GarthP2000

One thing I remember was that quite a number of TWI believers back then, who referred to TWI as "The Ministry", often got annoyed or peeved when anybody inside the organization referred to it by its actual name; Ie., The Way International in casual conversation. Or even if you said "The Way Ministry", as tho' you spoke of it as just an organization, rather than much more than that. With a term like 'The Ministry', it was more intimate, something that expected more loyalty than an organization would. Looking back, as far as I'm concerned, any diety who would work thru such a group and only thru such a group, isn't much to write home about. At all. <_<

Not ONE Bible verse?? Seems like a new empty sign, considering that they are a 'biblical research ministry' so-called.

Well, in this case, I would say that it takes one (Pat) to know one (the Muslim freaks). <_<

Only when their satellite cameras get to the resolution to clearly spot you at your computer. :blink:

Just HAD to open that can of worms again, didncha Raf? ... And the beat goes on, ... and the beat goes on ........ ;)

Dogs, cats, rabbits, etc. :) As long as it ain't a reptile or a spider. :blink:

Tree harrassment!! Tree harrassment!!

"Pull up Frank." :huh: "Gotta wait till I get revelation from The Father." Pull up NOW, Frank. We're approaching the end of the runway!" :o "Not until I get the heavy-revvy first thought like I learned in the Advanced class!" "GOD-D*#$^ IT FRANK!! PULL THE F*** UP NOW!!!!!" "..... Okay." (Was it something like that, Evan?)

I *knew* that there was a theological question of import missing from the poll!!

Ckmkeon, Ahhh, the old 'if its good enough for my daddy, its good enough for me' routine, ehh? That you trust what your parents told you about TWI overrides everything else anyone says about it, regardless of the testimony/evidence? Well, regardless of how loyal you are to your parents, and how well some folks think of you because of it, reality beats loyalty and trust like a royal flush beats a pair of twos. Ie., like hands down. ... Sorry pal, but that's the cold, hard truth of the matter. Even given that your parents told you what they knew about Wierwille out of their best honest efforts and opinion, there are many others (including many here) who saw things that your parents didn't see/believe. Ie., the crap *happened* pal, irrelevent of what your mom and dad told you. And in this regard, there is only so far that your loyalty to them will take you down that road of fact and truth. Ie., not very far. Nice try tho'. <_< P.S., Once a month?? And that gives your dad/you a solid view of what VPW was like?? Face it chief, your dad was snowed.

:huh: So what is it with green bananas?

And what's the greek word for mob, Raf?

Cynic, (Damn! You are a barrel of fun, aren't you? ;)) When you water down the murder of heretics to calling it "bad theology", you are whitewashing. (This is like saying that lynching blacks is 'rude'. Well, d-u-h-h! :blink: ) Ie., it is you who lies. Muddy your church's history? Please! Everything I have stated re: Calvin I have gotten from sources that are easily located on the internet, and I'm talking about historical sources to boot: Unitarian, Protestant, Catholic. Their opinions vary in regards the details and to the depth of Calvin's responsibility and culpability, but he was directly responsible nonetheless. And Yes Virginia, it WAS murder. As far as that Baptist point, I have said more than once, you were right in my error in regards to the Baptists (as a denomination) practicing a form of inquisition. I have stated such, and yet you sir, are being dishonest in admitting that fact. Either that, or you forgot about it, which I seriously doubt. Face up to the dark stains in Calvin's history, and he had them a-plenty. Whatever you get out of his dogma (which I admit, ain't nothing to write home about, but hey, thats me), the man and his reputation isn't worth behaving like Smikeol defending VPW's reputation, which isn't worth anything either. Folks, just look up "Calvin" and "Servetus" on the net, and find out for yourself. Make sure the sources are outside The Reform Church. Getting them to give a straight answer on this topic is like getting the truth re: VPW by reading The Way: Living in Love. Ok, ... forcing myself to step away from this fun topic, B) ... I encourage others find out for themselves. Have a great weekend with a sixpack of Calvinus, Cynic.

Cynic, Regardless of your many worded (and quite caustic) attempts to downplay or deny the validity of my argument, you, in answer to my charge that Calvin murdered Servetus, clearly stated that it (Servetus' execution for his 'heresy') wasn't murder. ("... although you are correct in your implicit observation that I have not characterized Servetus’ execution as a murder.") Servetus execution was for heresy. And your reasoning at least implies that it wasn't murder because it was for heresy. You repost that and didn't come to that conclusion yet?? That line of yours alone supports my argument. Oh by the way, as I believe I stated this before, my usage of murder is in the generic moral and ethical sense, not in the nit-picky legal sense of the word (ie., murder, manslaughter, wrongful death, etc.) ... Ie., it all boils down to that Calvin wanted Servetus dead. And that shows that at least where his heart was at, and I believe the Scriptures address that, don't they? You are but the 2nd Calvinist I've come across who attempted to downplay/justify/whitewash activities like the execution of heretics or similar activities, activities aimed squarely at those who committed heresy against the orthodox church. Activities which are, even understood in their 'historical context' (which was one of your whitewashing techniques, as illustrated by your latest post), both immoral and depraved. (No wonder Calvin was himself obsessed with the 'depravity issue' in his theology.) And Calvin took part in said murderous activities with vigor. Deal with it. And speaking of being honest, maybe you should look at your own, in reference to the historical facts re: Calvin and how it might portray him (and maybe as a result, his theology?) in a less-than-flattering light? Where is your honesty then? Anyway, I'm done with this. Back to the main topic at hand. (Glad to see that you admitted to being a prick tho'. Have a Calvinus beer on me. )

Now, now Dave, that's Yet Another THE Smiley. :) Speaking of things getting old ......

