Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke"The Ninth Century and the Holy Grail - Page 317 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com/books?isbn=190699904X W. J. Stein - 2009 - Anthroposophy 'Who is it that cometh from Edom with dyed garments from Bozrah?. . . Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the ..." (Google Menu Line Item one)
A Day of Judgement:
"Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save."
Is that the fella?
_____________
Not quite "A Day of Judgement", GD; only a warning from the "Ninth Century".Great historical reference. ~GB
Originally posted by HandyAndyMay i suggest that you stick to the facts because you are fabricating values that have no basis in any reality beyond your own limited imagination. You may surmise, you may assume and you may fabricate any value that you see fit its your affair not mine. You were asked in good faith which part of the article you wanted to know was true, you said all of it, i then asked if you could be more specific and you make up that i have been evasive and dishonest and seek to use it as the basis of some kind of warped reasoning. Arrogant and self assuming. I don't think i will be taking any lesson in morality from the likes of you. You are turning into another FMF clone. Wow Clone Zone alert!
Your evasive answers lead me to surmise that the Wikipedia article is completely factual and that you are too sheepish to admit it in front of your friends here on the General Forum. Do the JW elders approve of dishonesty?
Originally posted by HandyAndyI ask Robbie that question regularly. Once I made a (vain) threat to download his recent posting history and send copies of it to each of the 7 Glasgow Kingdom Hall leaders. As you can imagine, it went down like a pork pie at a bar-mitzvah and he stopped speaking to me for some time.
Do the JW elders approve of dishonesty?
Originally posted by FMFFunny definition of "bullied" you have here. One might call it "ironic".
In the UK and the US, I'd no doubt be bullied for who I am ~ just as I am here at RHP. By contrast, in France, they put their intellectuals on prime time TV.
Clearly, you feel it's something "done" to you and what you "do" to others doesn't qualify. Also clearly, you feel you don't deserve whatever criticism you get; most narcissists don't. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I also wager you have a ways to go before being considered an "intellectual"... even in France, where the bar must be extraordinarily low.
Originally posted by divegeesterYes that was the same time you escaped from the Germans in world war I by floating across the English channel in a lucky bag with the Red Barron as a prisoner.
I ask Robbie that question regularly. Once I made a (vain) threat to download his recent posting history and send copies of it to each of the 7 Glasgow Kingdom Hall leaders. As you can imagine, it went down like a pork pie at a bar-mitzvah and he stopped speaking to me for some time.
I am sure once I download and send your foul mouthed rants, including such expletives as, you're 'a prick', 'bitches', 'shut the f*** up' and 'bell end', they will have concluded that they are dealing with nothing more than a foul mouthed religious bigot.
Go ahead download my posting history and send it to anyone I am not ashamed of it, much to your chagrin. Infact I dare you to put your money where your mouth is and do it.
I stopped speaking to you because you are a foul mouthed religious bigot not because of your vain threats.
Originally posted by SeitseThere are certain issues involved.
And when mandatory reporting is not in place?
The first is the so called penitent privilege whereby a minister of religion, whether its a confessor of the catholic church or an elder of Jehovah witnesses agrees that anything that is revealed to them is treated with the utmost confidentiality. This may place a priest or a minister of religion in a moral dilemma for he has guaranteed confidentiality and yet has a serious issue on his hands. In some States mandatory reporting supersedes that of penitent privilege but not in all.
The policy was as I understand it to leave reporting of matters of child abuse (where the law of the land did not contain a mandate for mandatory reporting) to the families involved. This was done I suspect to preserve the confessor penitent confidentiality and because it was felt that a minister of religion is not qualified to deal with criminality, therefore those who were involved were instructed to inform authorities.
A third issue is that of corroborative evidence, (still extant in Scots law) whereby two sources of evidence are needed before a matter could be considered. This I suspect is done to deter accusation by a single witness on a personal vendetta. It has been vigorously attacked for example by rape victims because there may have been a crime but no other witnesses and is under review by the judiciary in my own country. A second source need not be a person but could be DNA profiling. So in the past there may have been a reluctance to report abuse due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The situation as it stands now as I understand it is that all cases of abuse, alleged or otherwise, whether corroborated or not are to be reported to secular authorities.
These were the issues that I put on the table for reasonable rational debate and which FMF contorted into his vile and slanderous accusation of defending child abuse and I thank you for the opportunity to present them here.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
Originally posted by SuzianneVery well said!
Funny definition of "bullied" you have here. One might call it "ironic".
Clearly, you feel it's something "done" to you and what you "do" to others doesn't qualify. Also clearly, you feel you don't deserve whatever criticism you get; most narcissists don't. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I also wager you have a ways to go before being considered an "intellectual"... even in France, where the bar must be extraordinarily low.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, you don't have to defend anything against these bullies. These pseudo-inquisitors.
There are certain issues involved.
The first is the so called penitent privilege whereby a minister of religion, whether its a confessor of the catholic church or an elder of Jehovah witnesses agrees that anything that is revealed to them is treated with the utmost confidentiality. This may place a priest or a minister of religion in a moral di ...[text shortened]... us accusation of defending child abuse and I thank you for the opportunity to present them here.
They've merely descended into the kind of primitive ganging-up mentality seen in the little boys in "Lord of the Flies".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are their bitch robin.
There are certain issues involved.
The first is the so called penitent privilege whereby a minister of religion, whether its a confessor of the catholic church or an elder of Jehovah witnesses agrees that anything that is revealed to them is treated with the utmost confidentiality. This may place a priest or a minister of religion in a moral di ...[text shortened]... us accusation of defending child abuse and I thank you for the opportunity to present them here.
when the sh$$ comes down (which it will) you will be hung out to dry.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry for making you squirm.. it really isn't your fault.
May i suggest that you stick to the facts because you are fabricating values that have no basis in any reality beyond your own limited imagination. You may surmise, you may assume and you may fabricate any value that you see fit its your affair not mine. You were asked in good faith which part of the article you wanted to know was true, you said all ...[text shortened]... n morality from the likes of you. You are turning into another FMF clone. Wow Clone Zone alert!