GarthP2000

:biglaugh: ROFLMAO!! I love it, just _love_ it! "I see your true colors coming out, as expected." ((insert wicked chortles here )) What's next, guy? Gonna see the '666' magically appearing on his forehead? "You want science? Ever heard of Pangaea? You want more science?" ... I believe he does. It just wasn't gonna come from you. Hell, *I* could see that all you were giving out was guesswork after flawed guesswork, and based on nothing more than this near rabid desire to maintain and protect the 'scientific integrity' of the Genesis account. (Which is kinda difficult, since the scientific integrity of a religious book is based upon religious claims of faith, ... thus making said 'scientific integrity' non-existent.) "Wait till my book comes out." ... I'm sorry, but I thought that was supposed to be John Lynn's line. <_< What now? ... Your responses to me are ENDED now too? (I think that's called taking a play from the Sarah Palin playbook. Stop responding to people who challenge what you state as indisputable Truth ©, ... not that that helped her cause any. )

Actually, it's easier than that. just hit the minus key. - And instant results when you act on your Be-Leaving. See? :B)

The Russins were saying that it was a rocket test. And from the way I could see it spiraling during the video, I'd say that it was spiraling out of control, then exploding (maybe). I guess we'll find out in due order.

My response to your friend: "Well then, your god is pathetic!" <_<

I remember Winn Dewitt when she was posting on Trancenet and (I think) Waydale. She was well known to those ex-Way communities, but kinda faded out shortly before Waydale shut down. Where she is now, I have no idea.

We all have heard of Mike's contention that PFAL should replace the Bible as the 'God breathed Word', right. Well, just when you thought that we heard enough of that, along comes another group who thinks that the all the versions of the Bible since antiquity have been corrupted and 'watered-down' enough so that they need to come up with Ye True Version © of Ye Holy Writ. Give it a read, and have a good laugh.

A bit , but what the hey. I'm cranky sometimes. "seperation of church and state stuff. :( " Yeah, that durned "separation of church and state stuff" again. That's what you get when you work for the taxpayer, not all of whom view God the same way you do. Aren't you glad that you can _freely_ view all the 'nobody allowed here but us Christians' sites when you're at home. (Besides, internet access from home is _usually_ a lot faster than from government PCs anyway. <_< ... unless you're working from, say, Homeland Security. Then you get those nifty, cool, top-of-the-line PCs. :B) ) /end off topic rant. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

... and thus started The Great THE Thread(s). All Hail THE!

Spidey's web spinners finally ran out. (insert scene here where Japanese lady playing that horrible violin dirge while singing off-key "Spiderman! Spiderman! Can do anything a spider can!") ...

Uummmmm, ..... you sure about that? ... Or just about the ones that he can manipulate to make him appear more 'honest' than others. How honest is he when asked questions that challenges what he wants to hide, or about flawed doctrines that he doesn't want to scrutinize. Like Momentus, for one.

The Power For Abundant Living book. ... Mike's precioouusssss! ;)

Okay. After calming down somewhat, I realize that I went overboard in my last post, so I apologize to you, Linda, for the parts where I went overboard. I'm still of the opinion that the folks who come on here and chastise us for 'not getting over it' and like self-righteous TWI spewage often deserve what scathing remarks they get. Since we here at Greasespot are not a 'likeminded' group of people nor are we the kind who wants to go back to twig and play PFAL puppets (well, at least most of us don't), and since that reality is also placed in the introductory statements in the Greasespot Cafe, ... then people should be well informed of this. And if they choose to ignore this reality, they do so at their own peril. But again, any personal hostility I showed in your direction, Linda, I again apologize for.

