 | | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) Do you really? (...) I don't know what to make of such a statement. God can _not_ be "anything you want." You can call a duck, a chicken -- but you're just wrong. I occasionally wonder why teenage girls get so worked up over "nothing." But (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate) —David Carriker
|
| | | | | "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:GyFDrF.G02@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) But (...) important (...) I also agree that these fundamental freedoms are important. If an individual doesn't belong to any of the belief (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate) —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) Yes (...) Why do you automatically assume god = God? (Or maybe I am taking your meaning wrong) Anything can be a god. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (c) 1963 1 -god- 1: a being or object believed to have more than natural (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) god. (...) you (...) I don't assume god = God. But the PoA says "God" and not "god." So I can only assume that they meant Jehovah. And if you can make any case that God does not mean Jehovah (which I doubt) then you would still have to show (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
