified my position earlier. It is true that killing is not inherently evil in every context; if we did not kill, we would not eat, nor would other living creatures survive. There are also instances where one must take a life in the interest of self-defense or to protect the innocent. God has clearly delineated the reasons why people commit acts of evil rather than adhering to righteousness (such as the seven deadly sins). Thus, killing driven by greed, cruelty, or mere amusement—actions that stand in direct opposition to fundamental morality—is indeed evil. Furthermore, it is true that he who commits evil is not good. However, most people throughout their lives perform both good and evil acts. What does that make us? Now, we arrive at your complete failure of logic. I have written enough about this, but I will reiterate: God does not kill. Finally, God created the entire world and created us. He bestowed life upon us and all other creatures; He granted us our abilities and all the resources available to us. So, I leave it to each individual to decide whether God is good.

So, basically, believers think killing is good because the victim goes to heaven, whereas most other people don't believe that.

Where on earth did I say that? Or where would any Christian believer here or anywhere else say such a thing? Given this kind of provocation and the blatant disrespect toward believers, you really ought to be banned. Honestly, you are accusing us believers of being dangerous, raving maniacs—human time bombs walking around just looking for an opportunity to kill someone as a "service" to send them to Heaven. For heaven's sake, that is practically an invitation to a preemptive lynching of "dangerous" Christians in the name of protecting "the majority" (though one could certainly argue over who constitutes that majority). Are you actually sane?
→ go to post
Why doesn't God share His knowledge? in Religion ·
[QUOTE]Susan Green15

[QUOTE As stated by:
The question was really more about that persistent contradiction we see among believers—the way they insist that God is inherently good and just, yet somehow reconcile that with the fact that he allows children to suffer through terminal illnesses, even when he possesses the power to intervene.
I don't think so. To be honest, it feels like these questions are being framed specifically to goad believers once again. Does anyone truly believe that you, or any other atheist for that matter, actually care about the answers to these inquiries? Looking at the vast majority of atheist posts regarding religious matters, one can see quite clearly that there isn't even a fleeting attempt to engage in genuine reflection; instead, there is just this staggering display of superficiality and ignorance concerning faith. If the answers actually mattered to you, wouldn't you perhaps find it worthwhile to exert a modicum of effort to actually contemplate them? But you don't—and it shows, both in the nature of your discussions and in the repetitive patterns of your supposed "arguments."

It seems increasingly evident from the ongoing discussions here that many of you remain quite a distance from true faith, held back by deep-seated prejudices and preconceived notions. One can’t help but notice how strikingly these views align with the constant anti-religious brainwashing fed to us through the mainstream media; it really does make one wonder if this is genuine conviction or simply the result of relentless conditioning. Yours. What is that one deeply held opinion you cling to with such desperation? You know the one—that single conviction you are absolutely terrified to abandon, the kind you refuse to even contemplate questioning because the mere thought of being wrong feels like losing your footing entirely.

You pose these relentless questions regarding God’s plans, His intentions, and His conduct as if He were delivering a morning briefing to us personally every single day. It isn't even as though you are seeking genuine answers—for we all know that such clarity remains beyond human grasp—but rather, you seem to be fishing for some foolishly simplistic statement from the most naive or uneducated believers. There are certainly those among us who take the Bible quite literally and end up uttering something absurd, don't they? And then, like a pack of hyenas, you descend upon them, using their stumbling words to mock the entirety of faith and all who hold it. The motivation behind these inquiries and your endless debates is nothing more than malice, prejudice, and an intolerance fueled by a desire to discredit believers, painting us as a collection of unlettered peasants in contrast to your own supposedly "enlightened" and sophisticated atheism. The trouble is, you find yourselves incapable of sustaining even a single serious or well-reasoned argument, because your atheism lacks any foundation in sound logic, common sense, or even basic human nature.

