GarthP2000

Now THAT is one *tough* truck. Too bad it ain't a Chevy.

(As is usually happens here) my 10 will get your one that all those who go out in a huff, and say "I'm never coming back *again*! ((snif))" ... usually do come back, and in pretty short order. Place your bets folks. ... I did. Yer ever lovin' bookie

Now watch what happens with all these Seattle derailers when Seattle wins. ***WHINE***! ***WHINE***! "This is all a Commie corn-spiracy! ... It's Hitlery's fault! ... Terrorists are involved! ... Ya'll just hate Bush!!" and so on and so forth, ad nauseum. Rock N' Roll Seattle Seahawks!!

Excellent point, Coolwaters. B) A more proper focus, in my humble opinion. ;)

Issues? ... Yeah, I got some issues, ... big ones. .... ... like with people who use the "We are unworthy" concept as a means of control, mental browbeating, guilt tripping, (and of course, who can leave out extracting more money, donchaknow ), and basically letting people know what worthless scum we humans supposedly are. I see it all the time, from TWI's infamous manipulation to more mainstream tactics used to keep people in the fold and unquestioning to whatever orthodox dogma they are taught. And that concept just lends itself to these things so well! So yeah, ((sigh)) looks like you're right. .... Gad, I hope it isn't terminal. :unsure: ... You think it might be covered by Blue Cross? No doubt it would have, in order to deal with the overreaching arrogance. But, like all extremes, there is always at least two ends to consider, and I am of the opinion that the "We are not worthy" browbeating variety is but a flip side of the arrogance you speak of. Contrary to some fundamentalist doctrines, we human beings are not evil by nature. We aren't 'supermen' either. We're basically ... human. Hope that makes you feel better, ... bro.

..... you mean that bronze idol that they were trying to hock--- errr sell about 10 years ago? :D

Ya know, I used to embrace this mindset without hesitation, thinking of how ohhh so loving it was, and all that. You know, we were nothing but worthless slime and e-v-i-l people by nature, unable to even make a morally right decision on our own. But then His grace saved us, and now we are pure and righteous and worth something once again, and so forth and so on. While the love and grace I can appreciate, particularly when people show it to each other, I now can't help but to wonder how many doors of *control* the 'we were worthless scum' mentality has, and still does open for guilt trips, brow beating, people like Sick Vic, and statements like "Who are YOU to question what the church has taught you" and like sentiments? ... And over hundreds and hundreds of years of fine tuning and revising that model of *control*. And some people wonder why others doubt. <_< Anywho Ex, good start for a thread. B)

Hiya all, got a question. I'm going to get a satellite dish network set up for my TV, and I wanted to know people's opinions as regards DirectTV and Dish Network. Which one gives better service, reception, customer satisfaction, and all? What do you folks think?

Actually, its quite warm and cozy here in the basement. Complete with beer and everything.

So now we're gonna have a 'legion' of smiley's?

The ultimate pi**ing contest, ehh? Oh well, we've all presented our arguments, and like the free society we live in, we can get to pick and choose. Freedom, it's great, isn't it?

I just realized. This is a topic that is going to round and round with no resolution in sight. And I really don't have the time to waste on it anymore. So with that in mind, I shall bow out here. And my apologies to any toes I invariably stepped on, be it LG, Mo, or anybody else. So peace to all, ... and you guys are the best! ...... JUST kidding on that last one.

LG, Hate to tell you this, my friend, but the 'human moral standard' that I use in my arguments, is the same moral standard as exhibited straight from the Bible and other compatible standards that God supposedly authored. Ie., His own rules. And that He might be superior either 1) makes no difference in this respect, or 2) even more to the point of demonstrating His superiority, He would be more compatible to His rules than we are. Unless the superiority that you are referring to is one based on power, rather than on moral rightness. Which in that case, boils down to 'who has the biggest gun', as it were. Which would boil down even further to 'might makes right'. You think? Plus your reasoning of since this (supposed) God is superior, He "has every right to annihilate anyone He (it?) may choose." invariably (whether you intended it or not) results in giving a valid excuse for a god to, say, Allah (for one example) to have His people inflict terrorist attacks against infidels in His name. And logically, if what you say is a valid point, nobody can really challenge it. Indeed, such 'logic' has been used for centuries as an excuse for all kinds of heinous, immoral things to be done to humanity. And your likening of Zix's point of "I'm mad cause I didn't get my pony" (which would illustrate someone mad at God because he didn't get all the things that he asked for from his God-genie) to my point of questioning God's behavior (or more accurately, what/how people portray God's behavior to be) in relation to moral standards that are portrayed as superior moral standards intrinsically that portray the nature of God, ... is no comparison. They portray two totally different things. So why do you not believe in this 'superior being' then?

