GarthP2000

Nope. And if anyone is thinking of giving me the "well, how would you know what people go through when they 'snap'?" response, ... please don't. All I was doing was asking a question about 'snapping', and voicing what I thought was a flaw in the theory. (Just want to make sure) And that's part of what free-thinking is all about folks.

I have a question for all those who believe that 'snapping' is based on a solid, professional, and psychiatric premise. ... Ya know, peer review approved and all that, and not something cooked up by somebody who wrote a book, and even had a Doctor's degree to supposedly back them up. <_< What distinguishes 1) what people claim is a 'snapping' event in a 'cult', from 2) when somebody 'goes down to the altar' and gives their life to Christ in a very emotional revival? Or how do you _know_ that the person was 'snapped' (which would imply something changing them outside of their will), instead of going through a life changing process/decision whereas _they_ are the ones making the decision to go through a difficult, yet supposedly beneficial activity? And when I ask what distinguishes, I'm talking about an authority who has _proven/validated_ what they say.

Not to worry WG, I wasn't trying to go all WD on you ok? But I keep hearing all the yammeryammer that the institution of marriage is dying out, that society is turning into a bunch of hedonistic, post-apocolyptic, Obama socialistic, Hell's Angels, ... yadayadayada. Besides, _real life_ never was an imitation of Andy Griffith's Mayberry in that respect anyway. And frankly, all of that Jack Chick-wannabe propaganda does get boring and tiring after a while. And (from my own perspective) it would seem to me that the institution, despite the many who do not participate therein, is quite thriving and is in no real danger of becoming extinct. Oh and please don't let WD's twisted misusage/abuse of 'providing proof' spoil the real principle of 'prove it', ... okay?

Well, you'd think that with all the gays wanting to get married, that the institution is getting its needed infusion of support. ... But seriously, upon what real numbers are you basing that conclusion that marriage is the dying institution you insist it is?

Said link keeps reminding me of that old adage: "Always consider the source." <_<

If you have Realplayer (and also if you have a strong stomach and/or a morbid curiosity to hear what the Great Forehead sounds like), here's the link you can go to to find out. Just click on one of the icons to download and play.

Water Garden, This statement in a recent post of yours in this thread gave me a hearty laugh: :biglaugh: Yah! Seeing how Cynic is haughtily (and self-righteously, I might add) responding to your questions, I have to say, "Ain't that the truth! The 'Elect ©' ;) bothers me as well. Kinda explains why Calvinists aren't that active in evangelism for their faith; ... they just aren't very good at it. :lol:

Frankly, (as far as I am concerned) you don't owe him squat as far as the offer to give him his own 'pro-TWI/be your own amateur Lawyer' forum. He's a big boy. He can get his own forum or blog. ... Heh! Maybe he can make enough as an amateur attorney to pay for it. <_<

Hehehe. Ya know, you could also teach the parrot your signoff line, and have him use it when the Evil Mother-in-Law leaves. "To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee -- BRAWWWKKK!!".

Hopefully, the kind of mentalities and philosophies that are more decent towards people.

I don't just stop at religion. I also have this point of view towards many aspects of staunch conservatism as well as other philosophies/mentalities that wind up being abusive, yet demand blind obedience from their followers.

Not unfathomable, ... but still not moral either. Your point? :unsure: P.S., please see the latest dozen or so posts in the 'Calvinism a Cult?' thread (particularly the pro-Calvinist posts ) as to why I have reached the conclusions I do. If anything, that kind of mentality only strengthens my point of view.

