GarthP2000

Well, since you never tasted drywall before, yeah, your tastebuds seem to be coming back when you're chewing the walls because you crave another Marlboro! :o--> :D-->

Cynic, The fact that Calvin wasn't 'on the city council' makes him no less in a position of power, nor any less responsible for the abuses thereof. The links that I provided claerly shows the kind of power he welded, despite your *weak* and *non-substantial* protestations about the 'nonvalidity' of the sources to the contrary. Weak and non-substantial I say, because you provide NO counter evidence to disprove the facts provided by those sources. Nothing except ad hominum & derisive whining. Face it, chief. You're denomination's founder has, in many respects, done far worse things than Weirwille and Martindale, combined. Whether or not he was doctrinally correct and orthodox is irrelevent. And that you are so rabid yourself in defending his reputation causes me to wonder how much control your Calvinist leaders have over your life. Or maybe its something else; I really don't know, to be sure. But it can't be for any real good reason,.... ... cause the man (Calvin) clearly doesn't deserve anywhere *near* that amount of respect or devotion. --> Def, plenty of times I (and many others) have heard about the persecution of the Christian believers, both in fact, and in hype. I'll bet that you do an overall public comparison of the publication of the persecution of Christians, and the publication of the persecution of non-believers, the Christian's tale wins out, hands down! So spare us the 'Nobody hears our tale any more, cause our side is so poor and oppressed!' violin playing, please. I just ate! :P-->

And it isn't a 'romanist Mary-worshipping Catholic' sourse either, but a Protestant one. ;)-->

I believe it was Lincoln who spoke of how most men (people) can withstand difficulty and persecution. But if you really want to judge a man's character, give him power. Seems to me that *wasn't* when the church was 'growing best', hmmmm? ;)-->

"We see atheism's effects ...". And that, my dear man, is where your premise is flawed. You presume (and I would be willing to bet based upon church teachings, rather than on *actual* and conclusive evidence) that atheism is causally linked with the lack of ethics. Pure and unadulterated garbage! As you know, ethics and morals are what drives human behaviors as regards right and wrong. But what you fail to realize is that ethics and morals can be determined independent of a belief in God. For example, does one need a belief in a higher power to realize that murder is wrong? Does one need a 'personal relationship' with God to realize that simply having sex with someone and then dropping them like a bad habit in such a selfish manner winds up hurting those involved? And here is something else you might want to keep in mind. If you do something moral because you are afraid that God would 'send you to hell' (or some other like punishment) if you don't, how does that compare with doing something moral because you knew that it was the right thing to do irrelevant of the Wrath (or Rewards for that matter) of God? Since moral atheists don't believe in the 'do something or else God shalt smite thee' song-and-dance (read extortion!), then that means that they must be doing it for some other motivation. And usually that motivation is the 2nd one I mentioned: ie., doing it because it's the right thing to do, irrelevant of any existance of a diety. Remember that atheism deals with not believing in a god or spiritual world. And that is ALL it deals with, depite whatever anti-atheist propaganda you've been spoon fed. It does not address whether or not there should be ethics or what those ethics should be, with this one exception (IMHO anyway). They take a 'test things out and see what works for the best of those concerned' tactic in determining what ethics are, rather than the blind appeal to authority ("Thus saith the Lord") approach that many theists take. And undoubtedly there will be mistakes and miscalls (as well as calling it right) along the way. But at least that way, they can see for themselves what is right or wrong.

Speaking of Egg Day---errr, Easter, when is it this year? --> Gad! I hate it when they have bouncing holidays going back and forth like this.

ROFLMAO! Boy, ain't THAT the truth. Especially when they get caught in said disorderly conduct (and give a river of tears of repentence, Jimmy Swaggart style). Then the question maybe ought to be directed in their direction, "Can they be trusted?" ;)-->

Def, Now you are the one who needs to 'calm down'. Interesting how when it comes to religious people doing the war/abuse starting, you make exceptions for them, or give the standard "Well, they weren't really godly people who were doing this" white-wash. Yet when it comes to an atheist doing the same thing, I notice that the response is different. Ie., you portray it as atheism as being causal and part-and-parcel to the abusive activity. Sorry! No can do. Gotta stick with a little bit of honest consistancy here. And a couple of corrections to make: 1) Adolph wasn't an atheist. His belief system was a rather wierd morph of Catholicism and Nordic spiritualism that looks like its been put together using drugs. --> But since he did believe in some sort of spirit world, that rules him out as an atheist, as atheists believe in NO spirit world. 2) Contrary to popular Billy Graham-inspired political dogma that many people goosestep to, atheism is, at most, incidental to Communism. Ie., the reason Communist states persecuted/controlled the churches, like they persecuted any other social structure/group of significant size, was to eliminate any and all competitors to power, NOT with any specific 'atheist intent' to eradicate religion. If that were true, then there would be NO churches left in those specific countries. At all. (Just like the same thing happened in Nazi Germany. And see my aforementioned item regarding Adolph's beliefs.) Plus, if atheism is so related/alike to Communism, please explain to me why a good number of atheists in this country are Ayn Rand Objectivists and/or Libertarians? (Neil Boortz, anyone?) If you know anything about those POVs, one thing you do NOT say about them is that they are Communist. Not to their face, anyway. 3) For whatever loud mouth she undoubtedly had, Madelyn Murray O'Hare killed ... no one. She herself was killed however, and I don't believe it was by an atheist. Hmmm? The difference between atheism and religion isn't how many people each group might have killed or not perse, but on whether or not a god is believed in. And that is as far as it goes, regardless of whatever 'all unbelievers are vile and immoral trash' propaganda you have been spoon fed. Oh, and as to your point on where atheists have learned their morals, and to the strong undercurrent of your argument that, without God, they can learn no morals? Morals can be determined by realizing/learning of such activities that bring no harm to people and/or bring the most benefit to people. You do not need a god to do that. ... No, you don't.

Here, George, you see the standard 'atheists have no morals because they have no god' propaganda song-and-dance. And so many people believe it w/o questioning it, because if they actually thought about it, that line of 'reasoning' would be absurd on its face. And for a lot more reasons than you gave. Especially if they *knew* someone who was moral and caring, ... and an atheist. ;)--> Chuck, Chuck, calm down, man! Def ain't evil or mentally unstable. Just has a different POV, that's all. Repeat the following to yourself. It's ONLY a message board, ... only a message board, ... only a message board.

T

Or, .... being its so darn BIG, ... it might just eat YOU. :D-->

Just a little, miniscule bit of nit-picking on my part, -- but its spelled 'ridiculous'. :D--> Now, back to our show!

Speaking of intellectual integrity, ... or the lack thereof due to blind loyalty to one's denominational orthodoxy. Cynic, the only point that you rightfully got me on is that re: the Baptists torturing heretics, and that was due to me not having the documentation or well known historical facts thereof, rather than the possibility (and probability I might add) of such events actually occuring. But, I'll give you that point. All the other points IS well known/well documented. And they belong to me. 1) That Jews were persecuted because of their religion, which INCLUDED their refusal to turn to Christianity, which INCLUDED the mandatory (including verbal) acceptance of the Trinity. Ie., no acceptance of the Trinity, no conversion. No conversion, Jewish person dies/gets expelled from his/her country, including their family. That is a well known historical fact, Jack. (Or should we ask any knowledgeable Jewish historian or other individual as to the verity of my point, hmmmm?) So it is YOUR nose being rubbed in the truth, and that you weren't educated in this basic historical fact is telling on the quality of your education. ... Or maybe I should say the *lack* thereof. 2) Your weak attempt to play the 'Romish Mary-worshipping Catholic' card is just that: weak. Durant wasn't the only one who knew or bore witness to Calvin's dictatorship and abuse of power in Geneva. There were plenty of others, both Catholic AND Protestant, particularly those who lived under Calvin's thumb. You accuse me of not bringing up my sources, yet you, in accusing Durant of 'bungling or cooking' the account of the 58 murdered for heresy, only give a brief 'it seems that the account was bungled or cooked' statement which is hurredly followed by a 'but I will spend no more time on the quote' dismissal in a 'can we get on to something else please' fashion. Ie., if this were a public debate, my friend, I believe that the appropriate statement for that would be "Cynic got owned!" I *still* await your effectual rebuttal, although I seriously don't see it forthcoming. I really don't.

