The end of the First Amendment

[Joe King]

Evolution does not bestow rights, inalienable rights are given by God, not the big bang

You have them due to the fact you are here, how ever it is that you believe that you got here.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I just explained it to you. Some people may prefer Jesus while others Yahweh while some dare not try to utter a name for the Creator. Jefferson had to acknowledge God without offending one of the other denominations. The objective was to make sure they understood that the purpose of separation from the rule of King George is rooted in a presupposition that mortal man cannot infringe on the God given unalienable Rights of man. He didn't need a religious argument on his hands... much like - wait for it.

What makes you think Jefferson had to acknowledge God without offending one of the other denominations? They were living in the enlightened period, Jefferson recognized that inalienable/unalienable rights were natural rights in nature, that is why he used the word "endowed" and not bestowed like you use. I don't think you know the very documents you claim to be the scholar of, you've demonstrated your stupidity in every comment in not comprehending them or their purpose.

 

[TheFiend]

As for the balance of what weaponoffreedom posts, this guy is the epitome of chickenshit and stupidity... neither of which can be fixed.

Pfft!

Spoiler: Father of Lies

Spoiler: Resister -the movie

 

[weaponoffreedom]

You have them due to the fact you are here, how ever it is that you believe that you got here.

bullshit

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Joe presented a very reasonable argument.

You're usually hyper-logical about everything.

So how come you've apparently snatched a couple of tiny bits from Joe's post and disregarded the rest like this?

Obviously you know not all Americans believe the same as yourself, such as "atheists", "jews", "hindus", etcetera and so forth.

It was the most important part of the statement that I disagreed with.

Because that way it can be defined however the reader, or those it applies to, want to personally define it.

It can mean created by evolution, or by God or anything in between that one personally chooses to believe. And by that very act of creation, they we you I are all endowed with certain Rights.

It's pretty basic and something all Americans (if not literally everyone in the World) should be able to mostly agree on.

In general, I agree with this statement, as it further reinforces my belief that America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

 

[TheResister]

It was the most important part of the statement that I disagreed with.

In general, I agree with this statement, as it further reinforces my belief that America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

You have the Right to your own opinion; you don't have the Right to be wrong in your facts. Let's just cut to the chase:

weaponoffreedom was formerly posting on resisters.freeforums.net He got into this same argument, but couldn't sustain it. He came here to get the support he needed to prop up a failing argument. Then he invited me here. Why? Since it was a one on one debate on resisters, there were no people taking sides. But, if weaponoffreedom can make his argument on a board where there are malcontents taking his side, he feels justified.

weaponoffreedom, like most people that deny our Christian heritage, have a problem with the truth and with facts. Being a Christian nation is NOT our form of government. Our form of government is a constitutional Republic. Our values and our form of American jurisprudence is predicated on moral absolutes found in the Bible. Using atheists, humanists and even socialists / communists does nothing to further weaponoffreedom's position. He ran from honest debate and discourse at resisters; he has to rely on people that, by their own words, are NOT Christian nor patriots in order to feel justified in his arguments.

I've had to put several people on ignore because they either lied, were into gaslighting, used strawman arguments and / or try to create the illusion that they have more support than they actually do. In every instance, those who have opposed what I say are so insecure in their positions they cannot and will not allow other posters to read the posts and make up their own minds. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with childish and juvenile antics that the people I put on ignore employ so I realize I'm missing some things on this thread. But, to anyone that reads all the posts here, most of what I had to say is already here. For others to create strawman arguments and or lie about things or gaslight me isn't worth reading to or responding to.

Was America founded on Christian principles? | RESISTERS FORUM

"America was founded on Christian principles" I have heard this from many people, but one thing I just dont get...........what proof is there that the US was founded on Christian princi

resisters.freeforums.net

weaoponoffreedom, if fifty people are equally deluded as you are, that will not make them right. Ever since the masses worshipped the Golden Calf in the days of Moses, it has been established that the majority is almost never right. You ran away scared from resisters and you know what kind of company you're keeping here with regards to this issue.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You have the Right to your own opinion; you don't have the Right to be wrong in your facts. Let's just cut to the chase:

weaponoffreedom was formerly posting on resisters.freeforums.net He got into this same argument, but couldn't sustain it. He came here to get the support he needed to prop up a failing argument. Then he invited me here. Why? Since it was a one on one debate on resisters, there were no people taking sides. But, if weaponoffreedom can make his argument on a board where there are malcontents taking his side, he feels justified.

weaponoffreedom, like most people that deny our Christian heritage, have a problem with the truth and with facts. Being a Christian nation is NOT our form of government. Our form of government is a constitutional Republic. Our values and our form of American jurisprudence is predicated on moral absolutes found in the Bible. Using atheists, humanists and even socialists / communists does nothing to further weaponoffreedom's position. He ran from honest debate and discourse at resisters; he has to rely on people that, by their own words, are NOT Christian nor patriots in order to feel justified in his arguments.

