If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#811
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 Jan 2005 18:41:07 GMT, Roland Karlsson wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker ! wrote in : The triune nature has never been a problem too me. The problem I have is to see why it should be a problem. People like things simple and neat. I think the triune (hmmm ... did not know that word before is as simple as it gets. "You shall not have any Gods beside me!" OK - I don't see three Gods - so I see no problems. Why make things complicated? so convenient. take some neighboring religions, notice there are now three gods and simply declare "no, their one." It's three three three gods in one. Like a toilet bowl cleaner commercial. |
#812
|
|||
|
|||
TCS wrote in
: so convenient. take some neighboring religions, notice there are now three gods and simply declare "no, their one." As I said - I don't see the three Gods anywhere in the Christian religion. Others do - like you I assume - but I don't. You may call it convenient if you like. Shiva and Rama and Thor and Brahe and all those. They are different Gods from one or more religions. And mind you - I don't really care. If there were more Gods and the Bible said there was one - just one more inconsistency among many. The Bible is written by humans and the information is interpreted by humans. Why should it be 100% correct? /Roland |
#813
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... eawckyegcy spewed: Mxmanic and Inaccessible are completely ignorant and apparently ineducable; do not follow them around, or you will likely step in their mental excrement. (It really smells!) So let me get this straight, if they don't think and believe the same as you, they are ignorant? How big of you you narrow minded mental midget cretin. |
#814
|
|||
|
|||
In article
, TCS wrote: Why make things complicated? so convenient. take some neighboring religions, notice there are now three gods and simply declare "no, their one." It's three three three gods in one. Like a toilet bowl cleaner commercial. And your studying up on what? How to be the chief ass,...stands to reason. |
#815
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote: Inaccessible wrote in newsandemonium- : I fail to see the purpose of the universe without me. Maybe you feel otherwise. That was probably the most ego-centric thing I ever have read So - when you die - Universe does not have to exist any more? My Taoist and Christian beliefs work well together :-) Only if one believes there is no existence for oneself beyond mortal life. |
#816
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Inaccessible writes: A better question to consider is: Are all contemplated ideas possible in their execution? The answer is it depends. Some say that anything imaginable is possible, otherwise it could not be imagined. I like that saying. |
#817
|
|||
|
|||
In article
, TCS wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:41 GMT, Inaccessible wrote: In article , TCS wrote: If Bush was killing and invading based on religious arguments, then perhaps that would be a valid criticism. He isn't. He is. He's admitted it. Prove it. Try pulling your head out of your ass sometime and read some news other than fox. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+Sea rch http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ory_id=3502861 Mr Bush is in fact in the mainstream of recent presidents. As Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Centre points out, Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while president. Bill Clinton talked about Jesus more often than Mr Bush and has spoken in more churches than Mr Bush has had rubber-chicken dinners. Nor, in the American context, is the president's belief that God is involved in the world's affairs exactly ground-breaking. The last paragraph of the declaration of independenceno lessstarts by appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world and ends with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. Both references in America's founding document are considerably more sectarian than Mr Bush's comment about God not being neutral between freedom and fear. They associate God with America's national interest; Mr Bush did not. Did you even read the text (probably not). http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm http://www.traditionalvalues.org/mod...rticle&sid=808 Based on your quoted text I fail to see how either makes your point. Basically what you have stated is an opinion, which in my opinion is incorrect. |
#818
|
|||
|
|||
In article
, TCS wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:41 GMT, Inaccessible wrote: In article , TCS wrote: If Bush was killing and invading based on religious arguments, then perhaps that would be a valid criticism. He isn't. He is. He's admitted it. Prove it. Try pulling your head out of your ass sometime and read some news other than fox. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+Sea rch http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ory_id=3502861 Mr Bush is in fact in the mainstream of recent presidents. As Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Centre points out, Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while president. Bill Clinton talked about Jesus more often than Mr Bush and has spoken in more churches than Mr Bush has had rubber-chicken dinners. Nor, in the American context, is the president's belief that God is involved in the world's affairs exactly ground-breaking. The last paragraph of the declaration of independenceno lessstarts by appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world and ends with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. Both references in America's founding document are considerably more sectarian than Mr Bush's comment about God not being neutral between freedom and fear. They associate God with America's national interest; Mr Bush did not. Did you even read the text (probably not). http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm http://www.traditionalvalues.org/mod...rticle&sid=808 Based on your quoted text I fail to see how either makes your point. Basically what you have stated is an opinion, which in my opinion is incorrect. |
#819
|
|||
|
|||
in regards to this image, yea it is extremely disturbing, and maybe even unethical, but it shocks us into reality. im a A level photography student, and feel that this image is disturbing, but it is images like this one, that are unble to be documented, which shock us into providing help. images like this are not documented due to the massive uproar and upset they cause. -- stevie-lou brought to you by http://www.wifi-forum.com/ |
#820
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What caused the horizontal stripes in my picture? How do I fix it? | Bubba | Digital Photography | 5 | October 30th 04 05:47 AM |
Picture editing question, help wanted please | Andy | Digital Photography | 6 | October 9th 04 01:32 PM |
[SI] Old stuff comments | Martin Djernæs | 35mm Photo Equipment | 23 | August 18th 04 08:30 PM |
How to Exhibit and Sell your picture and photos from your website | Film & Labs | 0 | January 26th 04 08:52 AM | |
How to Exhibit and Sell your picture and photos from your website | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | January 26th 04 08:52 AM |