Ancient : 212


Building / Ancient / 212

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Ronald Scott Moody

Rev. Brendan, Wow, I am so impressed. I have been collecting Lego for some time now and have worried that I have been to materialistic in my collecting. I have so often thought and prayed to find some way to honor and give glory to God with this. (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.build.ancient)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well that's certainly ONE view of what he's doing, yes. Please forgive me for snickering out loud when I read the above paragraph, though. Ronald, you may want to check your assumptions a lot more carefully before you proclaim that you're sure (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.build.ancient, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) Hey, Just to throw in my two cents, I'm a highly religious person who very much enjoys Brendan's work. He is being fairly true to the text*. So a view of the impact of his work really rests on your view of the underlying text. If you are a (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) And I completely concur with Bruce. I know that RBPS is not a church going/God believing person, but that does not negate my appreciation of his retelling of the Bible in LEGO one little bit! I look forward to the latest additions to his (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Chris Phillips

(...) If anything, the true beauty of The Brick Testament (aside from the incredible modelling and stunning photography) is that it avoids controversy almost completely by simply telling the stories of the Bible without actually changing them. Who (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John P. Henderson

(...) I too have laughed at more than one depiction of Biblical events as portrayed in brick on Brendan's site. I would add to this debate that God very likely has a sense of humor about these things too. Afterall, if we were created in his image, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you forgot to capitalize Beer... (if it's god's beer it's beer with a capital B right?) (...) Were I a believer I'd be saying that he works in mysterious ways, getting a non believer to spend so much time spreading the word. And as for (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) But this really isn't about BPS and God having a good laugh-- heck, BPS probably doesn't even believe in God. It's about BPS and you having a good laugh at Joe Christian and his relationship with God. It's like the unwritten rule that only (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) No, I do not believe in God. (...) Being Christian and being black aren't particularly analagous. Christianity is a religion comprised of a belief system that you can either choose to accept or reject. Being black means you happened to be born (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I'm curious as to how you think the BT is worthwhile to a Christian by showing that what they believe in is silly (I can see why is it useful to *you*-- a "creative" expression of your rejection of your perceived silliness of Christianity, and (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Frank Filz

(...) Please note that Brendan said he was raised Christian. I would also argue that almost everyone in the US is sufficiently affected by Christianity to have sufficient reason to question it. I would also argue that if a religion can not withstand (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Hear Hear! If people cannot undergo scrutiny of their belief system, then there is something wrong. The difference b/w scrutiny and all-out harassment is hard to determine, but (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Let's say for a moment that what Christians believe in *is* silly. Would it then be worthwhile to help show them this? Is it worthwhile in general to discredit other people's silly beliefs, even when they are very much convinced of these silly (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Well, therein lies part of your problem-- you cannot ever really assert this. (...) Perhaps, but in the guise of holding them yourself? You mention Ministers contacting you about wanting to use the BT for Sunday school, etc. Do you really (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Frank Filz

