Silentlambs, The Letter, The World, and Justice.

by BeautifulGarbage 101 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Robdar

  Go your way... in peace... Six. For my peace... remains.

  A slave of Christ,

  Uh sure it does. And that is why you called otheres hypocrites? Sounds peaceful to me. LMAO

  Love,

  Robyn
• 

  RevMalk

  	Don't you people know this is all way too much for me to read? Is it too much to ask that you cater to me when typing your messages??? A knaves religion is always the rottenest thing about him." John Ruskin, 19th-century British critic and author
• 

  sf

  Who the * is 'Skully'?

  And Shelley, meet me in yahoo, on mic, for a chat.

  hahahaha, I can hear her god saying now....."DON'T DO IT!"

  sKally.....see the 'a'? Pay attention when your god is directing your words to someone. Didn't he tell you I am not 'Skully'? hahahahahaha...i am The sKallyWagger, and MY god, which resides deep inside MY core, says your god is dyslexic and you have been 'reading' him all wrong. So, who's god is the Liar??

  Edited by - Englishman on 10 October 2002 15:13:29
• 

  AGuest

  Ok Shelby, now you have succeeded in pissing me off.

  (In my "best-est" Mafioso voice) Aaayy... you tawkin' ta me? {{shiver}} {{shiver}} {{shiver}} - yeah, right...

  For one, I never made allegations against someone who was not present to defend themselves, nor did I ever make statements which had no verifiable evidence.

  Okay, and...??

  If you honestly believe:

  Love warns, Reborn. It does not necessarily intervene. Ask ANY parent, brother, sister, child, etc. Why? Because intervention is not always WANTED!

  I do...

  and:

  and are insinuating that innocent children want to be raped

  "Raped"? No, I don't believe that. And I believe that if they are TOLD that that is indeed what it is, a good many of them would tell a LOT sooner. But... depends on where you live... and what you believe. I think I said that.

  Sigh! Let me give you an example, dear "intelligent" Reborn: Afghanistan: do ALL women there hate wearing bourkas? Or do some believe in its "purpose"? Female circumcision (or male, for that matter): Do all people believe it mutilation? Or do some believe in its purpose? Do ALL children believe that sex with them is "rape", "bad", etc., etc.? ALL of them?

  and nothing is done because of religious reasons, then I stand by the very terms I called you, because you have serious problems.

  Nothing is DONE... for a LOT of reasons, one primary of which is that MANY folks don't believe in the "badness" of it. Now, whether you are "intelligent" enough... or even READY... to accept that, I can't say. Only you know.

  Why not stick to the facts here, instead of attacking someone's character?

  I'm sorry... what dirty names did I call YOU... when I became frustrated? Hypocrite, you not only attacked my "character" (and another's, as seen by my quote - but "intelligent" folk like you don't ever tend to SEE that...), but actually assaulted my female-ness (which again, I don't think an "intelligent" guy like you... and Luther Whathisname or Eminem... can ever SEE!)

  Any comments I made were a result of direct quotes taken from someone else.

  Really?! You quoted someone else's character-bashing profanity? Well, if YOU say so...

  Yeah, kids want to be raped.

  If you tell them that its "good" for them... or they are being "good" to YOU... doesn't matter WHAT name you call it. You call "rape"; some sicko calls it "love" (you HAVE heard of NAMBLA, yes?) It is not until THEY realize that it's "bad"... that it BECOMES "bad"... to THEM.

  Heck, YOU know the WTBTS is "bad". I know it's "bad". Do the cute little boys and girls all dressed up in their suits/dresses carrying their bookbags, knocking on doors and then calling people "goats" KNOW it's "bad"? Do they? Children "know", Reborn, Mr. Intelligent, what we TELL them. That's why it is WE who are to blame, those who perpetrate the crime and those who hide/condone it, and not God.

  Okay, then I said:

  Don't get me wrong... one does not have to call out audibly. One can call out in one's heart. And if JAH is called... JAH... hears. And answers. If He is NOT called, however, how it is that you think He would usurp the 'authority' of any other 'god'... when its children call for it rather than for Him?

  to which you replied:

  Your grasping at straws here in a pathetic attempt to defend your stance. If you only knew how foolish you are making yourself sound. Your taking this to grammar and semantics due to various cultures and religions having a different name for God instead of addressing the issue at hand. Why an almighty being sits by idly and allows it to happen.

  Methinks you should read what I wrote once again... and see if you can, this time, get the SENSE of it! Wait, no, let me ask YOU: We are in India, you and I, and some little boy who has been prepared FROM BIRTH to be "used" by men, decides he doesn't want to [anymore]. Who you gonna tell him to appeal to? "Jehovah"? What the heck happened to his Vishnu? Why didn't you tell him to call on that one? Isn't that the one HE puts his faith in?

  Pay attention, RB... this ISN'T rocket science! It's TRUTH!

