Not exact matches
Kev — It seems the main
point of disagreement between you and people like me, Capt Obvious, and AtheistSteve is whether or not it's much
of a
big deal that a god «had a rough weekend for your sins» (Capt Obvious).
I'm not sure what my
point is really, I'm kind
of rambling, but I suppose it's just that I'm wondering that if it's possible for a bunch
of online strangers to work out their
disagreements and come to a friendly understanding (and yes endure temporary offenses and misunderstandings), it must be possible in real life church IF (a
big «if») we are willing to stop being too afraid to speak up.
glad someone has time and patience to spell this out... i have lost patience with most on this site who have been in denial on these
points for so long it has become dispiriting... the number
of people who spent time telling barcelona that ramsey was not for sale was as
big an indication as any to me that delusion had become systemic among too many fans only
disagreement is with wilshire..
It's easier to imagine the Liberal Democrats doing so: one doesn't need to list the rows that have taken place over VAT, student finance, housing benefit, the immigration cap and so on to prove the
point (though some
of the Government's
biggest disagreements, such as those over prisons policy or the EU, are concentrated within one
of the Coalition parties, the Conservatives, rather than between them).
That's the
point of our
big disagreement with Congressman Culberson right now.
Tim Lambert links to this article by Eric Pooley in Slate's The
Big Moneye which
points out that, for all the
disagreement among economists regarding the details
of climate change policy, there is substantial consensus on the following main
points (i) the cost
of action to stabilise atmospheric concentrations
of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will be
of the order
of 1 per cent
of GDP (ii) a strong mitigation policy is preferable to business as usual