(...) John, Brendan isn't criticizing beliefs. He's criticizing the Bible, a book which has some rather bizzare things in it, and a lot of inconsistencies. (...) So it's wrong to point out inconsistencies in books? The same book that some people in (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) A lot of what I wrote in my last post was aimed at getting you to look at this situation from my prespective. In essence, the question was, what would you do if it was *you* who were convinced that the religion of everyone around you was (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I don't deny that they seem silly *to you* and, as I mentioned before, that is fine, but I'm still wondering what the movitation is that makes you feel it necessary to change everyone to your POV-- to perhaps feel better about your own (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) I don't feel it is is necessary to change everyone to my point of view, and in fact, it wouldn't particularly bother me if no one's religious views were ever changed by The Brick Testament. It would at best be a small comfort to know that (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip one of the better posts around here lately> Hey Rev, I think you're on to something with your reasoning that if it's ok to have missionaries in the pro christian direction it's just as (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Here's the trick. I don't believe that the concept of objective morality makes any sense (that things or actions can be objectively good, bad, right, or wrong). Hence the difficulty in proving that something like slavery is objectively evil. I (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I know the feeling about which you speak-- I was just trying to upwrap it and try and see *why* that is actually a comfort. For me, it boils down to a reassurance that we are not crazy, that we are not completely wacked on an issue, which (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) There are any number of self-contradictory assertions inherent in the Christian faith with which one could take issue, but this is the big one that needs to be exorcised whenever it's uttered. The whole God-incarnate-here-to-redeem-us theme is (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I would like to see your cites. Christianity offers a few unique twists. One which I believe is unique is the "fully human, fully divine" status of Jesus, and his fulfillment of OT biblical prophesy. I also am not aware of any God-incarnate (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Socrates was, for example, a Son of God, though I understand that that's not quite what you meant. (Socrates was more moral than Jesus, however). Off the top of my head the other big one I can think of is Appollonius of Tyre, whose name I may (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, I had the spelling wrong, and the attribution. The name I was aiming for is Apollonius of Tyana. And here are a few others: Pythagoras (who could bilocate, by the way) Simon Ben Kochba Empedocles Shabbetai Tzevi Orpheus Simon Magus Sun (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) I'm not sure it was the divine manifestation to which the 'uniqueness' was referring, but (as I took it) Christianity itself. IE that it is Christianity that is unique, with a unique message. Not the Jesus-being-the-son-of-God bit. I could be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Agreed. (...) No, I'm not doing the Bible justice. We're agreed on that. The only way to truly do the Bible justice is to read the whole thing cover to cover. But anytime someone presets only *some* Bible stories, they have their own reasons (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) <snip> (...) God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful, *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that. Christians do not see eye to eye on much, especially on topics such as evangelism. It really can be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) John said many things in this very post that basically fit my idea as to what being a Christian is all about, and how I try to approach my Christian life. Nicely done, John! Dave K. As an (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Sez Karl Rove: "As people do better [financially], they start voting like Republicans... ...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." (...) Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) Which brings up the very discussion my friends and I have had for years at around wvery election-time--who do you vote for? Do you vote for the guy who is going to be good for your society, but not probaby good for you 'cause he'll tax you (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) I agree-- it *can* give your life meaning to hope. But how about hoping in Santa Claus? Should we? Better yet, let's hope for some *NON* christian afterlife! If the ends justify the means (fulfillment of life justified by being Christian), (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Good choice, God. <snip> (...) That is a very bizarre way for an all-powerful being to go about getting across a message when it would be far simpler, and presumably far more effective for him to just give it to people directly without some (...) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

I can answer much of this, including your examples, (though you may call it my opinion), but I wanted to ask before I interrupt someone else's debate. It may be of interest that like many christians I stand by the *whole* old testemant and of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Sure, jump in! There's a reason we're debating in a public forum and not just over e-mail. (...) OK, so would you say his first covenant, that of the Old Testament, could be accurately summed up by "Israelites, do what I say, or I will kill (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Thomas Stangl

Rev, I think you need to get working on fleshing out the Good Book of Maury. Sounds like a hoot. Then again, all you'd have to do is change a few words/names/phrases across the Bible, and it would probably work well enough. But if you take some real (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Lob is only revealing his divine mysteries to me a little at a time, but I will pass on more Rooist theology as the occasion warrants. (...) Careful, Tom, you're bordering on blasphemy here. Rooism is a wholly unique religion with a unique (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip> You had me right up until the facetiousness. (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) This is part of my point-- it has been there all along. (I am still composing, Brendan) -John (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Explain? -Rev. Smith (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) From post (URL) the first tweaking began... " (...) May Maury the Talking Kangaroo watch over you in the night! -Rev. Smith " In this discussion you have used the spaceship/kangaroo scenario as an *example* as to how ludicrous you believe (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) This was not intended as a harsh comment. It's just that when someone says "God bless" to me, and then specifies that the God who they are asking to bless me is the God of Christianity, it has as much meaning to me as my imploring Maury the (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Frank Filz

(...) Besides, there's plenty of places you could mail off to and get all the official documentation you need in the US to be a reverend and conduct weddings... (This is one of the things which really highlights that the religious definition of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) And I have no problem with the 'refusal' of a blessing, and i do concur with your take on the, "Oh, you're an Athiest so I'm just going to throw that 'God Bless' at *you* to tweak your nose, 'cause I'm right and you're wrong not to believe". (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Frank Filz

(...) And how many people realize they are invoking God's blessing when they say "goodbye" which originally was "God be with ye." I know a lot of folks now just say "Bless you." Frank (stirring the pot...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

(...) Just to clarify, read any post by me in .castle and see if you can find one without God Bless on the end (OK there may be a few). I tagged the other bit on to show where I would be coming from in this debate... Not to be snide. Of all the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) We haven't met yet... (...) Apology accepted. (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Although The Rev has already addressed a lot of this very capably (and with remarkably polite restraint!), I wanted to add a few thoughts here, since the debate has taken a bit of a turn... That's an interesting point, but if we remove the (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: Either way it's not cool to force a blessing (...) Even in the middle of composing another post, I was struck by your words, because they echo a similar ascertain you made which I didn't understand in (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, "force" might have been too strong a word for me to choose, and the "black magic" angle was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but you ask a good question. When someone says it to me I repond on two levels. The primary meaning is (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) And I completely concur--if someone made a law in which folks would have to pledge 'there is no God', I would protest. If you have a constitutional ammendment saying no religion in official state stuff, then remove 'God-talk'. These zealotous (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

First off, since the primary issue here seems to be God's love. I will write with assurance he exists. (It is just a waste to debate the character of someone while debating their existence in the same post). So I am skipping over a long argument (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

So, ok. I have absolutely no issues other than personal preference when it comes to the answers that Nathan's given-- They all make perfect sense. However, they ONLY make sense accepting what we (or at least I) would consider to be *IMPERFECTIONS* (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Nice can of worms. Actually, if you *really* want to get into it... God is omniscient (by definition). So God *knows* whether we will choose to acknowledge Him or not, and thus it is predetermined (Predestination). It seems to me to be of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: As for Todd's characterization of God; Sorry, I meant "Nathan":-/ -John (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

(...) Thanks for the correction! I seem to have gotten 'todd' a lot of my life. Also thanks for your involvement in this thread. God Bless, (Before I cause a fight this is meant for JOHN) Nathan (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Never trust a man with two first names, I always say. 8^) Dave! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) I thought the old axiom was 'always trust a Dave!' At least, IIRC Dave K (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Maggie Cambron

(...) I thought the old axiom was "make sure you marry a man with two last names" (preferably old money names). :-) Maggie C. (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) But if I did that, my wife would kill me. Dave! PS. By the way, I forgot "scolex" (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Maggie Cambron

(...) And Spandex, Dave! How could you forget Spandex!? Maggie (22 years ago, 15-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Aw, shucks--and I thought you'd overlooked my post. How, indeed, could I ever forget Spandex? Dave! (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Maggie Cambron

(...) That's okay, Dave! I didn't think of Spandex til the weekend myself! (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm thinking YDNRC... (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) Well, I've never met a Dave I didn't like, so there's a personal axiom--I've never met a Dave I didn't like! No recollection needed. Though, thinking of it now, not too many Larry's I didn't like, either. But just those two... Dave K. (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a double-named debater when truth is on the line! -John (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Wait a minute--- John? Neal? I should have known! Dave! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) That's right! Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons! -John (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) Inconceivable!! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Pedro Silva

(...) Auch! :'( Any exceptions? Pedro (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) The way I see it, there's two schools of thought on the subject. Either God KNOWS what's going to happen or he doesn't. If he DOES know, then it's not really "free will". And as such, God CREATED me such that I'll never accept him. Punishing (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

(...) Wow, wish I could end a debate on that note! (This is a joke, please do not take offensce). (...) I assume from this you do not believe in God (particularly the God of christians). Please do not take it amiss if I refer to his existence in the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) Nah, I won't take offense. I try not to let anything said in o-t-debate get to me-- it takes all the fun out of it :) (...) No, I don't believe in him, but for the sake of the argument at hand, I'm taking it as a given. Well, ok, that's not (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Jeffrey M. Szklennik

(...) snip lots of stuff (...) big snip again (...) What if free choice is something like Quantum Physics (QP)? I've read somewhere that according to QP, ALL events happen, we just experience the ones we choose (the other events are potential (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

Since I generally agree with DaveE's comments, I will try to not to repeat his arguments too much here, assuming you will reply to his post. (...) Yes, we are debating God's character as presented in the Bible, so in this context it only makes sense (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip lotsa good stuff!> (...) I agree with your stance on the 'thumbing of the nose' that the 'God bless you' and, as such, it really shouldn't be said in this thread, or directed at RBPS or (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) I can't resist a little self-promotion, since The Rev's views are so nicely compatible with mine (irrefutable proof of his brilliance, if you ask me). I voiced a similar question here a while back, but the thread was huge and I never got a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Here's how I see it. First, I'm not so sure about the eternal damnation thing. Second, I happen to believe that hell is separation from God. People *choose* to reject God, and that is hell. They choose darkness, because of selfishness, pride (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) THis is close to my take--hell is not 'fire and brimstone', it's non-existance(1). If you are separate from God, divorced from God, then it's like cutting off your hand--the hand can only fulfill it's intended function when it's attached to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

