GarthP2000

:D :D Jerry, altho' I shy away from the appeal to authority and fear that this concept of keeping Genesis as literal, ... or else, is based upon, I *love* the humor in how you portrayed it. Basically the whole underlying premise that drives the Creationist (and Intelligent Design) movements, even if they don't fully realize or admit it, is portayed in Jerry's post. That if evolution is true, the whole foundation of Christianity falls flat, and the rest of the beliefe system goes with it. (or so they believe) And if Genesis, the Bible, christianity, et al., can be so easily crumbled at the proving/communicating of evolution/dismantling of the Creation story, ... well, what does that say about the whole Christian belief system to begin with? How can Absolute Truth be threatened by a theory to where the theory must be stopped? Besides, I'll play checkers with Commies, or anybody else for that matter, any time. And even share a or two.

But then keep in mind, that there are those (even today) who do not consider killing those who commit heresy as 'murder', and might even be quite annoyed at those who do call it murder. I've seen this attitude displayed personally. ;)

This is one of the terms/qualifications I have trouble with, especially in reference to associating it with 'mind control'. Changing the meaning/usage of words in and of itself does nothing, nada, ziltch, when it comes to controlling someone's thoughts, particularly since different cultural groups change the meaning of words all the time, most of the time in a rather subtle manner. But to try to show that the changing of terms a method of controlling one's mind proves nothing in that category, unless it is accompanied with brow beating and the intense insistance to use those words ONLY how the group expects. And when I was in, yes, they wanted words to be used 'according to the Word' yadayada', but that didn't really stop folks from saying things like 'Merry Christmas' or 'good luck' or things like that. That was frowned on and people were 'reproved', but that was as far as it went as far as I could see. Now maybe it got more intense later. But the thing about 'loading the language' as far as a clear indicator of 'cultic mind control', frankly, I could see no clear evidence where that actually happened. And I find it interesting that the anti-cult movement does their own form of 'loading of the language' in how they appropriated the term cult and hyped it up to fit their own purposes, as the term used to be a lot more neutral before. ^_^

Interesting, ... and flawed premise. 1) Because evil is not the absense of god, but of good. The article's author (deliberatily IMHO) forgot to include an additional 'o'. 2) If his premise holds true, about evil being the absense of god, then atheists can do nothing *but* evil, since they lack god in their lives. ... So then could someone explain to me why that college football star, who gave up going pro so he could join the Air Rangers and who wound up dying in Afghanistan, ... who was an athiest, ................ I'm sorry, but something just doesn't quite add up here.

Raf, I think it'll be awhile before they get to Hurricane Yosemite Sam. :D

The internet is DOWN!!! :blink: :o :wacko: Now I *know* nobody here can relate to this, ........ ........ can they? B)

Jerry, So if there are gays/lesbians who say that they were born gay, would you take their word for it too? ... See the descrepancy here? Keep in mind that there is still a lot that we don't know for sure about what causes one's sexuality, ... and simply using the 'Quote some Bible verses' formula won't answer the questions any quicker either. If it did, then Fred Phelps and his ilk would be some helluva solution providers now, wouldn't they? ^_^

I think one popular misconception that a lot of people have is that science is antithetical to religion. Or that when science comes up with things (like the theory of evolution), that that is their means of saying that there is no God. I read and come across that misconception a lot. For one thing, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with Who created the universe, or whether a God created it or not, or even for what Divine Plan. Nor does it stand deliberately juxtaposed to the aforementioned Divine Plan. It just deals with how life came to be from an evolutionary standpoint, and (still) tries to see what evidence supports or declines evolution. And because evolution hasn't answered ALL the questions that deal with it beyond any shadow of a doubt, technically, its still a theory. So why doesn't that make it *just* 'guesswork'? (Which is how many uninformed people presume the word 'theory' to mean) One poster on a local Atlanta message board put it quite well: Note that evolution still has a sizeable (and proven) characteristics to it, even tho' it it still not 100% fact. The meaning of the word 'theory' goes beyond the word 'hypothesis' which has even less certainty to it, but yet has opened doors that can ( and has) often led to the truth. I find it interesting that some of those on the religious side who often overfocus on the 'theory' (guesswork ;)) of evolution as a means of downplaying/disgarding it, yet would embrace what they learn 'by faith' about the world with nary a 2nd question about it.

Jerry, So what does her denial about being 'born that way' do about all those who say they were? One 'testimony' nagates all the others? Plus she also confuses her testimony of 'not being born that way' by saying "I'm just at a point in my life where I'm tired of having to pretend to be somebody I'm not." which kinda indicates that maybe she's not sure, ya think? In any event, be anybody gay/lesbian or not, ... what's it really to you? Or to people like Allan, who faithfully shows us his interpretation of 'the love of God' by the spewage in his latest post. Got a clue for ya, Allan. We all left that crap when we split from TWI. I don't think we don't need it here, thank you very much.

Now can you imagine going hang gliding during a storm like that? :blink:

Just cuz something has been 'settled' doesn't mean diddly as far as what the facts may or may not be. Ermmm, you don't know very much about Unitarianism or its history, do ya? Sometimes you need to look beyond the lines that Orthodoxy draws for you to get more genuine and relevent information, altho' that tactic is often frowned on by many of those who like to 'feel safe' within those lines. Sometimes (as in often, IMHO) 'heresy' (looking at and thinking a different way) isn't as dangerous as many people think it is.

