Debate : 22441


Off-Topic / Debate / 22441

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Come on, Tom. I have a lot of faults, but I wouldn't say "pride" is one of them. In practice I am a pretty tolerant person, and in theory it shouldn't matter what I believe. As far as Christianity breeding violence and death, I don't see it. (...) (21 years ago, 18-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) I second that! (...) aren't perfect, and to expect Christians to act perfectly is a little over the (...) Which (in a world wide perspective) is certainly not the case with some other religions. Further, the above statement shows a complete (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Hmmm... let's see, the KKK, neo-Nazis, yep no Christians breeding violence and death at all. (...) Are you serious? (Personally I think you are being sarcastic but I don't know) I mean granted many living in dictatorships can't publicly decry (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Ah, I see. So you are willing to define a group by the few extremists in it. I guess then that you wouldn't have a problem calling Islam a religion that breeds violence and death, either. JOHN (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) And where exactly did you pull that notion from? I was simply pointing out that Christianity has just as many wacko extremists as other religions. (...) No that would be you at the bottom of this (URL) post> (...) -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) I think from your equivocation of "Christianity" with "Christians". Christianity as a religion doesn't breed violence and death. Wackos calling themselves "Christians" might. There is a distinction there. (...) This is what worries me: (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) That is becuase most Palestinians only know what their 'government' tells them. Just as when Bush says country X is a threat and most Americans support him, when Palestinian leaders say their 'country' is being attacked by 'evil Jews', people (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Dude, your equivocations are sick and offensive! Americans would never support Bush if he advocated the slaughter of innocent women and children! What are you smoking? (...) HELLO, MCFLY???!!! Is there anyone home, Mike? I just got done (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) HELLO, BRAINDAMAGED!!! You did not site a poll stating that the majority of the Palestinian population advocates the murder of innocent women and children. You sited a poll stating that the majority of Palestinians support suicide bombers. (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) None are so blind as those that will not see. Sick and offensive? Take a long look in the mirror, John. (...) How about a SINGLE cite from you worth a damn?! Everything you ever cite is the most slanted, venomous bile ever to spring off the (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —Dave Schuler

(...) Perhaps the smoke you smell is the char of civilian Iraqi flesh. Take a look at these (URL) horrifying images> to see the real payoff of the oil war that Dubya has pushed so enthusiastically. Do not click this link if you are upset by graphic (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Why should the horrors of real war be off-topic for off-topic? I couldn't willingly look extensively at that material right now, but a brief look at the front page told me enough. OBL? At large. People beyond the very small group in the U.S. (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —David Koudys

(...) Wish I had the transcript of Tina's news report from SNL a few weeks back--A list of things Dubya hasn't been able to find. These days it's gone beyond agonizing frustration when I read about the deaths of soldiers. For what? Is there anymore (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) And yet you support the notion that these people (the government) should be the only ones with weapons. I'm sorry it had to be said. -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —David Koudys

(...) Well, the armed forces, the police, the reserves... any group that's "well regulated". Again I'd like any logical justification of private ownership of guns and how that would prevent this sort of thing. Oh wait, you own your guns and Iraq (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) I shudder to think how bad it would be without our final check. Besides you are still agruing for an untested, let alone an unproven, concept. There is still no evidence supporting your claims that Democracy or Republics can exist without an (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: WARNING, VERY DISTURBING IMAGES (was Re: Holy crap! ) —David Koudys

