13 Apr 15
Originally posted by divegeesteryou told me to shut up on the basis, if you were not making a comparison with our stance on blood transfusions and insinuating that it was morally reprehensible why did you introduce it, because you thought it morally acceptable? that would make NO SENSE, So you will tell us now why you introduced it?
Where did I say JWs were "morally reprehensible"?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is you who needs to provide evidence that he is "equally as hateful" as people who strung up blacks by their necks to murder them.
Well you will provide evidence of his compassion and understanding and I will accept it, So far you seem unable to do so.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by Proper Knobwow its amazing, a matter of serious concern and all you can contribute is, i enjoy you make an a*** of yourself - brilliant stuff - read the Beano much?
I enjoy watching you make an arse of yourself, which let's be honest, is something you specialise in. 🙂
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFNo i don't you need to tell us why he stated that I would let a child die if he did not think it morally reprehensible. If you will not or cannot then its your affair not mine.
No, you really need to show us where you think he said it. Show us the post. Copy and paste the quote of him saying what you claim he said.
13 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYes this is quite a phenomena as well and its begs the question what an earth are they being taught. The same question that I raised in my OP before the droll brothers started their circus act.
Today it seems it is the Christians that are being beheaded, raped, and massacred after Friday services. 😏
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said "his attempt to state that we are more morally culpable and reprehensible because of our stance on blood transfusions is motivated by hatred." Copy paste the bit where he said this.
see the post above, he stated that I and my friends would let a child die because of our stance on blood transfusions. why did he introduce that, you have not said.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFIts inferred from his introduction of blood transfusions and minors. why after all would he introduce it if he did not think it morally reprehensible. This is the third time i have said so, you have refused to answer, i will not do so again.
You said "his attempt to state that we are more morally culpable and reprehensible because of our stance on blood transfusions is motivated by hatred." Copy paste the bit where he said this.