To: DelphiUser
So, you have a practice that is widely mentioned in texts, some of which have questionable authorship, but wide body of work saying that it is unremarkable, and one place in the Bible where it is specifically used as an argument for the resurrection no where where it is condemned, and the position that it was common is the one that is wrong? That was your mormon supporter bucko. And of course you didn't bother to read it all (as usual) to see that it was historically refuted. Of course you run away.
1,128 posted on
01/25/2008 6:56:35 PM PST by
Godzilla
(I may be schizophrenic, but at least I'll always have each other.)
To: Godzilla
Mormon apologeticists reminds me of
THIS.
1,129 posted on
01/25/2008 7:07:27 PM PST by
MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
To: Godzilla
That was your mormon supporter bucko. And of course you didn't bother to read it all (as usual) to see that it was historically refuted. Of course you run away.
I read what you posted, I do not agree with your interpetation. I am not running away, however I do reserve the Right to think about things and proffer a well thought out response, if that is not good enough for you ... then you need to learn patience.
1,419 posted on
01/27/2008 12:39:28 AM PST by
DelphiUser
("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson