 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