(...) I will assume you read that reply. SNIP (...) I always took the creation of angels as implied. 'In the beggining God...' (No mention of angels) 'created heaven and earth' (I always put them in the heaven stage that isn't really described in (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Oh, but it is in fact the very *crux* of the issue... at least in one line of argument that's advanced. If you posit the existence of a creator because you can't accept a universe always having been, you haven't actually *explained* anything, (...) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

Massive SNIP (Read my first reply for these sections). (...) This is the key to any debate on God's love. As it was his greatest act of love. I will deal with your 3 points in order: 1) The mechanics: Think of a 3 leaf clover, the leaf's being God, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dan Thompson

(...) These points aren't entirely correct and without going into a full bible study I will write what I have found to be true The points 1-3. God is not like unto a plant, you ought to look at Him more like this- God the invisible spirit who is the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

First off please see my email to you on the subject. Secondly let me say I agree with you and think you have put many things in a better way then myself. (...) A nice concise statement... Couldn't have put it better myself. SNIP (...) Yes, this is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

SNIP of unprecedented preportions. Since this debate has almost trailed off and I don't forsee either side convincing the other I'll just say one last thing. I think the greatest proof of God's existence, and love, are the millions of people that (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) You are a wise man, Nathan;-) JOHN (who is *still* composing his response to BPS) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm... If popular opinion is all that's required to establish "proof" of a metaphysical entity's existence, then I'd say that the Christian God had better watch over His Shoulder. According to one set of statistics, Christianity can lay claim (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It would still be the same God. Jesus would be demoted fom avatar of God to prophet of God, however. What happened to Buddhists on this scale? God help us if L. Ron Hubbard preached breeding as swiftly as possible to Scientologists. :-) (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John P. Henderson

(...) existance, than one must acknowledge the probability that the "Christian God" will be facing extinction in the near future. The nations that are Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist (not in the article above presumably because it is more a philosophy (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Some VERY good science fiction has been done using that notion (that reality is mutable, based on beliefs of the observers) or similar ones (in particular I always enjoy a re-read of _The Practice Effect_ by David Brin)... (...) what about (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John P. Henderson

(...) Obviously, those artists were just imagining how things might have looked if there had been color. Creative license and all... 8^) -H. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) I thought it was because Ted Turner colorized them. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ted Turner colorized Picasso's paintings?? Sacre Bleu! (if you'll forgive the expression...) Film at ll. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <Snip> (...) On TNT (Turner Network Television) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, probably on CNN. BTW whenever I saw "colorised" in the listings I just turned the saturation all the way down on my receiver to turn it black and white again. Made for some interesting commercials. But I digress. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Perhaps Nathan meant it in the reverse-- if it truly were a bogus religion, it probably would have faded into the past by now (a sort of twist on Occam's razor?). Since Christianity is still going strong after 2,000 years, *something* is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) But Buddhism is going strong for quite a bit longer, and Judaism is no johnny-come-lately, either. Are both of those belief systems as strongly validated as Christianity by virtue of their respective ages? (...) I like that analogy! (...) But (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Tom Stangl

(...) Except that sometimes the parking lot is full only because they are the best eats within the next few hundred miles. Doesn't mean they're GOOD, just that they're the best of a bad lot. -- | Tom Stangl, Sun ONE Internet Technical Support, Sun (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I think the assumption is that given the choice of any number of eating establishments in close proximity, choose the one with the full parking lot. But your point is well taken: Sometimes your choices are Mac & Dons, Taco Smell, Spendy's, or (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Certainly Judaism. I honestly don't know that much about Buddhism to comment, but can billions of Chinese be wrong? And if they were, would you point it out, knowing full well that you could anger them into all deciding to jump off of a step (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Seriously. Consider for a moment that you may be referring to the entity that created you, and quadrillions of other living things that are/were but a speck on this insignificant planet in the course of time and history of the universe. Has (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) That assertion hits upon a real dilemma for me. I should come clean and admit that I don't accept the argument that proof of God's existence would eliminate our free will to obey/disobey him; Adam and Eve certainly knew (in the context of the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Ken Dowd

