GarthP2000

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ... Quick! Can anybody here, w/o looking at the now-long-abandoned thread that was the initial topic of this thread, tell us what the topic of that now-dead thread was about? Looks like it wasn't that important after all. But arguing about it sure is. :D--> Here endeth Lesson 5334 of internet posting. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Zix, Read what I and Trefor wrote again. We *did* address the points raised by Mr. Card. Its just that we addressed them prior to your posting of his article. And your slam of Trefor being bigoted against Mormons as a religion through Mr. Card is rather baseless. Trefor addressed actual facts about the Mormon Church in relation to this topic as well as their well-known reputation for taking a narrow view re opposing viewpoints. For further proof of this, just ask Grizzy. That wasn't even a nice try on your part. --> So I take it you haven't had your morning coffee yet? ;)--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Zix, I am underwhelmed. Particularly at Orson Scott Card. All he has managed to do was to put together a well-written version of that old 'chicken little' saw about how homosexuality is going to mean the destruction of the family, reproductive maintainance needed to keep society and civilization going, and upending of our western civilization and our 'Moral Values', yada yada yada! Well, at least, in his opinion, the pie is Left (oops :D-->), so not all is lost. Plus I didn't take Mr. Card for the religiously apocolyptic type. Here I was thinking that he was more or less Libertarian in his views. And many (if not all) of those points have been addressed and counter addressed here as well. Perhaps you could forward to the illustrious Mr. Card the points we all made here, but I imagine that he has heard them all before, and perhaps better written too. We're not gonna burn in hell and have Western Civilization descend into a post-nuclear 'Road Warrior' like world, really we're not, because the Mass. court ruled like it did. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Long Gone, Uhhh, yes it has been covered. I believe the phrase 'equal protection under the law' (in relation to marital laws in this case) was used at least twice on my account. And how many laws and legal setups that involve equal protection under the law are set up with the particular purpose of its benefit to society, outside of the obvious benefit of, why looky, here's that phrase again, 'equal protection under the law'? And since your usual brother-sister, mother-son, father-daughter, brother-brother, father-son relationships aren't involving marriages, that is more or less a moot point. And for those particular relationships that do involve intimate relations, biological and familial reasons that have clearly shown how destructive those kinds of relationships are have been known for many years. And since I know where you're going with this, may I point out that the same kind of destructive results have failed to be clearly shown in gay relationships. (And no, you may not use the AIDS argument, as that has never been shown to be directly, or indirectly even, a result of homosexuality. Sorry!) The same kind of vis-a-vis comparison fails with the multiple-wives and -husbands relationships to the gays as well. Of course, there are those who would try to show that because they had polygamy in the Bible, that that should be legalized also. But I'll leave that dollar for another day. Evidently since homosexuality has been amongst us for thousands of years, AND since more and more scientific data is illustrating that homosexuality is more than just a 'flash in the pan', 'Hey! I think that I'll just turn gay today!', 'this is just one of them thar special rights kind of relationships' arrangements, but is showing to be a real and naturally based kind of relationship that is part of the human species, frankly folks, we are going to have to accept that inevitable conclusion and have the law do likewise. I mean, look at all the slave owners/racial bigots who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 19th/20th centuries in realizing that blacks weren't biologically 3/5ths of a person, but are full human beings. ... under the law! Does this help answer your question? My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Oooooo, cool imitation of Smikeol, guy. :D--> Now all we need to do is master Smikeol's preciousssss, PFAL, then we'll have it made in the shade! My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