  "BeelzeDub covered it well: 'So god did not answer a child being raped because he called out to the wrong god? If there is a god, and a child calls out for help, would he be so cruel? If so, your god is one sick bastard.' But you do not wish to address that. "

  What was there to "address"? If BD feels my Father "sick" because He did not respond when He was not called, that's BD's opinion, yes? I marvel that both you... and BD... presume to know how it "works" in the spirit realm, and why it is that God would not respond to the call for someone else.

  I also marvel at your next comment:

  you made a comment with no supporting facts. The burden of proof requires that you provide hard evidence to substantiate your claim. You have failed to do so.

  I'm only a witness, dear DB, as I have professed. But you're not a judge... and this is not a courtroom. There IS no "burden of proof" requirement here. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! (You're funny, you know that?! )

  You are indeed being evasive.

  No, you just don't like my argument. I doesn't "jive" with your paradigm. I'm sorry, but there's absolutely nothing I can do about that, at least not until you're READY... to "handle" the truth!

  And then you quoted me and responded with:

  ME: I'm sorry, but were YOU His responsibility? Or your mom and dad's? Nevermind. Methinks that one might be a bit difficult for you - quantum physics and all that.

  YOU: Again, praising God for being responsible for the creation of Adam, making an excuse for him when dealing with all of Adam's offspring.

  I think you "missed" something here... but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is...

  Anyone that reads this post can see your a nut job.

  You're entitled to your opinion, RB, as are they...

  Let's be frank.

  No, let's just be our truthful selves, you and I. Speak truth to one another, in love, irregardless of what we feel the other... or others... might think. Shall we?

  You hear voices in your head.

  No, I do not. Truth.

  You believe God speaks to you.

  Not quite. I believe Christ speaks to me. (Well, since we're doing "truth" here, my Father has spoken to me... but only on two occasions and they were for a reason...)

  I do not believe ANY God exists.

  Wait a minute! I thought we agreed to be "frank"... or speak TRUTH! If you don't believe ANY God exists, then WHO ARE YOU TO BLAME ANYGOD?!! And who the... who, then, are you mad at?! Forgive my "language" for I am not angry; not at ALL - I am almost ROTFLMHO, actually, at your attempt to make sense here of what does NOT!! I mean, in light of all your comments AGAINST God... how can you be angry with... indeed, how can you BLAME... someone who you believe does NOT EXIST?!

  (Sigh! Yet, you say I'm "mad/crazy/sick"! At least I know the voice that I hear is REAL; that the being behind it exists!! YOU... are angry at someone/something that YOU don't even believe EXISTS! How exactly does that WORK?! Earthling man... again, go figure!)

  Okay, then, RB... if you do not believe in ANY 'god', who then SHOULD you be angry at... and why aren't you directing it at such ones?

  (Still waiting for that clear and intelligent thinking to come out)

  We will not find common ground.

  Actually, I think we have: I don't think God is to blame; you don't think there IS a god to blame. Either way, the blame is misdirected, yes? I think that's pretty common ground.

  Until you provide verifiable evidence in the form of facts and not insinuations based on faith...

  Verifiable evidence of what, consensual (either by the child or its parent(s)) sex with children worldwide? Well, I could do so easily enough by perhaps sending you a link. But... I don't "go" for that sort of thing, would never exploit it, and sincerely don't want the FBI knocking on my door because I was foolish enough to think, "Hey, I know, I'll just send him a link." Look up yer own links.

  That pedophilia is a worldwide practice and pretty much only eschewed in the "west" and/or "christian" lands? What would you consider proof? Ask someone from Asia, Africa, the Middle East... heck, Sweden or Denmark.

  do not reply to my post...

  C'mon, you CAN'T be serious!? As if (1) I take "orders" from you; (2) your direction is so frightening that I would "obey", (3) you really don't want me to. Frank, RB, be frank!

  Have a nice day.

  Of COURSE... and you as well.

  And again, my peace... remains.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ

  Edited by - AGuest on 10 October 2002 15:17:19
• 

  Mulan

  I may get attacked for this one.

  But, GOOD GRIEF!!! Can't we all just ignore AGuest? So irritating, all that religious fervor, and "God told me to say this" or "the holy spirit told me to tell you....". Creeps me out. I've had enough of that shit for a lifetime. I certainly don't want to deal with it here. And so much room taken up by it????

  Now I am off the board for awhile. I am spending way too much of my work day here.
• 

  Englishman

  This thread is really going downhill IMHO, let's cool it eh?

  Reborn and SF, please mind the language.

  Englishman.
• 

  AGuest

  My sincere apologies to you, Mulan... and peace to you!

  It was not me intention to "creep... out" you, or anyone else, but only to make a defense to a false accusation against one I love... just as YOU found it beneficial to do for what YOU felt to be a false accusation against one YOU loved... one who YOU say spoke to YOU (although I have not demanded to hear from HIM that he indeed spoke to you, as I couldn't care less, really...). But that's it; that's all. And, yes, I tend to get a tad bit more "wordy" than you, but then, that's "me" and most folks here already know that about me, yes?