(...) <snip> (...) Unless God really has revealed the one and only path to Heaven to an individual/s. Then declaring it is not arrogance at all - its simply declaring the truth. <snip> (...) Just because something is old does not mean it is false (I (...) (22 years ago, 14-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Sure, but that's circular reasoning at its finest. I've read numerous works of modern Christian apologetics in which atheists are ridiculed for their so-called arrogant refusal to believe in a god, coupled with the further straw-man argument (...) (22 years ago, 14-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) I don't think it makes sense to speak of things being objectively significant or insignificant. I consider myself of extreme significance to me, though. (...) Sure, there could be, but if my finite mind can't begin to grasp it, then how can (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) What I am contending is that we don't know much about what God does, so we can't begin to question why He does what He does. What I *know* God has done: 1) Created the universe (but not Adam and Eve specifically BTW) 2) Made a covenant with (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) For clarification, how is it that you know these 4 things for certain, but at the same time, little to nothing else about God's actions? Do you know these 4 things *because of the Bible*, or aside from the Bible? (...) OK, but what is it we (...) (22 years ago, 9-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Bzzt!!!!! (1) Darn. You were winning, too. It's a darn shame. Well, at least the thread is over, anyway. 1 - half in jest, we subscribe to Godwin's law here: (URL) (2) ... or at least we say we do because it's fun... 2 - not the only Jargon (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) Yep, I'm with Larry here--using the H-word is like dropping the H-bomb--End Of Discussion... Move along, move along... nothing to see here... it's over ;) We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate. So how do people pronounce (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Ah, you caught me. @8^) I was trying to sneak out of continuing this debate. By mentioning the H-man, I thought I could end it having still gotten in the last word(1). Alas, not everyone recognizes Godwin's Law around here(2). -Rev. Smith (1) (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The whole Hacker's Dictionary is, IMHO... (...) Well, maybe. But as the entry points out, if you do it on purpose, it doesn't count, so since you said you did, you failed, and I guess it's still on. :-) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John P. Henderson

(...) The problem I have with this line of thinking is that everyone (here in the US anyway) seems way too sensitive to these sorts of things. I actually disagree with your thinking that there is nothing wrong with our overly PC approach to things. (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) Hey all. Huge long thread here that sprang up while I was away. I'm tempted to respond to about every other post, but fear it's a fruitless quagmire. Rather than hit any of the theological points of issue, I just wanted to address this one, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Were you away during your whole reign as Cool Site of the Week? Congratulations, by the way. @8^) -Rev. Smith (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) Pretty much. I was away for the holiday and only logged in briefly on Saturday. So I new my site had been picked, but I wasn't really in the forums at all. I wanted to get something new up during my reign, but I didn't get a chance to (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps because the white-christian-right holds so much power? Scott A (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) lol Thank you for lumping together all of the groups that it is politically correct to bash! "White-christian-right"??? What "power"?? What the heck are you talking about? More racism? -John (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Scott Arthur

(...) No, more denial from you. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Defend your allogation. About what "power" specifically are you speaking, or was it merely a Liberal throw-away? -John (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Greg Perry

(...) Sheesh, Larry why don't you go ahead and tell folks that Santa doesn't exist while you're at it. You bubble-burster you. Greg P.S. Mine wasn't a snicker - it was an all out snort! (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Ronald Scott Moody

(...) I had no clue what else he had on the rest of his page. I would never have thought that someone would put something up religeous in nature in a maner such as I interpreted the Brick Testament on one page and then the kind of discusting and (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) That's a reasonable position to take, but I urge you not to limit your careful analysis simply to new ideas; there's no reason not to subject one's pre-existing views to that same kind of critical examination. Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dan Thompson

snip (...) snip Scott, Brendan's site is religious in nature but it is not christian. I hope for your sake you stayed out of the new testament. Sometimes slight and other times not so slight mockery of God can be found in every story. I too collect (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Jon Palmer

"Ronald Scott Moody" <uberwindin@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:H689GH.609@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) proclaim (...) have (...) face (...) not (...) that (...) Fundies rock. Lets just disregard all creative aspects of Brendan's work because (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) doesn't fit into their worldview! Quoteth Larry " Well that's certainly ONE view of what he's doing, yes. Please forgive me for snickering out loud when I read the above paragraph " (though, to be said, Larry did put in the apology before the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, if it makes Scott feel any better, I failed to see the joke a year ago: (URL) in my defense I seem to recall that the stories illustrated in LEGO up to that time were less satirical than they later became. That's not to say that the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) I also 'stuck my foot in it'--I was so impressed that a 'Reverend' played with LEGO and was doing the Bible with LEGO bricks. I went and told some of my friends. Then I realized, probably due to a BPS posting at the time, that he wasn't a (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Easy there, tiger. I was snickering at the rather credulous and wide eyed statement (unfortunately snipped, but worth rereading) that Ronald Scott Moody initially made, not his particular worldview. Such charming naivety is, well... lauguable, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) And I believe that naive people need to be guided and not laughed at. Who here would point and snicker at someone who 'just got off the boat' into a strange land where the rules and (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fair enough, you're right. It DID make me snicker though, I just couldn't help it. You should have seen what I didn't post... :-) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) ;) See, b/w friends you can tell me I'm an idiot and snicker at the dumb things I do--good friends laugh at one another when we do stupid things :) As long as we know that there's a helping hand behind the laugh--friends know that :) Dave K (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) Once, a long time ago, when my little sister was about 3 years old, she exclaimed "Ow! My feelings!". We found it hilarious. Still do. Should we not? I think the point is not to belittle those who are naive, while still being able to find (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) And b/w friends and family that's fully understood and there's no issues at all! My friends and myself have a huge 'banter' thing going on--any small slip or gaffe in conversation generates lots of ridicule. But that's amongst friends--to have (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Jon Palmer