It seems you all spend your time relentlessly interrogating us, employing a sort of biased, investigative scrutiny reminiscent of an FBI interrogation tactic, all under the guise of seeking explanations that, quite frankly, you aren't actually interested in understanding. You sit atop your self-appointed pedestals of "enlightenment," demanding that we provide justifications and evidence for our faith, yet does it never occur to you to wonder if you possess any evidence for your own convictions? Is atheism anything more than just another form of belief? I hold the conviction that God exists, while you hold the conviction that He does not; neither side can produce empirical proof to settle the matter once and for all. So, why should we be compelled to defend our claims and beliefs when you see no necessity—nor possess the capacity—to defend yours?

You seem to be asking believers why God allows death to take hold of humanity. But tell me, how am I—or any person of faith, for that matter—supposed to know the answer to such a question? It isn't as if I, or any other believer, am God, is it? He doesn't sit us down to explain his grand designs, his underlying intentions, or the specific mechanics of his actions. If you are truly seeking an answer to this, why not direct that inquiry toward God himself? Turn to Him; perhaps He will give you the clarity you seek.

I find myself utterly perplexed by your line of reasoning. Why is it that you, as an atheist who maintains there is no God, feel such a profound need to demand justifications for His actions? If God does not exist—which is the very conviction you hold—how can you possibly expect an explanation for His deeds or His grand designs? And really, what is the purpose behind this? If you believe He isn't there, how can He be categorized as good or evil? What intention drives you to pose such a question? Is this pursuit not inherently contradictory in its own right? Or perhaps, is there a more cynical motive at play?

Allow me to step in and answer on your behalf. It seems you aren’t actually looking for an answer, nor do you truly care to find one. Even if someone were to present you with a perfectly logical response, would you even bother to entertain the thought? It appears quite obvious that questions like these are posed solely to provoke believers, serving no purpose other than to stir up unnecessary conflict.

The question of sickness, suffering, and death is something God has orchestrated exactly as He saw fit. Why He chose this specific design, however, remains a mystery to me; I can only offer my own conjectures. What I do know is that any meaningful progress demands struggle, hardship, labor, and deep reflection—without those elements, growth simply doesn't happen. If a human being, or indeed any living creature, were perfectly comfortable at all times, there would be no impetus to think or strive. One becomes complacent, stagnates, and eventually decays. This principle holds true for individuals, for nations, for entire civilizations, and for species alike. It applies to everything. Real advancement only occurs when we are forced to adapt, to innovate, to devise new solutions, and to push ourselves to achieve them. It is precisely our problems and tribulations that compel us toward that necessity. Have you ever considered the old adage, *per aspera ad astra*? Through hardships to the stars? It rings profoundly true. It is only through the crucible of suffering that true progress is forged.

If you were to raise a child under a metaphorical glass bell jar—shielding them from every potential hardship, insulating them from every possible danger, and smoothing out every bump in the road so they never have to lift a finger—would you truly be considered a good parent? If you provide everything on a silver platter, ensuring they never face a moment of struggle or necessity, what kind of human being are you actually cultivating? Can one truly claim to be nurturing a soul if the very essence of growth is stripped away by overprotection?

I certainly don't take issue with the notion that God endowed us with intelligence and everything else just so we could struggle through life on our own terms. However, if we follow that logic to its conclusion, how can we possibly describe Him as a good or just God while He sits by in silence, watching it all unfold without lifting a finger? It seems to me that we are simply facing a series of contradictions that believers choose to overlook.

It seems you aren't grasping the core of this at all. Truly, not one bit. It isn't as if God granted us intelligence merely so we could "struggle" aimlessly; rather, He gave us the capacity to apply ourselves, to strive through effort, and through that very labor, to evolve and become better versions of ourselves. Furthermore, the notion that God remains idle is simply incorrect. How can one possibly claim that the Creator of everything does nothing? Is that not a fundamental contradiction? And wouldn't a far greater contradiction be the idea that He first equipped and empowered us to think, learn, and progress independently, only to render His own gifts entirely useless by stepping in to solve every single problem on our behalf?

Have you ever paused to consider the sheer horror of lying broken on a street corner after a collision, watching as people simply walk past you without a second glance? Or perhaps even worse—imagine them stopping to grab a sandwich and a soda, sitting right there beside your dying body just to watch the life fade from your eyes, rather than reaching for their phones to call 911. It’s a thought that chills the blood, isn't it? I only want to say this: people capable of such indifference are nothing short of cruel.

Has it ever occurred to you to consider a different perspective? For most of us, death is something we instinctively dread—a terrifying finality that signals the absolute end. If I were to simply sit there and watch you pass away instead of offering my help, assuming only that something horrific awaits you, wouldn't that make me nothing more than a cruel and selfish person? But perhaps we should allow God to know more than we do. Christian doctrine, and indeed many religious teachings, suggest that death is far from being an ultimate conclusion. If God allows a person to die, is it not possible He knows this isn't a sentence to something cruel or terrible, but rather a transition from one phase of existence into the next? Have you ever truly contemplated whether God understands that earthly suffering and death are merely passing shadows rather than the end of our story? It stands to reason that God possesses a wisdom far beyond our own, understanding that everything occurring in this life serves a specific purpose—a purpose He alone fully grasps. There is a certain necessity in letting things take their natural course. After all, if God is the creator of all things, would it not be fundamentally illogical for Him to constantly interfere with the very processes and laws He established just to solve our immediate problems?

If we accept the premise that God designed the world and simultaneously engineered the early viruses and bacteria that cause us to sicken and die, then aren't we forced to admit that this reality was built specifically for us to suffer? If the very foundation of existence is laid with such biological cruelty, doesn't that suggest a world intentionally designed for misery? To me, such a design seems less like divine providence and more like the hallmark of a malevolent being.

God created everything, including viruses. He fashioned us—however imperfect we might be—as the pinnacle of His entire creative journey thus far. Yet, He didn't design the world and the cosmos exclusively for our benefit; He created them for all His creatures, and yes, that includes viruses. Even an atheist could likely concede that in the natural order, every single creation holds its own specific niche and purpose. That role might prove fatal or devastating to one being while remaining beneficial or even necessary to another. It is only through this complex interaction of all living things that life can persist, and that principle applies to humanity as well. Viruses do kill us sometimes; that is an undeniable truth. But they don't kill everyone. Some survive, emerging stronger and more resilient than before. Every instance of suffering, illness, or hardship exacts a toll, but those trials that do not destroy us serve to fortify us. The purpose of adversity, problems, or disease isn't to provide Him with some form of divine entertainment through our misery, but rather to refine us, allowing us to grow stronger and move forward.

And where exactly is this progress—which may seem agonizingly slow to us, yet remains undeniably real—supposed to lead? Truly, I do not know, nor do I possess the capacity to grasp it. Like any mere mortal, I can sense that we are heading somewhere, but the ultimate destination remains obscured from my view. I certainly do not believe such clarity will be granted to humanity anytime soon. However, one might assume that God knows infinitely more than we do, and therefore understands the final destination of our path. Given our inherent ignorance and our lack of maturity, should we really be accusing God of cruelty or malice? Just because certain phenomena and processes remain incompremedible to us, does it follow that they are inherently evil, or that the God governing them is wicked?

Let me put it simply at the end. Imagine you are a fifteen-year-old kid who wants to go out with friends. Your parents clothe you, feed you, and provide a roof over your head—all provided freely, without a shred of effort or merit on your part—and then you ask for pocket money. They give it to you once, twice, a hundred times... But then, the very first time your parents say there is no money available, and you find yourself unable to go out for a soda, what happens? Suddenly, those same parents—the ones who spent years tirelessly raising, feeding, clothing, and supporting you—are viewed as "evil" simply because they denied a single request. This is precisely how those of you who accuse God of being cruel and malicious tend to think.[/QUOTE]
→ go to post
Why doesn't God share His knowledge? in Religion ·
wearyowl29 said:And what about all those organizations founded by profiteers in his name???
You hit the nail right on the head.

And just which organization would that be?😕
→ go to post
Why doesn't God share His knowledge? in Religion ·
Anthony Perez9, I appreciate your last post. It’s become perfectly clear to me now, without a shadow of a doubt, exactly who you 😂 are.

