 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
