GarthP2000

Wolf, You are right. I stand corrected. It's just that I've never heard that specific term before.

Sky4it, Dude, this makes the (I think) 3rd time that you responded to me on a question/remark I did NOT make. A suggestion: Keep track of not only what you respond to, but _who_. Ok? I must have either forgot to respond to that other post, or I didn't feel it neccessary to. In any event, you might find Dawkins material difficult to understand, but, on the contrary, I find it quite plain and clear what he means. Perhaps its because you view him to 'insult your God' that clouds the issue for you. ... Face it my friend, apparently atheist's writings and material are a sore spot for you. Another suggestion if I may: Learn to deal with it, 'cause we aren't going to go away. So knock yourself out in 'pulling out your Dawkins and Darwin stuff'. P.S., I don't think that there are 'Evolutionary Creationists'. You must have your terms mixed up. And what does "See I get out" mean?

What the Hey, For the last time, please stop confusing sites like Stormfront and White Power with genuine biblical research resources, ok? I mean, you ought to get some sort of clue that you're dealing with some mentally unstable people when they actually think that Hitler was 'just misunderstood'. For crying out loud dude. Do you actually think that the Jewish people are behind the pernicious plots to run Hollywood, the world banks, and turn the world to Marxism as these supposed sources of yours seem to indicate? ... Doesn't that sound to you like these sources are seriously overdue for their meds? :ph34r:

Sky4it, **Ding Ding Ding** Give that man a kewpie doll! Correct answer! :) One thing that Geneva was NOT under Calvin. And that was permissive. Not by a _long_ shot! :ph34r: Haven't met too many Wiccans now, have you?

Acckkkk!!! What a dire situation for us Flash developers to have our own design app turn against us! :ph34r: Good entertaining animation!

Didn't George Carlin once write something like this, ... except he had a different word instead of 'dang'? ;)

Well put, Larry!!

Sky4it, He proves nothing in that regard. He only proves that he believes in God, and that he mistakes that belief as proof by default. Try again. Untrue: The reference point that atheists refer to is verifiable proof. The "Ie., themselves as the one reference point" accusation is just that: ONLY an accusation, and one born out of an angry rebuke to an open challenge of their belief. Nothing more. Ironically enough, so did Calvin, particularly in reference to his wanting heretics killed. ... you might want to rethink your premise because of this. ;) And how does my 'Calvin quote' suit your purpose?

Sky4it, Well, at least Dawkins doesn't go around wanting to kill heretics and burn people at the stake like Calvin did. Oh by the way, this killing of heretics/unbelievers idea that Calvin had so much of a fetish on, ... didn't the God of the OT also have that characteristic? In spades? ... Maybe that was one of the reasons why Dawkins called the OT God 'an unbelieveable assortment of names'? ... hell, I would too. <_<

Sky4it, What so you mean when you say that someone 'insults your God'? Could you specify please?

Why would someone have need for someone or something they don't believe exists? :unsure:

Sky4it, First off, 'political correctness' has nothing to do with this. 'Buckwheat' has often been used as a derogoratory racial term here in the U.S. (altho' not as much nowadays, which is why I said 'obsolete'). I didn't think you were racist; just pointing out the term and its implications. Maybe the topic matter helps contribute to that perhaps? ;)

((Ahem)), ... what's with the 'buckwheat' comment anyway? ... Please let's not bring obsolete and racial terms into this thread that apparently has already spiraled out of control. <_<

Why, some of his best friends were Jews! ;)

... the squirrel was posseesssssssseedddd! ;)

Uh ohh! :unsure: And how (politely that is) will that war be fought? ... A slap across the face with one's dainty silken hanky? ... A threat to 'get really, really _upset_'? This reminds me of a skit that Bill Hicks once did. Check it out. (Warning! Cuss words are freely used, as Bill Hicks' humor isn't exactly confused with Bill Cosby's. :blink:

Where's my hypocrisy? Whatever ad hominum attacks on John Calvin is deserved. Hell, for all what he's done, _he_ should get the capital punishment. Rather, he died safely in his bed. <_< Plus, my 'attacks' on you was return fire. What's your excuse. ... Plus, I never made any ad hominum attacks against heretics. ;)

