 | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) That's an old misconception. Having just helped teach a course called "The Emergence of Medieval Europe" (c.300-1000), I can tell you that it wasn't anarchy--things were in flux, but it only appeared anarchic because the meaning of fealty and (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) You are correct, John. (...) Never say never(;), but I'm with you in thinking that we as a race aren't anywhere near that state. (...) I believe that existence after death will be on a higher plane, although I know not how or even care (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) relation (...) In what guise would you expect Him? Could it not happen that someone could formulate their (and His) idea of good, put it into practice, and then people see that it works?! I think that is much (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38850a4f.919486838@...et.com>... (...) fancy of a (...) seekers of it (...) I take back what I said. I think Larry could tell you his objective definition of good, which I agree with. I will try myself. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <387ab92e.833168838@...et.com>... (...) relativism I (...) others (...) is by (...) Discerning (...) good (...) I think you are just plain wrong. Some societies flourish while others perish because they have a better (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38830931.919200318@...et.com>... (...) evolution) (...) I had to think about what John said for a day or two to know what he meant. I am still not sure if I took it the right way, but I don't think he is nuts. I (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(...) Actually, if a particular thrice appearing planetary conjunction were to be interpreted as the star of bethlehem (not an unreasonable speculation, using astrological interpretation), and its first appearance did indeed happen in synch with (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
(followups redirected to lugnet.off.topic) (...) (nitpick mode on again.... :) Yes, there was no year 0. Yes, the 21st century does not begin until January 1, 2001. Howeever.... Where in the world did you get the idea that 2000 would be *ANY* part (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Welcome to the Ohs
|
|
Mike Petrucelli wrote in message ... (...) 0000 (...) Logically (...) curiosity, do (...) While I can agree with the thought that we have not yet entered the new millenium, we have definitely left the '90s. Of course on another angle, we almost (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) Ah.... *bask* (...) I relaised latyer that we were talking about Asimov's robot, which movie now apparently has made it into release. I wonder if it'll go staright-to-video here or not get here at all. (...) Well, I hadn't been reading the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
