Wow - this is significant. I cannot imagine if my religion had built their religious shrine on another site that was holy to an earlier surviving people, would I not want to accommodate?
Say that Temple Square had been found out (during the escavations for the foundation upgrades) to be a major Indian burial site, would we not allow and even encourage the other group to have their day in the sun? It is different because militarily, the Jews own Temple Mount after being challenged in the War of '67; and losing. The Muslims are there only by the good graces of Israel and because they did not want to start WWIII. But the Palestinians do have squatters rights - even though the Jews were forcefully carried off in 70AD. Very complex and interesting issue.
I think the best way to kill the stalemate is for the Muslims (and the Jew-hating mudslimes), to just simply find out that those who attempted to thwart Judeo/Christian scripture, got it all wrong and that the actual temple site is just to the south in the City of David as the archeaologists are finding out right now. It will still involve condemning some land - but hey, throw a few billion dollars at the people, explain things nicely and throw them off their land. That is likely what may happen here in Cardston in an analgous messy land dispute. I will take a big chunk of change and gladly move off the disputed land. I happen to think the native populations have the best case - the Indian Agents screwed up years ago and added a lot of insult to injury to a subjugated people. Subjugated by a group who largely have lost the high moral ground as the birthright is pissed away as we have trampled the God of this land under our feet and love to use His name liberally in vain and desecrate His consecrated day with all manner of licentiousness (sports, work, play - anything but what we are asked to do on that day).
And so it goes. One group, just doing stuff to irritate the other group.
I cannot claim the higher ground. When I come in contact with people who organically hate me for who I am (radical feminists = for being born male and opposing the wholesale slaughter that was a result of slutting around; radical atheists = for loving someone so benign as God; Trump haters = for loving my orange man who defends good principle), I simply adore trolling them. It is great sport to play my stalkers and haters.
I have played Jake Stahlecker (Trump hater and religious persecutor), I have played the company slut although that was a little vengeful as well as playing (yes, they were stalking the blog and had chapter and verse when they went to fire me and the look of glee in VEEP's eyes when she handed me the notice....I was wondering what the regular blog traffic hits from Victoria, BC were from before the smackdown...), I have played the company arse (who got on my phone when I stepped away from my desk and friended himself on FB, which I found out a month or so after the fact) and so much else. I even played Roger the old Codger when I saw he was more interested in crucifying Trump because he likely was in love with Romney being a good old Mormon boy and to support the old clique from the high school days).
My favorite troll was Jesus. In a very serene way, He trolled the Pharisees even when He knew His life was on the line. Well played, Jesus. Well played! Roger about went insane when I would not answer his "charges" against me, but I kept quoting scripture and other things where I believe he could use a little trimming. Initially (ten years ago), he came after me after I went after one of the posse in Tal Bachman, as I defended Joseph Smith and others that were under assault by the Tal posse as I tracked him on the ex-Mo sites. Sadly, Roger was on the wrong side of things, and he did back down once I pointed this out to him.
I reserve the right to defend those that I hold dear, whether my family or Joseph or Jesus or anyone else who cannot defend themselves in an asymmetric firefight. Yes, claiming that Joseph Smith had sex with all of these different women when he can not be here to defend himself, is a major offense in my book, whether it is the Cardston Apostate or another n'er-do-gooder like Tal Bachman. Fact is, Joseph was not firing blanks as Emma found out, and all of this "extra-curricular" sex would have produced something. In fact, all of these anti's kept spouting that the children these women that Joseph was sealed to had, were his. And then DNA evidence proved them to be FLAT ON THEIR BACKS..... The anti's, that is. Baseless allegations - and that pisses me off..... If they were on a similar paygrade, that would have been one thing, but these jokers are all relative losers - when compared to Joseph. The one given the reins in this last dispensation. I asked the Cardston Apostate when he was spewing all of this rhetoric, if he had similar credentials to Joseph, could start a religion, build the most expensive buildings in the states at the time under dire circumstances, bring forth a literary treasure, whether you think it is scripture, or not; have thousands at your back, make extra-ordinary claims that no one seems to be able to knock down and so much else. Can you go toe to toe with that?? Nope - just a run of the mill loser like myself. Nothing special at all. And to have the gall to take on a great out of billions that could have been chosen for the role?
At least satan was able to generate quite a following before taking on Jesus as the Great Accuser. Any thing lesser in dominion and stature taking on someone of an order or two of magnitude higher? Just laughable. So defending this, I have taken damage. And I will continue to do so. It is my right and duty to wield the sword of my mouth in defense of good principle. Anything else is dereliction of duty. If the Jakes of the world do not like it, they are welcome to repent. The Rogers of the world can do the same for being on the wrong side of the equation. Coddling the spoiled/entitled Jakes or Tals of the world will do nothing for them. Inviting them to repent? Best thing that can happen.
In the end, every word will be used against us in the ultimate Court on High - whether you believe in it, or not. If you were acting simply in self-defense, you will be justified. If your intent was to cause harm to character or something else (other than simply stating the facts as they are; not as you imagine them in the vain imaginations of an unrepentant heart and mind), then there are repercussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment