GarthP2000

Thanks for helping me illustrate my point. Ie., the 'God shalt strike thee dead' routine if you don't do that which is right, rather than doing the right thing because of its own merits. Ohhh, like make sure the apostles get ALL of the loot, and not to fudge on the amount? ;)--> CM, You wish. :P-->

Hehehehehe .... Really? Then please explain to me why nearly ALL of those (if not ALL) on death row are/were religious or brought up religious? And you're point on religious people being way more generous is backed up ... how? If you are using the sheer monetary amount as your basis, keep in mind that its almost always that as a whole, religious people have more money and resources than that of non-believers. That argument seems to me to be almost as ludicrous as the one saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. Yah! -->

Evan, Compare and contrast the two ideas, both by Einstein and Proverbs, and actually, your example helps illustrate my point. ;)--> Someone behaving wisely/morally because they 'fear the Lord' as it were (with the inbuilt fear of punishment/hope of heavenly reward), and someone behaving wisely/morally because of sympathy, education, and social ties. Because of the intrinsic value and results of behaving wisely/morally in and of itself. Who would act more honestly/freely in regards to their morality, hmmm?

I came across this quote by Albert Einstein that might make for a good answer to the question posed by the title of this thread: Think about that one, ehh? ;)-->

Laleo, One big reason I said 'Caio' was that I thought I was reaching the point where nothing more I said would add anything more to the thread, since I already made my point, plus Cynic was getting quite upset, and I didn't want him to 'pop a vein' as it were. Read what I said about the Wierwille/Calvin comparison again. Note that I said if Wierwille did any of these activities, he'd be stomped in a heartbeat, whereas Calvin does what he does, and we get excuses and such. That is not the same as saying that the two leaders did the same thing. Oh, and as regarding the historical context argument, there is only so far you can go with that argument, especially if we're talking about a Christian minister. For one thing, do you see Christ or his apostles burning people at the stake or killing unbelievers for blasphemy? Keep in mind now, that their time was *1500 years* prior to Calvin's, so it would stand to reason that they would be even less progressive in their punishments than in Calvin's time, ... right? Plus, even back several hundred years ago, care to tell me whats so advanced and complex about realizing that it is cruel, inhumane, and wrong to burn someone at the stake, please? (And that it's not just 'bad theology'). Is it something that can only be figured out just in the past 200 years? ... You see how 'historical context' becomes ludicrous, even on its face? Plus, if we're going to be propounding the need for absolute morality, then that further blows away any relative reasonings of 'historical context'. Good point, with one clarification: Calvin (IMHO) has done little, if anything, to further that tolerance, dialog, and diversity. At most, all he came out with is a theology (and a very stringent one) for Protestantism.

Never mind Peace!