Heck, if I were Bush, I'd take what she said, and run with it. It surely puts his operations in Iraq in a good light, and if he throws that away, he'd be very foolish.

Making quite a number of assumptions there, aren't you, Mo? Reading a lot into what I posted? Read what I said again. Exactly what I said. Because what I posted comes nowhere *near* what you have here. Nowhere near. But presumptions like that have to be made about unbelievers, doesn't it? So that they come off looking like selfish bastards and having a 'nobody else but me' attitude. ??? And you got all of that out of what I said? Heck, we might as well be speaking two different languages here with no translator. <_< Believe it or not, my take on morality is that morals do indeed have absolute and intrinsic values. And that any superior being, a moral one that is, that expects us to follow a moral code, would be bound by those moral rules. Not because *we* dictate so perse, but because *they* are honorable enough to foloow their own rules. A lot like a spiritual leader being enough of an example for us to live his creed, thus being a leader w/ integrity. Why, I believe that there is a bible verse somewhere (I forget where its at right now) that says that God cannot lie about Himself. Look, this is the same standard that most of us here at Greasespot, having been burned by con artist 'leaders' and their lies, now apply to anyone coming down the pike claiming to be spiritual and proclaiming the 'Word of God'. Ie., they have to prove to us that what they are saying is true, and a good number of us (including yours truly) don't go by the 'cuz the Bible sez so' standard. Now we put apply an even stricter standard of having the so-called leader prove that what he says is indeed a spiritual benefit, and that the spirituality is valid. Ie., simple claims that just appeal to authority, even if the authority that they appeal to is God Himself, just doesn't cut it anymore. Ie., No $ale! Hope that doesn't sound too selfish and 'its just ME and MINE' for ya. B)

Not to worry, Raf. Like most movies, they'll have a sequel: "Blowbac--err, Brokeback Mountain II: Return of Boy George."

Good question. How about this for a start: Acting better than, more moral than, more consistant than, and the like, than human beings. It's kind of similar to when a spiritual leader wants to lead people. We hold that individual to a higher standard, don't we? Well, wouldn't it follow that the same (at the very least) would/should be practiced by God? He would be better than we are. More moral. More consistant. Not so given to malvolent anger as He is often portrayed, even as portrayed by a few individuals here. <_< In other words, according to claims made about Him that He is pure and perfect. Let me put it another way. Let's suppose that a fundamentalist Muslim came up to you and was telling you about why Allah is so superior and is worthy of worship. No doubt you would have questions as to if Allah is so perfect & so worhty of worship, why would he expect countries to be conquered in his name like they were soon after Mohammed's death? Or questions regarding more recent events related to fundamentalist Islam; like 9/11, terrorist bombings in Isreal, and other related activities, all being done supposedly with the approval of Allah. Now, what if he was using some of the same kind of 'who are you to question Allah' or 'Allah has his own superior spiritual reasons for these things' responses that are similar to that which have been bandied about here? You wouldn't accept that kind of response w/o challenging it, right? Ie., you would use your own reasoning to scrutinize the Muslim religious arguments cast in your direction, right? That's similar (but I realize, not identical) to when people expect me to accept their arguments about God, a God regarding some of His supposed actions that I read in the OT, and even in the New causes me pause. It's not that I'm simply 'shaking my fist against any higher authority' as it were. But when it comes to a belief, any belief that basically boils down to expecting me to accept what is taught about God, or anything else for that matter, from a standpoint of "Your's is not to question why. Your's is but to do or die!" I've undergone that kind of exposure in TWI. I've undergone that kind of exposure in various other churches of similar mindset. ... And I will undergo that no more. And frankly, here is another aspect that I will brazenly expect of that selfsame Superior Being: Any being that is superior to we humans ought to have the self-assuredness and maturity to not go ape-s**t when someone has the 'mitigated gaul' to dare to ask questions, doubt, or request proof of said truths. I've known certain human beings themselves who are mature enough to rise above such angst. Why then can't a superior god do the same? At the very least? Truth, by its very nature, is self-evident, and will come through in the end, and any real superior being's existance will be shown in any event. Does that help clear things up in that respect?

Basically what I'm saying is that if your going to have a 'God' worth obeying, then let Him *be* worth following. Let Him *prove to be* that perfect one, rather than called 'perfect' simply because we're told to believe it and be done with it. Ie., if I'm going to believe in a Superior Being, then he needs to be Superior, both in attitude, words, and actions. And from the examples that I have been shown to me here and elsewhere of what/how people describe God, particularly when it comes to the killing of unbelievers, and this attitude of approval of doing so, and it isn't called murder? ... Sorry, but I'm not going there anymore. And its basically that I've recently gotten more and more courage to express it openly like this, ... which doesn't say much for a belief system that instills that kind of inhibiting fear in people. Or, in the words of the 'immortal' ;) George Carlin, who puts it in his own succinct and straight forward style: "This isn't what you would expect from a Supreme Being. This is more the kind of s**t you'd get from an office temp with a bad attitude." And frankly, I think that he's being quite charitable with that kind of description. Maybe if you learned why some people leave their faith instead of being so offended on that they do, maybe you'd get a more clear picture of where we are coming from. You don't want to agree? Fine. Believe it or not, none of the 'infidels' here is trying to make you agree or walk away from your faith. Apparently it is serving you well. We're just showing you another side of the coin, as it were.

Lindyhopper, ROFLMAO!! I stand corrected it seems. It wasn't just a real estate hostile takeover. Apparently it was an extreme version of Pat Buchanan's 'culture wars', and I do mean extreme. Hhmmmm, I wonder. Would the word for 'abomination' mentioned in the verses dealing with those umm, 'not-murdered' heathen and their unspeakable practices be the same word for 'abomination' when eating certain kinds of unkosher fish and other such forbidden foods? Could it be referring to the same kind of eschewing of being in the same room with a woman going thru her period, a forbiddance plainly written in the scriptures as well? A lot of things were mentioned as 'abominations' that we take for granted today. Hhmmm, maybe that's why our society is headed for the toilet. (Back to serious mode) In any event, ... it is still murder. People were still slaughtered, no matter what kind of Calvinist spin and dance is given to it, complete with college level wording to make it sound 'spurchal'. <_< Templelady, Ahh but you see, according to most Christians, including the Mormons if I'm not mistaken, we humans were born dead in trespasses and sins, all thanks to what Adam and Eve did in the garden. So basically, that means that we are condemned to 'do the time', even *before* we did the crime. Now _that_ makes a lotta sense -- NOT! Ooopsie! I fergit. Its one of them 'spiritual' things. <_< Ahhhh, ... no. I don't think so. That coupon expired with me a long time ago.

... translated into *plain* English means, he's still pi**ed at me for accusing Calvin for committing murder when he has Micheal Servetus executed. And he even makes a big show for 'exposing' me. :o Ahh Yah, ... whatever. If that makes you a happy camper. The Isrealites still wanted the land, God still sayeth 'smite those who live there.', and so on. The verses that Cynic provided expanded upon my point, even provided details that I didn't include, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that the original inhabitants were on the land that the Isrealites wanted, and they had it taken away from them, and most of their inhabitants were murdered. For once guy, step outside of your own little ecclesiastical 'reformist' shell, and try to learn from different points of view. I mean, the orthodoxically polemic and acerbic tone of your posts definitely illustrates that you are a guy devoid of any fun, like someone who's day is always cloudy and gray. ... even with your Calvinus beer. So cheers to you and yours.

???????? Wh-a-a-a-?? I expected a response like that fron Cynic (for one thing, he doesn't regard Micheal Servitus' death to be a case of murder), ... but from you?? :blink: :blink: :blink: Let's think about if this is really true, shall we? "The entire purpose of us leaving the spirit world and coming to earth as human beings ..." First off, that is a Mormon belief, shared by no other denomination, if I have my info correct. Two, the taking of a life, coming straight from the Bible no less, is wrong, UNLESS 1) it is done in self defense, 2) it is done as a capital punishment for a capital crime (ohh, like murder is), or 3) your nation is at war with another country. And even regarding points 2 & 3, there is plenty of debate as to how far they go, or even if they are valid. But, I *do know* that taking of someone else's life for no better reason than that they have a different belief or religion than you, or worship a different god than you is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. As it always should be. (I believe that's what one of our founding freedoms in this country has strong foundations in: leaving others of different beliefs be to live in peace. Why, I'll even wager that many folks view that premise as a godly one. ... Well, *most* folks do anyway. <_< ) And I sure as hell will not follow any religion/god that says that it isn't. Whether it refers to way back then, or in the here and now. Nothing personal against you, Templelady, but that is a clear line of demarcation for yours truly.

