GarthP2000

Oh man, Mark. Whatever you do, *don't* refer to Cynic as tho' he's Roman Catholic. He's a staunch Calvinist, and they do NOT like to be identified in any way with being Catholic. :D-->

Yeah. ... Pull the plug. :D--> But seriously, no I don't.

Because I have been told that I bring baseless charges re: Calvin, and our good and eloquent friend Cynic wants proof, and to keep the 'Trinity has met its match' thread from being further derailed (as well as being specifically at Cynic's request), I bring to him, and all interested parties one (but its not the only one) source about Calvin's history and his questionable activities: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm Now I know that this is from a Catholic source, and that there is hardly any love lost between Catholics and the Reform Church, but this source is documented enough to be considered a valid one nonetheless. Here are some highlights from the article that focus on the characteristics that I brought up about Calvin: This shows Calvin's authoritative (near dictatorial) influence in Geneva. Cynic, remember when I spoke earlier of 24 people killed by Calvin? You were right; I was incorrect. It was 58! The above paragraph begins the details which follow in which Servetus was murdered. (There I go again. ;)-->) And no, there is no sign of Calvin feeling any remorse nor 'godly' contriteness over the event. If anything, it was almost a blood lust. Oh, and here is a paragraph that seems (to me at least) to illustrate this kind of mentality in a nutshell. I fully agree. Anyway, Cynic, you *did* ask for 1) a seperate thread on the matter, and 2) resources backing my ((cough)) 'baseless blood libel'. Enjoy. -->

Remember that link I posted? Start with that. And remember: outside of your church history, my man. _Outside_ Polemic, you mean? I'm sorry, but I thought that that horse has already gotten out of the barn. ;)--> And don't worry about exploring my polemical character. It's doing just fine w/o any interference from you, thank you very much.

Uhmmm, I think Cynic's upset. --> You mean like the fact that Calvin was directly responsible for Servetus murder? (Yes Virginia, I WILL post that here, and I WILL call it murder, despite your desire for me not to, as that is relevent to your accusation against me) Never mind that you yourself has so much admitted that that incident took place, and still tried to whitewash his reputation about it. Never mind that I *did* give you a link leading to a site showing Calvin's 'darker side'. ... Or, like Steve said, read your history, and no, church propaganda does NOT qualify. Tell me something chief, why is it that defending the trinity in such a virulent manner is so damned important to folks like you? As if folks who dare to question it are to be treated as tho' they are at the same moral level as a child molester. Hell, it has only been in the last 100-200 years that putting them to death has *finally* been made illegal (and with hardly any initial support by most orthodox churches I might add ). You would think that if it is so true, not ONLY would it be so plain that "not even a child need ere therein", but its proponents would be so confident in its solidity that they definitely wouldn't be so anal about it like you are demonstrating here. Why is it that it has usually been (if not always) that orthodoxy has been one of the chief opponents to independent critical thinking and the free expression thereof? Yeah, yeah, I know. According to you, because I reject your orthodox ((cough)) 'gospel' ((GAG)), I am now incapable of independent critical thought. ((snort)) If you can't see something seriously wrong with that line of 'logic', you are definitely a terminal case. And (according to you) I might not be 'Van Tilian' enough to determine what constitues proof, but then again, what authority is this Van Til the theologian to be THE Final Answer to what constitutes proof anyway? ... Sounds like Yet Another Religious Authority whose serious followers take this guy way too seriously. (Which eerily reminds me of one Smikeol doing the same re: VPW and PFAL, ... y'think? ;)--> At least Smikeol sounds more cheerful when he goes into his spiel.

John, How well does Google Gmail deal with spam, viruses, and the like?

No, he demonstrated with his illustration likening it (the 'logic' of the trinitarian view) to the rationale that Plato used and the derivative (degenerate? ;)-->) neo-platonic view. Read it again. *I* understood it. I'm surprised that you do not. --> Now tell me something, Cynic. Do you fully understand the trinitarian concept, enough to prove it that is? (Prove, not parrot. ;)-->) Since you say that none of us 'incontinent' heathen cannot 'demonstrate the contradiction' of the trinity, you therefore speak as tho' you do. Understand it, that is. ... And not just simply pledge obedience to it out of appeal to authority. And, if you do, then how does that fit with those trinitarian apologists who readily admit that it is non-understandable, even non-comprehensable?

Ahh, but he did. You just choose not to consider it, for in doing so, you would run the risk of questioning your orthodox creed. And you just won't do that. You are quite capable of thinking for yourself (I've seen it in some of your other posts)-- until that thinking runs square against the aforementioned creed. At that point, it shuts irrevocably off. A classic case of the mental slavery I finally walked away and declared my independence from a few years ago. Sad. :(-->

I.e., in short, their 'god' is too small. :P-->

*Ouch!* :D-->

I was mainly addressing that portion of her statement. Plus I was giving my NSHO on what I thought of Zonealarm. Norton's anti-virus program and Zonealarm's security app don't compete against each other, as I have used them together once before. The main complaint I have against Norton's anti-virus app is that it is a memory *pig*, and definitely is not the most efficient kid on the block. Methinks that they have been taking lessons from Micro$loth. :P-->

My suggestion? Zone Alarm. Hands down. No question. And this is before you even consider their professional version. www.zonelabs.com Check it out. Most PC mags rate it as Number 1 in their book.

