Originally posted by divegeesterYou attempted to make something out of our refusal to take blood transfusions as some kind of moral leverage. You could not bring yourself to tell us how many persons we had in a like manner lynched and mutilated after our services on a Sunday because the fact was that we have never engaged in any of the type of behaviour that nominal Christians have. You cannot still tell us how many persons we as an organisation have lynched, mutilated and invited our friends to watch die. So you resorted to the only defence possible, an attempt to discredit us by reference to out refusal to take blood transfusions, neither original nor effective. Refusing to take a blood transfusion is not the same as inviting your Christian friends to watch a man die, is it. Transparent, predictable and entirely in line with the characteristics that you have displayed on this and other forums, a spiteful individual who will stoop at nothing in order to vilify those you neither understand nor agree with.
You have once again made a total fool of yourself and a mockery of your religion. You are the biggest asset in my attempts to show your cult up for what it is.
The fact of the matter remains nominal Christians, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals sat in Sunday service, listened to a sermon and then went outside, lynched and mutilated a man and invited their friends and family including their children to watch. That is not something I don't need to deal with for it does not taint my religion, but nominal Christianity and here you are telling us about those bad ol Witnesses, wow.
I trust the people here are objective enough to realise just what you are, despite belief in nothing but your own propaganda.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou not thrown the towel in on this car-crash of a JW thread yet?
You attempted to make something out of our refusal to take blood transfusions as some kind of moral leverage. You could not bring yourself to tell us how many persons we had in a like manner lynched and mutilated after our services on a Sunday because the fact was that we have never engaged in any of the type of behaviour that nominal Christians have ...[text shortened]... eligion, but nominal Christianity and here you are telling us about those bad ol Witnesses, wow.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've posted a challenge to you several times on the previous page here it is again:
You attempted to make something out of our refusal to take blood transfusions as some kind of moral leverage. You could not bring yourself to tell us how many persons we had in a like manner lynched and mutilated after our services on a Sunday because the fact was that we have never engaged in any of the type of behaviour that nominal Christians have ...[text shortened]... bjective enough to realise just what you are, despite belief in nothing but your own propaganda.
If you will categorically state before Jehovah that in the event of your child needing a blood transfusion to save their life, you would give the go-ahead. Then I will publicly and sincerely retract my statement and apologise to you.
Your move.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou attempted to make something out of our refusal to take blood transfusions as some kind of moral leverage. You could not bring yourself to tell us how many persons we had in a like manner lynched and mutilated after our services on a Sunday because the fact was that we have never engaged in any of the type of behaviour that nominal Christians have. You cannot still tell us how many persons we as an organisation have lynched, mutilated and invited our friends to watch die. So you resorted to the only defence possible, an attempt to discredit us by reference to out refusal to take blood transfusions, neither original nor effective. Refusing to take a blood transfusion is not the same as inviting your Christian friends to watch a man die, is it. Transparent, predictable and entirely in line with the characteristics that you have displayed on this and other forums, a spiteful individual who will stoop at nothing in order to vilify those you neither understand nor agree with.
The fact of the matter remains nominal Christians, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals sat in Sunday service, listened to a sermon and then went outside, lynched and mutilated a man and invited their friends and family including their children to watch. That is not something I don't need to deal with for it does not taint my religion, but nominal Christianity and here you are telling us about those bad ol Witnesses, wow.
I trust the people here are objective enough to realise just what you are, despite belief in nothing but your own propaganda.
Morally reprehensible actions carried out in the name of religious convictions come in many forms and degrees of ghastliness.
So, to get back to your OP, what supposedly "Christian" justification did the lynch mobs have for doing what they did? I'd say 'none', wouldn't you?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieInteresting. I on the other hand believe everything FMF says. I'm not saying I agree with him on it all, but I believe him as I find him to be honourable and honest. You I perceive to be dishonest, manipulative and downright unpleasant.
You keep telling yourself whatever it is that you need to comfort yourself personally I don't believe a word you say. Sorry.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow did you expect anyone to answer the question in your OP if you yourself stated it was 'unreasonable' to expect an answer unless someone had heard any such lynching sermon?
