- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 09:16 PM 5/24/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
You believe that the Catholic Church
The Fool wrote:
All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as
if he had an agenda...
I have my adamant differences with John, but I have to say I'm kind of
sick of these personal attacks. Not only don't they do anything to
advance your argument, they're
At 01:11 AM 5/26/04, Doug Pensinger wrote:
The Fool wrote:
All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as
if he had an agenda...
I have my adamant differences with John, but I have to say I'm kind of
sick of these personal attacks. Not only don't they do anything
I have my adamant differences with John, but I have
to say I'm kind of
sick of these personal attacks. Not only don't they
do anything to
advance your argument, they're counterproductive
because anyone on the
fence on a particular issue is more likely to ignore
your logic due to
your
--
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do I turn every discussion into an anti-Palladium thread?
No, you just show your agenda in other ways...
Perhaps.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893
Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservatism
Robert Seeberger wrote:
But to use sacraments as a stick to punish anyone for any reason, or
to coerce others into doing their will is just plain immoral in my
book.
The church is called to distance itself from sin but never keep sinners
at a distance, in the words of Brennan Manning.
The Fool (quoting someone going by the handle of revscat) wrote:
Fourth, Reconstructionists believe in the imminent return of Christ and a
kingdom in his name will be established. The Left Behind series of books
by Daniel LaHaye
Actually, it's Tim LaHaye, and if that detail has been got
--
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote:
It is my
understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of
religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political
action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a
bit of a tempest brewing locally.
--
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote:
It is my
understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of
religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political
action. Is
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Catholic Church should be able (and is) to speak out on any
subject it desires.
But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far
beyond free speech. It is coercion.
O.k., let me make sure that I am not
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote:
It is my
understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of
religions is tied to the avoidance of direct
political
action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a
bit of a tempest brewing locally.
Bishop
Rob said:
But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far
beyond free speech. It is coercion.
How is it coercion? Would my refusing to give someone money or to say I
like thembe equivalent to coercion? If not, how is that any different?
And why can't someone whose denied
The Fool said:
A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and
should not have rights.
So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until
none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it
become other than okay?
Rich
Richard Baker wrote:
A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and
should not have rights.
So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until
none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it
become other than okay?
Rich must understand
But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far
beyond free speech. It is coercion.
How is it coercion? Would my refusing to give someone money or to say I
like them be equivalent to coercion? If not, how is that any different?
And why can't someone whose denied
Richard Baker wrote:
The Fool said:
A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and
should not have rights.
So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until
none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it
become other
At 04:40 PM 5/24/04, Dave Land wrote:
Richard Baker wrote:
A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and
should not have rights.
So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until
none were left then that would be okay? If not, at what stage would it
become
On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:53:23 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
OTOH, by the time it is possible to know that an egg has been fertilized
and implanted (and thus an abortion is needed in order to insure that it
does not develop further) it is no longer just a single cell .
--
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:40 PM 5/24/04, Dave Land wrote:
Richard Baker wrote:
A cell is not a person. A cell has no rights. A cell does not and
should not have rights.
So if I were to destroy exactly one cell in your body at a time until
none were left then
--
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If this is morphing into an abortion/pro-life discussion.,,
All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as
if he had an agenda...
___
It's still not a person. And neither is cancer, even though they both
meet JDG's criteria of having unique DNA.
And what, exactly, is the difference between a fertilized egg and a clump of
cancer cells? And why are you dragging John into this? Are you trying to
start a flame war? Looks like
All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as
if he had an agenda...
And you don't?
Damon.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
--
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion.
It's as
if he had an agenda...
And you don't?
Do I turn every discussion into an anti-Palladium thread?
___
Do I turn every discussion into an anti-Palladium thread?
No, you just show your agenda in other ways...
Damon.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:31 AM
Subject: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Catholic Church should
On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:16:26 -0500, Robert Seeberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:31 AM
Subject: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
--- In [EMAIL
At 08:52 PM 5/24/04, The Fool wrote:
--===0740875161==
--
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion.
It's as
if he had an agenda...
And you don't?
Do I turn every discussion into an anti-Palladium thread?
So
At 09:16 PM 5/24/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
You believe that the Catholic Church is/was free to speak out
against
National Socialist and White Supremacist politicians, but should not
be permitted to take any concrete steps against either - since that
would be coercion?
It depends on
At 09:04 PM 5/24/2004 -0400 Damon Agretto wrote:
It's still not a person. And neither is cancer, even though they both
meet JDG's criteria of having unique DNA.
And what, exactly, is the difference between a fertilized egg and a clump of
cancer cells? And why are you dragging John into this?
Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snippage
Uhhh. under exactly what basis is tax-exempt
status a, quote, right?
Second, It is a right to have all religions treated
equally and not
make some classified as not a religion.
Third, I was using
At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote:
It is my
understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of
religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political
action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a
bit of a tempest brewing locally.
Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 10:46 PM
Subject: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote:
It is my
understanding that part of the tax
At 09:57 PM 5/18/2004 -0500 garydenton wrote:
I had been saying that we had to stop the takeover of the United
States by intolerants who seek to deny rights to others.
Uhhh. under exactly what basis is tax-exempt status a, quote, right?
The last couple of years I have seen political
On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:44:48 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:57 PM 5/18/2004 -0500 garydenton wrote:
Uhhh. under exactly what basis is tax-exempt status a, quote, right?
I found nothing in your quoted article about attempts to disenfranchsie
Unitarians. As near as I can tell,
At 01:37 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
Second, It is a right to have all religions treated equally and not
make some classified as not a religion.
That presumes that UU'ism is a religion. It is worth noting that the UU
congregation in question pretty clearly did not meant the stautory
On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:00:25 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:37 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
Second, It is a right to have all religions treated equally and not
make some classified as not a religion.
That presumes that UU'ism is a religion. It is worth noting that the
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:39:31 -0500 (CDT), Julia Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004, The Fool wrote:
--
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Sloan II wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Is he fixing to run for governor?
---
President.
He's the
Julia Thompson wrote:
And she does all kinds of crap to get her name in the
headlines anyway. Any publicity is good publicity,
something like that. (Egomaniacal -!)
Ick. Sounds a lot like our own Judge Roy Moore.
__
Steve
Steve Sloan II wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
And she does all kinds of crap to get her name in the
headlines anyway. Any publicity is good publicity,
something like that. (Egomaniacal -!)
Ick. Sounds a lot like our own Judge Roy Moore.
Is he fixing to run for governor?
--
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Sloan II wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
And she does all kinds of crap to get her name in the
headlines anyway. Any publicity is good publicity,
something like that. (Egomaniacal -!)
Ick. Sounds a lot like our own Judge
On Wed, 19 May 2004, The Fool wrote:
--===1617534484==
--
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Sloan II wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
And she does all kinds of crap to get her name in the
headlines anyway. Any publicity is good publicity,
- in Texas
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/8692961.htm?1c
AUSTIN - Unitarian Universalists have for decades presided over
births, marriages and memorials. The church operates in every state,
with more than 5,000 members in Texas alone.
But according to the office of Texas Comptroller
On Wed, 19 May 2004 01:41:12 +0100, William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- in Texas
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/8692961.htm?1c
AUSTIN - Unitarian Universalists have for decades presided over
births, marriages and memorials. The church operates in every state,
with more
William T Goodall wrote:
- in Texas
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/8692961.htm?1c
AUSTIN - Unitarian Universalists have for decades presided over
births, marriages and memorials. The church operates in every state,
with more than 5,000 members in Texas alone.
But according to
44 matches
Mail list logo
