Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:14:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
409 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:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
That’s interesting, but it does not explain your “political” comment,
nor does it answer my question.
|
lol What are you talking about?? I thought you wanted to know if church
leaders’ comments were politically motivated?
|
I do. But you now say “I wouldn’t have any idea as to their motivations”
| |
To which political comment of
mine are you referring? As far as your question about church leaders’
motivation-- I already answered that. I’ll put it another way: How the
hell should I know?? Ask them!
|
It is you who said they were politically motivated, and now say “I wouldn’t
have any idea as to their motivations”!
|
Show me specifically where I said that their comments were politically
motivated. I think I specifically said that a) they weren’t speaking as
Christian leaders, because they have no authority (that I recognize anyway) to
speak on behalf of all Christians, and b) they were exercising their free
speech rights. I never once postulated as to their movitations.
(snip)
| |
| |
| |
What right did Bush have to threaten him?
|
As leader of the US, he is sworn to defend the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic. SH was an enemy and a threat to the security
of the US.
|
I’m just not clear on what the threat was. He was at his weakest when Bush
invaded.
|
Specious. Besides. Cornered animals can be the most dangerous ones.
(snip)
| |
| |
Everyone, including Blix and the rest of the world.
|
Most thought he had WMD; not all agreed he was a threat! Understand the
difference!
|
Understand this: Nobody perceived OBL as a threat on September 10, 2001.
(snip)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) I do. But you now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations" (...) It is you who said they were politically motivated, and now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations"! (...) I'm just not clear on what the threat was. (...) (21 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
