GarthP2000

Hiya David, I knew Karen Sanford once many years ago. Back in 1980-81 when she was a Way Home coordinator in the West side of Indiananpolis, as I dated one of the ladies there (it was someone else). If you should ever get in contact with Karen again, tell her Garth Patterson said "Hiya!" , ok?

Ron, If you're talking about Wierwille being proud of his Teutonic heritage, you have a good point. But VP went a lot beyond his Teutonic roots in showing his 'naziness'. He actually was sympathetic to Hitler's philosophy and actions, and has actually said that the U.S. fought on the wrong side in WWII. His views re: Jews didn't exactly dismantle any accusations re: his Nazi proclivities either. P.S., By the way, as seemingly indicated by the picture, does the Latin phrase "NVNC ID VIDES, NVNC NE VIDES" indicate "I came, I saw, I picked my nose?"

Actually, Constantine's involvement with the doctrinal dispute between the Trinitarians and Arians was purely political in nature. Ie., the man was endeavoring to continue to build his power base. But in any event, during the Council of Nicea, he was squarely on the side of the Trinitarians, ... again, mainly from the political position. Check this source out.

Damn! ... I'm losing my touch!

In so many ways, Grouch. In so many ways! <_<

Nah-h-h! Hafta include them pineapples. Why, gotta e-x-p-a-n-d the kiddo's cultural horizons, donchaknow. ;) In any event, Corn-grats to you and the missus, Raf!

This is a classic (albeit extreme) example of how people can (and often do) believe any and everything they're told, particularly when its coupled with being indoctrinated with doctrine that's based totally on presupposition and appeal to authority, and will come up with any and all ridiculous attempts to fight any contradictory challenge to said belief. And an example of how far blind faith can (when its not restrained by independent thought and science) render people's judgment totally loony and out to lunch.

Please note: The following does NOT constitute censorship: "Skewed logic" (if any) "Strawman arguments" (again, if any) "a Little drama" ... or, if I may be so bold, nothing else that Tom has posted. ... No Virginia, he has not. ... Why? Because: 1) Simply posting, no matter how 'dramatic', does nothing to censor anybody. 2) The only one who has the real power to censor anybody on this board is ... Pawtucket. And believe you me, if (when) _he_ censored you, ... you'd know it. ;) Thank you very much for your time. We now return to our regularly scheduled whinin---err, ahh, posting as to the topic of What's the point of the Doctrinal Forum anymore.

A Yet Another Term that has become deliberately loaded from its original meaning, as 'hairesis' once meant 'to think differently', or 'a school of thought', along those lines. (The following quote from this link:) Amazing how this differs from the oversimplified and distorted current meaning of 'heresy'. <_<

Oh I _know_ the answer to that question. The Hulk, without a doubt! :B)

Uhhmmm, Geisha did, ... along with a lot of churches that make the Trinity a central part of cult-definition. Please see the links provided by Eyesopen. And as to the dictionary meaning of the term 'cult', I distinctly remember when the dictionary defined the term to mean "A group of people who follow a person or thing. A belief system." ... Absolutely NO indication of whether or not it was according to any true or false beliefs. Ie., neutral in scope. Ie., something which has become a loaded term since then. ... Loaded term, ... as in loading the terminology, ... something that 'mind control cults' do ... ... Right? <_<

Yes, let's consider history shall we? In your historical quotes, I noticed that they come from a rather narrow section of history, that of the Byzantine Empire, and that from the Muslim POV. ... Sorry Charlie, there is a LOT more to the Unitarian history than that. Basically when you're talking about Unitarians, you are talking about something that has quite a wide spread of history, and cover a lot of differing opinions and sects within the Unitarian field than you're aware of. 1) There are, as it has been noted in this thread, those who refer to themselves as 'biblical Unitarians' or 'Christian Unitarians', those who (more or less) believe in the Bible and its teachings, who believe that Jesus was the savior of the world, and who even believe that Jesus was the son of God, but who do not accept the trinitarian dogma. That is their only exception. 2) There are those who are of the unitarian and/or universalist mindset who are more or less independent of the Christian doctrine, or who are independent of Christianity altogether. You find them in the Unitarian Universalist Association and other UU groups around the world. 3) There are even other groups that could arguably be called unitarian. Of all of those groups, the ones that wound up converting to Islam is quite small. ... Despite your source's claim otherwise. As per Juedes activities, one can safely say that any and all of his 'anti-cult' opinions have been _heavily_ influenced, ... nay, determined by his orthodox trinitarian beliefs. ... Period! Sorry.

And while this discussion of Osteen is going on, ... Hiya Tom Geiger! Long time, no see, dude! Pull up a chair and enjoy the New and Improved Greasespot. Have some pastries and coffee.

Ummm, ... I take it that you _weren't_ referring to my deee-licious pineapple pizza, my good man? No, of course you weren't. Better not! ;) Happy Birthday in any event!

False comparison and dilemna, guy. Nothing was said about being a citizen. The taxes that car drivers pay (as per tags, licenses, and the like) do contribute for maintenance of the roads and highways, taxes that bicycle only folks do not pay for. Ergo, the roads should mainly (please notice I didn't say exclusively) be for the benefit and usage of car/truck drivers. Too 'discriminatory' against bicycle riders? Tough! Deal with it. The very difference technically/structurally between bicycles and cars makes this so. Bicycles only go 10-20 mph, tops. Cars go 30-70 mph. Bicycles are structurally far weaker than cars; bikes weighing no more then ~100 lbs, cars weighing over 2,000 lbs. ... Again, deal with it. This is one area that I pretty much solidly agree with the conservatives on.

Errr, make that 39. But seriously, Happy Birthday Raf. AND, to celebrate your birthday in a most appropos manner, I'll serve the following, ...... mmmmmmmmmm, .... doesn't that pineapple PIZZA look _tasty_?

I agree fully, Dmiller. Oh by the way, in answer to those who say that riding their bikes is a right, (at least in some states) driving a car isn't a right, but a privilege. Same thing (if that) for bicyclists. Also, due to the fact that our road traffic system is, for all practical purposes, made for cars and trucks, said cars and trucks should enjoy the 'right of way' on the roads. Yes, I can see the need for more bike paths to be made, and even for roads to be widened so that the bicyclists can ride on the right hand side of the flow of traffic. But this nonsense of "if their are 4 lanes, the bicyclists shouldn't take up any more than 3 lanes" is for the birds. Now as for that cop throwing down the cyclists, that's a different matter entirely, and sorry DMiller, I break with you on this one. There was no reason whatsoever for what that punk pig did. At all. One can be against a lot of what Critical Mass is doing, yet still bust that cop's balls for what he did. Hopefully, he'll get thrown off of the force.

I'll add something else. Sure we are. Via the scientific method of discovery and invention, we are building up a means towards getting to the other side of the galaxy in good time. It no doubt won't be in our lifetimes, but it will occur, and that by means of the scientific method based on reason, discovery, and the like, ... all of which takes the usage of our five senses, ... and our brain.(Just can't stop, can I? ;) ) Then perhaps a good idea is to venture into the wonderful world of critical thinking anyway, full bore. I kid you not when I apply the words 'wonderful world' to the practice of critical thinking, because it (as you no doubt have discovered already) opens up new vistas to wonder, new things, ... and freedom. Such freedom that TWI and Co could never aspire to, and since they don't want it, they don't know what they are missing! :) Here's a suggestion. Venture even more into critical thinking anyway, cause you know it'll .... TWI off. Ahhh yes. 'thinking carnally', 'using your five senses', and all done to spit in TWI's eye and let them know that you're not gonna goosestep to their s**t anymore. See, that's why phrases like "Who am I to argue." ... "If he wants us to know, he can tell us." annoy folks like me. Because concepts like that have the effect of poo-pooing critical thinking. Of asking the questions that a lot of people don't bother to ask, perhaps because a good number of them feel that it isn't their place to ask. To venture into areas of knowledge that are (supposedly) outside of human understanding. ... I am quite thankful that there have been, and are more still, people who disregard that 'know your place' idiotology. (<--- no, that is not a typo) To be clear, I am not mad at you. I am, however, ticked off at the concepts behind the phrases you brought up. And thus my responses.

Well Twinky, I'll feel free to _not_ apologize. And I'll tell ya the following reasons why: 1) What I posted comes nowhere near any 'face melting' by Craig and Co., and I've heard him do some pretty mean face meltings, even in my days in da Way. What I posted here is pretty much standard fare coming from anybody voicing astonishment and disagreement to an outrageous idea, be it on the internet, in the Letters to the Editor section of any newspaper, people calling in to radio stations, etc. ... Ie., its called voicing an opposing opinion. ((Ooopsie! I hope my using the bold font didn't 'melt your face' too much. <_< )) 2) Related to point 1, what I am responding to are the concepts of "Who am I to argue." ... "If he wants us to know, he can tell us.", and for that I make NO apologies nor retractions. I find the ideas behind those statements totally revolting and are _far_ more compatible with Craig and his 'face meltings' than you might realize. As a matter of fact, people like LCM and VPW do not like to have their ideas criticized and talked back to, and believe you me, if I talked to them like I just talked to you, _they_ would be the ones trying to 'melt my face'. So you might want to re-evaluate your position because, 1) disagreements like the one we're having are part and parcel of the real world (so get used to it), and 2) being told to apologize for openly responding to what I think of the phrases like "'Who am I to argue.' ... 'If he wants us to know, he can tell us.'" eerily resemble TWI and other 'face melting' groups, ... and a lot more than you might realize. I stand behind what I say.

"Who am I to argue." ... "If he wants us to know, he can tell us." Great! Just great!! <_< With responses like that, it's a damn wonder we ever got beyond, or even to the level of, Gutenburg making the printing press back during the 1400s! "Who am I to argue"? ... Uhhhmm, a thinking, questioning human being? Hell, just about all of us here didn't display that "Who am I to argue" attitude towards TWI when we got sick and tired of all the religious bulls**t and abuse coming from that madhouse! Ya gave up _that_ mentality when talking back to Craiggers and Co., didn't ya? ... And rightfully so! "If he wants us to know, he can tell us." ... Hey! I got a (if you'll pardon my blasphemousy here) _better_ idea. If _we_ want to know, why wait around for any deity's permission to find out!? Knowledge isn't something that we have to ask permission for to find out! Yeah, yeah, I know. Some of us had it *beaten* into our skulls that we should "know our place", and that we shouldn't think beyond what we're supposed to think, (<--- see Romans ch. 12 for this mentality) etc., etc. ..... Hhmmm, didn't some cornfield 'cult' in Northwestern Ohio try to instill in us some similar mindset? ... Y'know, a tactic they used that was one of the reasons that they are called a 'cult' to begin with? <_< There's a lot of things out there in space to find out, and I'd bet that there even are things that might run the risk of turning a lot of staunch, traditional beliefs upon their heads. ... Perhaps that is one of the main things that gives some folks here pause before proceeding further, maybe? Oh by the way, I think I'm beginning to get a better understanding as to why the thing that God didn't want Adam and Eve to partake of back in the garden was called ... the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Just some things for your collective consideration. ;)

And yet we have evolutionary biologists and other related experts/professionals who say otherwise, and that in less than 4.5 billion years. With the scientific knowledge about our world and the universe that is growing exponentially, new planetary systems being discovered at an almost weekly basis, and the expanding and different kinds of environments that we are finding new life to thrive in, including environments that were previously considered totally hostile to life, ... the traditional "We are the only ones in this universe, and the whole thing was made _just_ for us, God's creation" (which is rather quite arrogant when ya think about it <_< ) spiel is losing its validity with yours truly more and more.

I think so. At the very least, the probability of earth being the _only_ planet to support life in a universe with (Carl Sagan mode on) bill-yions and bill-yions of galaxies, each containing bill-yions and bill-yions of stars (Carl Sagan mode off :) ), ... is very, very low. Ie., in transverse, the likelihood of other planets and systems containing life is very, very high. And this is just based on (the proper, I believe) usage of statistical analysis, and extrapolating from that. Can I absolutely prove it? Nope. Do I hang on to it like blind faith? Nope. We might very well be the only ones in the universe. ... But I doubt that very much. Question I'd _really_ like to see answered is finding any civilizations out there who not only have achieved space flight, ... but have achieved faster than light space flight. :B) But hey! Maybe that's the Trekker in me.

Now, now Jonny. Nobody's gonna complain about your tales you regale about your adventures in Alaska. ... unless all your posts and 'stow-ries' are being posted by a guy somewhere out in Bugtussle, Tenn. THEN we'll boot your arse out.

Hhmmmm, God needs for us to have serotonin to hear him and his Word. ... a chemical (or lack thereof) is the determining factor as to the the spirit of God being able to work in us. ... the lack of a _physical_ substance able to interfere/trump the (supposedly superior) spirit. Makes ya wanna go, ........ Hhmmmm. <_<

Changed my mind. ... Gotta refrain from feeding trolls. Besides, discipline builds character. ;) Peace to ya, Whitedove.