I've had to put several people on ignore because they either lied, were into gaslighting, used strawman arguments and / or try to create the illusion that they have more support than they actually do. In every instance, those who have opposed what I say are so insecure in their positions they cannot and will not allow other posters to read the posts and make up their own minds. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with childish and juvenile antics that the people I put on ignore employ so I realize I'm missing some things on this thread. But, to anyone that reads all the posts here, most of what I had to say is already here. For others to create strawman arguments and or lie about things or gaslight me isn't worth reading to or responding to.

Was America founded on Christian principles? | RESISTERS FORUM

"America was founded on Christian principles" I have heard this from many people, but one thing I just dont get...........what proof is there that the US was founded on Christian princi

resisters.freeforums.net

weaoponoffreedom, if fifty people are equally deluded as you are, that will not make them right. Ever since the masses worshipped the Golden Calf in the days of Moses, it has been established that the majority is almost never right. You ran away scared from resisters and you know what kind of company you're keeping here with regards to this issue.

Your claims are not factual, nor are you the arbiter of what are or aren't facts. You may have your beliefs, but that is all they are, your beliefs. Problem is they go against academia and reality.

You put people on ignore because you can't refute the reality of you being unable to rebut claims that make your "facts" irrelevant. None are insecure in their positions, you ignoring them shows you are insecure because you have no viable argument against reality. Anybody that reads these forums and comments are able to make up their own mind, the overwhelming majority disagree with your inanity, as witnessed by you only having 4 people commenting on your board, there are 3 clowns and 1 mush head.

The only person "deluded" here, seems to be you. urafuknclwn

 

[Joe King]

bullshit

You're free to think that, but that's what the DOI says. That by the fact you were created at all, you have certain inalienable Rights. No need to agree, or sign to accept them. They are yours from the moment you were alive.

 

[Joe King]

It was the most important part of the statement that I disagreed with.

In general, I agree with this statement, as it further reinforces my belief that America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

It really wasn't. It's just that many teachings in the Bible are in harmony with America's Founding principles.

 

[TheFiend]

You have the Right to your own opinion; you don't have the Right to be wrong in your facts. Let's just cut to the chase:

Very well.

To the chase ...

...lettuce cut, shellz.

~"You have the right to your own opinion; you don't have the right to be wrong in your facts."~

When you're full of shit and incapable of original thought, butt still wanna seem smart...just hijack a Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote.

Spoiler: Advert

Do you suffer from intellectual dishonesty?

Compulsive lying?

Or just incompetence in general?

Well you're un luck!

LimpWrister provides free lessons on how to master being a dumb fuck!

weaponoffreedom was formerly posting on resisters.freeforums.net He got into this same argument, but couldn't sustain it. He came here to get the support he needed to prop up a failing argument. Then he invited me here. Why? Since it was a one on one debate on resisters, there were no people taking sides. But, if weaponoffreedom can make his argument on a board where there are malcontents taking his side, he feels justified.

Spoiler: *Translation:

weaponoffreedom, like most people that deny our Christian heritage, have a problem with the truth and with facts. Being a Christian nation is NOT our form of government. Our form of government is a constitutional Republic. Our values and our form of American jurisprudence is predicated on moral absolutes found in the Bible. Using atheists, humanists and even socialists / communists does nothing to further weaponoffreedom's position. He ran from honest debate and discourse at resisters; he has to rely on people that, by their own words, are NOT Christian nor patriots in order to feel justified in his arguments.

Spoiler: •Translation:

I've had to put several people on ignore because they either lied, were into gaslighting, used strawman arguments and / or try to create the illusion that they have more support than they actually do. In every instance, those who have opposed what I say are so insecure in their positions they cannot and will not allow other posters to read the posts and make up their own minds. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with childish and juvenile antics that the people I put on ignore employ so I realize I'm missing some things on this thread. But, to anyone that reads all the posts here, most of what I had to say is already here. For others to create strawman arguments and or lie about things or gaslight me isn't worth reading to or responding to.

Spoiler: •Translation:

weaoponoffreedom, if fifty people are equally deluded as you are, that will not make them right. Ever since the masses worshipped the Golden Calf in the days of Moses, it has been established that the majority is almost never right. You ran away scared from resisters and you know what kind of company you're keeping here with regards to this issue.

Gotta admit. I'm amazed at the magnitude of imbecility on display.

LimpWrister really does know how to utterly fail in the art of bullshittery.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

You're free to think that, but that's what the DOI says. That by the fact you were created at all, you have certain inalienable Rights. No need to agree, or sign to accept them. They are yours from the moment you were alive.

Where in the DOI?

 

[Joe King]

Where in the DOI?

".....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"


It's right there in the 2nd paragraph.

 

[TheResister]

You're free to think that, but that's what the DOI says. That by the fact you were created at all, you have certain inalienable Rights. No need to agree, or sign to accept them. They are yours from the moment you were alive.

Agree with most; however, the courts have ruled. Unalienable Rights are those given by a Creator. It doesn't matter who chooses to believe or disbelieve; our system of jurisprudence begins with the presupposition that a Creator granted us Rights that are above the reach of government.

Inalienable rights are those rights granted by government.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Agree with most; however, the courts have ruled. Unalienable Rights are those given by a Creator. It doesn't matter who chooses to believe or disbelieve; our system of jurisprudence begins with the presupposition that a Creator granted us Rights that are above the reach of government.

Inalienable rights are those rights granted by government.

Unalienable and inalienable mean the same damn thing. There are 7 copies of the DoI, 3 use inalienable while 4 use unalienable. The Lincoln Memorial uses inalienable.

You are endowed with unalienable/inalienable rights via nature, Natural Law (you are born with them naturally), i.e. the right to life, self defense, happiness, free will, etc.

Inalienable has nothing to do with "government granted rights". In/unalienable rights exist prior to and independent of any government grant or constitution. (Cruikshank)

While no single case may comprehensively define "in/unalienable rights," these cases collectively contribute to the understanding and legal interpretation of rights that are considered inherent, fundamental, and not subject to government infringement.

SMFH watadumass

 

[weaponoffreedom]

".....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"


It's right there in the 2nd paragraph.

Ok, why is the word "Creator" used instead of God......if the USA was founded as a Christian nation?

The answer is simple. America was founded in freedom of religion, so that you could worship ANY way you saw fit. Not necessarily the Christian God.

further......

if you are a Christian, you cannot have any other God in front of you, but if "any God" will do.........................it is not Christian.

There is no evidence, no conjecture, no nothing.........going from the words of the document, which supports not Christianity, but everything else, which is __________?

 

[Joe King]

Ok, why is the word "Creator" used instead of God......if the USA was founded as a Christian nation?

The answer is simple. America was founded in freedom of religion, so that you could worship ANY way you saw fit. Not nessessarily the Christian God.

"Creator", as used in the DoI, means anything the individual wants it to mean to them personally.

All it means is that by you finding yourself a living human being, you are recognized as automatically having those Rights.

 

[MechaJutaro]

Of course free speech cannot survive in a society populated by modern scum. My problem with Alex Jones is that he fails to understand that the American people are worthless moronic scum.

2:11-2:15

Greg Lukianoff: Saving the 'Culture of Free Speech'

The longtime head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education announces a new name and expanded mission for FIRE.

reason.com

Now that FIRE is finally not relying on a solely legalistic approach to defending free speech, but attempting to promote it at social level, as many of us as possible need to support their efforts

Contact them at 215-717-3473, and ask to speak to their Community Mobilization branch

 

[weaponoffreedom]

"Creator", as used in the DoI, means anything the individual wants it to mean to them personally.

All it means is that by you finding yourself a living human being, you are recognized as automatically having those Rights.

So you agree it is not talking about the Christian God?

 

[TheResister]

So you agree it is not talking about the Christian God?

The more pressing issue is that Jefferson mentions a Creator. If that offends an atheist, it is because it presumes a Creator - a God. The same document mentions Divine Providence. Again, that is a reference to a God.

You seem to be bothered by God. Any specific reason that a Christian God is so offensive to you?

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The more pressing issue is that Jefferson mentions a Creator. If that offends an atheist, it is because it presumes a Creator - a God. The same document mentions Divine Providence. Again, that is a reference to a God.

