Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

> Also, Hampden-Turner made the point that the most likely people > to make such a shift in the US culture of the time were people > whose background was one or other form of Christian puritanism. > That is because people in other US cultures tended to be more > forgiving.

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature. For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad theology with better, if not good, theology. Oh. If that's all it is, I can refer you to tw

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature. For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad theology with better, if not good, theology. Oh. If that's all it

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 06:11 PM Saturday 4/16/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature. For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad theology with

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) > You completely missed the point of what I wro

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:05 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) > Yet, I weigh this consensus opinion much heavi

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) I'm not sure I've

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 10:34 PM Tuesday 4/19/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: For example, the statement that "human emmissions are now and will cause significant changes in the earth's temperature" is not a fact. It is a consensus opinion. It is not a proven theory. There are still too many unknowns.

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) > Dan Minette wrote: > > - Original Messag

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Apr 19, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I'm not saying anything at all about people who accept occasional correction (BTW there are several others on this very list who refuse to admit to being in

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:46 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) > On Apr 19, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote:

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Apr 20, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (quoting Warren, whose post I still haven't got): Well, you need to take me out of your trash filter, man. (Yes, that was meant to be wry.) "That's just the empty cant of ideologically and morally bereft l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:08 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) I don't know what the literary equivalent to this would be

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Apr 20, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Let this be a warning to you. _Never_ mix metaphors with alcohol. Dan M. Also, never mix calculus with alcohol. Don't drink and derive. Clearly the best thing to be when doing calculus is stoned. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Bo

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 20, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Let this be a warning to you. _Never_ mix metaphors with alcohol. Dan M. Also, never mix calculus with alcohol. Don't drink and derive. Clearly the best thing to be when doing calculus is stoned. You deserve a prize for th

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) > Warren Ockrassa wrote: > > On Apr 20, 200

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Apr 20, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To be fair I don't always make the distinction when I comment on something, which surely doesn't help anyone else decide whether I think I'm right or I'm just blowing hot gas. ;) I wouldn't mind having to

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 10:53 PM Wednesday 4/20/2005, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) >

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On 14 Apr 2005, at 3:08 am, Dan Minette wrote: Well, some people do that, but I always lower my respect a notch for folks who will not accept that they are sometimes wrongunless they are Feynman and the subject is physics. Lord knows I argue tooth and nail. But, I work at precision in my a

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On 4/7/05, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam > > Mukunda wrote > > > --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Are you saying that Warren been trying to > > prevent > > > > democracy

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On 4/6/05, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Bottom line, you > > denegate "rich white liberals" for no particular > > reason other than to create your > > usual demons. > > Bob, what is it about you that makes you _unable_ to > credit people who disagr

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Sun, 8 May 2005 10:46:57 -0500, Gary Denton wrote In the days that have passed since we all talked about our options with regard to Iraq, I realized that I left out one of the most important ones. And since Gary brought it up again, I'll take this opportunity. The idea that we must restrict o

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

--- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can get a cup of DDT from an environmental > laboratory near here - wanna > drink? Want to feed it to the neighborhood birds? > Noisy critters anyway. > That whole Mother Nature stuff is just so gay. > > -- > Gary Denton And that whole knowing eve

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On 5/8/05, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can get a cup of DDT from an environmental > > laboratory near here - wanna > > drink? Want to feed it to the neighborhood birds? > > Noisy critters anyway. > > That whole Mother Nature stuff

correx: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Dave Land wrote: Substantial long-term support for the internal opposition to Hussein would have been a third say: A third *way*, I say. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Fwd: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > (quoting Warren, whose post I still haven't got): > > >"That's just the empty cant of ideologically and > > morally bereft leftist > > extremists" > > To be fair, I should not have said this. I was > tired > and frustrated when I wrote it. It's just

Re: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:08 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) >I don't know what the literary > equivalent to this would be - someo

DDT, was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

FWIW, I came across this website: <> ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: correx: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 06:55 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Foghorn Leghorn wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Dave Land wrote: Substantial long-term support for the internal opposition to Hussein would have been a third say: A third *way*, I say. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailma

Re: DDT, was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Apr 8, 2005 3:23 AM, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW, I came across this website: > > <> Yes, Steven Milloy is the perfect example of the astroturf hacks who are paid to smear that I was talking about. Martin ___

Re: DDT, was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 02:41 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Martin Lewis wrote: On Apr 8, 2005 3:23 AM, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW, I came across this website: > > <> Yes, Steven Milloy is the perfect example of the astroturf hacks who are paid to smear that I was t

Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote >> It means that there wasn't a third option between >> going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in >> power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was >> even vaguely plausible. You

Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? "In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic" ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* th

RE: Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

JDG wrote: > Sent: Sunday, 10 April 2005 7:20 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble > theory, and comments) > > At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: > >On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Muk

Re: Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Apr 9, 2005, at 2:20 PM, JDG wrote: At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote It means that there wasn't a third option between going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was eve

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

At 05:58 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? "In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

Dave, I also understand what you are saying and I would like to add my agreement to it as well. I can relate to the comments that Warren was making with respect to ones beliefs always being "right" from ones own point of view. I myself have gotten into many discussions with friends about that ver

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

At 06:49 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, John DeBudge wrote: Not having been a reader of this list for long though (and having only started contributing in the last couple of days) Welcome! I could very well be missing some old arguments or personality conflicts. None that you (or any long-time members,

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Welcome! Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

At 08:04 AM Friday 4/15/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Welcome! Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn. Thank you! -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: "This thing is invalid" differs from "I cannot see the validity in this thing" in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. I don't believe I ever disputed that. With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

Warren, On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking "this thing is valid" believers. That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq "unjustifiable", eh?

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Dave Land wrote: Warren, On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking "this thing is valid" believers. That's correct. That could maybe be why I

A "Third Way" in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 04:53 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >> It means that there wasn't a third option between >> going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in >> power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was >> even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the >> other. > >Substantial long-term

Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

At 05:23 PM 4/6/2005 -0700,Nick wrote: >Are you saying that war is the only way to get rid of an evil dictator? Or >war was the only way to get rid of this one? Am I mistaken in believing that >in almost every other case, our policy has been not to go to war for that >reason? Is "removing an

Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:53:25 -0400, JDG wrote > The creation of > the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of "international > peace and security" that was in the collective interest of nations. The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolve conflic

Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

Nick wrote: Certainly. The kind of collateral damage we're seeing in Iraq is unacceptable in a police action. Police, even SWAT teams and such, operate under very different rules. They target only the perpetrators. They don't destroy the infrastructure of the country. They don't replace loc

Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not that I don't agree with most of your post but > didn't we target Bosnian > infrastructure - bridges, power plants etc. with the > bombing. I thought > the only thing we tried to avoid was civilian > casualties. > > -- > Doug A good friend of

Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity(was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

Nick, At 11:04 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> The creation of >> the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of >> "international >> peace and security" that was in the collective interest of nations. > >The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolv

Re: Christian Justification for War (was Re: The Other Christianity, was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

JDG wrote ... let's consider a reasonable definition of the US's friends as being those countries with which the US has a formal Alliance ... Of the 32 or so of these ... That fails to provide much legitimacy. It is the same argument as that in favor of the United Nations. That is b

<    1   2   3