-Caveat Lector-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I thought this issue was satisfactorily addressed, why is it that you are
> having a hard time with it? Calling someone a hypocrite when they are one is
> not name calling it is merely telling it like it is.
The issue has not been addressed AT ALL, much less "satisfactorily." Calling
someone a hypocrite WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE is nothing by juvenile
name-calling.... and hasn't a damn thing to do with 'telling it like it is.'
However, I'm glad you jumped in here Teo10 or whatever... YOU point out the
inconsistency between what I say and what I do... Ball's in your court... jump on
it..
> Discussion of the Bible WHEN IT IS USED TO PROSELYTIZE, OR ARGUE BELIEFS, AND OR
> FAITH IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LIST.
Then maybe you should remind your pal Kris of this rule... I certainly have not
violated it.. If so, show me where I used the bible to proseliytize... nor have I
urged anyone to believe it.. What I said was that calling something a "sin"
requires a bit more than mere personal opinion, and that the Southern people in
the mid 1800's looked to the bible as their source for determining right and
wrong.. If that isn't a fact, then YOU produce evidence to the contrary.. This is
beginning to sound like a broken record...
> Using the Bible in arguing CONSPIRACY THEORY is acceptable, or to try and
> support ideas that are related to conspiracy theory.
Have you reminded Kris of this rule? Where is this rule posted? Did you make it
up just now?
> You want to argue religious conspiracy, like how Paul, formerly known as Saul,
> becomes the chief proponent of "Christianity" and an Apostle when he never met
> the Lord, and worked so much evil against the nascent church, that is okay.
> You want to argue how Paul's writing contradict those of Jesus on a number of
> points, or perhaps how he seemed to have many friends in Rome and may not have
> suffered as he would have everyone believe, that is okay too. Arguments that
> point out Paul's reliance upon the Mystery religions, such as Mithras and
> Attis worship for the main forms of religious expression in "Christianity"
> would also be acceptable.
Stupid, but anything goes...
> These are only examples of course, and many others would also have equal
> validity as things that might require the Bible to support the position. No
> proselytizing is allowed, so questions of faith and belief are not acceptable.
blah, blah, blah.... give me a break!
> The reason that Kris is going into the Bible himself is that he is trying to
> illustrate the hypocrisy of Hawk in his statements regarding slavery.
And, I might add, he's doing a piss poor job... He hasn't found a singe passage or
verse ... and neither will you... Prove me wrong.
hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
