codeblue
My father in law is attending a KH that does not practice Satanic Rituals...He is not a person involved in Satanic Rituals, never has been. He and his wife have turned in child abusers from the same KH that had the Satanic Rituals going on.
I stand corrected. I was more unkind than those who implied that this was some kind of "hallucination" because I got a bit personal about the choices of Codeblue's father-in-law -- Mr Codeblue's father, I assume. I will admit that I was annoyed at the fact that this subject always attracts the most unbelievable types of evidence. The style of the website (which I've read before) is blatantly full of exactly the kind of evidence flaws that would make most any other subject laughable -- if treated with such disrespect for evidence. With a subject like this, everyone is already aware that there are skeptics; it's a given, and this is implicitly admitted within the text. Therefore, to treat evidence about this subject as they have in the site quoted, without any regard for the specifics necessary to make an argument convincing, is nothing short of dishonesty (in my opinion).
Please consider everything I say here as merely my opinion. : )
I hope I didn't imply that your father-in-law was involved in SRA. What I was trying to imply was that IF he had been a satanist, and had direct evidence, then he wouldn't have been credible, because he was a Satanist. The only possible credible evidence that a person truly can give worthwhile testimony is if they go the the proper authorities and/or do everything possible to expose it. So, since he was NOT involved, which of course I always knew he wasn't, then his testimony is credible only if he went to the appropriate authorities about his specific knowledge. (Police, Elders, GB, neighborhood civil authorities). Anyone who wouldn't either doesn't really have the evidence, or does not think SRA is dangerous enough to warn people about. If they thought child abuse was dangerous enough to let authorities know about, but did not think SRA with animal sacrifices in the basement was dangerous, then these actions tjhemselves ARE the evidence about how much real evidence of SA that they had. Further, if they continued on in the same religion then this also is itself further evidence of how serious or pervasive they thought the problem was.
If he doesn't chose to leave the religion that is HIS choice. Your comments about him are unkind. You don't know him or his character or his MORAL being.....You are making comments that aren't justified.
I can think of many reasons someone would stay, and many reasons someone would take other action if SRA was truly known or witnessed in KHs in VI. It has nothing to do with morals or judging his morals. Speaking out against the use of such testimony as rational evidence, however, is completely justified. You were the one who brought up that his actions were tied to emotions. You are the one who thought it was "appalling." I am only saying that it would be dishonest to think of this as evidence because it is tainted with the contradiction that they supposedly thought of what they knew as SRA, and yet didn't think it was serious enough to report so that any authorities could question the participants, or even to look for animal blood or evidence of its removal.
The issue of this thread that Blue started is trying to make people aware about Satanic Rituals going on at the KH's...If you don't agree that there are Satanic Rituals going on, that is YOUR decision...Don't discredit those that have personally seen or experienced Satanic Rituals...that is like saying there is NO CHILD ABUSE going on in the organization..Anyone who has experienced child abuse or Satanic rituals or both will argue with you forever.
I would never discredit those that have personally seen or experienced Satanic Rituals. I would immediately agree if there was supporting evidence. Evidence makes the decision for me. Perhaps the best way to get credible evidence brought forward is to remind people that second hand, contradictory evidence is worthless to the case. In fact, that article blue quoted makes a great case against SRA in KHs because of the truly despicable use of non-evidence to convince people. Did anyone see the cable channel "TECH" discussing conspiracy theories? On Sunday it dealt specifically with SRA and interviewed people who believed and wrote articles like the one above. I thought it was excellent. Gamaliel