|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 26, 2016 21:17:34 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty, should women still be wearing black stockings so they are seen as being modest ?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jul 26, 2016 22:46:03 GMT -5
The label "Christian" is a superfluous and empty one.
Christians kill.
Christians sexually abuse and rape.
Christians are pedophiles.
Christians steal, they commit fraud, they lie, cheat and abuse others.
Until you can define a moral act that a Christian ( or any other religious adherent) can enact that an atheist or agnostic cannot, your use of the term Christian is self-placating and self-indulgent.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 26, 2016 22:55:43 GMT -5
The label "Christian" is a superfluous and empty one. Christians kill. Christians sexually abuse and rape. Christians are pedophiles. Christians steal, they commit fraud, they lie, cheat and abuse others. Until you can define a moral act that a Christian ( or any other religious adherent) can enact that an atheist or agnostic cannot, your use of the term Christian is self-placating and self-indulgent. Quote: The label "Christian" is a superfluous and empty one." Why? It just means that we follow Christ. We believe what he taught and believes. No one is claiming that there are not evil ones that call themselves "Christian".
|
|
|
Post by 4dtruth on Jul 26, 2016 22:57:23 GMT -5
"In essence, you, along with others who take that position, are saying that Christians " - You are reading meaning in my words which I did not write because you are so judgemental and concerned about others, Christian or not doesn't matter. Who are you to judge another, you don't know where that person is in their journey with Christ. Who made you the judge and jury. "In its context as a reply to my post, your response must be interpreted as implying that it does not matter how a woman dresses around men because if a man's heart is right there will be no impurity in him." - Yes you are right that is what I mean, a Christian man can walk on the beach full of women in bathing suits with no problems as he is a new creature in Christ. Wow, you're very judgmental! Your last post is even more judgmental than the previous one. You say I'm reading meaning into your words but then you go further in this post and confirm that you really did mean it exactly as I'd interpreted it. Yet you shift the focus to the tempted man exclusively. You suggest men and women should not be careful how we dress because a perfect person would not sin in looking at them. You excuse the tempter because the tempted sinned. You look only at the tempted one's sin. That's not what Jesus taught. It's not taught anywhere in the Bible. "Christian or not" certainly does matter, because if we are disciples of Jesus Christ we should be following him and walking in love toward others, not concerned about ourselves only. It could be argued that this sort of identification with and defense of those who are tempters is exactly what Paul was warning about when he advised "Neither give place to the devil."
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jul 26, 2016 23:13:58 GMT -5
jondough That is exactly why Jondough. Fervent 'followers of Christ' are not protected from committing crimes against others. In fact, religion, including Christianity, is too often an impetus and an excuse for dividing people and societies, for committing violence and for punishing those who have not committed a crime, but have 'sinned' as determined by anachronistic and warped scriptural directives. as Steven Weinberg said “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 23:14:44 GMT -5
Until you can define a moral act that a Christian ( or any other religious adherent) can enact that an atheist or agnostic cannot, your use of the term Christian is self-placating and self-indulgent. how about having faith in Jesus Christ? can an atheist or agnostic do that?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jul 26, 2016 23:16:13 GMT -5
Having faith is not a moral action @wally
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 23:20:45 GMT -5
Having faith is not a moral action @wally its may not be in your definition but its certainly in mine we have a whole chapter on faith called hebrews 11...
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 26, 2016 23:33:13 GMT -5
jondough That is exactly why Jondough. Fervent 'followers of Christ' are not protected from committing crimes against others. In fact, religion, including Christianity, is too often an impetus and an excuse for dividing people and societies, for committing violence and for punishing those who have not committed a crime, but have 'sinned' as determined by anachronistic and warped scriptural directives. as Steven Weinberg said “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" I agree with this. Religion has caused men to do some horrendous acts. You are right that it takes religion to cause good people to do evil things. But to me, it's because people don't truly understand what Christ taught. The very essence of what he taught was love....it's as simple as that. Get that in line, and everything else falls in place. It's the horse before the cart. The problem with all the evil that you mention is that it's the "cart with no horse". It happens all the time in both small and extreme measures. We see the self righteous, mean, judge mental people in our own fellowship. So when a true Christian has the horse before the cart....Love, and then everything else being a result of love....Then those things simply do not exist. If not, they they are not a true Christian, they have just labeled themselves as such.
