GarthP2000

Actually, they were a country from 1836 - 1845.

??? You used to be possessed ... with monkey pigs?? :wacko: :unsure:

Re Micheal Rood's website: Why is it that (usually) all the fringe groups have such *crappy* websites? I mean, garish combination of red and blue? Contrasting colors that just about blind you? :wacko: Must be part of his craziness.

Looks like the Mad Anti-IRS Bomber's daughter has backed down on her daddy being an All-American hero. Hell, that _anybody_ can consider that whackjob, cornfield, terrorist to be any kind of hero, should make them eligible for maximum security psychiatric facility. P.S., yeah, yeah, I know. The link comes from one of the Big Three Mainstream Commie News Media. So sue me.

Wow Roy! Very elaborate "What We Believe" statement you have there. :)

Hell! Some of us sometimes feel like 'seceding' to Canada. ... It's a lot quieter up there.

nyunknown, warning: You apply quite a bit of 'guilt by association' of your own in your rants against the NYT, due to _one_ example of journal hackery. Who has been dealt with. ... Oh wait, I know! It's because they are more liberal than you feel comfortable with, is that it? Never mind that Faux News shows _far_ more journalistic hackery, ... and you evidently have little problem with them. Curious this is.

Apparently there are still a few in-duh-viduals who still think that deprogramming is a good thing. Look, if you want to bash your involvement with TWI, fine. But take personal responsibility for it, and stop hiding behind the "But I was brainwashed, and couldn't leave on my own" claptrap, okay? And has anybody here ever thought that one person's own involvement in TWI doesn't always necessitate suicidal behaviors? I mean really. There were over 100,000 PFAL grads across the world over time, and those with the significant and resultant psychological/behavioral problems don't come anywhere _near_ that high of a number. Now if someone here can show me otherwise, ... please do so. Talk about trying to get blood out of a turnip!

Somebody! ... Please! ... Make him **STOP**!! ... before some of us goes ***postal***!! ((sound of AK-47 unloading in the background)) Oh well, ... too late! ...

I just _love_ it when people yammer on about 'hate', ... which of course is accompanied with _no_ details of what constitutes said 'hate'. Just "You're a hater!" or "Why such hate from all of you?", ... and that's pretty much it. The others here made detailed arguments as to what was wrong with blowstoyou's approach to Roy, yet blowmetoyou couldn't come back with anything but "Why such hate from all of you?". That, plus his accusation of John being pozzezzed with 'devil spirits' was a laff and a half. I agree with the "Roy is cool in my book" statement too. :B)

David, Oh heck! I do that all the time. ;) Sure it will. :B) Nahhh. Sarcasm is very theraputic, and often acts as a release valve for all the frustrations in dealing with stupid and abuse people, ... and that is the answer that I will give if there ever is that One Day of Answering. John Lynn'll live. Update: Looks like Rosestoyou is taking his Holy War to Roy now. ... Don't pay him any mind Roy. He's just found this board, and is going ape-crazy over its neat-o posting features. "or even let off gasses in tongues" ... ROFL! I love it!!

Roy, Did some atheist pi** you off again? ... ;)

Ie., yer one of them liber-uhls. ;)

Here's my attitude re: Texas seceding from the rest of the Union: 1) Build a fence around the Texas border on the U.S. side. 2) Cut off ALL possibilities of foreign aid to Texas should they get around to asking for it (... and they will. Count on it). 3) Tell Texas that if they try to take over even ONE of our military bases, we'd be on them like skin on flint. (Fort Sumter, SC in 1861 anyone? ;) ) ... Hell, Guantanamo is right on Cuban soil, and yet the Cubans wouldn't _dare_ try to take it, as we'd make Cuba the 51st state in a New York minute, ... and they know it. 4) Ditto with NASA, Johnson Space Flight Center, and other space related programs that Texas now benefits from in so many ways. And here's my fav. 5) 'Encourage' all them Mexican 'illegal aliens' to just head for Texas, ... en masse! Say "Hey! Our Homeland Security won't bother any of you heading for the Yellow Rose of Texas like we would if you were heading for any other state." ... How f-a-s-t do _you_ think that Texas' economy would tank with an irresistible temptation like that, ... hhmmm? And how f-a-s-t do you think more and more Texas 'patriots' would be concerned about the temptation of Mexico taking Texas back. ... Remember, ... _no_ foreign aid coming from us to Texas. ... ... including any military aid to help Texas fight off the aforementioned possible Mexican incursion. Now don't you think that this info just might cool the jets of "Texas Will Secede From The Union!" teabaggers? Damn! This is more hilarious than a good Saturday Night Live episode!

Sunesis, Basically, with the above portion of your post, you catch where I'm coming from quite right! :) Thank you. Well, I don't accept 'the original premise', 'thus' the need for me to have a redeemer ... is gone. Problem solved. ;)

Tom, Being the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil doesn't change it from being a tree in any event. That being said, I can imagine that the whole Adam & Eve and the Tree account is (by and large) more an allegory, illustration, or whatever, more than just a literal account (and that's for those who believe in it in the first place). But if you read the rest of what I said, I believe I illustrated what the real problem was: setting aside whatever interpretation one might have of the incident re: Adam & Eve, ... that the punishment extended to the whole human race. (And now you throw in treason against God as Yet Another Reason to support this doctrine? ((snickers)) ) ... and the punishment _still_ didn't fit the crime, particularly when you consider that the punishment extended to the whole human race. Sunesis, Yeah? Well, as long as the believers keep coming up with s**t like that, ... there won't. And I note, with irony, that when all the specific arguments supporting some presumed-to-be-true theology are effectively shot down, argued against, or even questioned, then you guys always hide behind the "Well, it's one of those 'spiritual things' that you unbelievers just cannot understand. It's just something you have to take upon on faith." style arguments, coupled with the pretentious facade of being 'morally offended' that we unbelievers have the unmitigated *gaul* of bringing up these challenges (and in public, no doubt! :blink: How _dare_ we?) of your doctrine and faith to begin with. Ie., "Who are you to question God!?" and other such flatulence. Like I say in my status update: "Nahh. We aren't 'unworthy critters'. We ain't 'gods' either. ... We are simply human beings, with all the positive and negative. But we ain't unworthy." Works for me. :B)

Mark, Have you ever considered the concept of "let the punishment fit the crime" in this subject? (A concept which is listed in the Bible, by the way) See, this was one of the things that I never considered re: the Adam and Eve in the garden with the snake situation until recently. God tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge (<-- interestingly named by the way ;)) else they shall surely die (which is Clue #1 that I never considered before). Adam & Eve talk to the talking snake (which admittedly is definitely in the Weird Feng Shui Dept., I'll grant you that ), and take him up on his (ahem) 'bite my apple' offer. As per your premise of "God's gotta punish them or else He's not a Righteous God" routine, they pay the price (altho' there is a significant difference of opinion as to how is it that Adam and Eve "surely died", a topic which I shall leave for another day. All of this raised enough questions as to the validity of God's approach to begin with. But when you consider that the punishment extends to the whole human race?! ... All who has done _nothing_ to deserve this god-of-your's wrath, ... except to be _born_? (ie., according to the "born dead in trespasses and sins" doctrine ala what is recorded in Romans.) THAT is where the moral/ethics in this doctrine really takes a nosedive. You say "The price for sin is death... somebody had to pay it." ... Uhhh, well, if Adam & Eve had say, molested their kids, or have done something else that was the moral/ethical equivalent thereof (<-- note the emphasis please), I would accept your argument. But what Adam & Eve did (and that _just_ according to _your written scripture's account_, keep in mind) was the equivalent of walking on the grass, or even of minor theft (picking the fruit). ... Okay, well tell me something, is minor theft like that really worthy of the death penalty in your judgment? ... of the entire human race?? :unsure: ... and even if God "sent his only begotten son to pay the price for (said) sin"? ... a price that God Himself had set to begin with? ... which leads back to my original point here. Let the punishment fit the crime. <_<

Bingo cman! And more and more people are realizing that too. :B)

Geisha, Thanks about explaining to me about the origins of your Geisha 'moniker' (which we all have here. Mine is GarthP2000. ... And, oh well, I had originally thought that it suggested something else. My bad. ) You speak of a relationship with God, which you emphasize more than the scriptures. Ok. And evidently that is what you're loyal to, as you see God to be a very real thing in your life. And, contrary to your ASSumption ;) that I never had any real faith (else I wouldn't have left _fallacy_), I did indeed have had a faith in the Christian God, something that I believed (<--- please notice the emphasis here. Its there for a reason) in. Now I know that that contradicts your supposed belief that no-one who has really had faith or a faith can actually depart from it. ... Well, they can. Like it or not, they can, and often do. ... Why can they do that? Look back to the emphasised words: I believed. Think about what that means. I believed. Ie., accepted as true. And people change what they believe every day. When we were in TWI, we believed that they were teaching The Rightly Divided Word © 1942 All Rights Reserved. ;) When we left (in one way or another) we believed that they wound up being full of shyite, or some other form of excrement. :D In the political world, that is _replete_ with people having beliefs of one staunch form or another. (Hello! Talk radio anyone? :wacko: ) So my beliefs have evolved and changed over the years: From fundamentalist Christian to Unitarian Universalist to Agnostic Atheist (ie., I don't believe in any god/deity, but can't prove it 100% to be sure. But until the believers prove their side, I ain't buying it) Oh, and your swipe at me re: "I doubt you ever entered into a covenant with God, giving Him your word to obey and follow Him. . . . . . . . only to unfaithfully walk away. That would seriously bring into question your morals and ethics. . . . those things you use to make value judgments on me." at first ticked me off, as it was a condescending and ad hominum swipe, as well as giving the flawed argument that if I have come to the view that there is something seriously wrong with God, based upon what I see God doing/endorsing in the Bible exactly the things in the OT that you started this thread out with, ... that if I left this belief system as a result of this view, then *my* morals and ethics are in question here? (Yeah, yeah, I know. Long run-on sentences - bad) Never mind that that is the same premise that we all here used in rejecting TWI, regardless of whatever _commitment_ we made to follow it as a valid ministry. We saw the BS, and we said "No way!", and walked away. Well, I saw similar BS in the Christian religion (like all of those innocent people being killed in the Bible), and _I_ said "No way!", and walked away. (As well as other valid reasons as well.) Breaking of a commitment to "obey and follow him"? No bigger a breaking of a commitment to follow TWI. Ie., it was due to cause. And a valid one at that. And when it comes to 'breaking a commitment' via not believing any more, that is a decision that is up to the _person_ involved, ... NOT any authoritarian God. Ie., the person has the final authority to make the decision what to believe or not believe in. At any point in their life. Now all that being said, remember what I said earlier in this post about the part that "... at first ticked me off". And then I thought about where I said earlier in this thread in my swipe against religious people when I referred to their mentality as "Ie., UNindependent thought". So maybe its where you were taking a pot shot at me after I took a pot shot at you. Ie., mitigating factors here. I believe that I'm an ethical and moral person, just as much as you are. And, as your posts clearly indicate, you are just as much of a thinking individual as I am (or I try to be anyway). Anywho, that's where I come from at any rate. So, with no malicious thought towards you or yours, I'll wind this up.

