To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *20456 (-10)
  Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
 
(...) OK. I usually don't get into debate, but this isn't the place to talk about religous beleifs. I'm glad you have an opinion, but I for one, am 14 years old and have been an official member of my church for a year now. I don't have a problem (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) A-ha! If *I* did send a windfall your way, no way would I take credit-- I'd sign the card "from God, to Dave!" :-) (...) Whoa, you lost me. Are you saying that it is possible for an Atheist to accept the existence of a God? (...) Thank you. I (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) Let's go ahead and ignore all the sweeping support GWB received in the state of Texas, and talk just about his tenure as president. I would say successfully launching campaigns to remove both the Taliban and Husein regime from power was a (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) Not an intentional one. I just meant that any powerful being, like Bill Gates or Ashley Judd, could appear before me and make claims of divinity. But I'd need to see/experience convincing evidence (even if it's accessible only to me) before I (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) <snipped stuff with which I am not necessarily in disagreement> (...) "convincing case" Do I detect a caveat? (...) lol An example of a "convincing case"? So what if after having read this, I, being a Christian man of substantial means (though (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) Your response is a tired joke in this case -- I think that Shrub's lack of ability in most areas of his past life show he is not trustworthy. What members of his cabinet do in his name shows me he is not trustworthy (Ashcroft re: Patriot Act). (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) Of course. Guantánamo is still Cuba ;-) Pedro (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) Unless you're an Arab, or have an Arab-sounding name, or have been to an Arabic nation recently, or know someone who fits any of the above criteria. Then you can be held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," and no presumption of innocence (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) You could just ask me two different times... 8^) Anyway, you've given a nice summary of the problem of Revelation as evidence. Well said. (...) To let you (and myself) somewhat off the hook--part of my hypothetical situation was that Jesus (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: WMD, again...
 
(...) Last time I checked one was *presumed* innocent until proven guilty in this country. JOHN (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR