Subject:
|
Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:45:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
334 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:GyFDrF.G02@lugnet.com...
>
> 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
> that doesn't decrease the importance of the "nothing" to them.
>
> It's funny...I'd have to say that fundamental freedoms are about as • important
> as they come.
I also agree that these fundamental freedoms are important.
If an individual doesn't belong to any of the belief systems where "God" is
specifically defined, what is to stop that individual from calling the sole
of his shoe "God."
On the other hand, if an individual does belong to a belong to a belief
system with a "God," than that person will know what it "really" means.
When any person recites the P of A, when they get to the part where they say
"under God," they should imagine whatever is most important to them.
But that's just my opinion while playing "the devil's advocate."
Most people feel that "God" does mean a specific thing (relating to
religion), and I feel that the phrase "under God" should be removed from the
P of A.
-David
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Under God? (What an amusing debate)
|
| (...) 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)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
