by VeniceIT 51 Replies latest jw friends
Great posts grunt. It must be unbelievable to think you believe something all your life then someone says, then shows you, that it's not what you believe at all!
Head shakes, what?
But that's what I thought I believed...
Of course it would only be an "apostate" that would care enough to point that out.
If Junior Brown has no idea what Barbara told Dateline, how can he say that what she alleges is untrue?
Methinks brother Brown is a damn liar. He just proved it.
Never Squat With Yer Spurs On
Hilda,
: If there be any hypocrisy in me--I want it cleansed out of my bones ASAP.
You'd need a pressure washer.
: When has the WT ever hidden any pedophiles away? You got some news?
Obviously, you've read little or nothing on the matter. You can start with the silent lambs website:
You can also watch the Dateline show when it comes out.
: How can I support dissidents, D? You tell me.
Check out what they say. If they speak the truth, the truth will still be the truth regardless of who speaks it.
: Somehow you expect Witnesses to abide by their principles in some form or fashion and also support those who not only advocate change in the area we are talking about... but also spew out filth and lies and distortions about christ's potential body.
Do you realize how idiotic that statement is? You have presented a classic false dichotomy and such statements are an indication of poor thinking. Is one of the principals of decent Jehovah's Witnesses to protect children from being raped with impunity by members of their congregations? Yes or no. Is one of the principals of decent former JWs like Bill Bowen and Barb Anderson to protect children from being raped with impunity by members of their congregations? Yes or no.
Any rational person would answer yes to both questions. Then, why would you NOT be supporive of the work of former JWs? Are you a moron?
: but also spew out filth and lies and distortions about christ's potential body.
Proof please: 1) Name specific examples of "filth and lies and distortions." 2) Prove that dubs are Christ's potential body.
One of the things that dubs and other religionists commonly do is to make unsupported statements and expect their audience to swallow it as if it were fact. Too bad. I'm not falling for it.
: We ain't falling for that nonsense,
You haven't proved it is "nonsense." However, I've shown that your statements are nonsense. Well, not exactly. I said they were "idiotic," didn't I?
Farkel, who just turned 54
Hilda
You asked since when do they cover for peds... They covered for my uncle. They still cover for him and he is a repeat offender. Want to know how they punished him... He had to apologize to me.
He should be in jail.
Farkel, who just turned 54
When ? When ?
Happy Birthday to You Farkel
{{{{Hugs}}}} and
Mr Farkel:
:Do you realize how idiotic that statement is? You have presented a classic false dichotomy and such statements are an indication of poor thinking. Is one of the principals of decent Jehovah's Witnesses to protect children from being raped with impunity by members of their congregations? Yes or no. Is one of the principals of decent former JWs like Bill Bowen and Barb Anderson to protect children from being raped with impunity by members of their congregations? Yes or no.:
I am not sure what you mean by the first question, sir. JWs don't have any "principals" in their organization, do they? The same problem seems to hound your second question. Could you please clarify your meaning for me, sir?
:Any rational person would answer yes to both questions. Then, why would you NOT be supporive of the work of former JWs? Are you a moron?:
Is not such a statement as "any rational person" kinda a logical fallacy, dear Farkel? Do we even know what rationality is, dear? I can honestly say that I do not think I am a moron. But we are all prone to make mistakes, hon.
:Proof please: 1) Name specific examples of "filth and lies and distortions." 2) Prove that dubs are Christ's potential body.:
1) Bill Bowen and his cronies.
(2) I do not have to prove that dubs are Christ's "potential" body, sir. How can anyone prove that which is only potential and not actual? Can we really prove anything anyway? I don't know. It depends on what you mean by "proof" dear sir.
:One of the things that dubs and other religionists commonly do is to make unsupported statements and expect their audience to swallow it as if it were fact. Too bad. I'm not falling for it.:
What unsupported statements have I made? I have more questions than I do claims, dear farkel.
:You haven't proved it is "nonsense." However, I've shown that your statements are nonsense. Well, not exactly. I said they were "idiotic," didn't I?:
You have shown nothing. That is correct, sir. And the burden is not on me to prove that Mr Bowen's claims are nonsense. I believe that valencies like "nonsense" are a matter of each person's own judgment. If I think something is nonsense, then it is to me. It does not have to be nonsense for you, dear. Language is the presence of absence.
Hilda Trips All Over Itself:
: :Do you realize how idiotic that statement is? You have presented a classic false dichotomy and such statements are an indication of poor thinking. Is one of the principals of decent Jehovah's Witnesses to protect children from being raped with impunity by members of their congregations? Yes or no. Is one of the principals of decent former JWs like Bill Bowen and Barb Anderson to protect children from being raped with impunity by members of their congregations? Yes or no.:
: I am not sure what you mean by the first question, sir. JWs don't have any "principals" in their organization, do they?