A list of 12 Reasons Why Gay People Should Not Be Allowed to Get Married, emailed to me by an e-pal: >1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and >birth control. >2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. >Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the >world needs more children. >3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight >parents raise only straight children. >4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is >allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was >meaningful. >5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed >at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is >illegal. >6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because >the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically >protected the rights of the minorities. >7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, >the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's >why we have only one religion in America. >8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that >hanging around tall people will make you tall. >9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy >behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has >legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. >10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model >at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. >11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual >marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to >new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or >longer lifespans. >12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with >a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution >is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked >just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will. By George, I think Dubya finally has some solid ammo to get his amendment through with, doncha think? :D--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Particularly when you can bury yourself in your own. :D--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Thanks for clarifying that, Jonny, as that post that you didn't mean would have definitely passed the 'troll' test. Glad to see that you are no troll. :)--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Long Gone, (Edited to further show where my initial impression of Long Gone was misplaced. My bad.) You do make a point in showing the difference between your views and Chwesters, and for that I stand corrected. Let me elaborate more where my 'thought processes' are coming from. I find it puzzling that those who wish to protect the integrity/stability of the Constitution support the amending it from a moral/religious standpoint, and that they don't believe that gays have a legal/Constitutional standpoint supporting their argument for equal protection under the law (Oooo looky, a Constitutional principle! :D--> Which is what I thought the basis for their argument was to begin with, rather than a 'constitutional right' to marry itself.) re: marriage. A valid point was made to Trefor that its our country's right to amend the Constitution so for whatever reason we wish, but as the 19th amendment re: prohibition and its associated amendment that reversed the 19th shows, amending the Constitution for overly-hyped religious/moral/social reasons that have little to do with supporting or strengthening the rights of American citizens wind up with disasterous results. In other words, why have an amendment that restricts already given rights and freedoms? So it was seen with the Human Life Amendment (which died an early death back in the 80's), and so it shall be with (what I call) the Dubya Anti-Gay Amendment. It will (hopefully) die an early death too, but Dubya doesn't really give a rat's a**. He's just trying to score points with/kiss up to his religious reich supporters. And that is Yet Another Reason I'm going Democratic in my voting for prez this year. And as regards my 'tantrum' for moving to Canada, why would I want to live in an Amerika where the religious reich rules? Religious tyrants usually did motivate many people to leave their respective countries before in centuries past. (You know, ... in search of freedom?) Why should this be any different? Unless there are actually people here who think that these pharisees help to actually *preserve* our freedoms. --> Right! I hope that this shows you more of how my 'thought processes' operate. I trust that it doesn't scare you too much. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com [This message was edited by GarthP2000 on March 02, 2004 at 15:46.]

Ok. Next time I'll pick on Martha Stewart. :D--> *Everybody* loves to pick on her. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

P-Mosh, When you get to the 'green beer' part, then I'll listen. :D--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Mj412, Fantasy world of 'what ifs' huh? Well, I think that its through considering the 'what ifs' that we can think about and question what we're taught and learn about in life, rather than accepting something w/o question (like we did in TWI, remember?). So if doing that is 'fantasy', I'll take it. And speaking of reality and truth, murder kills people. Homosexuality does not. And it isn't 'reality and truth' that homosexuality is a threat to our propagation as a species. Please see my previous example of *6 billion* people for further illustration of this 'reality and truth'. Zix, I knew you were being sarcastic; thats why I had the smiley after my statement. But I also knew that even in that sarcasm, you were trying to make a point. So I addressed that too. Hhmmmm, when large companies (like Halliburton) no longer enjoys tax benefits that also help to increase my tax burden, then you'll have a point to make, as the tax burden that they all enjoy could easily outweigh the tax-free gains that same-sex marriages would receive, would they not? Nahhhh, I somehow don't think that this bruhaha raised by the anti-same-sex marriage activists is really about tax fairness, raised insurance rates, or even 'states rights'. --> And you bring up Yet Another Weak Example in your 'I drive on the left side of the road 'cause it feels *so* natural to me' example. ... Oh wait, you're being sarcastic Yet Again, right? Heh heh heh. :D--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Trefor, Thanks for the article by Adam DeBaugh. And his phrase 'religious reich' was aptly used. I think I'll pass it around for various message boards to see and consider. Thanks! :)--> Long Gone & Chwester, Like I said to Trefor, the term 'religious reich' is aptly used in describing the religious right. They are usually the ones who are the first to run roughshod over individual rights and liberties, and they are usually of the mindset that they are justified in doing so because their 'god' authorized it; to make sure that the rest of the world lines up with the 'sovereignty' of their diety, regardless of whether the world wants to or not. And don't kid yourself; that is the main motivation that is driving their opposition to any and all equal rights for homosexuals under the law. Always have been. And always will be. If that is what God is all about, I'd be an atheist in a heartbeat. Christmas you guys, when has a homosexual done anything to you personally, anyway? And as a group, if they are so fricking dangerous to society and to the propagation of our species, then please tell me why it is that we have over *6 billion* people on this earth, hhmmm? Not exactly close to extinction, doncha think? --> Oh yeah, that's right! Verses in the Bible that state how horrible homosexuality is, and that it is such a sin, and that God hates it and such. Have you ever taken those verses in context or compared them to other verses about what God really hates? And the number of things that you don't get bent out of shape as much, the God of the Bible puts a lot more coverage on, it seems. Tell me something, and tell me honestly. If the Bible still required the stoning of witches, unbelievers, et al according to the OT dictates, ..... would you do it? ..... Hhhhmmmmm? Bible says so, remember? Homosexuals as a group haven't been near the Gawd-awful threat to society that the fundy freaks make them out to be, yet now we gotta go through some god d***ed culture war, change the Constitution for some social and 'moral' ((gag)) reasons (the kind of reasons that the Constitution was never meant to be amended for, regardless of whatever 'right' we have to do so) and we get to do it all in the name of God and Country. Its situations/mentalities like this that sorely tempt me want to become an atheist and move to Canada. --> Zix, Your example re: the 26th amendment is weak. Surely you can do better than that. ;)--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com [This message was edited by GarthP2000 on March 02, 2004 at 2:20.]

