Debate : 18363


Off-Topic / Debate / 18363

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) And I completely concur with Bruce. I know that RBPS is not a church going/God believing person, but that does not negate my appreciation of his retelling of the Bible in LEGO one little bit! I look forward to the latest additions to his (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Chris Phillips

(...) If anything, the true beauty of The Brick Testament (aside from the incredible modelling and stunning photography) is that it avoids controversy almost completely by simply telling the stories of the Bible without actually changing them. Who (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John P. Henderson

(...) I too have laughed at more than one depiction of Biblical events as portrayed in brick on Brendan's site. I would add to this debate that God very likely has a sense of humor about these things too. Afterall, if we were created in his image, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you forgot to capitalize Beer... (if it's god's beer it's beer with a capital B right?) (...) Were I a believer I'd be saying that he works in mysterious ways, getting a non believer to spend so much time spreading the word. And as for (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) But this really isn't about BPS and God having a good laugh-- heck, BPS probably doesn't even believe in God. It's about BPS and you having a good laugh at Joe Christian and his relationship with God. It's like the unwritten rule that only (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) No, I do not believe in God. (...) Being Christian and being black aren't particularly analagous. Christianity is a religion comprised of a belief system that you can either choose to accept or reject. Being black means you happened to be born (...) (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I'm curious as to how you think the BT is worthwhile to a Christian by showing that what they believe in is silly (I can see why is it useful to *you*-- a "creative" expression of your rejection of your perceived silliness of Christianity, and (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Frank Filz

(...) Please note that Brendan said he was raised Christian. I would also argue that almost everyone in the US is sufficiently affected by Christianity to have sufficient reason to question it. I would also argue that if a religion can not withstand (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Hear Hear! If people cannot undergo scrutiny of their belief system, then there is something wrong. The difference b/w scrutiny and all-out harassment is hard to determine, but (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Let's say for a moment that what Christians believe in *is* silly. Would it then be worthwhile to help show them this? Is it worthwhile in general to discredit other people's silly beliefs, even when they are very much convinced of these silly (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Well, therein lies part of your problem-- you cannot ever really assert this. (...) Perhaps, but in the guise of holding them yourself? You mention Ministers contacting you about wanting to use the BT for Sunday school, etc. Do you really (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Frank Filz

(...) John, Brendan isn't criticizing beliefs. He's criticizing the Bible, a book which has some rather bizzare things in it, and a lot of inconsistencies. (...) So it's wrong to point out inconsistencies in books? The same book that some people in (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) A lot of what I wrote in my last post was aimed at getting you to look at this situation from my prespective. In essence, the question was, what would you do if it was *you* who were convinced that the religion of everyone around you was (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I don't deny that they seem silly *to you* and, as I mentioned before, that is fine, but I'm still wondering what the movitation is that makes you feel it necessary to change everyone to your POV-- to perhaps feel better about your own (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) I don't feel it is is necessary to change everyone to my point of view, and in fact, it wouldn't particularly bother me if no one's religious views were ever changed by The Brick Testament. It would at best be a small comfort to know that (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip one of the better posts around here lately> Hey Rev, I think you're on to something with your reasoning that if it's ok to have missionaries in the pro christian direction it's just as (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Here's the trick. I don't believe that the concept of objective morality makes any sense (that things or actions can be objectively good, bad, right, or wrong). Hence the difficulty in proving that something like slavery is objectively evil. I (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I know the feeling about which you speak-- I was just trying to upwrap it and try and see *why* that is actually a comfort. For me, it boils down to a reassurance that we are not crazy, that we are not completely wacked on an issue, which (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) There are any number of self-contradictory assertions inherent in the Christian faith with which one could take issue, but this is the big one that needs to be exorcised whenever it's uttered. The whole God-incarnate-here-to-redeem-us theme is (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I would like to see your cites. Christianity offers a few unique twists. One which I believe is unique is the "fully human, fully divine" status of Jesus, and his fulfillment of OT biblical prophesy. I also am not aware of any God-incarnate (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Socrates was, for example, a Son of God, though I understand that that's not quite what you meant. (Socrates was more moral than Jesus, however). Off the top of my head the other big one I can think of is Appollonius of Tyre, whose name I may (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, I had the spelling wrong, and the attribution. The name I was aiming for is Apollonius of Tyana. And here are a few others: Pythagoras (who could bilocate, by the way) Simon Ben Kochba Empedocles Shabbetai Tzevi Orpheus Simon Magus Sun (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) I'm not sure it was the divine manifestation to which the 'uniqueness' was referring, but (as I took it) Christianity itself. IE that it is Christianity that is unique, with a unique message. Not the Jesus-being-the-son-of-God bit. I could be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Agreed. (...) No, I'm not doing the Bible justice. We're agreed on that. The only way to truly do the Bible justice is to read the whole thing cover to cover. But anytime someone presets only *some* Bible stories, they have their own reasons (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) <snip> (...) God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful, *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that. Christians do not see eye to eye on much, especially on topics such as evangelism. It really can be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) John said many things in this very post that basically fit my idea as to what being a Christian is all about, and how I try to approach my Christian life. Nicely done, John! Dave K. As an (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Sez Karl Rove: "As people do better [financially], they start voting like Republicans... ...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." (...) Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) Which brings up the very discussion my friends and I have had for years at around wvery election-time--who do you vote for? Do you vote for the guy who is going to be good for your society, but not probaby good for you 'cause he'll tax you (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) I agree-- it *can* give your life meaning to hope. But how about hoping in Santa Claus? Should we? Better yet, let's hope for some *NON* christian afterlife! If the ends justify the means (fulfillment of life justified by being Christian), (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Good choice, God. <snip> (...) That is a very bizarre way for an all-powerful being to go about getting across a message when it would be far simpler, and presumably far more effective for him to just give it to people directly without some (...) (22 years ago, 3-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

I can answer much of this, including your examples, (though you may call it my opinion), but I wanted to ask before I interrupt someone else's debate. It may be of interest that like many christians I stand by the *whole* old testemant and of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Sure, jump in! There's a reason we're debating in a public forum and not just over e-mail. (...) OK, so would you say his first covenant, that of the Old Testament, could be accurately summed up by "Israelites, do what I say, or I will kill (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Thomas Stangl

Rev, I think you need to get working on fleshing out the Good Book of Maury. Sounds like a hoot. Then again, all you'd have to do is change a few words/names/phrases across the Bible, and it would probably work well enough. But if you take some real (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Lob is only revealing his divine mysteries to me a little at a time, but I will pass on more Rooist theology as the occasion warrants. (...) Careful, Tom, you're bordering on blasphemy here. Rooism is a wholly unique religion with a unique (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip> You had me right up until the facetiousness. (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) This is part of my point-- it has been there all along. (I am still composing, Brendan) -John (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Explain? -Rev. Smith (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) From post (URL) the first tweaking began... " (...) May Maury the Talking Kangaroo watch over you in the night! -Rev. Smith " In this discussion you have used the spaceship/kangaroo scenario as an *example* as to how ludicrous you believe (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) This was not intended as a harsh comment. It's just that when someone says "God bless" to me, and then specifies that the God who they are asking to bless me is the God of Christianity, it has as much meaning to me as my imploring Maury the (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Frank Filz

(...) Besides, there's plenty of places you could mail off to and get all the official documentation you need in the US to be a reverend and conduct weddings... (This is one of the things which really highlights that the religious definition of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) And I have no problem with the 'refusal' of a blessing, and i do concur with your take on the, "Oh, you're an Athiest so I'm just going to throw that 'God Bless' at *you* to tweak your nose, 'cause I'm right and you're wrong not to believe". (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Frank Filz

(...) And how many people realize they are invoking God's blessing when they say "goodbye" which originally was "God be with ye." I know a lot of folks now just say "Bless you." Frank (stirring the pot...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

