GarthP2000

Ok, Raf. Thomas won't kiss you after lunch, right Thomas? :D-->

I wouldn't have an issue of pounding the pillow screaming "Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!" while smoking the cigar, no. ... Provided it's a good quality Cuban cigar. :D--> (Where is a smiley with a cigar hanging out of its mouth when ya need it? -->)

Tell me something, Raf. Is this "Pizza w pineapple Shalt Not be regarded as pizza" line God breathed with you? Is it one of those Holy Things that just must be taken on Faith? Hmmmm? ;)--> You've had a Bad Experience with a prickly pineapple in your tender youth, ... didn't you? Come on, Raf, you're among friends here. We understand the psychological need to reject pineapples, really we do. Just take a any old pineapple, look at it squarely, and yell "You no longer have any power over me!!!" primal scream therapy style. ... Hey! It sure beats pounding on a pillow screaming "Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!" (Can I charge for this kind of arm-chair psychotherapy?) :D-->

... which poses some serious questions ala the 'mind control' theory, and why it seemed to be not only conveniently 'revamped' over time (despite it being stated as so sound by its proponents), but also the fact that the A.P.A., and the A.S.A. wouldn't accept it as a whole, much to Margaret Singer's chagrin. The abusive and intimidating incidents supposedly leading to it were valid. It was just that automatically likening what went on in the 'cults' to brainwashing incidents re: the Korean War vets was seriously flawed. But you take terms like 'cult', 'brainwashing', 'mind control', ... and terms like those are effective at grabbing people's attention. Talk about your Madison Avenue tactic! The playing with people and their families clearly was done on both sides of the fence, my good man. And many times for nothing more than not believing in either side's religious 'party line'. Besides, wasn't 'take a check up from the neck up' a fav term in TWI? ;)-->

AAGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!! It's Tammy Faye Bakker at the Flintstone's yard sale!

I've got a question for those parents here who would fight like hell to save their kids in situations like this, and I mean no disrespect nor acrimony: What if your child either directly stated or else communicated their wishes or belief or in the way they lived that they would not want to be and remain in such a vegetative state? Or their was a good chance that they would not want to be in said state? What would your position be then?

Sudo, I wonder what Elvis' score woulda been? ... 21%? :D--> (I AM a Yankee, ... I AM a Yankee, ... I AM a Yankee, ... )

76% Dixie! ... 76% Dixie!?!?! --> Crud! (repeating to myself) "I AM a Yankee! ... I AM a Yankee! ... I AM a Yankee! ... I AM I AM I AM!!" :P-->

You don't know what a router is? Haven't you ever heard of the ((ahem)) ... 'Router Rooter Man'? :D--> ((ducking))

I agree with George, HCW. Speaking for myself, I know that if I wanted to believe the tirade about TWI teaching the Word like it hasn't since the 1st century, I'd go back to twig and/or listen to Smikeol. Sorry pal, but my mental freedom is far too important to me to do that garbage again. And if that is 'abandoning the Word of God', then I don't think that this deity is so hot after all. -->

((ducking)) Okay, okay, okay, so you've been weaned of AO-Hell. So now what are ya gonna do with all those AOL CDs that you collected? 1) Use them as coffee coasters. 2) Skeet shoot with them. ... PULL! 3) Use them as Frisbees for the dog to fetch. 4) Target practice for when you finally get your NRA membership. 5) Make Elton John-wannabe sunglasses out of them. :D--> Just a few idears. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

I note that you conveniently avoid answering my question. Remember the question I posed in my most recent post? You say that I deliberately misrepresent you. Hey chief, I call them as I see them, and part of your whitewash (or at the very least, what *I* see as whitewash), is the terms that you use to describe where you do differ from Calvin, and those terms go nowhere near what your everyday person would use in referring to someone who was directly involved in a murder. (a fact) Plus you try to downplay the Servetus situation by posing it as a 'not so bad, cause at least Calvin called for a beheading' situation (lot of good it did Servetus. -->), plus other attempts at explaining it away or using the 'historical context' argument. (an opinion) Also keep in mind that Calvin did exercise authority in Geneva; not of a direct civil manner, but of a theological manner (a fact) (since he directed/taught at the academy there, and the folks in Geneva looked to him as an overall spiritual authority figure, (a fact) much like TWIers looked to VPW in much the same light), and since they did not have separation of church and state back then, there was nothing separating the religious influence of the Reform Church into government, (a fact) thus the magistrates judgement, which was influenced by Calvin's theology, and its severity. And Calvin DID want Servetus to die, (a fact) and it went a lot farther than the "Well, the law requires that you be put to death, as uncomfortable as I feel about it." point of view. To Calvin, he took Servetus' 'heresy' personally, and his anger clearly reflected this, that much is plainly (as in rabidly) clear, (a fact) and any claims for Calvin's 'compassion' in wanting for Servetus death to be quick rings kinda hollow. And the magistrates going over Calvin's wishes, thus seemingly letting Calvin off the hook? "Hey look! They went beyond what I wanted them to do to Servetus, so the burden is off of my shoulders!" ... Ahh not quite. It's like Wierwille being ultimately responsible for Martindale's going beyond his "Father in the Word", because Wierwille was his prime source of 'spiritual judgement'. And Wierwille primed that boy to the hilt. Thus I see a very similar comparison between Calvin and the magistrates (my opinion). Plus for one thing, you don't think that the magistrates would be in power if they were opposers of what Calvin taught, do you? Not by a mile! (a fact) Again, keep in mind the kind of government that existed in Geneva in those days. Ie., a democracy it was NOT. (a fact) At all. (Thus providing somewhat of a basis for Trevor's argument) Much like the rest of Europe. A result of which explains the rise of the Enlightenment Era, and the subsequent basis for the founding of our country. (a fact) Hyperbole in my posts? Okay, I'll agree with you there, but then again, they were not without valid substance, regardless of your distaste for them, which were provided by my (and others) links. And why is it that you automatically suspect a deliberate attempt to be dishonest on my part for my updating of my posts? Because I won't let Calvin off the hook as much as you'd like, therefore there *must* be some sort of immoral dishonesty on my part? (a lie!) ... Please! That is based on a childish fallacy. Nothing more. (a fact) (Notice all the a fact notations that I use to illustrate facts) Whatever. View it as you will. Hold Calvin to whatever high position theologically or historically that you wish. I know what my motivations/opinions are for speaking otherwise, ... even if you don't. Knock yourself out! (a wish!)