You are absolutely correct: dubs have no principles.
: The same problem seems to hound your second question. Could you please clarify your meaning for me, sir?
Gladly. You said:
: Somehow you expect Witnesses to abide by their principles in some form or fashion and also support those who not only advocate change in the area we are talking about...
Your statement clearly implies that dubs living by their principles and supporting those who advocate change ("apostates") are mutually exclusive when it comes to child-rape. I showed that was not true at all.
: :Any rational person would answer yes to both questions. Then, why would you NOT be supporive of the work of former JWs? Are you a moron?:
Is not such a statement as "any rational person" kinda a logical fallacy, dear Farkel?
No it isn't.
:: Do we even know what rationality is, dear?
Rational people do. Therefore, I can see why you have a problem with the concept.
: I can honestly say that I do not think I am a moron.
I've yet to meet a moron who admits to bein a moron.
: :Proof please: 1) Name specific examples of "filth and lies and distortions." 2) Prove that dubs are Christ's potential body.:
: 1) Bill Bowen and his cronies.
That's not proof. That's an assertion. I would explain the difference between the two, but I'm afraid you're just not capable of understanding it.
: (2) I do not have to prove that dubs are Christ's "potential" body, sir. How can anyone prove that which is only potential and not actual?
Then your argument is not sound. Period. If you call it a matter of faith, then I would have no problem with it. You didn't call it a matter of faith.
: Can we really prove anything anyway? I don't know.
That is painfully obvious.
: It depends on what you mean by "proof" dear sir.
That is another concept that I'm sure would fly right over your head if I tried to explain it to you, so I won't bother.
: :One of the things that dubs and other religionists commonly do is to make unsupported statements and expect their audience to swallow it as if it were fact. Too bad. I'm not falling for it.:
: What unsupported statements have I made?
See my comments above.
: I have more questions than I do claims, dear farkel.
That's a good start!
::You haven't proved it is "nonsense." However, I've shown that your statements are nonsense. Well, not exactly. I said they were "idiotic," didn't I?:
: You have shown nothing. That is correct, sir. And the burden is not on me to prove that Mr Bowen's claims are nonsense.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the assertions, and YOU were the one making the assertions. You made extraordinary claims and they require extraordinary evidence. Yet you've produced NO evidence. Yep. You're a moron, alright.
: I believe that valencies like "nonsense" are a matter of each person's own judgment. If I think something is nonsense, then it is to me. It does not have to be nonsense for you, dear. Language is the presence of absence.
What were you saying about "nonsense," again?
Farkel
Hilda,
Glad you are still here. I don't think I am profound enough to understand one of your statements. "Language is the presence of absence." Hmmmm. Nope. Just can't quite get a handle on that. Last time I was stumped like this it was by Bill Clinton's "What is, "is?" I thought I knew but obviously it wasn't what I thought it was, I mean linking verbs don't merit that kind of question. It had to be symbolic of something that made oral sex in the Oval Office, Ok, unless of course it had to do with a nickname for some kind of cigar. Now I get "Language is the presence of absence." That must be some kind of carte blanche deal that says setting umpteen false dates, telling people "Jesus DID come back, he's just INVISIBLE!!!!" and telling people Moses, David, Abraham and crew were coming back to stay at the Judge's pad in California don't count against you, or maybe that "You can take COW'S BLOOD, it's HUMAN BLOOD you can't take, well you can take it all but you have to divide it into itsy bitsy parts first." How about it "is" that right??? If not, please explain. Don't be like Bill, he never explained, just grinned that ole S---Eaten grin and started pardoning people and planning his talk show.
Dearest Mr Farkel:
Brother Paul says that we should use our time wisely. therefore I am not going to waste any more time correcting your skewed viewpoint of matters. Who is the one tripping over oneself? You typed "principals" when you evidently meant "principles." Then you blame little old me for not understanding what you mean. This mystic fails to understand such "logic" dear.
You also said that dubs have no "principles." Really, dear? Even a thief has principles, it would seem dear. Principles can be either good or bad. So surely dubs do have principles, hon.
Dearest grunt:
You said you have trouble comprehending the expression, "presence of absence."
I can understand your plight, dear. But to say it simply, the presence of absence is just what it sounds like, grunt. The expression pretty much means (in a way) that language, like thought, ultimately fails when it comes to communicating meaning. There is a curious presence of absence when it comes to words, my friend.
What we are saying is that language is paradoxical. For if absence is present in a word, then it means that meaning is void in the word we have in mind. But the paradox is how can absence be present in language since absence (by definition) is the very negation of presence?
I leave the smart guys to figure out this dillema, grunt. I just glory in the majesty of God and his son and all that they have done for us mere mortals. that is why I take delight in mysteries. And by the way, I did not vote for Clinton.
