 | | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo
| | | | David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) justification (...) based (...) finishing (...) nice, (...) wanna be (...) pauper? (...) (some (...) was a (...) a (...) OK, you've deviated from whatever we were discussing, but its still interesting to a (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton
| | | | | | (...) No prob. The point deviated slowly, I think, but basically it's just migrated. The point was morality underlying consequences, but that's moved elsewhere in the message. (...) Well, the actual question is more about who you would rather be... (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal
| | | | | (...) !!?? What a surprisingly ignorant thing to have heard you say John! How do you "know" religion is fiction? Do you have proof? Evidence? I'd say that coming from one who holds up the scientific method so earnestly, it sounds rather (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