A most curious dilemna you pose here. Let me ask you something, Cynic, and be straightforward here w/o hiding behind $64 words. And maybe the answer to this question might reveal how one is to deal with Calvin's reputation, as well as your seeming steadfast loyalty to his name. According to what you believe in accordance with what you know about Christian morality (<-- notice the emphasis), rather than on any supposed 'historical context', what/how would you honestly treat a person's memory if they were responsible for another's death, (and even just for one) and that for heresy, like Calvin was with regard to Servetus? Which did happen, regardless of who 'lit the match', as it were. (Ie., let's set aside the whitewash, and go straight to the central point.) Regardless of how you think of the points that I raise, of the validity of them (or not), me, (or of my alleged incontinence), think about that question anyway, if you dare, and let me and everybody else here know what your opinion/judgement would be, as I maintain that this is indeed an honest and valid question. Regardless of how it reflects upon Calvin's memory. And as for me, as you can already guess by now, I have already relieved myself (as per Calvin's memory), as it were. ;)--> Mainly because, no matter how much you endeavor to rationalize or downplay Calvin's actions, I still find the man at the very least comparable to Martindale, ... at his spittling worst. Oh, by the way, I looked up a link, and by the Reformed Church's website no less, about Calvin's friend William Farel, and lets just say that it reminds me of that old phrase "birds of a feather flock together": -- http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/farel.htm (I wonder if his name wasn't misspelled from 'feral' ;)-->) Oh, by the way, this was how a lot of people, both supporters and opponents, saw him, as quoted directly from that link, "He was fiery and forceful, not given to the use of tact, impulsive in his actions and preaching, and one who roared against papal abuses." NOW, I wonder how would his style fit with the admonishment of me and my communications as 'not being communication', or of being 'polemic' and 'incontinent', hmmm? He definitely looked 'polemic' to me, doncha think? ... 'Impertinent'? And if that is the kind of "character that which God gave him", then I can more easily see why many of those who left the Old World and their descendants (with their embracing of the ideals of the Enlightenment) who founded this country were anti-thetical, if not downright hostile to the mindset of Calvinism in general. Oh, and I have no problem having what I say "brought out into the light of day". Hell, I'm the one who usually brings it out to begin with. Your ball.

Ahhhh, but you didn't address the 2nd part of my advice, ... which means that you most likely still have AO-Hell! ... Hmmmm?? ;)-->

Raf, That's odd. I detected an eggroll. .....((crickets chirping)) ..... Never mind! :D-->

Yeah! 1) This time get broadband (its a lot cheaper than even a year ago), and ... 2) Stay away from AO-Hell! :D--> (running and ducking)

That's one of the standard practices of folks who want to automatically dismiss any opposing viewpoints, Raf. And that's no matter which 'side'. Question the motivation or morality of the dissenter, and any validity of his views, whatever they may be, are diminished (or the accuser would hope so) in the eyes of those hearing him. Intellectually dishonest at best. :(-->

Yes! The sadist gets to fry. ... Well maybe not fry, but he'll get a chemical cocktail that will be quite terminal in its effects. Anybody here think that that's justice served? Too much of a penalty? Too merciful? Have at it, folks.

