13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFI have assumed nothing. None of the nominal Christians here have condemned theses murders. If you can find evidence to the contrary then please do so now. That does not mean that I think they condone them as you have rather foolishly assumed it merely means there is no evidence of their condemnation. Perhaps if you were ably to reason objectively instead of trading opinion this would be apparent to you? Who can say?
Without this "evidence", you seriously assume that the people in this community condone the lynchings, is that it?
13 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFagain on the contrary divesgeester was the one who initiated personal remarks stating that i and my friends would let children die. Are you saying that this was not the case? If not then you will tell us who initiated personal remarks?
I also think that the personal remarks robbie has made on this thread where he sought to link divegeester to the murders in the OP may have been pre-meditated.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, you misunderstand. If you think no evidence of their condemnation means they condone the murders then it is you who is being foolish. You have n o reason whatsoever to think anyone here condones the murders. You say "None of the nominal Christians here have condemned theses murders". Apparently you need them to. It seems very odd.
I have assumed nothing. None of the nominal Christians here have condemned theses murders. If you can find evidence to the contrary then please do so now. That does not mean that I think they condone them as you have rather foolishly assumed it merely means there is no evidence of their condemnation. Perhaps if you were ably to reason objectively instead of trading opinion this would be apparent to you? Who can say?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have defended the right of JWs to let their children die for want of medical treatment in order to not displease your God figure. This isn't even in dispute, is it? But your attempts to link divegeester personally to the murders of 4,000 people are far-fetched and truly straining to land a forum blow, to put it mildly.
again on the contrary divesgeester was the one who initiated personal remarks stating that i and my friends would let children die. Are you saying that this was not the case? If not then you will tell us who initiated personal remarks?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFI have not said that lack of evidence means that they condone them have I you silly man.
No, you misunderstand. If you think no evidence of their condemnation means they condone the murders then it is you who is being foolish. You have n o reason whatsoever to think anyone here condones the murders. You say "None of the nominal Christians here have condemned theses murders". Apparently you need them to. It seems very odd.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour OP aside, you had said this before divegeester arrived on this thread:
If not then you will tell us who initiated personal remarks?
None of the Christians able to offer an explanation? Suffice to say that this shameful historical episode is reflective of the emptiness of the teachings that one finds in nominal Christianity. Insipid and lukewarm its unable to refresh the adherent and motivate them to acts of mercy and compassion. Its as Christ stated, 'Look your house is abandoned to you'.
Gee I forgot im dealing with the facebook/twitter generation. Next time ill get my crayons out and draw a picture for you diddums. Would you like some cats with a machine gun and a caption? or someone coming through a door wielding a gun? Is that what you are used to diddums? anything more than 140 syllables and you are overwhelmed?
You should ask yourself what you were trying to initiate with this thread.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen you should stop asking for "evidence" that people 'don't endorse it', or asking for "evidence" that divegeester is 'not equally hateful' as the murderers, or asking for "evidence" that the teachings of "nominal Christians" are 'not reflected' in these murders. It is not me who is being silly on this thread.
I have not said that lack of evidence means that they condone them have I you silly man.
13 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI have defended the right of self determination i have said literally nothing about the case of minors other than to state that in developed countries a parent has no jurisdiction. To state that I would let a child die as your airhead friend did is therefore not only unrealistic but impossible. Clearly hes wired to the moon. To sate that refusing a blood transfusion is morally reprehensible and akin to watching a lynching is ludicrous and also not very convincing because you could not bring yourself to tell us about the morality of those who die by taking blood transfusions, could you because it rather upsets your silly assertions of moral reprehensibility, and there have literary been tens of thousands who have died. Your sensationalistic tabloid assertions are not fit for bum paper, to put it mildly.
You have defended the right of JWs to let their children die for want of medical treatment in order to not displease your God figure. This isn't even in dispute, is it? But your attempts to link divegeester personally to the murders of 4,000 people are far-fetched and truly straining to land a forum blow, to put it mildly.