"Jon Palmer" <jon@zemi.net> wrote in message news:H691K8.CJH@lugnet.com... (...) Ok "superstition" was a bit harsh. I should have said "belief". But I seriously do still stand by my opinion of how rediculous it is to completely discount something (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) And I concur with your synopsis as well. I have seen many people who profess their Christianity spouting venom and hatred of those things 'unChristian'. To me, that's a very unChristian, and quite frankly more important, inhuman thing to do. (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I think what he felt was betrayal and a sense of being lied to. If he had known going in that it was mockery, his reaction IMO would have been different. I really don't care about someone's paticular beliefs when I view their MOC, unless their (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you mean *cheek* turning christians. Unless, of course, you're referring to the Irish Americans who apparently keep turning checks over to the IRA that someone keeps trying to use as an argument... (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

American-Christians fund the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) If you mean me, I don’t think I have ever made any link between the IRA and American-Christians or even Irish-Americans [whatever they are] specifically? Call me on that if I’m wrong, otherwise I’d appreciate some clarification. Further, the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: American-Christians fund the IRA? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Breaking my usual practice of ignoring you and your nonsense, I decided to see how hard it was to clarify this for you. It wasn't hard at all. Using the search string "fund terrorist ireland arthur" it's not too hard to dig up lots of examples (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: American-Christians fund the IRA? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Ooooh, one of my favourite words that is rarely used in this day and age. I shan't deny... :) Thanks for brightening up my otherwise dreary and depressing day at work, (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: American-Christians fund the IRA? —Ross Crawford

(...) Lar++ Careful Dave - the postfix operator is definitely *not* equivalent to the prefix operator, and using Lar++ may produce unpredictable results... ROSCO (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: American-Christians fund the IRA? —David Koudys

(...) D'oh!! I was typing so quickly (as usual) that it went right by me! Apologies Larry! Still, thanks for the word usage! I shan't mistype your name again, ++Lar! Dave K (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Hey, what's wrong with trying to throw out a foreign occupying force? Rather see them do it Gandhi/King style, though. Blowing up baby carriages just hurts their own cause (kinda like the Palestinians). -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Nothing, if that's what it is. What actually happened here? The conventional answer is that England took Ireland by force, right? Isn't it a lot more complicated than that? I dunno, haven't done research in depth but aren't we in some cases (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Not really. England took Ireland by force. Not much else to say. (...) The evidence certainly seems to suggest that that is not the case in Northern Ireland. (...) There is no easy answer, especially when such a high level of animosity has (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —John Neal

(...) I'm going to jump on your parenthetical comment, Bruce, to make a point. The Palestinians have an agenda-- self-determination, Statehood, and peace. The Israelis have an agenda-- the recognition of their right to exist, and peace. Muslim (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The Palestinian and Isrealis, and the Irish and the English need to try and realize that their best course of action is negotiation and compromise. Effectively, though, this means that Isrealis need to give up some land, and the English need (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) *sigh* Even the PA recognises their right to exist. The Israeli agenda is land theft. Anyone who really believes in freedom [as opposed to self interest] would understand that. (...) What about the war criminals in Israel? What should happen (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —Dan Boger

Quoting Scott A <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com>: (...) So how is this different than Israel, Scott? The Israelies already gave up some land. It is extremists in the PA (both elected and unelected) who are currently dragging their heels, and fanning the (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't agree with your view. The Israelis gave up a very small part of the land they stole a few decades ago - its legal owners want all of it back. In order to keep it, the Israelis [in the form of the rather heroic IDF] oppress all manner (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —John Neal

(...) Really? I suggest you take your tape measure and head over to the Sinai Pennisula and start taking measurements... (...) Then explain the Camp David Agreement. Israel *can* be reasonable, *does* want peace, and have *proven* this. The PA is (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I have already! (...) Who wrecked Oslo / Oslo II? Why? Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —John Neal

(...) Back already? (...) Don't be obtuse-- explain it in light of your above accusation. (...) Who indeed. It merely exemplifies the need for Israel to be negogiating with those who actually desire peace instead of seeking more step in the (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree that Sinai is a large lump of land. However, it was [reluctantly] handed back to *Egypt* - not the *Palestinians*. (...) Barak's offer was empty (it had to be ratified in a referendum). He knew Arafat could not accept it. Even so, what (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter yesterday: "At Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993, Israelis, Egyptians, and Palestinians have endorsed the only reasonable prescription for peace: United Nations Resolution 242... It condemns the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) I propose an OT-D Resolution 001-- In which all party(s) concerned, concurrently and without delay withdraw from specifically discussing the Israel/Palestine issue for a term of at least, but not limited to, one (1) month. This resolution is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ceetain parties don't want it to end (e.g. said certain party answered his own message to get it back up at the top of the queu). Just ignore said person and there won't be a debate. -->Bruce<-- And for a demonstration of such, said certain (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) I was hopefully going for a stop on the debate instead of a censure of the person. One *should* cause debates on other topics to continue unfettered, the other could be, imho, perceived as an attack on the person. Whereas I agree with the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Spectacular sentence construction there! That's what you get for writing half a sentence and then coming back to it a half hour later to 'wrap it up'. I think folks can read (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree with your disagreement. Ignoring certain individuals often achieves a great deal, and done properly, does not result in animosity from anyone else except the miscreant, who merely need reform (or go away). (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) No doubt you would propose yourself as a role model? Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —John Neal

(...) Okay, it now seems official, to me at least, that Bruce has now found himself a cool new sig. So, along with "Dave!" and "++Lar", we now have "-->Bruce<--". Well, *I* want in on the action! So from now on, I am promoting the last three letters (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) Oooh, now JOHN has one, too! Rats, all the good ones are taken! Here I am, still the same, Dave K. (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Help John find his mojo-logo —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I've used that on and off for some time now. I guess I've been more religious in using it of late. Actually, I'd like the Dave! better if it could be italicized - a Tolkienian word of power! Githoniel A Elbereth! JOHN. Hmmm (walking about it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Help John find his mojo-logo —John Neal

(...) Oh, I like that image! I see what you mean; looks like print from a Greek or Hebrew Bible. Perhaps I should add a "<><" after my name as well.... (...) "too" Apple? Can *anything* be "too Apple"? The world needs *more* Apple:-) (...) Well, I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Aldous Huxley: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." I do not need people to reply to my posts to make a point. Rather than urging people to ignore me, perhaps it would be easier for you to counter my argument [as Larry (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Two comments 1. what's the "scope of the Israel/Palestine issue"... if some party(1) says that something(2) is related, is it? If someone says something isn't, is it? (3) 2. what is the enforcement mechanism? Sent to bed without dessert? (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) How did that model UN work with you as Pakistan's ambassador? The resolution was not necessarily set up to be humourous, nor was it to be perfectly serious--it was to raise a concern of mine in which, if the majority concurs, we could quash a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Larry Pieniazek

I gotta run, only have time for one throwaway comment. (...) Pretty well I think. We were told to study the real positions and try to play true to form and policy rather than how we personally felt. One example: There was a resolution that came up (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Actions often speak louder than words. Have you read this [posted by you]: (URL) A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Eaton

(...) Lots of 'em do. But certain people are just gonna get angry at others regardless of the debate topic. And I don't think waiting a month would help much... (...) I don't really think the point of a debate thread is necessarily to reach a mutual (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Why is that a bad thing given the amount of disinformation that surrounds this issue? Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) If the sides of an issue get so polarized (there, I got to use it!) that all there is left is "I'm right, you're wrong!" "No, I'm right and you're wrong!", there is nothing left but to end the thread. I think it's a far better solution to end (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't agree with that overview. (...) David, I have no problem with people ignoring me, or even users urging others to ignore me. However, I suggest you think wider than the Israel thing. Take a closer look at what is causing the "fuss" (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) Well, here we are, sitting at 171 posts in this thread. I'll be the first to note that not all 171 posts directly relate to the P/I issue, but 171 posts... How would you sum up the current state of the P/I debate here in OT-D, where the sides (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Many people have polarised views on this issue. They see it in rather simplistic “Bushian” terms; good versus evil or even jews versus muslims. The most commonly asserted views here are that Israel or [very much less commonly] the Palestinians (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) I've read (most of) the thread. And again, without actually debating what's going on in I/P, the point of this little tangent on the debate is to get to a point where we're not banning (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) My view is not extreme. I hold no animosity for anyone. I'm not ignoring anyone. (...) I expect you must have. Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

(...) Didn't say *you* did any of these things. *We* here in ot-d have a problem. We have to come up with a working solution to said problem. In my opinion, this solution should not entail 'Playground Politics'--'Lets just ignore him and he'll go (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Good. (...) Letting go is good. I don't see the need to compromise on every issue. (...) I think I have been. (...) [snip] (...) You'll have to show how you reached that conclusion. [snip] (...) OK. (...) I do not ignore Larry. I very much (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

There was once a "Home Improvement" episode, with special guest star Tom Wopat (from "Dukes of Hazzard" fame...). In this episode, right at the very end, Tom comes up to the door and talks to Tim. The scene went something like this: <Ding dong> goes (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Clarification: I do not think what you claim. I accept that my statement could be interpreted in that way. However, it is not the only way it may be interpreted and it is not the way I meant it to be interpreted. (...) Now you are not being (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) This is not clarification. You concede that my interpretation could be one way of reading what you said, i.e. "You think that others are ignoring you because you believe your point is (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) I said: ==+== Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually lies.” ==+== Do you need an example? (...) off-topic. (...) I have no idea. But why go to the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for the clarification. I read your above comment as a different issue than the comment posted below-- (...) Your first comment--in a general sense, arguements have strengths and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression? —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps you can explain why? BTW, I prefer John, 8:7. (...) But how do we deem when that line in the sand has been crossed? Can it not be abused if a poster is simply posting an unpopular [but valid] view? In this group [without any (...) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —Scott Arthur

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —John Neal

(...) *Everyone* in the PA??? (...) I don't deny that there are extremist Israelis who hold this view, but the overwhelming majority *DO NOT*, and thus your statement is patently false and egregiously provocative. Anyone who really believes in (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: IGNORANT view fuel the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) Does everyone in Isreal support the occupation of the West Bank? Does the majority even do so? (...) When Shamir ended his term as PM this is what he had to say: "It pains me greatly that in the coming four years I will not be able to expand (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: British-Christians fuel the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) I've no problem with that. The problem is that over half of the population of NI are unionists. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

"I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the IRA? —Scott Arthur

(...) I find that comment a little disingenuous. To be honest, I wish you would just ignore me. (...) As I said, "I don’t think I have ever made any link between the IRA and American-Christians or even Irish-Americans [whatever they are] (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the IRA? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) To be honest I wish you wouldn't post on LUGNET(tm) at all, you're somewhere between extremely low value add, and significant negative value add. Once in a while you come up with an outside cite of some limited value but by and large your own (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the I —Scott Arthur

(...) Give it rest. It's rather ironic that you don't see the irony in what you are saying. This sort stuff should be taken to e-mail. (...) Synopsis: You've admitted I was correct, and you were wrong. Furthermore; you're not happy about it. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the I —David Koudys

(...) And it was so nice in here lately--things were debated, discussions happened, and there was almost a zen-like, albeit debatable discussions, in the land. Oh well, c'est la vie! Dave K. (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

I agree. —Scott Arthur

We all need to respond to the issues raised, rather that insult each other. How come it's so busy here, I thought it was Thanksgiving yesterday? Scott A (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the IRA? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Heck, I ignore Scott, but judging by the flurry of responses, he won't do me the same favor. He wants and craves attention. Ignoring him is still the best option. He'll even pick up on long-distance, unstated twitting of his hypocritical (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "I am told that" "it is probable that" "at least some" American-Christians "seem" to fund the I —Scott Arthur

(...) Thanks for your rather disruptive input, but I've no intention of joining in your mudslinging. [BTW: I'm not anti-American, I'm pro-justice - understand the difference]. (...) How ironic; I note you have chosen to sling mud rather than address (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Dealing with the problem —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Good analysis, Bruce, but it's not enough that just you ignore him, or that just I ignore him. For off-topic.debate to truly be enjoyable, it's necessary that EVERYONE ignore him, and manage to do so consistently. This is necessary because if (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Dealing with the problem —Scott Arthur

Larry, Take a look at the current fuss. Look at what started it. You should hang your head in shame rather that cause more fuss. It may be a cultural thing, but personally I think sniggering and name-calling is far more “anti-social” than my alleged (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) "discusting and revolting"? I'll have to assume, for lack of you being specific, that you're talking about the content on my personal website TheReverend.com, but it's anyone's guess just what it is you find so "discusting and revolting". Is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)