 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Agreed-- however, I think you missed my original point anyway-- my point wasn't that Christ DOESN'T have significance any more but that as a physical event spread by word of mouth (physical) and the bible (also physical) Christ is finite. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Funny, I don't recall you answering this question before. I *do* recall you dodging it, though... Provide a cite to where you provided a cite, then... ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
Scott: (...) You really are a bit dense sometimes, Scott... Quoting myself in the *very paragraph* you're supposedly "responding" to.. (...) Is that so hard to understand? In shorter sentences: Public (government funded) no. Private yes. Like I've (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) <snipped long references about history of Christmas> My point was that Christ's significance is not limited to what He said and did 2000 years ago, but also who He IS - today - present tense - as in alive and risen from the dead. The history (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I'm not Catholic, but I've generally found myself in agreement with all the Pope's previous statements. There must be some kind of mistake - I just can't see him saying something clearly un-Biblical like that. SRC (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) The Christmas that is celebrated today is bits and pieces of a variety of traditions and religions from all over the place. If you are refering to the name, yes, that comes from the Roman Catholic Christ Mass. Various Christian sects have (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Scott, why do you waste everyone's time with totally useless questions? This is plowed ground IN THE ACTUAL POST. Larry stated quite clearly his position. I don't see how much clearer it can be, and if you can't see the answer, you really (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) It is the exact opposite. (...) Usually, you tell me that they should be able to. Usually you say such institutions will discover such actions are bad - and the market should decide. I'll ask you again, do you think any school, public or (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) My point is "ploughed ground" Larry. (...) It takes >1 to debate Larry. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I heard it twice on the radio, but yes, I will try to find a print citation of it later today. Right now I'm off to Seattle for my first official LUG meeting! Can't believe it! Bill (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: [The pope's] (...) Fascinating! Can you provide a cite? Maybe the pope is catholic(1) after all :-) 1 - in the secular meaning of catholic ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) (I think it was a Steve) (...) What are you agreeing with <silly grin> Sex outside of marriage? Putting discussion in a subsequent post? The need for patience? I think my wife is OK with the latter two but our contract doesn't allow the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Right. But my thesis is that it is not necessary for an egg and a sperm to get together for a viable embryo to result. Two sperm carry sufficient genetic material to complete the needed chromosomes for a viable embryo, as long as one is (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) You're going to have to admit that humanity is subject to the same genetic rules as other species, for starters. Once you grant that, you're all set. *All* you need to do is construct a mechanism for taking the genetic material of the two (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Oh ya. And I see you just posted a good thought starter about where morality comes from, etc. I don't speak for all atheists. I don't speak for all libertarians. (technically I'm not even atheist, actually... I'm atheist leaning agnostic) But (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) OK, here you go: for the details of Gerry Crane and how he was hounded to death for being gay, try going to Yahoo and using the search string "Byron Center Gay" This article from Time is from the beginning of Gerry's ordeal: (URL) the details (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) Provide a cite please. That is, show how your set of rights are *harder to change* than ours, not that they currently give you more or less freedom. (1) That's the point I'm making, which you missed. 1 - they give you less, regardless of what (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Well, that's an easy one. Einstein's dead, so I have to go with J2. However, were Einstein alive, I'd expect he wouldn't be 8wide infected and therefore I'd go with Einstein. <grins, ducks and runs> ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Wait! I missed this whole discussion :-) We don't all agree with Dave! I only agree that proof of God's existence isn't possible, because His existence isn't possible. I hold up all things to the scientific method because it has proven itself (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Wait! I missed this whole discussion :-) We don't all agree with Dave! I only agree that proof of God's existance isn't possible, because His existance isn't possible. I hold up all things to the scientific method because it has proven itself (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