(...) Just to clarify, read any post by me in .castle and see if you can find one without God Bless on the end (OK there may be a few). I tagged the other bit on to show where I would be coming from in this debate... Not to be snide. Of all the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) We haven't met yet... (...) Apology accepted. (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Although The Rev has already addressed a lot of this very capably (and with remarkably polite restraint!), I wanted to add a few thoughts here, since the debate has taken a bit of a turn... That's an interesting point, but if we remove the (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: Either way it's not cool to force a blessing (...) Even in the middle of composing another post, I was struck by your words, because they echo a similar ascertain you made which I didn't understand in (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, "force" might have been too strong a word for me to choose, and the "black magic" angle was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but you ask a good question. When someone says it to me I repond on two levels. The primary meaning is (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) And I completely concur--if someone made a law in which folks would have to pledge 'there is no God', I would protest. If you have a constitutional ammendment saying no religion in official state stuff, then remove 'God-talk'. These zealotous (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

First off, since the primary issue here seems to be God's love. I will write with assurance he exists. (It is just a waste to debate the character of someone while debating their existence in the same post). So I am skipping over a long argument (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

So, ok. I have absolutely no issues other than personal preference when it comes to the answers that Nathan's given-- They all make perfect sense. However, they ONLY make sense accepting what we (or at least I) would consider to be *IMPERFECTIONS* (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Nice can of worms. Actually, if you *really* want to get into it... God is omniscient (by definition). So God *knows* whether we will choose to acknowledge Him or not, and thus it is predetermined (Predestination). It seems to me to be of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: As for Todd's characterization of God; Sorry, I meant "Nathan":-/ -John (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

(...) Thanks for the correction! I seem to have gotten 'todd' a lot of my life. Also thanks for your involvement in this thread. God Bless, (Before I cause a fight this is meant for JOHN) Nathan (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Never trust a man with two first names, I always say. 8^) Dave! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) I thought the old axiom was 'always trust a Dave!' At least, IIRC Dave K (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Maggie Cambron

(...) I thought the old axiom was "make sure you marry a man with two last names" (preferably old money names). :-) Maggie C. (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) But if I did that, my wife would kill me. Dave! PS. By the way, I forgot "scolex" (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Maggie Cambron

(...) And Spandex, Dave! How could you forget Spandex!? Maggie (22 years ago, 15-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Aw, shucks--and I thought you'd overlooked my post. How, indeed, could I ever forget Spandex? Dave! (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Maggie Cambron

(...) That's okay, Dave! I didn't think of Spandex til the weekend myself! (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm thinking YDNRC... (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) Well, I've never met a Dave I didn't like, so there's a personal axiom--I've never met a Dave I didn't like! No recollection needed. Though, thinking of it now, not too many Larry's I didn't like, either. But just those two... Dave K. (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a double-named debater when truth is on the line! -John (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Wait a minute--- John? Neal? I should have known! Dave! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) That's right! Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons! -John (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) Inconceivable!! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Pedro Silva

(...) Auch! :'( Any exceptions? Pedro (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) The way I see it, there's two schools of thought on the subject. Either God KNOWS what's going to happen or he doesn't. If he DOES know, then it's not really "free will". And as such, God CREATED me such that I'll never accept him. Punishing (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

(...) Wow, wish I could end a debate on that note! (This is a joke, please do not take offensce). (...) I assume from this you do not believe in God (particularly the God of christians). Please do not take it amiss if I refer to his existence in the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Eaton

(...) Nah, I won't take offense. I try not to let anything said in o-t-debate get to me-- it takes all the fun out of it :) (...) No, I don't believe in him, but for the sake of the argument at hand, I'm taking it as a given. Well, ok, that's not (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Jeffrey M. Szklennik

(...) snip lots of stuff (...) big snip again (...) What if free choice is something like Quantum Physics (QP)? I've read somewhere that according to QP, ALL events happen, we just experience the ones we choose (the other events are potential (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