  Again, I bid you peace.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ

  P.S. - I also hope that you don't perceive this, my defense against your attack, as an attack against you. It was nothing more than what it was, a defense, nor was it intended to be.

  Edited by - AGuest on 10 October 2002 15:25:21
• 

  riz

  (((skally))) i'm sorry for what you have had to endure. that song 'judith' gives me chills.

  jason, you have more patience than i do, that's for sure! you have been saying exactly what i have been thinking.

  and mulan, i second that emotion! that reminds me of a bumper sticker that i thought was funny:

  "if you are talking to god, you are praying. if god is talking to you, you have schizophrenia."
• 

  BeautifulGarbage

  Arguing the whole "god" thing is an act of futility. It can go on forever with neither side budging.

  I *do* have further comments, but not right now. On another thread I started just today, regarding my daughter, my mind is in a reflective mood elsewhere. Further more, I would like to wait until the board as calmed down a bit in light of all that went on yesterday.

  Please, everyone.....stop banging your heads against the wall.

  Andee
• 

  Reborn2002

  I will make no apologies for what I have said.

  I stand firmly behind my statements.

  With that said, I will comment one last time on this thread, and then allow it to pass off into the archives.

  AGuest, you have continuously failed to provide documentation to support your claim.

  You made the claim that:

  You think?! Really!? Oh, honey! Obviously, you have not travelled the world much, for if you had, you would know that pedophilia is an ACCEPTABLE practice in close to 95% of the world!

  I called you out on this. From the very beginning I ask that you provide facts to prove your claim. You do not do so.

  I say:

  What 95% of the world do you refer to? North America? The UK? Australia? Most of Africa? The Middle East? Why not be specific in your claim of 95%? Do not make claims of percentages without facts to support your statement.

  I requested that you provide documentation to validate your claim. You have made a statement and attempt to pass it off as fact without evidence.

  How do you reply?

  No, I don't have support anything. I gave you the statistics. Don't believe me? Look them up. Read a little. Get out of the house and travel a little. Ask the Board...

  You are passing the buck. You are not providing evidence to validate your claim.

  I call you out on this a second time:

  you made a comment with no supporting facts. The burden of proof requires that you provide hard evidence to substantiate your claim. You have failed to do so.

  You again sidestep the issue and provide no facts to support your claim, and instead say:

  I'm only a witness, dear DB, as I have professed. But you're not a judge... and this is not a courtroom. There IS no "burden of proof" requirement here. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! (You're funny, you know that?! )

  By not providing facts about a statement YOU made and instead passing the responsibility to someone else, you are being evasive.

  I ask that you provide facts to validate your claim that 95% of the world considers pedophilia an acceptable practice.

  You provide no evidence on two occasions.

  I'm only a witness, dear DB, as I have professed. But you're not a judge... and this is not a courtroom. There IS no "burden of proof" requirement here. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! (You're funny, you know that?! )

  You are passing the buck. There is indeed a requirement here if you expect your allegation to hold any credence.

  Perhaps I should give you the definition of burden of proof.

  According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

  http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=burden%20of%20proof

  burden of proof n.Law The responsibility of proving a disputed charge or allegation.

  
  

  Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. burden of proofn : the duty of proving a disputed charge Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

  You made the claim that 95% of the world accepts pedophilia, therefore it is you who is responsible for providing evidence to validate your claim. I disputed your assertation, you have yet to provide any facts.

  Surely, for someone who by their own admission understands quantum physics, surely you can comprehend a basic law of science.

  Allow me to give you an example. Suppose someone were to say that 50% of all Jehovah's Witnesses are murderers. The person who makes that statement is responsible for providing documentation to prove their claim. Until they do so, it remains just that, their claim. It is not the responsibility of a person disputing their charge to provide evidence. This is a fallacy.

  I mean honestly, how does this look to you?

  An example:

  Person 1: 50% of all Jehovah's Witnesses are murderers.

  Person 2: provide facts to verify your claim.

  Person 1: I have given you the statistics, you look them up! ask other people! get out of the house a little!

  Person 2: but the burden of proof lies on you, you made the statement, you have to provide facts to back them up

  Person 1: this is not a court of law! im not required to do anything!

  for more information on burden of proof and why you are in error:

  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

  Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

  Description of Burden of Proof

  Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

  1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
  2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

  In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

  Examples of Burden of Proof

  1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
     Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
     Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

  2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
     Jill: "What is your proof?"
     Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

  3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

  With that said, the dialogue in these posts speak for themselves. You have failed to provide any facts or hard evidence to support your outlandish remarks. Every statement you have made is based on faith and on the notion that Christ speaks to you in your head.

  The facts speak for themselves.

  With that, I exit this thread.

  Edited by - Reborn2002 on 10 October 2002 20:9:22