Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, February 25, 2007

In a new documentary, Producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici make the claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem along with that of his son.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

MrCairo

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Mr C:
Thanks. I can't wait to see what shows up here. How much popcorn should I pop?

Zounds! Shades of John and Amanda Ziller, "Captain Kendrick's Memorial Hot Dog Wildlife Preserve," baboon Mon Cul, Marx Marvelous, L. Westminster "Plucky" Purcell, and Tom Robbins' Another Roadside Attraction.

("I can't wait to see what shows up here. How much popcorn should I pop?
Posted by Berkeley"

About twice as much as the amount of wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.)

And the most miraculous thing about the discovery: there was still a bouquet of artificial flowers from WalMart found in the tomb. Those damned things never fade!

if we have DNA of jesus cant we clone him?

It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.

Truthhurts, your DNA idea will be another movie...I'd start writing it now...the outcomes are endless...

Jesus wasn't resurrected?

Speechless here on this Sunday morning in Lent.

Have they been lying to us?

There was a supergroup called Blind Faith.

I clean the lent out of the dryer before each use...

It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombsPosted by Scarey_e

It didn't take 20 yrs to decifer. I'm sure the Jews knew fairly soon after discovery. But after they were the ones that were responsibile for his death, I don't think they were in a hurry to trash a basic tenet of Christianity.

Please God tell me that Leonardo D. will not star in the movie version. I guess instead of saying "Rivets! Rivets!" he can say, "Nails! Nails!" And Celine Dion can render the overwrought soundtrack:
"He's gone, oh he's gone.
I last saw him on the lawn.
He was bearded; he was hairy.
He was with that girl named Mary.
He gave us all the slip.
Now they've found his crypt.
Do I throw out my Holy Bible,
Now it's not relible?"

Sorry about that ending; poetic license, don't you know.

Ratso, FF for you!
Here's another ending.

Should we dump the Holy Scripture
Is there going to be a Rapture?

Although the evidence contained in the film and book is hardly definitive, it is compelling. Inscribed in Hebrew, Latin or Greek, six boxes -- taken from a 2,000-year-old cave discovered in March, 1980, during excavation for a housing project in Talpiyot, south of Jerusalem -- bear the names: Yeshua (Jesus) bar Yosef (son of Joseph); Maria (the Latin version of Miriam, which is the English Mary); Matia (the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, a name common in the lineage of both Mary and Joseph); Yose; (the Gospel of Mark refers to Yose as a brother of Jesus); Yehuda bar Yeshua, or Judah, son of Jesus; and in Greek, Mariamne e mara -- meaning 'Mariamne, known as the master.' According to Harvard professor Francois Bovon, interviewed in the film, Mariamne was Mary Magdalene's real name.

Knew this would hapen once the Democrats took over. AIPAC probably figured there was more money from the secualr left than the fundie right these days so they gave up the evidence after nearly 30 years.

I smell a conspiracy.

(KIIIIIDIIINNNGG!!! Just kidding.....)

Question is, does Cameron really want to boot one of the fundamental (there's that word again) precepts of all Christian faiths out from under them?

There are enough fundamental baloney-eaters out there that he's never going to regain the same sheen he has right now for this. God himself could descend from the heavens and congratulate Cameron with angel wings and the wackos would still cling to something they only ever read in a book (if they ever actually read it at all).


This is an old Dan Brown-type story that crops up every decade or so, usually told by someone trying to make a buck.

The names Joshua, or Yeshua, or Jesus, and the names Joseph and Mary were among the most popular common names of the time. There were literally thousands of people with these names.

Also, according to the archaeologist in charge of the original 1980 "discovery".....

".... Prof Amos Kloner said that while the names together had "a certain power" they are standard.

"At least three other ossuaries have been found inscribed with the name Jesus and countless others with Joseph and Mary," he said.

The 10 ossuaries were taken initially to the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum outside the Old City of Jerusalem. Nine were catalogued and stored but the tenth was left outside in a courtyard.

That ossuary has subsequently gone missing.

The story went cold until two accounts of the discovery were published by Israeli academics in the mid 1990s. Prof Kloner wrote the second one in the IAA's in-house magazine Atiquot in 1996.

It sparked publicity, most notably a BBC programme shown that Easter produced by Ray Bruce called The Body In Question.

However, Prof Kloner said there was no way the tomb housed the Holy Family.

"It is just not possible that a family who came from Galilee, as the New Testament tells us of Joseph and Mary, would be buried over several generations in Jerusalem."

However, in this Dan Brown era, we can't help wondering."

www.telegraph.co.uk




Jesus Boy already investigated the whole "bones of Christ" thing and discovered it was all a Catholic plot (wif a li'l help from the French, of course)

Jesus Boy and the Bones of Christ

Interesting "Wot if" from Truth-Aches...

"if we have DNA of jesus cant we clone him?"

Cloning Jesus?

Hmmmmm.... ya know...

If this ever actually becomes possible Spud is imagine Madonna is gonna order a couple of 'em as the ultimate accessory.

Adopting starving kids from Africa is so last season, ya know?

Be Well.

Madonna raising a couple of jeebus clones?
Good God what a really-really-REALLY bad idea...can you imagine what they'd be like as adults?

Somebody please explain the DNA part to me. Who did they compare the DNA to?

Who did they compare the DNA to?

Bush.

Today it's Washington and Lincoln. Christ is next.

Me, I'm investing in pitchforks and torches. This ought to be interesting.

Me, I'm investing in pitchforks and torches. This ought to be interesting.

Here's a good Newsweek article on it.

www.msnbc.msn.com

Berkeley,

From the Newsweek article:

Second, DNA tests show that microscopic human remains scraped from the Jesus box and the Mariamene box are not related, at least not matrilineally, leaving open the possibility that the two humans whose bones were once in those boxes were married.

I think that's as far as the DNA issue goes. Basically, the male and female are not related.

I LOVE THIS

The premise that Christianity is built on is - - WEAK!

Don't get me wrong - - the message - - the Christ consciousness - - that is something different.

GREAT headline, rogers. Beautiful.

Duh! Anyone who credits Dan Brown with being anything but a writer is ignorant.

The research comes from "Holy Blood - Holy Grail" (current title).

. . . . and a few other ancient writings.

Didn't Kirk just post last week that all someone has to do is produce a body and Christianity would cease to exist?

The Right really needs to stop saying "Bring it On!"....

The other thing I don't get is how many of anti-christian types get all worked up over this, if there's not any truth to the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When I debate someone about the book of Mormon, for example, my blood pressure doesn't get raised at all, because it's total horse dung that is not supported historically, archaeologically, or legally. No cultures, languages, coins, specific geographic locations in the Book of Mormon have EVER been found. AS OPPOSED TO THE BIBLE, where thousands have been found (languages, coinage, specific cities), and which the legal/historical evidence backs up such occurances as the crucifixion and the resurrection.

If Jesus didn't raise from the dead, just produce a body and Christianity will truly cease to exist; the Bible even says so. Many have tried, but none successfully.

Posted by kirk at 2007-02-22 11:52 AM | Reply


Larry

Anyone read "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins? Body of Christ in a traveling road show. Terrific stuff.

I only pray to the baby Jesus.

Either everyone can talk to God, or no one can talk to God. There is no reason to deify Jesus to appreciate what he has to say.

Larry

As per our foot-in-mouth poster....


The only rule: Be nice or be funny."

Not exactly been reciprocated, but do what you gotta do; I'm not crying about it.

Posted by kirk at 2007-02-23 04:21 PM | Reply



...somewhere Kirk is weeping.

This is crap. After Jesus was ressurrected he went to Japan. I've visted the grave there on the island of Honsiu


The Way, which Jesus Christ taught, is, arguably , unparalleled in the history of the world as a way to live. But Jesus taught that, ultimately, his was The Way, the only Way.

There are others, wise philosophers with huge modern followings who taught ways of living and being that are also beautiful and sublime, but they did not claim to be deities.

Many people, those who recognize the difference between what Jesus taught and what has been done historically in his name, would like to give Jesus credit for the high quality and meaningfulness of his philosophy of faith, love, hope, and charity, but rob him of his self-proclaimed deity.

The comparatively historically quite well documented Jesus Christ was either a madman on the level of someone today who thinks they are Napoleon...... or he is what he said he was.

This "Jesus was a good and wise teacher" idea is self-contradictory. Would a good and wise teacher say about himself the things that Jesus is recorded as saying?

Would a good and wise teacher go about his homeland deceiving thousands of people at a time, pretending to be healing the sick and feeding the poor, along with other miracles?

Would a good and wise teacher proclaims himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life.... that no man sees their God except by him. A man who saw himself as an aspect of the God, the Son of God?

What an HUGE EGO that must take, eh?

And wonder of wonders, everyone seemed to like him, and many followed. I mean, a guy with that ego who put on fake miracles and thought he was God?

Most people don't like men like that, much less give their lives over to his Way.

No. You can't have it both ways. Either he was insane, or he was who he said he was.

And the only way other than personal intuition to know if that is true, from what I can tell, is to look at good translations of the old texts concerning what he and his god are said to have prophesied over two thousand years ago as to what would happen in history and in our modern world, then look to determine if those predictions came true.

But, that requires lots of hard work, time, and study, and few are willing to give much credence to the whole idea that they could possibly, now even in a scientifically quite exotic world of multiple dimensions and quantum theory, just maybe amount to something more than a slightly cognizant baboon who lives in deep fear of turning back into a remnant of star dust.


Frank is aghast!...

"Madonna raising a couple of jeebus clones?
Good God what a really-really-REALLY bad idea...can you imagine what they'd be like as adults?
"

We'll give one to Madonna to raise and another to Britney and then see which one ends up in therapy/rehab first.

C'mon it'll be FUN!

Be Well.

Corky,

CS Lewis?

Spud:
Your word friend has gone to sleep but I'm sure he will respond to your last comment before school starts in the morning.
You make both of us laugh.

Pirate,

Are you familiar with Tolkien and Lewis' friendship and their effects on each other's books?

"Tolkien's argument that myth -- and especially the story of Christ's Resurrection -- is the highest form of truth"

dir.salon.com

"Either he was insane, or he was who he said he was."

Great, great comment, Corky.

Or completely misquoted.

You mean we could be threatened by Zombie-Jesus!!!

Corky

No. You can't have it both ways. Either he was insane, or he was who he said he was.

You make assumptions that arch across yawning chasms of unfounded truths. Not nearly the first of which is that what you are reading is anything like the unvarnished truth from those times. It's been shown repeatedly that the myths we cherish from ancient ages are readily modified by the political winds of their times.

No. You can't have it both ways. You can't simply adopt words on a page as fact, and believe them without accompanying proof beyond your simple needs, hopes, and dreams.

MrC:
I did make a smart comment to Jeff about being let out for time served. My probation was having to stay on Drudge or something to that effect. I did ask him what he had done and what was his sentence.
Mike had already jumped him. I was letting him know that his stupid statement did not escape me. I was mad but I did not ask for an apology. Jeff has never said anything else about me that I know of so he got a one time "uncalled for statement" pass.
E-mail me for more on the main subject of the nooner.

Pirate:
Thanks for the link.

MrC:
I do think that I told Mike that payback was hell. I do not remember an apology but I could be mistaken. I think Jeff got my point. I have no hard feelings toward him at all now.

Back to our regular fighting. Sorry for the post being off topic. Due to what was going on in another thread, I did not wish to fuel the bonfire.

"Without accompanying proof....."

John the Baptist had something to say about people that demanded "proof".

Christ Himself produced "proof" in spades.

But you can't accept that, because (if I understand you correctly) of fear some "politician" lurking in the woodpiles changed some stories so that three hundred years after his death someone might eventually attain some power from it all, maybe.

"Accompanying proof beyond your simple needs, hopes, and dreams...."

You know, there were actual scientists and atheists present at the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima.

Last time I looked, those persons not converted by the experience were using things such as amazingly timely African storms or even extraterrestrials to explain what took place.

As for Cameron, he's about to get savaged by archaeologists, for a start. The religous won't have to climb into the ring.

Zed:
Best link please. I can "do the Google" but that will not tell me which link you consider the best to make your point. Thanks

We have people speaking glowingly of Christ-consciousness while accepting existence of such as evidence of nothing. Y'all have strange ideas concerning "proof". My advice, and I'm very serious, is to pray something will bite you in the ass so you can't blow it off.

Just start with Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I'm rarely armed with websites.

OK:
I looked and saw photos of people looking at something. I have not found what they were looking at. It was like watching a football game on TV when they pan the people in the bleachers. OK, so what is happening on the field? I want to see what they see.

So, you wait for photographs. Probably are none that show anything you'd want, since it was 1917 and technology was lacking.

The people tell you what they were looking at. At least some of them who didn't want to see saw regardless.

On the one hand what passes for science complains that miracles never appear on cue. On the other hand, miracles that appear on cue seem suspect.

Amazing. Really atonishing. I read several articles on this and I am still smiling. They have predicted that the odds aginst this being the actual tomb of Jesus are 600 to 1 based on the grouping of names. Add to that the dna that leads to the conclusion Jesus and Mary were married and had a son.

Wow, Christianity is Dead.

I say good riddance.

Now, if we can just get the muslims to accept that the visions of a crazy man staring at a fire in a cave are not the word of god, the world may finally have a chance at peace.


"The DNA...."

What DNA would that be, Pilgrim? You talking about that saliva sample Christ left with Pilate when he was arrested?

WOW. First we find out that 616 is the actual number of the beast. Then that judas only betrayed jesus because he asked him to.

Now this.

"Now this...."

You mean the idea the Jews could have pointed to Christ's occupied tomb at any point to shut up Paul?

Or that Paul before his conversion could have pointed to the same tomb to shut up Peter?

But no one ever did, wishing a heretical strain of Judaism to prosper overall while simultaneously making sure they tracked down members even in foreign cities in order to murder them?

So far it makes perfect sense.

The Jews said the Apostle's stole Christ's body away.

But now we understand that, instead of hiding it in order to perpetuate myth of Resurrection, they simply reburied Him a short distance away under His own name.

Then, in order to make sure the Resurrection story was safe for posterity, they made sure they buried the guy's wife with Him, under her own name.

Then, in a further fit of cleverness, other family members were added at intervals as well.

Diogenes the Cynic is rolling over in his grave, which apparently remains unknown. I suspect he still looks for that one honest man.

Zed:
I truly am sorry. I thought there WAS a picture of what they saw and that I just could not find it.

Cynic:
I read the article that Pirate posted and the DNA information is vague. It says that "Jesus" and "Mary M." were not related so that means they were husband and wife. It also says that one set of bones is their child but they do not say that there is a DNA match. Maybe they are going to release the DNA results later.
The article also says that 25% of women had a form of Mary for a name.

No problem at all, Mr. B. Fatima isn't my tradition but it interests me by overcoming many of the most frequent critiques of alleged miracles.

As for Cameron's story, it's a form of reverse pareidola. Some people want the story to be false so badly they mistake tripe for sirloin.

"Some people want the sory to be false...."

The story of Christ, that is. Frankly, I don't know why they're so eager to have beer with their cornflakes mornings, if you follow me.

Zed:
I am female. You must have skipped the nooner thread today.

It says that "Jesus" and "Mary M." were not related so that means they were husband and wife.

----

Not only that but they assume that Jesus and "Mary M" were the husband and wife. There really is no proof.

When you really examine their evidence, it is weak at best.

Pirate:
This is starting to look like Geraldo's Al Capone vault.
CNN is supposed to talk about this in a few minutes.

I agree, Berkeley.

Mr. Cairo

"You make assumptions that arch across yawning chasms of unfounded truths."

"You can't simply adopt words on a page as fact, and believe them without accompanying proof beyond your simple needs, hopes, and dreams."

Making assumptions about what I "simply adopt" and about what I believe and with what proof is a bit of a self-retorting retort, dontcha think?

There are plenty enough internal and external proofs in the texts and in accompanying histories to substantiate the simple point I was making. If you disagree, we can discuss the texts in the original languges, 'K?

"Or completely misquoted.

Posted by argh"

Misquoted who?

Al Capone's vault is as likely to hold "Jesus' family".



"However, Prof Kloner said there was no way the tomb housed the Holy Family.

"It is just not possible that a family who came from Galilee, as the New Testament tells us of Joseph and Mary, would be buried over several generations in Jerusalem."

www.drudge.com

"Some people want the story to be false so badly they mistake tripe for sirloin."

And there is always some huckster willing to take their money.



About twice as much as the amount of wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.)



Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2007-02-25 08:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



doc.....please........I have referred to that limeric or whatever a couple of times in the past couple of days.....and now you try and steal it.......
get your own schtick......

BL2:
He was just answering my question about the popcorn. He just beat you to the answer. :)

There are ancient comtemporanious texts that describe Jesus and Mary as having been married and having children. They describe Jesus' 'death' on the cross as the Holy Ghost leaving His body and his life as a regular mortal man beginning. Many of the facts surrounding his crucifixion are at odds with how they were carried out in that day. He may have actually survived the crucifixion some say.

Whatever the actual facts are of Jesus' life and death the 'Red Print' - the philosophy that is Christianity changed the world.

Mankind really messed up the rest of it as a religion that is hardly inclusive and quite the opposite of everything Jesus taught. As I heard an old man once say, 'The ONLY problem with Christianity is it hasn't been tried yet.

Perhaps because the 'ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT' - which Jesus said was the most important and the main reason He came in the first place - that 'You love the Lord God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself' somehow never found it's way below the other 10. Pity. The 11th Commandment sums up the philosophy of Christianity in a few short words.

contemporaneous

"There are ancient comtemporanious texts that describe Jesus and Mary as having been married and having children."

Link, please?

"He may have actually survived crucifiction in some way....."

Really? And you think those Roman guards would have risked crucifiction themselves allowing that?

That spear into Jesus' side? What was all that about, do you think?

The broken body of a barely alive, permanently crippled, and humiliated Jesus the model for life after death?

"Many facts surrounding his crucifiction were at odds with how they were carried out that day...."

You could state some of them. That would be interesting.

The other thing I don't get is how many of anti-christian types get all worked up over this, if there's not any truth to the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When I debate someone about the book of Mormon, for example, my blood pressure doesn't get raised at all, because it's total horse dung that is not supported historically, archaeologically, or legally. No cultures, languages, coins, specific geographic locations in the Book of Mormon have EVER been found. AS OPPOSED TO THE BIBLE, where thousands have been found (languages, coinage, specific cities), and which the legal/historical evidence backs up such occurances as the crucifixion and the resurrection.

If Jesus didn't raise from the dead, just produce a body and Christianity will truly cease to exist; the Bible even says so. Many have tried, but none successfully.

Posted by kirk at 2007-02-22 11:52 AM | Reply

Larry
Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-02-25 08:20 PM | Reply
--------------
Seems almost prophetic that I posted that so recently. And I stand by it.

*If Jesus did not die on the cross AND resurrect from the dead, Christianity is D-O-N-E.*

The problem with so many here is they WON'T EVEN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE and where it points them no matter what the cost. I have, and I continue to do so. Bring it on.
It's a little hard to take criticism from folks here who won't even look at the evidence that contradicts what they believe.

On the Today Show, James Cameron and the archaeologist he worked with were just on. The *curator* from the dig in question said the evidence didn't point to their conclusions **and the actual bones are already buried, and it sounded like, were ALL buried together, so identification would be extremely difficult**.

There's not enough evidence from this to determine much, at least from the limited amount I've read and heard on it thus far. But if you've got more info, please share and post the links.
----
And Mr. Cairo,
I have not shed one tear over this story, as the science appears to be quite shoddy. Time and the evidence will tell.

a good Bible verse that points to the fact that Christianity FALLS APART if Jesus did not raise from the dead physically:

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead ?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
**14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

You can't simply adopt words on a page as fact, and believe them without accompanying proof beyond your simple needs, hopes, and dreams.

Posted by MrCairo at 2007-02-26 01:30 AM | Reply

But, if archaeologists found a clay tablet in the desert of Syria, you would accept that at face value.

There have been ancient texts discovered of various books of the Bible -- the most famous is a copy of Isaiah on display in Jerusalem.

And with thousands of years between those and current manuscripts, they are letter perfect. So your claims of politicians re-writing Scripture is just ignorant. Some slop you are just regurgitating from another stupid person.

Oh, look, it is kirk the kristian.

Hey, kirk... any luck finding those quotations you claimed I made (referenced here and here)?

Hans

Sounds kinda of Gnostic to me.

You can't simply adopt words on a page as fact, and believe them without accompanying proof beyond your simple needs, hopes, and dreams.

Posted by MrCairo at 2007-02-26 01:30 AM | Reply

WHO IS DOING THAT?
Every Christian I know tells people to examine the evidence, and means it. Will *you* examine all the evidence?

"simple needs, hopes, and dreams"
Do you think Christianity really fits neatly in with what Christians want?
Do you think Christians really like not being selfish? Do you think Christians really like being told to go into all the world, and willing suffer death for telling others about how Jesus changed their lives? Do you think Christians really like seeing their mothers/fathers/brothers/
sisters/neighbors/friends dislike them because they hold onto to "narrow-minded truth" or some "book of fables"? Is it easy to "turn the other cheek" when someone slaps you?

If I was making up a god, he would NOT be like the God of Christianity (that I believe in).

The greatest commandment in the Bible:
"Love the Lord thy God will all your soul, with all your might, with all your strength

The greatest commandment in Satanism (see Satanic Bible, Anton La Vey):
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

Which one is easier, do ya think?

"However, the archaeologist who oversaw the work at the tomb described the theory as 'nonsense'.

(Prof.) Amos Kloner said the names found on the coffins had been found in tombs before, adding: 'It makes a great story for a TV film, but it's impossible.

'Jesus and his relatives were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the first century.'"

Hey, kirk the kristian... any luck finding those quotations you claimed I made (referenced here and here)?

Hans

Hans
go to the store, buy some materials, build a bridge and get over it.
Have you EVER done anything I've asked you to do?

"Have you EVER done anything I've asked you to do?"

Hey,
kirk the kristian, you were the one who claimed I said something (referenced here and here), which I never said.

Hans

Whatever Hans sorry I'm not spending anymore time trying to research some freaking stupid post from months ago

join the discussion on this thread or

Find a hobby

"The Jews said the Apostle's stole Christ's body away.

But now we understand that, instead of hiding it in order to perpetuate myth of Resurrection, they simply reburied Him a short distance away under His own name."


I don't see how this is possible as the eleven apostles were locked up in a closet in Jerusalem, hiding for fear of the Jews and the Romans because both were looking for them so they could kill them. And for the Apostles to just show up on the morning of the third day, while they were being hunted, knock down the Roman Soldiers that were guarding the tomb without suffering loss, and convince the 300-400 people who testified as to seeing the Risen Christ that they actually saw the risen Christ...the chances are zilch of that happening.

Something happened on that third day that brought the apostles out of hiding. These men were fearing for their lives. They were afraid of death. After that third day...they left their closet and preached to the world...all of them eventually suffering fates of torture and death. What could bring about that sudden of a transformation in them? What could spark them to no longer be afraid of death when they had every reason to fear it two days prior?


Producer James Cameron is true to form with this film, sticking to what he knows best, Sci-Fi.

en.wikipedia.org

"I'm not spending anymore time trying to research some freaking stupid post from months ago"

I just figured that since you present yourself as such a Christian that you wouldn't want to be seen
violating the Commandments.

You were the one who claimed I said something (which I would not have said - referenced here and here).

I figured you would want to set the record straight.

Hans

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

....

Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary -- the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel -- might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box.

www.msnbc.msn.com

Based on the odds of the congruance of all the names there is a 99.8% chance that this IS the tomb of christ. From one of the stories on this --Ancent hebrew reseacher says only 1 chance in 600 that it's NOT jesus--.


Sorry to break the news to you of the violent delusions, but Jesus did NOT rise from the dead. Also, just to rub salt in wounds too, there is no Santa Claus either.

This may be interesting, but how on earth are they going to 'prove' it's Jesus?

I'm skeptical, but I'll probably watch it.

"Based on the odds of the congruance of all the names there is a 99.8% chance that this IS the tomb of christ"

And from which dark hole do those numbers eminate?

"There are ancient comtemporanious texts that describe Jesus and Mary as having been married and having children."

Link, please?


Posted by Corky at 2007-02-26 10:09 AM

Still waiting on that one, too.......


these merely slightly cognizant baboons are slow as hell....

Look at all the libs bashing Christianity. Sickening. If this was about Mohammed, you would jump to Muslims' defense in a heartbeat.

Amazing.

Have some heart. Just shows what everyone says about libs and religion are true. But you call the right 'bigots'????

Pot, Kettle, black?


BTW, FACTS are that even though those names were wholly common before Christianity, they were even more common in the second half of the 1st century, well within the dating of a tomb found in Jerusalem, where, the family of Jesus, unlike the generations of family found in this particular tomb with these particular common names, never lived.

Why would Joesph be buried in the tomb with Jesus and Mary when Joseph had died years before Jesus began his ministry? Did they dig him up from Nazareth or Bethlehem and bring him to Jerusalem?

"Look at all the libs bashing Christianity. Sickening. If this was about Mohammed, you would jump to Muslims' defense in a heartbeat. "

Really, I always refer to all religion out here not just Christianity. In fact I have posted more than once that religion is the blight of man, or that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are the true axis of evil.

I am yet to encounter a religion that I don't view as fraudulent. The two that I have the most respect for are the Native American-Lakota specifically, "Circle of Life" and Buddhism for similar reasons. Both have aspects however that I do not believe in, but think they are not evil idealogies.




Good question, USAPAT

This tomb is pretty obviously that of a Jerusalem based family from the 1st century with common names. How surprising.

One supposes that Cameron was just tired of filming underwater so much and wanted to dry off.

That, and the money.

"Why would Joesph be buried in the tomb with Jesus and Mary when Joseph had died years before Jesus began his ministry? Did they dig him up from Nazareth or Bethlehem and bring him to Jerusalem?"

Yeah, I have never in my life heard of re-burials, especially from Cooky religous people.

"This tomb is pretty obviously that of a Jerusalem based family from the 1st century with common names"

Thanks Corky Frist for your astute archaelogical and historical input.

Ah, the tolerant liberal name caller.

Is that all you've got?

The statement you quote is agreed upon by both sides of the debate, Cameron and the actual professor of archeology in charge of the original dig who, btw, says that the idea that this is Jesus' tomb is..... wait for it..... "impossible".

Now, did you have something intelligent to say to me, or is it more of your nonsensical tripe that we can expect?

"It says that "Jesus" and "Mary M." were not related so that means they were husband and wife."

I thought Jesus was gay? Didn't he always hang out with 12 other guys and didn't he give Judas that farewell kiss, with tongue?


Yes, Jesus was gay, but he didn't give tongue. I used my Frist-like abilities to know that.

Here's your link.

dsc.discovery.com


But Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of Toronto, recently conducted a study addressing the probabilities that will soon be published in a leading statistical journal. --Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.

To be conservative, he next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs -- even those that have not been uncovered -- that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.

The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

So the odds are 99.8% that this is the tomb of Jesus.

Sorry to rub salt in your wounds, you violent delusionists but I don't think the Aaster Bunny is real either.

I meant the Easter Bunny. Too bad.

Another funny thing about Christianity. I recently saw the movie Gandhi, there is a scene where a minister who is assisting Gandhi is speaking with a Hindu on a train. the Hindu asks him why he drinks blood? The Minister is aghast, I don't drink Blood !!, the minister says. Then the Hindu points out that Christians believe that the wine and bread at communion transform into blood and flesh. The Hindu was of the opinion that this was a sick ceremony glorifying a perverted type of cannibalism. I agree.

And how much did Mr. Cameron pay Prof Feuerverger ("Shill" in Norwegian) for his conclusions to be broadcast on his TV show?

Do you always take the word of a single paid consultant? Or is that only on subjects where you have a personal bias?

Considering that the tomb in question contains the remains of a family that, unlike Jesus' family, lived in Jerusalem for generations, pretty much makes their names unimportant, though, eh?

"However, the archaeologist who oversaw the work at the tomb described the theory as 'nonsense'.

(Prof.) Amos Kloner said the names found on the coffins had been found in tombs before, adding: 'It makes a great story for a TV film, but it's impossible.

'Jesus and his relatives were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the first century.'"

I agree.

Considering that you display no more likely knowledge of the history and the meaning of the communion than a Hindu on train, I'm not surprised.

on a train, jeesh!

If the probability stats are the only thing holding this together, then that is a very weak argument.

Do you atheists notice how the Da Vinci Code is no longer mentioned? This story will get far less coverage than that did and the Da Vinci Code was a total work of fiction. This is pretty close to fiction.

Hey,

I totally agree that Brown's story is fiction, because Jebus never lived.

Ha! Ha! Hey corky , from your frantic blathering attempts to rebut, it seems like this thing is starting to shake your violent delusions? For all our sakes, I hope so.

It says the statistics will published in a peer reviewed journal. The guy is a professor of Math and Statistics at the prestigious University of Toronto, the math is sound.


So you claim that the wine does NOT transfigure into the BLOOD of christ at communion ? Do you drink blood or not ?

Do you eat FLESH or not ?

I doubt you have the courage to answer. You of the violent delusions, you apply your moral standards to everyone but yourselves.

Not only is there no Easter Bunny, not only did christ die like any other man, but there is is no Santa Claus either. Sorry to burst your bubble my child.

"Considering that the tomb in question contains the remains of a family that, unlike Jesus' family, lived in Jerusalem for generations, pretty much makes their names unimportant, though, eh?"

Funny that instead of addressing this point that made the names irrelevant, you find it necessary to bring in ancillary, of-the-topic subjects instead.

Jesus was in his body when he took communion, so it would be rather difficult for him to eat his own flesh.

Unless, of course, he were as limber as you.

If Jesus was just an ordinary man who committed a crime and was crucified then I highly doubt they would have buried him with his families. Back then, if you were crucified, you were disowned by your family. They wouldn't want anything to do with you.

And plus, Jesus was from a place other than Jerusalem. If he had died an ordinary death and had not been crucified...they would have taken him to be buried with his ancestors.

So....if the story were true then would Christians have to become Jews as Jesus was??? Would Ted Haggerty's gayness return???

Would Ted Haggerty's gayness return???

Yes!

Also, Shrubby would have to take resposibility for Iraq instead of claiming that Baby Jesus told him to invade.

Archaeologists, scholars dispute Jesus documentary

"JERUSALEM (AP) -- Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by the Oscar-winning director James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets."

"In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims.

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said."

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 -- 10 being completely possible -- it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half.

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun."

"Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false.

"It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."

"Although the documentary makers claim to have found the tomb of Jesus, the British Broadcasting Corporation beat them to the punch by 11 years."

excerpts

www.cnn.com



"because Jebus never lived."
--MASTERCHEAT


Read the 15th Annal by Tacitus written A.D. 62-65, a non-Christian historian verifying Christ's existence.

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

There are more non-Christian sources such as this; please research.

www.earlychristianwritings.com


"""They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.""

Boy, that would be a first. Someone capitalizing on the name Jesus???
The Catholic Church is still mad about the loss of their monopoly and are now trying to mend fences with some of the competitive religions also based on Jesus. I think they hope for mergers sometime in the future.

Israeli expert quashes film claim about Jesus tomb

"But archaeologist Professor Amos Kloner, who documented the tomb as the Jewish burial cave of a well-off family more than 10 years ago, is adamant there is no evidence to support claims that it was the burial site of Jesus.

"I'm a scholar. I do scholarly work which has nothing to do with documentary film-making. There's no way to take a religious story and to turn it into something scientific," he told AFP in a telephone interview.

"I still insist that it is a regular burial chamber from the 1st century BC," Kloner said, adding that the names were a coincidence.

"Who says that 'Maria' is Magdalena and 'Judah' is the son of Jesus? It cannot be proved. These are very popular and common names from the 1st century BC," said the academic at Israel's Bar Ilan University.

Kloner said that of 900 burial caves found within four kilometres (two and a half miles) of Jerusalem's Old City and from the same era, the name Jesus or Yeshu was found 71 times, and that "Jesus son of Joseph" had also been found."

Israel's Antiquities Authority refused to comment, although in 1996 a spokesman said that the probability of the caskets belonging to the family of Jesus were "next to zero."

excerpts

www.rawstory.com


This story is hogwash. I found Jesus's REAL tomb not too long ago. I know it is his because he was buried with his beloved wife, Maria. There was no DNA match between the two so the story really checks out.

His last name was Fernandez.

I wonder if this story would get the same press if it was about Mohammed?

Naw, Army.

It's a money-maker. Cameron saw a story that exploits the Dan Brown audiences AND enrages the easily enragable Mel Gibson audiences, so he decided that he discovered this 11 year old non-story and made a film about it.

If it were about Mohammad, Cameron would not be going on Larry King.

There are more non-Christian sources such as this; please research.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2007-02-26 03:32 PM


I have, and I have found nothing of substance. Paul, who wrote the first gospel, said that he never met Jebus, only saw him in visions.

And because a single sentance written LATTER than 100 CE (check your own link) is not proof, unless you can provide more source material proving that there was ever a Jewish rabbi calling himself the son of doG, I say again:

There was no Jebus.

Family Guy Rips on Falwell and Robertson

www.crooksandliars.com

Really, MC?

Then who is all the fuss about?

An imaginary historical figure?

There are very few scholars, religious or not, that would agree with you.

But then, we know what opinions are like, right?

The bigoted ideologues on both sides of this ball are ridiculous beyond belief.

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.


bede.org.uk

Yes, an imaginary historical figure that makes a good focal point for the church to use as their martyr.

There are not many scholars, secular at least, that care enough to do the research. Most scholars in this area are biblical scholars who use the bible as their primary reference.

This discussion is ridiculous though.

"'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few"
--PIRATE


Just thought it was worth repeating.

There are not many scholars, secular at least, that care enough to do the research

----

That's true. Probably because they don't hold the Jesus myth as being true.

Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

The Gospels and Jesus
by Professor Graham Stanton
Cambridge University

bede.org.uk

"'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few"
--PIRATE


----

Not my quote. It's a quote from historian Micheal Grant.

Just want to make sure he's given credit.

Well, everyone has their opinion. We can agree to disagree.

Typical response of the pathetic coward. You refuse to answer whether the wine transfigures into the blood of christ. I said you were too cowardly to answer that question and you proved me right.

You believe that the wine transforms into Christ's blood and you drink it. You believe the bread transforms into his flesh and you EAT it. You drink blood and eat flesh.

Disgusting perversions of the delusional.

I have some flesh for you to eat pervert.

Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.


99% that this the tomb of Jesus.

There is no easter bunny, christ died like any other man and there is no Santa Claus.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

You believe that all other good men women of other faiths will burn in hell. Christians are delusional sadists. So a man could be born a Hindu and do good all his life but he stills burns in hell. All the while a scumbag rapist and murderer, just has to believe that christ died for his sins and he will go to heaven. That is your belief if you are a christian.


The Christian faith is a violent and digusting perversion.

Hey Christians, go drink some more of that blood. I think you are drunk on it.

In the delusional world of christians, Hitler just has to believe that Christ died for his sins and he will go to heaven but Gandhi is burning in hell.

Yeah, that makes a lot of moral sense.

Go drink some more blood Christians.

Well Cynic,

You exhibit most all of the telltale signs of blogger interuptus.

Name calling, strawman creation, inability to stay on topic or retort to on topic points..... it appears you are, at least, limber enough to do your own flesh-eating.

There have been over 900 coffins in Jerusalem found to have the name Jesus, 71 in this cemetery alone.

Archaeologists, and anyone without a total hard-on about Jesus, have dismissed this old story as "impossible" and a fraud. Some say that it doesn't even translate "Jesus", but another name.

But do you retort the experts? No.
Do you respond to my on-topic point? No.

"Considering that the tomb in question contains the remains of a family that, unlike Jesus' family, lived in Jerusalem for generations, pretty much makes their names unimportant, though, eh?"

Funny that instead of addressing this point that made the names irrelevant, you find it necessary to bring in ancillary, off-the-topic subjects instead."

No, you just pick some weird idea of yours about a subject, communion, about which you have no expertise, and wallow like a pig in your own shit.

Enjoy.