(...) Canada. Sure we may have people who have guns in the house--my uncle still has his shotgun from his hunting days--but it's not mandated under law. We have no "2nd" or comparable clause thereof. I haven't heard a Canadian say "I have my gun for (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) The usual pro-Israel crap, John. Get a life. Are you able to think critically at all? (...) Um, no there is not. Again another statement so outrageous that it is false on the face of it. When will the lies end, John? Do you think some purpose (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Hmmm, and what shall I use as a model for critical thinking? The way you critically dismiss the poll? (...) Maybe if only to expose your character (or lack thereof) (...) You mean like this guy: (URL) And standing in a garage and saying (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I think I'm going to require more proof than your say so -- esp. when practically everything you communicate here is a deeply slanted, bigotted statement. As a matter of fact, I'd like an analysis of statements I have made and how they show me (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) As if on cue... American Jihad (URL) Recently NBC News broadcast footage of Army Lt. General William Boykin, a deputy undersecretary of defense, equating our campaigns in the Middle East to a religious war. Among his arguments: that Islam is (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Scary, ain't it? K, all religious debate aside, what do we do when generals and political appointees believe their 'god given mandate'? At what point do the citizens actually shut this fiasco down? Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I'd like it shut down immediately. On the other side of things are people like John Neal. I think it would be fair to say that he and I are on completely opposite sides of this issue. And so far we haven't slipped completely into a (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) This I do not know but you have an appointed president tlaking all 'christian values' and letting ownership of endangeded and wild species pass into the hands of the average joe (good legislation there) and started a 'military campaign on (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) See, this is the kind of cohesive backward and forward looking thinking that I don't see from you in other discussions, say about the gun issue. It's all well and good to pat ourselves on the back and say we overcame the witch trials, slavery, (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) The cohesion is there. I think you're just blinded to it. It's an inherent factor in your culture--it's something I noticed when I was in Chicago last week. In one breath a guy I was in a meeting with spoke of 'socialism' as if it was dung on (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Crappy parents raise stupid kids. (...) Well throughout history we have yet to see a country prove otherwise. Oh wait, that's not proof?! (...) You know you still have not replied to (URL) this> -Mike Petrucelli (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) You didn't say anything new in there at all, Mike. Lets have a looksee-- " Are you joking? “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” What (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Well, as Hop-Frog has pointed out numerous times, our founding fathers stated quite clearly when asked that a militia was anyone that is not a government offical. (...) Perhaps that is the modern day definition, but what does that have to do (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) That's true, and more than once I went to great lengths to make the point crystal clear too, with lots of historical references: (URL) 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones> And gee, that cite is not even that old...last year. I find it annoying when a (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) It hasn't been amply settled. You are not a well regulated militia by any standard of those words. It's a point you consitently avoid--you and others cut right to the "the rights of the people to own guns shall not be infringed" Further, you (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Did you even read that cite again? Read the whole 3 message thread please: **From Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia: POSSE COMITATUS. These Latin words signify the power of the county. Or yet again in other words: the power of (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) And we discussed this before--and you added addendums to the idea of "whole people" to not include those that are too young, old, infirm, or mentally unstable. Did you also stop to consider that, in context of the day and age, that "whole (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Not at all. You would be 100% correct as to the meaning at the time of ratification. But collectively, the 13th and 14th Amendment gave freed slaves the status of Freemen. Knowing precisely what that meant, many freed slaves had to obtain guns (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) This has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with your selective interpretation. Either the 2nd is archaic, for you do not supply militia members as needed from 'the people' anymore, the people who join the militia today are (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) What does my opposition to a standing army have to do with the need, or right, to a militia? The militia is de facto -- it is the people themselves. There is no wiggling. I am not telling you that we are currently doing things in strict (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) I agree if there were laws or even constitutional rights that caused the deaths of innocent life I would be all for removing them too. Of course removing the right of law abiding citizens to have weapons does not reduce the crime rate, even (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) Not to really be flippant--so gov't officials aren't allowed to own guns? Any time I've heard of bills being presented to "regulate" the sales, distribution, or ownership of guns in your country, a huge furor erupts. Guns, or the use thereof, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) LOL. No they just are not considered part of the militia. (...) You do know that there are more Americans in formally declared militia groups than in the US Military right? (...) Yes but human nature has not. (...) I suppose we can both agree (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Dave Schuler

(...) Is that true? I don't dispute it, but I wasn't aware of it. If it's true, then what level of gov't official is included? Dave! (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Well I think it was more a tongue in cheek reply to a tongue in cheek question. It is based off of the statement by George Mason “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” I would say that is (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) In the main, the militia merely means an armed group of freepersons that are not otherwise playing some kind of official role or duty. I mean, a sheriff might call together a posse comitatus and work closely with one -- but he remains the (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Selective interpretation at it's finest! Now look who's disregarding the founders, framers, fathers. Nicely done! Dave K (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

The Gun Debate Ad Nauseum —Richard Marchetti

(...) What can you mean?! You're starting to be quite the jerk about this subject. I write a long explanation and you hit me with some vague argument without explanation. I won't waste my time on you again like this... It was my understanding that (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: The Gun Debate Ad Nauseum —David Koudys

(...) Well, I decided to pull a "Richard" and delete the entire post and put in its place a trite answer. Seems to work well for you, so I thought it'd work equally as well for me. Dave K (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Well, I'd have to say the recent (last 50-75 years) histories of many South American countries is also proof that not having guns makes a country ripe for a dictatorship. So yeah, if that's not proof I don't know what is... I think Kooties (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) And I would be in support of revoultions to overthrow tyrannies. Look, if you want to sell democracy to the world, which is a want that your country so obviously has, then you have to 'believe' (for lack of a better word) in democracy. These (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Actually, I have to believe in a Republic -- because that's what we have. Personally, I am not at all interested in what other nations do for govt. I have no interst in selling democracy. Making the world free for democracy is a misguided (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap) —David Koudys

(...) Not so much in the 'officialdom' of your leaders. (...) Lovely words really. Words like "service" to the country, "defence of the fatherland"... Would almost sound like a draft to me. But I'm not up on all things Argentinian. (...) I have no (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I caution that the use of this type of yardstick is called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or the fallacy of the receding target. Whatever our modern sensibilities may be, the Inquisition was *the essence* of Christianity in its day, so it's (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

The problem with John and Justin's thinking here is that they want to be allowed to show that different kinds of Xtianity may exist and that some of these factions of Xtianity are not what they would really consider "properly" Xtian in terms of John (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) Vietnam (and a whole bunch of other war/police actions) that America got involved in for selfish reasons would be a similar situation--we wish to distance ourselves from the wrongdoings of our ancestors, or even the wrongs we've done (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) That's a good example. There has been a tendency, thanks largely to Dubya's inane "with us or against us" mentality, to equate patriotism with blind faith in the righteous (some might say "God-given") infallibility of the Bush administration, (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) I'm not one to even remotely come close to throwing Dubya a life line, but which president in recent history wanted to develop a consistant foreign policy? Not even Bubba attempted that task. The Saudis are 'always good', for one example. I (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) And Israel is always the oppressed party, no matter how many Palestinian civilians they "accidentally" kill. Again, your point is good. "Consistent foreign policy" is hard to address simply because there are so many variables from nation to (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) Neo-Nazi's and the KKK are not Christians at all! The term means one that follows Christ and His teachings. There is no evidence in any of Christ's teaching that He would suppport the actions of these groups, in fact their actions are entirely (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

Once again, in the category of "Why Bother?"... (...) You do not get to decide that -- they do! I am pretty sure a Xtian is anyone calling themselves a Xtian, however misguided you may think their beliefs may be. For example, President Shrub thinks (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) In any religion there are certain core values that one must adhere too to be considered part of the group. If your line of thinking were valid, I could call myself an atheist and still claim to believe in God and you would be powerless to (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

Sorry to all for the typos in my replies within this forum...(just noticed after a little nap). I've been quite ill lately and will sign off from this debate until I can concentrate good enough to at least proof my own posts correctly :o) Justin (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Atheism is not a religion, although I know Xtians like to think that it is. However we are looking at dictionary definitions here -- my dictionary says that being a Xtian can be defined as simply as "one who professes a belief in Jesus." All (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I would suggest that the common (in the US) notion of the "traditional family" hardly ever existed at all except on TV and in the blurry nostalgia of the people. And I agree that we'd all be a lot better off if that insidious fiction were (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Clarification on what you mean exactly by the term "traditional family" would be appreciated, Dave! JOHN (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Fair enough. How about this: The idea of a happy, non-dysfunctional, financially secure, single-income, white, Christian family with at least one son and one daughter, and often with a grandparent in residence. If you look at almost any (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) When a conservative uses the term "traditional family", I believe that they are referring to a 1 male, 1 women married household. This model can be traced all the way back to the teaching of Jesus. Number of kids is inconsequential; (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Let's see: 1. Mary, unemployed, but that's okay 2. Joseph, employed, but later disappears from all record 3. James, child by marriage 4. Jesus, child by a contemporaneous extramarital union who grows up to be executed for sedition Doesn't (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

