Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:28:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
326 times
|
| |
|
|
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:
| |
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.
|
see here
| |
(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.
|
So why corner him?
| |
(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.
|
Tell that to those who died on USS Cole & in Kenya.
Scott A
Have you had a look at Arthurs Seat Yet?
 
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 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
|
|
|
|
