LCM - anything good to say?

[simonzelotes]

Why, the same thing could be said re: Stalin or Hitler too. ..... Your move.

Perpetual pain-in-the-keister, ain't I?

Pain-in-the-keister goes without saying,Garth,but then I knew that going into this thread

Ok,even though I threw in the thing about Father O'Flanagan,my point is not to make a case for there being good and bad in everybody...Besides,you're the one who invoked Godfrey's law or whoever it is that says you can't mention Hitler or any of those bad guys in an internet discussion...

I mean,face it,we're not mutton-chomping bearded monarchs that have it in our power to say "let's feed him to the lions"...All we can do is discuss and maybe try and figure out what it was that happened to LCM,why we paid him any heed at all,whether we stayed loyal to the way ministry because of him or in spite of him,etc.,etc. ....If he was nothing more than an evil,mean foot-kissing s.o.b. with a lousy sense of humor,then we would have really been quite the chumps if we followed the ministry in spite of those stellar qualities...

When Craig was made the choice to be the new president,I thought at the time he was the natural best choice...Granted,I didn't know all the behind-the-scenes shenanigans going on,but as a tough,dynamic leader,I thought he was head and shoulders above everybody else...I wasn't too put off by his ranting and raving when he addressed the way corpse because I expected that sort of thing when I volunteered to join...However,when he started popping off at the way followers in general and dictating more demands from Joe believer,things seemed to quickly start going haywire...Maybe the presidency all went to his head...

So now let me ask you something,Garth,and then I can say 'your move'...Drawing a similarity between Martindale and Hitler and Stalin,is that a conclusion you've reached when you were a follower of the way ministry,or perhaps some time later,maybe even after joining Greasespot...If Greasespot had anything to do with it,shouldn't we be telling both sides of the story as well as "the other side of the story"?

[GarthP2000]

Besides,you're the one who invoked Godfrey's law or whoever it is that says you can't mention Hitler or any of those bad guys in an internet discussion...

Hey, I mentioned Stalin too! So what law did I invoke with that?

Drawing a similarity between Martindale and Hitler and Stalin,is that a conclusion you've reached when you were a follower of the way ministry,or perhaps some time later,maybe even after joining Greasespot

First off, my drawing the similarity between Martindale and Hitler/Stalin wasn't referring to the intensity of their abuse. If *that* were the case, Hitler/Stalin would win hands down over Martindale. No question! But then again, not every time when someone mentions Hitler (or Stalin for that matter) are they necessarily knee-jerking Godwin's Law, nor necessarily drawing a simple quantitative comparison of abuses in question, but might be referring to some other standard or characteristic.

Two, I used Hitler and Stalin as examples of men who, by the very nature/intensity/quality of their abuse, makes *whatever* good that they (invariably) did look insignificant/irrelevant by comparison. Ie., a non-issue.

Now, that is *my* rendering of the man. YMMV (Your mileage may vary) You might, or even undoubtedly, have seen him do some good based on *your* experiences with the guy. Ok, granted. Others might not be so generous, or even share that view, based on *their* experiences. Same principle can be rendered upon VPW too.

And yes, we should be telling both sides of the story. ..... Now where did I clearly indicate that that should not be the case, hmmmm?

Bishop to Knight's Pawn 5.

Your move

[simonzelotes]

Ya know, it has been said that even Joseph Stalin had his good points. He loved his daughter.

Heh! This would be like someone starting a thread about "Hitler - anything good to say?"

And the point that would be ... ?

<_<

Well mebbe I jumped to conclusions here,but this post kinda gave me that idea...Oh,and forget about chess...You'll kick my foot(I actually typed 'foot' to see if it would come out 'as s') any day of the week....I do play a mean game of Chinese Checkers,though...

[johniam]

quote: Either :

A) God allows evil to reign (for a good reason of course)

B) God has not enough power to stop the evil from reinging (Why do we we even call him our God then?)

C) God is too busy and just isn't priority to stop him (Must be the Deist resting somewhere - Go wake Him up)

D) God doesn't know (Umm, again, why do we call Him our God?)

There's another option. God's love allowed Adam's free will to give the devil rulership and dominion over this world, thus giving the devil access to do evil to God's creation. That's not a good reason, but it's a reason. God's love also allowed the devil to trip over his tail by crucifying Jesus and sealing his own doom.

[Tom Strange]

Simon... it's "Godwin's Law"... (just thought I'd help out here)

[simonzelotes]

Simon... it's "Godwin's Law"... (just thought I'd help out here)

Thanks,Tom...I thought maybe I heard it on The Arthur Godfrey Show...

Edited November 15, 2006 by simonzelotes

[dmiller]

What cult did Stalin, or Hitler lead that we followed,

that we are *qualified* to address, from a first hand basis???

<_< <_< <_<

[waterbuffalo]

He inspired a lot of people to take dance lessons.

FOOCLOL, Tbone!!!!!!

What can I say nice about Craig?

HE IS SOMEONE THAT GOD LOVES VERY, VERY MUCH :-)

[TrustAndObey]

Garth,

You said "so, if he is allowing evil to rule (for his own 'good reasons', doncha know ) then he is either not onmipotent, ... or he is malevolent, ... or he is the cause of the evil, ... or he just ain't God. ..... then that must mean that basically the evil comes from him. Right?

So, how does that make him righteous and pure, aka the verses in James (you know, the ones that talk about him being "The Light, and in Him is no darkness at all" and all the others that portray this?)"

Actually it means He is the most loving of all (and in Him is no darkness), because he allows the devil to live yet promises protection and life to all those who come to Him. Therefore he wouldn't be resposible, for he gave you the choice. He is still God, and your creator.

----------------------------------

JohnIam,

You said "There's another option. God's love allowed Adam's free will to give the devil rulership and dominion over this world, thus giving the devil access to do evil to God's creation. That's not a good reason, but it's a reason. God's love also allowed the devil to trip over his tail by crucifying Jesus and sealing his own doom."

Actually that would be still the same option A, God allows evil to reign....

Didn't say it reigns over all.. Only those who allow it to reign..

Edited November 15, 2006 by TrustAndObey

[coolchef]

maybe lcm was a good young boy but methinks he turned evil but he had help