GarthP2000

Sky4it, "Not tolerant", meaning has no tolerance towards, treats ill of, refuses to even consider, others who have a different point of view or belief system. And it can reach the point of doing the aforementioned harm/putting to death of those people. The non-tolerant individual can still be taught, but once the teaching/information he receives crosses or challenges what he believes in, the acceptance/consideration of the information then shuts down with no further consideration after that, and his behavior towards the information giver changes accordingly. Now there are things that people should not be tolerant of; immoral and unethical behavior towards others, unprovoked abuse towards others (the aforementioned persecution of heretics/blasphemers being but one prime example), and the like. But differing religious beliefs (so long as they do not clearly abuse others of their rights and dignities) do not fall within the category of things that people should not be tolerant of. ... Calvin clearly didn't accept that.

I just thought of something that I'd like to add here, and this is in reference to those who depend on the weak (and morally bankrupt) defense of 'historical context' as an excuse for the execution of heretics back during those days. It's as though the argument is given that the ones doing the executing didn't really know any better, or couldn't figure out what was wrong in their actions to counter heretical beliefs and the propagation of said beliefs. Or as though they had no moral choice but to keep quiet while such executions took place. (Unlikely tho') If you take a overall look through the history generally during, and following Servetus' execution, you'll find more and more people, of all religious stripes, rethinking and challenging this practice. Notice I said 're-thinking', as I seriously doubt that the the concept of the immorality of killing heretics is something that was considered a totally new idea and one that was never thought about before. Sorry; no sale. And as a result of this 'movement' as it were, springing up during the Renaissance period, history gives way to the period of the Enlightenment, science, representative forms of government, ... and the eventual abolishment of heresy being considered a capital crime, ... or any form of crime. So since there were people realizing this during those days (if not in the ages before), and since Calvin himself was often referred to, and usually by his defenders, as brilliant and scholarly, ..... ..... you mean to tell me that he couldn't figure this out for himself as well? :unsure:

Evan, From the historical POV you have a point (TO a point) as many other churches/religions took part in like activities, both Catholic and Protestant. However, from a moral/ethical standpoint as regards the incident, particularly from the standpoint of absolute morality (well at least as far as the kind of moral standard that staunchly religious people claim should be applied, with the same kind of 'excess ventilation' (aka: huffing and puffing) that you attribute to me), your argument falls flat. Or how does your argument fare from a biblical and doctrinal standpoint, hmmm? Ie., such abusive and murderous persecution of heretics/blasphemers/and other supposed 'polemic low life' (at least, as far as your garden variety Calvinist would claim that unbelievers are) is morally and ethically, to put it bluntly, ... wrong. ... Period. ... End of story. ... Regardless of any biblical verses one would want to pull out to justify said activities. You want to talk about huffing and puffing? Ok. Here's something stated by Calvin said, in his own words regarding the Servetus incident: (In his "Defense of the Orthodox Trinity Against the Errors of Michael Servetus") Let me ask you something. How would you spiritually/biblically render such statements, and the mentality behind them, hmmm? (What if it were VPW and Der Veg endorsing similar views as regards his religious opponents?) Biblical? In accordance with what Jesus taught? One thing you'll want to keep in mind is that this is in regards to one of the pillars of the Reformation we're talking about here, and yes it does tie in in relation to his doctrine (ie., Calvinism) as he seriously believed that the doctrine behind this behavior was according to the Word of God. And he supposedly wanted to get Christianity back to (what he saw) the Scripture themselves, much like the claims of Martin Luther and many other Protestant leaders, contrary to what they saw as a deviation of the Catholic Church away from them. ... Well OK, my question here is: Is this kind of behavior that is according to the biblical standards that Calvin was supposedly so strongly for? Was this the biblical way to treat those who taught 'heresy'? Calvin seemed to think so, and he taught accordingly. This isn't some miniscule variance of biblical interpretation we're talking about here. And this is also regarding a highly regarded man and his doctrine, and as far as I'm concerned, this practice bled (profusely I might add) into his dogma. Hell, his (and some of his most ardent apologists, including someone I'm familiar with) attitudes towards the aforementioned heretics often show a good deal of hostility and condescending attitude. A side note: Isn't one of the arguments of the anti-cult people use in determining a 'cult' is that they are not tolerant of differing points-of-view, especially when their Leader is openly questioned by dissidents? <_<

Sky4it, Uh ohh! Now ya done it; you got Cynic MAD (Clue #1: He called you a 'little fellow' :ph34r: ;) ). Be prepared to endure a maelstrom of large and very complex words and phrases, coupled with his World Famous ™ Condescending & Malevolent Attitude, as he defends John Calvin's and his doctrine's 'honour'. If you really want to find out more about what made John Calvin tick, here's a google search on 'Micheal Servetus', and you'll learn more about what/where Calvin's dogma was coming from, particularly in respect to how to deal with heretics, blasphemers, and other people who had the mitigated gaul to openly differ from his 'orthodoxy'. ... And believe you me, Servetus wasn't the only one who was affected by this kind of malevolence. Not by a long shot. (Abi, this might serve to help illustrate why some of us anti-Calvinists hold the views we do about this topic, not only about the man's doctrine, but about the man himself. ... Ie., Calvin _definitely_ had a control problem. To put it mildly. )

Actually Krysilis, Waysider is a good deal right in what he says. Genetically speaking, we humans are all the same; the only differences (in context with what you're referring to) being in skin color, hair color, eye color, and other _surface_ characteristics. The concept of race didn't come along until the late 1700s-early 1800s, and that as a kind of 'science'. (Ie., bogus) Scientifically and biologically speaking though, this differences between races has been given far too much emphasis than is really there (Which resulted in all kind of totally ridiculous things being practiced over the years). The only real differences are what people make in their cultural differences, and it doesn't go any farther than that. Scientifically speaking, the only race that we humans are part of is the human race.

..... And? ... So since when were they the authorities that we should listen to? And for those who complain that they aren't, ... well, why are you listening to them in the first place? Of course these Hollywood spoiled brats think that they are above the rest of us. Of course they think that, in spite of their spoiled, ....y behavior, we should hang on their every word and movement. ... So what? I agree with ChasUFarley on this one. And I think that when more and more people have a "This is me not caring" attitude towards what the Hollybrats do as our supposed role models, the less and less the importance of their image (and as a result $$$$) will be. But then again, I don't hold out much hope for that. <_<

Outside of thousands of people who wouldn't have been hurt/ripped off by aforementioned cornfield kraut, ... not much of a difference overall.

Almost? ... ALMOST??? Damn, I must be losing my touch!

Great! I was just biting into my Big Mac when I came across this. ... Thanks a LOT!! . . . J U S T kidding!! ((ducking))

Rocky, From what I've read, all LDO USN and Galen were discussing (arguing?) about was specific ranks/offices, which had precedence over the other, and things solely relating to those topics. I didn't see arrogance on either side. Speak for yourself. I, for one, found the info quite interesting and educational. Cheers!

Ssshhhhh!! Don't say anything that might encourage him to come back. It's been peacefully quiet here since he left.

Wrdsandwrks, Oh like hell you weren't. You evidently believe that atheists don't have anything to live for, have morals, ethics, yadayada. Yet you can bet your bottom dollar that if any atheist have said something similar about Christians, you would have been offended. <_<

He had too much coffee before the service? One thing about UUs is that they *revere* coffee during the social hour that is held before/after the service. Why, its pert near a ritual!

Wrdsandwrks, Thanks for the beautiful poem, an excellent rebuttal to the Calvinist model! :) We owe a lot MORE to those who were influenced by the Enlightenment Period, a good number of them being Deists, some Unitarians, and Christians who definitely weren't of the Calvinist mindset, philosophically and religiously. A more thorough reading of American history outside of the David Barton crowd displays this.

... without the tear gas and exploding compound. :ph34r:

I wonder what you'd do if Walmart was the *only* store in town.

(((smiles))) ... the verbal rocks are sure a-gonna fly, particularly from one long term poster I could name, ... but won't. He'll be along shortly. This place is definitely NOT boring.

Watch out low hanging branches. :wacko:

I'm coming out! ... Don't shoot!! Don't shoo---oh wait, sorry. Wrong thread. (Just got through watching Kill Point. Great show! Gripping season finale next Sunday! )

Now this is quite bemusing, yes it is. I've seen posts where people either found a new church, got converted or 'saved', announced that they are no longer with TWI, and everybody seems to go "Way to go! Halelluiah!" and the like. Seth comes out as an atheist (ie., starting down his own road of this related topic) and some people here go ape..... ... Crap? Now why is that? ... Ohh because you're a dedicated Christian, and atheists are antithetical to what Christianity is supposedly? ... (And what in the dickens does that have to do with horse riding lessons, I wonder? :huh: ) What if one of us e-v-i-l atheists responded like you did (except in replacing the word 'atheist' with 'Christian') when someone came on this board saying "I got born again last night! Praise the Lord!!", hmmm? ... We'd be smoked out of the room in a heartbeat. Hey, guess what? I'm an atheist too! ... There! Something more to make your Sunday morning. ... Enjoy! <_<

Hi everybody. Yes Virginia, I'm coming out as a polemic, cranky, pain-in-the-keister, blasphemous, heretical, damn Yankee riding that train to hell whose worst trait is that he likes pineapple pizza! MWUHAhahahahahahahahahahaha.......

You wish to leave the 'Spot? :(

Sour Cream?!? Now that's blasphemy!! ... and persecutable under the Law!

Ron, If it was just as you describe here, you'd have a very valid point re: the atheist/religious conflict. Unfortunately, reality poses a different picture. I've read about/listened to/talked to those of the unbelieving persuasion who have lost jobs, had their property damaged/destroyed, been physically confronted/threatened, had no chance of being elected to office (even on a local level), and the like.Okay true, it isn't like atheists are being rounded up to be burnt at the stake en masse by The State Church, and there are atheists who make a lot more of the crap they get (mountain out of a molehill style) than is necessary. But it is still true that atheists/unbelievers are socially seen by a lot of people as lesser forms of humanity than even fundy Muslims. Various polls that I've read about substantiate this. I imagine that folks with your political/social/economic beliefs are shortchanged/get treated like 2nd class citizens, particularly among the more 'liberal/statist/socialist' crowd, right? And haven't you posted that bit of info a time or two here on the board? (And I'm making a distinction between people who disagree with your views vis-a-vis those who view you as inferior because of your views.) And as far as some of the things you'd be 'persecuted' for ;), I guess you can put me down for some of the same things, ie., despiser of Wal Mart carnivore 60's rock and roll fan :B) Knowing what's best for you and your life ain't the exclusive domain of liberals/statists/socialists, pal. Conservatives (be they neo or traditional), and even a good number of Libertarians have dipped into that pool as well, even amongst those who clamor about liberty and all. And there are plenty of those who have liberal views about a number of issues who don't even come near trying to 'know what's best' for you and yours. And as far as 'picking your pocket to pay their bills' politically speaking, well its known as paying your taxes, and every government in the world does that, Libertarian-based ones included. They may be too high, or not high enough, depending on your point of view, but at least in this country, we still have taxation _with_ representation.

I would! ... have the heart, that is. ;)