You seem to be bothered by God. Any specific reason that a Christian God is so offensive to you?

Nothing can be farther from the truth, great twist though.

 

[Joe King]

So you agree it is not talking about the Christian God?

If you want it to be in your particular reading of it, then yes.

If not, then no.

It's up to YOU what it means to you.

Who or what, is YOUR Creator?


As far as natural Rights go, look at them like this. Those are the Rights you need in order to be a free man, and as such, you are supposed to naturally have them. They can't be taken away, only violated.

 

[Joe King]

As for the First Amendment, just look at how controversial it is even today where people still argue about just how much speech should be free.

Now imagine how completely revolutionary it must have been in 1787. Nothing like it had ever previously existed, and we got idiots today ignorantly cheering on its destruction.

 

[TheFiend]

If you want it to be in your particular reading of it, then yes.

If not, then no.

It's up to YOU what it means to you.

Who or what, is YOUR Creator?


As far as natural Rights go, look at them like this. Those are the Rights you need in order to be a free man, and as such, you are supposed to naturally have them. They can't be taken away, only violated.

Man, I am amazed at how enlightened your perspectives are on this.
Seriously, well done.

One thing I'm still a little confused about, is just what exactly the specific disagreement is between your view and weapon's view(?)

For the most part I find your's & weapon's expressed povs to be perfectly reasonable in their own right.

Unless I'm missing something, as far as I can see, both of your guys uniquely distinct positions actually seem quite capable of coexisting in synergistic harmony.

 

[TheResister]

Nothing can be farther from the truth, great twist though.

That was nonresponsive. You deny the truth. Let's find out if you are capable of understanding simple English.

Do YOU believe in a Christian God? It's a simple yes or no.

 

[Joe King]

Man, I am amazed at how enlightened your perspectives are on this.
Seriously, well done.

Thank you, very much.

One thing I'm still a little confused about, is just what exactly the specific disagreement is between your view and weapon's view(?)

To be honest, I'm not really sure.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

That was nonresponsive. You deny the truth. Let's find out if you are capable of understanding simple English.

Do YOU believe in a Christian God? It's a simple yes or no.

Simplistic answer is no

 

[weaponoffreedom]

That was nonresponsive. You deny the truth. Let's find out if you are capable of understanding simple English.

Do YOU believe in a Christian God? It's a simple yes or no.

HAHAHA, but yes unequivocally I do believe in the Christian God, the one true God........is that so hard? Just like when I asked your dumbass, and it took you 15 messages to half way say yes........go fuck yourself.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

If you want it to be in your particular reading of it, then yes.

If not, then no.

It's up to YOU what it means to you.

Who or what, is YOUR Creator?


As far as natural Rights go, look at them like this. Those are the Rights you need in order to be a free man, and as such, you are supposed to naturally have them. They can't be taken away, only violated.

You are missing the point. Let me ask you something:

Where in Christianity does it teach to accept other "creators"?

 

[TheResister]

HAHAHA, but yes unequivocally I do believe in the Christian God, the one true God........is that so hard? Just like when I asked your dumbass, and it took you 15 messages to half way say yes........go fuck yourself.

I used to expect more from you, but I'm not interested in a dick measuring contest with a eunuch. So get off your high horse. You can't live vicariously through him.

You are opposed to me yet we both identify as Christian. Amid all the political jockeying, you have proven my point. Far too many religions have their own name for Christ / God and all claim to believe in the same Bible. Divine Providence is understood by virtually every (if not every) Christian denomination and it means something different to all of them, but it still conveys the same biblical laws that Christians are subject to.

All you did was to prove the point. When the Declaration of Independence was ratified, it was this argument among 56 men. Jehovah Yahweh, Jesus, Yashua, etc., etc. You want to believe that 56 men, all professing faith in the Bible, were willing to pledge fealty to a non-God. You can't believe it either. A few humanists and atheists may slap you on the back, but you need the nastiness because you realize you have no credible argument.

 

[Joe King]

You are missing the point. Let me ask you something:

Where in Christianity does it teach to accept other "creators"?

No one is having to accept other Creators. What any person thinks their "Creator" is, is up to them. All it means is that by the fact you are here, you have certain Rights as a free human being.

 

[TheFiend]

I used to expect more from you, but I'm not interested in a dick measuring contest with a eunuch. So get off your high horse. You can't live vicariously through him.