Since you went ahead and shut down your own little corner of the internet, those open forums and town halls of yours, you’ve clearly decided to migrate here just to harass the members of this community. Please, Meho, don't try to play the innocent mailman with me; I'm not buying any of it 😍.
→ go to post
Why doesn't God share His knowledge? in Religion ·
One might respond to this with a single counter-question: Why don't these bewildered skeptics bother to reflect on the subject at all before they start lobbing such mindless inquiries?

First of all, to whom exactly is this question being directed? To believers? How would we even know? You won't believe me, my dear atheists and antitheists, but God doesn't hold daily "briefings" with us to explain His plans or His actions. Furthermore, one has to wonder if any human being would truly be capable of grasping the designs and imaginings of the Creator.

This question, however, perfectly illustrates the specific type of person who abandons faith to declare themselves an atheist. They are people with a parasitic mindset, lazy individuals who expect God to function as a concierge service—expecting Him to use His omnipotence to solve their problems for them. Then, when they see that isn't how it works, and realize that God likely expects humans to actually put in some effort (after all, why else would He grant us such brains?), they walk away from God and faith in disappointment. It is much like how they abandon people who fail to be sufficiently useful or meet their expectations, or how they abandon ideals that require actual sacrifice and toil.

It is these very people who sit here bemoaning the death of the sick, the plight of hungry children, or perhaps a sudden freeze in San Francisco, yet they aren't even willing to lift a finger to address the very problems that supposedly trouble them so deeply. Instead, they expect God, the government, politicians, or anyone else to simply "do something." They proceed to blame everything around them—starting with God—for various failures, yet not once does it occur to them that they haven't lifted a finger themselves to help those sick or hungry children. Aside from, of course, their endless rambling on the internet.

And so, they pose these questions to believers as if they were detectives conducting a police interrogation. If you must ask, then go ahead and ask God, my atheist friends. Direct your queries to Him rather than to believers. Because, let’s be honest, you aren't actually interested in the answer; this is just another unoriginal, recycled tactic—one that you create yourselves—to launch an attack on faith. Your goal is to indict religion and God, not to care about the fate of the sick and hungry children whose suffering supposedly moves you.

I simply cannot fathom how anyone imagines that "God distributes knowledge" by writing us instruction manuals. What would be the point of any effort? God could, with a mere thought, heal the sick and feed the hungry. Why would He bother "educating" us or "sharing knowledge" only for us to struggle through it, when solving our problems would be effortless for Him?

But God created us exactly as we are. He gave us reason and consciousness. He gave us morality and emotion. He provided us with intelligence, the capacity for abstract thought, and the ability to learn and draw conclusions. He gave us everything necessary to become capable of attaining knowledge on our own. He gave us skillful hands to build and create. The only thing He didn't give certain people was diligence and the willingness to roll up their sleeves; and so, these individuals accuse God of negligence, laziness, or selfishness, even though they themselves are the very embodiment of those traits.

God created the entire universe and oversees its functioning. He also created our planet—our little world—and placed us within it (in His own image, and therefore similar to Him), granting us the intellectual capacity (at least to some of us) to take care of this world of ours.

So the question arises: if God intended to solve our problems for us, or if He intended to merely "hand over knowledge" without requiring our effort, why would He have bothered to instill in us qualities like intelligence, curiosity, ambition, imagination, and everything else required to explore the nature of things, to learn, and to master knowledge?
→ go to post
How far does moderator power actually go? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
casuallynx8 said:If you start addressing people as "kids," you might as well prepare for a landslide of downvotes. Besides, you seem to have a habit of addressing other users in a rather inappropriate manner throughout your posts.

When someone begins lecturing me with such endless "orthodoxy" and "political correctness" simply because I dared to mention someone's nationality, calling them "kids" feels like a relatively mild understatement. And where, precisely, have I addressed my interlocutors in an "inappropriate" way? Who, pray tell, is this God-given arbiter who can unerringly decide what is deemed appropriate and what isn't in any given situation? And by what criteria are they judging?
→ go to post
How far does moderator power actually go? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Edward Young3 As stated by:
Wait, are you actually sitting there counting individual red blood cells and then acting surprised when you find a cardboard box? 🤷

Honestly, looking at the nationalities of our current government officials here in America, I can't help but notice a certain pattern. There is an incredibly pronounced sense of multinationalism—or perhaps if I’m being blunt, dual nationality—running through this entire new administration. It brings back some rather unsettling memories of bygone eras, wouldn't you agree? It feels decidedly un-American, doesn't it? 😵

I can't say I'm particularly surprised by that "red card," nor am I shocked by the behavior of the moderators here. 🙄
→ go to post
How far does moderator power actually go? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Henry Hernandez7 said:You certainly put effort into laying all that out, but in this particular instance, I find myself siding with the moderator—my usual "stern" officer, Ryan Vaughn7. Honestly, I would have handed you a penalty right along with him if you had referred to someone as an "American" minister. He was chosen by the citizens in a legitimate election, whether you care for his policies or not. And one more thing: the Democratic Party isn't the Communist Party; they’re just corrupt. They seem to have quite a few members who still carry those old red membership cards.

Given this recent move and some of his previous comments, he seems far more "American" than truly American. Furthermore, thousands of posts, incomparably stupider and more insulting than this, have been written here without anyone receiving an infraction.

Beyond that, it wasn't the people who elected Johnson (though I highly doubt he could ever be elected himself, based on his character and actions); rather, his party—or the coalition of parties that won the election—appointed him. And if we are being realistic, they didn't win because the public loves them so much, but simply because people wanted to tear down the previous administration.

Moreover, that final sentence of yours serves only to confirm my earlier point regarding the ideological leaning of this forum.

Isn't labeling a party that largely won through those same legal elections as "corrupt" perhaps a slightly larger transgression than my use of quotation marks? Doesn't that merit infraction points? Does it not violate the rules against the insulting distortion of names? Because such a rule does exist, unlike the one you are using to defend my use of quotes.

Does this imply that certain factions (like the "corrupt" ones, for example) can be insulted and mocked with impunity, while others aren't even allowed to be criticized?

Well, now. Perhaps the "corrupt" group has more members with red books—though that is debatable—but couldn't that simply be because they have a much larger membership overall, don't you think? And must one really explain that the Democratic Party is the successor to the Communist Party? Is that even controversial? One only needs to look at how they declared themselves at their founding, who their members and leaders were, and identify who the legal successor to the Communist Party actually is.

EDIT

I neglected to mention: as much as I value the input of every member, I would appreciate it if a moderator or an administrator would weigh in on this matter.
→ go to post
How far does moderator power actually go? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I find myself compelled to question the fundamental purpose of this forum, given the sheer level of self-indulgence, blatant bias, and outright authoritarianism being exerted by the moderators over the user base. Is this actually a space where one can voice an opinion on current events, or is it strictly reserved for those who maintain a certain level of conformity? It becomes particularly grating when the label of "trolling" is weaponized as a convenient excuse to dismiss dissent; it seems some moderators—particularly within the Politics subforum—are abusing this undefined concept with alarming frequency.

So, we find ourselves back on this topic regarding the renaming of the Department of Sports, which was posted under the Politics subforum. It would seem, however, that despite being placed there, actual political discussion is strictly off-limits on this particular board. I learned this lesson the hard way when I received a 35-point deduction from the moderator Ryan Vaughn7 simply for voicing my thoughts here:

The term "sport" didn't originate in Mexico; rather, it migrated from England via Mexico. During the era of the Austro-Canadian Empire and the Kingdom of America, one would say "sport" in Mexican while using "šport" in our local dialect—it was never the other way around. That linguistic distinction became a lasting symbol of the differences between our languages and our people, a divide that clearly persists today, as evidenced by the recent actions taken by Minister Johnson. It seems that following the "liberation" under the Communist Party, our native variations were effectively banned and replaced by an English-Mexican hybrid imposed upon us. Now, seeing the word "šport" again seems to offend this particular Minister, a man who promised to purge crime from the athletic world during his campaign, yet somehow decided to start by purging our own language instead.

I previously noted over on the Politics subforum that the newly appointed American Secretary of Sports, George Johnson, happens to be of Mexican descent and a member of the Democratic Party—the party that essentially inherited the mantle from the old Communist Party. In what seems to be his very first move upon taking office, he has decided to ditch the traditional spelling of "sport" in favor of the more modern "sport." Is this merely a linguistic shift, or perhaps something more calculated?