... then you should have no trouble giving a successful rebuttal to the valid (and documented) points I or Sky4it raised that challenge Calvin; the man or his theology.Note I said successful. Ie., infantile ad hominum derisions (as well as tantrum throwing) about heretics or remarks that involve skinning dogs is not going to cut it. Update again (ie., I didn't think so): Hot DAMN, I struck a *nerve*! Exposed me? ((scoff)) Yeah guy! In yer dreams! ... My treatment of your 'dog' comment isn't what's bothering you, and you know it. What's pi**ing on your world is my info re: Calvin and his malevolent theology and inhuman treatment of heretics. Hell, you yourself carry his attitude regarding them. And just about all the Calvinist apologist sites I come across carry that same attitude; a few of them even saying that it's (more or less) a moral thing for heretics to undergo capital punishment. Face it pal, more and more of us, Christian and heretic/atheist, are becoming more open about speaking our criticisms on what Calvin has said and done, which is strongly intertwined with his theology (IMNSHO). And here are apologists like you defending the man to a near blind level that TWIfers have defended VPW (reminds anyone of Smikeol? <_< Altho' he had more class.), and act like its a felony for the man and his theology to be scrutinized/challenged (Calvin himself openly forbad anyone in Geneva to criticize him or what he taught. And that's also documented in that LookSmart link I posted.) Even with my so-called 'blood libel' (HA! That is so hilarious! You sound like a Star Trek convention reject.) and 'polemics', a lot of what I have posted (if not just about all) about Calvin is documented, and all readily available on the net. Here's a morsel for you to chew on: Since Calvin was directly involved and responsible for Servetus' death (ie., his murder), and since the Bible clearly states that murderers have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God, .......... do the math. Have a nice day, ... and stay away from skinned dogs.

Cynic, Yes, it is noteworthy, isn't it? Very observant, young grasshopper. When you have a deity blatantly illustrated such as Calvin portrays? ... Uhh yeah, I would have contempt for such a critter. Kinda like my equal contempt for the deity portrayed by the 9-11 terrorists. Well then, you are correct. ... I would find it worse. Actually, it portrays a good deal about the applied side of the particular theology of people like Calvin (as Sky4it aptly illustrated earlier), particularly in relation to how cruel he behaved towards others of a different religious view. Ie., it shows about the same type of cruelty as skinning the aforementioned dog. Therefore I wouldn't find it that much of a stretch to believe that Calvin would do such a despicable action towards our 4 legged friend. (I mean, the Bible in the OT does use the term 'dog' often in derogaratory terms.) I kinda have to wonder if he didn't insist on the city of Geneva setting up and enforcing a 'No pets' regulation, complete with dire consequences for the violators thereof. ... Perhaps a further search of the internet would be more informative. ;) Ahhh, the wonders of the 'Net. :B)

Sky4it, Uhh, I didn't say all that. Cynic did. Here are a few instances: Ritchies.net article LookSmart Find Articles article about John Calvin I found these real humdingers re: Calvin and his theology in the LookSmart Find Articles link I came across, and it showed how intertwined Calvin's theology was to his life, and his influence in Geneva: :unsure: :blink: There are others as well, but those two quoted sections show a jaw dropping view as to a big part of what Calvin was all about. (ie., IMHO, sick!) Also see the various parts of that article that talk about Calvin's strong influence in 'city hall' in setting up laws and 'discipline' in accordance to his theology. Ie., "Thus the whole life of Geneva was placed under a rigid discipline and a single Church from which no deviation was permitted." (also in the article) Hope this helps answers your question. Update: Cynic's latest post also helps illustrate the kind of man Calvin was, and the theology that Cynic undyingly believes in, ... and the emptiness thereof. ... I mean, if that's the best he can come back with to successfully dispute the challenges to Calvinism posted earlier, ..... ((snickers)). Yah! Right! P.S., Cynic, you're losing it, man. I treat dogs a helluva lot better than that. Apparently you're projecting yourself onto me, ... which makes me wonder how staunch Reformed Church members treat their pets. :unsure:

... the best part was the Calvinus beer that they had by the kegful. Animal House, move over!

'Phallacy'? ... As in related to 'phallic'? ... A little Freudian slip there, perhaps? ;) But in all seriousness, he ain't much of a gentleman and loyal to his wife if 1) he wants to have another woman as a 'friend', particularly if/when he promises to shower her with all those expensive gifts, which leads to 2) it sounds like there is more to this guy than meets the eye, in the 'if it looks too good to be true, it usually is' dept. ... Ie., he is most likely bad news. Good move in cooling his jets. :)

It should be examined, and I'm glad of that, ... so long as one does so with an independent & scrutinizing mind, one willing to question. Even if it goes as far as challenging what one believes. ... and that is difficult for a lot of people.

Horsehead, I too, welcome you to the Cafe. One thing you no doubt noticed 'round here is that discussions/posts do get heated, and basically (to a point) it is a healthy thing. (Notice I said, to a point) One reason I say this is that a lot of us here used to take part in an organization called The Way Ministry. I don't know if you've ever heard of it, or were ever a part of it, but one of its characteristics was its near rabid insistance of its members to be 'like minded'. Ie., everybody to believe and say the same thing. ... Ie., kinda like a 'borg mentality'. Well we all here have thrown that mindset off, and for good. And one of the results of that is that there are going to be disagreements posted here, and perhaps a lot of us take it to a fault. I know I have from time to time. ;) S-o-o, you're might see a good number of the aforementioned heated posts, and while they might look to blow up into a knock-down, drag-em-out fight, ... over time, it blows over, people (more or less) make up, ..... and then head to the next fight. But seriously, we're a good group of folks here, from all stripes in life. ... So, if you can endure the *FOOD FIGHTS* in some of the sections, I think you'll enjoy Greasespot overall.

Sky4it, Sushi said that, not me. Methinks that you and I are more alike in what you are communicating here than you realize. :huh: