Debate : 4318


Off-Topic / Debate / 4318

Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

Arg. I gotta vent. Slashdot is carrying an article (1) on how the Utah legislature is trying to enfore internet filtering in public libraries. Somehow, this topic has become a Mormon-bashing extravaganza. I was going to post there, but I suspect (...) (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ian Wilkinson

Good call on the keeping of chuch and state seperate. I wish more Americans felt the way that you do. I am from another conservative denomination, the SDA church yet I am still compleatly for individual liberties. Oh well good call. Ian (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Patricia Schempp

(...) Oh...don't get me started on separation of church and state. Some recent steps in this country like posting the ten commandments in schools and teaching creationism are complete violations of this in my opinion. Of course my family has a long (...) (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) Like it or not the ten commandments had a lot to do with the foundation of our entire way of life in this country. They are a historical example of a great legal system, just as Hammurabi's code. This country was founded by people who accepted (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Erik Olson

(...) Hear, hear. Creationism isn't science, it's a tool for making converts to Christianity. Similarly, posting the Ten Commandments in schools proclaims that authority comes from god ("thou shalt have no other gods before me"). I just want to make (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) Creationism is actually very scientific. Many secular scientists have become christians precisely because their findings lead them to the conclusion that everything is too complex to be accidental. I have a few books I could mail to you that (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Selçuk Göre

(...) It's not pretty much do what you want. There is even nothing like that since good behavior is a good behavior and I can distinguish it without the help of any book written centuries before and looks very stupid today. Even if it would be as (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Major snippage fore and aft. Which is not to say the other things you had to say weren't interesting, or whether I agree with them or not, it's just that this is the only one I wanted to comment on. The Roman Empire started with high ideals - (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Morality again...(was Re: Mormon bashing again) —James Brown

(...) <major, almost indiscriminate snippage> (...) That is as distorted and inaccurate a phrase as saying the christian code of behaviour is "do what the priest says". (...) If morality is not objective, then it is subjective, and only as (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(I hope this formats OK when I submit it) Toto, I think we're in Kansas... (...) I've read most of the supposedly "scientific" Creationist literature, and nowhere is the necessary connection between belief in a director or architect ("theistic (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) I disagree, creationism can stand quite aptly on it's own two feet. It doesn't get it's validation from disproving evolution. There is quite a lot of geological and biological evidence to support the bible. The fossil record is not as the (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Like? (...) Anti-logic. Evolution and biblical Special Creation aren't the only two choices. And evolution does not "like" or "dislike" the fossil record (although we all can dream of having every creature that ever lived preserved somehow, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) lacks. (...) before (...) and (...) the (...) And they have in fact found intermediary forms that predate Archaeopteryx recently in China (or was it Mongolia, sorry, I forget). A more definite mix of dinosaur and bird. There are plenty of (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) reproduce (...) the (...) before (...) These were also admitted to be a hoax shortly after being released. Bill (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) - (...) to (...) See what I mean? If you mean the proto-birds, that's not true (your source, please). If you mean something else, you'll have to clue me in since I mention no other specific example and neither do you. Bruce (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) I heard it on the radio news - AP or USA - they were going to exhibit them and then it was announced that they were fake. Best I can do. Bill (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) See July 98 National Geographic, "Dinosaurs Take Wing". I have seen no report of them being fake in any scientific journal, newspaper, or on-line source. Bruce (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ben Roller

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: nor the theory I just came up with now that a giant pink bunny made (...) That's the stuff that makes my brain hurt. I guess that's why I liked the movie Dark City so much. For those who (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) AcK! I wasn't going to get into timestream cotemporality. But I see that apparently tomorrow night I will...;) Have we just changed history by having this conversation? I wanted to see that, but it went in and out of theatres so (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Aaron Hines

Ah, after hearing the classic creation vs. evolution debate, I'd like to make a few points, both scientific and religious: Evolution, in the purest sense, does occur. Life adapts to its surroundings all the time. I remember the example of a white (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Many scientists have no problem with God achieving his goals through evolution. My mother was a physical anthropologist and firmly believed in God. However, others feel it is necessary to prove God exists, and evolution neither confirms or (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Kya Morden

(...) I just had a thought on that "God doesn't play dice" phrase. If we truely have free will, then you bet that God plays dice (we'd be a living example). So...yeah...just thought I'd throw that one out there. (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again) —Christopher L. Weeks

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Aaron Hines writes: I remember the example of a white moth that lives on beech (...) I thought that was as a result of a coal-burning power plant opening in the area. And soot deposited on the trees. And for the record, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again) —Shiri Dori

(...) Right. But that's not the whole story. IIRC, the moth population had 5% dark moths, who were eaten quickly because of the white beech tree (ie, they had no camouflage). The black color, was, I think, a mutation (or perhaps a recessive gene? I (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again) —Christopher Tracey

(...) <snipped a bunch> Shiri's description is very good, I'll elaborate on a few points. The moth in question is the Peppered Moth(_Biston betularia_). Before the industrial revolution, the predominant form seen in the woods of England was white (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Ben Roller

(...) Ok everyone, raise your hand if these guys are making you feel dumb too. It amazes me that you all knew which moths were being talked about. Man, some people are just too smart. :) Ben Roller (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Kya Morden

(...) *blinks* I was almost about to post about the difference between Lamarkian and Darwinian evolution until it was cleared up by the later poster. But, for the fun of it, the example of Lamarkian evolution would be that the giraffe's neck grew (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Christopher Tracey

(...) sorry :) I was an evolutionary ecology major in college, this stuff was drilled into my head. my wife says I talk about in my sleep. :) (...) Finches in the Galapagos. For a good pop science book on this, read "The Beak of the Finch." -Chris (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Kya Morden

(...) Ack! >_<;; I took "The evolution of human nature" (aka intro to sociobiology) which the first third of the class focused on "real" evolution. Then in my "history of anthropology" (aka anthro theory) class, we started out with some of the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) We did, but it didn't necessarily help--the Lysenko variant of Lamarckian genetics was eagerly taken up by Stalin and his totalitarian regime--"New Socialist Man" ring any bells? It was something that appealed to him because it implied that (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Christopher Tracey

(...) I disagree with the term "Survival of the Fittest," shouldn't it be something more like "Reproduction of the Fittest(1)?" Darwin and some of his contemporaries did create the theory of evolution through natural selection, one of the first (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —John J. Ladasky, Jr.

(...) Well, the fittest *individuals* don't survive forever, obviously. What really survives, past one lifetime, are the fittest *genotypes*. -- John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D. Department of Structural Biology Stanford University Medical Center Stanford, (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Kya Morden

(...) And, I must jump in, cause, well, I do, but if I remember my History of Anthropology course (if only I could find my notes!) it was actually Herbert Spencer (a wild and wacky social darwinist) coined that term. (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Selçuk Göre

(...) This moth story is the standard subject under evolution chapter of high school biology books here. I don't think too much people remembers it though..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Markus Wolf

(...) Actually, back on the farm, we had a couple of roosters who wanted to kill each other. Not for the purpose of eating each other, but for control, I think. They would fight to the death if we'd let them. (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Frank Filz

I suggest anyone who wants more insight into what the founding fathers intended, check out this site: (URL) particular reference to the posting of the Ten Comandments, here is one little quote from the article on relion: (...) To me this suggests (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) I don't see that interpretation. He says nothing of endorsing, he mentions observing moral precepts accepted by all religions - which I also mentioned in my original comments: (...) The ten commandments are a concise example of these basic (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Frank Filz

Bill Farkas wrote in message ... (...) in (...) similar (...) endorsing or (...) that (...) not (...) merely (...) which is (...) Ah, but the Ten Commandments are MORE than an example of the basic principles, here they are for reference: 1 - Thou (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Hmm, I never thought about this one too much before the MS vs. DOJ case, but does this mean that there are in fact other gods besides "God" and that He desires to cultivate and maintain a monopoly in His target market? --Todd (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) ^^^...^^^ Urrp, I mean the "DOJ vs. MS" case! --Todd (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) What it means is that whatever is primary in our lives is our god. For some people it is money, or power, property, sex, popularity, image, relationships, ........., even LEGO. It could be a combination of any of these things or a different (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) Yes, but what about whether or not this 'deity', aka God, exists? -Shiri (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) That's a great question! But more than that, what I wanna know is whether God (THE God): (a) admits that other deities exist and disallows their worship, or (b) disavows the existance of other deities, or (c) whether His answer to that would (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) The question of whether God exists or not for me is clear cut. He does. This whole Creationist v Evolutionist argument has pointed towards a Great Creator of the Universe, and that is God. Man certainly had nothing to do with the original (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre

(...) It's strange. Islam stressed on so much that the god is ONE and ONLY (...) Selçuk (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) I think it's safe to go ahead and say "not in the picture". If not then I ask where exactly were they walking? That is unless you mean the creation of Earth and are suggesting that man came from elsewhere (not my personal belief but I could (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) Getting picky here! (...) Why not? I agree that an "Anglican" Christian such as myself may have differing views on issues than a "Baptist" or "Mormon" Christian, but on this issue I think we're all pretty universally in agreement. (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) I think I spoke too soon, and you are right, but my point was just that there are many kinds of Christians. Again though, I think you're right. (snipping here, sorry if I cut too much) (...) And that "whoever is not against you is for you" so (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Aaron Hines

(...) Ah, to this I would refer again to the scripture which says "A thousand years is but a day to the Lord." If this is literal, then God was truthful. No human after Adam has lived to be 1000, eh? =) Aaron (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) Love your line of thought! I've never heard of this before but that's very reasonable... After all, God killed him after about a few minutes... ;-) -Shiri (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) Aaron is quite correct. Adam and Eve had the opportunity to live for ever in the Garden of Eden, as long as they adhere to a few simple rule. Not so unreasonable, as the Garden belonge to God. Much like were here in Lugnet on the condition (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) Because they were naked. It doesn't say that they were ashamed of what they did. They said that they hid because they were naked. If you think of it as they are equal with God now (that they know everything like Him), they still would have (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) No no no no no... :-, God basically told Adam and Eve, "eat of any of the fruit in the garden, except for the fruit of *that* tree over there, or you'll die, so don't even touch it" (i.e. eating the forbidden fruit made them mortal.) To which (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) No no no. There was the tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. They at from the first one, and were kicked out so that they wouldn't eat from the second one and become immortal. They weren't kicked out for becoming knowledgeable as we usually (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) "ibid" is a bibliographical term that means, roughly "same book, but from this page instead". I don't know offhand the entymological background, but I bet Mirriam-Webster does... <hunt hunt> Yep. "ib" or "ibid" is an abbreviation of ibedum, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Yah, I forgot about that one in the heat of debate. So it was a combination punishment / preventative maintenance decision, then. (...) Wha--?! Whose side are you on? ;-) But I dunno; I still consider Satan's speech at least a half-lie, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Wow, hey, does this mean that there is some confusion or ambiguity as to whether or not Adam actually did die? Or is it known beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did actually _for sure_ die? Assuming it's not known absolutely for sure, have (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) As cool as that would be (and you could just say it was a misprint, or that he was faking it or some other excuse to make that type of story), it is "known"(1) that he died. Eve on the other hand is not mentioned after Cain and Abel are born. (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Cain is said to have never died, being cursed to walk this world forever lest he enter the next. But I could just be remembering a terrible mini-series, I dunno... Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) stories (...) could (...) That is indeed in Genesis. It's been the source of any number of cheezy things, including much of White Wolf's back story for their Vampire:The Masquerade RPG. It also talks about Cain, after being sent away for (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Wasn't Lillith mentioned in some other religious text, perhaps Babylonian or Phoenecian? Evidently, Adam's first wife was Lillith, who left due to interpersonal incompatabilities. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) the (...) Neat (...) YOu know, I don't like the idea of future generations getting their theology from role playing games. Markus (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) ...? Which role playing games? I'm sure the game company lawyers would *love* to argue that they had the idea first, but Lilith is a valid character from several ancient religious texts. I found the reference: Lilith is mentioned early on in (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) or (...) Okay, well that obviously isn't in the Royal Book. And it doesn't really make sense. Here, in the perfect Garden of Eden, where there's no sin, except for a serpent. I honestly know nothing of Lilith. It's not a good policy to drag in (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) to (...) Oh. I never said I believed in the story. I was just throwing in some extra comment to bounce around. No, I believe that Adam's first real family problems started with his children. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) FTR, I'm the one who mentioned the RPG. As an aside, that had nothing to do with my point, and certainly not as a source. If I wasn't so impervious, I'd be insulted that someone thought I was dim enough to do that. James (URL) catching up on (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) or (...) Oooh, one more thing. I found in Psalm 93 where it says that God is clothed with majesty and strength. I know it's in a poetic format, but I betcha if you could see God, there'd be so much beauty and light surrounding Him (like Isaiah (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) I don't know if it was mentioned in RELIGIOUS texts, but C.S. Lewis mentioned it in "The Lion, the witch & the wardrobe", which is definitely christianity- influenced... (Not to mention it's like a bible to me :) I love Narnia!) -Shiri (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Narnia or some kind of Jewish folktale —Erik Olson

Warning: this message is on-topic. (...) I think it is a safe guess that one of Jack's models for Narnia was the fantasy novel _Lilith_ by George MacDonald. It too is remotely based on that Jewish folktale about Adam's other wife. I forget which (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Narnia or some kind of Jewish folktale —Erik Olson

Warning: this message is on-topic. Bull-beggars? Heh heh. I quote more: "Reginald Scot mentions fairies (and nymphs) among bugbears used to frighten children: 'Our mothers' maids have so terrified us with bull-beggars*, spirits, witches, urchins, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) It never says "forever". It just says he'll be a fugitive and a vagabond (...James VagaBond) sorry. Also, it doesn't say there were only four people at this point. It says she gave birth to them two and then it says, "in the process of time" (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) Yep. Not only that, but he'll bear a mark on his forehead, the curse mark. (...) Actually, there are many other theories that say that even though Adam and Eve were the first couple, they weren't the only one. That God had later created other (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) That's, IMO, just to explain it so that there was no incest. I don't see why it couldn't be true though (as it is not mentioned either way in the Bible). As far as I'm concerned, if it's not mentioned, it didn't neccessarily happen or (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Eve (...) I don't think incest would have necessarily been an issue then, from a medical standpoint anyway. With a relatively "pure" gene pool, for example from 1st to 5th generations since Creation, incestual couplings would produce far fewer (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) brought (...) Abel (...) find (...) That was the point above about the 130 years, enough people could have existed at that point to have migrated to Nod and settled. 130 years is a long time. It's 135 years back to the civil war, to put that (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Bill Farkas

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Dan Boger

(...) this is one of my biggest issues with a "god" thingum: if there's such a "god", and she's so all powerful and all knowing, why would should she even care what we puny humans do-think-worship? :) Dan (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) of (...) That's what makes God even more amazing. The fact that He is all powerful and all knowing and all creating, and yet desires to have a relationship with us all. He has stated this countless times throughout history. His greatest (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) It's equally pathetic to believe that God is a male. You're limiting the supreme power with gender. (...) Don't be so sure of yourself. I've seen translations that use Mother and She instead of He. I don't need that, but if I had a twisted (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) This is true. God the Holy Spirit is not gender specific. But Greek and Hebrew original writings speak of God the Father and God the Son as well. You can't argue about God the Son - Jesus was a man. God the Father is what Jesus called Him, and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) If God is really a donkey, and Jesus had come to Earth and said, "Ok, now let's say Our Donkey in Heaven" do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously? In that society (and some would argue this society), being a woman didn't mean (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Dan Boger

(...) hurmph. I have still yet to see anything that tells me that God "cares" (not to mention exists). The only reason that I can't say I don't believe in god is that I admit the possibility that such a being does exist, and it's beyond me to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) What proof have you looked for? Give me some indication and then we can take this further. (...) You've decided that God is a she just to make things more interesting. That's about as rational as me calling you "Rebecca" just to make things (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Dan Boger

(...) me (...) how (...) on (...) toss (...) well - didn't you say that you feel god's interest? I never felt that, and never saw anything to even make me begin to think that... (...) when (...) first of all, I did read all through the old testament (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) Yes, according to Matthew 1:1-17, He was. It's way too long to write here, but it gives "X was the son of Y" all of the way from Abraham to Jesus. Well, technically Jesus wasn't related to Joseph, but that's close enough. Ben Roller (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) The plight of the Israelites throughout the Old Testament is proof that he cared about them. He constantly refers to them as his "Chosen People". The fact that he sent Jesus to earth to do what He did is even more proof. I'm not talking warm (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Dan Boger

(...) Again, you're assuming that events described in the bible are exactly as described, and were written down objectivly. The bible, however, was written by people who did believe in a God that led then through the desert etc, etc, etc. That makes (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Say, this bring up an interesting point (for me, anyway). I'm curious about something... Over my lifetime, I've heard God referred to as He millions of times, and in more recent years, occasionally I've heard Him referred to as She, but I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

(...) Colleen McCullough, who has read thousands of classical sources, writes invocations in her historical fiction that start, "Jupiter Optimus Maximus, of whatever name you prefer, of whichever sex you prefer..." I've not yet encountered this in (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) To answer your first question, Christians refer to God as "He" and "Father" because that's how Jesus referred to Him. Since we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then it is natural to expect Him to know the correct way to address God. I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) OK, so it's a very long-established convention to use He and nothing else. Got it! (...) Ya, this reminds me of back in the late 80's when it was popular among certain groups not to acknowledge that the word "woman" (or "women") contained the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Er, I didn't mean that ("He and nothing else") literally -- I meant to say "male gender equivalent," which would cover He, His, Him, Father, etc... It's a good thing, too -- because if deities could have other genders, then one question which (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, it isn't. You're taking Peter's word that the translation he read (and views as the literal revealed truth) has the pronoun gender right. Not every church that's christian uses "he" What parts of the bible are correct historical record (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Hmm, then I suppose...the safest thing to use is God's name (or pseudoname) itself -- the first person form, rather than the third-person form? He / She / It => God Him / Her / It => God His / Hers / Its => God's Is that the best way then? (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

(...) Unlike *some people* :) I don't speak for all Christians, but IMHO that's the best way. (...) I think "you" is fine, though I think I'd personally go with the capitalized "You". Jesus, in several places "I thank you, Father..." Satan says (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) I don't mean to beat a dead horse on this issue, but I would insist that it is "some Christians" or "most Christians" that refer to God this way. Pete implies that ALL do, and that is just not the case. Calling God a male is not a prereq for (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) I'll give the horse one more kick ;-) To call yourself a Christian implies that you follow Christ. By it's very name that is its meaning. Following Jesus IS a prereq for being a Christian. Jesus called God "Father" and "He", so you draw your (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) Jesus never called God She as far as we know. He never drove a car either. Does that mean that just because He didn't do it that we can't do it (along with the stuff that He did do) too? (...) So wouldn't "They" be more appropriate for us that (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) I think this is getting a tad silly. The focus isn't on what Jesus didn't do. It's on what he did do. He did call God "Father" and "He", and therefore we (Christians) do too. Pete Callaway (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Oh stop. Give up will you? You don't know for sure what Jesus did or didn't do or what he did or didn't say. You can only take the word of people dead almost 2000 years now, who recorded things in languages many translations removed from the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) Why should I? This is something I strongly believe in which is being challenged in a civil discussion, so lugnet.off-topic.debate T&C's notwithstanding, I'm entitled to speak. You're bored with it? Don't read it. (...) Not true, at Bible (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes indeed you are, but you're wrong and it's not just me thats disagreeing with you. You're just repeating your arguments over and over but they've been discredited. (...) How do you know these are copies of the original texts? How do you (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) One of the arguments that has been repeated over and over here is the issue of the gender of God, and how to address God, which I think we'll all have to agree to dissagree on. I've stated my case on what I have researched and believe. You (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

First off, sorry if anyone was offended by the subject...I was getting tired of the old one. (...) <sigh> There you go again, speaking as if your opinions are the prerequisite for Christianity. It may not be a secret to anyone else, but to me the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) The prereqs for being a Christian have been around long before I graced this earth. You make it sound like I'm professing to be the be-all and end-all of Christian knowledge. If stating what I believe based on facts I have researched is (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

(...) Doh! You assumed right, I did not. I thought you lived in the USA too. Sorry about that! I'm sure that it happens all of the time because a lot of Americans tend to assume that everyone on the Internet is an American too (NOW I notice the .au (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) Sorry (...) Americans (...) No stress, although when I see some of the FOTW posts I wish I was in the US so I could get my hands on some cheap LEGO. Whoops...On-Topic. Pete Callaway (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Kevin Wilson

(...) I'm not Christain, but I am gay, and my daughter is Christian, so I've done some digging on this to combat the stuff she was getting from her church which had her really worried about *me*. Without getting into a long rigamarole, there are (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) Before I start, I'd like to say that there is no "super-bad" sin. All sin is considered equal in the eyes of God (except perhaps blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:31. Not sure how that one works). Many people, Christians included, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Actually, its not so clear if you consider what is known as "pseudographia" -- the books selected out by Peter and the other late-comers (some of these were 200 years later late-comers). I, like others in this mad thread, have forgotten and (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

(...) Day 27 - Still at Sea Arrr, the rain she falls all th' night and all day long. Spent all day feedin' the cattle and scooping poop, AGAIN. Thanks a lot God! I still say we shoulda left those darn skunks to drown. Mrs. Noah looks like she's dun (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) feedin' (...) ROTFL! You sometimes have to wonder, if Noah was really a man of infinite patience, or if God just let him complain as long as the job got done. :-, Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

(...) Well, I don't think the Bible said that every animal made it OFF of the ark (alive anyway). I bet every time that Noah got really mad he just up and tossed a smelk, frabot or a unicorn off the side. Oh he was crazy alright. The guy was 600 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) I bet it was really lonely in that little boat. :-) --Todd (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —James Brown

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Peter Callaway writes: (much snippage, excepting the passage references cited as advocating against homosexuality) (...) I can't address most of these, as my memory is horrible, and I don't have a bible handy, but I will (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) And the fact that my tent isn't x cubits long and y cubits high, and I prefer to shake hands on an agreement rather than carve up an ox and walk through the middle of it means that most of the Levitical laws I don't practice. Jesus stated that (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —James Brown

(...) <snipped list> (...) Well, for all intents and purposes, all of Leviticus is given equal weight. So if you are going to cite it as a source for correct behavior, you should either cite it as a single work, or disregard it, IMHO. Either (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Kevin Wilson

(...) <snip> Somewhere we have a pamphlet about all this but I gave it to Liz and so I don't remember where it is. I'll try and find it and type some of them in for you, but I've no intention of typing in the whole thing :-). The only one I remember (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) If you tell me a bit about it I'll try to source it from my side of the Pacific Pond. I'm still interested in the response to the other verses I cited, as one of them specifically mentions "homosexual offenders". (...) Most of which make (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ed Jones

(...) of (...) [megasnip] (...) Top 10 Reasons God is Not Gay: 10. A gay god would never have allowed catholisism to exist in its current 14th century state of mind. 9. A gay god would have hymns that sound more like showtunes. 8. A gay god would (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Scott Edward Sanburn

Wow, Ed, that was not only not funny, it was pointless. Great job. Really. Scott S. < snipped top 10 reasons etc. > ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) I thought it was the funniest thing I'd read in several weeks. --Todd (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) That's great. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) I tend to have an extremely objective sense of humor. --Todd (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) Very amusing, although one doesn't need to be gay to have those thoughts about Tammy Baker ;-) Here's something that might crack you up too. I laughed myself stupid for quite some time. (URL) the author of the site where it's hosted thinks (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

(...) Well I wondered...no, too easy. Besides, that would be mean. ;) Ben Roller (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) Well you wouldn't be the first, and there are times I won't deny it either ;-) Pete Callaway (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ed Jones

(...) Scott, you don't think god has a sense of humor? Look at the platypus! (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) I thought you asserted that you didn't believe in God, Ed. Therefore, how can He have a sense of humor. I have a sense of humor, but this really didn't "enlighten" me, nor did I think it was funny. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is God gay? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) Hey! Lay of the little fellas, I think they're cute! ;-) Pete Callaway (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) I'm not saying that referring to God as masculine is wrong, just that doing otherwise is equally right. You're implying that doing otherwise means that someone is not a Christian. That's the silly part IMHO. Ben Roller (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) Well, as *some people* may say, Christians try to model their life on Jesus. Since I can't prove that Jesus referred to God in the feminine, but can prove He referred to God in the masculine, that's what I'm gonna do. I didn't mean to imply (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre

(...) It's just an European language thing isn't it? We have only one word for third singular person in Turkish, "o". So a Turkish speaking christian it doesn't make any difference, if that thing called god is a male, female or neither. Isn't it (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Consistent? Hahaha. You may want to review some of the previous threads here which ended up with the christians trying to explain away all the bible's inconsistencies as actually being consistent if you interpreted the words the way that made (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Right, it should be She! --Todd (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) What if that god were God's dad? I'd take satisfaction in my kids if they perform well, and avoid usurping them unless there was no other alternative. Just a thought... Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —David Schilling

(...) Despite the size of this thread, I don't feel this question has been answered yet. There are many places in the Bible that God specifically says "there are no other Gods (deities)". So God clearly denies the existance of other Gods. (See a few (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Kya Morden

(...) I'm voting for "splunge" both here and in the presidential election. ^_- (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) He says many times that there are no other gods beside Him. All other gods are fabrications. Bill (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) OK, so that would be (b) then? How about other non-God deities (from other religions)? Do those gods deny the existance of other gods? (Obviously the Greek gods, for instance, don't fall into that category.) That is, is Christianity the only (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) IANAM(1), but I believe that one of the basic beliefs is that "That there is no god but God and that Mohammad is His messenger". Though, they mean the same God, so maybe that doesn't count. This leads me to wonder: Is there a term to describe (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre

(...) Yes, it is something like the first amendment "La ilahe illallah and Muhemmedun resulullah" or something like in Arabic. Islam also states that Isa (Jesus) Musa (Moses) and Davud (David?) are all prophets like Muhammed (Mohammed) and so, they (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) Right... although IANAM (1) either, I did live in Israel in which Islam is the second most popular religion. I remember learning about Islam two years ago and taking a field trip to the near Misgad (temple, name in english = ?). That sentence (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre

(...) It's not an amendment, and misinterpreted many muslims as you already worded it. It actually written in kuran as same as you jews are interpreted. This picture/statue case in Turkish Islam is much more like your people's belief, except some (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Kevin Wilson

(...) I've seen "people of the Book" used, but I doubt if it's an official term. Kevin (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz

(...) Well, it isn't official in that the phrase is a translation of the Arabic, but it does come from translating the Koran to English. I think Mohamed also used this term in inviting some visiting Christians to worship in a mosque at one time. (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

(...) You might have to settle for "Western monotheistic tradition" or a neologism "Abrahamic". Acknowledging our Islamic heritage with an all-inclusive term would have been too painful for Christian cultures which could barely come to acknowledge (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) in (...) no (...) Muslims would force people to convert by the sword, but not Jews and Christians inasmuch as they were "followers of the Book." Whether that is solely a reference to the Old Testament only I'm curious to know. I can't think of (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) ?!? What were the Crusades about, then? Historically speaking, Muslims have invariably been better neighbors than Christians, at least in terms of religious co-existance. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) Both of you got it about half right (about the Muslims, that is). The Muslims did force people to convert, but only people who believed in dieties and/or held polytheistic beliefs. They DID NOT force Jews or Christians to convert, in fact they (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ummmm, that's exactly what I said. Muslims forced people other than Jews and Christians to convert. Bruce (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Christians (...) I'm not sure what the Crusades has to do with my statement. Oh, wait, I think you are reading it as two seperate statements. The Muslims converted all those except Jews and Christians by the sword because they were followers (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Yep! My goof. Sorry about the confusion. See, I had this most interesting conversation with an associate last month, and it's still fresh in my mind. The person I was talking with was absolutely convinced that indiscriminate violence is (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The Vikings didn't seem to have a problem with gods from other religions existing. The God of the Jews, Christians and Mohammad is the one and only, as far as I understand their collective faiths. Hindus I don't know - they shouldn't have a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Erin Windross

Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You are off-topic here. If you want to discuss Lego, please do not post on off-topic.debate. :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

You're off topic, and wrong. —Ben Roller

(...) Actually, everyone that is posting on the thread is part of the "Lugnet group", so I don't know how it would please them. (...) Ha! This thread isn't even 100 articles yet! Ben Roller (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —James Brown

(...) Hmm. Erin, while I can understand some frustration about vast threads of controversy, it's relevant to note that this conversation is happening exactly where it's supposed to: lugnet.OFF-TOPIC.debate (emphasis mine). Quoting relevant text: (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.council)

Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Markus Wolf

(...) Are you kidding? This is the most exciting God talk I've read. There's alot of perspective I've never seen before. Maybe Lego minds are of "a different spirit." Anyhoo, I degress from off topic. Er... God Bless Markus (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Love that word! Anyway, this thread is more interesting to me than the Loud Urguments about Goofballs, erm, presidential candidates. :-, Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Erin Windross

Okay, I may have made a .........er............terversial error in posting that message, so.....Todd, please delete my message (and if you could, all the messages in reply to my message) Thanks. Erin -- "The only god minifigs believe in, are the (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) S'okay, Erin. I was just playing around. I hope there are no hard feelings? Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) I can't know exactly which message you mean (I can guess) without a group and message number, but if you can point precisely to it (send me an email) I can cancel it upon your request. However, I can't (won't) cancel other peoples' replies (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

(...) I am reading right now Colleen McCullough's _Caesar_ (book number 5 of her excellent novels) and there is a passage where she has a fictitious conversation between Caesar and the chief Druid, Cathbad. Caesar is anxious to make an impression, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Dan Boger

(...) in the bible, (old testament) it is admitted and disallowed. (...) splunge? help me out here? :) Dan (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) What must be clear is that at the time, many deities were worshipped by all of the Jew's neighbors. What the 1st commandment says is basically (my interpretation) that you shan't believe in these so called 'gods' and worship them. So he (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) An MP reference... :) --Todd (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Consider this: Lucifer was an angel before his fall, and one of the brightest. Literally, the son of the morning. (1) After his fall, he has been working diligently towards thwarting all that is good, promoting politics, etc. But even after (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Hmmmm, interesting. I'm one who feels that Lucifer has no power (over the living). None. Zip. Nada. All he can do is lie. Assuming there is a devil. Other than politicians. OOooo...ooo..... :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) go (...) It's a neat debate. Nowhere that the war in heaven is described (which is not that many places), does it say that the fallen are stripped of power or status or title, just that they are cast from heaven. Neil Gaimen has some neat (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Craig Hamilton

(...) hell management to open a piano bar) is being continued in an ongoing series by another great brit writer, mike carey. yours truly is getting ready to embark on the illustrations for a back-up feature or guest issue of the book. i just (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Neil Gaiman was (Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Kya Morden

(...) good "starter" Gaiman stuff be? I really liked 'Day of the Dead" that he did for Babylon 5 and I've read a few short stories in Sandman that I liked. (One was about a cat telling other cats how they used to rule the world and chased humans (as (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Neil Gaiman was (Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —John J. Ladasky, Jr.

(...) Not Gaiman by himself, but try _Good Omens_ by Gaiman with co-author Terry Pratchett. Pratchett should have written for Monty Python, but Python broke up before Pratchett's career began. I'm not familiar with Gaiman's solo works, so I don't (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Neil Gaiman was (Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Craig Hamilton

(...) i love this book too!! the hellhound, the four riders of the apocalypse, the unknown fifth rider ~"grievous bodily harm", the "nice and accurate" prophecies... i smile warmly and laugh just thinking of it. i've always thought it would make a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Good Omens (was something less interesting) —James Brown

(...) The phrase that hooked me, and dragged me in was the description of Crowley - 'a demon who did not fall so much as saunter slowly downwards.' (paraprhased, because my copy is on loan(1) right now) Another of my favorites, which will often get (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Good Omens (was something less interesting) —Craig Hamilton

(...) hey, we better disagree on something soon or we may get kicked out of .debate. ;-) wonder who is cast as crowley in the elsewhere mentioned gilliam film? very splendid news that is! i'd think jeff goldblum maybe? johnny depp would be great, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Neil Gaiman was (Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Erik Olson

You said Pratchett came too late to write for the Pythons... well, Terry Gilliam is doing the movie of _Good Omens_. I can't wait (and I haven't even read the book! I guess I can wait) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Neil Gaiman was (Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Craig Hamilton

(...) kya ~ that was "dream of a thosand cats", one of my favorite sandman stories. if only a thousand cats could have that primal dream simultneously, it would become reality once again. this is impossible though. just try to get a mere three cats (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Neil Gaiman was (Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —James Brown

(...) "Dream of a 1000 Cats" IIRC. I would recommend the Sandman graphic novels, first off, partly because they're my first exposure to Gaiman, partly because they're *really* good. I constantly reccommend "Good Omens" whenever I can, to whoever (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) A lie spoken into the proper ears can destroy a world, ne? Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) devil. (...) Absolutely! But only if acted upon. Bruce (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) And if the lie is "There is no God....."? Pete Callaway (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Can God lie? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) I wonder what would happen if God came down today and said, "I don't really exist. I had you all fooled. Have a nice day." Would that be a lie? Or, since it came from God Himself, would it be a paradox? --Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Can God lie? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Dan Boger

(...) why would God not be able to lie? Are you saying that there's something that that said God cannot do??? :) Dan (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Can God lie? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Personally, I think God could lie if he wanted to. (...) Well, I thimk we established a few months back that God can make Himself reappear after making Himself permanently disappear beyond His abilities to make Himself reappear. Because, since (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Can God lie? —Dan Boger

(...) ahh - I see your point... If you can do anything, you can do something that you can't undo [1]. But once you did that, you could still undo it [2], therefor you faild to do it right the first time. (since you could undo it, even when you (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Can God lie? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Rick Kujawa

I think of course he could lie, but why would he have to (He should be- excuse me-"above that"). If he lies about his own existence reminds me of "I think (speak) therefore I am". Another thing comes to mind from an old George Carlin skit: "If God (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Can God lie? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ed Jones

(...) the (...) Well, since there is no god, it would be hard for him to come down. The whole bible is a lie, its the world's best selling fiction novel. (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

God is a lie? (was Re: Can God lie?) —Ben Roller

(...) Hey now, we're not letting the hard line fundamentalists get away with statements like that without anything to back it up. It's fine (with me) if you believe that, but to say it here you should at least give reasons that we can debate. Ben (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'm not sure of the relevance of your question. Bruce (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) Well you stated that Lucifer (aka the Devil) has no power other than to lie. Let's assume for the argument's sake that there is a devil (to stop me getting in trouble from the people who don't believe there is). The lie is in fact his most (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (emphasis mine, Peter said "a" without the stars) (...) I LOVE hypotheticals. If we posit the existence of *A* devil, is his saying that god doesn't exist necessarily a lie? No. Something that might fit the generic definition of devil might (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Scott Edward Sanburn

Larry, (...) Wow, Larry, that sounds more leftist than Libertarian. I hope there will still be room for us "obnoxious Christians" in Libertopia (Liberatopia? SP?), or will we be banned as well? Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Religious freedom in Libertopia (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Wasn't intended that way. I think your conventional rightist bias may be coloring your read. Reminder, I was speaking hypothetically. I'd never advocate shutting down a religion because some members of it misused it to effect tyranny. That (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Religious freedom in Libertopia (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Me, having a rightist bias? Never! ; ) Actually, I have had a lot of leftist professors say this before, so that is where it is coming from. Very enraging, to say the least. If I read wrong, my apologies. (...) Heh, if only the gun control (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) Wow. Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Stop pulling the punches. James (URL) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) What is the generic definition of a devil (apart from the red tights and pitchfork)? I ask this so we can all speak about the same thing. My definition follows. I believe a devil represents evil ("evil" with a "d", for darstardly?). What then (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

What is the meaning of life? (was: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Kevin Wilson

(...) I don't agree. *I* won't be here any more, but I will live on in the memories of people whose lives I've touched, in my daughter's genes and any descendents she may have, in what I've written (however long that may last), in what I've built (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What is the meaning of life? (was: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Erik Olson

(...) Kevin wrote: (...) The religious point of view (Peter's) wants there to be a permanent result to a life, in order for it to have meaning now. Kevin partially rebuts this by saying that what we leave for other people is enough. Yet both of (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What is the meaning of life? (was: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Peter Callaway

(...) But why do you care? Why do you strive to leave this world a better place? Where do we get this craving for immortality (OK, not everyone does, but we'd all like to be remembered fondly long after were gone). The sad fact is that in say 500 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Why are christians persecuted? Or are they? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Hardly. I was speaking hypothetically, of course. I'm perfectly fine with anyone of any creed as long as that person doesn't get in the habit of violating my rights. Most christians don't. Heck, some of my best friends are christians <GD&R>. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why are christians persecuted? Or are they? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) I don't think we'll ever live down the crusades either, but whilst they represent dark periods in Christian (and human) history, they do serve as a reminder of how people can get it all wrong. I say again, if you want to know what Christianity (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

Briefly, my flight boards soon. (...) With you so far. A devil is an evil being. You can't know evil without knowing good. As I've said before, animals are amoral and know neither good nor evil. (well, except for cats. Cats are evil. :-) ) (...) (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38C5A25C.6BA832E3@v...er.net>... (...) One objection I'd like to raise is that not all Christians have an unjust and unfair god. Of course that depends on your definition of Christian, but I think the only useful (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) Yup. More specifically Lar, christian *theology* in general, doesn't. Some sects do, but the majority (insofar as I'm aware) do not. However, this may vary in actual practice from sect to sect, region to region, even from church to church and (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

I'm confused. Rereading what I said, I'm saying that god, by allowing repentance to be enough, is unjustly rewarding those who did not work hard or be virtuous by giving them a pass, (all they have to do is sincerely repent) which is unfair to those (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz

(...) Unfortuanately Unitarian Universalism can't be pinned down. One interpretation of Universalism is that everyone gets into heaven, no matter how good or bad they are. This doesn't seem a useful interpretation to me. Many Unitarian Universalists (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) <much snipping to get down to this one point> (...) But what if you only realise there is a problem on your death bed? I know what you're saying, and I struggle with this heaps. Matthew 20:1-16 shows Jesus' attitude to this. It is not by our (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) This is actually from James chapter 2. (...) A few points that might make this somewhat easier to wrap your brains around: First, the bible places all men on equal standing, all men need to be "saved". - even the proverbial "those who haven't (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

If you guys are happy with that stance, that's cool by me. But you can't explain it away to my satisfaction. Your god is an unjust god by my standards, and that's all that matters to me. Hence, he, if he were to exist, he can blow off for all I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I don't reject a god who gives a pass to murderers, if the murderer in question makes up for the loss. And don't get me wrong -- taking a life is a huge thing to make up for IMO, something which few if any can do. But I reserve the right to (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

Oh, and another thing... I'm selfish and proud of it. To not be selfish is to be life denying. (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

It's gotten quiet here, and we're off the lugnet.homepage. I'm going to see if anything runs out of the bushes when I do this... All this splitting hairs & quoting Paul to rule on whether a sinner can be saved and get away with sinning.... I sure (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) It's funny you mention that. An article of my church's faith declares that "we belive that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." (...) What then is the good life? Can you tell me that? Can anyone (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

1. Vs. Original Sin —Erik Olson

(...) I don't recall such a thing in any other creed. Is this article of faith meant to quibble with or clarify Paul? Not sure myself whether Paul is as important to Mormons, as he is to say Lutherans or Baptists (who make a very big deal out of (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 1. Vs. Original Sin —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Paul is very important to us. However, for all his enthusiasm, he was only human. He certainly became very excited about some things, and much of what he said is doctorine to us, but he wasn't terribly clear about many things as well. Erm, so (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

2. The Good Life —Erik Olson

(...) The Good Life. Aristotle said the good life was to become happy by pursuing the best goals, that is, to excel in whatever you are capable of. To be the best example of what you are. That you are the purpose of your own life, there is no higher (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Erik Olson

(...) Well, I guess it was a troll. But I left off the really bad names! I don't think Christianity has much power to form character traits like intellectual curiosity, productivity, attentiveness, and hipness, so more second-generation Christians (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Hipness? I'd say that's a worldly attribute, de-emphasized by our parents' (any given parents') generations. But I digress. Intellectual curiosity, attentiveness, and especially productivity are promoted by several churches, including my own. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Oh my. I completely spaced out reading this the first time around. I have a profound and irrational dislike for homosexuals in general, due to a harsh experience I had with a gay boss and his mate during my high school job. I recognize this (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Todd Lehman

(...) How differently do you imagine that you would feel today if you had never had that harsh experience with your gay boss and his mate? (...) I believe that God created bisexuality, homosexuality, and sexuality in animals and humans for a very (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Todd Lehman

(...) d'Oh -- I forgot an "a". That should say: I believe that God created bisexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality in animals and humans for a very good reason. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I would probably view homosexuals on a more even keel. I might, by way of example, compare it to my feelings towards Muslims. Having worked with a few exceptionally awesome folks who happened to be Islamic, my POV towards Muslims in general is (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Note: I picked Muslims as a category for discussion purposes only, because I am not a Muslim and I was discussing how I felt towards people who are different from me in terms of lifestyle. *sigh* Maybe I should stay out of these debates while (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Todd Lehman

(...) They're the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule? --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Erm, which rule? I used the example of how I feel towards Muslims as an example of my typical reaction. As a rule, I try very hard to not judge people based upon categories. My feelings towards homosexuality is an exception, caused by a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Todd Lehman

(...) There's an old phrase -- "That's the exception that proves the rule." Example: "All tough cops have moustaches." "All?" "Yeah, all. Well, except for this one cop I talked to once -- he didn't have a moustache... But all the others do!" "He was (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Steve Bliss

(...) [snip examples of stereotyping] (...) I thought that old saying came from English grammar, where every rule has any number of exceptions. The exceptions don't invalidate the rule, they're just exceptions. Personally, I think the 'old phrase' (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) *sigh* again. c/judge people/judge people negatively/ Today is not my day. I'm having a Bad Typing Day. As a result, I threatened to wage war against Larry's house and sell his family into slavery, and I flamed homosexuals while defending (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Kevin Wilson

(...) I believe it is fairly low... in the US and many other countries, but not all. I have read that one of the reasons for the high rate of HIV in Africa and some other third world countries is that heterosexual anal intercourse is much more (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Todd Lehman

(...) I really enjoyed the movie _Chasing_Amy_, especially what Alyssa had to say in the bar scene early in the movie. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <mild spoiler alert> The first part of that movie was great but the big denoument where the roomie tried to make a case for a three way struck me as a bit off. Spoiled what was otherwise a good movie for me. (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Oh. See, there I go assuming again. Thanks for clearing that up, Kevin. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Larry Pieniazek

Massive snip just so I can pick on one point. (...) Sexuality only, or are you saying that ANY activity carried out purely for pleasure is irrational. I have an issue either way but let's be clear first. (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) anything (...) factors (...) Any activity done for pleasure is irrational. Or is pleasure rational? I contend that it is not -- emotion and bias play too big of a role for pleasure to be wrapped up in a tidy package. It's part of the human (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I would contend that to throw out all emotions as not suitable for a rational being is to go too far. Emotions serve at least two good purposes: - they're inputs. They give us valuable insight into our subconscious, as well as insight into our (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Rational. (...) Irrational. *Why* is it enjoyable? *Why* is it good? Is it or is it not necessary? These questions can't be adequately and rationally explained, at least not with modern medicine. And I'm willing to bet <RUMMAGE SRC="POCKETS" (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Todd Lehman

(...) How about activity done for pain? --Todd (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) What, like my job? :-, Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted. —Steve Bliss

(...) Are you refering to reading an Ayn Rand book? Personally, I'd rather read an atlas. *Shrug* whatever. Steve (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Erik Olson

4. Why are some nonbelievers admirable people? —Erik Olson

(...) I'm not going to debate this, because there have been a lot. Just like the Christian has to ask "Why are some atheists, Mormons and Jews decent people?" (DUCK NOW!) the atheist wonders "Why are some Christians good people?" The reality is most (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 4. Why are some nonbelievers admirable people? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Don't rule out the possibility that he may be *on* something. But I take it you see no benefit to self-sacrifice? Certainly no benefit to oneself from a "rational" point of view, but how about from the POV of society? Take, for example, the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) It's obvious from the above statement that your just trying to stir the pot, but you DO make many good points. (...) Not true. That's your opinion, on what authority do you base it? (...) Jesus did just that, and continues to answer that very (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz

Bill Farkas wrote in message ... (...) more (...) Oooh, can't wait for Larry's response on this one... Frank (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

Bill, you're falling into the trap of quoting from scripture as if it were authoritative again. It is to you, we grant that, but it's not authoritative to me. (...) Trot out someone who's saved, then. Not someone who THINKs he is, or even KNOWS he (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) It's not a "trap" for me. You're the one who seems to have a problem with it. The fact that someone doesn't *want* to believe it doesn't diminish it's authority. The bible IS my standard, your mind is yours. No offense but the bible has been (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Jeremy H. Sproat

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Bill, Lemme give you a clue. You're wasting your energy arguing like this. Don't take it personally, I make these misteaks all the time, myself. Here's some pointers: When you're discussing controversial topics such as religion, it's best to (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) I have my reasons for my methods which are not obvious on the surface. I hinted at them earlier. No more clues here. (...) Honestly, I wasn't emotional at all. That's why I included the parenthetical comment about not trying to be insulting. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

Typically, when a person says "don't take this personally" it means that there is indeed something there that might be taken personally, and when a person says "no offense" they are about to say something offensive. Sproat gave you some good advice. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Thank God we have the Bible so that don't have to use our minds. --Todd (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) Thanks Todd, that one gave me a huge chuckle. :~) I wasn't saying that we shouldn't think. What I meant was that our own minds are incapable of true objectivity. We all translate experiences according to a sum total of all our previous (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Karim Nassar

(...) to (...) If that's the case (and I'm not debating that point...I happen to agree) then the Bible is even less of an objective source than our own minds... After all, the content of the Bible is purportedly eyewitness testimony, right? So it (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) a (...) here. (...) A lot of it is more like a court transcript in the sense that they were official documents (O.T. historical books). Much of the Bible is didactic in nature and therefore doesn't fit your argument. As for the (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Aha! OK, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't aware, prior to your pointing it out, that the good book was truly objective. I mean, I always knew it was completely factual, accurate, and consistent, but I never knew that it was truly objective. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) How do you talk with your tongue stuck in your cheek all the time? You sure have the gift of sarcasm. I never said any of those things either. Each time I have referenced a bible verse it was to clarify the meaning of said verse which may or (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) I'm sorry, I didn't glean that. Maybe I'm reading too quickly, or have been adversely influenced by too many bible proponents in the past. I didn't realize you were intending your statements to be taken that they apply personally to you and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) evidences. (...) I have only maintained that the Bible is authoritative for those who put themselves under it's authority. It is, in my opinion however, true regardless of whether a particular individual finds it to be so. Assuming that God is (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) OK, total grokkage now. Cool, man!! --Todd (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) At last, something I can agree with. This is most certainly true. (reminder, accepting the truth of "If A then B" does NOT imply the truth of A) Bill, there isn't much common ground between us, though, as other posters have explained quite (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) I never thought I'd hear Larry admit that he doesn't rub blue mud in his belly button. :) --Todd (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's an old RAH reference. I actually forget if it was from Stranger, Job, Farnhams Freehold or what. (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Karim Nassar

(...) I think that it is a general RAH-type comment that has found its way into several of his books... Like Larry, I'm not 100% sure., but I seem to remember it from more than one book... however, since RAH developed the "Myth as Reality" (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Kevin Wilson

(...) That's a Lazarus Long quote... probably appears in all of the books he shows up in (ie lots). Kevin (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Steve Bliss

(...) I don't think it showed up in _The Number of the Beast_. Then again, I read that one at a fairly young age, and may have been distracted by the illustrations. Steve (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

The last refuge of religion is to turn rabid and claim that nobody can be objective, therefore you need God's revelation. Objectivity isn't an unattainable ideal. It includes using the sum total of your experiences to come to a conclusion! When you (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I thought the anti-religion stance states that the last refuge of religion is to convert people by the sword. But again, quite sarcastically, I digress... (...) But that's still subjective, isn't it? The interpretation of this data is still (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

Good point (...) But is it a dichotomy or a trichotomy. (rational/irrational vs. rational/not rational/irrational)... I'd say the latter. As I was alluding to in a different portion of the thread, I can have and enjoy emotions without letting them (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes [and I re-arranged]: (...) Ooh. It appears that my argument has no support for such a trichotomy. My kneejerk reaction is that you're pointing out a flaw in my semantics rather than my logic, but (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'd still go with Shrugged. Go buy it and if you're really pressed for time, just read Galt's speech, which is only 100 pages or so (quite a bit much for a radio speech but what the heck...). It starts around page 700 or so IIRC (I'd go look (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Karim Nassar

(...) Who's John Galt? <ducks> ;) --Karim (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) $ (the sign of the dollar) <... and grins> (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

(...) Ayn Rand's philosophy is not a derivation, or long list of concepts implying one another out of thin air with "Logic" hopefully proved true at some point in the chain. If you have to refer to Godel for supplemental reading, you don't get (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

I'll defer to Erik who is much more knowledgable. As I've said before, being convinced by an argument and being able to reproduce the argument accurately enough to convince others are two different things. Rand convinced me. I may not have all the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Karim Nassar

(...) This is interesting... In one of my college english classes, I wrote a term paper that used chaos theory & fractal geometery to argue that "Free Will" is a contradiction of terms because, following the theory of mathematical chaos, because the (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I have understood that chaos theory implied that the universe was holistic and non-deterministic. That is, certain behaviors can be modeled with some degree of accuracy, but the large number of outside influences would always prevent 100% (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Flub. Messed up on the order of my footnotes and I can't cancel from the Web interface. I hope my meaning came across... Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Karim Nassar