Cynic, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that the 'abominable customs' that they did was worshipping the wrong deities. The land was still theirs. They occupied it. And according to the (so called Conservative) principle of ownership and all that. And even with the premise of the 'earth is the Lord's, and all the fullness thereof', that somehow justified the slaughter? ... Oh that's right. Killing off the infidel/heretic/blasphemer/other varieties of unbelievers in your God isn't murder, ... is it? I believe we addressed this point before, ... didn't we? <_< P.S., oh by the way, regarding verses like: "24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; ..." and the like. I notice that the prohibition of 'touch not that unclean thing' didn't apply to the virgin girls of the supposed unclean races. Those the men were free to take for themselves. Hhmmmm, nothing like 'dem beautimous wimmen' to make the Exceptions of the Rule in war for, you think? ;)

Woot! Woot! No problemo, Maureen, as I'm aware that I have crossed (Nay! break danced even) that line myself from time to time. (Oh, and I hope that you dind't think that I was referring to you as 'the dishonorable Romulan' with my Star Trek-based post ) Religion is indeed a touchy subject to talk about, be ye a believer, or an atheist, or anywhere in between. And I imagine that points raised in challenge to such, even with an honest motivation, are going to rub quite a number of people the wrong way, even when there is no personal malvolence meant. Ah well, best for me to endeavor to better watch where the 'mines' lay so-to-speak, and try to navigate my best around them. ... or at least be ready for them when they *blow*. :blink: Cheers to you and yours!

I'm still looking for the file that I saw this in, but this is the gist of it: Two students at a university were having lunch together, a Unitarian Universalist and a Unification Church (Moonie) member (no, this is not an intro to a joke :) ). The Moonie was explaining his beliefs to the other student, and why he held them to be true. The UU student then asked the Moonie directly, "Look. You are making some of the highest grades on campus, and are working on your doctorate. You are a very intelligent and critically thinking person. Yet you have beliefs that you just can't prove, and don't make any sense whatsoever. How do you harmonize the apparent cognitive dissonance here?" With out missing a beat, the Moonie explained, "Simple. You just separate that which you know, from that which you believe. ... There is a lot of that happening you know." Yes, a lot indeed. (And notice that the Moonie didn't deny the cognitive dissonance charge) ---- And I often wonder how much of this same cognitive dissonance occurs in more mainstream beliefs as well, particularly when it comes to the concept of 'just take it on faith'? It isn't just a 'cult mind control' thing, ya know.

But you see, Templelady, that they occupied the land WAS the specific reason why they were driven out and slaughtered. It wasn't even a case where God gave them a chance to 'turn to Him' or else be slaughtered. They were slaughtered outright! And your point about 'just because no crimes was spelled out doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished' is weak. Sorry, but that's the only way I can see it. Besides, you read everywhere in the Bible, and the 'punishee' is told by the punisher why they are being punished. All in short, it's like the point that Belle and Lindy brought up, and our experience in TWI is a classic textbook example of this. There are more and more of these little things that are so contradictory, and we usually just argue and explain them away like good little followers that we're expected to be. And finally we just come to the point where we say "Enough!" "No more". And we start to question, examine, and scrutinize all those things that were heretofor previously known as 'spiritual things that we just cannot understand and is not our place to question'. Sorry Charlie, but I for one, *burnt* that t-shirt quite some time ago, and I imagine many others here have as well. Maybe that contributes largely to what is regarded as 'offensive' in threads like this. You think? P.S., "In fact, the logical assumption would be that crime was committed since there was 'punishment'." Can you imagine this logic even attempted to be used in a court of law? :blink: That would be thrown out so fast, your head would spin. ... ... and this would be by the same government that is said to be based on biblical principles. <_< Can you say "The irony is so thick here, you can cut it with a knife?"