Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 121 of 242 (387805)
03-02-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by anastasia
03-02-2007 6:59 PM


qnq writes:
So, if I found a body in a 3000 year old tomb, in Egypt, inscribed with the name of Matthias, bones those of a man about 75 years old, that would be good reason to doubt the historical Jesus?
what are you talking about?
you said:
quote:
but how can we know if something contradicts the Bible unless it mostly agrees with the Bible?
I showed you the evolution vs genesis example to show that view as nonsense. Please respond to my points.. not stuff you make up yourself

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 6:59 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 7:39 PM Heathen has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 122 of 242 (387814)
03-02-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Heathen
03-02-2007 7:07 PM


Creavolution writes:
I showed you the evolution vs genesis example to show that view as nonsense. Please respond to my points.. not stuff you make up yourself
What are YOU talking about? How can anyone disprove the life of Jesus by finding a body that is so vastly different from the Bible's story, as evolution is from Genesis? I am telling you, there is NO WAY to prove a body belonged to a man called Jesus and the exact same Jesus as in the Bible, unless most of the details agree with the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Heathen, posted 03-02-2007 7:07 PM Heathen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Brian, posted 03-03-2007 12:29 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 123 of 242 (387817)
03-02-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Hyroglyphx
03-02-2007 11:55 AM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:
To answer, I think the non-biblical, apocryphal tradition of perpetual virginity is a part of the deification of Mary.
Get over that, nem. There is no deification of Mary, only sanctification.
And there was also no Bible to stray from at the time that these ideas became wide-spread. I don't know why or how the books of James that I mentioned were excluded from the Bible, but obviously at one time they were taken as trustworthy.
See, you have to be all sola scriptura about it, but we Catholics do not. We were responsible for compiling the scriptures, and we could have thrown any old book in there to fool you. Just kidding...the point is, we are allowed some extra-biblical conjecture as long as it is not contradictory to what is Biblical. You are not allowed this adding to.
The story goes, that Joseph was a widower with other children. That in a way helps to explain why the brothers of Jesus are not 'closer' to Him, but doesn't explain where they were during the flight into Egypt or the birth of Jesus. Unless they were much older. And, of course, it is not unusual at the time to have a girl offered in perpetual virginity.
If these people would ever get around to analyzing the rest of the bodies found, we might be able to solve this problem with DNA as well. Assuming, of course, that the main body IS Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-02-2007 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 1:34 PM anastasia has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 124 of 242 (387819)
03-02-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2007 5:13 PM


Invented People
What makes you think that such a man could be completely invented successfully? What other man was invented so successfully that it fooled the world?
This is a good question, but of course we can't answer it. It's like asking for a list of conspiracies which never got uncovered; or of murderers who were never even suspected of their crimes. By definition, we can't answer questions like that.
However, "fooled the world" is too strong a requirement. The Gospels, if they are a hoax, didn't "fool the world": ask any non-Christian. How about "fooled a lot of people"?
Let me give you some examples. First, Carlos Castaneda's creation Don Juan Matus. Despite having miracles in them, no hard evidence whatsoever to corroborate Carlos Castaneda's story, and strange inconsistencies in the narrative, there are still people who believe this stuff (I've met 'em) and you will notice from the wiki article that for six years his claims fooled anthropologists. He got caught out by the sort of narrative inconsistencies that Biblical apologists are so good at arguing their way round.
Other "testaments" of Don Juan have been produced by pals of Castaneda, who also claim to have met him.
My second example is the narrator and characters in the Celestine Prophecy. When I first read this rubbish, I didn't see the point of the allegory, so I asked the woman who'd lent it to me to explain. She said "what allegory?" I pointed out the foreword where the author points out that it's an allegory. Despite being knee-deep in miracles, totally unlifelike, and full of glaring narrative inconsistencies, she'd accepted it as true. Now, here's the interesting bit: in current editions of the Celestine Prophecy the note saying that it's allegorical no longer appears. Its readers tend to believe it to be the literal truth.
The Celestine Prophecy is still selling rather better than the Gospels did in St Paul's day.
My third example would be Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, another fictitious miracle worker. Despite the exposure of the fact that the book The Third Eye was not written by a Tibetan monk called Lobsang Rampa, but by an Englishman named Cyril Henry Hoskin, there are still people who believe Hoskin's explanation that he is the reincarnation of Rampa.
---
Of course, since these examples happened within the last hundred years, and we can observe them in detail, they are microhistory and so they Don't Prove Anything About Macrohistory.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2007 5:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 9:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 125 of 242 (387823)
03-02-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2007 8:15 PM


Re: Invented People
DrA writes:
However, "fooled the world" is too strong a requirement. The Gospels, if they are a hoax, didn't "fool the world": ask any non-Christian. How about "fooled a lot of people"?First, Carlos Castanada's creation Don Juan Matus.
Your wiki link doesn't work.
She said "what allegory?"
So, ok, one person?
Despite the exposure of the fact that the book The Third Eye was not written by a Tibetan monk called Lobsang Rampa, but by an Englishman named Cyril Henry Hoskin, there are still people who believe Hoskin's explanation that he is the reincarnation of Rampa.
Can you prove he wasn't?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2007 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2007 11:29 PM anastasia has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 126 of 242 (387828)
03-02-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by anastasia
03-02-2007 9:39 PM


Re: Invented People
Your wiki link doesn't work.
Cheers. It does now.
So, ok, one person?
No, as I said, fans of the book generally seem to believe it. I remarked on this particular person because she managed to believe it even when it had a foreword saying that it wasn't true.
Can you prove he wasn't?
He didn't mention this convenient reincarnation until he was tracked down by a private detective. Despite claiming extraordiarily detailed memories of his previous life, he couldn't speak a work of Tibetan, and, to quote Agehananda Bharati :
quote:
Every page bespeaks the utter ignorance of the author of anything that has to do with Buddhism as practiced and Buddhism as a belief system in Tibet or elsewhere. *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 9:39 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 10:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 242 (387835)
03-03-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
02-28-2007 10:42 PM


Beyond reproach
I can believe the Bible until I have a good reason not to. I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:42 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 242 (387836)
03-03-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by arachnophilia
03-01-2007 12:13 PM


Re: Motivations
i should have been more clear. it's when they've completely decomposed, and only bones are left.
This makes more sense, and looking at it without injecting bias, it is possible that it be Jesus' ossuary. I'm just concerned with how ineloquently they have reasoned why we would hang it all up on such a shoddy investigation.
if there was a jesus ossuary, it would have been carried back to nazareth for permanent burial. heck, during the exodus, they did this with jacob's bones, right?
Yes, very likely. And what would be even more likely is that the whole area would have known about it in those days because he was such a prolific and infamous figure in those days.
to be fair, this program at least gave some screen time to his critics -- one of whom basically called him a crackpot to his face.
I know very little about him, so for me to make any presuppositions at this point would be unfair and slanderous. I can, however, critique this latest work. What I've seen so far is very unconvincing. On the other hand, I don't doubt that he has a penchant for these kinds of exaggerations

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 03-01-2007 12:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 03-04-2007 12:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 129 of 242 (387838)
03-03-2007 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by anastasia
03-02-2007 6:52 PM


Re: Whats in the coffins?
Whoa, there are literally thousands of people said to have performed miracles, and some, witnessed in our own time. Not one person has made claim to a divine origin or DNA.
Whoa onto thine own self. Mere human beings do not perform miracles. They are, if in a state of grace, the agents through which god performs miracles, or they intercede between other humans and god to petition god to grant miraculous answers to prayer. When a monk is seen to miraculously float through the air, it is not of his own volition or powers that he does so; it is through an act of god. Jesus, being god incarnate, is the direct agent of the miracles he performs. I am not insisting that jesus (the one that originated the religion) or any of his bodily fluids had divine DNA. I am merely suggesting it as a rational possibility that would allow one to determine if bodily remains are truly of divine origin. I say 'rational possibility' because all men (and women and children) since Adam have been cursed with sin and the punishment of disease, as exemplified by the bacterial and viral adduced pseudo-genes in the human genome. But, whether 100% or 93.675% human, jesus was delivered onto the earth free of sin and one would suspect, free of those pseudo-genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 6:52 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 10:30 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 130 of 242 (387849)
03-03-2007 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by anastasia
03-02-2007 11:59 AM