You attempted to make something out of our refusal to take blood transfusions as some kind of moral leverage. You could not bring yourself to tell us how many persons we had in a like manner lynched and mutilated after our services on a Sunday because the fact was that we have never engaged in any of the type of behaviour that nominal Christians have ...[text shortened]... bjective enough to realise just what you are, despite belief in nothing but your own propaganda.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29244
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll religions, sects and cults have dark episodes in their history. (Without exception).
The fact of the matter remains nominal Christians, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals sat in Sunday service, listened to a sermon and then went outside, lynched and mutilated a man and invited their friends and family including their children to watch. That is not something I don't need to deal with for it does not taint my religion, but nominal Christianity and here you are telling us about those bad ol Witnesses, wow.[/b]
For example; in California in June 2012, Alameda County Superior Court ordered the Watch Tower Society to pay $21 million in punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, after finding that the Society's policy to not disclose the child abuse history of a member to parents in the congregation or to report abuse to authorities contributed to the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobPeople like me and like Duchess64 are prepared to use what is termed discernment, that is that we look at an issue and attempt to draw conclusions from what we understand. Thus I stated that it appears to me that the teachings at those sermons must have been insipid. This is based on the fact that those who attended were not moved to compassion or mercy. This is evidenced from their acts afterwards. Yes its conjecture but its entirely in harmony with the evidence
How did you expect anyone to answer the question in your OP if you yourself stated it was 'unreasonable' to expect an answer unless someone had heard any such lynching sermon?
Duchess64 made the observation, 'It means that many Christians believed (or even still believe) that extreme racist dehumanization is compatible with their Christian faith and ideals. - an interesting point in itself, for clearly the greater number of this person who were lynched were African American, abut 76% to be precise. Could it be that racial dehumanisation was a part of the teachings and acceptable to those Christians who perpetrated those acts? I think so. How else are we to account for it?
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat supposedly "Christian" justification did the lynch mobs have for doing what they did? I'd say 'none', wouldn't you?
People like me and like Duchess64 are prepared to use what is termed discernment, that is that we look at an issue and attempt to draw conclusions from what we understand. Thus I stated that it appears to me that the teachings at those sermons must have been insipid. This is based on the fact that those who attended were not moved to compassion or ...[text shortened]... to those Christians who perpetrated those acts? I think so. How else are we to account for it?
Do you think the people who carried out the lynchings were Christians?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, are you going to answer my challenge and force me to eat my words accusing you that you would let your child die?
People like me and like Duchess64 are prepared to use what is termed discernment, that is that we look at an issue and attempt to draw conclusions from what we understand. Thus I stated that it appears to me that the teachings at those sermons must have been insipid. This is based on the fact that those who attended were not moved to compassion or ...[text shortened]... to those Christians who perpetrated those acts? I think so. How else are we to account for it?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHave you read the court transcripts of the case? I have and I disagree with the courts findings. In fact its unprecedented in my opinion. So I reject your assertion that its a dark epoch in fact it appears to me to be nothing more than an attempt by her step parents to make some money and she was prompted by them to make a case. Her own testimony contradicts that of her natural parents. May i suggest that you read the court transcript if you wish to discuss the matter otherwise you will be reasoning from a position of ignorance and we wouldn't want that now would we. The judge actually reduced the damages on appeal, did your article tell you that?
All religions, sects and cults have dark episodes in their history. (Without exception).
For example; in California in June 2012, Alameda County Superior Court ordered the Watch Tower Society to pay $21 million in punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, after finding that the Society's policy to not disclose the child abuse history ...[text shortened]... ation or to report abuse to authorities contributed to the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl.
As for us as an organisation we have an unprecedented record in comparison with other religious organisations and society as a whole of child abuse. Of course the dissenters will say that this is because it gets hidden or goes unreported but ask them for evidence and they are silent. Here are the actual facts.
In the United States, over 80,000 elders currently serve in over 12,300 congregations … During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the United States; In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts.