 | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) That's ok. I think the subject of debate in this thread is James' (pick one) view on Christianity. You'll have to take the battles as they come. Certainly I could try the turn-around on you: - Science is wrong, cuz it says the world is flat. - (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) What I was attempting to do was provide a conception of a being that can perform what throughout this debate has been considered a logical impossibility. I don't see how offering one criterion without excluding others is a restriction on (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) Me too, sometimes. I think (1) the Koran may have the same problems. But when I asked about it what I got was a load of "you're not being tolerant enough, how dare you ask"... at least that's how I read the net net of what I got back. Would it (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
(...) Errr.. -Kurt- Vonnegut - sorry, it's 2.00am here... (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) So in other words, you're changing your definition of impossible. You are restricting impossible to mean "impossible within my frame of reference". (...) Dave E addressed this more eloquently than I can, I suspect, so I will only comment that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
Actually, while I stand by my previous post, you bring up some pretty decent arguements here... "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:GMunx4.D0I@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) he (...) mythology, (...) techniques (...) it. I (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) For my interest, since on Lugnet I've pursued a more atheist posture than theist, I would say that my enthusiasm for this debate (elsewhere, as much as here) stems from my desire to prevent others from legislating their beliefs and from a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Faith Issue
|
|
(...) It's probably hostility against the actions of such persons inappropriately expressing itself as antipathy for the ideas held by such persons. Just a thought, -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) In that case we must be careful, or else we're once again presented with a receding target: A. How about this criterion? B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian God. A. Okay, how about this criterion? B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Nam-shub of Enki (was Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament)
|
|
(...) Yeah, it's a decent read. I'll give it that. It's just that I liked all the extensive quoting more than the actual story. (...) Doh! But don't you think that Stephenson is developing an ethical system defended by his Hiro? We agree with those (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
