General Discussion : 29224


General / 29224

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Well of course God existed first, that truth is tattooed on our arms at birth. That is after all how we know absolutely for certain. (...) If that were true why don't we all look alike? (...) If God is really a God why is it that he can only (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Aaron West

(...) I'm only going in on this one part here. It is my belief that man in God's image is not exactly literal, but of broader meaning Biblically. Image can mean form (arms, legs, head, torso) or function. My opinion of God is that He (not gender, (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Uh yeah, sure, that works too, we can allow that. (...) So then it's true the handicapped (those missing various extremities anyway) go to hell. And here I thought South Park was just being humorous. (...) Does this mean we have to start (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) More specifically, I have understood it to mean that man has the capacity for Grace, and in this way we are created in His image. (...) Well, if you thought South Park was humorous, then you have issues that won't be resolved in this forum. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Hey whatever blows yer hair back. Interpretation is really the mother of all invention, not necessity. (...) I find South Park's ability to make certain people get upset over trivial things to be quite humorous indeed. (...) Oh gee, what was I (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) Fair enough, but if you're going to criticize a view, you would be well-advised to learn what that view is. (...) You're committing a basic falacy of reason, in that you are assuming that, since some of their views were incorrect, *all* were (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Fair enough, but if you're going to accuse me of criticizing a view without knowing what that view is, you would be well-advised to make absolutely certain that I don't, otherwise you're just making another assumption (as if that comes as any (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —James Brown

(...) GUYS! To re-iterate (albiet more rudely) what at least a couple people have said: Get this crap out of lugnet.general! James (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Uh yeah, I think we got it, the threads are so big though that a couple offshoots got missed. Just chill d00d, I'm sure general isn't being completely overwhelmed in posts, it'll all clear up in a day or so. Robert (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) Robert, in written language, sarcasm can be misinterpreted as personal angry attacks. That's why Dave said what he did about castigating Aaron. --Ryan (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Perhaps, but is the thickness of his skin really something I should have to worry about in my day to day life? Robert (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Scott Sanburn

Gentlemen, (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Scott Sanburn

Folks, Is there some compelling reason that this is still in general, after repeated plea's? This is just plain rude, and I do not want to see it. I would go to debate to see it. Please stop. FUT->off.topic.debate Scott S. -- (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Hmmm...sorry about that, I snipped it earlier and assumed it stayed snipped. I'll try to keep an eye on it and snip it when I reply if I see it. Robert (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jude Beaudin

(...) Scott do it like this... Jude (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler writes: I apologize for inadvertantly posting the debate in the .general group. I thought the debate had already been moved to OT.debate. Sorry about that. Dave! (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) in God's image] (...) image." (...) the situation." We don't all look alike because God did not create us to look like Him, because He has no body; He is not a *physical* being, but a *spiritual* being. John 4:24 says, "God is spirit, and (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Well that's not what what's his name said, why is he wrong and why is it that you're right? Did he and I just miss some meeting or something? BTW this is your cue to say something about how the meeting was church and the head speaker was God, (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Actually, that isn't a bad idea! :-) (I mean, that there should be such a "Dummies" book) (...) If you are Catholic. (...) Divinely inspired by God. When quoting the Bible in term papers (biblical scenes being popular in many periods of art), (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Yeah but then you'd have to have one for everyone's unique interpretation and then it'd just get confusing and messy. (...) Hmmm....no I don't think I'm Catholic today...maybe tomorrow I will be though, we'll see. (...) LOL, now that's funny. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Read your comments previous to mine above. (...) Same again. If you feel you have to sneer at his website, don't bother with it. Just advice. Feel free to ignore it. (...) I think, therefore I am. Not applicable to all, I'm afraid. Or, as I (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) I did, I still don't see your point. I wasn't being sarcastic at that point you know... (...) But I like his colorful interpretation of the bible, it provided me with much humor this morning. (...) I love it when people think the ablity to (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Liar, liar, pants on fire... (...) Wait, you just said you weren't being sarcastic at that point. At least keep your story straight. (...) Or so you think. (...) Okay, plausible but specious form of argumentation (or, more bluntly, a load of (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Me?! Lie?! No, never. : ) (...) I wasn't, it was "insightfully" humorous. (...) Or so you think I think. (...) Having a load of bull is sure a lot better than being someone standing in it. (...) But you don't have to have a point to have a (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Aaron West

<snip> It is my considered opinion that he's stating that you are rude to people, deliberatly picking fights. You call it humor, but it is only funny if the other folk find it funny too. This may not be your fault, it's just one of those things (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) If being unafraid of speaking my mind and being really open is your idea of rude, yeah, I guess I am. (...) Oh now I am certainly not doing that. If you're going to start hurling accusations just because yer ego got a little bruised I sure (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

Robert: (...) In this Robert is referring to me. (...) No, I'm not. I said in my post just before you said this that I ALSO AM A SINNER. I AM INHERENTLY EVIL. Only God is perfect and sinless. --Ryan (24 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) On a some what interesting side note, I'd just like to know, who exactly asked Jesus to die for our sins? I mean hypothetically speaking let's say your religion is correct, Jesus died for our sins, etc, etc. I personally, feel that's wrong. I (...) (24 years ago, 1-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) Well, no one asked Jesus to die for us. As you said, Robert, we each deserve to die for our own sins. God could have let us all die and not sent His Son. But God is a *loving* God, and he wanted us to be able to live with Him forever in (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Just a nit to pick: wouldn't being a sinner imply that you have some capacity for good? IOW, unless EVERY act and thought you commit is a sin, then you have some amount of good, right? How could something inherently evil have good in it? (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) If we're splitting hairs, couldn't something inherently (ie: predisposed to) evil still make the moral choice not to commit evil? Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Hmmm. Good point. Which raises the question: is a thing evil by nature or by action? If someone were evil by actions, then I could see the possibility of good. If someone were evil by nature, then that person has a heckuva lot of work to do to (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Another thing here is competency. I mean take Hitler for example, was he evil? Maybe, maybe not. I would call Hitler evil he mercilessly had 6 million Jewish people slaughtered not because he actually thought they were the bane of the arian (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Frank Filz

(...) Oh goody. This debate is over. Next debate please... (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

(...) make the moral choice not to commit evil? (...) us going to successfully fight our nature and become good?...what would be the point of creating a people who are inherently evil?" Here's what I believe, in light of the Bible. God did not (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) That's...interesting. If I were busted for aggrivated attempted shoplifting and reckless driving, would my children be responsible for my actions? Would my great-great-grandchildren, then, have the task for paying my debt to society? Or is (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

(...) When Adam sinned, He incurred the punishment for sin: "in the day that you eat from it [the forbidden tree] you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17). Adam did not drop dead then, but the biological tendency to die started working and nine hundred (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

(...) Don't you agree, however, that's a broad assumption based on an even more broad definition of sin? Keep in mind that sin is relative to a culture, not a hard and fast rule to all cultures and creatures. Eating pork is a sin for Hebrews and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —James Simpson

(...) Daniel: In the spirit of avoiding sweeping generalizations that due a disservice to one's arguments, I believe that your statements above need clarification. I'll not excuse the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but a great deal (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

(...) Simple question: Was the Vatican a political and economic power during the conquest of the Americas? You know the answer. (...) You are inferring more than what I wrote. The fact remains that Christianity came down like an iron fist on the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —James Simpson

(...) That is a good point; in terms of colonization, the Spanish had a more overtly religious tone to the economic exploitation. An interesting irony is that while the Spanish often used divine right as a justification, they also, over the course (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Dave Low

(...) Is this the black armband view of history or what! I think it's telling that the present govenrment refuses to apologise for a policy that was so explicitly racist. Apparently Aboriginal settlements were the inspiration for South African (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.au)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Pedro Silva

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes: (big clipping) (...) Would you mind telling me why you consider Portugal was "the worst of the bunch"?? In fact, it DID start slave trade in the Atlantic; but it also began ANY sort of trade routes (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —David Eaton

(...) Were I in the debate, that'd be exactly my point :) 'Course then we'd be on to defining morality which is my little pet topic, so I'd better steer clear :) (...) By my book, not *necessarily*, though I would argue that it probably was indeed (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

Regarding this subject of cruelty of so-called Christians to the indians, here's an interesting article about the Pilgrims in America. (URL) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Frank Filz

(...) Plymouth MA, which is the church congregation directly descending from the Pilgrim's settlement, is now a Unitarian Universalist congregation. This also reminds me of an interesting story I read in the Travel section of the Raleigh (NC) News (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

The question of whether man is inherently good or evil is a loaded question becuase the concept of good and evil is purely subjective. For instance, one culture may view cannibalism as evil, but for the cannibals it's just part of their cultural (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

(...) But then the question could be, who is this "I" that can think? :) (not intended as any insult to you, Robert) --Ryan (24 years ago, 31-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) -_o Well not the left "I", somebody poked it. He...he...he... : ) Robert (24 years ago, 1-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Aaron West

(...) ILLUSTRATION. It could also mean lots of other things. (...) If people are refering to God or a godlike ability, they usually place it in caps, please don't get bent. (...) I did not use the term physical, did I. Brain capacity was intended to (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) He, he, he, relax Aaron, I was just tryin to be funny. (...) Creativity is a godlike ability? Wow, so like I'm already one step to godliness, woo hoo! (...) You didn't need to. You said brain capacity, as in the capacity of the brain, therefor (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Aaron West

Oops! Now I'm an ass!! Higher powers that be, forgive me for posting in .general! I'll be moving along now. Bye. AFW (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Ryan Farrington

I have replied to some of Robert's questions. The message can be found in off-topic.debate, as per some requests. --Ryan (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Scott Edward Sanburn

To All, While this maybe a fascinating debate, please keep it out of lugnet.general. I don't know why it is here in the first place. FUT->off.topic.debate Sincerely, Scott S. -- Personal Page: (URL) Index Page: (URL) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Generally speaking one shouldn't try to generalize a topic into a general category, and in general terms any four star general would generally know the general posting netiquite...or perhaps not. : ) (...) Oh goody, goody, can we debate (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)