I know I said I was saying 'Caio' to this thread, but Cynic made some comments and distortions of his own that I cannot let pass. And if he wishes to make that an issue with this change to further sully me with, well, that's his straw man. "Garth, in his chronically dishonest fashion, has changed various elements of his assertions that have been an issue in my confrontations of him." You make that sound as if I am endeavoring to dishonestly shift and slide back and forth to avoid being honest. I take offense to that, as it is a lie! I admitted my discrepency re: the Baptists when shown my admitted lack of clear evidence supporting my frank opinion of the probability of that happening. Ie., you might feel someone is capable and probable of doing something yet, when presented with the lack of evidence of that individual doing something, it is the best thing to admit that one is incorrect. Thus I have done this. But because I have 'impugned Calvin's reputation' (in your view) that, by itself, makes me some dishonest 'punk' worthy of derision. Ie., your loyalty to Calvin's spiritual authority leaves you no choice but to impugn the reputation of any who dare challange Calvinism or Calvin himself, like you show your derision of Unitarians and other un-orthodox individuals. That's what I see anyway, and I call it as I see it. Well, guess what pal, you're gonna have to deal with it, as Calvin is but another human being like anybody else, not some VPW knock-off who should be blindly defended w/o question. This anal-retentive attitude of yours, if anything, only supports the common view of Calvinists as put here: (Emphasis mine)Besides, you DID ask for me to provide sources, and I did just that. Now maybe you have provided (as in your last post quite well, by the way) a further clarification as to what went on there, but when you compare and couple that info with other information re: Calvin, ... well, you have a man practicing something that clearly surpasses 'bad theology' (Tell me something. Is that all you view the back-then-common punishment of heretics as? Bad theology? Or is that Yet Another Strawman argument? Or how would you have judged if you were in a similar position of judgement in those days, hmmmm?) And even looking at the specific non-capital punishments you specify, look at how linked they are with religious doctrines: dancing, fornication, etc. And all most likely as a result of his 'reformist' doctrine, as Catholic specific doctrines were given the heave-to in due order. The ones allowed to stay were, naturally, in accordance with his doctrine. Basically all you have managed to do (in my not-so-humble and polemic opinion) is an attempt to whitewash and rationalize Calvin as a whole, even with your acknowledgement of him murdering Servetus. One reason this is is because of his authority excercised in Geneva, that does have him bear ultimate responsibility for those abuses. I mean, how much responsibility have been put on the Catholic Church for specific abuses done under its name and oversight? I make no apology in what/how I overall view Calvin, his doctrine, and his clearly controlling practices, and his god I will have nothing to do with; that's a no-brainer. I have made similar statements re: Luther about his serious anti-semitism as illustrated by his book: The Jews and Their Lies. And it's knee-jerk loyalty and apologetics in defending people like this, mainly because he is regarded as a Great Bastion for the Reformation, as well as derision of Unitarians and other non-orthodox people in general, all in the name of Defense of the Faith, by people like you that doesn't help me to respect people like that any more, and actually help make my case for me. Oh, and another clarification. You seem to indicate that the reference to the 58 killed was from a quote by Durant. I could find no reference to Durant in that article, which was written by William Barry, transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Do you have verification of Durant's influence here, please? Anywho, now I'm finished, as no doubt you'll come back with more slurs as regards yours truly, ... a heretic and proud of it. Now, its 'Caio!'

Vickles, 'Cults' are now addicting? Like a drug? That those of us at GS have been afflicted with that we now are in desperate need for a 'halfway house' to break away from the 'grip of the cult drug'? I wonder if that person ever thought that maybe this same 'condition' can easily be applied to religion in general. Especially a fundamentalist one. Do you realize how many people who leave their respective churches or religions have all too common thoughts of despair or fear or trepidation at first, until they become confident enough to openly admit it w/o thinking that God shalt smite them dead or, to put it in our terms, 'a greasespot by midnight'? I know myself, in moving away from the religious to the skeptical side, that I have had plenty of thoughts of 'uh ohh, what if God gets angry', yet I worked it out and overcame that intimidation in comparing that POV which I was leaving to the one I hold now. And I realize that this was the same kind of fear that I hear about TWIers go thru when they decide to split TWI; that "God is gonna make you a greasespot by midnight if you leave God's Ministry!" But, staying on topic, do most of the people who have left TWI really go thru that 'hell' of which he/she speaks? Those that do were usually the ones who took TWI way too seriously, yet not unlike the fundy example I provided. "Very few can do it on their own without having a relapse." ... Right! Sure. Ok, if that were true, taking into account the numbers of all those that come here, AND are active here (which would be necessary for full support group like benefits), and comparing them to the numbers of all those who took an active part in TWI, even in just the past 10-15 years (never mind the previous 25 years), ... sorry, but the numbers just don't add up. Know what that tells you? That there have been plenty of those who have not gone thru the 'halfway house' like situation of Greasespot, or even if you include all the spinoffs, after leaving TWI. They had to deal with whatever experiences, hurtful or otherwise, with either their family or friends. Or maybe with just themselves, chalking TWI up to Yet Another Life Experience to learn from. Ie., it ain't a 'drug' of sorts (of the 'mind control' variety), but they (TWI) did try to instill that fear of leaving TWI to be sure. And yet there were more that left w/o needing a 'support group' than perhaps he/she realizes.

