Sunday afternoon lynchings

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then who has condemned it? will you provide evidence for anyone who has condemned it?

You seriously think anyone in this community condones the lynchings?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you retract all the personal remarks you made in which you sought to link him to the murders in the OP?

strike one.

Originally posted by FMF
You seriously think anyone in this community condones the lynchings?

you were asked for evidence, where is it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
strike one.

So you are NOT willing to retract all the personal remarks you have made on this thread where you sought to link divegeester to the murders in the OP?

Originally posted by FMF
So you are NOT willing to retract all the personal remarks you have made on this thread where you sought to link divegeester to the murders in the OP?

strike two.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were asked for evidence, where is it?

Without this "evidence", you seriously assume that the people in this community condone the lynchings, is that it?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This whole thread was about you baiting and trolling 'nominal Christians'.

I also think that the personal remarks robbie has made on this thread where he sought to link divegeester to the murders in the OP may have been pre-meditated.

Originally posted by FMF
Without this "evidence", you seriously assume that the people in this community condone the lynchings, is that it?

I have assumed nothing. None of the nominal Christians here have condemned theses murders. If you can find evidence to the contrary then please do so now. That does not mean that I think they condone them as you have rather foolishly assumed it merely means there is no evidence of their condemnation. Perhaps if you were ably to reason objectively instead of trading opinion this would be apparent to you? Who can say?

Originally posted by FMF
I also think that the personal remarks robbie has made on this thread where he sought to link divegeester to the murders in the OP may have been pre-meditated.

again on the contrary divesgeester was the one who initiated personal remarks stating that i and my friends would let children die. Are you saying that this was not the case? If not then you will tell us who initiated personal remarks?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have assumed nothing. None of the nominal Christians here have condemned theses murders. If you can find evidence to the contrary then please do so now. That does not mean that I think they condone them as you have rather foolishly assumed it merely means there is no evidence of their condemnation. Perhaps if you were ably to reason objectively instead of trading opinion this would be apparent to you? Who can say?

No, you misunderstand. If you think no evidence of their condemnation means they condone the murders then it is you who is being foolish. You have n o reason whatsoever to think anyone here condones the murders. You say "None of the nominal Christians here have condemned theses murders". Apparently you need them to. It seems very odd.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again on the contrary divesgeester was the one who initiated personal remarks stating that i and my friends would let children die. Are you saying that this was not the case? If not then you will tell us who initiated personal remarks?

You have defended the right of JWs to let their children die for want of medical treatment in order to not displease your God figure. This isn't even in dispute, is it? But your attempts to link divegeester personally to the murders of 4,000 people are far-fetched and truly straining to land a forum blow, to put it mildly.

Originally posted by FMF
No, you misunderstand. If you think no evidence of their condemnation means they condone the murders then it is you who is being foolish. You have n o reason whatsoever to think anyone here condones the murders. You say "None of the nominal Christians here have condemned theses murders". Apparently you need them to. It seems very odd.

I have not said that lack of evidence means that they condone them have I you silly man.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If not then you will tell us who initiated personal remarks?

Your OP aside, you had said this before divegeester arrived on this thread:

None of the Christians able to offer an explanation? Suffice to say that this shameful historical episode is reflective of the emptiness of the teachings that one finds in nominal Christianity. Insipid and lukewarm its unable to refresh the adherent and motivate them to acts of mercy and compassion. Its as Christ stated, 'Look your house is abandoned to you'.

Gee I forgot im dealing with the facebook/twitter generation. Next time ill get my crayons out and draw a picture for you diddums. Would you like some cats with a machine gun and a caption? or someone coming through a door wielding a gun? Is that what you are used to diddums? anything more than 140 syllables and you are overwhelmed?

You should ask yourself what you were trying to initiate with this thread.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not said that lack of evidence means that they condone them have I you silly man.

Then you should stop asking for "evidence" that people 'don't endorse it', or asking for "evidence" that divegeester is 'not equally hateful' as the murderers, or asking for "evidence" that the teachings of "nominal Christians" are 'not reflected' in these murders. It is not me who is being silly on this thread.

Originally posted by FMF
You have defended the right of JWs to let their children die for want of medical treatment in order to not displease your God figure. This isn't even in dispute, is it? But your attempts to link divegeester personally to the murders of 4,000 people are far-fetched and truly straining to land a forum blow, to put it mildly.

I have defended the right of self determination i have said literally nothing about the case of minors other than to state that in developed countries a parent has no jurisdiction. To state that I would let a child die as your airhead friend did is therefore not only unrealistic but impossible. Clearly hes wired to the moon. To sate that refusing a blood transfusion is morally reprehensible and akin to watching a lynching is ludicrous and also not very convincing because you could not bring yourself to tell us about the morality of those who die by taking blood transfusions, could you because it rather upsets your silly assertions of moral reprehensibility, and there have literary been tens of thousands who have died. Your sensationalistic tabloid assertions are not fit for bum paper, to put it mildly.