- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117570
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by SuzianneThis thread is not about the Jehovah's Witnesses corporation. My comment about my OP is reflective of all religious cults and corporate denomination. The JWs are only forefront for part of the thread because of the interjections by robbie carrobie and Galveston. The JWs are not special compared to other cults or religious corporations this this respect.
Wait a minute, let me see if I'm hearing this right.
Your beef is not with their wildly bizarre dogma, canonized by them before they had scripture which miraculously backed it up, but only with the fact that their approach is corporate in nature? That instead of having a prophet and apostles, they have a CEO and a board which they learn to treat the same as a prophet and apostles? This is your main beef with them and not their man-made dogma?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117570
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere is a modern representation of the increasing decay of of the Jehovah's Witness cult, repeated accusations of child abuse by elders and the subsequent attempt at hushing it up by the leadership.
Why don't you tell us something we don't know like if he had followed the teachings of Jehovahs witnesses, those 'man made doctrines' that you and your friends slobber about, would he have killed those innocent women and children at Sand Creek? Indeed, in what way was this Methodist preacher, a real Christian?
Thread 160019
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117570
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGet out of my thread you disruptive objectionable little man.
No i doubt you could read Urdu, Farsi (Persian) or Arabic because it uses a different script. Nastaʿlīq. I doubt you could read Chinese either as its pictorial.
Edit: unless you wish to contribute.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117570
It's it astonishing, we've had more or less reasonable discussion going on for 2-3 months while Galveston was away sulking for being caught lying in the forum and now he's back he and robbie carrobie do nothing but cause contention and strife. I'm sure they do this to invite persecution - I honestly believe that.
I apologise for my use of uncouth language earlier in this thread but I am so sick of this pair of arrogant spiritual snobs that I carelessly allowed my frustration to boil over.
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsHardly because the Native Americans would not have felt threatened. I am pleased to say that we have some beautiful blackfoot brothers and sisters who praise the father of the celestial lights, Jehovah himself.
Well my honest answer is that if he had been a Jehovah's Witness that more white settlers would have been scalped and murdered by the Indians, because he would not have tried to stop or fought against them.
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, we might have felt the Native Americans should not have felt threatened because some white skin settlers had moved into land they used for hunting, but apparently they did because they began murdering and scalping those settlers and burning down their log cabins.
Hardly because the Native Americans would not have felt threatened. I am pleased to say that we have some beautiful blackfoot brothers and sisters who praise the father of the celestial lights, Jehovah himself.
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by divegeesterNevertheless, you could answer the question in the spirit I intended it, so that I could more closely understand your position.
This thread is not about the Jehovah's Witnesses corporation. My comment about my OP is reflective of all religious cults and corporate denomination. The JWs are only forefront for part of the thread because of the interjections by robbie carrobie and Galveston. The JWs are not special compared to other cults or religious corporations this this respect.
19 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBecause the white man had this idea of "Manifest Destiny", regardless of who was living here at the time. The white man appropriated land, killed off the bison for sport, stripped the land for gold and did not understand the treaty the Native American had forged with the Creator to respect Nature. They had come to murder the Sioux, the Cheyenne and the Lakota (and all the rest of the tribes) because they coveted what they had. This was a sin even by the white man's own standards, yet this did not stop them. The People were righteously defending themselves.
Well, we might have felt the Native Americans should not have felt threatened because some white skin settlers had moved into land they used for hunting, but apparently they did because they began murdering and scalping those settlers and burning down their log cabins.
Edit: I don't go down to the reservations anymore. I used to go there to witness for Christ, but I cannot stomach seeing a once proud people living in squalor on small sections of land the white man considers useless. It is disgusting what we have done to these people. It is unconscionable and immensely sad to see, it makes me want to vomit to see how the government forces these people to live as not even third-class citizens in what is essentially bondage.
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by SuzianneBut the Indians started the killing and scalping and the white man retaliated by killing and scalping.
Because the white man had this idea of "Manifest Destiny", regardless of who was living here at the time. The white man appropriated land, killed off the bison for sport, stripped the land for gold and did not understand the treaty the Native American had forged with the Creator to respect Nature. They had come to murder the Sioux, the Cheyenne and the La ...[text shortened]... 's own standards, yet this did not stop them. The People were righteously defending themselves.
19 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneYou must have been taught a revisionist's history. Does it really make sense to you that the white man would really start killing and scalping the Indians first? What other historical evidence is there that white men from Europe were in the habit of scalping their enemies?
This is not true.