Since I generally agree with DaveE's comments, I will try to not to repeat his arguments too much here, assuming you will reply to his post. (...) Yes, we are debating God's character as presented in the Bible, so in this context it only makes sense (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip lotsa good stuff!> (...) I agree with your stance on the 'thumbing of the nose' that the 'God bless you' and, as such, it really shouldn't be said in this thread, or directed at RBPS or (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) I can't resist a little self-promotion, since The Rev's views are so nicely compatible with mine (irrefutable proof of his brilliance, if you ask me). I voiced a similar question here a while back, but the thread was huge and I never got a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Here's how I see it. First, I'm not so sure about the eternal damnation thing. Second, I happen to believe that hell is separation from God. People *choose* to reject God, and that is hell. They choose darkness, because of selfishness, pride (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) THis is close to my take--hell is not 'fire and brimstone', it's non-existance(1). If you are separate from God, divorced from God, then it's like cutting off your hand--the hand can only fulfill it's intended function when it's attached to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

(...) I will assume you read that reply. SNIP (...) I always took the creation of angels as implied. 'In the beggining God...' (No mention of angels) 'created heaven and earth' (I always put them in the heaven stage that isn't really described in (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Oh, but it is in fact the very *crux* of the issue... at least in one line of argument that's advanced. If you posit the existence of a creator because you can't accept a universe always having been, you haven't actually *explained* anything, (...) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

Massive SNIP (Read my first reply for these sections). (...) This is the key to any debate on God's love. As it was his greatest act of love. I will deal with your 3 points in order: 1) The mechanics: Think of a 3 leaf clover, the leaf's being God, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dan Thompson

(...) These points aren't entirely correct and without going into a full bible study I will write what I have found to be true The points 1-3. God is not like unto a plant, you ought to look at Him more like this- God the invisible spirit who is the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

First off please see my email to you on the subject. Secondly let me say I agree with you and think you have put many things in a better way then myself. (...) A nice concise statement... Couldn't have put it better myself. SNIP (...) Yes, this is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Nathan Todd

SNIP of unprecedented preportions. Since this debate has almost trailed off and I don't forsee either side convincing the other I'll just say one last thing. I think the greatest proof of God's existence, and love, are the millions of people that (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) You are a wise man, Nathan;-) JOHN (who is *still* composing his response to BPS) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm... If popular opinion is all that's required to establish "proof" of a metaphysical entity's existence, then I'd say that the Christian God had better watch over His Shoulder. According to one set of statistics, Christianity can lay claim (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It would still be the same God. Jesus would be demoted fom avatar of God to prophet of God, however. What happened to Buddhists on this scale? God help us if L. Ron Hubbard preached breeding as swiftly as possible to Scientologists. :-) (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John P. Henderson

(...) existance, than one must acknowledge the probability that the "Christian God" will be facing extinction in the near future. The nations that are Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist (not in the article above presumably because it is more a philosophy (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Some VERY good science fiction has been done using that notion (that reality is mutable, based on beliefs of the observers) or similar ones (in particular I always enjoy a re-read of _The Practice Effect_ by David Brin)... (...) what about (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John P. Henderson

(...) Obviously, those artists were just imagining how things might have looked if there had been color. Creative license and all... 8^) -H. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) I thought it was because Ted Turner colorized them. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ted Turner colorized Picasso's paintings?? Sacre Bleu! (if you'll forgive the expression...) Film at ll. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <Snip> (...) On TNT (Turner Network Television) (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, probably on CNN. BTW whenever I saw "colorised" in the listings I just turned the saturation all the way down on my receiver to turn it black and white again. Made for some interesting commercials. But I digress. (22 years ago, 23-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Perhaps Nathan meant it in the reverse-- if it truly were a bogus religion, it probably would have faded into the past by now (a sort of twist on Occam's razor?). Since Christianity is still going strong after 2,000 years, *something* is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) But Buddhism is going strong for quite a bit longer, and Judaism is no johnny-come-lately, either. Are both of those belief systems as strongly validated as Christianity by virtue of their respective ages? (...) I like that analogy! (...) But (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Tom Stangl