"In the delusional world of christians, Hitler just has to believe that Christ died for his sins and he will go to heaven but Gandhi is burning in hell."


"A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the Lord in vain - then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity.

"Is that the system?"

-- Robert A. Heinlein

Hans

"But do you retort the experts? No."


Experts say there is no mention of the life of Jesus outside the bible, except for a blurb from Josephus which has been shown to be a false statement attributed to him by later writers of Christian literature.




That's part of the problem , Hans.

That was never the system, just a tradition added on over time by religious nuts.

Problem for most atheists is, they have no idea what they are arguing about because the "religious" types have so distorted the original message.

But, it does make it easy for their equally asinine opposites, the "Cynics" of the world, to be just as nauseatingly obscene fools as the Falwells and the Robertsons.

BB

Perhaps you missed these.

www.drudge.com

www.drudge.com

Expose you for the liar you are and you revert to some very "UNChristian" things. I use the word unchristian in the most charitable sense.

---wallow like a pig in your own shit.---

Hmm, didn't Christ say something like that in the bible? Where in the bible is that ? Can you help me find it?

Unlike you, though, I forgive you. Unlike you, I will turn the other cheek. Unlike you, I will wish you peace, love and happiness.

I do this because although, I can see clearly that jesus died like any other man, I think some of teachings have merit.

Apparently you don't follow his teachings, all you do is use the name "Christian" to shield your evildoing. But hell, unlike YOU, I forgive you.

"I can see clearly Christ died like any other man...."

No, you don't. You deal with as little that is inconvenient to your faith as any poster here you describe as being superstitious.



lol

So Cynic,

What are you, about 14 years old?

You know less about me than you do about Christianity, but you make yourself an expert on all.


I say whatever the fuck I like.

And I can say it in the original Hebrew. I have also read in the original languages some of the sayings attributed to God and Jesus, and they would curl your little prepubescent short hairs, bitch.

btw, I answered your off-topic question.

"Jesus was in his body when he took communion, so it would be rather difficult for him to eat his own flesh.

Unless, of course, he were as limber as you."

but you never retorted my on-topic point about Jesus and his family never having lived in Jerusalem, eh?

"Experts say there is no mention of the life of Jesus out side the Bible...."

Nope. Even excepting Josephus, which I don't, by the way. The level of debate here is faltering.

You believe that all other good men women of other faiths will burn in hell. Christians are delusional sadists. So a man could be born a Hindu and do good all his life but he stills burns in hell. All the while a scumbag rapist and murderer, just has to believe that christ died for his sins and he will go to heaven. That is your belief if you are a christian.


The Christian faith is a violent and digusting perversion.


Wow, it sounds like Buffalo Bob has been cloned.

Anyway, make sure your paint with the broadest brush possible. Christians have been around for almost 2000 years. There have been various denominations and beliefs; many of which have evolved and changed; yet you can sum them all up with a single sentence. Quite a feat.

As far as Cameron is concerned; I think it is wonderfully apt and somewhat mythic that the self proclaimed "King of the World" is slouching toward Bethlehem to depose the "King of Heaven."

The evidence that he presents doesn't seem to be a smoking tomb, though. It is an interesting find, no doubt and one that causes all to think about what we know and understand about Jesus, but the evidence that he presents doesn't settle it once and for all. It will help a few bank accounts, no doubt.

By the way does he even have a body or just an empty tomb with the residue of DNA? If he doesn't have a body, how can he be sure it wasn't ressurected? Perhaps the residue is just the sloughing off of this mortal coil thereby releasing the new ressurected body!

Moreover, I am sure most of the atheists here will argue vehemently that this can't be the tomb of Jesus, because most here do not believe he even existed.

As far as his statistics or probability go, numbers don't lie, but people twist and turn numbers to all kinds of uses to to suggest all kinds of "truths." (Do you know that the average person in the US has one testicle and one breast?)

Finally, I see the accusations of cannibalism have been launched against Catholics. This question has been satisfied for Catholics, (but apparently not cynics.) The greatest rationalist and Aristotelian of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas addressed this in his Summa in the 13th century. The bread and wine contain all the accidental properties of bread and wine (shape, taste, color etc.) but its nature or substance is transformed into something super natural (above nature) and that is the body of Christ. That is why it is called transubstantiation.

If you wish to call this cannibalism and believe it fits the usual and accepted understanding of the word then go right ahead, but please don't think Catholics across the world are going to lose sleep over it or fear that the mass is not celebration of the last supper but actually a Donner party!

Cheers

"The Christian faith is a violent and disgusting perversion...."

I'll bite. Who was it hurt you?


Hi Zed,

Your turn to slop the hogs. Shower for me. Just don't throw any pearls before them.... you know whut ah mean ;^D

Who was it hurt you?


You are right. I should be nicer to these posters. He sounds like the victim of an overly friendly priest.

Corky

Tacitus

"The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than "Christus." In addition, Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no authentic contemporaneous Roman documents related to a historical Jesus."

en.wikipedia.org

Michaels Grants opinion has no bearing on the discussion. His opinion is as valid as anyone's---but not more so.

No credible mention of Jesus outside the bible. You'd think the people who saw him would have known. If they didn't recognize him the first time, how will anyone be able to recognize him when he comes back? How would you know you were talking to Jesus?

en.wikipedia.org

Corky has become the GZ Lives of the jesus bones thread..If its all bullshit how come you have to post a rebuttal to the article every 2nd post? Is your faith so weak? Does the possibility exist that it really is the tomb of christ worry you? Personally I believe he was a man.. no god no prophet.

The vanity of eternal life is amusing. You were nothing before and were nothing afterwards.

People have a problem with the fact they will never see loved ones, their favorite kitty or dog or some other bullshit that brought them pleasure on earth. Get over it....weak minded fools.

"No credible mention of Jesus outside the Bible...."

So, we're blowing off both Tacitus and Suetonious? Suetonious, the earlier reference, calls Jesus "Crixtus", by the way.

Zed
Yes. Those sources are way after Jesus' time, and if I recall correctly they say nothing about Jesus the person. Even Paul didn't recognized Jesus as a real person.

A serious question---Any of you all ever really read these sources? Not just the Bible, but the Romans?

Granted, my Latin's a bit rusty, but Roman derogatory slang use of a formerly Greek word denoting Jesus ("Christus")seems entirely plausible.

Even excepting Josephus, which I don't, by the way. The level of debate here is faltering.
There are only a few sentences of Josephus that hang by a thread. Can't be sure it wasn't altered by Christian scribes.

"Even Paul didn't recognize Jesus as a real person...."

That explains why he went to Jerusalem asking people that met Him about Him.

"Can't be sure it wasn't altered...."

Well, that's a convenient rock to dash anything against. Can't be sure those scribes spilled wine on a Gospel in Christ's own hand one day.

Zed---I see no reference to Jesus from Suetonious---but I would say the same criticism would apply to his writings. He lived even after Josephus, and if he referred to Jesus as Crixtus, that would indicate a religious leaning for Seutonious since he used a religious name to refer to Jesus rather than his given name. To me it seems later writers added to his writings in an attempt to lend credence to their beliefs, as was the case with Josephus.

Josephus didn't like all the "Messiahs" running around in his day and had no respect for them. His reference was obviously added later on since it didn't fit in with his previous writings about all the "Messiahs" running around at the time.

Suppose there was a real Jesus. You have nothing to tell you that the gospels didn't grew into a legend from the death of a charismatic rabbi. The earliest gospel, Mark, is dated 40 years after his death.

Then there are other extant gospels that didn't make it into the Bible. Completely different.

That is why faith is defined as belief without evidence.

Zed--What we can be sure of is that the books of the OT, the Koran, and Torah are the same, and they all have the same source---and it isn't god or jesus. The stories are all stolen edited versions of older religions that have been discarded.

Then you've not looked, Bob. I've read the man six times I can recall. Don't make me unpack some books.

It implies nothing of religous respect for Jesus for a patrician Roman to call him "Christus". Think "Osama" when you see that term.

that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem along with that of his son.

Given how common a name Jesus was in the years when Christ was supposed to have lived (it is the Greek transliteration of Joshua), it is highly unlikely Cameron discovered the tomb of the Jesus of the New Testament.

But I'm sure the story has great appeal to atheists and christian haters everywhere who love anything which undermines a belief in the supernatural Jesus Christ, the "Son of God", God in human form.


Zed
Well, that's a convenient rock to dash anything against. Can't be sure those scribes spilled wine on a Gospel in Christ's own hand one day.

It's well established that a couple of sentences don't fit with the text before and after. A Jew wouldn't be calling Christ a Saviour.

Leaving out what some assert are scribal editions to Josephus, we have statements that Christians "think Jesus never died" and are a tribe "that has not died out".

Now, note Josephus doesn't state, as he might have, that there wasn't a Jesus. What he does say, or implies, is that these particular Jews are confused, or maybe obdurately lying, about condition of a corpse.


Legio

Just calling the profit-based bull scatology for what it is.

But it has always been interesting to me that people who are other wise liberal, tolerant, or open-minded and respectful of others..... become raving lunatics attacking those with whom they disagree as weak-minded when it comes to the Jesus boogeyman.

I mean, I almost understand, what with the raging idiots that are the Fallwells and Robertsons of the world.

But it seems that even the so-called liberals here completely lose perspective when someone who they agree with on most things turns out to be "weak-minded' because they have studied the most interesting story ever written, and decided that, especially given an exotic scientific world of quantum mechanics and multiple dimensions...... that it might just be possible that we could be something other than slightly cognizant baboons, whose basic psychological motivator is the fear of returning to the star dust from which we came.

Zed---I doubt seriously that Seutonius wrote more about Jesus than what I have seen. You don't need to unpack books--I'm sure it's on the net someplace and easy enough to find.

Again--the books of the bible are proven false anyway, so what difference does it make?

I missed how you would know Jesus if he came back and came up to you and said "Hi".

My Dear Bob----You are an interesting fellow, and one of your interesting habits is to assert to someone you must realize has as much history as you do that all these works are proven false.

"Even Paul didn't recognize Jesus as a real person...."

That explains why he went to Jerusalem asking people that met Him about Him.

Posted by Zed


Out of the park, Zed.

Ray never hesitates to bring up that sorry old lie.... but he does back away from it awful quickly, eh?

But to answer your question seriously, I expect the Second Coming to be wholly unambiguous.

Zed---The book is false--stolen stories--the point is moot.


Couple of one-trick ponies.

Paul didn't believe that Jesus lived, and Sumerian aliens wrote the original OT.

Yawnnnnnn.

"Yawnnnnnn."


Nice rebuttal---works every time and keeps the ignorance flowing like sweet wine--or is it kool-aide

Then come up with something new and interesting, Bob.

We have heard your story before, ad nauseum. I heard it 20 years ago. It still is as unconvincing and inconclusive now as it was then.

Zed
Even the Arabic translation which some consider more accurate. Says perhaps he was messiah. It calls him a wise man. To quote in part: "And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion

I can't be proved that a Jesus didn't exist as a mortal man. But the gospels go to another level. This was an age when belief in gods was universal.

dsc.discovery.com


I think you should read it again. --- Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name.---


"During the tomb's time" means he compared it against other known tombs of that time. That more than answers the jerusalem family thing.




--Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.

To be conservative, he next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs -- even those that have not been uncovered -- that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.

The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600. ---


Also, The Irony of the transfiguration-substantion is that no one in their right mind believes that those eating the bread and drinking the wine are Cannibals. No one in their right mind believes the wine and bread turn into flesh and blood, that is no one but the christians who engage in the ritual. So by their own belief they are Cannibals. That's the Irony.

Either it turns into blood and flesh or it doesn't. Christians believe it does. Sane persons don't.

There are many other barbaric rituals permitted by the bible, Slavery, Polygamy, Stoning whores, and of Course CANNIBALISM !!! ha! Ha! Ha!

There is more evidence for Sumerian aliens than there is for Jesus. Lot's more eyewitness accounts and some that even made it into the bible.

Although I think Sting is generally a self important fop, he did have a great line that was paraphrase of others before


---"Men go crazy in congregations, They only get better one by one" ---

True

We have heard your story before, ad nauseum. I heard it 20 years ago. It still is as unconvincing and inconclusive now as it was then.

Posted by Corky at 2007-02-26 08:29 PM | Reply


Then maybe you should read about why those stories are more factual than the bible. You have read nothing---therefore you know nothing---simple equation isn't it?

Ray never hesitates to bring up that sorry old lie.... but he does back away from it awful quickly, eh?

You only wish Corky. I researched that one in depth.
Paul's Jesus

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)

Paul believed that if Jesus was of flesh he would not be free of sin.


Yeah... 14. Maybe 12.

the jerusalem family thing.

It doesn't even try to answer the fact that the family in question never even lived in Jerusalem, muchless had several generations of their relatives buried in this particular tomb.

Corky

Go here
sitchin.com read something, and then we will discuss it. This site has to be considered a whacky site by any religious person---but I doubt you can refute his history---of course you can always go back to "Yawnnnnnn." as you have in the past rather than look at any other view of history.


Then answer Zed's question.

Or any of the numberous times Paul referred to Jesus having died a horrible death........ without having ever lived?

www.tennesseepolicy.org

Corky
In ancient folklore, gods died all the time. Tammuz was one.

Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the LORD; and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.(Ezek. 8:14)

No Bob,

I read ancient Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic quite well enough to get by, and I have studied the stories you shill.

Why don't you put in a little language study, then you won't have to just eat up whatever nonsense is put in front of you?



I don't see a straight answer to Zed's question, Ray.

Why not?

Sounds like Corky went to seminary school. That's serious.

99% that this the tomb of Jesus. The stats don't lie and they cannot be refuted.

Your version of jesus and his family history is shaky at best. Where's your proof?

Go drink some more blood, or is it wine?

Because I don't know what question you are talking about.

Corky--As I said---You read nothing. I guess that makes you a liar.

You have no basis for your opinions.


OK, Bob. I glanced at the site.

Why don't you just become a Scientologist and get it over with?

Even L. Ron Hubbard wrote better Sci-Fi than that crap.

"Even Paul didn't recognize Jesus as a real person...."

That explains why he went to Jerusalem asking people that met Him about Him.

Posted by Zed

That question, Ray.

The one you ran away from when asked.

Joe---You are right---man could not possibly affect the atmosphere in any way. You can easily prove this by hooking up a hose to your cars exhaust and run it into the car while you sit in it read a book for a while. It's a great way to take a quick nap, and proves that putting billions and billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a great way to take a quick nap.

The stats don't lie and they cannot be refuted.

LOL

That's really funny. Especially since they already are being refuted.

Common sense should tell you that finding the tomb of a specific "common" person (as opposed to a King) that lived over 2000 years ago is almost impossible.

Can't be jesus' tomb. He was busy planting explosives in the world trade center. Right, bob? ; )

Just giving you a little poke, bob. I actually like many of your posts as you have a unique style.

And after you answer that question, Ray, let's do an overall integrity check and have your considered opinion on the veracity of the claim that Mr. Barnum, er, I mean Mr. Cameron makes, based on his evidence?


You know, something on topic instead of this degenerating into the usual "I'm an atheist (sorta)" Bob and Ray Show.

Corky
Are you talking about in Acts? I believe written about 50 years after Jesus. So if Acts contradicts Paul's own words, you are going to believe Acts?

You have a wild fantasy that I run away from this stuff. You're getting to sound like Horace.

"Joe---You are right---man could not possibly affect the atmosphere in any way"

Please direct me to the post where I said that man does not affect the atmosphere in any way.

Where ? where is the refutation ? post a link. Or go drink some more blood or is it wine? You tell me.

Corky---Do you see where you accuse Ray of running away as you run away? You read nothing you know nothing. The equation still stands. But let's take a look at some of the whacky things contained on that site and see how fast you can really run. I'm sure you can use the exercise.

Sitchin claims the first civilization in Mexico was the OLMECS, and that they were black. I'm sure you've read all about this in your vast search for truth---any comment?

sitchin.com

There Corky goes again. Every time I throw too much evidence at him, he deflects into wisecracks. It's an old lawyer's strategy. When you have no facts, attack the person with the facts.

Joe---Are you saying that man can put billions upon billions of tons of pollution in the air and there is won't be any problems or not? WTF are you trying to say? Gore is a hypocrite? BFD---who isn't, dummy. The POINT is---he's telling us what's happening, and if his carbon footprint were ZERO, that doesn't make his message any more or less valid. SO---WTF are you trying to say---spit it out.

Even Paul didn't recognized Jesus as a real person.

I'm no biblical scholar Ray, but I believe Paul recognized that Jesus did exist as a man ("a real person") who was crucified then ascended to heaven to "sit at the right hand of the Father"

Paul "met" Jesus "post-crucifiction" , in glorified form, on the Road to Damascus and Jesus spoke to him giving his life new purpose, a new direction.

I guess today we would say Paul was "born-again".


lmao!

Ray quotes Romans and balks at Acts.

What a maroon!

You guys are delusional.

Ray thinks that when Paul says Jesus died, that he really meant that Jesus never lived before he died.

And Bobby here wants to explore his personal fantasies about alien abduction.

And I thought Falwell was a loony!

Corky--why not just type "YAWWWNNNNN" again. That seems to be to meat of your posts anyway--save some time.

When you have nothing to say, say it with as few words as possible.

"Are you saying that man can put billions upon billions of tons of pollution in the air and there is won't be any problems or not?"

Please direct me to a post where I indicated that this was my position. Also, please direct me to a post where I said the other statement you attributed to me. Otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.

"Gore is a hypocrite? BFD---who isn't, dummy."

I don't think everyone in the world is a hypocrite. I guess according to you we can assume that nobody lives by what they say. A sad state of affairs to be sure.

"he's telling us what's happening"

He sure is. Why does he tell us to reduce our energy consumption and then go home to his $1300/month energy bill? Why doesn't he mention the fact that he uses 20X as much energy as everyone watching his movie, in his movie? After all, according to you that doesn't make his message any less appropriate.

I never said humans don't have any impact on the environment whatsoever. I just thought it was an interesting link. If you want to attribute textbook viewpoints to me because it gives you an opportunity to fervently type your meaningless gibberish, go right ahead.

Gore is a hypocrite? BFD

Wow, you said it.

This "documentary" will go by the way of Farenheit 911 which was proven to be mostly lies.

The reason it's not a documentary and more like propaganda is because it did not have any opposing views.

The opposing views are coming out.

See my 8:34 post Bowa. Paul was also an apocalyptic. He expected to be taken away in a cloud, but it didn't happen. Jesus was an apocalyptic too. How could a god be so wrong?


"And after you answer that question, Ray, let's do an overall integrity check and have your considered opinion on the veracity of the claim that Mr. Barnum, er, I mean Mr. Cameron makes, based on his evidence?"


One more chance, Ray.

Say something rational and on topic, 'K?

Joe---blah blah blah---just as I thought---you and Corky should for the YAWWWNNNNN club or the blah blah blah club. Your lips move but nothing comes out. Make a point other than Gore is a hypocrite.

sitchin.com

That's a pic of Bob's God.

Is he an alien, too, Bob?

Uh.... and, er, are you one?


Dying and resurrected gods are a dime a dozen in ancient religion. And somehow in your little mind, a second hand source such as Acts has more validity than Paul's own words. You are having a serious reading comprehension problem Corky. Scorn is poor substitute for evidence.

Bob-

Sorry I wasn't here to give the typical prehistoric argument that humans can pump chemicals into the air with absolutely no effect whatsoever. Next time I'll be sure to come armed with a cookie-cutter viewpoint that you are ready to attack.

Corky--That was a picture of Sitchin pointing out where your IQ is on the human scale.

Ray thinks that when Paul says Jesus died, that he really meant that Jesus never lived before he died.

Right, Ray?

The your a liar, you have no basis for that opinion and make a point club are controlled by Bob. Same argument different topic everytime, it does get old but it would not be the retort w/o him.

Joe---Next time come armed with SOMETHING.


So, tell us all about the aliens, Bob.

It might be therapeutic for you.

Are there any under your bed right now?


So, still no comment on the topic of the thread, Ray?

How could a god be so wrong?

Maybe it was paul who was wrong.

"Joe---Next time come armed with SOMETHING."

I did come armed with something. I came with a link that I found interesting. Obviously it pissed you off enough to attack me and attribute a bunch of false positions to me. Maybe I just wanted to show you about Al Gore's energy usage. Sorry you don't find that interesting.

Right Corky. Apparently you know nothing about other ancient religions. Ancients personified nature. Their gods flourished in the spring and died in the winter. This was commonplace then.
From the Bible alone I quoted Ezekiel about women crying over Tammuz. He was a god that died and was resurrected every year.

LA sez...

"This "documentary" will go by the way of Farenheit 911 which was proven to be mostly lies."

Every single F9/11 bashing site Spud has seen has been a freakin' joke where hair-splitting, unimportant semi-truths purport to "prove" how inacurate the flick is and largely fail to make much of a dent.

Proof enuff fer one such as you perhaps.

Not Spud.

Be Well.

On the topic of global warming, Gore's alleged hypocrisy seems the rhetorical equivalent of waving shiny objects and making lots of noise as a distraction.

Oh, actually, that's exactly what it is.

No BOWA,

Paul wasn't "wrong".

Ray just has a hard-on for the bible and translates symbology willy-nilly as he pleases in an effort to justify his..... "desires".

Likely he was molested by a priest as a child and is horribly humiliated by the feeling that he enjoyed it just a bit too much is all.

Corky---I already posted a whole whacky thread for you to pick a topic to discuss. Care to comment on the Olmecs, or how about the fact that traces of cocaine and nicotine have been found in Egyptian mummies. I'd be glad to discuss these things with you.

Or if you wish to get a bit more biblical--let's talk about Adam. Scroll down to the end of the page and see who had DNA. It explains the creation, and where the bible gets its creation story.

sitchin.com

Or pick your own. To tell the truth I expect another "YAWWNNNNN" or more likely something as banal as your last post.

Ray, do you believe in God?

"alleged hypocrisy"

What?

Just for you Corky.

Myths of Tammuz and Isthar

"Some Christian apologists commonly claim that the events described in the New Testament are independently attested to in writings by non-Christians, thereby supporting the accuracy of the New Testament. This FAQ contains a summary of alleged references to Jesus and to early Christianity, with special emphasis on the writings of Josephus and on pagan writers." Historicity of Jesus

Ray thinks that when Paul says Jesus died, that he really meant that Jesus never lived before he died.

Right, Ray?


Why can't I get an answer to this specific question?

No Bowa
I have a website on the Bible. usbible.com

Silent-
(You'll need a lot more shiny objects. Maybe if you clapped and jumped up and down...)

Dear Corky. I just gave you a link on other resurrection myths similar to Christ. Is it too painful to read? What do you want? A confession from Jesus himself?

lol,

No Ray.

I would like for once for you to answer a very simple question about a statement you made..... not some comparative study on resurrection myths.

But, you will not, because you cannot.

I'm sorry. The whole "just another resurrection myth" thing in context of a hyper-monotheistic culture just takes me nowhere. First Century Jews weren't pagans

No Bowa, I have a website on the Bible. usbible.com

I will check it out. Have to say that is kind of funny. You don't believe in God yet you have a website on the Bible.

I guess on your website you prove to your satisfaction that God deosn't exit then?

I have always believed that since God is in all things it creates a seemingly irrational dilemna.

Proving the non-existence of God, proves that God exists.

Because for a person to be able to authoritatively say that God does not exist, they must have a profound understanding of what God would be if He were to exist.

So in order to know God doesn't exist, you must first know who God is and then reject Him. And, as the only creatures in God's creation with the free will to choose to reject God, that is certainly withing your right to do.

But Ray, all I can say is that if you have an entire website dedicated to proving that God doesn't exist then you must know God in a much deeper and more meaningful way then I do.


Ray is like one of these televangelists.

He likes to make statements about what some biblical figure did or did not believe, but when pressed, resorts to interpretive symbol or myth instead of answering the question as it was put to him.

And Bob ridicules the myths of Christianity, substituting things that Hubbard and Von Daniken would find preposterous.

You guys get awful old, awful fast.


Another thing that takes me nowhere is the whoel thing about non-supportive gentile texts.