|
|
|
Post by 4dtruth on Jul 27, 2016 0:19:14 GMT -5
Until you can define a moral act that a Christian ( or any other religious adherent) can enact that an atheist or agnostic cannot, your use of the term Christian is self-placating and self-indulgent. I can't help but notice the sweet irony: The punchline of Joanna's lecture on morality is a Melania Trump-worthy plagiarism of dead-as-dirt atheist Christopher Hitchens who developed this "challenge".
|
|
|
Post by pa on Jul 27, 2016 0:28:53 GMT -5
"In essence, you, along with others who take that position, are saying that Christians " - You are reading meaning in my words which I did not write because you are so judgemental and concerned about others, Christian or not doesn't matter. Who are you to judge another, you don't know where that person is in their journey with Christ. Who made you the judge and jury. "In its context as a reply to my post, your response must be interpreted as implying that it does not matter how a woman dresses around men because if a man's heart is right there will be no impurity in him." - Yes you are right that is what I mean, a Christian man can walk on the beach full of women in bathing suits with no problems as he is a new creature in Christ. Wow, you're very judgmental! Your last post is even more judgmental than the previous one. You say I'm reading meaning into your words but then you go further in this post and confirm that you really did mean it exactly as I'd interpreted it. Yet you shift the focus to the tempted man exclusively. You suggest men and women should not be careful how we dress because a perfect person would not sin in looking at them. You excuse the tempter because the tempted sinned. You look only at the tempted one's sin. That's not what Jesus taught. It's not taught anywhere in the Bible. "Christian or not" certainly does matter, because if we are disciples of Jesus Christ we should be following him and walking in love toward others, not concerned about ourselves only. Anytoll, No I never wrote that Christians can wear whatever they want with no regard for other, that you read into my posts. I never suggested men and women should not be careful what they wear. I never even examined the "inappropriate" dressed to determine their motive to excuse them or condemn them. Yes I only look at the tempted one's sin if I am the tempted. That is what the Bible teach me Yes I do shift it to the tempted man. I had a real life conversation with a man who went to jail. A woman made him angry and he threw a pot plant at her which injured her for life. Years after he still maintains that the blame lies with her and that she gave him a prison record as she should not have made him that angry. That woman has no blame for his prison sentence. He could've controlled his anger or walked away. Same scenario with the tempted man regarding dress or lack thereof. I am a man, I am to judge myself, I am not to blame others for my temptation/weaknesses, I am to be Christ-centred, I am not to be a Christian wimp swayed by sights, I am not to pass the buck for my sin onto another person (Christian/non-Christian). This was what I tried to convey in my posts and I don't for one moment try to say that I am like this always, however play the ball not the man is my moto, the ball being "The truth as it is in Jesus for my life".
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 27, 2016 0:29:18 GMT -5
Until you can define a moral act that a Christian ( or any other religious adherent) can enact that an atheist or agnostic cannot, your use of the term Christian is self-placating and self-indulgent. I can't help but notice the sweet irony: The punchline of Joanna's lecture on morality is a Melania Trump-worthy plagiarism of dead-as-dirt atheist Christopher Hitchens who developed this "challenge". Do you have any idea of exactly what you think you are saying in the above??
I sure can't figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 27, 2016 1:48:08 GMT -5
"In essence, you, along with others who take that position, are saying that Christians " - You are reading meaning in my words which I did not write because you are so judgemental and concerned about others, Christian or not doesn't matter. Who are you to judge another, you don't know where that person is in their journey with Christ. Who made you the judge and jury. "In its context as a reply to my post, your response must be interpreted as implying that it does not matter how a woman dresses around men because if a man's heart is right there will be no impurity in him." - Yes you are right that is what I mean, a Christian man can walk on the beach full of women in bathing suits with no problems as he is a new creature in Christ. Wow, you're very judgmental! Your last post is even more judgmental than the previous one. You say I'm reading meaning into your words but then you go further in this post and confirm that you really did mean it exactly as I'd interpreted it. Yet you shift the focus to the tempted man exclusively. You suggest men and women should not be careful how we dress because a perfect person would not sin in looking at them. You excuse the tempter because the tempted sinned. You look only at the tempted one's sin. That's not what Jesus taught. It's not taught anywhere in the Bible. "Christian or not" certainly does matter, because if we are disciples of Jesus Christ we should be following him and walking in love toward others, not concerned about ourselves only. Are you excusing sexual immorality in the ministry and fellowship? BTW, I agree that pole dancing should not be allowed at convention.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jul 27, 2016 2:04:35 GMT -5
Until you can define a moral act that a Christian ( or any other religious adherent) can enact that an atheist or agnostic cannot, your use of the term Christian is self-placating and self-indulgent. how about having faith in Jesus Christ? can an atheist or agnostic do that? Having faith is something wrong would be immoral.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Jul 27, 2016 5:12:36 GMT -5
Wow, you're very judgmental! Your last post is even more judgmental than the previous one. You say I'm reading meaning into your words but then you go further in this post and confirm that you really did mean it exactly as I'd interpreted it. Yet you shift the focus to the tempted man exclusively. You suggest men and women should not be careful how we dress because a perfect person would not sin in looking at them. You excuse the tempter because the tempted sinned. You look only at the tempted one's sin. That's not what Jesus taught. It's not taught anywhere in the Bible. "Christian or not" certainly does matter, because if we are disciples of Jesus Christ we should be following him and walking in love toward others, not concerned about ourselves only. It could be argued that this sort of identification with and defense of those who are tempters is exactly what Paul was warning about when he advised "Neither give place to the devil." Strange how Jesus, when he was presented with the tempter/"woman caught in adultery" and with the accusers, first turned His attention on those accusers. Forced them to first look at themselves and when Christ does that then no honest person can hold onto something hard to cast at another. After they were gone, then He who had every right to accuse said that He does not accuse her either, but encouraged her with the words "Sin no more". My point in all these posts is that maybe we all should rather honestly look at ourselves and not cast stones, that is the spirit that Christ had and wants us to have. I pray that we all could have this spirit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 7:07:00 GMT -5
Ross, it is for the components you listed that I've concluded this "group known as 'workers'" seal up the sum (fill the bill) qualifying as the cult within it (the group.)
Why? They live in compliance with all the definitions of a "cult" that I can find from selling all to give to themselves right on down. They spiritually kill off their own wounded. From what I have experienced they would literally take the very lives of such people IF they could get away with it. They work hard at sowing discord among family and members. They practice diligently things the Lord hates. Then they follow up by attempting to defend the indefensible. Do they realize what they are doing? Only some of them, like those reading/posting here who deliberately ignore them even when pointed out in this forum!
The many issues from dress codes to double standards, further prove it to me. It is with a very sad heart that I express this, for these once were those I thought to be the best, most honest upon earth. No longer. (Long sad sigh for their situation!)
DJ
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jul 27, 2016 14:52:32 GMT -5
Wow, you're very judgmental! Your last post is even more judgmental than the previous one. You say I'm reading meaning into your words but then you go further in this post and confirm that you really did mean it exactly as I'd interpreted it. Yet you shift the focus to the tempted man exclusively. You suggest men and women should not be careful how we dress because a perfect person would not sin in looking at them. You excuse the tempter because the tempted sinned. You look only at the tempted one's sin. That's not what Jesus taught. It's not taught anywhere in the Bible. "Christian or not" certainly does matter, because if we are disciples of Jesus Christ we should be following him and walking in love toward others, not concerned about ourselves only. It could be argued that this sort of identification with and defense of those who are tempters is exactly what Paul was warning about when he advised "Neither give place to the devil." It could be. I was thinking specifically of "doctrines of devils".