Amazing the leaps of flawed presumptions some people make. Ie., for an example of said flawed presumptions, ... my dear, at what point did I ever communicate any problem with judges passing judgment upon the convicted. Your comparison of that with the 'judgments' of your god is flawed. For one thing, judges (if they are good ones; ... take note of that point, will you please? ;) ) pass judgment upon the convicted because the convicted were charged, tried, and convicted, by proof, of the crimes they were charged with. That I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with (now try to keep up here, ok?) is the 'judgment' of a deity that makes someone 'guilty' when they have done nothing to deserve it. And sorry Charlie, but this argument of because we are A&E's descendants doesn't cut it. Ie., if I'm gonna catch hell for something, it had better be for something that *I* did, or something that *I* am directly responsible for. Outside of that, ... I ain't gonna pay. Oh and, arguments of "well, you're just not spiritual enough to understand" are just as much of a gutless copout. And you know, I would rather die forever in the grave, than to be a part of some 'heavenly' Borg-like collective for The Lord. "You will be assimilated into the collective. ... Resistance is futile!" I think not. <_<

... and after all of their travels and troubles, ... they _still_ never been able to reach earth, have they?

... yeah, yeah, I know the old saw. It's _only_ the Repubs who get persecuted when they say something wrong. ... Hells bells, I've seen that 'principle' get shot down so many times eight ways from Sunday, its ridiculous. <_<

Dude! ... Ya gotta *tell* me when you're being facetious about these things! You had me going there for a bit. Hell's bells, I thought that you signed on to Bride's Crazy Wagon! Damn, you're good!

You wish! ;) ... and now, on to the dissection. Now let's think about this one for a minute here, shall we? (For if anything, you just gave me new ammo, my friend) 1) "all killing by god after that is a big fat 'so what?'" ... which further strengthens my argument re: the Adam and Eve point. They do the equivalent of walking on the grass (okay, so Eve talking to a snake does bring up the weirdness factor), and not only are they sentenced to death, but _every single one_ of their descendants (ie., the ENTIRE human race) gets the punishment as well, even if we had absolutely nothing to do with the sin. But now your "big fat 'so what'" comment underscores that further, and not only that, but pretty much shoots thru the foot religious people's own argument about life being 'precious and holy'. _We_ are expected to treat life as precious and holy, yet your god (according to you) has the "big fat 'so what'" attitude when he kills people? And you and Bride have no trouble with that HUGE discrepancy?? 2) "not killing people would be delaying the inevitable." ... so let's just slaughter 'em all, and thus quicken the judgment of God? ... Sure you guys weren't working on Dubya's Iraq War staff? <_< 3) "'grace and mercy' is allowing anyone to exist for more than a second." ... again, all based upon Adam and Eve's sin in the garden. _They_ eat the fruit (as well as talking to some stupid snake), and _we_ receive the punishment of being at such an enmity with such a 'righteous god' (Yah! Right! <_< ), that to allow us to exist for "more than a second" is such wondrous 'grace and mercy'. :blink: Any of you guys ever think this crap through? Just for once?? ..... But n-o-o-o, you've been 'brainwas'--errr, I mean, taught that this is the Holy Wisdom of God to such an extent that you are not to question it, ... at ALL. Hell, you could take Weirwille's garbage and treat it the same way, and if you have been browbeaten and guilt tripped enough, you'd treat his dogma with the same blind, terrified obedience. ..... Ya know, maybe I'm beginning to see why some people think that this kind of 'blind faith' mentality is regarded as 'mind control'. Fortunately, more and more people these days are turning away from such fundamentalist garbage, or are at least starting to be more bold in standing up to it. More and more people are being skeptics and are looking at this kind of fundamentalism with more scrutiny and with a lot less 'fear of the Lord' based obedience. You don't want to join them, fine. Your loss.