John, I went to 321's site and looks like they are still advertising their DVD copying software. Could it still be ordered through their site or not? My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Kit, And here I was thinking that it was believing that God raised him from the dead that was part of the requirement of accepting Jesus Christ. My bad. Like Hope said, lots of people were crucified. ... What if that malefactor believed in Spartacus and him crucified? According to your logic, same thing. ... Right? ... Oh wait a minute. Didn't the malefactor believe that Jesus Christ was "coming again in His kingdom"? He couldn't believe that if he felt that Jesus was just 'going through the crucifixion'. Wasway further illustrates my point by posting his/her reaction to seeing the flick. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

I'd go see it myself, except that I never could watch gore flicks, regardless of the message/topic. A couple of points I would like to make about this, even as one who hasn't/most likely won't go see the flick: 1) The arguments of the film being anti-semitic I feel, from what I've been hearing/reading so far, are groundless. That some people will use this to commit anti-semitic attacks might pose more of a possibility (being that there are *stoopid* people on this earth, and always will be), but still isn't a responsibility that can be laid directly at the feet of Gibson or the film, no matter how bloody or gory it is. 2) One thing that kinda bothers me about this flick is the goryness; ie., not particularly the goryness itself, but the emotionalism behind it. And that it seems to be, or more likely can be, used in a manipulative way as a guilt-trip in 'persuading' people of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Kinda like a highly emotional Billy Graham crusade meets Friday the 13th. I mean, look at some of the posts here and how many folks who have seen the flick were moved, some beyond words. Ie., it isn't a film that can be easily talked about in a rational fashion. And if that is one of the purposes of the film, why is that? Why not talk about what Jesus Christ went through in rational and clear headed fashion? I do know that many evangelical preachers and ministers depend on the high emotion content and factor in keeping the effectiveness of their message going. Or maybe I should say the effectiveness of bringing people in to believing their message, hmmmm? --> Remember the 'cult' arguments? The emotional 'love bombing'? The techniques of emotional appeal of persuasion that were mistakingly called 'mind control' tactics? What if PFAL was portrayed in this same emotionallly charged and visual fashion that 'Passion' is? I wonder how many folks would have been going nuts about 'mind control cult' back then? Frankly, (as many of you here know) I don't buy the 'mind control' argument in this flick or a lot of other situations; its a lot more complex of a topic than that. But I wonder what kind of persuasion this film is using to 'bring people to Christ', particularly since it does seem to do more or less an end run around rational and clear headed discussions of what He went through and accomplished, in favor of the 'shock and awe' approach. I mean, when someone can't talk about the film that they just saw even while they are driving home well after they seen it? And the overwhelming emotions in seeing it? And what happens when someone rationally discusses this flick to where they don't believe/are still skeptical about it? How do people who have been to an emotionally religious event (and yes Virginia, this movie *is* a religious event) react to what they might view as a cavalier dismissal of what they have 'experienced' (and not 'watched')? Ever since I have been taking a more rational- and free inquiry-based view towards religious things and topics, I have started wondering about questions like these in relation to 'The Passion', and want to know why these things are so. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Talk about your Quote of the Day, Socks! 'Cause that one certainly made mine. ... Plus I had to clean off my monitor screen. :D--> Carry on. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Historically and factually, it was the Sanhadren (sp?) that condemned him and turned him over to the Romans to carry ourt the execution. Biblically (and spiritually?), unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the scripture says that it was ALL of EVERYBODY'S sins and transgressions that he died (was killed) for. So based on that logic, we ALL killed him, yes? Tell *that* to your local Neonazi skinhead, and watch him get his panties in a knot. :D--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Happy Birthday O Wacky Funster One! :)--> I hope that your little penguin gets plenty of cake and ice cream. Give your bunnies a hug for us, will you? And an extra carrot. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Translated to plain English: All this verbiage is just a straw man, whitewashing cover up for someone whom you still see as a great man whose reputation maintainance is paramount to you, regardless of the number of people hurt and abused by VPW. You might have sympathy or even concern for what they have been through, but only so far as it doesn't touch or approach the Holy Reputation of your (and Smikeol's) preciouussssss, Victor Paul Wierwille. Which is why all your protests about forgiveness, getting over it, 'you're just jealous', quotes that you give (that you don't initially bother to give credit for, $$$ or no $$$), et al, fall flat and are as transparent as glass. And if it is true (which I don't believe that it is) that it is the True God that did work via Wierwille like you believe He did, ... well then, I'd rather be an atheist, cause nobody needs a diety as limited and as twisted like that. At all! --> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

