GarthP2000

First off, the judge should have kept his 'comprehensive comparative analysis' of different Christian denominations and rendering of evangelicals out of his ruling. That said, I believe that he is correct as to the unconstitutionality of this particular government support of faith-based programs in tax supported prisons. Ie., religious beliefs and doctrine has no place in government sponsored operations such as this.

And what if we _were_ being critical or judgmental?Critical: Critical thinking consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts. Judgmental: Apt to pass judgment, especially to make moral judgments. Maybe the question shouldn't be whether we are being critical or judgmental, even if it winds up being negative, but as to whether that criticism or judgment winds up being true. <_< Want to place a bet on that?

Y'know, the tactics given by Matthew and a few others here in defense of CES remind me of some of the in-duh-viduals who backed the Titanic, who shortly after it struck the iceberg still thought it wasn't going to sink. To which the engineer emphatically replied, "Yes sirs! The ship will sink!" :unsure: Now most likely they, like that ship's captain, will "go to the bridge, stand behind the wheel, and go down with the ship", even as the water pours into the bridge room. :o Amazing! Abso-freekin-mazing!

George (Long Gone), You are indeed one of the most intelligent posters on the board, guy. I'm sorry to hear of these latest developments, and I hope and trust that things go well for you and your family; they sound like good people. Thank you for all of what you have contributed here; I have learned quite a bit from you. Peace.

Ohhh my Gawd! .... He's baaaAAAACCCKKKKKKK!!!!!

Captain Crunch, Did Elizabeth give you permission to post her material? Just curious.

Well, either 1) Elizabeth have given her consent by allowing her letter to be posted on GS already, or 2) she doesn't know about the letter going public. In any event, a lot more information about CES-turning-into-a-mental-institution is already in the public domain, so since that is the case, I say we help spread it. Besides, how many CES participants, sponsors, friends, et al, know what's going on at their 'root locale', hmmm? I'd be willing to bet that this is very similar to the TWI twiggies NOT knowing what was going on at TWI HQ back during the 'fog years'. And I imagine that there were/are a lot of them who were grateful at finding out, thus enabling and emboldening them to leave.

I got a suggestion, if it hasn't been started already. Anybody here remember how John Lynn, when he was kicked out of TWI, went around to the different twigs and wrote to the different leaders and active grads letting them all know what was going on inside International Headquarters? And this was after he couldn't get a straight answer out of the leadership? One of the ways was that 1988 letter of his that he mailed around to as many grads as he could. (I got a copy of that very same letter) Well, I suggest that folks here do the same thing, and send these posts, those PDFs about Elizabeth, and any other pertinent material to as many CES participants, sponsors, friends, et al, as possible. Why not? John Lynn did that to TWI, and many here who benefited from actions like that haven't seen anything wrong with when he did it, right? So I say do the same thing to them. Who knows how many folks might break free from what CES/STFI is turning into at the top, which is sure to spread downward to the associated fellowships. Whatever resemblance this organization has to any real helpful ministry is breaking apart fast, and as you all can already see, people are being hurt because of it. ... Just ask Elizabeth.

Evan, You stated that the Articles of Confederation were "self-consciously Christian". Could you explain/show us why you think that is so? I think one time that I looked at the Articles, and I don't remember seeing anything in there that indicated such.

Getting a tad frustrated there, Bill?

I was (sorta) involved with CES from early 1995 - ~ early 2000, and in that time I never heard about this 'Prophetic Council'. At the time they were big into Personal Prophecy, and have started to fade out Momentus. My fade out point with them culminated with them shutting down their message board that I was rather active on (and about the time Raf's infamous THE threads started ) Looking back, I'm glad I dropped those bozos for good. <_<

Then again Bramble, your probably making the part of the Christian Dominionist part up too now, aren't you? Strange Mark, since I never heard anything about any theocracy from the Christian Left. Perhaps you could fill us in.

OUCH!! :B)

Do tell? ... Ummm, could you show us where you got this information please? I mean, that which can be documented, that is. :unsure: ... Well, I daresay that you ain't gonna find it, cause it ain't there. There is no place in recorded history that shows that the people that started this country and set up the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights did so for the express purpose of using those freedoms as tools of conversion to Christianity. THAT line is a load of bull, particularly when you read up on what the founding fathers (even the Christian ones) believed in regards to religion, and its place in relation to government.

Whoa hey! Sounds like my kinda people!

And I wuv you too, Mark. Have a beer on me.

(((rubbing my hands together in wicked glee))) First off, I am impressed by Mark Os post. Very instructive and revealing. Well done. :) And Yet Another Example of how different and distinct the biblical concepts and the concepts that founded this country are from one another. Another thing that I find amusing (and bemusing) is the desperate attempts by many people in trying to 'prove' that America was founded on 'Christian principles', because a good number of the founding fathers either were Christian, or have mentioned God in their writings. Such is an irrelevant point, for as Evan pointed out, their purpose was to set up a secular-based government, particularly after the 'self-consciously Christian' Articles of the Confederation failed. Actually, it is impossible to understand the premise upon which those points of the Constitution is based, without understanding the Enlightenment period, and the concepts that came to light during that period; the Constitution being but an embodiment of one of those concepts. And it was a conceptual period that brought into more and more governments the concept of separation of church and state. And as a result, one that the church (both Catholic and Protestant) often were opposed to.

To all, As regards the 'Christ-on-a-crutch' comment, okay, you're right. I apologize. I should have stated 'Give me a break!' or something else like that. Basically I was so flabbergasted by the garbage that is going on in CES, that that was what came out. The rest of it tho, I make no apologies for. And even if they are 'trying to serve the Lord', that is no excuse for their controlling and abusive behavior. Hell, it has been my experience that those who claimed that they 'speak for God' are more likely to abuse and control people than not. And I do find it rather amusing that David finds 'Christ-on-a-crutch' offensive, ... but not STFU. ;)

((shakes my head)) Christ-on-a-crutch! What a hell hole! To be under that kind of tightly controlling situation would be unbearable to any sane person! This is a perfect example of how people would put up with crap that they wouldn't even think about putting up with in any normal situation, ... and all because somebody plays the 'Spiritual Authority' card on them. Who claims that they speak for God, or who can quote Bible verses as validation for what they do. Man, and to think that about 10-11 years ago, I gave some serious thought of getting involved with these fools. Billy D says "Personally, I praise God for ANYONE who works as Christ's ambassador, regardless of how they choose to do it." Really? So that they work as Christ's ambassadors justifies and sanctifies the abusive crap that they have been putting Elizabeth through? Hey, as long as they are doing it for God, right? ... Chief, it is rationale like that that was but one thing that helped me get rid of religion *totally*. Thank you for reminding me of that. Looks like CES is going to go through its own version of 'the Big Split' soon enough. <_<

MarkO, And they say that Latin is a dead language.

You know it!

Unfortunately GreasyTech, there are plenty of folks out there who take what is portrayed in such a message in that link all too seriously, totally missing out on said satire. :unsure: And I must admit, it was a satire that was done very well, as he did sound like he was serious the first time through.

Definitely UNbelievable! I find it a riot how the guy in the link 'proves' his points by quoting from the Bible, as tho' the simple quoting thereof proves his case. Ie., Its true because the Bible says so, and because God wrote the Bible. And we know that God wrote the Bible, because the Bible says so. ... No wonder it shows that illustration of the words "God" and "The Bible" with the circular arrows pointing back and forth to each other. Ie., circular logic. :wacko: I've heard better arguments presented before. And I'm beginning to wonder if stuff like this is but a desperate & insecure attempt to deal with the increased publicity that atheists have been getting lately with books, speeches, and the like. I can almost hear the frantic calls for alarm now: "OMG!!! The atheists are coming! The atheists are coming! ... Mothers, hide your children!!" ...... I hope nobody tells them that atheists already have the right to vote. Here's a rather popular rebuttal: Kissing Hank's A$$

... equals 14.

Actually, this is Pawtucket's site, not Doowap's. And I, for one, am glad that Paw has allowed a lot more to be posted here than to some link of a video that apparently have irked some people or that others might find 'hateful'. And yes Mark, I too, find it ironic. But I would wager that for different reasons than you.