Getting real original material here, folks.

Well, ... now that I have everybody reliving their 2nd childhoods, ..... (By the way, where's the old age smiley when ya need him??)

:blink: I was taking a look at the photo section of the board, and I came to the stark realization that a good number of folks here are grandparents. Heading for the silver age and retirement. AARP candidates. I remember the day when we (as Wayfers and in general) were a bunch of twenty-somethings coming out of high school/college and ready to change the world, be it thru our twigs, rocking n' rolling, or in other areas that we were looking forward to getting involved in. (Where was the internet back then fer crying out loud? ) O well, don't mind me. Just the rantings of someone who is realizing more and more that time seems to be speeding up (SLOW IT DOWN, for Pete's sake! ) "Times, they are a-changin'!" Bob Dylan, one of the true song meisters of our day. (snif)

Calvin was responsible for having Servetus put to death. Altho' Servetus burning at the stake punishment did go 'over the top' for him, he didn't really put a stop to it, and he was in a position of influence and authority to stop it or change it. And he was the driving force in his desire to have Servetus put to death due to Servetus 'heresy'. Even Cynic has conceded to Calvin's responsibility in the matter, and even if he doesn't, historical sources do. Add to that Cynic's open admission that, to him, killing a heretic isn't murder. And I 'nailed' him in stating that it indeed is. (Perhaps you can explain to me why his idea in this would be logical to you, hmmmm?) And if Cynic is so logical/sound as you proclaim, why don't you accept his belief? Do you make it a habit of rejecting beliefs that are supposedly 'logical' in nature? Oh by the way, there are many Christians/theists who have very similar views re: Cynic's POV as well as Calvin's POV as I do. And a good number of them aren't even liberal (theologically speaking). I could live without many of Cynic's 'prick based' characterizations as well, as well as his 'authority based mentality' of theology. But, hey, that's me.

... and all this ranting on his part because I nailed John Calvin for committing murder in the Micheal Servetus incident. An incident where Calvin also had one serious problem with the unitarian point of view. Talk about bloody! :blink: And yes Virginia, that was murder. Deal with it! You still evidently have a problem with the unitarian point of view. More than is really necessary that is. ... Like there should actually be a problem in the first place?

Also, a gas station isn't exempt from paying taxes like a church is, thus requiring the need for open disclosure of its finances to the public. I mean, simply calling yourself a church doesn't/shouldn't automatically entitle you to being exempt from taxes. If it were that simple ........

Good one. I wouldn't be making any trips to the Middle East anytime soon, if I were you.

Mark, Take it from one who has been the target of his jabs in multiple times past, when he uses those terms, it hasn't been with the 'good natured bantering' you seem to see it as. And I'm not the only target either. Seems like whenever any unitarian view has been expressed and explained here, he's there with a tirade against it. And against those who believe it. It's very similar to when many of us, while we were in TWI, to rail against trinitarianism back in the day. So like I said, this seems to be a sore point with him On the contrary, you (and many other trinitarians here) have responded to unitarian views with more class, it seems to me. On a further note, it seems like this topic is still a major point of contention among Christians and the so-called 'heretics', altho' not as much as it was many years ago.

Speaking of demeaning: Cynic, ol' bud, got a question for you. Of all the trinitarians here, you have got to be the most ill-willed of all of them (and of all that I've ever met IMO) towards Unitarians, and I think it goes beyond any academic differences and definitions between the two groups. Now despite your personal dislike of yours truly (me), and our clashes in the past, (here's the question) ... What is it about unitarianism (specifically the non-trinitariian variety, not the denomination) that gets you so riled? Why is it such a personal offense to you? Is it because its the orthodox thing to do? Get such a bad experience from TWI that the bad feelings have passed on to any form of unitarianism (Socinian, Arian, or what-have-you)? Does the Trinitarian/Unitarian conflict really pose that big a threat to society as we know it? And I don't think that this post/question derails from this thread, but maybe helps to illustrate why, over 1600 years since the Nicean Council and such, it still sticks in many people's craw. (I used to be one of the battle participants, but have since discarded this clash as being largely a waste of time, particularly with regards to the extent that many folks take it. <_< Ie., frankly, I don't care about the topic anymore, despite that I usually identify myself with unitarians anyway.) So what say you? And try not to regard this post as a form of 'blood libel', ok? B)

You will be assimilated into Hillary's Borg Collective. ... Resistance is ... futile!