Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:33:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
548 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
> > is, and PROVE it, or else your argument is just a statement of preference.
> > Is it one which you wish to impose on others, presumably by force once
> > you've convinced a majority of the electorate to go along, or were you just
> > letting us know what your preference was? Based on the christian track
> > record I'd suggest the former is more likely.
>
> He was responding to an invitation to expand on something. At least this
> thread is on-topic for its subject!
Fair enough.
But my point remains. Arguing against certain behaviours on the grounds that
they are not allowed by the church (which is what Steve is doing) requires a
great deal of backstory to be proven before there is any hope of justifying
imposition of restrictions on those that don't voluntarily subscribe to
christian mores.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