So let me get this straight, "Dr. I'm-in-the-10%-crowd". Your condescending and dismissing attitude towards those of us who dare to question and challenge your information and presentation re: oxygenated water is based on Jesus Christ Himself letting the chain loose on you, and saying "Sick 'em, boy!" towards us 'unbelievers'? ... I'm sorry, but I didn't know that Jesus Christ had some spiritual stake (or perhaps stock? ;)-->) in Penta. Well, well, well! Looks like Smikeol has finally got himself another convert. Davey, if PFAL is the best you can do to show us the Power of GOD, ... well, you'll probably end up alone and forgetten like your Master Teacher Wierwille, whose legacy has and will never amount to anything significant. Ever! Only difference is that instead of Drambrui, your drink of choice is Penta water. :P--> --> Skeptic and heretic, ... and naysayer who will not be hammered down! ... And damn proud of it!

WHOO HOOO!!! So we're 'enemies' now! Next up: a WWF-approved mud wrestling championship between Def59 the Orthodox Destroyer and Chuck the Uncrowned Universalist. You guys want the optional steel barred cage and scantilly-clad prancing girls with the big numbers to go with it? -->

Totally fascinating how he clearly sees the supposed arrogance in the medical community which he self-righteously *loathes* (and even points that out as one of the chief reasons for), yet he just cannot see it in himself. ... Dr. David. -->

So Goey, Where do I sign on the green card for this fantasmic program? ;)-->

Yeah. ... Ohh, like PFAL. ;)--> And that ain't anecdotal. Davey, the more you talk, the more questionable is the logic of your basis and claim that the majority of the medical profession is incompetent/dishonest. I don't know what valid objection/experience you had with individual doctors, but that you paint the medical community with such a broad brush as you do definitely doesn't help your credibility any either. As a matter of fact, it skewers it. -->

Nahh. I think he's wanting to go the "Don't ask. Don't tell" route. ;)-->

Holy God! IDOLATRY ALERT! IDOLATRY ALERT! AWOOOGA! AWOOOGA! AWOOGA! He made the earth move under his feet He brought religion tumblin down (tum-bul-ing down) I now have this picture in my mind of God bowing down to Smikeol and saying: :D--> Mikey, whatever your 'recreational drug' is, get off of it now, before you get yourself seriously *busted*. :P-->

... Tastes great!

Abigail, The setup that you had on your old system with having both Norton's and Zonealarm's firewalls was definitely the problem there. Anytime you have two firewalls running together like that you'll have the results you have had. Sorry to hear Zonealarm didn't work for you tho'.

'So-so unitarian'? :D--> Hehehehehe. N-o-o, I don't think so. He is a very well known (in Reform Church circles anyway) theologian and scholar. Well, at least, that's what his supporters say. And he most likely is an expert (such as they are) in his field of theology and apologetics. But unitarian he ain't. Not by a long shot. :D--> Hee hee!

... with pruning shears, no doubt. ((ducking and running)) :D-->

No ...., Sherlock! Interesting too, is how the Puritan colony was a close copy of Calvin's regime in Geneva, and how f-a-s-t it wound up being the anti-thesis of what this country was founded upon. Also, many of our founding fathers, regardless of denomination, were strongly anti-Calvinist in their thinking.