 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) It's the cream of the jest. -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) Now, now...lets not lock horns over the issue (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) If you have to ask... you can't afford it. :-) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) Bruce, thanks for saddling us with that foal image-- I don't like it one bit. Topping such behavior is my mane concern, not to stirrup more trouble-- I wouldn't want you to barn in hell. -John (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) I understand the pony but what's the Cool Whip for? Dave K -who wants to be 'in the know' as well (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) Whew! It doesn't say anything about a Shetland Pony and three tons of Cool Whip. I thought I was in trouble there for a moment. -->Bruce<-- ;-) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) If one enjoys it? ;) I liked this [from OutSmart] (URL) I think the most absurd holding in the opinion is the majority’s conclusion that the Anti-Sodomy Statute does not distinguish persons by their sexual orientation. Indeed, the majority (...) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) Here's yet another piece of progressive action from our Texas-based administration: (URL) the important bit, in case the article's been moved to a members-only pay archive: Critics Say Government Deleted Web Site Material to Push Abstinence (...) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) And didn't I hear an interesting tid-bit on the radio this weekend, that judges in Taiwan (or somewhere) have ruled that oral sex is *not* considered sex at all--I believe this was in regard to 'committing adultery'. As it stands, if your (...) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) I read this as well, and I couldn't agree with Larry more--the gov't should stay out of the bedrooms(1) of consenting adults. Dave K (1) euphemism for 'lives' in this particular case (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Also seen on CNN
|
|
(...) That's just plain medieval. I particularly like the fact that progressive Texas forbids "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." What, according to Texas law, would constitute non-deviant sexual intercourse with (...) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