Geisha, (I find it rather interesting, and rather ironic, that you choose a moniker that illustrates a Japanese woman who was totally submissive to her master. Totally. ... Perhaps there is more to that moniker that helps illustrate my point than meets the eye? ;)) etc., etc.Ie., as I see it, your post here basically boils down to the following points: 1) It's one of those spiritual things that I, being such a schmuck unbeliever, just _cannot_ understand. You forget who you're talking to. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, both inside of TWI, as well as out of it. For many years. Well versed in the Bible, tho' admittedly not so much anymore, but still enough to be very familiar with the arguments behind it. Hell, I used many of those same arguments such as yourself, and with equal vigor and enthusiasm. ... It's just that I have rejected said faith-based arguments, and walked away from them. ... Yes Virginia, that can be done, ... with no consequences. 2) The people agreed to the terms. Dang! You make it sound like they signed some sort of contract. (Did they read all the fine print? :unsure: ;)) So morally speaking, if they agreed to 'follow god', they should just give up ANY and ALL valid observations/complaints about whatever unreasonable/unethical/immoral requirements/practices/punishments that their god puts them thru? Ie., to be blindly obedient without question. Hey, guess what? Leadership at TWI often put us thru similar expectations of blind obedience, and they were/are called a 'damn CULT' because of it. (Your term for it, I believe?) And based upon the same moral/ethical standards that many here regard as 'Christian'. And I seriously doubt that they were arbitrary either. Yes, back during the bronze age they didn't have the advanced level of morals and ethics that was responsible for today's progress in civilized society. Which doesn't say much for the 'holy' standards that God seemed to have when implementing these laws/judgments, ... does it? I mean, we, as civilized beings, wouldn't even _think_ of applying many of those same practices in today's society, without regarding them as criminal, as unethical, ... as downright wrong. ... Ohh, like stoning someone who doesn't worship your God, as but one of the _many_ examples I can give. <_< Which leads to 3) Since you have entered into a relationship with God, then you have accepted 'the whole nine yards', as it were. Ie., you have no place to raise any scrutiny/objections to things that you might possibly see as flawed/nonsensical in said belief. (Be they flawed or not) ... In other words, blind faith. Accept without question. Shut up and do as you're told. Put another $20 in the plate. (Ever notice that it eventually gets around to money, hmmm? ;) Always.) At least that's how I came to see this mindset. And yes, you do have the irrevocable right to pursue this mindset. ... As I have the equal right to criticize said mindset. And I close this post with one of my favs from Thomas Jefferson -- "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Now that I can drink a toast to.

First off, I didn't take it as 'an offering' to me, or anything else directed at me. ... Last time I checked, I do think that this is a _public_ thread, addressable by _anyone_ who wishes to contribute. Two, since this thread _is_ in regard to the 'scary Old Testament God', I was addressing what (I thought) are discrepancies about how the OT god often (supposedly) showed righteous wrath towards many people who didn't pose any threat towards that society (ahh, no REAL threat, in any event) or did anything hideous or immoral that would be considered as such by many moral people here. ... Then again, perhaps gathering sticks on the Sabbath, mixing different cloths in one garment, ... or not worshiping "The Lord thy God" as one nation was probably seen as a Clear and Present Danger back then, and, of course, society went into a moral tailspin since then. And that's righteous judgment that you find so worthy of praise?? <_<

They're grabbing legs now are they? I guess none of them appreciate butts,..... ... Ohh, CRAB legs. Never mind. ... Carry on. :B)

You know, it's interesting that the 'evil, wicked' factor of the people who God found worthy enough to focus his wrath upon just happened to be those who 'worshiped other gods', who refused to turn to the god of the Israelites. As regards Isreal defending itself, that's one thing, and it's worth showing wrath upon the invaders. But far more often than not, the enemy country was not invading Israel, but rather Israel invading _them_. Classic example: the Samuel, King Saul, and the Amalakites situation. (No, that's not an early 60's singing group. ) I mean, when God sees fit to have someone stoned to death for simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath, ... spare me the 'God's mercy' song-and-dance, OK? <_<

Just curious. Has it occurred to anyone that Faux--err, Fox News just might qualify as a 'cult'? ... I mean, look at the likes of Jeff Blechh, fer crying out loud. So why aren't they raided?

I recently upgraded to Windows 7, and I am very impressed with it. I've never used Vista (due to all the problems I have heard about it, so I waited till 7), but from what I've seen, it is something that Vista should have been in the first place. Heck, I've been testing/using it since it's beta release, and it operated _solidly_. The only main thing that I have against it is apparently, the more apps and add-ons you put on it, the slower it eventually gets. But overall, it is a definite improvement over Vista, and in a good number of ways, over XP.