|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: PeterPeter Date: Nov 16, 2006 23:37
Tomasso wrote:
>> The first thing I learned in Civil Law is only sue people with money.
>
> Are you asserting that you have no money?
>
> Did you enjoin with Mark in a bet knowing you lacked the capacity to meet your obligations?
>
> To the detriment of some worthy charities?
>
> Despicable behaviour.
>
> Maybe your church will disown and excommunicate you, and your God will send you to an appropriate place.
Well, that was productive. We now have on record that this dickhead
makes bets without any assets to back them up. What little credibility
he might have had with the misguided, ignorant and stupid has now gone.
PDW
|
| |
|
| | 18 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael GrayMichael Gray Date: Nov 17, 2006 04:02
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:25:16 -0700, Ben Goren trumpetpower.com>
wrote:
- Refer: reiche.trumpetpower.com>>Peter wrote:
>
>> Tomasso wrote:
>>> steaknife wrote:
>>>
>>>> The first thing I learned in Civil Law is only sue people with
>>>> money.
>>>
>>> Are you asserting that you have no money?
>>>
>>> Did you enjoin with Mark in a bet knowing you lacked the
>>> capacity to meet your obligations?
>>>
>>> To the detriment of some worthy charities?
>>>
>>> Despicable behaviour.
>>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
| 7 Comments |
|
|
Author: steaknifesteaknife Date: Nov 17, 2006 14:57
> The only chronologically "close" mention is the obvious forgery in
> Josephus. No other early historian mentions Jesus. Just Christians and
> what they believe.
>
> And no early church writer knows the passage in Josephus even though
> many of them make profuse mention of other passages.
>
> Why would that be?
Wikipedia articles are all arrived at by consensus and their entry for
Jesus Christ says: "A small minority of scholars and authors question
the historical existence of Jesus."
Why would that be?
|
| |
| 11 Comments |
|
|
Author: steaknifesteaknife Date: Nov 17, 2006 15:51
> And when you realise you can't, admit it and apologize.
If I said Jesus Christ was a myth then I'd be in a very small minority
which is a place I don't want to be.
If you go around saying an authentic historical figure was a myth you
may as well take out a subscription to the flat Earth Society.
The fact is though many historians may have certain reservations about
the use of the Gospels for writing history, "even the most hesitant,
however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing"
concerning certain basic facts about the life of Jesus; Jo Ann H. Moran
Cruz and Richard Gerberding, Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to
European History Houghton Mifflin Company 2004, pp. 44-45
So there.
|
| |
| 38 Comments |
|
|
Author: Ben GorenBen Goren Date: Nov 17, 2006 16:04
Michael Gray wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>>> Tomasso wrote:
>>>> steaknife wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The first thing I learned in Civil Law is only sue people
>>>>> with money.
>>>>
>>>> Are you asserting...
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: steaknifesteaknife Date: Nov 17, 2006 23:58
Ben Goren wrote:
> Now, can you really offer objective proof that your son-of-a-god
> was more substantial than any of his other pagan contemporaries?
For a start, only a *small minority of humanist writers* (and I mean
small) aren't satistified that he existed. Even muslims reckon he was
an authentic historical figure.
How improbable it is that the words of a mythical man would still be so
widely influential 2000 years after his death?
More to follow.
|
| |
| 11 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GrayMichael Gray Date: Nov 17, 2006 23:41
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:04:23 -0700, Ben Goren trumpetpower.com>
wrote:
- Refer: reiche.trumpetpower.com>>Michael Gray wrote:
>
>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>> Tomasso wrote:
>>>>> steaknife wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The first thing I learned in Civil Law is only sue people
>>>>>> with money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you asserting that you have no money?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you enjoin with Mark in a bet knowing you lacked the
>>>>> capacity to meet your obligations?
>>>>>
>>>>> To the detriment of some worthy charities?
>>>>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.24Kb) |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: steaknifesteaknife Date: Nov 18, 2006 00:01
Michael Gray wrote:
>>I've heard Richard Dawkins say we were descended from the apes. He has
>>a strong case. The evidence fits onto a "small dining room table".
>
> Bullshit.
> You are lying, again.
> Still.
> I know that you cannot provide a single reference for this outright
> fraudulent con.
This bloke seems to think so as well:
"No fossil or other physical evidence directly *connects man to ape*."
(Science Digest, "Miracle Mutations," by John Giliedman, Feburary 1982,
p. 90) [Emphasis added]
|
| |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: steaknifesteaknife Date: Nov 18, 2006 00:21
SECULAR SOURCES AND CHRIST
Highly reliable sources: Tacitus and Josephus.
Moderately reliable sources: Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian.
Marginally reliable or unreliable sources: Suetonius, the letter of
Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud.
|
| |
| 23 Comments |
|
|
|
|