I understand, Modulous, but I don't think that what the Qu'ran says about Jesus is considered by any means to be a contemporary historic text with possibilities of alternate Jesus bios.
Nobody is suggesting the Qur'an is contemporary. Neither are the New Testament gospels really. However, it does contain an alternative bio of Jesus.
But see, I am not talking about which faith to believe, I am talking about which story of Jesus' death to believe.
I have perceived what you are trying to say. What I am trying to say is that there is confusion over what you are saying because of the short and ambiguous manner of it.
If we were talking about the flood, would it be wrong to say that while there was no evidence to the contrary, the Bible was taken as history?
I'd say it was a very very foolish thing to do. We could end up thinking all sorts of crazy historical claims were true. I might be tempted to think that cunning Odysseus ended a ten year siege with a giant wooden equine, for example.
Over time, we have developed a concept of critical thinking wherein we are skeptical about claims until corroborating evidence can be found, rather than accept all claims until evidence contradicts it. Many people accept this concept except in cases where the historical claims have been taught as truthful by their own culture at which point the special pleading begins.
And I think that is what Creavolution is basically saying. It certainly looked like you were special pleading for your beliefs purely because you happened to be born in a place and time where they were taught as being historically correct.
I don't agree with the teachings of Mohammed about Jesus
The $64,000 question being, why not? Upon inspection, one generally finds the answer to the question is 'culture'. That is to say, there is no real reason to disbelieve the teachings of Mohammed other than you were raised in a society that didn't agree with the teachings of Mohammed. So it turns out that what you agree with ends up being a matter as arbitrary as where/when you were born.
Some people like to eliminate this absurd and arbitrary reasoning, and prefer rational and critical examination with consistent application of rules. Creavolution was simply trying to state something along these lines.
Thus, based solely on ancient writings and discounting cultural biases, there is as much reason to believe Mohammed was right as there is reason to think Jesus was right: Not a great deal.
Hopefully that'll clear up some of the confusion that has emerged between the two of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 11:59 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by anastasia, posted 03-03-2007 11:02 AM Modulous has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 131 of 242 (387876)
03-03-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by AnswersInGenitals
03-03-2007 2:50 AM


Re: Whats in the coffins?
AIG writes:
Mere human beings do not perform miracles. They are, if in a state of grace, the agents through which god performs miracles, or they intercede between other humans and god to petition god to grant miraculous answers to prayer.
So they say, and I have no problem with this since I am Catholic.
If you are really objective about it, there is no way to tell if Jesus performed miracles of His own volition, or through the power of God.
I should really put some Bible quotes in here, but all I am saying is that many people were not convinved that Jesus did miracles Himself, and not thru favor with God, and even if He did, that doesn't mean that He had a strange non-human body.
But, whether 100% or 93.675% human, jesus was delivered onto the earth free of sin and one would suspect, free of those pseudo-genes
It would be interesting to see, and I wouldn't neglect to do any tests if I had the option, but I am not nearly capable of any conjecture about whether or not sin = disease or pseudo-genes. All I know is that there is a lot of variation amoung even christians about what exactly, if anything, we got from Adam.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-03-2007 2:50 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 132 of 242 (387877)
03-03-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2007 11:29 PM


Re: Invented People
DrA writes:
Cheers. It does now.
Sorry, there. I was feeling a little nit-picky last night, maybe.
Anyway, I get your point, and people of all times are gullible. There are countless outlandish tales of quackery and faked deaths, get rich schemes, and deceived widows, in the annuls of the Old West...but I think it is fair to say that the Bible would be the biggest 'hoax' ever.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2007 11:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2007 3:41 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 133 of 242 (387880)
03-03-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Modulous
03-03-2007 7:23 AM


Modulous writes:
The $64,000 question being, why not? Upon inspection, one generally finds the answer to the question is 'culture'. That is to say, there is no real reason to disbelieve the teachings of Mohammed other than you were raised in a society that didn't agree with the teachings of Mohammed. So it turns out that what you agree with ends up being a matter as arbitrary as where/when you were born.
That can be true, but it doesn't need to be.
Absolutely, if I were born and raised in a country where Islam is predominate, I could be more inclined to follow Mohammed.
But you are saying things like this;
Over time, we have developed a concept of critical thinking wherein we are skeptical about claims until corroborating evidence can be found, rather than accept all claims until evidence contradicts it.
Which sounds like a basic shout-out for critical thinking over any belief. That may have its merits, but this was only intended to be a discussion involving critical thought about one belief, and namely, that of an historcial Jesus.
So, if you will discuss that alone, it is easy to understand why I, as a believer in the gospels, do not accept a much more recent biography of Jesus as evidence, and how, regardless of culture, there is no reason to think the Qu'ran knows something more about Jesus' life than the gospels do, or that this tomb story gives any good reasons to date to doubt the gospels.
I really do not know what is so hard about that. Any historian, any Bible scholar, will need the same kind of evidence to over-ride the gospels, even if they are impartial about the religious aspect. No one needs to put their money anywhere, but you have to admit that there is not enough to go on right now to rule out one version over the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 03-03-2007 7:23 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2007 5:30 AM anastasia has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 134 of 242 (387888)
03-03-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by anastasia
03-02-2007 7:39 PM


[qs] I am telling you, there is NO WAY to prove a body belonged to a man called Jesus and the exact same Jesus as in the Bible, unless most of the details agree with the Bible. [.qs]
Even if all the details matched, it still wouldn't prove that it was the same Jesus as in the Bible.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 7:39 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 242 (387893)
03-03-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
03-01-2007 5:56 PM


Re: Jesus: Is he, or isn't he?
Which extra Biblical sources, other than Josephus deal with Jesus the man in the context of HIS time ? Tacitus certainly doesn't. Which extra-Biblical sources indicate that Jesus was the controversial figure you claim ?
The Babylonian Talmud. I already referenced it. Secondly, not only does Josephus make mention of Jesus as an historical figure, but he also names central figures in the Bible. This lends far more credibility to Jesus himself.
Get over it, He existed. You can say that he's dead. You can say that he is not the son of God. All this you can say with a reasonable amount of suspicion. What you can't claim is that He never existed.
i.e. Tacitus says nothing relevant to the point so you are going to waffle abotu the "grand scheme of time" to try and evade the actual point at issue.
Tacitus wrote about Jesus only 50 years after his death and resurrection, but somehow that isn't considered contemporary enough for you. Imagine questioning the historicity of Winston Churchill. Because you questioning Tacitcus is the same thing in relation to time. The point is that it shows your bias prominently when there is more than ample evidence that Jesus existed.
In Matthews Gospel. And we have no idea where it came from. It could easily have been made up. And that doesn't change the fact that your argument is circular. You tried to use one claim to support another - and when you couldn't do that you just turned it on it's head. It's completely invalid reasoning.
Iraneus, Origen, Eusebius, Papian, Augustine and the whole Muratorian canon concluded that it was written by Mattityahu, more commonly known as 'Levi', who is even most commonly known in English, as Matthew. You don't seem to question Josephus' writings, or Tacitus for that matter, but for some reason, all suspicion is placed on all 66 books of the Bible. Why?
What I said - as your quote confirms - is that it is unlikely that your quote from the Babylonian Talmud is an official contemporary account of the execution of Jesus. Those are very different claims.
Based on what? What are you measuring any of this by? Because it sure sounds like you're just flying by the seat of your pants and making this up as you go along. Just admit that you have a strong aversion to anything Christian and that you seek to discredit it so we can move on from there.
The 40 day period between trial and execution. Execution by stoning. Execution by the Jews. These are clear conflicts with the Gospe accounts.
Read it again. The verse says that an edict was posted throughout the city for forty days saying that he would be stoned for sorcery and apostasy. It says he was hanged as the cause of death, consistent with Jesus' execution.
They wouldn't have known about a public call for witnesseses after Jesus' arrest and trial ? For 40 days ? 40 days which aren't even mentioned inthe Bible which puts the arrest and trial the day before the execution ?
"Now Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them, "Behold, we are going to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn him to death and deliver Him to the gentiles to mock and scourge and to crucify. And on the third day He will rise again." -Matthew 20:17-19
Matthew records it that they weren't in Jerusalem but were on their way. From all the gospels we know that they traveled to places like Capernum and Bethany and to Galilee, etc. So its entirely possible that the disciples had no idea, which would make sense since Jesus told them three times about how and when and in what manner it would all go down.
So every "other historian" says that Jesus wasn't executed by the Romans ? Which other historians ? And why do you believe them rather than the Gospels ?
I just quoted Josephus corroborating the biblical account. That's one source. I quoted in the previous thread that Tacitus corroborated the biblical account. That's two sources.
The only one who mentions the obvious, which is that his crucifixion was orchestrated by the chief priests comes from a Syrian historian.
"How did it benefit the Athenians to kill Socrates, especially as it was later revenged by famine and an epidemic? What good did it do the residents of Samos to burn Pythagoras at the stake, as it resulted in all of their country being covered in a moment by sand? Or the Jews to kill their wise king since after that they have been without a kingdom? God justly revenged the death of these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger, the people of Samos didn't get help when the sea covered them, and the Jews were killed and driven away from their kingdom living scattered around the world.
Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato, Pythagoras is not dead, thanks to the statue of Hera, and neither the wise king, thanks to the new laws he gave.”
-Mara Bar-Sarapio
Please explain why my doubts over the idea that your quote from the Babylonian Talmud is an accurate and contemporary account of the execution of Jesus require me to doubt either of these things ? Your question makes no sense and seems to be a crude attempt at poisoning the well.
How can you all of these figures spoken about from various sources, as well as having tangible evidence of their existence, all of whom corroborate Jesus' existence, but not believe in the actual protagonist? If you believe that Ananias or Pilate or other important figures in the Bible existed, why must you deny the main character? Doesn't lend credence to the claim more strongly that he existed?
You mean like the Jehovahs Witnesses failed and disappeared after all their prophecies of the end of the world failed to occur.
The Watchtower society is young. Jesus Christ and His message, clearly prophesied about long before his own time, is 2,000 years in the making. If there was not some credible basis to believe in Him, the religion would have died out like all false religions do.
Like Scientology failed and died when L Ron Hubbards claims of miraculous healing were exposed as lies.
Scientology is fifty years old. Give it time.
And in fact we don't know what happened back then. The events woud have been rewritten and reinterpreted in the decades betweeen the time they happened and the Gosepls were actually written.
That's a fine consideration and applaud that kind of restraint. Why don't you apply that to the rest of history while you're at it. Because as far as I can tell, you only seem to question the Bible's historicity.
We don't see any mention of an empty tomb in Paul's writings. If it is so essential why did he not mention it ?
Because His tomb is unimportant. Paul does, however, speak numerously on what is important-- the Resurrection.
It is hardly unknown for there to be sources from different viewpoints. And much of history deals with events where archaeological evidence is also available. No responsible historian would uncritically rely on partisan accounts from one side in the absence of other evidence.
That's fine, because every time somebody questions the historicity of the Bible it always gets thrown back in their face.
There is no problem with my viewpoint - it is the only rational one.
There is something wrong with your rationale if you only apply such rigorous scrutiny to things you don't like. That's the problem.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed italics

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 03-01-2007 5:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2007 7:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024