 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) 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: What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...
|
|
(...) Point taken. It's hard to know when he wrote the text. The story [of the fuss] even made it to the BBC TV news last night [for 10 seconds max!]. I think the story actually says more about the Democrats than it does the media or the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Compassion in Action
|
|
So here I am, reading CNN at work, and it hits me--the pic of Dubya 'blasting' Lott, has a 'Compassion in Action' marquee behind him (the marquee may say more but that's what I read) Dubya is not even close to compassionate and his system of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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: New Poll
|
|
(...) I could not agree more. Scott A (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) 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: New Poll
|
|
Let's resolve to trim lugnet.general once and for all from this, OK? (...) I dunno about "winning" but I have to give you style points anyway... that's an awesomely tail-swallowing argument. Kerry said it best, we've probably been trolled. If so, I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
Stirred up a bloody hornet's nest now, eh? As someone who takes things as far from serious as possible, I'm going to point out the obvious. This post was to create a debate, a debate that should take place in off-topic debate. Since it pertains to a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) Ouch! I can see the .off-topic patrons scrambling to their keyboards to type a rather fast response right now. Although I agree that the poll was a bit flawed (like some of my terrible polls in the past. Yeah, y'all remember those, don't you? (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) How about a poll like this: Are LUGNET polls generally flawed, scientifically unsound, more likely to annoy others than come up with serious answers, and usually have at least one obvious omission? [ ] No Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
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: New Poll
|
|
Should LUGnet rules be changed to with regard to troll polls? * Yes, LUGNET should prohibit troll polls. * Yes, because I hate to be a nay-sayer. * No, troll polls should continue to be banned on LUGNET. * No, because I like to disagree with other (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) IMHO, pretty good. It may not be a *perfect* partition of the universe of possibilities into equivalence classes, as you can argue that "yes, but..." always fits within an unqualified "yes" and thus is a subset answer (the counter argument is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) -H. (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) (URL) I do, Lar?) DaveE (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) Just like I'm tempted to start a poll asking whether there should be a disclaimer on all polls similar to slashdot: * Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks. * This (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) for all possible answers. I almost checked off the last answer, as I believe that the group should be left as is. However, I disagree with the accompanying phrases about how the group is "depressing" or "contributes nothing". As such, I cannot (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) My command of the english language has deteriorated since I left post-secondary education behind. I used to be able to throw around 'convivality' and other such sesquepedilian words and actually sound intelligent. Nowadays, it takes me forever (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) I think most of us like (most of) the rest of us and we have a strong common shared bond and many of us have met face to face. Those all really help. That and most of us (like Dave Eaton said) are in this for many reasons including the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) 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: New Poll
|
|
(...) to what I'd want to say. From the poll: (...) From a design perspective, yes. Get rid of it. It's not Lego related, and has often contributed to bad impressions of Lugnet. (...) I also agree with this-- from a Lugnet user perspective. I like (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) I'm with Larry on this one-- How can a group called 'off-topic' be about LEGO--it's off-topic. Of course the ot-d group is not good for the majority of LEGO enthusiasts, and is only frequented by a relatively small number of folks--but what (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
<joke> Where's the poll selection?: o Who really gives a sh**. Either you read it or you don't. Too many people on Lugnet take things personal or take them the wrong way anyway. Rob XFUT offtopic.debate.flamewar </joke> "Harvey Henkelman" (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Poll
|
|
(...) This poll is flawed: - doesn't include the universe of possible answers - doesn't even include a "none of the above" - displays the poll taker's bias in the way the answers are worded. So why would it be interesting to watch, exactly? Or put (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | New Poll
|
|
This should be interesting to watch... (URL) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | Model UN's/rants/ideas--was Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) 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: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | the irish times [not the Guardian] & goldwater's "racism".
|
|
(...) Wonder ye not! If you check again carefully, you will see it is quoted from the "Irish Times" - ie **NOT** The Guardian. What was that about playing loose and fast? ;) However, I think the racist tag refers to his alleged support for "states' (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
|
|
(...) I have no love for Lott and certainly not for Thurmond. I just have one question, where does the "blatantly racist" charge come from with respect to Goldwater's campaign? I'm wondering if that reveals a tendency for the Guardian to play loose (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
|
|
(...) While I can only speak from my perspective as a denizen of that burning hotbed of bleeding heart liberalism, Northern California, that isn't true at all from what I can tell. Lott's comment has been the primary topic of every talk radio host (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
|
|
(...) Everything I read about this issue tells me that Strom 'renounced' his segregationalist views, that he became more moderate thru the years. Times changed and so did Strom. Lott, on the other hand, still hasn't clarified what he meant by "All (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What does a Republican have to do to cause outrage? [was Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian...]