Linda, if that _one_ sentence is all you got out of my _entire_ post, .... you ain't got crap, lady. If you can't get anything more than "Am I the only one who sees the similarity between what Garth has said and the us-them attitude twi pushed?" out of the entirety of what I posted, ... you need to read what I said again, because I'll tell you right here and now, that is NOT what I said. And I'm getting sick and tired of this oversimplifying and non-thinking s**t. (Oh my, oh my! I'm expressing _anger_! ((gasps)) ... Yeah well, real people sometimes do that in real life, and a good number of times for a valid reason. So deal with it.) I would bet that a sizable majority of posters here have blasted others here who came on with this 'renew your mind and get over it' clap trap, and they sure as hell aren't _about_ to apologize for doing so. And you know something? I proudly count myself as one of them. ... And you have the mitigated gaul to compare us with Way Corpse?! You just cannot tell the difference? :o 1) One of the Way Corpse's main (yet unwritten) purposes was to force people to comply (ie., 'by the renewing of your minds') with Wierwille's song-and-dance. 2) One of us GS 'blaster's purposes is the blatant defiance of that kind of mindset. And we have no hesitancy (well, I don't anyway, speaking for myself) at getting in the TWI apologist's faces about it, if need be. Christmas, don't you remember Whitedove, and his 'legal' crap defending TWI and dismissing the victims? ... Frankly, I took *wicked* delight at aiming my clearly less-than-diplomatic and scathing retorts in his direction. With no remorse nor repentance for doing so. Oh, by the way, contrary to what _you_ might think happens in real life, I would be _just_ as scathing in real life towards said twerps as I am online, ... again, with no remorse nor repentance for doing so. Oh, and if they are the kind who think that they can 'beat some good manners into me', I can be just as _violent_ in their direction. Sorry lady, but this ain't no garden party, ... and really, neither is Real Life. <_< I stand by what I say.

I say that it depends on the initial posting of said noob. 1) If said noob comes in with the (usual in society) respect for people, and still holds the 'VPW's PFAL is God's Word--uhh I mean, is godly instruction, yadayada', then yeah, they need the time to absorb all the facts and accounts that people have overwhelmingly proven has happened, get to know us here as friends and fellow ex-TWIers. And we should give them that time and tolerance. 2) However, if said noob comes in with this already-mind-made-up, "I'm speaking the Word of Gawd-a!, get over it and renew your f'ing mind!", ... Ahhh-NOPE! Blow the turd a-way. We've had e-nough of that kind of Corpse-wannabe mentality being **screamed** at us in TWI (and I've experienced said mentality myself on a number of occasions, ... and this was in the 70's and 80's fer crying out loud!), and (like it was amply demonstrated in the flick Network by that wacked out news anchor) we're gonna raise the windows, stick our heads out, and say loudly, "We're mad as hell! And we're not gonna take it anymore!!" Ok, so maybe we don't need to take it that far, ... but we don't think that _we_ should always be the ones to take the initiative at treating them with respect and niceties. Since they are the ones coming out into the real world, _they_ should realize that "Gee Toto! I don't think we're in twig anymore!" and hold back on their God breathed Word, and scout out this place to see where its really at and what people will put up with re: things TWI. And if _that_ drives them away, ... good riddance. Sorry, but I just can't be kind about this. <_<

... The Good Reverend forgets the following question. How does one define 'substantial errors', as opposed to 'unsubstantial errors', ... hhmmmm? This is still where all those denominations and sects come into play. Denominations and sects that contradict each other in some shape or form.

/me snickers at the 'Caution' of it being from a Buddhist perspective. (OMG! OMG! The speaker is going to offer a perspective from A Different Belief! ... Will we survive as a nation?! <_< ) Interesting video in any event.

Now now, Spectrum. Let's not invite Mikey back for more of ... The Lost Teachings! :wacko:

We all know why Waydale went down, don't we? ... One explanation that was _not_ the reason is this (oft recurring, unfortunately :( ) _rumor_ that The Way reached a settlement with the Allens on the condition that they shut down Waydale. ... FALSE! I mean, think about it. TWI was literally on its knees, and wanted to settle out of court before the trial happened, one that they were sure to _lose_. Ie., The Allens had TWI where they wanted them. So TWI was in _no_ conditions to demand terms. ... At all! I mean, what were they going to say? "Give in to our demands, Paul & Fern, ... or else TWI will continue to trial and LOSE!!" ... Right! Paul himself clearly indicated that Waydale was taking up his and Fern's lives, and they both just wanted to get on with their lives quietly. They saw Waydale as accomplishing its mission culminating with the victorious lawsuit. And as a bonus, Pawtucket kept the ball rolling by starting up Greasespot Cafe. Thus, TWI wouldn't have gotten what they wanted anyway.

