|
 | | 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: 0.269)
|
|
| | 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: 0.269)
|
|
| | 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: 0.269)
|
|
| | 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: 0.269)
|
|
| | 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: 0.269)
|
|
| | 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: 0.269)
|
|
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) (nitpick) Some christians. I'm not preaching, and I can't be the only christian who's stearing clear. (...) I'm not sure if I'm one of the folks you're talking about, but I've certainly dropped .debate from my reading. It's gone way downhill (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.269)
|
|
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he CAN be a good contributor (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| Bruce (And all you McClain supporters out there), I am just wreathing at the Microsoft debacle, and now we go in on the McCain debacle. What is it? Is this not decided already? This sounds like a leftist whine fest. "Ah, gee whiz, he lost!" I have a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| | Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
| Bruce; (Big sigh, and away we go!) (...) again, (...) Well, Clinton was the master of it, it was a Dick Morris idea, btw, and it worked beautifully for him (The era of big government is over. HA!!!...!!!) (...) I don't think so, BTW. Anyway: (...) (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) As deep as any relationship can be. That's like asking how much can you love your mother if you're having to think about loving your father. Love is not finite. You don't have 100 points of love to spread around and so the more people you have (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| | Re: Quiet in here
|
| (...) and (...) Idunno if they actually went by that name or if that was what everyone called them. It refers to fence-sitting on issues: their "mug" was on one side of the fence, and their "wump" on the other. In any case, I was a registered (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| | Re: Quiet in here
|
| (...) the (...) Found this: mugwump from Algonquin 'chief' In US political history, a colloquial name for the reform Republicans who voted in the 1884 presidential election for Grover Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, rather than for the (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| | Re: Quiet in here
|
| (...) Yes and no. We can vote for any candidate for any party, but only votes from party members count towards the delegates. Anyone who wants to have their vote for McCain (or Bush) actually mean something had better register as a Republican. Bruce (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| | Re: Quiet in here
|
| (...) In California, you remain a member of your party until you re-register. I don't know if it varies from state to state, it probably can, but I don't know if it actually does. California is a winner-take-all state: you win by one vote, you get (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.268)
|
|
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| Now I know exactly what Larry means when saying that all you do is snipe. In your earlier posts, you lured me in by saying enough to trick me into believing that you were interested in talking about it. Now, the best I get is one liners. (...) And (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.267)
|
|
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) Everyone. (...) If I was from a low income background it would be free. Other wise, I'd have to pay a notioanl amount towards my degree (phd & school education would still be free). (...) Free inside the EU. (...) Understament. Americans do (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.267)
|
|
| |
|
half
(score: 0.267)
|
|
| |
|
half
(score: 0.266)
|
