|
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) lacks. (...) before (...) and (...) the (...) And they have in fact found intermediary forms that predate Archaeopteryx recently in China (or was it Mongolia, sorry, I forget). A more definite mix of dinosaur and bird. There are plenty of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|  
bruce
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) Major snippage fore and aft. Which is not to say the other things you had to say weren't interesting, or whether I agree with them or not, it's just that this is the only one I wanted to comment on. The Roman Empire started with high ideals - (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) 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, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) in (...) no (...) Muslims would force people to convert by the sword, but not Jews and Christians inasmuch as they were "followers of the Book." Whether that is solely a reference to the Old Testament only I'm curious to know. I can't think of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Christians (...) I'm not sure what the Crusades has to do with my statement. Oh, wait, I think you are reading it as two seperate statements. The Muslims converted all those except Jews and Christians by the sword because they were followers (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) The Vikings didn't seem to have a problem with gods from other religions existing. The God of the Jews, Christians and Mohammad is the one and only, as far as I understand their collective faiths. Hindus I don't know - they shouldn't have a (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) Many scientists have no problem with God achieving his goals through evolution. My mother was a physical anthropologist and firmly believed in God. However, others feel it is necessary to prove God exists, and evolution neither confirms or (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) But you also seem to believe that the majority should be able to make anything illegal if it offends their sensibilities. Right? (...) Why? John, you have asserted time and again that I can't know what the result of making the changes that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
irish
(score: 1.372)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.371)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.371)
|
|
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Slow motion response. Sorry. An interesting scenario, but it doesn't seem to conflict with my supposition: i.e. he has no power other than the lie. It's not his most powerful weapon, it's his only weapon. Assuming of course, for the sake of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.371)
|
|
| | Re: Papal support of evolution
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.371)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.371)
|
|
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) two. (...) Oh, I'm sorry, I was about to say that Lush Rimboy's evil cousin Rush Limbaugh is always good for a laugh or two. ;-) Bruce (admittedly, I have a low opinion of all talk radio, not just Rush) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.371)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.371)
|
|
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Hedonist and Libertarian Tom Leykis is #1 in LA area (that includes far right Orange County). Not that I'd know either way - my 8 year old likes Radio Disney over either of those two. ;-) Bruce (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Rereading this, I'm not quite sure where I agree with your stated purpose of the 2nd (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) locks, (...) has (...) seemed (...) To actually try and answer your question, the real reason the NRA opposes this is because they are afraid of being nibbled to death. A regulation here, a restriction there, a warning label that gets worse (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
|
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) the (...) of (...) Hmmmm, well, I would have thought that the High School perspective would be that we needed guns to overthrow existing governments that got out of hand, so what do I know? :-) I was actually responding from what I perceive to (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 1.370)
|