|
|
(...) I fear the strong pro-liberal media in the USA has struck again. I read this yesterday: It's a dirty business (URL) then it is extraordinary what you do and don't hear in the US at present. Last Thursday, as predicted in this column a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | Only a superpower would try to take the world's temperature thus.
|
|
In the era of the focus group and opinion poll, I thought this US study was very interesting: Not such a super power after all (URL) the spread of American ideas good or bad? Here in Britain, 50% say bad. But this soars to 67% in Germany, 68% in (...) (22 years ago, 10-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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: I will NOT be putting a link to this comic in off-topic.fun's header
|
|
(...) XFUT o-t.fun I think my current top 5 are Megatokyo (by a wide margin, it's just sooooo good) Sinfest Sluggy Freelance Real Life Penny Arcade (those guys are huge... they can make a game move up in ratings signficantly!) with Mac Hall (would (...) (22 years ago, 9-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: I will NOT be putting a link to this comic in off-topic.fun's header
|
|
(...) Looove Penny Arcade! My fav is still SinFest, with Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet a close second. Dave K. (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I will NOT be putting a link to this comic in off-topic.fun's header
|
|
(...) But REALLY funny... I just read the whole thing from start to finish, and it sort of reminded me of Penny Arcade. Same drawing style and some of the same themes but translated from games to movies. (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I will NOT be putting a link to this comic in off-topic.fun's header
|
|
(...) Dave K. (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I will NOT be putting a link to this comic in off-topic.fun's header
|
|
(URL) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Response for Dave! (about 3 years later:-)
|
|
(...) huge, and elements were easily overlooked. (...) That's an interesting explanation, but I'm kind of surprised to hear you offer it, since it's strongly reminiscent of Jesus as portrayed in The Last Temptation of Christ. That film is one of my (...) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) I'm thinking YDNRC... (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) Inconceivable!! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Wait a minute--- John? Neal? I should have known! Dave! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd Amednment meets the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
|
|
(...) How could I? My handgun has been confiscated by some wacky San Francisco Judge! ;-) I have learned my lesson WRT getting all heated up about rulings coming out of the 9th, although I could live with a ruling that grants the States the power to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 2nd Amednment meets the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
|
|
Or: Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger! The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld California's right to ban certain types of firearms and place restrictions on them. But the ruling's foundation has extremely broad implications. Basically, they (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Will Bush Jr pardon whomever Kissinger sheds some light on?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) Yes, I noticed that as well, with the exception of late night talk show hosts--they're always saying 'President Bush'. I wonder why that is? I guess it's to distinguish the jokes about (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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: Will Bush Jr pardon whomever Kissinger sheds some light on?
|
|
(...) What can we say? Surely his "alleged" improprieties can't be as serious as a legal extramarital affair, false accusations of perjury, baseless rumors of cocaine smuggling, trumped-up allegations of murder, or ultimately unfounded implications (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) Never trust a man with two first names, I always say. 8^) Dave! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Will Bush Jr pardon whomever Kissinger sheds some light on?
|
|
Bush Jr on announcing Kissinger's investigation into the September 11 attacks: "This commission will help me and future presidents to understand the methods of America's enemies and the nature of the threats we face... Dr Kissinger will bring broad (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Response for Dave! (about 3 years later:-)
|
|
Okay, Dave! your wish, my command: (URL) some reason, I wasn't able to reply to the original post. My reply below (...) I don't think Jesus knew anything of the sort, and as evidence I would point to his recorded behavior prior to his arrest. Though (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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: Keeping it sane...
|
|
(...) Though my zeal can get the better of me at times, I do appreciate the exchange of ideas in this forum. I only regret the severe limitations of such a venue-- the ease of misunderstanding in a mostly clumsy form of communication. But it beats a (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Keeping it sane...
|
|
(...) <snip> Thanks for making me smile at the end of a very stressful day :) Dave K. (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping it sane...
|
|
Although I agree with you whole-heartedly Dave K., I would argue that your post is debatably undebatable, and as such it does not belong on this message board. ...It is also very on-topic. Please submit this sort of thing to .on-topic.agreeable. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping it sane...
|
|
(...) The overall quality of character on LUGNET has always impressed me. Even while John Neal and I have been spitting fire at each other here in .debate, we've still exchanged good-natured japes in ot.pun. I recall a year or two ago Frank Filz and (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Keeping it sane...
|
|
I read a few message boards daily, and one that I often frequent has a policy in place-- No religious/political debate. They implemented that policy 'cause, invariably, the discussion would get, usually quite quickly, bogged down into a 'flame war'. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
