GarthP2000

You mean goop, don't you? ;)

Nahh Smikeol, you and your 'infomercials' still take the cake. ... In a heartbeat.

I think cman was referring to _how_ said donations are acquired that determines whether or not it is moral. But then again, I could be mistaken.

Thus Bride really shows where this 'root of bitterness' really is: The song-and-dance, money-bilking production that goes on by these 'servents of The Lord'. Now why submit to this kind of Lord to begin with? ... H-e-l-l, NO!

I agree with Groucho. ... with an expansion. I think tax exemptions of this kind should be reworded to apply _only_ to organizations (be it churches, charities, educational facilities, etc.) that provide something of substantial, material benefit to the people it serves. Ie., simply because a church provides 'spiritual' benefit just doesn't cut it. 'Spiritual' benefits can be defined every which way but loose. Kinda like anything else labeled 'spiritual'. Hell, TWI was really good at manipulating this vague characteristic like nobody's business.

Well then, if Joyce Meyer and how other people view her is neither the here nor there with you, why do you care if she is 'judged' by others or not. How does it affect your life, and your 'ministry'? She and her actions will be judged by the public at large; that's what to expect when she is a public figure. Ie., it's going to happen, and she needs to realize that, learn how to take the initiative to show how honest she 'supposedly' is to honestly answer her critics, ... and grow up. Just simply making the claim that she's doing what she's doing in The Lord's Service isn't and shouldn't be good enough.

Perhaps she's hoping that the Lord will 'spit in her direction'. :P Seems like Loy Boy taught her well. <_< Ditto for me too!

Sky4it, Well basically, I know who this is, and overall she really didn't offend me perse. I was rather bemused at her attempts to presume where my motivations/reasons were/are at various points in her posts. I also find it laughable how she portray's herself as s-o-o in tune with The Lord (whereas others are somewhat lacking in that area), but HER'S is the one to whom Jesus the King is linked to and He is the one from whom she gets her info from. ..... Interesting. This kind of "We are the ones who focus on Jesus Christ/God/the Truth/etc., yadayada ..." claim is often common among a lot of similar religious groups (including CES, and even TWI), yet when you put all those groups together, they all spew something different. And you ask each one of them who has the REAL link and relationship with Jesus Christ, and every one of them down to the last will say "We do! We do!" <_< ..... And the wild thing is, there is no way to verify that claim, other than just taking their word for it. Janice, We 'met' (via correspondance over mail) back in early 1996. This I remember. I saw your name in a Christian Correspondance mailing list put out by someone who was also into Dale Sides. We wrote back and forth briefly, and our main point of disagreement was re: some of Dale Sides teachings. Back then (when I agreed with a good portion of CES's teachings at the time) I spoke about how (supposedly) Sides teachings were 'out to lunch'. You disagreed with me, and that was that. (Like I said, I've changed a lot since then, to where I think that BOTH CES and Dale Sides are 'out to lunch', and for a wider range of reasons.) One thing to help you remember is that you just went through surgery for carpel tunnel, and that your hand hurt like crazy. Hope this helps clear things up a bit.

Yup! That's her all right. Janice! :) Long time girl! How are things shakin'? ... As you can see, I've gone a sizeable change in my views since last we corresponded, ohhh, about 11 years ago. Hope that doesn't bring too much disappointment. ... Ahh well.

BrideofJC, "Having the audacity to leave the Glorious Throne Room". :o Wow! ... The audacity of it all. ... To leave. ... (((gasps))) Such a crime! Yer a riot lady. I think I know who you are (but I won't give a guess here; gonna respect your privacy and all that), but when I wrote to you about CES, I seriously doubt that it was about you "dared to think differently than what CES was teaching", but (at the time) I thought you were wrong in what you said. Nowadays, I don't care what you believe, as I pretty much dropped all things 'religious', CES or no CES. (Oh by the way, if you are who I think you are, ... how's Dale Sides Ministry going, hmmm? ;) ) Oh yeah, right! Like the ONLY reason one can walk away and no longer believe is that they have some 'root of bitterness'. ... Uhhm, ok. Whatever. ....... Me, I rather see it as daring to see and scrutinize and think for myself in making up my mind about such things, ... instead of mindlessly taking some 'Lord and King's' word for it without question, and that based on blind faith and blind obedience. But if that is what floats your boat, knock yourself out. ... Just keep it outta my face, ok?

Heh! Try driving THAT thru Atlanta's I-285, and it won't last 5 seconds.

That is exactly what televangelists want you to do. Just listen (and do) what they say. Don't look at their profiteering from their bringing 'lost souls' (and their $$$ of course) to their tent. Don't look at how they can (mis)use their religious tax exemption to profit further thereby. Don't look at whether or not their private lives match up with their teachings that they expect the rest of us to do. Ie., Pay no attention to the man (or woman) behind the curtain. . . I think not WG. Who needs that kind of 'salvation'. ..... Might as well 'take the class'!

Nahh. I figured you learned on your own, grasshopper. Besides, BrideofJC wants to be my toy now. ... ...... Hhmmmm, maybe I need to rephrase that.

BrideofJC, :wub: I wuv you too.Non-bulls**t translation of 'More negative' = more challenging of concepts that you have pledged absolute allegience too. ... Right? ;) Not only to us 'secular jerks' <_< , but also to all those to whom the church/organization wants to actually convince that said church/organization is so on the up-and-up and honest and all, thereby showing the world that their god is morally superior to all others, ... and that's where all these supposed morally superior churches/organizations fail! Re: Avoid paying taxes <-> Evade paying taxes. Now THAT legal 'hair splitting' is so RICH. ..... And some people wonder why the legal profession is held in such ill regard!

One of the things I find ironic about this is here is Dog, the Bounty Hunter, so Christian in how he advertises himself (prays before every hunt, thanks God for making him a Christian, yadayada), cusses like a sailor (even tho' that is supposedly frowned on by many staunch Christians). :unsure: And in his phone conversation, Dog never states why he thinks his son's girlfriend is so lacking in character. Just says that if she hears them using the 'N' word, she could be in a situation to blow it for him and his "losing everything I've worked for". ... Well, why use the term to begin with? "I'm not going to take a chance ever in life losing everything I've worked for, for 30 years cause some f****n' n****r heard us say n****r...". ........ Ooops! Chance already taken!

Tell ya what. Why don't you tell that to the IRS, ok? Reread that article that Outfield posted, and you'll see why folks like George and I post what we do.

Yet Another Song-and-Dance, Hide behind the Name of God as an Excuse, Anti-Wall of Separation Between Church and State, ... Bloodsucker. And so sad that so many people just shut their brains off and give her whatever she wants. And that is what makes her ministry so rich.

Suda, Just as the following statement I made was stated honestly: With that statement, in response to Sunesis' question of how we could simply walk away from God so easily, I am simply stating that once I stopped believing in Santa Claus, I never had to 'say goodbye' as it were, because I've come to the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist. Well, when you stop and realize that believing both concepts are based on faith, why would one concept naturally be more expected to be believed in than the other, other than social expectation and peer pressure to believe so? There is proof for neither Jesus Christ rising from the dead, nor the existance of Santa Claus. The only validated historical evidence for Jesus Christ is that he existed at one time; many biblical scholars concede this factual point. (And I wonder how many Christians would agree with the validity of your comparison between Santa and Jesus, hmmm?) Now, following that line of reasoning posed by such a comparison, why shouldn't Allah be thrown into the mix? ... Or Vishnu? ... Or Thor? ... Or the Native American spirits? ........ And with the same intensity and loyalty that is shown by people who doggedly latch on the the Christian deity. How many Christians would readily state that there is no valid rational reason to believe in such deities? How many Christians would regard those believers as false? ... Deceived? ........ Deluded? <_<

Sunesis, Here's a possibility for you to consider: Maybe it was a case of us believing at first (which many of us really did, believe it or not), ... then coming to the realization that 1) such belief was based on nothing but faith in what we were taught, 2) such beliefs had sizeable holes, flaws, and contradictions in its logic, 3) such beliefs were in an entity who did or endorsed behaviors that, if human beings did those behaviors, would be facing the death penalty with the ACLU there to pull the switch, or 4) any other like explanation. But I seriously doubt that it was simply due to "Well Jesus, I'm no longer going to believe in someone that actualy still exists!" or "I'm going to be my own Perfect God from now on!" or some other conversation with someone or something that we no longer believe in. Hey, I never said Goodbye to Santa Claus when I stopped believing in him.

Lessee, our questions are 'substandard and immoral' because we don't know the answers. .... Yah! Right! And if we get them, we wouldn't see them. .... Ohh Ho-kay. Really nice job of your side clearing up the confusion and discrepancy. Just because we want proof of this invisible entity you call God, just because we call out the discrepencies that we see in your religious faith, just because we shoot down this obvious lie that atheists just cannot come up with/practice morals as good as you theists say you do, ... somehow we are the ones who don't really want the answers, we're just throwing out some B.S. for special occasions?? ........ Uhmmm, right, ... VeePee! <_< Well guy, I can't speak for George, but I know the reasons and motivations for why I'm posting the questions/challenges that I do, ..... even if you don't. So go ahead and keep playing the "I can spiritually see where you two are coming from" game (now THERE was a pratice that TWI took part in plenty!), whilst George and I are cast out unto the Darkness of Evil. ((snif)) Happy Halloween to you to, guy.

Suda, Given that a lot of orthodox Christian ministers view atheist morals so poorly, I have no problem believing George's interpretation of "man-made, changable, and personal" = "substandard, transient, meaningless", and JohnJ isn't taking the initiative to show how his thinking is really any different.

Playing off of your Herod example of the deaths of 30,000 people, ... Tell me something JohnJ, when (according to the biblical account) God told Samuel to have King Saul preemptively invade the Amalakites, (supposedly due to an attack by the Amalakites upon the Isrealites at least 300 years previously), kill all the thousands of people that he saw, including all "infants and sucklings" (think My Lai on steroids), ... what strict moral standard was that based on, hmmm? And please don't tell me that it was because the Amalakites were planning an attack upon Isreal, as there was no notation in the scriptures indicating that; none whatsoever. Also, if you read the account earlier in the Bible, it gives the account of the Amalakites attacking the Isrealites while they were in transit to the Promised Land. What is missing in Samuel's reaccount of it, was that Isreal fought back and whupped the Amalakites big time. Ie., the price has already been paid. Retaliation already inflicted. ... So WTF was Samuel doing having Saul inflicting revenge upon a people who has already paid the price, and that around 300 years previously? It would be like the present day U.S. Army attacking descendants of an eastern seaboard tribes of Indians for a raid they committed back in 1707 upon some colonists. So how does that biblical account of God initiating said attack upon the Amalakites jibe with your supposed 'strict sense of morals', hmmm? And that is but one of the many examples of this kind. Like your other points re: atheists, you presume far too much about atheist's general sense of morality, particularly in portraying them as loose and cavaliar. Some atheists do behave that way, many don't. Your Newsweek 'source' are those who don't place too much emphasis upon integrity and accuracy. ... Can you say "Fluff magazines?" Two steps above National Enquirer? And your N.Y. Times source can (and in many cases does) illustrate a viewpoint held by a good number of conservatives, religious conservatives, that is. (Tell us JohnJ, politically and socially, what is your view re: those on public welfare, hmmm? Is it similar to many of your fellow religious conservatives who whine and b*tch about the godless welfare system? ... I smell a contradiction here.) Sidebar: "To me, the real test of charity is when it is offered to people who "don't deserve" it, not just to those who do." If you're referring to public charity for the poor, it should ONLY be for those who need it, because those who DON'T need it leech off of those who "worked 6 months to get" their earnings. Ie., those who don't need it are in a better position to earn it themselves. I say to you again, check out those links I (and others here) posted about atheists who give their own account about their views re: atheism and what it is and is not. ... Who knows. Maybe you'll might find something there that will challenge/disrupt your orthodox worldview? ... Or maybe that's what you find so 'immoral' about atheism. <_<

Someone has been watching a *wee* bit too much Jeopardy! lately. ;) "For $1000 and the game, can you tell us if it was Coke or Pepsi that Jim had with that lunch?"

Suda, Kudos to you, girl!! I just saved your latest post to my archive of memorable statements. You have gained a HUGE increase of intelligent understanding of atheism/atheists as depicted in real life. Thank you! :B)

Both! Ie., from TWI because of your kind of TWI mentality, and from the faith due to the expectation to believe in religious material w/o proof, ... or w/o question. <_<