> "NotX" wrote in message
> news:8boh33lc12nig0klhpa4rnk3p8g82h25ka@4ax.com...

>> On Wed, 2 May 2007 05:46:24 -0400, "Pastor Frank" christfirst.edu>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> "TT" noburn.net> wrote in message news:46370530.5040709@noburn.net...

>>>> Jeckyl wrote:

>>>>> "Luke" wrote in message
>>>>> news:f16kgm$kho$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>>>>>> You know Jesus? What's his phone number then?

>>>>> No point calling him .. he'll just hang up.

>>>> Riing, riiingg, riiinng.....
>>>> "uh, Yello!"
>>>> "Jesus!!!?? Is that you?"
>>>> Checking caller ID....rolling eyes....
>>>> "Jesus? It's Pastor Frank and Old Man Joe. You know, we busted up a
>>>> cabinet of previous idols for you? We really love you, lord, and are
>>>> spreading the message in your na..."
>>>> Click. ...

>>>>> which is the overlap of all the facts of
>>>>> Jesus' life where nobody disagrees

>>>> A list and sources, would help.

>>> A link to an actual contemporaneous written source would help even
>>> more. As long as it's not the Josephus forgery.

>> haha.. hmm.. or that whole "bible" forgery.

>
> The Bible isn't evidence that the Bible is true. Grow a brain.

>
>

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:21:12 -0400, insaner wrote
> (in article ):
>

>> Dubh Ghall wrote:

>>> On 14 Jun 2007 07:14:01 -0500, bob young netvigator.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip

>>>>>> If you have been hunting, and put your kill in your pick up, while you
>>>>>> went to the bar: Would you assume, when on your return the deer was
>>>>>> missing, a: that it had resurrected and walked away, or b: Somebody
>>>>>> had stolen it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it denial, to assume that it was stolen?

>>>>> if you saw the deer get up and walk away.. would you still assume it was
>>>>> stolen? thats what we were talking about.. sure, saying it was stolen
>>>>> might be "easier to believe" but if it got up and walked away, and you
>>>>> said it was stolen, because, hey, it simpler to say that.. then you are
>>>>> denying.. ...

>"insaner" wrote in message
>news:f6q3s1$q77$2@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca...

>> Dubh Ghall wrote:

>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:29:27 -0400, insaner wrote:
>>>

>>>> ead my...

> TT wrote:

>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:21:12 -0400, insaner wrote
>> (in article ):
>>

>>> Dubh Ghall wrote:

>>>> On 14 Jun 2007 07:14:01 -0500, bob young netvigator.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip

>>>>>>> If you have been hunting, and put your kill in your pick up,
>>>>>>> while you
>>>>>>> went to the bar: Would you assume, when on your return the deer was
>>>>>>> missing, a: that it had resurrected and walked away, or b: Somebody
>>>>>>> had stolen it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it denial, to assume that it was stolen?

>>>>>> if you saw the deer get up and walk away.. would you still assume
>>>>>> it was
>>>>>> stolen? thats what we were talking about.. sure, saying it was ...

> TT wrote:

>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:21:12 -0400, insaner wrote
>> (in article ):
>>

>>> Dubh Ghall wrote:

>>>> On 14 Jun 2007 07:14:01 -0500, bob young netvigator.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip

>>>>>>> If you have been hunting, and put your kill in your pick up, while
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> went to the bar: Would you assume, when on your return the deer was
>>>>>>> missing, a: that it had resurrected and walked away, or b: Somebody
>>>>>>> had stolen it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it denial, to assume that it was stolen?

>>>>>> if you saw the deer get up and walk away.. would you still assume it
>>>>>> was ...

>>>>

>>> Your accusations are inane as well as hollow...you claim that it's the
>>> atheists that refuse to acknowledge possibilities but you, PF and other
>>> theists are actually the worst offenders.

>> ok, but you are still not denying that you refuse to acknowledge the
>> possibility of God's existence which was my point. and still stands.

>
> Just as you refuse to accept the possibility that your god doesn't exist
>

>

>>>>>

>>>> Your accusations are inane as well as hollow...you claim that it's
>>>> the atheists that refuse to acknowledge possibilities but you, PF and
>>>> other theists are actually the worst offenders.

>>> ok, but you are still not denying that you refuse to acknowledge the
>>> possibility of God's existence which was my point. and still stands.

>>
>> Just as you refuse to accept the possibility that your god doesn't exist
>>

>
> mmhmm.. and, when exactly did i refuse to accept that possibility, pray
> tell?? or are you just assuming again? by the way, its kinda ridiculous
> that you would point to me when asked something from you. is that what you
> tell the cops when you break the law? "ohh, sure, officer, but what about
> YOU, huh? dont YOU do things you shouldnt do as well??"
>
> ANSWER THE QUESTION! ...