Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:20:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
355 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Are you saying the Pope was politically motivated,
|
I am not a Catholic so whatever the Pope says is inconsequential to me-- I
have no idea as to his motivations.
|
Pope aside, are saying that the statments made by many church leaders were
politically motivated?
|
I don’t know which leaders you are talking about and even if I did I wouldn’t
have any idea as to their motivations (unless they so indicated). I come from a
traditional that believes that each and every person has direct access to God
without the need of intercessors. So any “Church Leader” that “speaks out” in
my mind is on his/her own and is taking advantage of their free speech rights
rather than as some spokesperson for the Church as a whole.
| |
| |
| |
or that killing tens of
thousands in Iraq was a political decision?
|
Many died in Iraq because of SH’s refusal to abdicate his rule.
|
He was under no obligation to step down.
|
You are correct. We threatened him. He thought we were bluffing; turns out we
weren’t.
| |
| |
If he had
stepped down, there would have been no need to invade in order to force
him to leave. In the end it was a decision of national security (of the US)
|
Come on John, that lie has been long exsposed. Your naivety must be starting
to wear by now?
|
This topic is pretty well beaten, Scott. If you want to consider the whole WMD
thing a “lie”, that is your right. To me lying implies deliberate deception;
everybody assumed SH still had WMDs (and that is not to say that they could
still turn up in Syria or something).
Even in hindsight I believe that SH’s deposition was still a good thing because
he was a menace and a friend of terrorists. I believe it is totally appropriate
to threaten any and all leaders of any nation who aid and abett
terrorists. (Please shock me and refrain from mentioning Israel...;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) So you have no problem threatening our own leaders (watch it, with the Patriot Act, you might be locked up for life with no trial on this one...)? Our leaders supported the Taliban, after all... Our leaders supported SH, after all... (I'm too (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) That's interesting, but it does not explain your "political" comment, nor does it answer my question. (...) What right did Bush have to threaten him? (...) Not everyone; was that not why Rumsfeld established is own little intelligence fiefdom? (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Pope aside, are saying that the statments made by many church leaders were politically motivated? (...) He was under no obligation to step down. (...) Come on John, that lie has been long exsposed. Your naivety must be starting to wear by now? (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
