 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
