 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Well, my friend,, you got the right passage but you better re-read it. My paraphrase (actually my best recollection from the New International version) is not merely God's love for humanity. But you are correct that love in it's purest form (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) What is the generic definition of a devil (apart from the red tights and pitchfork)? I ask this so we can all speak about the same thing. My definition follows. I believe a devil represents evil ("evil" with a "d", for darstardly?). What then (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) Wow. Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Stop pulling the punches. James (URL) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
Larry, (...) Wow, Larry, that sounds more leftist than Libertarian. I hope there will still be room for us "obnoxious Christians" in Libertopia (Liberatopia? SP?), or will we be banned as well? Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
|
(...) (emphasis mine, Peter said "a" without the stars) (...) I LOVE hypotheticals. If we posit the existence of *A* devil, is his saying that god doesn't exist necessarily a lie? No. Something that might fit the generic definition of devil might (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) And the fact that my tent isn't x cubits long and y cubits high, and I prefer to shake hands on an agreement rather than carve up an ox and walk through the middle of it means that most of the Levitical laws I don't practice. Jesus stated that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) *chuckle* this would make the search more like that for El Dorado or the Flying Dutchman... *smirk* -Cheese, who is a Macintosh guru, thank you very much. Bill Gates Must Die! (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) which (...) Los Angeles? Ahahahahaha. Right. Bruce (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) <snip> Somewhere we have a pamphlet about all this but I gave it to Liz and so I don't remember where it is. I'll try and find it and type some of them in for you, but I've no intention of typing in the whole thing :-). The only one I remember (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
Chris, Sorry I took so long on this; I needed to get a few facts straight before responding. (...) It was something of a response to a select few loud and closed-minded people on Slashdot (who'll probably never read this, oh well) who were bashing (...) (25 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
