Debate : 9727


Off-Topic / Debate / 9727

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Just a nit to pick: wouldn't being a sinner imply that you have some capacity for good? IOW, unless EVERY act and thought you commit is a sin, then you have some amount of good, right? How could something inherently evil have good in it? (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Dave Schuler

(...) If we're splitting hairs, couldn't something inherently (ie: predisposed to) evil still make the moral choice not to commit evil? Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Hmmm. Good point. Which raises the question: is a thing evil by nature or by action? If someone were evil by actions, then I could see the possibility of good. If someone were evil by nature, then that person has a heckuva lot of work to do to (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Robert Bevens

(...) Another thing here is competency. I mean take Hitler for example, was he evil? Maybe, maybe not. I would call Hitler evil he mercilessly had 6 million Jewish people slaughtered not because he actually thought they were the bane of the arian (...) (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Does God have a name for God? —Frank Filz

(...) Oh goody. This debate is over. Next debate please... (24 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

(...) make the moral choice not to commit evil? (...) us going to successfully fight our nature and become good?...what would be the point of creating a people who are inherently evil?" Here's what I believe, in light of the Bible. God did not (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) That's...interesting. If I were busted for aggrivated attempted shoplifting and reckless driving, would my children be responsible for my actions? Would my great-great-grandchildren, then, have the task for paying my debt to society? Or is (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

(...) When Adam sinned, He incurred the punishment for sin: "in the day that you eat from it [the forbidden tree] you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17). Adam did not drop dead then, but the biological tendency to die started working and nine hundred (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

(...) Don't you agree, however, that's a broad assumption based on an even more broad definition of sin? Keep in mind that sin is relative to a culture, not a hard and fast rule to all cultures and creatures. Eating pork is a sin for Hebrews and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —James Simpson

(...) Daniel: In the spirit of avoiding sweeping generalizations that due a disservice to one's arguments, I believe that your statements above need clarification. I'll not excuse the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but a great deal (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

(...) Simple question: Was the Vatican a political and economic power during the conquest of the Americas? You know the answer. (...) You are inferring more than what I wrote. The fact remains that Christianity came down like an iron fist on the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —James Simpson

(...) That is a good point; in terms of colonization, the Spanish had a more overtly religious tone to the economic exploitation. An interesting irony is that while the Spanish often used divine right as a justification, they also, over the course (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Dave Low

(...) Is this the black armband view of history or what! I think it's telling that the present govenrment refuses to apologise for a policy that was so explicitly racist. Apparently Aboriginal settlements were the inspiration for South African (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.au)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Pedro Silva

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes: (big clipping) (...) Would you mind telling me why you consider Portugal was "the worst of the bunch"?? In fact, it DID start slave trade in the Atlantic; but it also began ANY sort of trade routes (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —David Eaton

(...) Were I in the debate, that'd be exactly my point :) 'Course then we'd be on to defining morality which is my little pet topic, so I'd better steer clear :) (...) By my book, not *necessarily*, though I would argue that it probably was indeed (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Ryan Farrington

Regarding this subject of cruelty of so-called Christians to the indians, here's an interesting article about the Pilgrims in America. (URL) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Frank Filz

(...) Plymouth MA, which is the church congregation directly descending from the Pilgrim's settlement, is now a Unitarian Universalist congregation. This also reminds me of an interesting story I read in the Travel section of the Raleigh (NC) News (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Essential nature of mankind —Daniel Jassim

The question of whether man is inherently good or evil is a loaded question becuase the concept of good and evil is purely subjective. For instance, one culture may view cannibalism as evil, but for the cannibals it's just part of their cultural (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)