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jul 27, 2016 15:52:14 GMT -5
It could be argued that this sort of identification with and defense of those who are tempters is exactly what Paul was warning about when he advised "Neither give place to the devil." Strange how Jesus, when he was presented with the tempter/"woman caught in adultery" and with the accusers, first turned His attention on those accusers. Forced them to first look at themselves and when Christ does that then no honest person can hold onto something hard to cast at another. After they were gone, then He who had every right to accuse said that He does not accuse her either, but encouraged her with the words "Sin no more". My point in all these posts is that maybe we all should rather honestly look at ourselves and not cast stones, that is the spirit that Christ had and wants us to have. I pray that we all could have this spirit. The adulteress is not portrayed in that passage as a tempter. She may have been one, but the text does not portray her that way. She is a woman who was found in an act of sin. She gave in to a temptation and committed sin. But you are right about this: Jesus said Go and sin no more. The unworthiness -- or the refusal -- to "cast the first stone" is not an excuse for sin. Jesus followed it directly with a call to repent and live a pure life. If a man dresses immodestly and a woman lusts after him, the woman sins. But the man had already sinned. Many posters on this board here seem to go to extremes to focus entirely on one sin and excuse the other. Considering that your response to my post about the Holy Spirit's guidance in modesty and Christians upholding standards of modesty was to cast aspersions on the motives of people who do so, you seemed to be doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jul 27, 2016 16:00:50 GMT -5
When you questioned anything they said they retreated to the defensive statement "We hope you can change your attitude......" That's why I think Anytoll is a worker - he or she is practiced in these statements. Do you fail to realize that that was the main thrust of your previous post? You think I need to change, yet you've shown quite plainly with your mocking parody earlier that you don't even know what I believe. You instinctively react to any hint that as Christians we should live righteous lives by accusing those whose love leads them to obedience of attempting to earn salvation outside the grace of Christ. You seem incapable of understanding that God really does care how we live in this world. Neither do you understand the grace of Christ if you believe he wants you to keep sinning after you've put your faith in him. Christ paid the cost for your sins, to renew you to life in him, to bring you unto the Father and eternal life: do not reject his grace by going your own way. You think I need to change and I think you need to change. We've both expressed that to one another. But you think you can shame me by pointing out that I said that, while ignoring that you've made the same types of statements. I *do* hope you change, Ross. I'm not ashamed to say that. I love you and I want to see the Holy Spirit working in your life. I do not know your heart, and whether your faith in Jesus is true or feigned. I do not see your works, apart from what you post on this board, which is a very limited part of your life. Unfortunately, I have seen you openly embrace sexual immorality, so I'm pointing that out to you in hopes that you come to repentance. No, I don't expect you to live perfectly in this life, Ross, but faith in Christ doesn't lead us to unrepentantly celebrate sinful conduct.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Jul 27, 2016 17:39:14 GMT -5
Strange how Jesus, when he was presented with the tempter/"woman caught in adultery" and with the accusers, first turned His attention on those accusers. Forced them to first look at themselves and when Christ does that then no honest person can hold onto something hard to cast at another. After they were gone, then He who had every right to accuse said that He does not accuse her either, but encouraged her with the words "Sin no more". My point in all these posts is that maybe we all should rather honestly look at ourselves and not cast stones, that is the spirit that Christ had and wants us to have. I pray that we all could have this spirit. The adulteress is not portrayed in that passage as a tempter. She may have been one, but the text does not portray her that way. She is a woman who was found in an act of sin. She gave in to a temptation and committed sin. But you are right about this: Jesus said Go and sin no more. The unworthiness -- or the refusal -- to "cast the first stone" is not an excuse for sin. Jesus followed it directly with a call to repent and live a pure life. If a man dresses immodestly and a woman lusts after him, the woman sins. But the man had already sinned. Many posters on this board here seem to go to extremes to focus entirely on one sin and excuse the other. Considering that your response to my post about the Holy Spirit's guidance in modesty and Christians upholding standards of modesty was to cast aspersions on the motives of people who do so, you seemed to be doing just that. There can be no adultery or an adulteress without each party tempting the other or being tempted themselves. Anybody who has been in an sexual/intimate relationship understand this. Even with prostitution there is the money vs lust temptation. The text did not need to portray this as it is part and parcel of an adulteress and the act of adultery. "If a man dresses immodestly and a woman lusts after him, the woman sins. But the man had already sinned." How can you judge the man to have sinned, who made you judge and jury?? Do you know the motives and intent of his heart? What if he did not know that the woman found him & his dress a turn on? What if she is a visitor to his tropical island and he always goes about his day in a grass skirt? Guess I am judgemental now again because questioning is not comfortable?? I say this because... In the story of the adulteress I can see how Jesus dealt with the judges/accusers, which is my part and which I should take a lesson from. I should only judge myself and the effects things/people have on my life. No right to judge others.Then I see how Jesus dealt personally with the adulteress, which is God's work and I have no authority to add or subtract or get involved in, hands off, it is his work.Now we can encourage each other to examine ourselves as far as dress go and our responsibilities as Christians to others. Maybe this is your intent in your posts which I may have missed and I stand to be corrected if this is so. I must confess I do not understand your last sentence. English is not my mother tongue, so bear with me. I would never cast aspersions (an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something...Google) when a person is "about the Holy Spirit's guidance in modesty and Christians upholding standards of modesty" in their own lives. However when I question someone judging another person then that someone could experience the questionings as aspersions. Aspersions was not the intent. I have never seen any Christian excuse sin here but lots of encouragement to examine ourselves and not judge others. I have seen people reading things in my/other's posts which I/they did not write and I have done the same reading other's posts. I am willing to be corrected if so. Are you a worker Anytoll? I read this into your posts, so correct me if I am wrong please.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jul 27, 2016 18:07:41 GMT -5
Hi anytoll, It is what a Mufti said!!! And we have heard for decades that 2x2s victims were dressed in a tempting way so the supposed celibate godly servant could not help him or herself. So to allow that reasoning of why young muslams to rape western girls,is there much difference behind "Oh she tempted him/her by her dress?".
