Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Greg or e who wrote (16594)	3/8/2004 12:08:54 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 28931

"Are you serious? Do you notice how bolding the words does not transform them into the qualifier that you should have included with the list?" There was nothing I "should have" included with the list other than what I did include. As I have said over and over and over--and then over again: It was not my list. It was copied from Remsberg, and I gave the link. There was nothing for me to "qualify" except that it was not mine. An historian studies and records history. History is the record of significant events. Historians consider history throughout all of time. Only a simpleton would think that an historian must be alive during during significant events to record them. I could refer you to Thucydides or Gibbons or Wells or a thousand others. The point of the list was to show that historians were unaware of any significant events involving Christ--significant in terms of events denoting a God-Man or Miracle-Man. The fact that Remsberg limited his list to historians living and writing within a century of Christ is strictly his affair. I could accuse him of not "qualifying" his list with their ages, birth-dates, hair colour, sexual orientation, etc., but I would then appear very ignorant. I was not ignorant of history; and I was not ignorant of what historians do; and I was not ignorant of what Remsberg's list intended to address. After all...I posted the link. ____________________________ "For someone who calls people liars at the drop of a hat you are awfully lose with the facts. here is what I said about you exactly and I don't see stupid in the text anywhere" Actually, I am reticent to call anyone a liar until they have lied and lied, and repeated the lie. But when transgression of decency occurs on a flagrant level I will certainly confront it openly. As for being "lose" with the facts--LOL!!...my use of "stupid" was an emphasis on "ignorant". Perhaps I ought to have said that you called me "ignorant of history" and not "stupid and ignorant of history". So I withdraw the part of the accusation where "stupid" is used. And I regret any confusion my inaccuracy my have caused. ____________________________ "I am supposed to feel bad because I was mean to you when every one of your posts are full of insults and sanctimonious crap? :( Poor baby." Did I say you were supposed to feel bad? "every one of your posts are full of insults and sanctimonious crap?" Really? You are a liar. "( Poor baby." I am neither. You are playing very "lose" with the facts--LOL!! ________________________

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next