JB wrote:
When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is a
fantasy construct.

Couldn't the same thing be said about God?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is
a
fantasy construct.

Couldn't the same thing be said about God?

Then couldn't the same be said of all recorded history
where the witnesses can no longer be cross-examined, ruined, executed?

I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for any
other reason. Also that witnesses may not have fully understood all they
heard or saw, but reported because it was noteworthy. This also lends to
credibility, because those with a hidden agenda usually restrain themselves
from presenting testimony that doesn't contribute to their argument.

There is more evidence to support much of what is recorded in the Bible,
than required to convict someone of Murder. I would suggest a book by Lee
Strobel, "The Case for Christ" as a method to ordering and initiating their
own logical investigation. In the end you will have to be open to the Holy
Spirit before anything can come of it. Salvation comes by invitation only.
My own conclusions came when I realized the teachings of Christ were the
only hope of saving the human race from it's own self-destruction. Further,
that it could succeed against the odds.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:11:49 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for any
other reason.

This would be profound, if it weren't coming from an "anonymous"
source replying in other side threads to an "anonymous" source.

Two such "anonymous" sources in a series of dialog is very much less
than compelling and lacks all reason.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:11:49 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their
own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for
any
other reason.

This would be profound, if it weren't coming from an "anonymous"
source replying in other side threads to an "anonymous" source.

Two such "anonymous" sources in a series of dialog is very much less
than compelling and lacks all reason.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
set to dump all mail because of that.

The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.

BTW Gustav is picking up strength

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:03:45 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
set to dump all mail because of that.

I have transmited in the clear here for the past 13 years.

Since May, I have received all of 2 spams - from the son of Charles
Taylor in Africa. The amount of spam that predated that is of like
proportion.

The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.

In those same 13 years I've often heard the same excuse you are using.

Anyone who is willing to quote the Bible, but refusing to testify is
obviously of little faith - a Xerox can do as much and "anonymous"
sources lean on that copy button freely without conviction.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:03:45 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login
is
set to dump all mail because of that.

I have transmited in the clear here for the past 13 years.

Since May, I have received all of 2 spams - from the son of Charles
Taylor in Africa. The amount of spam that predated that is of like
proportion.

I've heard the same arguments from kids who do drugs or refuse to wear seat
belts.
"It won't happen to me". I wouldn't want to lose my e-mail account or my
callsign to a spoof binge.

The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.

In those same 13 years I've often heard the same excuse you are using.

Anyone who is willing to quote the Bible, but refusing to testify is
obviously of little faith - a Xerox can do as much and "anonymous"
sources lean on that copy button freely without conviction.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

What do you want? A new book of the Bible? How's this for testimony -
I must be a thorn in the side of the devil or he wouldn't have been trying
to take me and my dad out all our lives. The Lord has delivered me over and
over and even set a table before me in front of my enemies. My dad now
rests in Jesus. My rest is yet to come. Maybe if I was a poet or a
songwriter I could add to the Psalms but I leave that to others with that
gift.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:11:47 GMT, "JB" wrote:

How's this for testimony

It isn't.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

JB wrote:

...
I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
set to dump all mail because of that.

The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.

BTW Gustav is picking up strength



You will have to forgive Richard and allow for his limitations ...
without a personality to attack, he is like a fish out of water.

Unable to form properly formatted text to argue text on its' merits
alone, you will frequently encounter these "dead ends" in exchanges with
him ... undoubtedly, you will learn to adapt.

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:11:49 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for any
other reason.

This would be profound, if it weren't coming from an "anonymous"
source replying in other side threads to an "anonymous" source.

Two such "anonymous" sources in a series of dialog is very much less
than compelling and lacks all reason.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
Both sources need the tinfoil changed on their respective
hats. They also need to find a newsgroup where they can discuss popular
theology without danger of being withered by ridicule from the other
participants.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:

...
Hi Richard,
Both sources need the tinfoil changed on their respective
hats. They also need to find a newsgroup where they can discuss popular
theology without danger of being withered by ridicule from the other
participants.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

TRANSLATION FOR THE MASSES:

Discuss what Tom wishes to discuss, within the scope and boundaries Tom
specifies or else risk subscription to his "Chit List!"

This ain't no hobby group! Yanno? Here we subscribe to the "arrl
Professionals Standards!" :-P

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!