Did it come in the form of an orange Book? ;)--> :D-->

What *kind* of impression on your heart they make, however, is up to you, hmmm? ;)--> And since you are a Momentus grad, AND you also have a beef with Momentus, and how they operate in this manner, why not just throw off their anal-retentive "OHH MY GOD, don't you KNOW the *EFFECT* your words HAVE on your commitment?!?" Martindale-wannabe approach. ... or, in the words of that ever-fun-loving Sargent Hulka, "Lighten up, Frances!" ;)--> Besides, it's Friday. Miller time! :D-->

Thanks for the backup Steve re: Cynic's 'don't post about the Calvin/Servetus incident as an illustration of the topic here, cause it pi$$es me off' approach. :)--> However (you knew it was coming, didncha? ;)-->) I agree with Raf in that you are taking the usage of the word 'partner' here too seriously. As a matter of fact, it has an eerie similarity to how a Momentus grad would talk, what with them getting all anal and bent out of shape as to the proper usage of and your 'commitment' to the *true* and *honest* meanings of words, concepts, et al. Read again in a comprehensive, over all manner what he said in his first post using 'partner' and I think you'll see what I mean. Plus, I think you know and I know Raf well enough that he is independent enough in his thinking, that just because he uses the word 'partner' here, doesn't make him either a CES puppet, nor is he heading towards being dishonest (spiritually or otherwise) with us. I.e., as Fraud--err, Freud would say, "Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar."

Damn! Is that something like the term 'blood libel'? How Klingon sounding of you. Oh wait, so you're trying to imply that John Calvin had nothing to do with Servetus' murder (Yes Virginia, I'm saying it was murder, because that is exactly what it was.) ... As a matter of fact, I do believe I read in a previous post of yours where you conceded this very point. That Calvin was responsible for Servetus' murder. I didn't get you upset at that, did I? Chief, you have just got to stop believing everything the church tells you about that man, and read from more independent sources. Since trinitarianism is taught in the realm of faith, it relies not upon rational thought, logic or common sense for its basis, but a straight appeal to the trust and obedience of the orthodoxy and authority of the church. Rational and independent thought is not subject to that orthodoxy and authority, thus resulting in angry reactions like yours and other fundy apologists. (As my example re: Calvin plainly illustrates) Which explains a lot about why folks like me have left that sick mentality behind in the dust.

..... aannnddddd let's not forget to put a few (well, *more* than a few preferably) bucks in the collection plate while we're at it too, doncha know. ;)--> Kinda makes the 'repentance' sweeter, ... for the minister anyway. Now THAT'S the kind of 'universalism' that we're talking about here! :D-->

Actually, the main reason it 'keeps winning out' is because of wide spread public acceptance due to orthodox instruction based on appeal to authority, browbeating, peer pressure, intimidation, extermination, control of resources, and other like 'influences' rather than on valid point-by-point comparison of the two ideologies. Fer instance, up until around 150-200 years ago, disbelieving in the trinity was often dealt with by a prison term, if not a death sentence. ... Some persuasion of 'superior wisdom', huh? --> Why don't you ask our good and verbose friend Cynic who Micheal Servetus was, and why he got the death penalty, and in John Calvin's Geneva too. (Careful, Cynic old boy. I've got references to that event, just in case you 'forget' some of the details. ;)-->) And if he doesn't wish to oblige you, then I'll be more than happy to. Oh, and trinitarianism being seriously challenged?? My a$$! Not when it was the dominant view of Christ for the better part of 1600 years!

Sounds s-o-o-o, ... country clubbish. ..... Hey, *somebody* has to be left out. Back of the bus. ... Ya know? -->

Steve, nice explanation altho' there is more to the definition of the word 'judgement' than you realize: (following definition pulled from Dictionary.com) Notice here that the judgement is rendered after due consideration and thought; logic, as it were. After, not before. (supposed to be anyway) Need any aspirins yet? ;)--> I noticed that in your 'judgement' here, you left out explaining why rational logic can have blind faith as one of its foundations. As a matter of fact, if anything, your explanation only helps give strength to the logic of my tag line. Thanks!

Yeah! And what about all those forum prunes laying around? ..... Ohhh, that's right. We're talking about forum pruning. My bad. :D-->

JERRY, :)--> Good to see you dude! Join the frey--errr, discussion. :D--> Don't be strange, -- ahh I mean a stranger.

Don't remind us, Mike. Don't remind us.

Sure is a lot nicer setting, gotta give me that. I like what you said about the 'eternal judgement and fire in hell' deity, tho'. .... Can you say 'having some serious control issues'? :D-->

Ahh ooopsie! Not quite. It is logic should precede judgement. I.e., you use logic to render a judgement. Informed and mature logic. Using judgement to render 'logic' is like making a decision before you have all the relevent and consistant information. And, as so often is in cases like this, this results in stubborness and 'blind faith' to embrace and be loyal to that decision rendered irrespective of what logic can convey. Sorry Charlie. .... Reality is like that, pain in the assets as that might be. ;)--> :D--> :D--> ROFLMAO :D--> :D--> Good one Raf!