|
| |
|  
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) <snip> (...) God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful, *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that. Christians do not see eye to eye on much, especially on topics such as evangelism. It really can be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Which brings up the very discussion my friends and I have had for years at around wvery election-time--who do you vote for? Do you vote for the guy who is going to be good for your society, but not probaby good for you 'cause he'll tax you (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) No, I'm not doing the Bible justice. We're agreed on that. The only way to truly do the Bible justice is to read the whole thing cover to cover. But anytime someone presets only *some* Bible stories, they have their own reasons (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) There are any number of self-contradictory assertions inherent in the Christian faith with which one could take issue, but this is the big one that needs to be exorcised whenever it's uttered. The whole God-incarnate-here-to-redeem-us theme is (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I don't feel it is is necessary to change everyone to my point of view, and in fact, it wouldn't particularly bother me if no one's religious views were ever changed by The Brick Testament. It would at best be a small comfort to know that (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip one of the better posts around here lately> Hey Rev, I think you're on to something with your reasoning that if it's ok to have missionaries in the pro christian direction it's just as (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I know the feeling about which you speak-- I was just trying to upwrap it and try and see *why* that is actually a comfort. For me, it boils down to a reassurance that we are not crazy, that we are not completely wacked on an issue, which (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I'm not sure it was the divine manifestation to which the 'uniqueness' was referring, but (as I took it) Christianity itself. IE that it is Christianity that is unique, with a unique message. Not the Jesus-being-the-son-of-God bit. I could be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Here's the trick. I don't believe that the concept of objective morality makes any sense (that things or actions can be objectively good, bad, right, or wrong). Hence the difficulty in proving that something like slavery is objectively evil. I (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Hear Hear! If people cannot undergo scrutiny of their belief system, then there is something wrong. The difference b/w scrutiny and all-out harassment is hard to determine, but (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I don't deny that they seem silly *to you* and, as I mentioned before, that is fine, but I'm still wondering what the movitation is that makes you feel it necessary to change everyone to your POV-- to perhaps feel better about your own (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: Vote against/for...
|
| (...) If that's all your party ever wants to aspire to be (a spoiler), then knock yourselves out. But think about this: think about a senate with *no* clear majority and libertarian Republicans controlling the swing votes. That's power. What you (...) (22 years ago, 23-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) The problem I have with this line of thinking is that everyone (here in the US anyway) seems way too sensitive to these sorts of things. I actually disagree with your thinking that there is nothing wrong with our overly PC approach to things. (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) And b/w friends and family that's fully understood and there's no issues at all! My friends and myself have a huge 'banter' thing going on--any small slip or gaffe in conversation generates lots of ridicule. But that's amongst friends--to have (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
|
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| "Ronald Scott Moody" <uberwindin@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:H689GH.609@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) proclaim (...) have (...) face (...) not (...) that (...) Fundies rock. Lets just disregard all creative aspects of Brendan's work because (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.266)
|
