Debate : 4713


Off-Topic / Debate / 4713

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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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. (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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' (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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. (25 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 (25 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. (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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" (...) (25 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 (25 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 (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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. (...) (25 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. (...) (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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. (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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. (25 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" (...) (25 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 (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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> (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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% (...) (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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. (...) (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) An Apatheist? ;-) Richard (25 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 (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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, (...) (25 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. (25 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. (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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. (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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. (...) (25 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... (25 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) (25 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 (...) (25 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. (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (25 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, (...) (25 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, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

(...) if (...) -Shiri (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)