The family: myth and reality (URL) Families in the real world are often not what the policy makers think. And 'the family' everywhere is under immense stress from rapid economic, social and environmental changes. In this Year of the Family Jodi (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) Ahem-- speaking of Relevant Difference, I think it was a little unfair to choose a rather unique family in history:-) Anyway, I referred to Jesus' teaching: "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'for this (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) This is in Genesis also. Is Jesus the same God as in the Old Testament? How about the Book of the Conquest? How about a god that redeems the world only at the sacrifice of his own son or self in some psycho lamb-as-sacrifice-suicide pact? (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Well sure, but that wouldn't have been as funny! 8^) (...) Let's stipulate that by "marriage" I refer to the contract of marriage between two or more willing parties, but I do not recognize any religious component as necessary or central to (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) This is because it takes "faith" to NOT believe in God because you have to have faith in such fatally flawed teachings as evolution,etc. or regarding whatever other theories you have about what got us here. (...) I don't know what dictionary (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Justin, your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of atheism. Consider the following statements: A: I believe that God does not exist. B: I do not believe that God exists. Do you see that these two statements are (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Are they inherently different? Saying 2 + !2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = !5 Both equations are superfluously different, but inherently they are stating the same thing. Whether you say "I believe that God does not exist" or "I don't believe (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

What the ****?! Belief has nothing to do with anything. Get it through your thick skulls. The existence or non-existence of a possible god is not so far an observed phenomena. End of story. If you want to believe in the bogeyman in the sky, go right (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) Well Hoppy, I see that you're on a tirade, and, for the most part, a perfectly understandable one. However, your little rant above is not called for. I didn't mention at all my convictions, but am pointing out what may be a reasonably (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Again, as a believer you are trying to frame the issue as circling around the issue of belief or faith -- and it is just not so. I am not saying that God doesn't exist. I am saying that there is no evidence of that possibility. Crying about (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: Richard has put his finger exactly on the problem, but I was interested in the underlying logic of the questaion and decided to go ahead anyway for clarity's sake. (...) I'm afraid that this notation (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

(...) I also like the point of his tirade--Bible thumping Christians who think they have all the answers and like to force their POV down the throats of others is contemptable. (...) You wrote it below--is computer geek for the word 'not' 2 + not 2 (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Double D'oh!!!! Grr!!! 'Twas suppose to be 2 + not 2 = 5 and 2 + 2 = not 5 !!!!!! Grr!!! crazy kid doesn't know what the h-e double hockey sicks he's talking about!! Grr!! Going (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Right, but by that same token, consider this: In statement A, the conditional thing that does or does not exist is God. In statement B, the conditional thing that does or does not exist is belief. (...) I disagree, believe it or not! 8^) I (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) On that we both agree! :) And the rest nicely stated. Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Richard Marchetti

The poblem is not in my or Dave!'s logic, it lies possibly in the language or words we are using to express our ideas. Obviously, it is easier to talk about things in the positive rather than negative because in the negative you have to conjure an (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) Understood and agreed...Using Atheism was a bad example...most everything else I said has been snipped. Again I refute Richard's statement that merely calling yourself a Christian makes you a Christian and refer you to the 2 definitions for (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) If you can recommend any such books I would be greatly interested to explore them. I would steer you away from such authors as William Lane Craig, William Dembski, or Michael Denton, all of whom commit grievous logical and statistical errors. (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) Now that was a tremendous ST:TNG ep when Jean Luc was being tortured by the Cardassian--can't remember the quote right now, but when I heard it, it was a "Wow!" moment. And I concur with (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) I think that you and I went down this road (URL) before.> Bear in mind that the thread took place before you and I made peace, so it might come across with more bitterness than is now the case. (...) Perhaps not, but it definitely eliminates (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) I'll see what I can come up with for you. (...) It is ONE central requirement, yet Random House and I are stating that "adhering to the teachings of Christ" is also an essential requirement to be catagorized as a "Christian." (...) I'll check (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Justin Pankey

(...) Hi Dave, As requested here's a book for you...It's scope is highly scientific. "Darwin's Leap of Faith" by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. I'll try to pick up the book you suggested as well. If you get this book and would like to comment (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Dave Schuler

(...) Thanks for the book suggestion--I'll see if I can track it down. As to the rest, I question your priorities when you put work and family before LEGO-related concerns! Dave! (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —Thomas Stangl

(...) In person, no. But the bigotry you continuously spout in here shows Pride in yourself and your chosen religion. (...) In person, you are. But some of the things you say in here border on insanity sometimes. (...) In THEORY, maybe not. But if (...) (21 years ago, 19-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California) —John Neal

(...) If that is your perception, then I guess it is so, but I have to say that it is very easy to be misunderstood in a forum such as this. (...) Hmmm. Really insane, or just not inline with what you believe? :-) (...) That is what is known as a (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)