What The Hell, You read some fancy writing from VPW, all done in the song-and-dance mode of 'cryin - I am a sinner ((SOB))' Jimmy Swaggart, and this is your response? Man, talk about a gullible fool! You'd sacrifice the 1st hand witness of many of your Christian sisters-in-Christ because VPW did his oft crooned "I wish I were the man I know to be" etc. song, ad nauseum?! Doesn't the number of witnesses against VPW's legacy mean anything to you? One man (VPW) witness against hundreds, if not *thousands* of those who have either directly experienced VPW, or have known first hand those who have. What does the Bible say about weighing the testimony of one against so many, hmmm? And please spare us the bringing up of VPW's integrity; cause he clearly didn't have any, regardless of the Bible that he taught. As it turns out, he was more than just a well meaning preacher who did some 'oops' along the way. He used his leadership position and his 'father figure' status to manipulate and abuse many. The many witnesses that I mentioned clearly attest to that. And you would have us believe that God would exhalt such a man to an example of 'believing the Word'? Heck, if God can't do any better than that, ... I wouldn't have anything to do with that kind of dead religion. Yeah, thats what I called it: a dead religion. :o--> I've long given up on the VPW and PFAL version of God, pal. And I imagine quite a number here have too. And as far as I'm concerned, you clearly have no better alternative to consider. --> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Dmiller, (I love one-liners like this. 'Cause with even a cursory examination illustrate the flaws of that statement, and dumbfound those that use it.) Neither does the phrase 'speedy trial'. But the lack of those specific wordings is irrelevant, because the concepts, both of a speedy trial, *and* of separation of church and state, are in the Constitution. Surely you can do better than that. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Chwester, All this pleading for forgiveness for VPW that you're doing? Hhmmmm, now why isn't it that you aren't doing the same appeals for forgiveness for: 1) homosexuals, 2) liberals, and 3) Bill & Hillary Clinton? Hhmmmm? --> I mean, you roast them over the open pit in your posts as fierce as Rascal does Wierwille, doncha think? ;)--> My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Goey, Based on his writings, Hoffer would have made a dandy candidate for the Nazi Party. What with his snide dismissal of those who are 'weak', and all. Master Race, here we come. --> And that What the Hay freely borrows from Hoffer like that? And he's going to tell us about how godly a man VPW was?? WTH, do you also buy into "The Myth of the Six Million" like Wierwille did? My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Ahhh no, WTH. You just inserted the point about 'hatred, malice, intolerance, and suspicions' after my post. Before that, *this* is what you made clear: Please notice nothing was said about people's 'hatred, malice, intolerance and suspicions' at the time. All you were focusing on was people's 'resentment' of VPW; a resentment that was and is more than justified. Oh, and by the way, when VPW was ranting and raving against Trinitarians, did he have the same kind of 'resentment' that you bring up here? Sure sounded like it to me, and boy, did he ever go to town about the Trinity and all. Do you see any inadequacy there in VPW? Do you have the frankness to admit it if you do? My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com