(...) The primary tenants of Chaos Theory are 1) The universe is deterministic. 2) The universe is chaotic. Put simply, you were correct, in that for all intents and purposes, it is impossible for us to make long-term predictions of chaotic systems (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

(...) well, I was only considering the arena of ideas... (...) Objectivity is usually taken to mean "independent of the observer." Since it's impossible to NOT be an observer of the universe, therefore, objectivity is impossible, goes the argument. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Wow, I never thought of it that way before -- and I agree 100%. Just as one has to have faith that God does exist in order to be a "theist," one has to have faith that God does not exist in ordre to be an "atheist." That is, there's really no (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Richard Franks

(...) An Apatheist? ;-) Richard (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Splendid!!! It's perfect! --Todd (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Sheree Rosenkrantz

Richard Franks <spontificus@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FrBz4J.Dun@lugnet.com... (...) or (...) Try agnostic. That's what my husband, who is a Philosopher, says. sheree (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) Hmm, well, agnostic is the closest widely-known word that I can think of, but Richard's new coined word pegs it even better, I think. (apathetic) + [atheist] = (ap[athe)ist] I don't think agnostic quite pegs it for me. I'd say I definitely was (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Kevin Wilson

(...) ROFL!! Hey, I resemble that remark! Kevin (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre

(...) Wow wow wow! Just as me..:-) The thing that I first realized when I started to go down to the atheistic path was "it doesn't matter if it exist or not, I will be as same, and continue to live as same either way." Sorry the believers, but, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes: Is there a label for (...) Aren't those two seperate questions? <GD&R> James (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet. (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) Are you lobbying to have this changed to lugnet.off-topic.troll? (...) How do you know that? Are you claiming omniscience? You *believe* no one knows if they're saved with the same apparant fervor that many christians *believe* they are saved. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz

James Brown wrote in message ... (...) intend (...) do (...) saved. (...) don't (...) I think his point was relating to those Christians who believe that the saving is something for the afterlife. In that case, he's mostly right. Of course he's (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) Yeah, I figured that was his point, but by claiming to know that not one of the christians knows they are saved, he's claiming knowledge without factual evidence to back it up - i.e. he believes that, just as they believe they're saved. James (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

(...) My meaning was that it's not knowledge, it's faith. You don't *know* your saved until you experience it. If you mean some psychological transformation, fine, but nobody knows anything about the afterlife. It's all hearsay. You have to take (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) if (...) And my point was that you can't claim to know they aren't saved either. For all you know, God does talk to each and every professed christian and influence them to act as they do. You are, in fact, *less* likely to know than they are. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And I don't know that monkeys aren't about to fly out of my butt either. But all the objective rational evidence, that is, stuff that can be used to make meaningful predictions, stuff that can be measured and tested, points against it. Your (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) There was a time in human history when all the objective rational evidence pointed against the earth being round. Your point? Nothing in the current body of knowledge (from a scientific point of view) can either prove or disprove the existance (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Cite, please. The rational evidence pointed FOR it being round, it was the christian church that was suppressing it to enforce a flat earth, terracentric viewpoint, as I recall. As far back as we can go in history, we have evidence that people (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) I love this one! The Earth isn't round (it's not even perfectly elliptical), and it isn't flat either. But it then again it *is* flat (if you live your whole life in in the plains of Nebraska) and it *is* round (if you live your whole life on (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38C9898F.27C595B8@v...er.net>... (...) I guess it really depends on one's definition of Christian. By my definition of Christian, I see people who were quite devout who have done good for the world, and continue to (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) Ok, did some digging of my own, and find myself hoist on a petard, presumably my own. My example died, but the point is still extant. Simply because science (objective rational evidence) does not provide for somethings existance does not mean (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Agreed. (...) Also agreed. But in order for X to actually matter, X has to have some effect on reality, or it's just ornamentation on a perfectly valid theory that explains things without X. In this case, the christian god has no effect (in (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) I could argue this further, but we'd be getting away from traceable cause and effect, and getting really esoteric. (which is to say, getting into questions like 'Where does the concept of God come from' and 'Does the socio-political effect of (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

Skipped most of it but picked on one thing. James Brown wrote: \ (...) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the basis for christianity is flawed. The basis for capitalism, and the basis for America, are not. Christianity will produce (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Scott Edward Sanburn

Larry, Man, I really shouldn't get into this: Anyway, here is the start: < rant, babble, etc. (...) I am really trying not to grind my teeth, here, Larry, but you always had a spite against Christianity, which is fine, I have my own spites on issues (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre

(...) I tried to make it more clear and more universal, as being a former Muslim...:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

To the reader, in the below quote Selçuk changed my words in a way that I don't agree with. He did it to make a point, I'm not mad that he did it or anything and no apology or retraction is necessary (to forestall any). (...) I don't agree. I think (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz

(...) Some people do interpret "Justice" to imply income redistribution. UUs range almost completely across the political spectrum, and if one had to paint with a broad brush, one would pick up the Liberal brush, but I suspect if more people (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

Well we're definitely in "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" territory and I post this mostly in fun, not because I have issues... (...) I think that's STILL begging the question. :-) What's the difference between religion and (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Selçuk Göre

(...) Sorry, anyway..:-) (...) This is from Steve Bliss's message: "I thought that old saying came from English grammar, where every rule has any number of exceptions. The exceptions don't invalidate the rule, they're just exceptions." Since my (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

Steve's wrong, I feel. Exceptions invalidate a rule, unless they are themselves subject to a subrule (that is, that they are predictable exceptions) and I feel "the exception that proves the rule" is a bit of gentle humor pointing out that (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Frank Filz

(...) Well, UU theologians would argue that it is predictable. Unitarianism is derrived from rejecting the trinity and the divinity of Jesus (something which wasn't "official" until 350 AD). UUism relies on reason to establish it's precepts, so it (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Steve Bliss

(...) Hey! I'm willing to admit to making mistakes, but in this case, I'm being misunderstood. I was just disagreeing with Todd's understanding of the implications of 'exception which proves the rule'. I've never heard that phrase used with ironic (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) I could be wrong about its primary use these days... I've never heard it used in any was _but_ with ironic (or sarcastic) intent, but I'll buy into the old English grammar etymology of it! :) --Todd (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Steve Bliss

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman wrote: [about 'the exception which proves the rule'] (...) Thinking about it, I can't remember the last time I've actually heard this expression used. So the 'primary use these days' doesn't really apply. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sorry for apparently misquoting you, Steve. Are you sure you didn't actually say what I said you said? :-) I never make misteaks, you know... (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Hmmm. The Longest Thread on LUGNET (1) (which will soon be usurped by this thread) was started when Chris Weeks remarked on how quiet .debate was... Cheers, - jsproat 1. (URL) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Hey, you started it. ;) The most interesting part is that you started it by simply venting very reasonable and specific frustration--but it got general and took on a life of its own. What timing! Hmm, I missed that last .debate's eventual (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —James Brown

(...) Well, dunno about most of those, but I'm willing to bet that Brad Justus takes the record for that last one: (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet. (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) simple high-school physics. See, Brad (and the organization he represents) is really cool. However, this thread on religion has lotsa people hot and bothered. (With me so far? You can see it coming... :) And naturally, most things expand when (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —James Brown

(...) takes (...) No, I was refering to the "most replies to a single message". AFAIK, no other message on Lugnet has generated over 70 direct replies. James (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) But -- But it took me a while HOUR to think up that one. *sigh* :-, Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Larry Pieniazek

Brad's first post probably takes the record for "widest fan" in that it had more posts from different people, although the average debate thread seems to have lots and lots of posts. But most of the posts are from the usual gang of suspects, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Longest Thread! (Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) The thing I absolutely love about LUGNET is the threading goodies Todd has worked into the news server. That makes the Web interface more powerful than most news readers in many ways. And this help threads to *sustain* a life of their own, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) if (...) -Shiri (24 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —William A. Swanberg

I've been steadily wading through this thread for several days now (you have a lot of catching up to do when you go to the field for a week), and have promised myself to stay out of the debate, and I will continue to do so (although the temptation (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Reasoning is OK, nomenclature was wrong (I was rushed, and I JUST made the flight, they closed the door just after I boarded). See below... (...) Most perfect is an INCORRECT label for what I meant, an entity that is omnipotent (which carries (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —William A. Swanberg

So, more a terminology thing than anything else. Although, I do think you need to watch some of your abbreviations, omni PMS conjures up mental images I don't want to deal with, ever! -- William A. Swanberg CPT, SC Commander, 229th Signal Company (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right. But the point at the root is that even if the universe is infinite and even if we can identify who holds the current title of "most good", there is no implication that this particular entity is omni PBS... and further, you can have at (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) Ok, I'm a Christian, but I have to agree with Larry here. Some of us are really obnoxious! It's hard for me to walk across my campus on Friday nights because the "missionaries" from Bob Jones U(which I understand has been in the news lately (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Eugene Ipavec

(...) Because it is the only one--the only one in its weight class, at any rate--that can be disproved acording to internal, semi-objective standards. And whose followers won't whack you with a fatwa for trying. The other religions must not be that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) *sigh* No matter how much I try, there's always going to be someone who tells me I am not a Christian simply because I'm a Mormon. I know it doesn't mean a whole lot to mr. Ipavec, but it's fairly important to me. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Scott Edward Sanburn

Jeremy, (...) Well, I do not know a lot about Mormonism (I have never studied too much into different branches of Christianity, I think there is a book of Mormons, isn't there?), so I am not a judge of whether you are a Christian or not (God is), (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Eugene Ipavec

(...) Goodness, no. I meant nothing of the sort. Whether the LDS is Christian is as much for me to say as whether the Shi'ites are Moslem. Which is to say not at all. What I was referring to by the generic "Christians" was the sort of Protestant, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Hmm. (...) Okay, I see your point. Sorry about the accusation. (...) And now you're buttering me up. I can accept that. :-, So why is it that many Christians are so unforgiving in other peoples' religions? Especially towards Christians of (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) I think that's the underlying problem with labels, and yet they are a necessary evil. So many groups have been borne of a desire to be non-denominational and unifying; then begin to focus on what makes them different from everyone else to the (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Inherent flaw in Christianity? You could as easily ask why is it that so many Libertarians are so tolerant of other peoples' religions and lifestyles... :-) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Ouch, Larry. >:-P (...) I know it was a joke, but bear with me for a moment... Would Libertarians be tolerant of my lifestyle if I were to become a tyrranical conquorer bent upon stamping out Libertarianism and setting up camp on your private (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Excellent question. Flip answer is that we tolerate anything except intolerance, acted upon in a way that suppresses rights. As you point out 3 sentences on. (...) Rather narrowly from my observation. (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) IIUYC, you're saying that Libertarians are intolerant of intolerance. --Todd (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. Only intolerance acted upon in a way that suppresses rights. We even tolerate someone discrminiating who he will sell scissors to because he only likes right handed people and can't tolerate lefties, as long as there are no governmental (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) I forgot the winky smilie! If that had actually been what you were saying, it would make a nice paradox. :) One of my favorite bumber stickers is, "Down with Intolerance!" :) (...) How about a governmental ban on the sale of left-handed guns (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Karim Nassar

(...) Since we are in .off-topic anyway... Speaking of bumper stickers, I saw a great one today... It's a bright red sticker that reads "If this sticker is blue, you are driving too fast!" ObReligion: If you got that joke, thank a science teacher; (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) you (...) I saw that one last week and about split a gut. Then I had to get off the shoulder and back into my lane... Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Intolerance and property rights —Frank Filz

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38C99133.A47A4F64@v...er.net>... (...) I'm a bit curious as to how patents fit into this scheme. One the one hand, it is clearly good to protect the investment that went into an invention (both "dollars" and the (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Intolerance and property rights —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This came up before and I don't have a satisfactory answer. I think one is out there, I just haven't taken the time to catalog all the stakeholders and determine their rights. My knee jerk was that IP *is* property. So you have the right not (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Slow motion response. Sorry. An interesting scenario, but it doesn't seem to conflict with my supposition: i.e. he has no power other than the lie. It's not his most powerful weapon, it's his only weapon. Assuming of course, for the sake of (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Karim Nassar

(...) it? (...) fabric (...) Another very important aspect of this question is that Christianity is a rather peculiar religion when compared to other world religions in that it REQUIRES that it's followers evangelize their beliefs. There are very (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) Hmm. When's the last time Sproat tried to convert you? James (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet. (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I haven't ever tried to convert Karim. I have, however, tried to meddle in his spiritual business by expressing my beliefs. The distinction is small but profound. By trying to convert Karim, I would be attempting to force him to do something (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Karim Nassar

(...) Wow, James... :) In my entire very carefully worded post, you've managed to pick out the one exageration... but an unintentional one. Perhaps what I should have said is: "every person I have known personally and interacted with regularly on a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) LOL -- yes, baptism for the dead. It's generally done for family members, however, though it can be done for anybody within reason. In fact, Elvis', JFK's, and others' names has been thrown out of the roll many times; once is enough. :-, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Amen, brother. Josette is involved in our schools for at least two reasons: - because her involvment makes them a better place - to counteract this very tendency of slanting things. (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) :) Fair enough. I've never (to my knowledge!) attempted to convert anyone without them having opened the topic, and I've certainly never told someone I know what's best for them. I would consider myself strongly christian, but I also strongly (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Larry Pieniazek

I'm against public funding of schools as it implies a right to an education (which is a free good) But if you HAVE to have public funding... (...) this is a better way than what we generally do in the US, which is if you want to send your kids (...) (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Peter Callaway

(...) I wasn't actually disagreeing with your supposition, just saying that he does lie, and his lies are destructive (see below). (...) A couple of "non-Hindu's" were burnt alive by a group of Hindu's for doing that very thing last year. One of (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) One things for sure. When it all comes down, it doesn't matter how many arguments I have for or against anything. I think at the end, God will have a bigger case. -Markus (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) The reason I'm interested in knowing what the 1st Commandment originally meant (or, more importantly, from an evolution-of-religion point of view, what it means to people nowadays) is because religions are memes vying for dominance in the (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Rick Kujawa

I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em: I'm interested in what the commandment about "no graven images" originally meant and what it means now. Can't remember off hand. (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) have (...) meant (...) Well, if God's going to hold you accountable for what you've done with what you know. (And that's the impression I get from reading Romans 1 and 2) Then don't you think He would take the time and make the effort to let (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) I didn't want to be picky, so I almost didn't post this, but... It's important to realize that not every religion has a God. That is, I think, one of the more common differences between Eastern and Western religions. Ben Roller (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) I honestly know little to nothing about eastern religions. But I figure, if there's no god to be accountible to, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. It might be a nice little "this is good, this is bad" system that might have it's (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Eastern vs. Western religions (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Well, from what I know of Eastern religions, they've always made more sense to me than Western religions. (I'm thinking Zen Buddhism vs. Christianity in particular here.) (...) IMHO, holding oneself accountable to a deity is to ignore the one (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Eastern vs. Western religions (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Markus Wolf

(...) that (...) And my beanie little brain fluctuates in a different manner. I think since people's understanding is so limited, especially of each other, they can't possibly know the heart of the one they're forgiving. We can rationalize that (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Eastern vs. Western religions (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

(...) So Todd, is that just your opinion or what? ;) Ben Roller (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Richard Marchetti

(...) I would suggest that its a conceit of your ego that these "things" exist. Love is probably just your nervous system "grooving" with someone else's nervous system. There are lots of popular "scientific" views now that "love" is largely a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) I knew that somehow you could boil it down to a mechanical apparatus if you wanted to. But in my heart I've gotta believe that we're more than just really sophisticated amoebas (no nitpicking please!) There are truths that supersede science (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Richard Marchetti

(...) I think the more we build up the idea of love, the more disappointed we are in how it plays out in reality. By accepting a more science-based view, I feel I have something closer to the truth of it and I am therefore not disappointed in my (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) But I think you're limiting yourself by settling for such low expectations of love. Not to sound psychological, but if you're protecting yourself from being hurt, then your protecting yourself from the joy that could possibly come too. Of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Richard Marchetti

(...) I think this is an interesting thing for you to say. If memory serves, you are paraphrasing Paul (1 Corinthians 13? Except in King James it says "charity" instead of "love"). The difference is that Paul was talking about God's love for (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) Well, my friend,, you got the right passage but you better re-read it. My paraphrase (actually my best recollection from the New International version) is not merely God's love for humanity. But you are correct that love in it's purest form (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) I think the point of those religions is that you believe in it because it's true, not because you are afraid of your god. Ben Roller (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Markus Wolf

(...) it (...) Point well taken. How do you base what you believe is true? On what fits your current lifestyle best? I met a woman once who told me she believed in reincarnation just because she felt like it. She was a "Good Lutheran." (her words) (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —James Brown

(...) Seems to me that God, if so inclined, could demonstrate the truth in a way that leaves no question, no doubting, and can't be denied or avoided. God is omnipotent, after all. James (URL) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Shiri Dori

(...) First off, my translation of the original, hebrew 2nd commandment: "You shall not make yourself any statue and any picture". It originally told the Jews not to create or worship images and/or statues of the dieties. These were very common (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Richard Marchetti

(...) BTW, Judaism is NOT the first monotheistic faith. The Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten, A.K.A. The Heretic King, is probably the first monotheist in history -- believing in a single solar diety -- The Aten. When the same idea was taken up by Moses (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Bill Farkas

(...) You're forgetting Abraham and Noah, they were long before this pharaoh and long before formal judaism. The hadn't taken up the views of that heretic, they obeyed the active voice of the God of their fathers. Melchizedek (Gen 14) is called the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Richard Marchetti

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: <<a bunch of stuff here and elsewhere...omitted for the sake of brevity>> Bill, its hard for me to respond to your comments because you ACTUALLY believe this stuff and I DO NOT. This is like talking (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Kya Morden

(...) And I'm currently interested in what in the world the book was that talked about memes that my anthropology professor mentioned cause now you people have me curious and want to read that. (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman

(...) There's a good book called _Virus_of_the_Mind_ -- probably available at Amazon or Fatbrain or B&N. (And hey, if B&N doesn't have it, nobody does! ;-) --Todd (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

I loathe the term "meme." It seems to focus on form to the exclusion of substance, as if ideas were magical incantations that just take over and needn't be analyzed very deeply. I think the meme theory appeals to a void in the mind of bankrupt (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Richard Franks

(...) Consider the following bits of everyday information: * Tanoy message in the subway stating that all trains westbound are delayed * The release date for a software package is May 2000 * Street Preacher (Manic or not) telling you that your soul (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Erik Olson

(...) Right off, I'm not able to recall much from reading Dawkins (it was half my lifetime ago.) So anything I take issue with doesn't refer to his book. I'd probably benefit from reading it now! (But I've got a pile of new Stephen Jay Gould and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Ya, that's what I meant earlier when I mentioned that religions were memes. I'm always curious how religions manage to propagate themselves. Thus, it doesn't seem surprising to me that a religion with a first commandment in which its deity (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Erik Olson

(...) I think the strategy is also to announce the desirable features of Messiah 2.0 and then not actually ship it. When others announce their version of Messiah, threaten them. Of course, a significant portion of the user base hasn't even (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Richard Franks

(...) It might have been an essay, but it was a good one :) Thanks for this - I understand your previous message now! The meme-meme is an easy one to grasp but hard to master. I can't say I've mastered it yet, but I do find it interesting :) Richard (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) In addition to religions, some of the more fascinating memes (IMHO) include Internet hoaxes or urban legends -- for example the so-called "Good Times Virus" hoax or the so-called "Mrs. Fields' Cookies Rcecipe" messages. It's fascinating how (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

(...) But that one's true! I have it right here in my mailbox and can send the receipe to anyone that wants it. Ben Roller P.S. Before anyone asks for it, I was joking. :) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —James Brown

(...) Yeah, I know. :/ Unfortunately, the 'net doesn't have very effective antibodies. Fortunately, bandwidth just keeps going up. :) Whenever I do get sent this sort of thing, I tend to reply with SARC's URL.(1) It seems to be working, since I get (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Larry Pieniazek

Richard Franks wrote: . (...) Interesting. Can you do one dividing line? That is, if you sort by accuracy, do you get a crisp place to divide, or is "usefulness" a different sort key? I think it is. For example: I'd posit (for the sane of argument) (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) c /sane/sake/ just a fun typo, NOT a pun try, although there are those who question my sanity and those who question whether it's not insane to try to debate here. But this one is more fun than usual. Cheers to sproat for spawning it. (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) ...and definitely not a misteak! :) --Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Larry, I looked back though .off-topic.geek , and I couldn't find whether you had revealed the identity of the text editor that uses this mysterious text replacement syntax. Do you care to do so now, or should I look even deeper? Hmmm...just (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Ben Roller

(...) I had to do one for a basic computer skills class(1), and I must say that though the idea sounded like fun, the implementation was horribly easy. I'd love to try a hard one sometime as in general I love scavenger hunts. Ben Roller 1. Since I'm (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) scavenger (...) Not a scavenger hunt like in the Intro to Computers class. You gotta go for the real hard quests. Like, a post-doctorate dissertation on the effects of infrared light filtering in the thermosphere, or a virtual possum (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Matthew Wilkins

(...) *chuckle* this would make the search more like that for El Dorado or the Flying Dutchman... *smirk* -Cheese, who is a Macintosh guru, thank you very much. Bill Gates Must Die! (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Frank Filz

Sproaticus wrote in message ... (...) you (...) deeper? As far as I know it has not been revealed. The editor is XEDIT from IBM (1). One reason Larry stated that many people use it and aren't even aware that they are using it is that there are (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Larry Pieniazek

No, I never did reveal it because no one ever gave it much of a try. Frank is correct in his identification. I'd posit that more people use XEDIT without realising it than any other text editor anywhere, and that will remain true (by a careful (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Frank Filz

(...) Of course the average IBMer doesn't use XEDIT (in any guise) much anymore. We use Lotus Notes for e-mail (now there's something to debate on...). Frank (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Ugh. I absolutely hate maintaining a Notes Server. And until recently, the client was incredibly horrible. Both scored negative points with me in terms of user-friendliness and flexability. But: I understand that, using the right combination (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Larry Pieniazek

Every Notes installation I've ever seen in real life (outside of IBM, that is) (and I've seen a bunch, trust me) always seemed to have a PROFS installation running somewhere too, for calendaring. Dunno why. I digress... PROFS is just a shell on top (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Library vs Internet —Kevin Wilson

From Erik Olsen's sig: (...) Do both. I go through 6-10 library books a week as well as heavy net use. But I don't watch TV. Kevin --- Personal Lego Web page: (URL) auctions:(URL) to my Lego auction mailing list: (URL) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Library vs Internet —Erik Olson

I have to say that was a hasty remark of mine. I was saying to myself, "I will not use Altavista, I will not accept somebody's junky information, I will search my books first..." But since I left campus life, the only library I go to regularly is at (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Is memetics a meme? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Question: If Memetics itself is a meme, is it an intellectual bank-robber meme, bankrupting non-bankrupt intellectuals in its path, or does it propagate only in the minds of those who are already intellectually bankrupt? --Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is memetics a meme? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?) —Erik Olson

(...) ... I'd have to say no because this is getting silly! (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Josh Spaulding

(...) Todd, you might be interested in reading "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson. It's a slightly goofy cyberpunk novel that toys with the concept of religious memes. Josh Spaulding josh_spaulding@hotmail.com (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Kevin Wilson

(...) And also... sounds like it's OK to have other Gods "after me" - ie Himself as chief god and then a load of minor ones? I don't remember that being OK <g> Kevin (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Erik Olson

ObLego follows. (...) It's murky enough. Too bad God is not actually out there to explain himself. Modern religion retroactively rules on these loopholes to say what's OK. The ambiguous hints at what the OT people believed about other deities (and (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Ben Roller

(...) Hmm...since TLC wasn't around yet to call them studs, I guess God just called them "cubits" instead. 300 long, 50 wide and 30 high... Yep, that should just about hold every pair of animals that they make. And that whole "take it down and (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Kya Morden

(...) An extreme example of this would be walking into a government building and seeing a swastika mounted on the wall. Now, I don't know about you, but I would very quickly get the impression that which ever government agency was housed in said (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Peter Callaway

(...) No, they would be favouring Judeism, as the 10 Commandments were given to Moses, who at the time was leading the Israelites out of Egypt. They were Jews. Christianity is based on Judeism with one fundamental difference - we believe that Jesus (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Kya Morden

(...) My bad ^^; Though, technically, aren't the 10C included in the Old Testiment? I can't remember for certain. (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Peter Callaway

(...) Yes they are, in the book of Exodus is where we see them first. The Jewish Bible is basically the Old Testament only, whereas the Christian Bible has both the Old and New Testament. A freind of mine recounts an interesting story. He went to a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Frank Filz

