|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: insanerinsaner Date: May 9, 2007 22:45
Jeckyl wrote:
> "insaner" wrote in message
> news:f1u0tf$5fh$2@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca...
>> Michelle Malkin wrote:
>>> There's nothing there to ignore. He simply doesn't exist
>>> and, probably, never did. He's bits and pieces of earlier
>>> gods mashed together, polished up and presented to
>>> sheeple like you as a reality.
>> wow, you really will believe anything you are told.. holey. i saw that
>> movie too.. what a joke.
>
> Given the lack of reference to Jesus in all the contemporary historical
> documents available, the most logical conclusions are
>
> 1) Jesus did not exist and is an entirely fictional character (possibly a
> composite of other characters, real or fictional)
> 2) Jesus existed, but the events and actions attributed to him were
> fictional (or...
|
| Show full article (2.12Kb) |
|
| | 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: insanerinsaner Date: Jul 8, 2007 00:26
>> except people DID see Jesus
>
> Claimed to see. The actual evidence (not a single legitimate written
> word mentioning him until more than 100 years after he supposedly
> died, he came from a town that only existed after he died, etc.) is
> that he's a myth.
just like i "claim" that i was born?
oh and by the way, the earliest fragment of the gospels found so far has
been dated to 67AD.. which is around 30 years after the resurrection..
and accounting for the fact that its probably not the original, and
therefore we allow for compilation tiem.. plus propagation time.. plus
time it took to make the copy (how ever many copies were made.. which
was all done by hand as well.. ) suddenly we approach the time when
Jesus walked the earth..
and that whole "came from a town that only existed after he died"..
holey.. what ARE you talking about??
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
|
| | 7 Comments |
|
|
Author: JeckylJeckyl Date: Jul 8, 2007 08:51
"insaner" wrote in message
news:f6q2va$pjk$1@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca...
>
>>> except people DID see Jesus
>>
>> Claimed to see. The actual evidence (not a single legitimate written
>> word mentioning him until more than 100 years after he supposedly
>> died, he came from a town that only existed after he died, etc.) is
>> that he's a myth.
>
> just like i "claim" that i was born?
There is evidence for that.
> oh and by the way, the earliest fragment of the gospels found so far has
> been dated to 67AD.. which is around 30 years after the resurrection..
Really.. did this just turn up last week?
Please cite your evidence for this extraordinary claim
|
| Show full article (1.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: insanerinsaner Date: Jul 22, 2007 00:52
>>>>>> 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..
>>> In my story, no one saw it get up and walk away, so you are changing
>>> the scenario, so that it no longer matches the Jesus scenario.
>> except people DID see Jesus...
|
| Show full article (3.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Dubh GhallDubh Ghall Date: Jul 22, 2007 16:00
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 02:07:47 -0400, insaner wrote:
>
>>>>>> 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...
|
| Show full article (1.26Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: insanerinsaner Date: Jul 23, 2007 21:55
>>
>> i guess thats the sound arrogant ignoramuses make when they make stupid
>> and flagrantly wrong assumptions to try to show the other side as
>> ridiculous and end up doing it to their own selves..
>>
>> oh well, if reading in context and understanding was one of your
>> strengths, you wouldnt be an atheist, now would you?
>
>
> Who are you replying to?
>
> It is just that, that "Plonk", means that he has killfiled your name,
> as in "blocked" it, and nothing that you write will reach his news
> reader.
>
ah i see.. wasnt aware of that.. thanks.
|
| Show full article (0.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Christopher A.LeeChristopher A.Lee Date: Sep 17, 2007 11:08
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:36:26 GMT, Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:16:24 -0400, insaner wrote:
>
>>by making fun of them and their beliefs, calling them names, insulting
>>their intelligence, or ability to reason.. etc.. someone comes in, asks
>>an honest (albeit perhaps touchy) question, and what do you people do?
>>pounce them! i know because that was my experience here!
The stupid ones get treated as stupid, the rude ones as rude, the
dishinest ines as dishinest, and the nasty ones as nasty. We are under
no obligation to turn the other cheek (hint to Christians who turn
into whining hypocrites when treated as they treat us), nor are we
under any obligation to give them the free ride with these they are
accusomed to.
>Our experience, is that xtians do not come in here with innocent
>questions.
>Xtians come in here with the express intention of preaching, showing
>us the foolishness of not believing as they do, or otherwise shoving
>their tripe down our throats.
|
| Show full article (4.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: insanerinsaner Date: Sep 28, 2007 22:21
>> what are the morals we should follow? whose morals are correct? how do
>> we agree upon a common set of morals? or even.. what are morals?
>> (answer
>> all if you want, but mainly the first question is of interest)
>> ...............
>
> This is also something they can't cope with. It is very common for one
> of us to eg criticise the Vatican for its part in the spread of AIDS
> in the Third World due to its active campaigns against condoms, and
> get a response insisting we have no basis for our this concern.
>
sorry, wont be answering the rest of the post.. i did however want to
address this.. just in case you didnt know, im not catholic, so i in no
way am in favor of the vatican or any of that, except in...
|
| Show full article (5.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tokay Pino GrisTokay Pino Gris Date: Sep 29, 2007 04:11
insaner wrote:
>
>>> what are the morals we should follow? whose morals are correct? how do
>>> we agree upon a common set of morals? or even.. what are morals?
>>> (answer all if you want, but mainly the first question is of
>>> interest) ...............
>>
>> This is also something they can't cope with. It is very common for one
>> of us to eg criticise the Vatican for its part in the spread of AIDS
>> in the Third World due to its active campaigns against condoms, and
>> get a response insisting we have no basis for our this concern.
>
> sorry, wont be answering the rest of the post.. i did however want to
> address this.. just in case you didnt know, im not catholic, so i in no
> way am in favor of the vatican or any of that, except in the cases where
> it agrees with the bible. that...
|
| Show full article (8.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: insanerinsaner Date: Sep 29, 2007 22:17
Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
> insaner wrote:
>>
>>>> what are the morals we should follow? whose morals are correct? how do
>>>> we agree upon a common set of morals? or even.. what are morals?
>>>> (answer all if you want, but mainly the first question is of
>>>> interest) ...............
>>>
>>> This is also something they can't cope with. It is very common for one
>>> of us to eg criticise the Vatican for its part in the spread of AIDS
>>> in the Third World due to its active campaigns against condoms, and
>>> get a response insisting we have no basis for our this concern.
>>
>> sorry, wont be answering the rest of the post.. i did however want to
>> address this.. just in case you didnt know, im not catholic, so i in
>> no way am in favor of the vatican or any of that, except in the cases
>> where it agrees with the bible. that said, you cant blame the vatican
>> for the spread of aids in the 3rd world, since the spread of aids has
>> not much to do with condom usage and everything to do with promiscuity.
> ...
|
| Show full article (15.30Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