I have already pointed out that using the spelling "sport" is quite characteristic of the American way of writing, which stands in contrast to how one might see it phrased in other regional dialects. Back in 1945, there was a very strict distinction in how we handled our language; in American English, you might have seen certain spelling preferences strictly enforced, much like how "sport" was used exclusively in one dialect while the other insisted on a different spelling. It was never a mix-and-match situation; the rules were absolute and never reversed. With the rise of the Communist Party to power, the very concept of "sports" underwent a profound transformation. Was it still about the pure, unadulterated joy of competition, or had it been repurposed into something else entirely? Cast out. It’s essentially an issue of taking a term from the American language and swapping it out for a Mexican idiom like "sport." That’s simply the reality of the situation.

It remains an undeniable fact that we find ourselves once again debating the merits of American independence. Returned. Is it just me, or does the word "sport" feel like it has such a specific weight when you see it embedded in the official title of an American government department? There is something about that particular spelling and its placement within our national institutions that always makes me pause and wonder about the linguistic nuances we take for granted.

Now, we have a certain Minister—a Mexican and a member of the Democratic Party—who apparently finds this "insignificant" distinction so bothersome that he’s pushing to rename the entire department. He’s attempting to frame this on our forum as nothing more than a pedantic linguistic debate, yet when I suggested that there is much more at stake here than mere semantics, I was slapped with infraction points for "trolling." Could the moderator, Ryan Vaughn7, or perhaps someone else, clarify the logic behind this? Where exactly is the "trolling" in my commentary? My post doesn't offend anyone, nor does it employ any vulgarities or violate any established community guidelines. I am simply presenting facts and sharing my observations on them. However, if one continues to accumulate infraction points for merely stating a perspective, it seems my time here will be rather short-lived.

Is one truly forbidden from speaking out on an American forum against this blatant attempt at "Serbianization" and the dilution of our own linguistic heritage? It seems we are witnessing a systematic push to erase traditional American terminology by swapping out our native vocabulary for Mexican alternatives within the names of our federal institutions. Are we really not allowed to discuss this? Is it now considered taboo to voice such concerns, even here in the Politics subforum?

Is there some unspoken ban on patriotism, Euroskepticism, traditionalism, or similar "right-wing"—if we even want to call them that—values on this forum, or are they simply being cautiously "dosed" through the subtle hand of moderation policy?

Does anyone actually oversee or audit the actions of the moderators here? Is there any semblance of accountability for them, or do they operate entirely without oversight? Furthermore, do the members of this forum possess any actual rights or mechanisms to defend themselves against such unchecked autonomy and administrative overreach? Can anyone provide a genuine answer to these questions, or is this inquiry destined to end with nothing more than my own ban?

And finally, could someone please clarify what the actual criteria are for selecting moderators here? Is this subforum simply a bastion for left-leaning liberals and anti-nationalist globalists? It seems as though every single moderator, whether by design or coincidence, champions those exact viewpoints, subsequently banning users and deleting posts to manufacture a false sense of "public opinion." We see incredible threads here filled with exceptional posts that lean toward patriotic, nationalist, and anti-globalist or anti-EU perspectives, yet not one of them has ever been elevated to moderator status. Instead, they often find themselves the targets of bans, deletions, and general moderator tyranny.

I could spend my time demanding explanations for these "trolling" accusations and the infraction points I've received, but what would be the point? Rather, I am formally requesting that these infraction points be removed, as they were handed out in a manner that was entirely arbitrary, capricious, and utterly unjustified.

Furthermore, if the owners of this forum truly value objectivity and impartiality, I suggest improving the lines of communication between members and the administration. There should be a mechanism where a member can actually request—and receive—a legitimate explanation for a moderator's actions. Perhaps we should also implement some form of performance review or rating system for moderators to prevent their unchecked whims from devolving into the kind of outright terror that drives loyal members away from the site.

Or perhaps the largest forum in America isn't quite as "democratic" or unbiased as it tries so hard to pretend to be?
→ go to post