Danny,
Thank you for your words; they really helped. All is well between us.
Posts by Seeker
-
69DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN
by Amazing insome of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.
during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.
' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?
-
-
-
10
Take sides now
by chappy ini spent a couple of hours today with jw relatives and of coarse the usual subjects came up.
based on our conversation and after leaving, a couple of the old questions came to mind.
i'm curious about the rest of the boards thoughts.. now this may be conjecture but what if: god made it known,in no uncertain terms, that h/she exists and is finally going to put an end to all the evil in the world.
-
-
Seeker
Not sure about your first question; guess it would depend on what God had in mind to do.
Can any of you even remotely see, based on current events, world governments banning all religion in any form? I admit that it sounds far fetched, but not as far fetched as it seemed a few years ago.
Not as long as everyone is running around saying, "God bless America!" Or as long as there are a billion-and-a-half Chinese. Or a billion Indians. Or a billion Muslims who would gladly fight to their death first.
Nope, can't see that happening.
-
69
DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN
by Amazing insome of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.
during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.
' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?
-
-
Seeker
DannyBear
Here's what you said:
***Today, the Christians will viciously condemn what happened last week in this country, and vow revenge. But they will also support and defend all the atrocities that the Israelites did in the Bible. "That's different," they say, "God was behind them." Yeah? Well that's what bin Laden says today, so skip the excuses. Nobody wants to hear about a bloodthirsty God who supports the death of innocents.***
Well how should, anyone,(not just christians) condemn what happened, Seeker? Non viciously, with a whimper, perhaps a letter to the editor?
I was making a point that Christians who defend God's actions in the Bible are behaving the way bin Laden supporters are supporting last week's attacks. In case it wasn't clear, I am strongly condemning both cases in the strongest possible way. That was the whole point I was making.
Now I hope you see how slanderous it was of you to say to me: ""You want us to forget about this little event WTC." In fact, I wanted the exact opposite. All right, you misunderstood my intent, something that can happen in online conversations. But now that you know, I hope you see how offensive your words were to me.
Sorry if I got another message you did not intend. But that is the way I saw it.
Fair enough, but I hope you now see your misunderstanding in making your false accusation of me, a particular accusation I found deeply painful, for it is still an open wound to me. I don't throw accusations of "slander" around every day, but this was too personal, too false, too opposite of my own heart. As I said above, I was trying to make the exact opposite point, that Christians should be ashamed of their 'forgetting' about Bible atrocities, when they should be remembered as strongly as last week's events. So to be accused of the opposite of how I felt was painful.
You posted your remarks to Scally on a public board, some very abusive words, now you want them to be ignored. You would not hold me to that same standard.
Not true. The public comments I made to her are fair game, but I was talking about our private conversation which is no one's business. That is a consistent standard. The abusive words I made to her in public were made in the heat of anguish on my part. It was a long time before I had the strength to post here. I've never been so wounded, and it shocked me. So what I said was extreme, and not at all what is typical of me.
Seeker, you and clashed I from the very begining, on these very grounds we are talking about, I wish it was different but it isn't. By you continuing to assert that I slandered you, you give way to much credit to my observation's.
If you continue to assert I wish people to forget the WTC attack, after all I have explained, I will call it slander, which it would be. A particularly hurtful form of slander, given everyone's mood at the present, and my own heart pain.
***Your characterization of me is false. However, you are willing to think whatever you like about me, as it is of no lasting concern to me.***
If true, you really don't care what I have to say, or think about you, why on earth would you for a minute consider my comments as affecting your reputation? Certainly an overreaction based on your above comments.
Do you see the difference between what you "think" and what you "post" about me? As you said, all we can go on here is what is written. I don't care if you have a totally wrong idea about me in your head; it'll be your mistake, but it won't affect me. However, if you post something about me that is untrue, and particularly hurtful to say about me, it could influence someone who doesn't know me to think what you are saying is true. That could then cause them to attack me based on erroneous information. I will defend my public reputation. But you can think whatever you want. I've tried to explain your misunderstanding. If you continue to think ill of me, at least I've made my case to anyone else reading this exchange.
Anyway Seeker, let me say it was not my intention to cause you all this upset and rankor, I just had to tell you how you were coming across to me. Yes I can sympathize with your feelings regarding the tragic events and I do. But some of your appeasing tone or middle of the road ideas, just burned my hide, I have just as firm beliefs as you in these regards, only they are overall 360 degree's away from yours. I had hope my questions, would have helped you see, not everyone is happy 'riding the middle of the road'.