Its like this guy has the self awareness of a cactus.

You are opposed to me yet we both identify as Christian.

Yo @weaponoffreedom, see this particularly shitbrained statement by 'TheResister'.

100% it is a tactical manipulation.

~"His transgressions – deception, lies, adultery, abuse of power – were quickly and easily erased because of a profession of faith."~​

He could self-identify as "christian", "atheist", the king of England, as an Миль Ми-24, a MAGA supporter or whatever the fuck else.

TheResister could even self-identify as the very embodiment of truth.

And yet it is TheResister's very own Words & Actions which will always prove the actual True identity of his dishonorable-self.

What kind of "christian" shamelessly disregards #9.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

*TheResister✓



“You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.”

Far too many religions have their own name for Christ / God and all claim to believe in the same Bible.

*Belief: "a feeling sure that someone or something exists or is true or trustworthy. a belief in Santa Claus. a belief in democracy. 2. : something that one thinks is true."

Divine Providence is understood by virtually every (if not every) Christian denomination and it means something different to all of them, but it still conveys the same biblical laws that Christians are subject to.

pfft! "...subject to." -my ass.

All you did was to prove the point. When the Declaration of Independence was ratified, it was this argument among 56 men. Jehovah Yahweh, Jesus, Yashua, etc., etc. You want to believe that 56 men, all professing faith in the Bible, were willing to pledge fealty to a non-God. You can't believe it either. A few humanists and atheists may slap you on the back, but you need the nastiness because you realize you have no credible argument.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Its like this guy has the self awareness of a cactus.


Yo @weaponoffreedom, see this particularly shitbrained statement by 'TheResister'.

100% it is a tactical manipulation.

~"His transgressions – deception, lies, adultery, abuse of power – were quickly and easily erased because of a profession of faith."~​

He could self-identify as "christian", "atheist", the king of England, as an Миль Ми-24, a MAGA supporter or whatever the fuck else.

TheResister could even self-identify as the very embodiment of truth.

And yet it is TheResister's very own Words & Actions which will always prove the actual True identity of his dishonorable-self.

What kind of "christian" shamelessly disregards #9.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

*TheResister✓

View attachment 218159

“You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.”


*Belief: "a feeling sure that someone or something exists or is true or trustworthy. a belief in Santa Claus. a belief in democracy. 2. : something that one thinks is true."



pfft! "...subject to." -my ass.

View attachment 218162



View attachment 218158View attachment 218157

Yeah recently he tried getting me into a corner, which I put him in before in an arguement.

He is no Christian, and very likely the opposite.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

No one is having to accept other Creators. What any person thinks their "Creator" is, is up to them. All it means is that by the fact you are here, you have certain Rights as a free human being.

I understand what you are saying, and that notion goes against Christianity. The creator is not who you want, it is who it is, you dont get the choose your "Grand Architect"

 

[TheResister]

No one is having to accept other Creators. What any person thinks their "Creator" is, is up to them. All it means is that by the fact you are here, you have certain Rights as a free human being.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I understand what you are saying, and that notion goes against Christianity. The creator is not who you want, it is who it is, you dont get the choose your "Grand Architect"

Who is the "creator"? Yahweh? The Canaanite God of War? The Christian God of monotheism?

Can "creator" simply be a secular philosophic word for the natural recognition of life? Is the "creator" simply an idea?

 

[TheResister]

This thread starts out with a topic about the end of the First Amendment and ends with a debate about religion.

Unfortunately, I had to put certain people on ignore since they were dishonest and one atheist was bloviating. Still you get the gist of what some of the posts are about. All of the name calling and back and forth accusations get hurled by those who cannot stand to see someone disagree with them.

I will (and HAVE) stood up for your Right to say whatever you like AND I will fight to the death for your Right to speak your mind. At the same time, even the great poseur, Donnie Trump, knows from where Liberty originates. It is not a humanistic or atheistic trait, but rather is found in the Bible itself:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3: 17

It is obvious to me that if we left the non-believers in charge they would have anyone that disagrees with them convicted of challenging their presupposed omnipotence. Still, they remain spineless, gutless cowards that talk trash on the Internet because they lack the balls to say that stuff to the face of other human beings. And, on that note, I rest my case.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

This thread starts out with a topic about the end of the First Amendment and ends with a debate about religion.

Unfortunately, I had to put certain people on ignore since they were dishonest and one atheist was bloviating. Still you get the gist of what some of the posts are about. All of the name calling and back and forth accusations get hurled by those who cannot stand to see someone disagree with them.

I will (and HAVE) stood up for your Right to say whatever you like AND I will fight to the death for your Right to speak your mind. At the same time, even the great poseur, Donnie Trump, knows from where Liberty originates. It is not a humanistic or atheistic trait, but rather is found in the Bible itself:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3: 17

It is obvious to me that if we left the non-believers in charge they would have anyone that disagrees with them convicted of challenging their presupposed omnipotence. Still, they remain spineless, gutless cowards that talk trash on the Internet because they lack the balls to say that stuff to the face of other human beings. And, on that note, I rest my case.

The only person being dishonest is you. You put people on ignore because they show your claims to be inept, and that chip on your shoulder doesn't allow you the humility of recognizing your own ignorance. Disagreeing with someone is one thing, what you do is not disagreement, you try to claim a position of authority over everybody that points out your stupidity, then you whine like a bitch. Claiming that others lack the balls to say stuff to your face only shows just how ignorant you truly are. Please let me know when you come to California. SMFH

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Who is the "creator"? Yahweh? The Canaanite God of War? The Christian God of monotheism?

Can "creator" simply be a secular philosophic word for the natural recognition of life? Is the "creator" simply an idea?

I see the use of "Creator\creator" as a "fill in the blank" word. They could be all that you listed, and that in lies the point.

America was undoubtly founded on "freedom of religion", which gives many wrong choices, nearly all but one. See the First Amendment to the constitution, of the proof of that.

 

[TheFiend]

Yeah recently he tried getting me into a corner, which I put him in before in an arguement.

Every time he does that kinda crap, I can't help thinking of a feral chihuahua trying to dominate a rottweiler.

He is no Christian, and very likely the opposite.

I agree. Infact, based on his consistent behavioral patterns, that being definitively and demonstrably intentionally deceptive. Thus, my current opinion is: I am ~90+% certain he is proactively faking–not only his "christian" identity act–but also his whole pro-American-"christian" identity act too.

Why he's doing this? I don't know. Although I do strongly suspect he is concealing a hostile anti-"christian"/anti-American agenda.

I'm still unsure whether he's voluntarily conducting subversion efforts independently or instead operating as part of—or loosely operating in association with—an organized group.

Intuitively, I keep getting the impression that TheResister may possibly be a crypto-"jew" sayan.

Mainly due to his deceptive behaviors being strikingly Talmudic.

Regardless, last night I was in stitches laughing at this specific statement he'd made:

~"You are opposed to me yet we both identify as Christian."~

There is a surprising amount of manipulation going on within this 11 word, single sentence statement.

I actually began breaking it down late last night, intending to provide you with a simplified assessment of each distinct tactic... however this all ended up over a dozen paragraphs long by about half way through the breakdown, and frankly I also realized that (a) you probably wouldn't be too interested, and (b) I think most of these compound manipulations would have little to no effect on you anyway...so I deleted everything I'd written before fucking off to sleep.

Suffice to say... this particular tactical manipulation TheResister tried to pull on you, imo, amounts to undeniable proof that his True intentions towards you...are definitively hostile.

Sidenote: have you noticed since TheResister showed up here... 'holier than thou'-Hoosier, the resident "judeo-christian" biblical screecher has become uncharacteristically quiet.
I wonder why...lol.

 

[TheFiend]

This thread starts out with a topic about the end of the First Amendment and ends with a debate about religion.

Unfortunately, I had to put certain people on ignore since they were dishonest and one atheist was bloviating. Still you get the gist of what some of the posts are about. All of the name calling and back and forth accusations get hurled by those who cannot stand to see someone disagree with them.

I will (and HAVE) stood up for your Right to say whatever you like AND I will fight to the death for your Right to speak your mind. At the same time, even the great poseur, Donnie Trump, knows from where Liberty originates. It is not a humanistic or atheistic trait, but rather is found in the Bible itself:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3: 17

It is obvious to me that if we left the non-believers in charge they would have anyone that disagrees with them convicted of challenging their presupposed omnipotence. Still, they remain spineless, gutless cowards that talk trash on the Internet because they lack the balls to say that stuff to the face of other human beings. And, on that note, I rest my case.

Guess this imbecile still hasn't grasped the simple fact that every single post here is publicly available for all to see.