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 27, 2016 19:24:40 GMT -5
When you questioned anything they said they retreated to the defensive statement "We hope you can change your attitude......" That's why I think Anytoll is a worker - he or she is practiced in these statements. Do you fail to realize that that was the main thrust of your previous post? You think I need to change, yet you've shown quite plainly with your mocking parody earlier that you don't even know what I believe. You instinctively react to any hint that as Christians we should live righteous lives by accusing those whose love leads them to obedience of attempting to earn salvation outside the grace of Christ. You seem incapable of understanding that God really does care how we live in this world. Neither do you understand the grace of Christ if you believe he wants you to keep sinning after you've put your faith in him. Christ paid the cost for your sins, to renew you to life in him, to bring you unto the Father and eternal life: do not reject his grace by going your own way. You think I need to change and I think you need to change. We've both expressed that to one another. But you think you can shame me by pointing out that I said that, while ignoring that you've made the same types of statements. I *do* hope you change, Ross. I'm not ashamed to say that. I love you and I want to see the Holy Spirit working in your life. I do not know your heart, and whether your faith in Jesus is true or feigned. I do not see your works, apart from what you post on this board, which is a very limited part of your life. Unfortunately, I have seen you openly embrace sexual immorality, so I'm pointing that out to you in hopes that you come to repentance. No, I don't expect you to live perfectly in this life, Ross, but faith in Christ doesn't lead us to unrepentantly celebrate sinful conduct. calleduntoliberty, can you clarify this statement you made please ; "I have seen you openly embrace sexual immorality, so I'm pointing that out to you in hopes that you come to repentance." ? Have you ever met @ross ? Are you in the position to even say this ? Are you perfect? Maybe you need to look at your own life and examine why you have such a "hang-up" about modesty !! You are so quick to deny things that people who HAVE been born & raised in the "Fellowship" know have happened, yet you yourself were NOT B&R in the "fellowship" you seem to have a lot to hide calleduntoliberty !!!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 27, 2016 19:26:16 GMT -5
Hi anytoll, It is what a Mufti said!!! And we have heard for decades that 2x2s victims were dressed in a tempting way so the supposed celibate godly servant could not help him or herself. So to allow that reasoning of why young muslams to rape western girls,is there much difference behind "Oh she tempted him/her by her dress?". magpie, seeing as calleduntoliberty was not born & raised in the "truth" he really has no idea of what has happened in the past !!