(...) Aren't the New Testament and Old Testament versions of the Ten Comandments slightly different? (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) Actually the ten commandments are strictly a part of judaism. The are reiterated in the New Testament as moral principles and are summed in Jesus' statement that all the Law and the Prophets are summed up in two: love the Lord and love your (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Why do you feel that way? I am of the understanding that in the New Testament, the law of the Sabbath was never revoked. Christ challenged many laws concerning activity on the Sabbath, but as far as I can determine, Christ never denounced (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) worship (...) sabbath (...) was (...) Sabbath, (...) In the New Testament, all of the commandments are repeated, not as commandments but as exhortations to fufill the law of love, (because we are saved by grace not by our deeds) all are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) According to KJV Galatians Ch. 3, in particular verses 18 and 21, the promise given to Abraham for fulfilling those laws is still valid, even after some were made redundant by Christ's ministry. Granted, the speaker gives a fair amount of (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) commandments (...) grace (...) book (...) That's not at all what those verses say. Gal 3:18 is as follows: For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham BY PROMISE. Abraham had nothing to do with (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) [big snip] Bill, I'm afraid that we'll simply have to agree to disagree. After reading all of them, I can't see how any of the references you pointed me to support your side -- or even fail to support mine. And as for entering a civil (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) That's fine, I was just presenting an alternative view point. (...) That's the point of wide generalizations - they're "generally" correct. I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think I've been rude or uncivil at all. I also haven't claimed (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Kevin Wilson

(...) Isn't there some disagreement over this between the various christian sects? Kevin (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ben Roller

(...) I wouldn't say "some" disagreement. :) Ben Roller (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) Most definitely, tons of it. Usually comes from having preconceived ideas or from a lack of drawing conclusions until processing all of the facts. The bible must be viewed as a whole to try to get the overall picture. Too many christians make (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ben Roller

(...) I thought that it said that we were saved by Jesus. :D Ben Roller (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) I think he had a sister named Faith. {:^D Bill? (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ben Roller

(...) I didn't know Mr. and Mrs. OfNazareth(aka Mary and Joseph) had other kids. Seriously though, does anyone know where it tells about His brothers and/or sisters? I've always heard He had brothers but never read it anywhere. Also, where did the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Yes. His siblings James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are mentioned in Matthew 13:55; this crew plus their sisters are mentioned in Mark 6:3; and brother James is mentioned again in Galations 1:19, and probably wrote the Epistle of James as well as (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) Matt. 12:46-50 Matt. 13:55 Mark 6:3 Matthew 1:25 says Joseph "knew her not" until after Jesus was born. So much for perpetual virginity. The "H" stands for holy. Bill (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —John Neal

(...) No, no, no, no. The "H" stands for "Howard". Reference the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, who art in heaven, Howard be thy name." (-; John (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Richard Marchetti

I shouldn't talk for Bill, but I think I know what he means... Law v Grace You are saved by grace according to the New Testament. But you show your love of God by following his commandments (i.e. starting with all the Mosaic laws and up to and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) The mosaic law was still in force until His resurrection. (...) Fulfilled in the sense that he retired them. He fulfilled them because they were given to show sin and the need of an innocent sacrifice. Since animals could not propitiate a Holy (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Steve Bliss

(...) I seem to remember that Isaiah is one of the major source of messianic prophecy. Sounds like the friend was carefully trying to provoke the father of the groom. Steve (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Peter Callaway

(...) make (...) selected (...) he (...) Not so much provoke the man, but do what Christians (and Jesus Himself) have been trying to do for the last 2000 odd years - show that Jesus is the Saviour they've been waiting for, and demonstrate this (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Which of the Ten Commandments are Libertarian? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Todd Lehman

(...) Hmm, hmm. A tangent... If the Ten Commandments had been written by a Libertarian instead of a Christian, I wonder how different they would look? Would there still be 10? Or only 5? Or would there be 15? Commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 strike me (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Which of the Ten Commandments are Libertarian? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Todd Lehman

(...) Whoops, I didn't literally mean Christian there. IIRC, the Ten Commandments predate Christianity by thousands of years. --Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Which of the Ten Commandments are Libertarian? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Dan Boger

(...) don't know anything about Libertarianism, but why do people keep saying the Ten Commandments were written by Christians? According to the Bible (the Old testament), it was handed to Moses on mount Sinai... Wasn't this mention before? :) Dan (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Which of the Ten Commandments are Libertarian? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You only need 1... this one: 8 - Thou shall not steal. All the rest that make sense derive from it. (left hanging and unproved in a previous thread is the assertion that "all rights are property rights" and "no initiation of force" and "people (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Which of the Ten Commandments are Libertarian? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Todd Lehman

(...) That's incredible! I didn't expect it to come down to THAT elegant of a list! Freeking cool, man! --Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Which of the Ten Commandments are Libertarian? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Larry Pieniazek

PS, as far as coveting of the housing of neighbors, call me a bad, vain and shallow man but I *expect* some coveting by my relatives... why else move into a big house if not to: - have more room for LEGO (which I do, all my bins are on shelves, I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Which of the Ten Commandments are Libertarian? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —James Brown

(...) Heh...If you really want to engender some downright coveting from relatives, go visit some in Europe. ;) Of course, (in my case) going to Europe inspired some coveting right back, as I spent a lot of time in buildings older than my nation. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Todd Lehman

(...) Oh! I just realized, I have another question about the deep meaning of this the First Commandment. OK, is it assumed or implied here that God is commanding us to believe that he exists and to have Him as our god? Or is he simply saying (this (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Do the Ten Commandments tolerate Atheism? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Todd Lehman

(...) Actually, what's more puzzling to me is that the Ten Commandments don't say anything about passing on the information, unless that's implied by an external document. After all, we are all born atheists, and we can only accept religion as Truth (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) a) is pretty close. IMHO he's saying not to mix His service with the service of others. It assumes that the person who cares enough to find out what He expects is desirous to follow Him and should not divide their attention by seeking Him and (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Does the First Commandment tolerate Atheism? (was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Todd Lehman

(...) Wow. Well, that's actually quite reasonable, then. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, what you're saying is that the First Commandment does indeed tolerate atheism. It might not be happy with the existence of atheism, but it does (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Larry Pieniazek

Waitasec.. (...) Are you sure about this? Most christians assert I am doomed to enternal damnation because I am aware of christanity but choose not to believe. They say that no matter how righteous my life is, no matter that I never lie, cheat, or (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —James Brown

(...) Meet some better christians. (mildly tongue in cheek) Most Christians I know would prefer it if you believe in their God (which ever version they ascribe to), and may well engage in passive conversion(1), but very few of them hold that being (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) I wasn't speaking to acceptability, my reference was to what would be the standard of judgement. It says that those who are not under the law (of Moses) will be judged without the law. They will be condemned all the same because without a way (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I didn't say that I hadn't, although I've come close. I've certainly never intentionally cheated or stole from anyone, but lying is a bit grey... is exaggerating for effect when you're joshing around with someone lying? Technically yes. (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) I don't think so, I'm sure God has a sense of humor every time I look in the mirror. I think He differentiates between humor and seriousness. Just like intent in a legal case. Bill (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) men, (...) fled (...) anything. (...) I think Frank has answered succinctly about the founding fathers' views on religion. No particular religion is to be advanced over another. The Puritans were doing their best to persecute other religions, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) I agree and have said nothing to the contrary. (...) Very true, but not all "pilgrims" were puritans. (...) It was far more than that, and the greek bible had little to do with Greek Orthodoxy at this point in time. The ante-nicene and (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Joel Hoornbeek

Wow, I think this is my first post to .debate... <snipped a bunch of stuff> (...) Well said. :) I've enjoyed reading your responses; keep up the good work. Joel (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ahhh, yes, you referenced pilgrims and after reading that section I forgot and thought you said Puritans. My mistake. (...) far (...) categorize (...) It cuts both ways - they were religions that decided they needed to compete and have (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ben Roller

(...) ... (...) Maybe they thought that life was so terrible that death was better than the hell that was their life. For some people nowhere is a better place. Not that I think they were non-religious, I just don't think that their statement (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) believed (...) A valid oservation. You may well be right, but then they were pretty messed up to do what they did. Logical thought doesn't seem to have been their long suit. I do think it indicates that they weren't raised in a religious (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Printed where? Were they sociological studies of the religious beliefs of professional scientists, or were they annecdotes of certain scientists who had some Christian coworkers? What is a large number? Is it in the hundreds or the thousands? (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Artificial Life (Was: Re: Evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again)) —Richard Franks

(...) It's understandable to be in awe of what god has produced, but it's arrogant to assume that just because we can't comprehend it all, that evolution must be the answer. It's understandable to be in awe of what evolution has produced, but it's (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Papal support of evolution —Todd Lehman

(...) Indeed! In fact, IIRC, Pope John Paul II of the Roman Catholic Church made headlines a few years ago when he pontificated that Darwin's theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis and that it must be taken seriously by Christians. I'm (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Papal support of evolution —James Brown

(...) Hmm...misquoted or misquoted... do I have another choice? ;) Nope, JP II did indeed say that (or similar). As to him being a quack or closer to God than the rest of us - I'm not qualified to judge that. I don't think he's a quack, but (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Papal support of evolution —Todd Lehman

(...) Hehheh...I meant to say, "Was he misunderstood or misquoted?" (...) Well, the amazing thing (IMHO) is this: Because PJP2 is the official head of the RCC, it is the official position of the RCC that DE isn't rubbish. That's a very open-minded (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Papal support of evolution —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I remember the incident, but I got the impression (wrongly perhaps) at the time that he was refering more to a church position than his own opinion. A quack? He's a phony doctor?!? He should be down on Wilshire in L.A. working the Miracle (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Papal support of evolution —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The Catholic Church accepted the possibility of evolution back in the 1960s. (I think it may have been earlier, with Vatican II.) The only requirement of a Christian, said the Catholic clergy, was that they understand that at some point God (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I agree, partially. I would wholly endorse the Ten Commandments in school if similarly profound texts from other religions were posted as well. The Constition doesn't seem to ban the government from mentioning or even accepting religion; it (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Scott P. Costello

(...) steps (...) Well spoken Jeremy, there is no such thing as Constitutional separation of church and state. The Constitution merely states that the government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion. Now this does have its limits, the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Shiri Dori

(...) Or me either. You Americans don't know how lucky you are to at least have SOME degree of separation between the two. In Israel the two are totally mixed, wisted and intertwined to a horrible and utterly disgusting mess. The orthodox Jews have (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Shiri Dori

(...) Err, just to make myself clear - I don't mind teaching the bible, as long as it is taught as a foundation to our country (Israel) and not as a practice we should all believe in. I also believe that it should not be enforced after grade school (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ben Roller

(...) The Plagues, I guess. I think that's a great way to teach religious things in school. If you want to believe that a higher power caused them, knowing how the power did it should only reinforce your belief in the power (by saying that not only (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Frank Filz

(...) One that always does get me a bit of a laugh is that Massachusetts had the "blue laws" longer than the south. They didn't START to be dismantled totally until the 70s (in the late to mid 70s they broke down and allowed stores to open on Sunday (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) They finally figured out that "banned in Boston" made the book they were banning a bestseller. :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Todd Lehman

(...) Hey, that's also what happened with Mark Twain's _Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_, from what I heard on a PBS program... --Todd (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Susan Hoover

(...) Here in Texas, we were finally able to buy hardware on Sundays starting in the mid-1980s. The only remnants of the blue laws that are left that I can think of are (1) no purchase of alcohol (in wet localities) on Sunday until noon and (2) car (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Dan Boger

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 02:58:58 GMT "Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Mormon bashing again': (...) exactly, I agree. I was never tought that "I should believe in the bible", not even by the part of my family that _is_ religious. (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Dan Boger

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 02:52:01 GMT "Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Mormon bashing again': (...) sad, but true. On the other hand, Israel is, and was always defined, as a JEWISH state. So total and complete seperation was never (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Yes, but where do you draw the distinction between Jewish by heritage and Jewish by religion? I'm Jewish by lineage, but I am not Jewish by religion. Are all heritage-Jewish people in Isreal automatically assumed to be religion-Jewish? If not, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Susan Hoover

(...) How about kibbutzim? (sp = pluralize, btw) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —John Neal

(...) Susan has that answer. (...) On a kibbutz, everything is community property, you personally own nothing. On a Moshav, you cooperate to produce a product/products, and the profit is divided to do with what you will. -John (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Aaron Hines

WOOHOO! Greetings Jeremy. I'm a recent convert, coming up on my one-year mark (April 25th), and preparing to go on a mission. If anyone cares to "flame" Mormons here, they'll have me to deal with as well. =) Of course, this really isn't the place (...) (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —James Brown

