GarthP2000

... this from a guy who has Dubya feasting on a poor kitty cat as his avatar. :unsure:

Well, I'm glad I got rid of that mindset. I'll determine my own thinking, thank you very much.

Krys, Its in reference to what Jonny said: See? :)

It's Moderation is when something is blocked and you approve. It's Censorship when something is blocked and you don't approve. Ehhh? ;)

... what talents? Stringing chairs? Working the 'honey wagon'? ... Goosestepping to leaders**t? ((snort)) Yeah! Try putting all that on your resume! <_<

I've noticed that more and more posts are containing the phrase or something to that effect. Are the moderators going to go thru the ENTIRE message board for such editing? Just curious, as I imagine that gonna take a l-o-n-g time to do.

What I find rather funny and ironic sometimes, is that there are times when there is an (admittedly heated often) discussion/argument, and some posts are made that somebody gets offended by, and the somebody gives the "C'mon! Let's keep it civil here! You're being personally offensive!", ... and maybe, just maybe, that 'offender' might be making a valid point, even amongst statements that are personally offensive. Not always, but I find it rather interesting that the "you're being offensive" accusation has been (often I think) used as a means of oversimplistically dealing with the content of a post that they don't like. Quite a few times, both posters on either side of the argument/issue are posting what they believe, and (if you'll also notice) _both_ are about as emotional/passionate about their stands, both the 'offender' and the 'offendee'. Yes Virginia, they are. For example: 1) The Democrat (or liberal) GSer debating the Republican (or conservative) GSer 2) The Christian GSer debating the atheist GSer ;) 3) Even the TWI/spinoff GSer debating the anti-TWI/spinoff GSer As a matter of fact, I think there are less of those who post purely to offend than people realize. They are indeed there, but I think they take up the minority. And think about this. Greasespot, by its very nature as being (as one of its functions) a pressure valve to 'release steam' for those who were taught time and time again to be 'likeminded' (read: be a bunch of little goosesteppers for V. P. Fuehrer), ... ain't no garden party. As well as for those of us who see that kind of 'likeminded' expectations in other areas of society. Yes, we do need to keep the ad hominum attacks down, but lets make sure that it is ad hominum attacks we're talking about here, and not non-personal content that can all too conveniently be considered ad hominum, ... ok? P.S., And why is it that some of the loudest folks here who whine about civil discourse, are usually the ones who keep eerily silent when the people/groups they despise are the targets of same ad hominum attacks, ... hmmmmm? How about adding the word 'consistancy' to the phrases 'civil discourse' and 'staying on topic'. P.P.S., Ooopsie! Was I being too uncivil again?

Socks, Basically, I think that the god concept, throughout time, is an attempt to explain the unexplainable. The desire to explain the unexplainable isn't the seriously flawed part; what the hell, we're curious critters. Or even trying to put it into a form of "there is some form of invisible being up there that must be controlling things, 'cuz I sure as hell can't explain it, so that must be what it is." kind of explaination might be flawed, but it isn't necessarily harmful, ... not as long as one leaves the door of scrutiny open, and where people are free to accept/reject as they see fit, ... well hell, have all the invisible friends ya want. The abusive flaws come into play when said invisible friend becomes (according to the Doctrine of Invisible Friend) controlling, abusive, and anal, and as a result, the followers become controlling, abusive, and anal, ... and Elitist. ;)And what if those religious beliefs were true, but they depict said REAL invisible friend as controlling, abusive, and quite anal as the doctrine says? One who _demands_ worship, ... or else? One with the Power to wipe us all out on his whim? Whether we really deserve it or not? ... Or worse? (And look at how for we have ... 'evolved' on this test run? :unsure: ) Maybe that'll help clear up my point as to why I wouldn't follow such an 'invisible friend' even if it were true. ... And that example of said friend would show us a better alternative than having no god? Of having a higher path of evolution for our society? Nahhh! Darwin's monkeys are cooler. Actually, quite a number of atheists take a different approach. The type of atheist you mention are known as 'strong atheists'. They say with certainty that there is no god, or can't be a god. Note the absoluteness of the claim. There is another branch called 'weak atheists'. They don't say "There is no God" as tho' they can prove it. Rather, they take the "I can't prove that god doesn't exist, but as far as I'm concerned, unless you can prove to me this god of yours, I won't believe in it." See the difference? One makes a claim as tho its fact, the other just won't believe until claim of deity is verified and proven. One reason this is is because the 'weak atheist' knows you cannot prove a negative, also you put the burden of proof on the shoulders of the theist (where it really belongs IMNSHO), whereas the strong atheist puts himself in a position to prove that there is no god, and all they have is their ability (or maybe lack thereof) to prove their point. Thusly I'm in the 'weak atheist' category. I'll leave it up to the theist to prove his point. ... Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm lazy that way. ;) ..... OH NO!! I'M PROVING SOCKS THEORY THAT MAN'S BASIC NATURE IS TO BE LAZY!!!! :o Ummm, you DO know that was sarcasm, ...... don't you? Yee GODS man!! Now you gone and totally *shattered* my utopian world! ((snif)) Everything was going honky-dorey until you brought THAT up. Anywho, this was fun. Why I even got a good laugh from Cynic and his friends at the zoo. I think I'll step back from this for a while until Sunesis isn't mad at me no mo'. You are gangs of fun! Peace!

Socks, You are partly correct, in that it's man that concocted the whole thing, including the god concept. ;) But to take the blame totally off the concept itself is flawed, ... as that concept, by its very nature, inspires people to act abusively and with the backing of a perfectly moral entity. And there is a difference between that, and acting abusively simply because one's a selfish perp. See the difference? Good talking to you tho'. You're a good ol' bean, ... don't care what Cynic sez about ya.

Hhmmm, is it really me frothing at the mouth? (checks my mouth and keyboard to make sure no spittle is on it --- Nope! None. ) Or could it be you (all too conveniently) projecting that image onto me because of content of my posts, ... and topped off my accusing me of having hatred of an entity I don't believe exists. Hey! I don't believe Santa exists either, but I don't go around hating said mythical being. (I do hate the Xmas musak in the malls tho'. Sorry about that!) Yet Another Fallacy (commonly used unfortunately) posted by someone who most likely 'cares' what I believe (especially when I post said beliefs ;) ) than she 'cares' to admit. ... Ya think? Sunesis, I post this way because this is my style. My 'schtick'. It's up front, straight forward, and I come by it honestly (believe it or not) in a you-know-where-I'm-coming-from approach. Not in the most diplomatic of styles, I'll grant you that, but at least I'm not lying to you as pertains to what views I hold. I've posted this way many a time, and I find it ironic that I don't hear a peep from you, *particularly* when I blast Weirwille for the scumbag that he is. Not a peep of complaint. Not one ounce of "I'm sorry, but you're too deep end for me!" high brow. Frankly, I've been quite calm in my composing of these posts of mine (and quite amused in my responses to Cynic :lol: ). At the very least, I've been no more emotional than you when you posted your rebuttal to what I wrote (at the top of page 2). And, again, I hear not one protestation from you to Cynic's clearly prurient and insulting posts in my direction, and his apparent pride in such. Where's your high brow then? But the thing that you really find so 'deep end' is the content of my posts, not necessarily the style, so spare me the Miss Manners, ... please. ;) Heh! You think we atheists are the ones being so offensive to Christians? Hell lady, even Madeline Murray O'Hair, in her worst moments, couldn't even begin to compare with the s**t many Christians said about, ... and did (and still do) to, atheists. For example, how would you like it if the President of the United States stated outright that Christians/religious people cannot be viewed as patriotic, because this is an unbelieving nation, hmmm? (and I can provide the source of a former President saying just that, in reverse, about atheists!) ... Suffice it to say (and I'd bet $$$$ on this) that you'd be FAR more pi$$ed than I have ever sounded on this board, if such a statement from the President did occur. So even if you do detect some anger in my posts, well maybe there's a reason, perhaps? .... Or is that 'too deep' for you? <_< And I don't think you're incapable of dealing with the points therein even with the 'anger', even if its to challenge them with 'The Truth', (if you indeed do have it). Socks and Eyes have been dealing with my posts with no problem. You're an intelligent individual like they are, so it shouldn't be any problem for you. P.S., As far as where I have "insinuated and read things into your posts", I was addressing your points re: 1) where you thought we weren't progressing like others claimed, 2) where you didn't think that religion was the cause of elitism, 3) where you thought I was being dishonest with my arguments, where I was addressing points that are relevant to the thread topic. You have made accusations of me of reading things into your posts, and those accusations are misreading themselves. Such as: I never accused you of saying that it was wrong for people to determine their own destiny. And never on some of your other accusations of 'reading into' your posts either. And that goes for your charge of me being dishonest. So take a chill pill. ... Or maybe a beer.

Socks and Eyes, Good to have your input. True as far as that goes. But there is a significant difference between 1) Doing bad things from your own volition and authority, as far as that goes in endeavoring to get away with it, and 2) doing bad things from the standpoint of "God told me to do these things, and God is The Source of all that is Right" yadayada, and that puts a whole new spin to it. I mean, its one thing to challenge an abusive twit. Its a whole 'nother ballgame to challenge an abusive twit who's (supposedly) backed by the Sovereign Creator of the universe.Plus you make the flaw about acting according to one's ideas and beliefs of his own accord. That flaw is one of presumption. The presumption being that it, by default (even generally), will wind up bad. You mean to tell me that such individuals cannot figure out that to get ahead, show progress, and all, one needs to show thought and concern towards others? ... Like we need God to boom out of the sky: "THOU MUST RESPECT THY FELLOW HUMAN BEING!", otherwise we are incapable of learning it? ... Yeah, right! Its Yet Another Variation of the Unbelievers in God Cannot Know to Do Moral Things fallacy, ... and Yes Virginia, it is a fallacy. Of course he's always done it, ... due to the idea of some deity who wants mindless obedience to said exclusion, denigration, and destruction. (That's one big reason why I don't believe in said deity any more) One possible solution to this scenario: Get rid of the bad idea, and (as Eyes alluded to) make the twits responsible for their crap. Then again, if the accounts in the bible are any indicator (particularly the accounts where god has his people kill those that worship other gods, and where those who do not accept Jesus are thrown into the lake of fire), and if that deity is for real, ... then what does that say about the god coming up with those ideas. If that god is real, we can't really say that its just man doing it now, can we? ... Either way, the religious side is screwed, ... right? (And Yet Another reason for my disbelief) Eyes, Hell, this whole discussion is quite honest; both sides (well, maybe Cynic and his zoo are the exception here ;) ). We just disagree on the particulars. ... Heh! I love it when the "You aren't being honest!" quip is thrown out by some people, particularly when they hear something that they don't like, so they presume that its dishonest. <_< How about relative? True, a lot of crap is still being done today, but what about 100 years ago. Was it really 'more moral, more evolved' back then? How about 500 years ago? 1,000 years? 5,000 years? What things (and again, I ain't talking technological) that we enjoy and take for granted, did we NOT have back during those times? 1) the right to speak out against our government, 2) the right to elect our leaders 3) the concept of equality between the races, the sexes, and of homosexuals 4) the concept of mental illness as something to be treated as opposed to someone being possessed with demons and to be ran out of town/killed 5) the exploring of the entire world and realizing of what it consists of, rather than believing that if you sail out far enough on the ocean, you'll fall off the edge 6) the usage of science as a tool of discovery, rather than simply relying on priests in long robes quoting from their holy books for the information Like I said, I think you guys are allowing yourselves to be snowed by all the garbage that is being done by allowing it to obscure the good actions/potential that is being done/can be done by people. And this "I am nothing but a sinner incapable of doing any good on my own" mentality that is unfortunately engrained in society, provides a seriously warped view to that end, as well as contributing *seriously* towards people not holding themselves accountable for their actions, ... wouldn't you say? Speaking of which: "I would say - 'worthless sinner' can be looked at and defined and have meaning in this discussion, but it's charged with a lot of information and feeling." Aww c'mon Socks. You aren't wussing out on me now, are ya? ;)

Cynic, I don't think you'll ever really leave this place. You'd miss me more than I'd ever miss you. ;) Wordwolf, My quote re: Einstein wasn't meant to be authoritative, but a well known phrase that people (even if not Einstein) attributed to stupidity. As far as Einstein's religious views go (gathered from the related and verifiable quotes I could find), altho' he was rightly angered by some of the atheists of his day, never really communicated himself as anything beyond a pantheist, and not quite a deist. He talked about Spinoza's God, which would have put him (more or less) in the pantheist camp. Then again, Einstein did not like being pigeonholed. (The referring site does contain a lot of info/quotes re: Einstein, albeit I do get this distinct impression that the guy is trying to portray Einstein as more of a believer in 'God' than I suspect he really was. But hey! That's my 2 cents. I do disagree with Einstein as far as his rendering of 'Freethinker' goes (quote drawn from the same site): Exclusively an opposition against naive superstition? I wouldn't go that far, but such an opposition, I believe, is a good thing to have. Why not go farther than naive superstition? "My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as 'laws of nature.'" That's why we ask questions, and why we explore and investigate, to grow in our understanding of that universe, ... rather than go back into the 'safe' cocoon of "We humans are so insignificant, that we have no way of truly understanding the universe.", thus opening up ourselves to the previously mentioned 'song-and-dance conmen / ecclesiastical tin pot dictators' willing to put us under their thumb. "It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality". ... Odd. It definitely wasn't absent in Carl Sagan, and he was a freethinker to the hilt.

Socks, A good set of points you make, but there is a flaw in the argument that you may not realize, and I think its related to the "if someone has no God, then he is more apt to me immoral/amoral" school of thought. (But I must say, your portrayal is *far* more intelligently refreshing than the zoo-based sexual basis that Cynic seems to be fixated on, but it is good that he can admit to being addicted to it, and can thus get help for it. ;) ) No different? Ahh nope. See my points above as to why today differs markedly than 100, 500, 2000 years or more ago. And again, I'm not just talking about the technological part of it. Now see (in relation to the original point of this thread), the "worthless sinner" part is, and has always been, part and parcel of the elitism and separation of humanity, and has done a lot to hold the advancement of humanity back. (As I bet you can see, otherwise you wouldn't have taken it off the table as you did.) So-o-o, why do you need a god to have all that, and more? Unless you think that part of that *has* to include god, or a heavenly destination beyond death. ... So does that mean those of us who do not have a god/heavenly destination after we die just cannot have a higher purpose than concern for ourselves and our clan? :unsure: How many non-god-believing individuals throughout world history has looked to others than just themselves or their family, who fought for the rights and freedoms of other people, who endeavored to use their skills (including the scientific and technical) for the betterment of mankind as a whole, who refused to use their skills for purposes that they deemed immoral?I got a clue for ya. There were quite a few (ie., many) of said non-god-believing individuals who did those things, irrelevent of the crap society has been fed about the supposed 'live no higher than the animals' atheists. Altho' you put it nicely, I still see it as the same flawed crap. ... No offense intended. The only difference between how an unbeliever views living for a higher purpose, and how a believer views living for a higher purpose, is that an unbeliever sees no need to include a god in the equation. ... Period. Given the choice, that is what man automatically chooses to do? Nahh, I know better than that. Some (even many) would choose to do that, but not all. And the fact that they choose to do so means that they aren't forced by nature to do so. ... And in any event, that still doesn't show where they need a god to make them choose the higher path. They just think they do. The potential is still there. People just need to _decide_ to utilize their potential and *do* it. I agree. And that shows the unconscious remnants of the 'worthless sinner' doctrine that has been so engrafted into our 'Christian' society, remnants that I still hope that you want to leave off the table. I guess I'm more an optimist in that regard. ... Altho' acts of human stupidity do have a big influence at diminishing that optimism. But like the phrase says, "Hope springs eternal!"

Cynic, ((Don't go! (snif) You're taking away my fun!)) Now why is it so immorally gratuitous for me to tell someone to leave homosexuals alone? ... Oh yeah! Was it because in your mind (such that it is), it would be seemingly hypocritical for me to say that in the name of tolerance, when I seemingly show such intolerance by beating up on Calvin and his followers (including, say, you). First off, notice I said 'seemingly'. As is 'alleged'. As in 'so-called'. Allow me to elaborate.Its one thing to beat up on homosexuals when they are doing nothing substantial to hurt you. Please notice that I said 'substantial'. ... Sorry, but their homosexuality doesn't count. ... Sorry. Its something else to beat up on a religious doctrine that shows such (if you'll pardon my saying this) intolerance, ... (Nahh I'll use another word that you can relate to better) condescending of groups like: heretics, Unitarians, and the like, and for no better reason than that they believe in a different doctrine than you do, and even have the mitigated gaul to speak of it. The condescension of that nature does deserve to be shown (here comes that blasted word 'liberal' again) intolerance. Its something like the difference between showing intolerance for the Phelps clan everytime they march against American troops killed in Iraq, and showing intolerance for ..... Calvinists who behave themselves and don't get into a snit over Unitarianism? ;) Damn! You *are* addicted to it. :) Really? Now ya know, that does sound hilariously funny coming from you. Perhaps I should take my autonomy/supremacy and emotional entitlement skills from you. The only thing that would fit a man of your (here it comes) Elitist mentality is to become to yourself your own little god almighty. Hell, you have the vocabulary for it. So perhaps this supposed 'humility' towards the Sovereign God is actually either just a facade, or your behavior/attitude is meant to illustrate just what your god is like, ...... and really helping to make my overall case here for me. Thanks! :) Now me, I'd vote for the 'just worn out' hanging chad. But hey, that's just me. And my tidbit is relevent, even in a general way. At the very least, your mention of Patrick Henry is an illustration of religious conservatives using our founding father's statements in an irrelevant manner. Which is so much like the ones who do claim that this is a Christian nation. In any event, if you do go ((sobs)), ... do improve your table manners. And leave the zoo related innuendoes at home. P.S., and when did pictures of Tom Daschle come into what I said? Boy, you got one helluva filthy mind! ;)

Ohhh I dunno. Even taking into account all the Acts of Stupidity (which is beautifully illustrated by Albert Einstein in his phrase “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”) done by people over the years, ... the fact that we are still here after (either 6,000+ years or 50,000+ years, take your pick depending if you believe Creationism or evolution), and you look over all those years, humanity has managed to (largely) get rid of a lot of _really_ stupid ideas, ranging anywhere from 1) absolute rule of 'divinely annointed kings', 2) to acknowledging that people have rights to be treated humanely and equally to an expanding number of people; blacks, women, poor, those who don't own land, homosexuals, etc., 3) the importance of using the scientific method of independent scrutiny as being *better* than simply believing/obeying some authority figure in a robe about what their god says about life, and that without question, 4) that more people are able to read and get a good education, 5) ... and there are a lot more So don't let people's stupidity cloud the fact that there are advances being made in/for the human condition, and I'm not just referring to the technological either. We are getting better, ... over the long run, but like I said, it's getting there. I no longer 'have faith' as it were, in the "we are such worthless sinners who can do no good on our own" dead-end road. I put more 'faith' (belief, trust, confidence) in humanity's accomplishments and progress (both actual and potential). And its quite an indictment for a religion when its god gets angry and jealous of that viewpoint. "I am a jealous God"? :unsure: Please! Why would a Superior Being who can allegedly do FAR better than we be so jealous in such a manner? A tad insecure, isn't it? P.S., keep in mind that a LARGE part of said stupidities come straight from the 'blind faith' religious approach, which swings the door w-i-d-e open for every song-and-dance conman / ecclesiastical tin pot dictator to come right in and clean house over millions of people's minds, hearts, wallets, and lives, ... both of them and their children. And many have done just that! P.P.S., your post reminds me of the near terror many people had back when the nuclear arms race was into full swing back during the Reagan years, when many people were actually thinking that we wouldn't make it past the 1980s-1990s, because we were really going to blow ourselves into oblivion. Remember that clock that they kept moving closer to 12:00 midnight as an indicator of Doomsday? Not to mention all the prophetic rantings about The Last Days before the Apocolypse of Revelation, and the (supposed) date(s <-- plural ;) ) of Christ coming back due to that? Never happened according to what they said, did it? Hhmmm, if people predicting Doomsday/Christ's Return can be shown as being stupid also, ....

double post. Sorry.

Cynic, I can't help but notice that, every now and then, you utilize zoo related, sexual innuendoes as a tool for rebuttal to my 'polemical tirades'. ... Should that be regarded as part of your supposedly superior, Calvinist-inspired apologetics. ..... Really, <_< ... but maybe this helps illustrate and strengthen my point as to the "just because its labelled Christian doesn't mean that its more moral" principle, ... hmmmm? (Tell me something. Do you talk like that in your church?) My "tidbit" is but a reminder of how certain religious people manipulate what the founding father's say to fit their points of view. Perhaps you didn't mean your post that way, so I stand corrected. But it's still relative, and particularly in this discussion. (So, if the shoe doesn't fit, you have nothing to worry about.) So the red herring accusation does not apply.

I mention it as a reference point in dealing with your points re: your claim of religion (in this case: Christianity) not being to blame for making mankind submit through force and violence. Force and violence in said book, and from the Hand of the God, is obscenly *profuse*. When did I say that? Talk about your strawman! Doesn't the Christian gospel talk about man 'wanting to be his own god'? And aren't those who want to determine their own destiny often derided as those who 'want to be their own god'?See, that is where religion (particularly of the Abrahamic variety) steps in and wants to have all of mankind submit to their god. The doctrine of said religions is full of that mindset, and illustrates how their god (and often his followers) deals quite harshly with those who will not "bow the knee" as it were. THAT you cannot deny no matter what you say, ... and despite your attempt to place the credit of the advancements of society on western "Christian" societies. (And as far as that goes, *many* of said advancements have occured despite religious doctrine and influence, _not_ because of them, even when accomplished by religious people; our own Constitutionally based form of government is a classic example of that.) If you've been keeping up with psychiatric/medical advancements, those 'cures', which are barbaric and horrendous, are also being challenged/eliminated. ... Unfortunately, that's part of the 'evolutionary' process. Ie., it doesn't happen all at once. ... But it does happen. Ok, how about in the hundreds of years before this scant 108 year ((cough)) 'godless' century, back during the good old Christian centuries, how were we more evolved back then, hmmmm? 1) back when slavery *was* more widespread, and more legal in these Christian countries. 2) back when women were more likely to be chattle (hardly any rights at all), again, in these Christian countries. 3) back before many countries, including our United States, had less/any form of representational form of government at all, again, in these Christian countries. 4) back when the concept of 'the Divine right of Kings' was in place, and that as backed by biblical concepts clearly illustrating the same thing? (I mean, when were kings voted into office back during biblical times, hmmm?) That was one concept that the Constitution clearly was anti-thetical to. 5) back when one could clearly be put to death for turning away from god, a concept again illustrated (and approved) by the Bible and other religious texts; written authorities that the subject people _had_ to live by back then. (And if you're going to point out that these centuries aren't of a Christian/religious nature either, ... well, ... When was there a 'more evolved/more godly' period that is far better than now, hhmmm? :unsure: ) All of these examples, and my previous posts, are in the context of this thread as well as in response to your posts. Religion, by its very nature, has often been a tool to separate people via total authoritarian and elitist rule. Hell, I can't find a more Elitist concept than, in the eyes of some Sovereign and All-Powerful (and quite Capricious <_< if I say so myself) Diety, determining the separation of the 'saved' bound for heaven, and the 'damned' bound for hell, and that determined only if they believed in his Son (no matter how moral or immoral their actions were). ... Can you? See, you're basing your definition of 'evolution' of society (or lack thereof) from a Christian perspective. Ie., if it ain't Christian, it ain't evolving. It's very similar to the seriously flawed rendering of atheists being viewed as amoral/immoral for the very fact that they are atheists. No matter how moral, or ethical, or how much progress is shown, ... if it isn't Christian/religious, it ain't worth a damn, ... cause it doesn't have God in it. Fortunately, more and more people are seeing past that (dare I say it? ... sure why not!) immoral smoke screen.

And yet, if the Book of Revelations is correct, God, via Jesus Christ, will 'use force and violence' to retake the earth, and to set up the Millenial Kingdom, will they not? ... And talk about Groupthink during their rule! No, I don't think that mankind thinks of themselves as their own God. ... They DO however, want to determine their own destiny. And that is wrong?? :unsure:

I just love it when people take sayings by this country's founding fathers, and endeavor to twist them to fit their theology. And this one clearly is in the Top 5. ((snorts)) Besides, wasn't Patrick Henry, at most, an Episcopalian? And not exactly a Calvinist? Here's a tidbit re: Patrick Henry: From Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp - a little more than halfway down the page)Yeah, yeah, I know. Reality bites, doesn't it? ;) Sunesis, Really? You mean, setting aside all the technological advances, that mankind has not progressed over the past few centuries? You mean to tell us that: 1) the replacement of the divine right of kings by representative forms of government is not progress? 2) the replacement of rendering mentally ill people as possesed by demons (and to be driven out of communities as outcasts) with more modern psychiatric and medical treatments of said mental illnesses is not progress? 3) the elimination of slavery of blacks (when such slavery was 'justified' by the Bible itself) is not progress? 4) that giving women the right to vote, to own property, and not to be regarded as their husband's chattle, is not progress? I can think of a LOT of other non-technological moral and ethical advancements accomplished by us 'fallen' that you seem to have missed (or maybe don't want to acknowledge, seeing that it would contradict your theology?) ... Heh! And you complain about the 'bloodiness' of this century? How much of said bloodiness, and that over the centuries, have been initiated by the religious or the Christians, and all in the Name of their God, all the while they believed in the very same 'fallen man' doctrine that you do?

Glad somebody has finally noticed. <_<

No. He said "Somebody get the door. It's Dominoes!"

Yeah! I too, was getting this impression that this was Yet Another 'Don't Focus on the Past, Just Shut Up and Forgive!' ((ahem)) whinings. <_< Besides, it looks like somebody's CAPS LOCK KEY IS STUCK, ... it seems.

Ha ha ha! Right! I'm sure that MarkO and other Catholics here would get a good laugh out of this idea that the Knights of Columbus was in cahoots with TWI. :lol:

I feel for ya, Artemis. No UU church ehh? :( ... Talk about being in the desert! So a double Happy Winter Solstice to you and your pagan friends! And have a Happy and Safe New Years!