At 05:55 PM 3/26/2008 +0100, Jean Laeremans wrote: > > >At least it's honest... > > > > Well, not actually. At least no more honest than what he claims McDowell > > is. E.g. leaving out information that is not supportive of his position. > > > > -Charlie > >Well Charlie i did oc refer to the name of the website. As far as its >content is concerned i didn't bother to read it. >Pro or contra it's all suppositions, assumptions anyway. Not my cup of tea.
Ah. OK. The origin of the whole thing was Steve's question regarding did "we" believe Jesus existed or not. To which John (I think) referenced MacDowell who had done research into the topic (and concluded that Jesus did exist). I thought you were trying to discredit MacDowell's research by referring to that site, and then claiming it was accurate (honest) in your opinion. But I think I understand now that you were just trying to provide an alternative, or critical, evaluation of MacDowell's work. I think that's always a good thing - it's good to look at critiques of any issue. My only closing thought on this is the critiques themselves need to be evaluated with just as much skepticism and critical thought as the piece they are critiquing. -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
