Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Nov 2002 06:43:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1560 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ronald Scott Moody writes:
> I had no clue what else he had on the rest of his page. I would never have
> thought that someone would put something up religeous in nature in a maner
> such as I interpreted the Brick Testament on one page and then the kind of
> discusting and revolting content on another.
"discusting and revolting"? I'll have to assume, for lack of you being
specific, that you're talking about the content on my personal website
TheReverend.com, but it's anyone's guess just what it is you find so
"discusting and revolting". Is it all those pictures of me? Am I that ugly
to look at?
I myself am much more disgusted and revolted by parts of the Bible than I am
at anything you'll find on my personal website.
> I tend to take things at face
> value and not look for the bad in things.
In that case, I am especially curious just what you found so objectionable
on my other website.
> My fault for being so gulable and childlike. This entire thing has turned
> out to be a bit of an insult and a let down.
No insult intended. Sorry your enthusiasm for my Bible illustrations has
vansihed since you discovered I'm not a Christian.
> I don't know what Brendan's motives are, I only know that
> I looked at it as a way to honor God.
Nope, I can't say that the God as presented in the Bible is anything like a
God I would ever want to honor, but if that's your kind of God, great. As
for my motives, as I stated in my reply to John Neal, it's basically to
"cast light on parts of the Bible that I find, in turns, extremely
disturbing, morally questionable, confounding, humorous, and strangely
interesting". Plus, it's a lot of fun, and a pleasant challenge as far as
LEGO projects go.
> I guess next time I see something
> that looks like a good relegious venture, I will have to start looking to
> tear it down and pick it apart before I can take it for what I would like
> for it to be.
Guess so. @8^/
-Rev. Smith
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I had no clue what else he had on the rest of his page. I would never have thought that someone would put something up religeous in nature in a maner such as I interpreted the Brick Testament on one page and then the kind of discusting and (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
