What will it take, GOK?
Re: Here's the proof you wanted (for the umpteenth time -- boring!) -- Jim Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Jim ®

10/31/2004, 21:26:03
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




GOK, you asked for and have been shown proof that Rawat -- through EV -- has lied about whether or not he ever claimed to be the Lord.  In fact, you seem to think that not only did he make that claim in the past, he still does.  At the very least, you think he does nothing now to disabuse that belief.

But now you see that he's a liar. So what are you options here, GOK?  Well, you could flip over to Jonx's theory that Rawat's the Lord and if he wants to lie about it, whatever.  Alternatively, you will have a problem with him lying.  Those are your only two choices.  In either case, you'll have to admit that you really are rather clueless about what Rawat's actually doing. I mean, this question of Rawat's divinity is no small or secondary question.  It's everything.  And all he can do is lie about it.

This is your chance, GOK.  Really, this is your chance. Rawat did you a big favour by endorsing those lies.  He gave you a foothold to take a moral stand and, for once, not stifle your doubts about him.  Puts you at a crossroads, whether you want to be or not.  If you choose to avoid this entire issue, to avoid the evidence that Rawat's a liar, you've sullied yourself.  You asked, you were given the proof, now you can no longer claim you didn't know.  Let your conscience -- that part of you that does know the difference between the truth and a lie -- speak out for a change.  Otherwise, you're just a snivelling lapdog for a an immoral cult leader. 

Again, if you have kids, I dare you to show them this very last exchange where you assert that even now Rawat does nothing to disabuse people of the notion that he's the Lord even while he flatly denies that he ever purported to be anything of the sort.  This is a slam dunk, GOK.  Take advantage of it or slink even further into your own moral abyss.






Modified by Jim at Sun, Oct 31, 2004, 21:27:02

Previous Recommend Current page Next

Replies to this message