Christopher A.Lee <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>>All right - it's time for you to do some work for a change. You're
>>always
>
> Hypocrite.
Well, I'll leave others to judge whose been doing the demanding and who's
been doing the answering in this thread.
>>demanding this and that and picking holes in the answers people give
>>you. Let's see you put in a bit of effort for once.
>
> Condescending nastiness from somebody who hasn't been bothered to read
> what has been posted several times.
You should recognise condescending nastiness, Chris - it's your standard
approach, as a rule ("learn to read for comprehension" ring any bells
with you?). Don't you consider yourself intellectually superior to us
poor deluded religious nuts? And haven't you made damn sure I know it
over the conversations we've had?
>>Why do YOU believe that you're able to claim so firmly that a man -
>>not a god - called Jesus *could not have existed* at about the
>>relevant time, in the relevant place?
>
> Where do I do that, liar?
Well, if you don't believe that, then oddly enough you and I don't
disagree on anything.
Obviously, since you've spent so much time objecting to my reasoning that
it might have been possible for such a man to have existed, naturally I
assumed that implied that you thought it wasn't.
Weird how things turn out, isn't it?
> Please learn to read for comprehension.
Oh listen - are those bells I hear?
|