Good point indeed. Of course, there is still a difference between a massive flooding of a regional size (say, in the Tigris-Euphrates and surrounding area, and backed up by archeological evidence) and a global one of the bible (one for which absolutely _no_ geological/archeological evidence has been found). Also, notice that said stories have only been found around said regional area. Ie., no ancient Chinese, Mayan, South African, etc. stories of a 'worldwide' flood. No, but I would have the punishment fit the crime, ... which would be part of my definition of 'perfectly moral'. ;) The judicial killing would be irrelevant to the A&S situation, ... unless capital punishment was allowed in church government/polity back then, ... which would _significantly_ solidify the abusive treatment of believers argument against the 1st century church, ... wouldn't you agree? <_< In which case, it would arguably be murder. From what I've seen of the accounts in the OT, God's 'judgment', ie., the flood, slaughtering thousands of pagans (for no better reason than worshiping 'false gods'), having King Saul go in and slaughter thousands of 'infants and sucklings', etc., ... and even in having the entire human race bear the punishment of Adam and Eve's sin, ..... sorry but, to me, that pretty much cancels out any 'grace and mercy' you might speak of. The comparison to Allah stays put.

A little off topic rant here, ... but, the following quote really hacks me, and illustrates Yet Another Point why folks like me have trouble with the term 'cult' and like terms, terms that many people use as tho' they are based on solid clinical logic, yet are frought with highly emotional and questionable rationale, ... _particularly_ in how said terms are applied in such a manipulative manner to have so-called 'cult members' question their thinking abilities, ... even if they have no reason to. Really!? Is that your opinion of 'cult' participants, both current and former? Because they are/have been involved with a 'mind control cult', therefore they can't think their way out of a paper bag? ... Ohhh, but if they were part of a group that Jesus Christ approves (or so people like _you_ say), then *poof*, they can think right along with the best of them. Really? Well, let me tell you something, my friend, I've seen _plenty_ of non-thinking done a-plenty by mainstream, orthodox, "Jesus is LORD" wannabees that would put LCM to shame in the 'turn-the-brain-irrevocably-OFF' dept. And yes, I've seen plenty of individuals, _while_ they were in TWI (and even at times in CES) who DID think and use their brains, their participation is said groups notwithstanding. ... Dare I venture a guess as to YOUR cognitive thinking abilities? ... My guess is that if I did, Paw would revoke my posting rights permanently so F-A-S-T, my head would spin. :blink: <_<

... and coming from a guy who _behaves_ like one? :unsure: Pot, meet kettle. <_< Ohh by the way, how many 'cultic' characteristics does Reformed Theology (ie., Calvinism) portray, hhmmmm? ... Ever consider that?

Ya know, the thought of doubting any scriptural accounts never occurs to a lot of people, ... until they take that fateful step, ... and voila!, ... amazing the things one learns. :)

... goosestep ... goosestep ... goosestep ... goosestep goosestep goosestep goosestep goosestepgoosestepgoosestepgoosestepgoosestepgoosestepgoosestepgoosestep ........

Whether they lied to Him or not is irrelevant to the point that I and others here are trying to get across. The point that the "HS killed them" in the first place is what we're focusing on. ... Ok, so they lied to him. Naughty, naughty! ... But you don't have the frikkin' death penalty for lying, fer crying out loud. And then for that kind of punishment to be illustrated as some sort of Righteous Judgement of a Holy God takes the cake, ... for an abuse based belief! I can just imagine your reaction if this was some Islamic story about 2 people lying to Allah, and then being beheaded by Mohammad for it. "Why, how _horrible_!! How could those cruel, pagan worshipping Muslims be that way? ... Christianity is s-o-o much kinder and loving and forgiving." ... yadayadayada <_< But _your_ God (HS) does it, ... and no problemo.

But no 'true believers' ever run _that_ through their heads now, do they? <_< But hey, if GOD does this kind of abuse, then it _has_ to be regarded as Righteous now, doesn't it? Shut yer face, and don't _dare_ speak a word against the HS. ... ... See this is the kind of crap that was but one BIG reason why I dumped this kind of fundy mindset. And the 'god' that goes along with it. And I'll tell ya what, if God doesn't like what I'm posting (which should be regarded _at least_ as 'wicked' as what A&S did), well then, he can take my a** right now. ...... ..... ((cough)) ... ughh ..... (((choke))) .... AAAGGGHHHHhhhhh........ ... ... ... ... Faked ya out! ... Got ya going there for a minute, ... didn't I? ;)