(...) <mucho snippage> (...) Zealot. :) I don't really have any significant beefs with the LDS - at least, no more than I have with any other organized religion(1), including my own. I have beefs with some individuals, but I make a distinction (...) (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) "My Life for Aiur!" :) Somehow, I don't think that's the sort of Zealot you meant... (...) As a historian, one truly marvelous thing about the LDS church is the recordkeeping. It's stunning, and with good doctrinal reason. It's the only place (...) (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Matthew Wilkins

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <ka-schnip!> (...) of real estate, in any case! The local LDS haunt near my office is right off of the freeway; a large white marble fantasy-castle looking building sitting by itself in the (...) (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Actually, at least one large room, the chapel, is required for Sunday services. In this room (which can vary in size depending upon the local membership) the Sacrament meeting is performed, and typically there are a small handful of (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Joseph Gonzalez

(...) total laugh out loud!! my kids have practically memorized the script for all three of the wallace and gromit vids. ..joseph g (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Karim Nassar

(...) There is a Temple that was recently dedicated in the Triangle Area in NC, and I visited and toured it before the dedications (after the dedication, only "recommended" members are allowed to enter, I believe... Jeremey, you can correct me if (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) white (...) Oh. Thanks, Karim. :-, That building near Matthew's office is probably a temple. (...) Yah, that's basically it. Our temples are our most holy and sacred places, so one much be deemed worthy of entering the temple before doing so. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) :-, (...) Yes, it was this more than anything else that got my goat. (...) Same here. There's a cliche for a Utah Mormon; e.g. "the Church is true, but even more so in Utah". I know a few induhviduals who have earnestly earned that title, but (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —James Brown

(...) I've heard that as well... I suspect it's an urban legend (or whatever the SF equivalent is?), but only they know for sure, and I don't think they're telling. (...) The Church of $cientology, as Hubbard set it up, is (also IMHO) seriously (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

L. Ron Hubbard urban legend (was: Mormon bashing again) —John J. Ladasky, Jr.

(...) I have to agree with James Brown's guess. I've heard the same story, except that the two writers were L. Ron Hubbard and Frank Herbert. Herbert, of course, wrote _Dune_, the SF classic with generous helpings of Islam. When you have multiple (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I've heard a version of this attributed to RAH himself, in a book that he at least had some control over, so I'd tend to give it some credence but who knows. (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Erik Olson

(...) Larry, could you at least mention the book's name? (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I can't remember it just at the mo... all my SF is still packed. Might be _Grumbles from the Grave_. Or not. I could also be all wet, it WAS 1:30 AM when I posted that. (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Erik Olson

(...) OK, fair enough, maybe I'll read my copy. I have made a fair start into learning the background of science fiction authors. I don't think RAH or anyone else in that tier ever competed with LRH for the distinction of starting a religion. Having (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Yep, that's the one. I've never thought about it as near Harrod's, but I guess it is! (...) You're not kidding! I suppose they figure that if you come rolling down the hill, you oughta be able to just aim and shoot up the ramp. Nice to think (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Scott Edward Sanburn

Jeremy & All, Hmm.. I never had anything against Mormons. I think, overall, they are a good bunch of folks. Scott S. < snipped message > (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Kya Morden

(...) It's funny you posted that here, because I thought about doing the same thing. I was more interested in the article as to what exactly is the government doing this time than actual mormon bashing. Seeing as how the /. "community" has been (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Scott P. Costello

I somehow feel obligated to chime on this topic. I too am a "Mormon" and am never surprised at the level of ignorance that often surfaces as evidenced on slashdot. Generally speaking, most "Mormons" have pretty thick skin when it comes to criticism (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Brad Hamilton

(...) I'm a Mormon as well, but a "bad" one, in that I don't attend church and have serious issues with some of their policies and beliefs. However, I see nothing wrong with : (1) a Legislature that accurately reflects the majority of the populace (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Do it here among friends. :-) That's what we're here for. I read your post but not all the replies. I'll try to be brief but know this, I wish more christians were like you (and Frank). (...) Would that the Christian Reformed(1) church (or (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Well, BYU is a private school. But like any big school they get all kinds of financial kickbacks from the state and the city of Provo, as well as outright funding. So while they don't have the force of law behind them, they do have the force (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Kya Morden

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:34:14 GMT, Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> wrote: First I'll say this... this thread is making me homesick!!!! (...) Man, they'd just just have to see my music collection to freak out about me. ^_^; Oh well. (it's that naughty (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Frank Filz

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) this, I (...) Although many would argue that I am not a Christian (including myself, though I acknowledge that I am a product of a Christian culture), but that may not have been what you were saying. I do (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) It always confuses people when they ask what I "am" and I try to explain it, because the above is almost exactly what I have to say (save the religious part--ask me again when I'm over 30 and I'm sure I'll have that in there too). Sometimes (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Erin Windross

Well.........280 messages.......I see no end in sight to this debate (Yes, I know it's in off-topic.debate)In fact, this debate has been going on for centuries to whether God(s) exist or not. I just suggest we end it. Let the philosophers deal with (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Larry Pieniazek

Your suggestion is valid, no flames to you for making it. But it's a fun debate, even though it's plowing the same old ground. Debates end when the people in them get tired of them, not before. So I'd ask, why do you care? Just curious... Is this (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Selçuk Göre

(...) I agree completely. Debates are not for getting results. Actually when the first of religious debates appeared here (at the very early days of Lugnet) I was against it because I thought it might have introduced unnecessary cold feelings (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Ben Roller

(...) As long as it's still civil, I see no problem continuing the debate. Besides, this time around there are some of us (me for example) that haven't been involved in a huge threaded debate on Lugnet yet. Lots of this has come up before (including (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Erik Olson

(...) I stopped participating in debates like this in 1987, back when the venue was still BBSes with regular callers. Usenet is so caustic--any random loser can walk in and spew flames without a care or second thought. Here, everybody is on notice (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) If I had known this thread would have gotten so big, I would've used a subject other than "Mormon bashing again". Maybe something more directly-advocating-...rmons-ish. :-, Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Ben Roller

(...) You're right, we're getting off topic. Now let's see some more Mormon bashing people! Ben Roller (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I'll supply the wiffle bats if you supply the padding. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Just a suggestion... (Was: Re: Mormon bashing again) —Kya Morden

(...) *whiny voice* I heard that they don't drink coke. is that true? Do they really have horns that they file off? Do they wear super underwear? (they do do that, but it's not super underwear) ^_- (Warning: this has all been in fun, I'm a wacky (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What is this? (...) I had a couple of very charming young women come to my apartment door a couple of weeks ago and ask if I'd ever heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They were surprised when I told them that I had and (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Jeremy H. Sproat

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) which (...) Los Angeles? Ahahahahaha. Right. Bruce (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

Chris, Sorry I took so long on this; I needed to get a few facts straight before responding. (...) It was something of a response to a select few loud and closed-minded people on Slashdot (who'll probably never read this, oh well) who were bashing (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) which (...) So, church members are free agents in that they're allowed (encouraged, or required) to make their own decisions about stuff? (...) That's and interesting explanation. It seems conveniently coincident that the recall of polygamy (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Yes, we are instructed to exercise free agency. It is one of the greatest blessings, promised to all of us in the pre-existance, and given to us when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. (...) I see. You're setting up for a oft-debated (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ben Roller

(...) I had to visit 4 churches that weren't like mine (Protestant) for a religion class a couple of years back. By far the most interesting was the Greek Orthodox Church, but the Mormon church was the most welcoming. We (myself, a class mate and a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) That was probably a normal Sunday service. The entire family is invited to the Sacrament meeting; I've noticed that many other denominations invite only people from, say, young adult ages and up to their services. (...) LOL -- What can I say? (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Ben Roller

(...) No, the leaders were ALL children, with only the one adult who was the organizer-person of the whole thing. They basically said that this was the day that the kids had been preparing for for a while. Maybe that's a little more common in the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Oh wow. I've never seen one. Sounds like fun. (...) Hmmm. The Catholic, Jewish, and non-denominational services where I grew up kept the kids at home. Maybe that was just a regional thing; it *was* a military base. (...) There are (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Karim Nassar

(...) Just to throw in my two cents here, I am not a member of the Mormon Church, but several of my best friends and the parents of my goddaughter are. I have found the general LDS community to be very friendly and welcoming to a determined (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Alan Gerber

Hmm... a new record for longest thread, 501 messages at this time and still going strong. WOW. Alan (24 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

My personal summation of the matter is as follows: (not that anyone should or will care) Ultimately, this matter started over the issue of posting of the ten commandments and teaching creation. Still, it's hard to say that the simple posting of the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) currently (...) This has been addressed in this string already. If you don't want the 8 fold path forced on you, it is only reasonable that you shouldn't force the 10 commandments on someone else. It's that simple. (...) of (...) such (...) If (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) seeing (...) Once again, these are knee-jerk reactions to things I haven't said. No one is talking about forcing anything on anyone. My point above is that even though they're posted at the Supreme Court they have no effect on what's done (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) oppressive? (...) which (...) You wanted the ten commandments in schools. That's forcing your religion on someone else. (...) have (...) not (...) My point remains: If we aren't teaching prayers and the 10 commandments in school, and we (USA) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) fold (...) I was speaking about the posting of them in general, not necessarily in schools, and certainly not about the teaching or preaching of them. Besides, their from Judaism and I'm not Jewish. (...) founding (...) It doesn't remain, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: : (...) Go back earlier in this string. You specifically said schools. As to the rest, splitting hairs, or do you deny that the 10 commanmants are part of your religion? (...) see (...) Why bother (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) I did go back and I never used the word schools. (URL) responded to Patricia Schempp who mentioned schools. I have concictently been talking only about the concept of merely posting them, not legislating the posting of them. And I never said (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) on (...) your (...) She said that they shouldn't be and your argued otherwise. You are just splitting hairs. This lack of candor is getting tiresome. (...) been (...) as (...) Shroud your argument how you will, you still want to supplant (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) Besides, (...) I'm not splitting hairs. Words mean things, and I choose mine carefully. Most of the time - don't talk to my wife though. It is not a lack of candor, it has to do with being misrepresented and having words put in my mouth. I (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(Ten Commmandment discussion with School, etc.) Was: Re: Mormon bashing again —Scott Edward Sanburn

Folks, I know this is downgrading to another debate, so I renamed it, and see if we can clear this up. Anyway, if I remember my own school days, my world history class was my first real experiences with this stuff. I know I had some more earlier, (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: (Ten Commmandment discussion with School, etc.) Was: Re: Mormon bashing again —James Simpson

(...) My belief is that religion should not be emphasized in public schools, but nor should it be rooted out; it should be recognized as a profound emphasis in human cultures, and, as such, it should be discussed, but moderately, since parents have (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: (Ten Commmandment discussion with School, etc.) Was: Re: Mormon bashing again —Susan Hoover

(...) Thank you! Too many parents are abdicating their responsibility in this respect, and then complaining when the instrument of government doesn't raise their children as they want them raised. (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: (Ten Commmandment discussion with School, etc.) Was: Re: Mormon bashing again —James Simpson

(...) Agreed. When people refuse or fail to be self-governed, then the government will take over that office. The U.S. government has over-legislated because a great many people have abdicated personal responsibility and duty. People fail to give (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Schools (Was: Ten Commmandment discussion with School, etc.) Was: Re: Mormon bashing again —Susan Hoover

(...) I can't speak towards the schools themselves, but I know that for the last 10 years or so, we've had groups like the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, etc. sponsoring not-so-stealthy "stealth" school board candidates with, shall we (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Scott Edward Sanburn

Here is a great cartoon this reminded me of. (URL) S. (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I've not been there, so I can't say what the circumstances are. But if they're posted in a way that implies primacy, rather than as one of many examples of laws, that's wrong. (...) Feel free to do so on your private property, but there's a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) And my point is only this, don't read anything else into it: If this one example of historic law had a major influence, where others didn't, I don't think it's wrong. The constitution forbids legislating in favor of or against any religion - (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The 10 Cs in schools (was Mormon...) —Christopher L. Weeks

I know this is a big snip but I want to make room for my rant... (...) And therein lies the flaw with Democracy. I have done nothing to deserve the penalty of being a subject of the majority rule. If 51% of the people insist that 2+2=5, that doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Larry Pieniazek

I would let this whole post of yours slide as it repeats the same refuted themes. But I can't let this one item go. (...) It is NOT AT ALL hard to say that this is government mandated religion, and the fact that you don't seem to see why shows that (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Mormon bashing again —Bill Farkas

(...) Disagreed with, but not refuted. (...) Once again, an over emotional knee-jerk reaction to something I didn't say. You ignore my point that they are currently posted at the Supreme Court and have absolutely nothing to do with what happens (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)