 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Yes, we are instructed to exercise free agency. It is one of the greatest blessings, promised to all of us in the pre-existance, and given to us when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. (...) I see. You're setting up for a oft-debated (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) Very amusing, although one doesn't need to be gay to have those thoughts about Tammy Baker ;-) Here's something that might crack you up too. I laughed myself stupid for quite some time. (URL) the author of the site where it's hosted thinks (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) I tend to have an extremely objective sense of humor. --Todd (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) That's great. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) I thought it was the funniest thing I'd read in several weeks. --Todd (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
Wow, Ed, that was not only not funny, it was pointless. Great job. Really. Scott S. < snipped top 10 reasons etc. > ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) which (...) So, church members are free agents in that they're allowed (encouraged, or required) to make their own decisions about stuff? (...) That's and interesting explanation. It seems conveniently coincident that the recall of polygamy (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) <snipped list> (...) Well, for all intents and purposes, all of Leviticus is given equal weight. So if you are going to cite it as a source for correct behavior, you should either cite it as a single work, or disregard it, IMHO. Either (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) of (...) [megasnip] (...) Top 10 Reasons God is Not Gay: 10. A gay god would never have allowed catholisism to exist in its current 14th century state of mind. 9. A gay god would have hymns that sound more like showtunes. 8. A gay god would (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) If you tell me a bit about it I'll try to source it from my side of the Pacific Pond. I'm still interested in the response to the other verses I cited, as one of them specifically mentions "homosexual offenders". (...) Most of which make (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