(...) Except that sometimes the parking lot is full only because they are the best eats within the next few hundred miles. Doesn't mean they're GOOD, just that they're the best of a bad lot. -- | Tom Stangl, Sun ONE Internet Technical Support, Sun (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) I think the assumption is that given the choice of any number of eating establishments in close proximity, choose the one with the full parking lot. But your point is well taken: Sometimes your choices are Mac & Dons, Taco Smell, Spendy's, or (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Certainly Judaism. I honestly don't know that much about Buddhism to comment, but can billions of Chinese be wrong? And if they were, would you point it out, knowing full well that you could anger them into all deciding to jump off of a step (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Seriously. Consider for a moment that you may be referring to the entity that created you, and quadrillions of other living things that are/were but a speck on this insignificant planet in the course of time and history of the universe. Has (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) That assertion hits upon a real dilemma for me. I should come clean and admit that I don't accept the argument that proof of God's existence would eliminate our free will to obey/disobey him; Adam and Eve certainly knew (in the context of the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Ken Dowd

(...) <snip> (...) Unless God really has revealed the one and only path to Heaven to an individual/s. Then declaring it is not arrogance at all - its simply declaring the truth. <snip> (...) Just because something is old does not mean it is false (I (...) (22 years ago, 14-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Dave Schuler

(...) Sure, but that's circular reasoning at its finest. I've read numerous works of modern Christian apologetics in which atheists are ridiculed for their so-called arrogant refusal to believe in a god, coupled with the further straw-man argument (...) (22 years ago, 14-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) I don't think it makes sense to speak of things being objectively significant or insignificant. I consider myself of extreme significance to me, though. (...) Sure, there could be, but if my finite mind can't begin to grasp it, then how can (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) What I am contending is that we don't know much about what God does, so we can't begin to question why He does what He does. What I *know* God has done: 1) Created the universe (but not Adam and Eve specifically BTW) 2) Made a covenant with (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) For clarification, how is it that you know these 4 things for certain, but at the same time, little to nothing else about God's actions? Do you know these 4 things *because of the Bible*, or aside from the Bible? (...) OK, but what is it we (...) (22 years ago, 9-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Bzzt!!!!! (1) Darn. You were winning, too. It's a darn shame. Well, at least the thread is over, anyway. 1 - half in jest, we subscribe to Godwin's law here: (URL) (2) ... or at least we say we do because it's fun... 2 - not the only Jargon (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —David Koudys

(...) Yep, I'm with Larry here--using the H-word is like dropping the H-bomb--End Of Discussion... Move along, move along... nothing to see here... it's over ;) We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate. So how do people pronounce (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Ah, you caught me. @8^) I was trying to sneak out of continuing this debate. By mentioning the H-man, I thought I could end it having still gotten in the last word(1). Alas, not everyone recognizes Godwin's Law around here(2). -Rev. Smith (1) (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The whole Hacker's Dictionary is, IMHO... (...) Well, maybe. But as the entry points out, if you do it on purpose, it doesn't count, so since you said you did, you failed, and I guess it's still on. :-) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John P. Henderson

(...) The problem I have with this line of thinking is that everyone (here in the US anyway) seems way too sensitive to these sorts of things. I actually disagree with your thinking that there is nothing wrong with our overly PC approach to things. (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) Hey all. Huge long thread here that sprang up while I was away. I'm tempted to respond to about every other post, but fear it's a fruitless quagmire. Rather than hit any of the theological points of issue, I just wanted to address this one, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Brendan Powell Smith

(...) Were you away during your whole reign as Cool Site of the Week? Congratulations, by the way. @8^) -Rev. Smith (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Bruce Hietbrink

(...) Pretty much. I was away for the holiday and only logged in briefly on Saturday. So I new my site had been picked, but I wasn't really in the forums at all. I wanted to get something new up during my reign, but I didn't get a chance to (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps because the white-christian-right holds so much power? Scott A (22 years ago, 28-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) lol Thank you for lumping together all of the groups that it is politically correct to bash! "White-christian-right"??? What "power"?? What the heck are you talking about? More racism? -John (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —Scott Arthur

(...) No, more denial from you. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea —John Neal

(...) Defend your allogation. About what "power" specifically are you speaking, or was it merely a Liberal throw-away? -John (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)