Samurai, B) B) Excellent post! Just excellent! B) B)

One thing I see here IMHO, is that Craig must have been really desperate for a father figure. Sad really. :huh:

Evan, I'd be R-E-A-L careful with that one, dude. We wouldn't want to give Smikeol any more ammo or openings to jump on with why PFAL is God's Word Continued, ... would we? ;)

Oak, How was the deprogramming incident successful on Lifted Up? Lifted Up, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you get out and didn't succumb to the attempt? Also, as Lifted pointed out, keep in mind that even if they were 'gotten out', in many cases the 'cultee's' belief system/attitude didn't really change that much, and often their relations with their family was damaged for the worse. I do know that that would have been the case with me if I was deprogrammed. Without a doubt.

Railroader, I hope you're right, but due to previous incidents, the bum's rush was frequently given to just about all of those who brought up the crap that went on in TWI, including all the way back into the late 70's-early 80's under Wierwille. And Rosilee is no exception to the 'goosestep to our tune or get out' crowd.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Second James is funny!

Can you imagine the kind of 'god' that Allan makes an example of with posts like his? Kinda like TWI's 'god'. Or, to put it in the immortal words of one George Carlin, "This isn't the kind of work you'd expect from a Supreme Being. This is more like the kind of .... you get from an office temp with a bad attitude!" B)

That individual is going to be given the bum's rush in a very short order. ..... Count on it. <_<

Ahhh not to worry, Dave. Cynic is really just a good ol' pussycat, ... who just spits up a hairball now and then. B)

Unitarianism - n. 1. An adherent of Unitarian Universalism. 2. A monotheist who is not a Christian. 3. A Christian who is not a Trinitarian. (gotten from Dictionary.com) No doubt this an oversimplified description of the term, and there are definitely more details dealing with it, more than I want to go into here, but suffice it to say that: 1. There are significantly different forms of Unitarianism 2. There are more forms of Unitarianism than the examples provided by Cynic, both the Christian variety and the non-Christian. 3. And theologically speaking, with strict reference to the Trinitarianism/Unitarianism argument, I do stand corrected, as one can say that the Oneness is a subset of Unitarianism. The main difference is in that most other Unitarianism beliefs don't hold Jesus to be God, as Oneness folks do, as well as dealing with denominational relations. So I concede that point to you, Cynic. Altho' I don't see how much mileage you can get out of that one. Hope you enjoy it in any event. I trust I wasn't too 'manipulative' and 'unprincipled' with this reply. ;) Altho' methinks that you bandy those terms about with more polemic hype than reason. Cheers!

Cynic, Ignorant? That you haven't as much of an understanding towards/about Unitarians as you think you do? (or beyond that which your beliefs paint for you, I should say?)It seems that your understanding of them is just about totally colored, clouded even, by your angst against anything non-orthodox, particularly when it relates to Christology; its almost like this hostility should be important to you. This much is blatantly clear in your posts about them, even somewhat in your latest one here. ... Speak about shameless and smug! Hypocritical? Nahhh, I don't think so. Actually, this example of yours only strengthens my 'different kind of Unitarian' argument, as anybody who even has a cursory knowledge of the Democratic Party knows that there are blatant factions in that political organization, ranging from Southern Democrats to environmentalists to civil rights activists to Jewish Democrats, etc. Unity among Democrats has been, for at least the past 40-50 years or so, a joke. (Which is why it was a newsworthy item during the election of 2004 that the Dems were much more unified in going against Bush.) Some would say that it is a similar situation among Unitarians, both organizationally and doctrinally speaking. So thank you for decimating your own argument for me. :)

Cynic, Not quite, ... not by a long shot. For one thing, organizationally speaking, the Oneness Pentacostal denomination(s) have not come from nor originated from any Unitarian group or church. Two, all Unitarian groups, those who identified themselves as Unitarian, either by name or by belief, have either all disgarded the Diety of Christ, or with a few exceptions, have regarded him as, if you'll pardon the term, a 'lesser god' as it were. But there is a clear departure between the understanding of Jesus Christ being God re the Pentacostals, and the understanding of Christ's relation to God in the Unitarian's mind. No doubt there were, and maybe even are exceptions to this rule, but by and large there are far more similarities between Pentacostals and Trinitarians regarding this issue than Pentacostals and Unitarians. Perhaps a more thorough (and shall I say, less hostile) understanding of where Unitarians are coming from on your part would benefit you more. Have a nice day. B) P.S., to expand on what I said here, rather than portraying Oneness as a subset of Unitarianism, perhaps it can be seen as a different kind of Unitarianism; much like Mormonism (who view Jesus Christ as the Son of God on the same order as Lucifer once was, if I understand it correctly) or Jehovah's Witnesses (who view Jesus Christ as Micheal the Archangel). And yet they have significant differences to make them distinct from Unitarianism, both back centuries ago, and today.

*Ahem* I do believe that Luther was not martyred. ... Suggestion: next time review your history better. An elementary school kid can do better than you. ... At 2nd grade. :( (Who is this guy? Smikeol's evil twin?? :blink: :wacko: )

So-o-o, in what way is Templelady being hypocritical here? ... Specifically, that is.