No. Then it becomes a salt mine with a fishy smell. But a pizza with pineapple on it is a *fresh* alternative to traditional pizza. ... So there! :P--> :D-->

Just curious chief. How many people in that 'regimented and authoritarian Masai society' ever wish that they could come to America, hmmm? And how many are able to make it? So they know you and you trust and feel safe with them. ... Yippee! Charles Lindburgh when he was a guest of Hitler felt safe, and even identified with his society. And, like any regimented and authoritarian society, you are indeed safe, ..... until you cross them or deviate from the path they set for you. Then see how safe you are. :- Nahh, I prefer the freedom here to the 'safe' regimented (read goosestepping) society over there, thank you very much. But hey, if you prefer it over there, knock yourself out. Nobody is stopping you. That's the nice thing about the freedom here (including the freedom from blind appeal to authority). You can leave it if you want. And hey, I call it like I see it (or read it, as the case may be). And so far you haven't given me anything else solid to go on. And if you think that my 'mahnd reeeder' skills are off, then why not give me the correct 'reeeding'? Oh yeah, that's right. You have to be 'spiritual' to get it. ... Yeah well, I've given up on that con game quite some time ago.

Hey! If I'm the King of Polemics, then yeah, it oughtta be done right! ;)--> Basically all I'm trying to get across, is the idea of determining whats right and wrong, to live a good life, by what has been shown to be right or wrong intrinsically, ie., in and of itself, ... rather than this appeal to authority that says "Do something because (my) god says so," or "because some authority says so". For example, look at it this way. Who would you trust more? Somebody who won't steal because he is afraid of punishment for stealing/will get a reward for not stealing, or someone who won't steal because he realizes that stealing hurts people, and stains himself? Or how about people who do moral things only because they will get a reward in heaven, as opposed to someone doing the moral thing because of the intrinsic value of the moral act itself? See what I mean? How about people who are browbeaten with hellfire and damnation preachings? Ohh sure, they'll act morally, as long as they think someone (God or anyone else) is watching. But how about that old phrase about when someone does that which is right even when no one is watching, hmmm? Or expects any reward. Look at what Einstein said again. And try thinking about it. What's your rational take on all this? ... And would you respect someone from a culture that deals with verbal offense by killing the offender? Would that be an American value that you would respect? And yeah, I think that there are people who endeavor to live what Einstein said. Altho' many times they are dismissed as atheists, agnostics and a lot of other names specifically reserved for them darn unbelievers. The kind of group that I'm more and more feeling akin to.

Alfakat, Usually when one hears of rantings re: the U.N., Peace societies, Hillary's 'It Take a Village', and the like, the undercurrent of 'Commie plot' usually isn't that far off. But even if it had nothing to do with Communism, what kind of mindless rant was that about anyway? And you call me a cheap-shot hack? Or is it you can dish it out, but can't take it? Read what you posted again, and see if you don't find some irritation towards Einstein's comment in there. I mean, what is it about what Einstein said that pi**es you off like that? Believe me guy, you didn't just post a question, ... not with how its written. Or can't you give credit to atheists/agnostics/whatever with bringing up valid point about a good life 'cause its leaving out God. Is that what pi**es you off?

Ohh, I dunno. Cynic like the cheap beer, and apparently it hasn't done anything to loosen him up. :D-->

The Gospel according to Alfakat: Sympathy, education, and social ties = U.N. sponsered Communist plot!! I'm not even going to digify that 5 second propaganda sound bite with anything further. -->

I love it when my debate opponents help me make my case for me. Kinda reminds me of that old saying "Give a man enough rope, he'll hang himself with it." hmmmm? For example, ;)--> Perhaps I would moderate my style, but that 'tradition' in those African countries would do NOTHING to inspire any respect for these people nor their 'culture'. ... Then again, maybe the perps would be looking down the barrel of a loaded .44, with me behind it going "I'm sorry, but would you like to *tell* me why you are angry at me?" :)--> Now they would be the ones 'moderating' their behavior, no? ;)--> And I would be justified in that example of 'using fear' to persuade them, because in that instance, ... well, there is something sensible to be said about self-defense. 'Maybe not' would be the correct choice. You win a Kewpie doll. It's one thing to show due respect towards people, mainly due to their humanity and appropriate positions of authority. Ahem, notice I put the emphasis on due. As opposed to that respect which is undue. And I guess the debate then would be on determining which from which. It's totally something else to have appeal to fear and/or appeal to authority as a standard core of the means of living a good life, rather than utilizing the 'proving all things, hold fast to that which is good' means of determining how to live a good life. Heh! So the loss of a sovereign here in America has somehow contributed to our supposed loss of godly respect for authority huh? Hmmmm, Nazi Germany, while not having royalty to be sovereign over them, did have Hitler. Tell me something, did that form of *solid* appeal to authority do anything to move that country closer to godly respect for authority? ... Didn't think so. And considering the whole of your post, I find it odd, coming from an American who places such a high premium on freedom and intelligent thought to be posting what you do. It seems (to me anyway) to boil down to (endeavoring to put on my best Louisiana accent) "Shut yo' mouth, boy! If'n you know what's good for ya." basis for behavior. And chief, I never have, nor will EVER have, any respect for that 'white trash' mentality. I've gone thru *enough* of that .... when I lived in Alabama! No more! And I don't think that that is the kind of mentality that made this country so great and free. Pal, you can have your appeal to authority. I, like millions of us 'morally questionable' Americans, would rather have freedom instead, thank you very much. AND please note that many of those selfsame Africans you speak of seem to want the same thing when they come by the boatload over here.