Jesus Christr Is Not God! --- Victor Paul Wierwille Is!! :D-->

Long Gone, Uhh, no. He only acknowledged Calvin's responsibility for Servetus. With a little bit of whitewash to go along with it. The only reason I can think of for you stating such is that you evidently disregard the information shown by the two links here. Your choice, but I don't think you have any real historical basis for doing so. As for the persecution of the Jews, they have been hounded throughout the centuries, and one of the main reasons that they were was because of their non-acceptance of Christianity, and to accept Christianity, you had to believe in the Trinity. (Check out what happened to Christians who did not believe in the Trinity, Servetus being but one of the most well known.) Up until 150-200 years ago, belief in the Trinity was law, my friend. Of course another big reason they have been hunted was the blame that they have collectively received for Jesus crucifixion, among others. Tell you what, ask any Jewish historian or a jewish individual who is well versed in their people's history. Run what I've said by him/her, and see what their rendering of my 'rabidness' is, hmmm? You might be surprised. The only thing Cynic got right was my screw-up re: the Baptists. I will concede no more than that. Deal with it. My comparison of Calvin with Wierwille was showing that if Wierwille did these things, he would be roasted in a heartbeat, yet because Calvin is regarded as one of the Bastions of the Reformation, coupled with weak reasonings (like yours) of historical context, he gets off with the proverbial 'slap on the wrist'. Rabid, my a**! And with that, I think perhaps this thread has run its course, so I say 'Caio'. -->

Perhaps if you said 'laid off' :D--> ;)-->

Problem with my rhetoric, huh? Interesting that other people's rhetoric re: VPW was at least as 'polemic' as mine re: Calvin, yet you didn't act all indignant over that. I wonder why ...

Yeah yeah yeah! That's what they ALL say. :D-->

Laleo, First off Cynic made the claim that I (in a few other posts in time past) made false claims about Calvin, the power he welded in Geneva, and the number of people killed as a direct or indirect responsibility of Calvin's (usually due to a very strong religious intolerance on his part). He said that I had no basis nor documented evidence for making those claims, so thus, this thread. And the reason it seems to me that Cynic is taking an other-than-objective derision towards my posts exposing Calvin, is that Calvin is still a very big and respected authority in the Reformed Church, and to speak ill of Calvin there is much like speaking ill of Wierwille in TWI and most related spinoffs. Ie., 'Tain't done, and many times even if true. And while he does acknowledge Calvin's role in Servetus death, he won't acknowledge hardly any other documented and well known historical abuses under Calvin's rule in Geneva, and yes, he did rule, not by direct civil authority, but by theological power. (And this was before separation of church and state in the U.S., so the religious and secular power were often treated as the same back then, especially in Geneva.) Until they finally overthrew his a**. What offends me about Calvin? His theology, ie., the predestination doctrine of some to heaven and some to hell, irrelevent of any free choice therein, his apparent aversion to the concept of free will, especially in regards to if someone rejects his god (which he seems to have a VERY special problem with, and apparently as do some of his followers), as well as Calvin's near rabid joy in murdering those in dissent who were unfortunate to be caught by his regime. Goey had it right. He would be considered a murderer and a power hungry psycopath today. And you know and I know that if Wierwille took out one, just one, individual and put them to death like that in Geneva, U.S. Marshalls would descend on Intl. Headquarters so f-a-s-t, they wouldn't even have time to distribute the Kool-Aid, or set fire to anything ala Waco. And despite any weak arguments regarding 'historical context', any *decent* human being would judge those abuses as wrong and heinous by any standard in any day. ... Note the emphasis on 'decent'.

Laleo, Thank you very much! :)--> That was part of what I was saying, but a very central point. Plus, if we're going to point our 'righteous' fingers and openly complain about Wierwille and his ilk, then I think its only 'what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' for a mainstream critter like Calvin as well. And if some overly-orthodox people can't take it, ..... tough!

Evan, Have you not gone to the link I provided? Or are you too going to give me the 'well they are just those Catholics, you know' standard fare? Ok, how about the link that Goey provided, hmmm? 'Largely fantasy' my a**. Perhaps it's his brand of 'sovereign God' and 'forced grace' theology that you feel a kinship to, y'think? I know you aren't as rabid about the defense of Calvin as Cynic here, but you do seem to still 'have a horse in this race' as it were to look past the information provided in the links here. Or maybe not, but I do know that if it were Wierwille (Der Veg) we were talking about, you would jump right in with ststements of support of the accusations, .... and you know it.

Interesting that Calvin---err, Cynic's ;)--> responses to me still avoid presenting any solid facts to successfully refute what I posted. He does however, endeavor (or appear to endeavor) to give a more substantive reply to Trevor. (Perhaps Cynic has given up on me totally ;)-->) And he uses the "See? Calvin really wasn't such a malevolent dictator after all. There were those who still opposed Calvin in dealing with Servetus' punishment." defense. Yeah, well, in any dictatorship, you'll have those who every now and then speak out differently than the head honcho. Such was the case in TWI, both under Wierwille and Martindale. Such insubordination wasn't tolerated for long however, as was evidenced in the article I referenced. And it still gives no disproof of all the accounts of punishments dealt in his regime. You're slipping, dude. And really, such locker room, 'gotta get a babe' attempt at humor just doesn't fit you, especially when trying to be a Calvin apologist; although there is plenty of his activities to apologize for.

That is Galen's cake filter. He makes sure ALL the crumbs don't get past him.

Evan and Long Gone, Since the both of you use the 'context of history' argument (read excuse) as a ((cough)) 'defense', may I point out that maybe that's why the years since then is regarded as progress, since the aforementioned practices are no longer done in civilized countries. (Well, openly in any event) Oh, and Evan, perhaps the progress thereafter was the influence (albeit non-intended) that Calvin had on Western civilization and the American experiment, ... as an object lesson on how NOT to live/govern in society, so you do have a point there. ;)--> Besides, shifting over to the 'using the Godly standard of non-changing Truth' as a basis for judgement/discernment, how would you render Calvin and Luther (another good object lesson, BTW), hmmmmm? Or what if Wierwille lived back 4-500 years ago? Would your own harsh judgement about the man be more tempered then, given your own 'bombs' re: him and PFAL? But then again, maybe you can dish it out, yet not take it when one of your own authoritative sources is shown up in their 'non-godly' behavior, ehh? I wonder ..... Cynic! I just *knew* that there was a bit of polemic in you there after all, good buddy, what with the beer you drink? Next one is on me!

(blowing Cynic a kiss) I don't care what anybody else says about Calvinists being uptight or boring. I think Cynic is *fun* to play with. :D--> I wonder what his favorite beer is.

Cynic, I notice that you had (still yet) nothing substantial to offer as refutation to my sources, even after taking Raf's post into account. Which by the way doesn't alter anything about the accounts provided.

Beheaded, .... a more merciful fate, .... .... Yah! Tell that to Nick Berg. Tell that to his family. Also, keep in mind Raf, that the people who rabidly went for Servetus burning at the stake were theologically taught by Calvin himself, as he was head of the top school in Geneva at the time, and if you were anybody in power, you had to go thru, and pledge allegiance to, his theological instruction first. Remember that Geneva was for all practical purposes, a theological dictatorship; a theocracy, as it were, with Calvin maintaining an iron fisted control. So, uhh, yeah, Calvin was ultimately responsible for the what and how Servetus died, just as surely as Hitler and Stalin were ultimately responsible for the deaths of those under their respective regimes, in both the what and the how.

The Palace Revolt is afoot! ... Now where's the other foot. :D--> Whoop Whoop Whoop Whoop!

Divcorced? Wait a minute. Didn't he just get married? -->

You folks know of the upcoming movie "Revenge of the Sith"? It tells of Anakin Skywalker turning into Darth Vader and the dark side of the Force. Perhaps that explains what happened to young 'Johnny' Calvin as he was seduced by the Dark Side, ... and turned into Darth Calvin. ((Darth Calvin's masked heavy breathing as the fire to burn Servetus is lit)) "Micheal Servetus, .... I *am* your father" (Servetus) "NNNOOOOOOOoooooooo.........!!" (((shudder))) The horror, the *torture* ((choked sob)) Yanagisawa, You ever notice that in the comic strip, Hobbs was the more mature of the two? And, after reading up about the philosopher Hobbs, that doesn't look good for Calvin. ;)-->