 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) Certainly. The recipient of a bribe, for example. However, there's a possible landmine in your question: define "by definition immoral" :-) (...) Which principles, yours or theirs or ??? Kevin (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) Stipulated for the sake of argument that this is so, how can anyone tell which of the current brands of christianity are closest to Christian Morality - the "real thing"? What is that core which has never (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont) - basic assumptions
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) it's (...) Let me see if I can state some of mine. (I will undoubtedly miss some). SOme are probably irrelevant to this discussion too. I don't want to try and identify differences without you having the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Thanks for the restate. Yes, coughcough was just who I was referring to. Restated that way, I agree 100%. ++Lar (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
In response to "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> in message news:G5qotE.M0q@lugnet.com... Larry, I appreciate the interaction you've provided. Before going any further, I'm glad that you're not a relativist (which means, in turn, that you (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well that could be handled by having two groups. One for conducting auction business (soliciting bids) and one for asking questions about auctions. Then you just TOS quickly anyone who regularly manages to "announce" their auction in the Q&A (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) they (...) Mmm. That'll teach me to go around not qualifying my statements. Clearly, I don't think that the rules should be mutated too much to encourage everyone (coughMatthewMoultoncough) to join up- on the other hand, if subtle changes to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree, I'd be sad to see it go. But what I'm really sad is that as far as I'm concerned, it's gone now. A year ago I really enjoyed .debate. The past few months, the time for a thread to deteriorate into one of the two recurring shouting (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Call me elitist... (and I don't think I'm 100% disagreeing) (...) I'm not. That is, I'm not for enabling *everyone* to be a member. There are certain people I would be happy to see not join, heck, not even participate here. There are only a handful (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) That's a good point. It hadn't occurred to me because I don't usually get ensnared by a debate until it's already in .debate! Maybe we should have off-topic.debate.pure and off-topic.debate.spill. 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
