 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