One characteristic as regards to what research is about (well, what _should_ be, ... IMNSHO that is ;) ), has to do with the initial premise of said research, and that is if you go in with your mind already made up as to the 'inerrancy' of the source of your research (in this example, the Bible), and that belief hasn't been proven and established via consistent evidence prior to acceptance (<-- Oh, and note the bolding of the word 'belief' as a clue as to why this might be so ;) ), ... ... You ain't got no research. ... Well, no more than what Wierwille had anyway, and I would say even less. Oh, by the way, for all you Inerrancy of the Bible aficionados, ... do you even realize what 'inerrancy of the Bible' implies? What it all entails?? ... Inerrancy, in its real meaning and application, means ... no errors. ... NO errors. ... Of any kind. ... Not _one_ contradiction. ..... Not so much as even a typo. :o ... As in 99.999999999999-1/2% <> 100%. ... Period! ...(Uhh, Can you folks hear me in the back on this?) Seeing all this, inerrancy is rather difficult to maintain and establish here, ..... doncha think? I dunno, but _I_ wouldn't place any money on this kinda gamble, ... but hey that's me. I never been a "Let's go c-r-a-z-y at Vegas!" kinda guy.

Well, nobody forced you in here, ... and ain't nobody making you stay. And yeah, I guess we do kinda have ... an intolerance (((gasps))) for those who want to throw the 'get over it!' crap in our direction; we've had the aforementioned crap smell up the place before, so I'm hoping you can ... ((drum roll please)) get over it as regards our responses to this song-and-dance of yours. back at ya!

There are some forums that you can get into with that Wayback Machine link. You just have to scout around, clicking away, until you find the ones that show up.

Ahem! Speaking of 'hash, hash, and rehash' over and over and over, ... you "gotta get over it" guys, who _seem_ to have the getting-it-over stuff _down pat_, ... ... seem to be not 'getting-over-it' quite a bit yourselves. What gives? Ohh, and spare us the "but we just have the love of Jeebus in our fart--errr, hearts, for you all" excuse, ok? ... We all know better than that. <_< So please pick up your Blue Song Books (you know, the old ones before the Brown Song Books came out), and go back home, ... m-m-kay?

*BAMM* I must have hit a nerve there. ;) First off, your examples of "Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it! Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!" and following are straw man arguments, using deliberately vague examples. Flawed guy, really flawed, and (usually) reflective of someone who is fundamentalist in practice. There is a massive difference between 'having faith' (<-- notice the quotes please) in axioms that are arrived at based on already proven/established logic and evidence, and 'having faith' (<-- again notice the quotes) in axioms that are arrived at based on presupposed premises (ie., that which is arrived at due to sole acceptance of information from an authority figure, to the point where it is not held up to scrutiny, ... usually based upon getting said deity angry with you.). It is that 2nd item that I categorically reject if indeed 1) no proof has been given for it, and 2) the believer takes offense to it being questioned in the first place. The fact that you put a rather annoyed (to say the least) tone in your response of "Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it! Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!" helps illustrate (yet again) my point. Oh by the way, re: "So, perhaps I should re-state my thesis: ASSUMING the axiom of an inerrant Bible, the fundamentalist methods used to interpret it, ...", with your emphasis of the word 'ASSUMING', (yet again! ;) ) helps establish my point, ... and I'd be willing to bet you don't really realize it.

I came across this in the article: Actually, fundamentalist conclusions are not the result of true and genuine research in any real meaning of the word, as research doesn't start with presuppositions. Ie., a presupposed conclusion. All a fundamentalist conclusion is is a _belief_. ... Period. ... Nothing more, and nothing less. Then I saw George's argument here: Which just illustrates my point further. In spades! :blink: And the fact that he views it as reasonable cinches the deal. ... True without proof? ... Reasonable? You illustrate TWI as a classic case of fundamentalism, Charlene. More than I think you realize. ;)

Never mind.