What percentage of the Roman world was even literate? There's this weird idea these people were on a twenty-four hour news cycle.

The thing that should be focused upon is that any news at all was created regarding someone civilized persons at the time would have considered above a leper but below a good slave-gladiator.

First Century Jews weren't pagans

Posted by Zed at 2007-02-26 09:52 PM


First century Jews didn't write the Torah. It was written 3500 years before that time, and the stories contained in it are stolen from "pagan" sources. In addition, the pagan stories make a lot more sense.

Corky

In mythology anything can happen. I know you are going to dodge whatever evidence I give you. It is either too much or too little.

"And Bob ridicules the myths of Christianity, substituting things that Hubbard and Von Daniken would find preposterous."



Such as?????? Oh yeah---YAWWWWNNNNN---isn't that your way of discussion? LOL

I don't ridicule the myths of Christianity---I tell you where they came from.

Ray is like one of these televangelists.

He likes to make statements about what some biblical figure did or did not believe, but when pressed, resorts to interpretive symbol or myth instead of answering the question as it was put to him.


Duh! Corky is determined to evade truth. Now he likes to think that people 2,000 years ago thought like they do today.


Fine Ray. You prove my point.

Things can be any way you interpret them and you don't respond specifically because you would be ignored.

And Paul believed that Jesus died a physical death without living a physical life.

Got it, Ray.

It just reminds me not to waste my time with you .

At least Bob is honest, if painfully redundant.


What percentage of the Roman world was even literate?


Somewhere around 10 percent,

"In additon the pagan stories make more sense...."

The pagans never spoke of love the way Yeshua and Paul did. These people pretty much invented the modern understanding of the concept.

The idea there's no separation between the old religions and the ones that made them extinct is silly.

But if you want an in-depth discussion regarding the differences between, say, Heracles and Christ, I'm game.

Dear Corky
And Paul believed that Jesus died a physical death without living a physical life.

I explained earlier that Paul's Jesus was not a person of the flesh. Why am I not surprised we are going in circles.

It's late. Another time.


www.bobandray.com

In case anyone wondered.

Damn, I thought this thread was about Kirk Cameron, guess I've been "Left Behind".


Ah so! Paul's Jesus was a different Jesus than the Jesus in the Gospels?

Really, Ray I think you are right. It is time for you to go. Along with any smidgen of credibility you might once have possessed.


Funny Flag T!

For a guy who thinks he going to die and live again in some fairyland in the sky, Corky should think twice about being a wise ass.

At least Bob is honest, if painfully redundant.


Posted by Corky at 2007-02-26 10:07 PM

I'm redundant????---your every post is full of nothing. Zero-. Zip. Talk about redundant.

You ridicule with no logic. No point. Your best point so far? "YAWWNNNNN" A great communicator you ain't.


You have no clue as to what I think about the future, Ray darling.

Just a parting shot in lieu of legitimate retort?

No surprise there.

Yes, Bob.

The redundancy police would have arrested you long ago for the constant babble about how the OT is from older sources yada yada blah blah blah long ago if you weren't busy skinning girls and torturing poodles.

-

Corky's 10:19 post proves my 10:18 post.

No I don't know what you think about the future. I know what you think about the afterlife.


Bob's 10:00 and 10:02 proves my 10:22

blah blah blah

I know what you think about the afterlife.


No you don't. You haven't the foggiest.

If you are staying, tell us more about how Paul's Jesus, who died but never lived, is not the same Jesus in the gospels that lived and died.

Or better yet, don't.

Corky's 10:22 post proves my 10:18 post again. But then they all do.


So Corky---you have not shown how the bible has any relevence since its stories come from all those old religions. That was the point. I guess until you can show how the bible has any relevance since it is based on these bullshit stories I will keep on telling you that the bible is based on bullshit stories. You see me as redundant for bringing up these stories time after time---while you don't see that I only bring up these stories after you bring up the nonsense of the bible time after time like it has any relevance to reality.

These stories have a lot more credence than their biblical counterpart for two reasons---they were written first---and they make more sense.

"Damn, I thought this thread was about Kirk Cameron, guess I've been "Left Behind"."

Ha! Spud is enraptured by T's ascendant humor there!

Kirk Cameron does dig Jesus, btw.

The blog-god is dig Kirk Cameron.

Spud thinks this is funny fer some reason.

Be Well.

PS: If you liked Left Behind the Movie?

Yer gonna luff the
video game!

No shit!

"In just 2 months, we have received word that our first product, LEFT BEHIND: Eternal Forces, the PC Game, is changing lives. Not only have individuals cheered us on with remarkable care and support, but now churches are joining in. Mega-ministries such as Focus on the Family, Promise Keepers, Concerned Women for America and numerous others are providing their support."

Ahhh using the latest technology to flog the oldest superstitions!

Spud is luff irony!

In Corky's make believe world an invisible man in the sky existed before existence. Then he became a person so he could die to become alive. It's so fucking stupid and Corky thinks he's so smart. Good night punk.

I don't think the Aaster Bunny is real either.

Posted by The_Cynic at 2007-02-26 01:37 PM | Reply

I think Larry Mohr believes in that bunny. Or is that an incorrect spelling?


lmao!

Ray still won't devine the difference in his Paul(s) for us.

Goodnight, numbnuts.

"and they make more sense."

Well, that's one opinion. You do know what they are like, don't you?

Well, I'm tired of playing smack the shmuck.

Feed the poodle, Bob.

It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again.

FF!

Still laughin' I N!!

Sorry---did you say something Corky? Ever?

Yeah Blob,

I said your opinion was no better than anyone else's.

Try and keep up.

"he likes to skin his humps"

Great movie, but very sick.

Dethspud- And why does bill gates get a jesus monopoly? The game isn't on MAC.

talk about Left behind!

www.leftbehindgames.com

I said your opinion was no better than anyone else's.

Try and keep up.


Posted by Corky at 2007-02-26 10:49 PM | Reply


LOL--like you have an opinion on the older stories that matters. You have to READ them first. THEN you can have an opinion. Your opinion so far. "YAWWNNNNN". So it was--so it has always been. Nothing from Corky except more nothing, as usual.

"Dethspud- And why does bill gates get a jesus monopoly? The game isn't on MAC.

talk about Left behind!
"

Apparently Steve Jobs makes baby Jesus cry!

"It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again"

Ever see Baby Stewie on Family Guy deliver that line while playing "Silence of the Lambs"?

Freakin' hilarious!

Be Well.

PS: Yes, yes, well and truly gone now!

I N Cognito

That's because Mac users are either Godless atheists, Episcopalians, or Catholics.



I told you hours ago that I read those stories 20 years ago.

That, besides having to listen to you regurgitate them several times in your own inimitable style.

The texts and the writing is classic and I have studied some of them in their original languages... 20 years ago, but I suspect they haven't changed much since.


Now, are you going to tell me how they are similar to the OT stories and pre-date them?

Gee, thanks again.

Godless atheists, Episcopalians, or Catholics

Those are all the same, aren't they?

A good Time article below. Here are some of the highlights.

In regards to the probability:

and it was only in 1996 that the BBC made a film suggesting that. given the combination, it might be that family. The idea was eventually discounted, however, because, as University of St. Andrews (Scotland) New Testament expert Richard Bauckham asserted in a subsequent book, the names with Biblical resonance are so common that even when you run the probabilities on the group, the odds of it being the famous Jesus's family are "very low."

Problems in the theory:

- If "Jesus" and "Mariamene" weren't related matrilineally, why jump to the conclusion that they were husband and wife, rather than being related through their fathers?

-- The first use of "Mariamene" for Magdalene dates to a scholar who was born in 185, suggesting that Magdalene wouldn't have been called that at her death.

-- St. Andrews' Bauckham defends his probabilities, noting that Jacobovici was comparing his name-cluster to the rather small sampling of names known to have been found on bone boxes, while his own basis for comparison, which adds names from contemporary literature and other sources, makes the combo far less unusual.

-- Asbury Theological Seminary professor Ben Witherington, a early Christianity expert who was deeply involved with the James Ossuary, says there are physical reasons to believe it couldn't have originated in the Talpiot plot.

Darrell Bock, a professor at the conservative Protestant Dallas Seminary, whom the Discovery Channel had vet the film two weeks ago, adds another objection: why would Jesus's family or followers bury his bones in a family plot and "then turn around and preach that he had been physically raised from the dead?" If that objection smacks secular readers as relying too heavily on scripture, then Bock's larger point is still trenchant: "I told them that there were too many assumptions being claimed as discoveries, and that they were trying to connect dots that didn't belong together."

Here's the link:

www.time.com

Corky---

"I told you hours ago that I read those stories 20 years ago."

Posted by Corky at 2007-02-26 11:18 PM

I call bullshit---tell me the original story of the Garden of Eden, and I'll believe you.

Put up or shut up.


O fuck off, Bob. I don't care what you believe. Many of us here are at very least as educated in ancient scholarship as you claim to be.

You are nowhere near the first to speculate about Sumerian origins of Hebraic texts.

Quick, tell me the original Hebrew word used for Adam in Genesis and it's original meaning....

dumbshit.

No Bob,

I read ancient Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic quite well enough to get by, and I have studied the stories you shill.

Why don't you put in a little language study, then you won't have to just eat up whatever nonsense is put in front of you>

Posted by Corky at 2007-02-26 08:46 PM

Corky---Adammu----man of clay.

Put up or shut up.


Wrong. ADM, no vowels. Nice Googling though.

Corky---show me your source. No google--it is from the original story.

Still waiting

Put up or shut up.

And "human being" is the better translation where ADM is used for man in the first chapter.

In the second and third chapters, though, ADM is the name of God's creation, not a "man".

They are not the same, and that is your clue for the night.

Corky---As I said---my call of BULLSHIT is proven. You lie.

Homines libenter quod volunt credunt.

From Dr John Henderson MD

If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong

We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme. It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality. They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies.

These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews. Osama bin Laden is insane. He believes God whispered in the ear of Mohammed 1,400 years ago about how he should conquer Arabia. Mohammed was a pure charlatan -- and a good one at that. He makes present religious frauds like Pat Robertson look like amateurs.

He said God told him to have sex with as many of the women he met as possible. I'm sorry, I meant to say "take them as wives." God told him to kill all other tribes that stood in his way or that would not placate him with assurances of loyalty or bribes. God told him, conveniently, that everyone should follow him and never question a word he said.

He sold this bag of goods to the blithering idiots who lived in the Arabian Peninsula at the time. If that weren't shockingly stupid enough, over a billion people continue to believe the convenient lies that Mohammed told all that time ago -- to this very day.

We live in a world full of insane people. Sanity is an island battered in an ocean of frothing delusion. The people who believe in science are the minority. The people who believe in bloody fairytales are the overwhelming majority.

George W. Bush is the most powerful man alive. He is a class A imbecile. He is far less intelligent than the average Christian. But like most of the others, he believes Jesus died for his sins. That idea is so perverse and devoid of logic it should shock the conscience. Instead, it gets him elected, and earns him the reverence of a great percentage of America. America! The most advanced country in the world -- run by a bunch of villagers who still believe Santa Claus is going to save them.
There is no Easter Bunny. There is no Jesus waiting to return. Moses never even existed. These were all convenient lies from the men of those times to gain power. Their actions were rational -- they wanted to deceive their brethren so that they could amass power. I get their motivations. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand our motivations, thousands of years later, still following the conmen of yesteryear into our gory, bloody, violent end.

Jesus was supposed to have said on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Because Jesus was insane and the God he thought would rescue him did not exist. And he died on that cross like a fool. He fancied himself the son of God and he could barely convince twelve men to follow him at a time when the world was full of superstition.

Excellent marketing by some of his followers would later rescue his botched effort. How many people saw his miracles? One? Twelve? Eighty? Why didn't he show the whole world? Not because this is some giant pop quiz by God to test us -- but because he did not perform any miracles!
Even his apostles can't agree on what miracles he supposedly carried out or when he carried them out. Or whether he returned after death or he didn't. Whether they saw him in person or just as a vision. Rational human beings shouldn't believe this kind of nonsense. Yet most of the world does.
If a man today killed his only son to show how much he loved other people, he would be considered a madman, locked in jail and earn society's contempt. Yet we think this is some sort of noble act by our Father in Heaven.

In Heaven? What, with the harps and the winged angels and the 72 virgins? My God, how stupid do you have to be to believe that?

I know most of you don't actually read your religious texts, and when you do, you assiduously try to avoid the parts that make no sense whatsoever or hide underneath the comforting grasp of your religious leaders who have concocted a bunch of circular logic (a crime to even use that word in regards to Christianity, Islam or Judaism) to shield you from the obvious folly of the written text.

So, I'm not calling you stupid if you haven't really read the material. And I know how powerful brainwashing is. We all received it when we were young and it is exceedingly difficult to break its grasp. But people dance around the issue out of politeness because they don't want to call you what you are -- ignorant.

There are a lot of people I love dearly and respect wholeheartedly who believe in religion. I hate to do this to them. But we have killed far too many people, wasted far too much time on this nonsense for us to keep going in this direction for fear of offense.

Jesus was a lunatic. God is not coming to your rescue. He hasn't come to anyone's rescue in thousands of years, including Jesus. Mohammed was a power hungry, scam artist and ruthless conqueror. Moses and Abraham were figments of the imagination some long dead rabbi. He would probably laugh his ass off at all of you who still believe the fairytales he made up thousands of years ago. He probably wouldn't even believe it if you told him.

Did I mention Judaism? The chosen people? Come on, get off it. People walk around in clothes from 18th century Russia, thinking they have been chosen by God when they look like a bunch of jackasses. I'm tired of all the deaths because we did not want to give offense. Orthodox Jews are wrong and ridiculous.

As are the orthodox and fundamentalists of all of the religions. It says in the Bible that it is an abomination to wear clothes made of two different cloths or to eat shellfish. If you think God will hate you because you mixed wool and linen or because you ate some shrimp, you are insane.

How long are we going to dance around the 800-pound gorilla in the room? The world is run by madmen. It's not just Bush and bin Laden. It is the leader of all of the countries in the Middle East, almost all of the Americas and most of the rest of the world.

Have I offended you? That's too bad. Stop killing each other in the name of false and ridiculous Gods and I will stop ridiculing you. Trust me, your offense is much worse than mine.

Right now as you read this, there are ignorant, hateful Muslims teaching other ignorant Muslims how to put on a suicide belt. There are orthodox Jews telling other Jews how they must never leave their "holy land" no matter what the consequences are to other human beings. They assure their followers -- remember, they are not the chose ones, we are. If we crush and oppress them, don't worry, God will excuse it, and even desires it, because He is on our side.

There are maniacal Christians who are praying for the end of time. Who are hoping that most of the world's population is wiped off the face of the Earth by their vengeful and murderous God. Whom they believe is, ironically, a loving God. Unless, of course, you make the fatal mistake of not kissing his ass and appeasing him, in which case he will slaughter you and condemn you to eternal torture. What kind of sick people believe this?

The kind who live next to you. The kind who voted for George Bush. The kind who send their religious leaders to the White House to argue against even-handedness in the Middle East because it would prevent their sick prophecy. The kind who have undue influence over how we use the greatest and most lethal army ever built by man.

If you don't want to be called ignorant or misinformed, then get informed. Learn the real nature of our universe and put aside old wives tales about resurrected Gods, omniscient prophets and a guy who could split the Red Sea but couldn't find where he's going in the desert for forty years.

It's the year 2007. Let's start acting like it.

Damn and Blast, what a crying shame that I gave up "conspiracy theories" for Lent...

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me...."

If the understanding you have of this comment is Christ is waiting to be rescued from the cross then disappointed, then you haven't even read the New Testament.

"It's the year 2007. Let's start acting like it...."

Having an intimate acquaintance with the present year, I politely decline.

I have to say that I've rarely met a meaner group of people as a whole than the atheists that come here.

They would be about as mean as those hypocritical Christians they complain about. Something about beams in eyes comes to mind.

You know, I love theological debates. Especially since, for the most part, they never actually happen.

Most of the time we have one side flinging unsupported myths to defend themselves against obvious and REALLY flimsy strawmen.

I swear, it's like those old Miller Lite commercials:

Tastes Great!
Less Filling!
The bible said he walked on water!
You're a cannibalistic psycho!

Come on, folks. Let's take a breath and look at things logically for a second.

Atheists, such as myself, are never going to convince the religious that we are correct and the religious are never going to convince us otherwise.

Here's a novel idea: why don't we allow everyone to believe (or disbelieve) whatever they bloody well want as long as it harms no one?

Atheists, such as myself, are never going to convince the religious that we are correct and the religious are never going to convince us otherwise.

This goes the other way, as well, by the way.

as long as it harms no one?

Never going to happen.

"Excellent marketing by some of his followers would later rescue his botched effort. How many people saw his miracles? One? Twelve? Eighty? Why didn't he show the whole world? Not because this is some giant pop quiz by God to test us -- but because he did not perform any miracles!"

I'd like to hear a response to this, Zed.

Atheists, such as myself, are never going to convince the religious that we are correct and the religious are never going to convince us otherwise.

This goes the other way, as well, by the way.

Posted by RevDarko

If that was a joke then LOL. If that was serious then, how many more ways could there be?

You must forgive me, it's early.

DOGMAN

Dog,

It wasn't meant as a joke, but then again, I haven't had any coffee yet and my brain is normally composed of 75% caffine, so I may not be making any sense.

Well, Ness---Let's start by reminding you of the 5,000 with loaves and fishes.

Christ was actually famous as far away as Syria for his miracles, which were almost entirely healings, by the way.

Someone counted no more than 36 miracles of any other sort.

I'd offer the small number of spectacular miracles, those suggesting command over physical universe, is a sign of authenticity.

A myth, after all, is a form of fantasy, and sky's the limit.

I meet an awful many atheists. Most of them are not the intellectual sort that come here.

However, they are more honest, and tend to embrace the implications of their position fully, hedging not with quasi-Christian habits of thought and behavior they then refuse to acknowledge

It ain't pretty. I thank God for the possibility of something else.

By the way, Ness----Your interest in miracles is disingenuous. You know if you saw water turned to wine you'd suspend judgment waiting for the natural explanation of the event you were sure existed, even if you couldn't quite see what it was that moment.

They would be about as mean as those hypocritical Christians they complain about. Something about beams in eyes comes to mind.

Posted by Zed

being pragmatic about the world versus delusional is not "mean". Grow a set of balls and stop whining.

Here's a novel idea: why don't we allow everyone to believe (or disbelieve) whatever they bloody well want as long as it harms no one?

Posted by RevDarko

thats a great idea except christians and muslims and jews keep on killing in the name of their dark lord.

"thats a great idea except christians and muslims and jews keep on killing in the name of their dark lord."

When is the last time Christian clergy told anyone to go murder someone?

Bigots are so fucking stupid.

"thats a great idea except christians and muslims and jews keep on killing in the name of their dark lord."

When is the last time Christian clergy told anyone to go murder someone?

Bigots are so fucking stupid.

"thats a great idea except christians and muslims and jews keep on killing in the name of their dark lord."

When is the last time Christian clergy told anyone to go murder someone?

Bigots are so fucking stupid.

I meet an awful many atheists. Most of them are not the intellectual sort that come here.

Zed,

Here you don't meet an awful many atheists as much as many awful ones.

There are a few here whom I respect, Ness being generally one of them.

By the way I have enjoyed reading your posts. You argue well, but you will find that few minds are ever convinced either way here at Drudge and that is because there are many here on both sides of this argument whose motivation stems from simple anger and hatred of the other side not from an earnest consideration of ideas. Their anger and hatred forms a big part of their identity. To give that up is to lose themselves, and they will not let that happen.

For them it is all about winning and not understanding, and winning is all about self validation at the expense of someone else. This becomes transparent here with the quick resorting to ad hominems and the general condescending tone individuals have for anyone who thinks contrary to their obvious superior opinions.

As soon as they resort to name calling and condescension, they reveal their hand which is made up mostly of insecurity.

This place is good for honing one's argument and testing your ideas in the acid bath that is spewed out from many here.

Cheers

So what if this were the second coming that Christ was talking about. This looks like a job for Geraldo.

"This looks like a job for Geraldo."

Same results.


grendel,

that was a very thoughtful and accurate post. i'm still relatively new here, but when i first started reading these pages it really surprised me how nasty everyone is to each other. granted, some of it is in jest, i realize...but name-calling is common, and thoughtful consideration of various concepts often take a backseat to beating the crap out of your opponent.

bravo

When is the last time Christian clergy told anyone to go murder someone?

Bigots are so fucking stupid.

Posted by Sully


It was August 21nd

USATODAY.com - Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Hugo Chavez

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club.

www.usatoday.com

All right, all right... look, you folks know by now I'm one of those atheist people. And I should be laughing my fat ass off right about now, sure, why not? But I'm not.

It's like this:
1) This won't prove anything, and (despite all the jokes involving the Communion wafers I've seen) they have no way of proving it one way or the other.
2) As the Rev said earlier, even if we were able to prove it, no one that the results would affect (and that is everybody on the planet, come to cases) really wants to know.
3) Does it really matter anyway? Seriously, does it matter? IF Xianity is "proven" to be incorrect, is that going to stop a Xian from living as he has for however long he's lived? No. Neither would it stop an atheist from living as he has if Xianity was finally given a nod.

Does Cameron actually want to take down Xianity, or does he just want to make some money? I'm thinking the latter, myself.

And now I must return to the salt mines. Ciao.

Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Hugo Chavez



This time God told George to tell Condi to tell Pat to say that.

When is the last time Christian clergy told anyone to go murder someone?

Bigots are so fucking stupid.

Posted by Sully

that would be true if the FACTS didn't back my assertion boy blunder..

Here's another of those "weak-minded" theists.

www.leaderu.com

10 Drudgie points if you read the whole thing. 20 more if you understand it.

Does it really matter anyway? Seriously, does it matter? IF Xianity is "proven" to be incorrect, is that going to stop a Xian from living as he has for however long he's lived?

Even if a long dead crucified body is produced, with the death certificate signed and notarized by Joseph of Arimathea and Caiphus, and the Vatican "fesses" up to the charade, and I am allowed to put my hand in the corpse's mummified side, I would still live the life of a Christian--one that believes that all people have flaws but are basically good and can be "redeemed." I will still strive to help others; to pray for those who would do me harm, to attempt to be a peacemaker. I will still live in the present but have hope that the love I share with those around me will somehow transcend life itself.
Christianity is not a faith to be believed but to live.
The epiphany I had long ago --at the end of a long agnostic stage-- was that I am a Christian not because Christ lived, died and was resurrected, but because being a Christian, that is living the life of a Christian, is a worthwhile end it itself. In my mind the belief that Christ lived, died and rose is just icing on the cake.

(BTW, I understand fully that my understanding of Christianity is not universally accepted by all Christian.)

"Preach the Gospels continually, when necessary use words."

St. Francis of Assisi.

Cheers

"I have to say that I've rarely met a meaner group of people as a whole than the atheists that come here."

Not mean, mean would be all those war loving religions. Us atheists are saddened and frustrated by the ignorance and oppression of religion and the lies that it spreads.Instead of actually promoting peace and harmony as athiest do.

Simple enough for you Zed?

I am disgusted by the continued ignorance that a few dope smoking cave dwellers who wrote a book of subjegation are viewed as the guiding light of humanity.

you atheists are an insecure lot

"I would still live the life of a Christian-"

which cristian?? The one that believes in the peaceful portions or one that believes in the evil portions? One that is literal or one that is philosphical?There is a big dif......

Why not just lead life by morals and values, these are humanistic traits(not religous). Humans tend to want to live with each other in peace and harmony. They like to enjoy life here and now, not later. Having an overall love of life and respect of life will all most ensure you live a decent life(there is no guarantee, as with anything).

"Let's start by reminding you of the 5,000 with loaves and fishes."

Posted by Zed at 2007-02-27 08:39 AM | Reply |

Yeah, right, I'm sure those 5,000 people would have starved to death had Jesus not fed them. On the other hand, 27,000 actually DID starve to death last night according to the Christian Childrens Fund. Tonight 27,000 more die. I guess Jesus is too busy resting on his laurels to feed them. 5,000 with fishes and loaves?BFD.