I hope the people who did this attack are killed. Is that not what you wish?
I hope we can still be civil to one another.
Always, as long as we both play by civil rules. I was surprised when this thread turned from a discussion of politics to a discussion of my character. I am used to attacking the argument, not the person. When you attack me personally, expect me to defend myself. I would expect no less from you. Be civil with me, and I will be civil with you. Even though I am still angry at you for what I strongly consider your continuing slanderous statement, I hope you can see that I still responded calmly and rationally. I reacted very strongly earlier because I was so shocked to see your false accusation, and couldn't imagine where it came from. Now I see it was a misunderstanding on your part, something that can happen online. As long as you acknowledge my true feelings on the matter, now that it has been brought to your attention clearly, there will be no harm done.
-
35
American Witnesses face difficult time over flag
by ozziepost inreports are coming from the united states that small flags and flag badges are being distributed at schools and other public places.. many are refusing to take a flag and this is causing resentment and hurt feelings.
not wishing to offend, witnesses are asking their elders what they should do.. cheers,.
ozzie.
-
-
Seeker
cindy,
but if you refuse to take a symbol of our country you are saying in so many words that you are not on our side.
No, you are saying in so many words that you are an American who believes in the right to free speech, allowing you to express your support and patriotism in whatever way you choose, not a way that is forced upon you. When patriotic forms of expression are forced upon someone, it ceases to be freedom.
Even this web site has a red white and blue ribbon. Is that sinful?
Of course not! Who said anything about sin? This was a choice Simon made to express support, and it's great. I fully support his right to put that ribbon up. That's freedom of speech, and he's not even American.
-
69
DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN
by Amazing insome of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.
during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.
' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?
-
-
Seeker
DannyBear
You never cease to amaze me. You claim unabashed that you are intellegent, yet you make statements as if written by in stone because you say so. Well sir, you have no corner on absolute truth.
Never said I did. That is the nature of a discussion board. I offer my opinion, and you offer yours. We both think we are right, so we state things that way. This is wrong...how?
Secondly when anyone on almost any subject, take a stand, and clearly indicates it is what they believe, you for some reason, have to generalize that belief, by indicating there are 'two sides to everything', gee thanks Seeker, as if we do not understand a basic tenant of human nature.
"Anyone"? "On almost any" subject? Are we talking about this discussion board? Of the thousands of posts, and dozens of topics, I jump into how many of them?
As for reminders that there are two sides to the story, I only do this when it appears someone has forgotten this "basic tenant of human nature." It doesn't happen that often, despite your claims.
What bother's and disturbes me, is this open, magnanomous spirit you seem to champion. I can't really remember you ever taking a definite stand on any subject. It must be nice to just go wherever the wind takes you today. The real world would be in utter confusion, with no firm direction or laws, if everyone adopted your philosophy.
That is not my philosophy. As you say, you "can't really remember" me taking a definite stand. Perhaps if you read my comments more often you'll see it. My friends know where I stand, based on what I say. I have strong personal opinions on many subjects, all of which form a consistent life philosophy. The fact that most people polarize to extremes doesn't negate my consistent middle position.
Your willing to let people malign, call you abusive names, your willing to overlook anyone and everyones faults, you want to take the side of anyone that appears to be a victim of decision maker's. You want to be good to anyone, no matter who. You want American's now to think about terrorists, in this broad all encompasing way, you want us to generalize. You want us to forget about this little event WTC. You want us to think on some grandiose plain, well it may sound good to your ear's and to a personal slanted view of what should be, but the real world isn't that way.
I don't want people to "forget about this little event WTC", and I dare you to find words of mine that indicate this! I lost neighbors in this disaster! I can still smell the smoke from the fires each night! How dare you slander me this way!
The fact that even in this time of extreme propaganda and groupthink I can still see the world as shades of grey, with a few areas of extreme darkness, doesn't make me someone who is generalizing. It means I am thinking about things on several layers, not only on the surface.
I would be hard pressed to rely on your concepts, to give any kind of leadership, in a crisis situation. I would not want anyone with your view of the world, standing next to me under attack. I would have no confidence that you would act swift, to defend me, or to carry out the will of the majority. Sometimes the majority wins Seeker. Sometimes individuals sacrifice their own personal will, to fulfill a duty to the majority.
LOL, boy do you not know me! In real life, I am a natural leader, a person that others draw to automatically, and someone who is calm in the face of a crisis. You don't know me, or you would know that not only am I exactly the kind of person you would want by your side in a crisis, but that I would act swiftly to carry out the will of the majority. Check out my posts on 9/11 on this board, and see if you notice a difference in tone during the midst of the emergency that day, and then apologize for your slander.
I should think you are always in a state of flux, never knowing what your real beliefs are, just open to whatever sounds the least offensive.
I am the exact opposite. I know precisely what I want, and what I believe. You just don't know me. To be fair to you, I never reveal my whole self on this board for anonymity purposes. But those who do know me know how laughable your view of me is.
-
69
DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN
by Amazing insome of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.
during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.
' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?
-
-
Seeker
Amazing,
No, I didn't miss the "dead or alive" quote, and also thought it was not the best thing to say. And I agree with you, Alexander Haig's moment of truth goes down as one of the great gaffs in political history. He was ridiculed for that for years.
-
21
How was the WTC attack any different than...
by Seeker in...the attack on jericho by the israelites?.
yes, i know, this is controversial, but let's think about it.
we've been saying all week how the jw concept of armageddon is so horrible, for it teaches that god is about to do on a large-scale what we saw in new york and washington last week.
-
-
Seeker
Rex,
I do not isolate scripture and ignore the context. This is what you are doing and this is what all JWs do to a further extreme. You evidently do not want to see the other side of the coin, having made up your mind and that ends the discussion for me.
How did I isolate scripture and ignore the context? We are talking about Jericho. It is discussed in one book, and I'm dealing with the entire account. I have shown that there are parables between that account and last week's attack. You disagreed, but didn't explain why. You pointed to a website that peripherally talks about Jericho, mostly about other attacks. Yet you never answered in your own words. Now you claim you don't want to discuss any more. That's fine. Maybe some other Christian will attempt to explain how my comparision is wrong, without merely saying "Here, read this."
-
69
DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN
by Amazing insome of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.
during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.
' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?
-
-
Seeker
Amazing,
I know you won't be able to respond right away, so let me just say that I don't want to get into a full-blown political argument here. I responded to messenger's comments and your comments only because I wanted balance shown. It's never one side's entire fault, and it's never the case that the other side is all sweetness and light. Politics is dirty, and full of lies and misdirection. Blame usually belongs on both sides. The only quibbling should be how much each side gets this time.
As for Bush, I think a fair question to ask is if anyone can point to any evidence of intelligence. I can dig up a dozen quotes, even from his bitterest political enemies, that Clinton was a smart man (whatever else he may have been beside that). Can anyone find such quotes about Bush?
-
69
DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN
by Amazing insome of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.
during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.
' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?
-
-
Seeker
You miss the point, Amazing. What Bush said wasn't just political rhetoric, it was idiotic political rhetoric. The fact that he didn't even realize how dumb a thing it was to say tells me, yet again, how dumb Bush is. "Evil" is a religious concept, "evil-doing" something that is fairly common in the world, according to religious teaching. We are all sinners, the root cause of evil in the first place. He can't possibly come close to even reducing evil-doing in the world.
It would have been mere political rhetoric if he had promised to rid the world of terrorists. That is undoable, but a nice goal. To claim to rid the world of evil-doers is laughable. Yet he doesn't seem to realize how stupid it was to say.
-
24
So Whats Your Choice Of News Info?
by Englishman inseeing all these different people on this board, together with varying personalities, thoughts and opinions, makes me wonder about our reading and viewing material.. take the daily news.
if you watch tv, which news programme do you spend most time viewing and why?
the same question as to which daily newspaper you read, plus, does your newspaper have a political bias that attracts you?
-
-
Seeker
I got it the first time, and yes I think it's just another liberal bash.
How can it possibly be a liberal bash when it has nothing to do with liberalism? It has to do with propaganda, regardless of which propagand is being espoused, even liberal propaganda. You have yet to comment on this, so I keep thinking you must not be focusing on what I am actually saying.
I bet Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are your heroes, and of course they never tell you what to think.
They absolutely do tell us what to think, another point you would have deduced had you read my comments carefully for it is something I actually implied. In fact, I don't care for either Rather or Brokaw, both of whom engage in misinformation.
Yet another assumption of yours turns out to be wrong.