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jul 27, 2016 21:42:01 GMT -5
4dtruth can you rise to the challenge set by Christopher Hitchens and name at least one moral action that is only able to be performed by a Christian?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jul 27, 2016 22:57:01 GMT -5
Do you fail to realize that that was the main thrust of your previous post? You think I need to change, yet you've shown quite plainly with your mocking parody earlier that you don't even know what I believe. You instinctively react to any hint that as Christians we should live righteous lives by accusing those whose love leads them to obedience of attempting to earn salvation outside the grace of Christ. You seem incapable of understanding that God really does care how we live in this world. Neither do you understand the grace of Christ if you believe he wants you to keep sinning after you've put your faith in him. Christ paid the cost for your sins, to renew you to life in him, to bring you unto the Father and eternal life: do not reject his grace by going your own way. You think I need to change and I think you need to change. We've both expressed that to one another. But you think you can shame me by pointing out that I said that, while ignoring that you've made the same types of statements. I *do* hope you change, Ross. I'm not ashamed to say that. I love you and I want to see the Holy Spirit working in your life. I do not know your heart, and whether your faith in Jesus is true or feigned. I do not see your works, apart from what you post on this board, which is a very limited part of your life. Unfortunately, I have seen you openly embrace sexual immorality, so I'm pointing that out to you in hopes that you come to repentance. No, I don't expect you to live perfectly in this life, Ross, but faith in Christ doesn't lead us to unrepentantly celebrate sinful conduct. calleduntoliberty , can you clarify this statement you made please ; "I have seen you openly embrace sexual immorality, so I'm pointing that out to you in hopes that you come to repentance." ? Yes, he did so here, declaring himself "pleasantly surprised" to see immorality: there were a couple of American professing gals that came to Sydney town and at the beach they trotted out in their bikinis! We were pleasantly surprised.... I did say I don't see his works other than what he posts on this board. Based on what he said, yes. That's an unnecessary question. No. Are you? Can you clarify "You are so quick to deny things that people who HAVE been born & raised in the Fellowship know have happened"? I do not think I have done that.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 27, 2016 23:14:39 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , can you clarify this statement you made please ; "I have seen you openly embrace sexual immorality, so I'm pointing that out to you in hopes that you come to repentance." ? Yes, he did so here, declaring himself "pleasantly surprised" to see immorality: there were a couple of American professing gals that came to Sydney town and at the beach they trotted out in their bikinis! We were pleasantly surprised.... I did say I don't see his works other than what he posts on this board. Based on what he said, yes. That's an unnecessary question. No. Are you? Can you clarify "You are so quick to deny things that people who HAVE been born & raised in the Fellowship know have happened"? I do not think I have done that. calleduntoliberty, read back over threads, you stated that the way I was raised in the "fellowship" was not how others were raised. You don't want to accept that some people who have been B&R did not have it easy and there are a lot of people who have major issues because of the "brainwashing" we were raised with. There have been people & workers who you would say dressed modestly and appeared good "Christians" to others, but have done some terrible things to others and abused children, just look at the 2 workers here in Victoria in the last 3 years as an example (Charged for CSA).
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jul 27, 2016 23:59:54 GMT -5
Yes, he did so here, declaring himself "pleasantly surprised" to see immorality: I did say I don't see his works other than what he posts on this board. Based on what he said, yes. That's an unnecessary question. No. Are you? Can you clarify "You are so quick to deny things that people who HAVE been born & raised in the Fellowship know have happened"? I do not think I have done that. calleduntoliberty , read back over threads, you stated that the way I was raised in the "fellowship" was not how others were raised. I don't have time to read back over all the threads I've posted on looking for something that never happened. If you've made the claim and are unable to substantiate it with a quote and a link, then I'm satisfied that it didn't happen. You said that I am "quick to deny things that people ... know have happened". You know how you were raised. I have not denied anything you said about how you were raised. I do have sufficient knowledge to state objectively that not everyone was raised as you were. I do deny overly broad generalizations based on personal experience or anecdotal stories. Those generalizations are not things that anyone "knows". Charges of "brainwashing" are subjective. I am not convinced to accept your claim that you were "brainwashed". I have not denied that either.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 28, 2016 0:17:59 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , read back over threads, you stated that the way I was raised in the "fellowship" was not how others were raised. I don't have time to read back over all the threads I've posted on looking for something that never happened. If you've made the claim and are unable to substantiate it with a quote and a link, then I'm satisfied that it didn't happen. You said that I am "quick to deny things that people ... know have happened". You know how you were raised. I have not denied anything you said about how you were raised. I do have sufficient knowledge to state objectively that not everyone was raised as you were. I do deny overly broad generalizations based on personal experience or anecdotal stories. Those generalizations are not things that anyone "knows". Charges of "brainwashing" are subjective. I am not convinced to accept your claim that you were "brainwashed". I have not denied that either. calleduntoliberty, you have shown by your response exactly what I was talking about ! You dismiss something because you think YOU know better. You seem to have a lot to hide, and will not even answer the simple question of how long have you been part of the "fellowship" ? Why is that ? You give opinions on things like modesty and feel you can tell women how to dress. But what experience have you had in how a women dresses? Like I asked before & you didn't answer, have you ever worn stocking ? Do you know how it feels as a young girl to be made dress in a way that you are laughed at by others?
|
|