Living in Truth.

@bigdoggproblem said
*ventriloquist

[just trying to help]

van·quil·a·trist
noun
a person who can speak or utter sounds so that they seem to come from others so as to thoroughly defeat them.

@FMF

Are you not aware of what the JWs claim about themselves vis a vis going door to door and what it means with regard to "salvation" and their take on the Bible and how they define themselves as the only 'real' Christians? Can you really still be unaware of it, after all these years?

Rajk999 is directly confronting galveston75 over the teaching and the message and he is making that the issue. You don't seem to realize. You seem to be berating him on autopilot.

Your totally oblivious comment above makes you sound like you have no idea what Rajk999 and galveston75's conversation is about. This is a message board, sonship. People have conversations.

I know what the JWs believe.

You sound ... concerned.

Is this the atheist's concern or the deist's concern ?

Or do you just delight to see readers of the Bible fight with each other regardless of who is who ?

@caljust said
So, you also avoid tricky questions. Good to know.

Btw, just to jog your memory, here is your post to me (29 March, p16)

Do you mean “facts” such as your claim that reincarnation was proven because someone told you so?

In this post you blatantly accuse me of gullability, and believing something just “because someone told me so”.

That is clearly an i ...[text shortened]... . You don’t have to answer questions that are embarrassing to you.

But consider yourself exposed.

I’m just not going to follow your off topic red herrings.

The subject in play between us was you claiming it was ok for JWs to hold to whatever beliefs that they want to and me calling you out over it because , for example, their organisation is globally culpable of covering up child sex abuse, globally guilty of bullying ex members, globally guilty of endangering the lives of members through pressurising them to refuse medical treatment in blood transfusions, globally culpable in the effective offering of their children in sacrifice to their version of God.

Your posts are just dodging and deflection. If you want to open a tangential topic about what I do and don’t believe in the bible then start a thread on it and I’ll be happy to engage with you on it.

@divegeester said
I’m just not going to follow your off topic red herrings.

The subject in play between us was you claiming it was ok for JWs to hold to whatever beliefs that they want to and me calling you out over it because , for example, their organisation is globally culpable of covering up child sex abuse, globally guilty of bullying ex members, globally guilty of endangering the ...[text shortened]... and don’t believe in the bible then start a thread on it and I’ll be happy to engage with you on it.

I’m just not going to follow your off topic red herrings.

Says the guy who not only insists that others answer their off topic red herrings, but follows others around from thread-to-thread repeating them month-after-month and gets other forum trolls to follow suit.

@caljust said
But repeating the question ad nauseum is just childish, like “did, didn’t, did, didn’t, did, didn’t!”

I repeat questions too. I am sure it comes across as "childish" to some. Or "ad nauseam". I have taken plenty of flak over the last 10 or so years. People have said worse things.

@sonship said
I know what the JWs believe.

The content of what you posted suggested that you didn't. You also mischaracterized what Rajk999 was saying to galveston75. You now want to claim you were doing this knowingly?

@fmf said
The content of what you posted suggested that you didn't. You also mischaracterized what Rajk999 was saying to galveston75. You now want to claim you were doing this knowingly?

The mans level of understanding is ridiculous and yet he talks so much.

@divegeester said

Your posts are just dodging and deflection. If you want to open a tangential topic about what I do and don’t believe in the bible then start a thread on it and I’ll be happy to engage with you on it.

Point No 1: I clearly showed by quoting your post, that if anybody changed the topic, it was YOU. So don’t accuse ME of red herrings, you hypocrite.

Point No 2: My even continuing this conversation with you, is merely to show everybody on this Forum that you are a hypocrite, who accuses other people (in this case Galv) of behaviour (in this case avoiding questions) that you yourself practice with impunity.

Point No 3: I told you exactly what I think about the JW’s beliefs, and nothing more needs to be said. I repeat that they are entitled to their beliefs, (no matter how repugnant, illogical or superstitious) as long as they don’t infringe on other people’s rights and as long as they don’t break the law. In some countries authorities have forced blood transfusions at times, and that is also their right to do. It is between them and the JWs.

Point No 4: I have no intention whatsoever of starting a thread with you about the Bible or anything else, for the simple reason that I don’t give a rat’s ass as to what you believe. My position on JWs, Fundamentalist Christians, Hindus or anybody else is simply that I give them the right to their opinions. The only times when I will engage anybody in a debate is when they want to push something over on me, or promote something as logical and sane when it clearly isn’t.

For example, I would gladly give you the right to believe in the FSM, as long as you don’t want to convince me that it is the only religion worth anything.

Do we understand each other now?

Go in peace!

@fmf said
I repeat questions too. I am sure it comes across as "childish" to some. Or "ad nauseam". I have taken plenty of flak over the last 10 or so years. People have said worse things.

I think that repeating a question is appropriate at times.

For example, if somebody asks you a direct question, or makes a challenge or something and you respond and/or refute the assertion, then you have every right to a response. If the original poster then disappears, that would be dishonest or at least discourteous behaviour.

I don’t believe this was the case here. Dive asked Galv a question, and Galv ducked it. He could have said “I take the Fifth!” At that point it is simply childish to badger the other guy to continue the discussion.

That is simply my pov, and others may differ.

@caljust said
I think that repeating a question is appropriate at times.

For example, if somebody asks you a direct question, or makes a challenge or something and you respond and/or refute the assertion, then you have every right to a response. If the original poster then disappears, that would be dishonest or at least discourteous behaviour.

I don’t believe this was the case here. ...[text shortened]... to badger the other guy to continue the discussion.

That is simply my pov, and others may differ.

CalJust, I think it's your prerogative to treat galveston75 as if he is someone who turned up here just a couple of days ago for the first time ever and for you to assume he posts in good faith, and to treat him as if he doesn't have a track record as a profoundly dishonest, cowardly, misanthropic and sanctimonious poster. Personally, I would say that would make this place like a venue for conversations with strangers on a train, all suffering from amnesia, but that's your prerogative.

@caljust said

Go in peace!

This sort of reads like the ubiquitous “go forth and multiply” pun.

@caljust said
That is simply my pov, and others may differ.

And I do, as other will.

You seem to see your role here as some sort of parent/referee, arriving out of the blue and once in a blue moon, trying to be the live-and-let-live sophist in a forum populated largely by religious die-hards, atheistic humanists and scornful detractors of organisation religion is going to be a challenging piece to pull off. I wish you luck, let’s see how long you last.

@divegeester said I wish you luck, let’s see how long you last.

Well, what else did I expect....

No response to any of the points I made, just a facetious retort to my closing words.

And not even fmf ( to whom I have actually been supportive) has a friendly word to say.

How long will I last in such a toxic environment? Hm, till about now.....

Bye!

@caljust said
Well, what else did I expect....

No response to any of the points I made, just a facetious retort to my closing words.

And not even fmf ( to whom I have actually been supportive) has a friendly word to say.

How long will I last in such a toxic environment? Hm, till about now.....

Bye!

Thoughts so.

@fmf said
CalJust, I think it's your prerogative to treat galveston75 as if he is someone who turned up here just a couple of days ago for the first time ever and for you to assume he posts in good faith, and to treat him as if he doesn't have a track record as a profoundly dishonest, cowardly, misanthropic and sanctimonious poster. Personally, I would say that would make this place like a ...[text shortened]... or conversations with strangers on a train, all suffering from amnesia, but that's your prerogative.

Give the old man a break. He is probably losing his memory. He has been around long enough to know Galveston and his antics.