Water into wine? OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH that's impressive. Healing the sick? Who allowed them to get sick in the first place?

When Jesus said--My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me-----two things can be inferred. (1)Jesus called God God, not Father, and (2) Jesus was not God, unless he was praying to himself. In that sentence Jesus says he is not the son of god, and that he is not God.

whats the deal with all the CHRISTIANPHOBIA on this site?

which cristian?? The one that believes in the peaceful portions or one that believes in the evil portions? One that is literal or one that is philosphical?There is a big dif......

The one that follows the basic teachings of Christ as outlined in the gospel.

Why not just lead life by morals and values, these are humanistic traits(not religous).

Whose morals and which values? The fact that you separate out humanistic traits or values-- from religious ones is a modern perspective and invention. Most societies do and did not distinguish between the two; they developed not together but as one in the same.

Humans tend to want to live with each other in peace and harmony

Really? So basic human nature is peace loving and egalitarian. Yes, I see this tendency all the time in my family of three children. I must be sure to foist my religious beliefs on them to make sure they become self centered, selfish and hateful. I think the turning of the other cheek passages of the gospels will be the clincher.

Cheers

"that would be true if the FACTS didn't back my assertion boy blunder.."

All bigots think the "facts" are on their side. Ask any KKK member if its a fact that jews hoard money and blacks are prone to crime and they'll say 'yes'.

Your assinine generalization is not factual by any objective measure.

What a moron.

I didn't read this whole mammoth thread but I saw JC (James Cameron not Jesus Christ) and the director of the documentary on Larry King and just want to comment about the two dissenting voices they had on the show. Two Christian lunatics so full of fear they couldn't even begin to act civilly. Total embarassment. It was so bad that even mild-mannered (wussy) Larry asked one of them what he was so afraid of.

The Christian religion is based on lies, lies and more lies. Thing is, it's really only Jesus' teachings that count. But how many of you so-called believers actually make even the slightest attempt to emulate his example in your daily dealings? Here's a hint, if you're here, you don't.

All the magic tricks in the Bible are so obviously nothing more than a marketing ploy, a sideshow. And it only exposes how totally ignorant and gullible people are when they focus on that crap instead of focussing on themselves, which might actually take some effort and introspection.

ok, except maybe for Grendel who I actually like :-)

Really? So basic human nature is peace loving and egalitarian. Yes, I see this tendency all the time in my family of three children. I must be sure to foist my religious beliefs on them to make sure they become self centered, selfish and hateful. I think the turning of the other cheek passages of the gospels will be the clincher.

no the clincher will be the peace loving passages like this

"I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings. (Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT)

So your children were born hating each other? Do your children fight out of hatred for one another or do they fight out of want and need that materialistic America forces upon them as soon as they are able to sit in front of t.v. and learn about being greedy?

"Most societies do and did not distinguish between the two; they developed not together but as one in the same. "

Not true at all, most societies were originally formed on the survival of the fittest strategy(caveman bonking wife with club). As man's cognitive abilities grew and he began to question the things around him then all sorts of things came into existence in an attempt to explain the world, religion being one of them. As religion flaws have become more and more apparent science has now started to take root and will soon dominate. The few thousand year reign of religion is soon coming to an end.

an example of such is from the history of the word love....

"One of the first to theorize in this direction was the Greek philosopher Empedocles, who in the 4th century BC argued for the existence of two forces, love (philia) and strife (neikos), which were used to account for the causes of motion in the universe. These two forces were said to intermingle with the classical elements, i.e., earth, water, air, and fire, in such a manner that love served as the binding power linking the various parts of existence harmoniously together.



here's the direct link to the video of the show:

javascript:cnnVideo('play','/
video/bestoftv/2007/02/27/
lkl.jesus.tomb.cnn','2007/03/
13');

And if that doesn't work, it's on this page:

www.cnn.com

Pretty good stuff, actually. I look forward to seeing the documentary.

"that would be true if the FACTS didn't back my assertion boy blunder.."

All bigots think the "facts" are on their side. Ask any KKK member if its a fact that jews hoard money and blacks are prone to crime and they'll say 'yes'.

Your assinine generalization is not factual by any objective measure.

What a moron.

Posted by Sully

match set and game to me..show ANYWHERE in the aforementioned articles posted or statements in this thread by me where where my "generalization" wasn't true..PROVE to me that millions have not been killed in the name of "christ", "allah" or "yahweh" That is because you cannot so in typical GZ fashion hurl insults and lies to deflect from your fantasy.

I didn't read this whole mammoth thread but I saw JC (James Cameron not Jesus Christ) and the director of the documentary on Larry King and just want to comment about the two dissenting voices they had on the show. Two Christian lunatics so full of fear they couldn't even begin to act civilly. Total embarassment. It was so bad that even mild-mannered (wussy) Larry asked one of them what he was so afraid of.

The Christian religion is based on lies, lies and more lies. Thing is, it's really only Jesus' teachings that count. But how many of you so-called believers actually make even the slightest attempt to emulate his example in your daily dealings? Here's a hint, if you're here, you don't.

All the magic tricks in the Bible are so obviously nothing more than a marketing ploy, a sideshow. And it only exposes how totally ignorant and gullible people are when they focus on that crap instead of focussing on themselves, which might actually take some effort and introspection.

Posted by bellaspapa

tell me about it..I had a surveyor come out to a home site I was working on and he was in lather about the jesus bones discovery. He asked me did I read the article and I said I don't read the news not wanting to get into a religious conversation with captain insano. It is obvious that the believers are freaking out and not sure how to handle this news as it would dissolve one of the pillars of their belief and create a cascade effect for the rest of the bound fables. He said I don't care if they do prove it I still believe. Thats how crazy these guys are..

If any of you want to know more about Jesus's death that is different from the traditional point of view look at the Gnostic texts. Claims Jesus didn't die. Married Marry.

I was in a church in Istanbul and it showed Jospeh with his kids (from a previous marriage). There is lot of old christian beliefs that got lost through time/politics.

The idea of the trinity was very debatable for the first 500-600 years of the church, many believed (at the time) that Jesus was a the SON (human) of God, not part of GOD. Elaine Pagels wrote a bunch of on Gnostism that had many different views about Jesus.

"match set and game to me..show ANYWHERE in the aforementioned articles posted or statements in this thread by me where where my "generalization" wasn't true..PROVE to me that millions have not been killed in the name of "christ", "allah" or "yahweh" That is because you cannot so in typical GZ fashion hurl insults and lies to deflect from your fantasy."

Where (or in most instances when) politics and religion are/were intertwined, then yes, people go to war in the name of religion. Now in more secular societies, we replace religion with "defending our way of life" or somethng equally as abstract. Religion was just a tool used by those in charge to start wars.

How many people were killed by aetheist communist governments in the name of the greater good (which replaced religion)? Does that make all aetheists murderers?

Your original comment was that religious people kill in the name of the dark lord. Its an idiotic generalization that doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. Being religious does not drive one to violence. Face it, you're a small minded, arrogant bigot.

Sully---They weren't killed in the name of atheism. They weren't killed to promote atheism. They weren't killed because they weren't atheists.

Atheism was not the central theme of communism or the cause of any of their conflicts. Communism is an economic concept--not a religious concept.

Sully I think you are right, not on the part of the aetheist in USSR, but same effect. If not religion it will be something else, always is. Religion was just in control and the keystone to most if not all societies in the past. Today we seperate relgion and culture in the USA or are trying to. In the past they were the same thing.

You may be a fundy atheist if....

www.tektonics.org

So your children were born hating each other? Do your children fight out of hatred for one another or do they fight out of want and need that materialistic America forces upon them as soon as they are able to sit in front of t.v. and learn about being greedy?

----

Children have to learn how to share. There's a reason for that...humans are selfish beings by default.

"They weren't killed in the name of atheism. They weren't killed to promote atheism. They weren't killed because they weren't atheists.

Atheism was not the central theme of communism or the cause of any of their conflicts. Communism is an economic concept--not a religious concept."

People were killed by Communists due to religious beliefs but that is really not my main point.

As S K I USA pointed out, my main point was that powerful people will always use some kind of ideology to get others to do violence on their behalf. Religion itself is no more the cause of violence than any of the other tools that have been used in recorded history.

To blame warfare on the little old lady going to church every Sunday is assinine. You faux-intellectual bigots are pointing to a interchangable tool used by the powerful to promote violence and naming it as the cause for violence. You couldn't be more wrong.

(Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT)

The book of Zephaniah is an OT book. It is an oversimplification to read every book in the Bible in the same way.

That being said the OT is primarily a collection of texts that seeks to describe the relationship between a God and a people--a group. That is the nature of the old testament or old covenant or agreement. It is the story of God acting in a political world--the one in which war, death, and starvation are realities--for a political end to protect a particular group--the Hebrews, the poltical underdogs in a brutal ancient world.

The New Testament is not particularly political--it is not about establishing a kingdom on earth, but teaching about the kingdom of heaven and how one can gain entrance. It is not just about the Jews; it is the agreement or covenant between God and all people, everywhere who will listen.

It speaks to an individual on an individual level. Moreover, it believed that this is God speaking directly to the individual. As such I follow the basic moral tenets as established by Jesus love of God, self -sacrifice, helping others, and examination of conscience, etc. as the way to behave or act. The gospels, IMHO outline more clearly God's wish for human behavior.

So your children were born hating each other? Do your children fight out of hatred for one another or do they fight out of want and need that materialistic America forces upon them as soon as they are able to sit in front of t.v. and learn about being greedy?

While I agree with you about the materialistic nature of American culture, I don't think that American culture learn to be selfish. In fact, I think you have the tail wagging the dog. It is American culture that is materialistic and selfish because it hasn't gotten over thinking like selfish children. Americans are so youth obssessed that it refuses to grow up.

Really, there is nothing in the world more egocentric than an infant. The process of raising a child is a long frustrating attempt to disabuse that child of that egoism. Children of two or three can't even understand the concept of sharing nor are they generally capable of empathy.

Again, I think the problem with America is that it hasn't grown up; right now it is in arrested adolescence--an obssession which youtful looks, sex and the belief that everyone is looking at me.

(cont)

(cont.)

Not true at all, most societies were originally formed on the survival of the fittest strategy(caveman bonking wife with club).

Obviously an early example of the innate nature of human beings that simply want to live in peace and harmony with one another.

As religion flaws have become more and more apparent science has now started to take root and will soon dominate. The few thousand year reign of religion is soon coming to an end.

I love science and am fascinated by it, but the day human beings use its principles to govern society is the day we lose our humanity. Everything you value as a human being--trust, hope, friendship, justice, familial love cannot be understood by any scientific means or measure.

In fact, You better hope that science never dominates. Would you like to live in a society that ruthlessly follows the rule of survival of the fittest? Much of the drudge retort crew, including myself, would be purged.

Many here say those who are religious are gullible and have been brainwashed into believing something. Let me ask you, are the brainwashed usually aware that they are brainwashed? If you say no, how do you know that what you say and believe is not because you have been brainwashed?

BTW, I always love it when people cite the ancient philosophers, but I can't see how, Empedocles, one of the pre-Socratics, proves your point of the failings of religion.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle all believed in some kind of God--though one very different than the Judeo-Christian one. In fact they used reason and logic to come to the conclusion that God exists. Read Plato's Euthyphro in which Socrates argues with Euthyphro on the question of piety. It's wonderful.

Cheers

Religion itself is no more the cause of violence than any of the other tools that have been used in recorded history.

Bullshit!!!! Religion has killed more people than anything in history!!!!

-Buffalo Bob

Sully---They weren't killed in the name of atheism. They weren't killed to promote atheism. They weren't killed because they weren't atheists.

Atheism was not the central theme of communism or the cause of any of their conflicts. Communism is an economic concept--not a religious concept.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

save it Bob.. Sully is too self righteous to consider such petty things..

BURN IN HELL BOB..BUUUUURN

As S K I USA pointed out, my main point was that powerful people will always use some kind of ideology to get others to do violence on their behalf. Religion itself is no more the cause of violence than any of the other tools that have been used in recorded history.

To blame warfare on the little old lady going to church every Sunday is assinine. You faux-intellectual bigots are pointing to a interchangable tool used by the powerful to promote violence and naming it as the cause for violence. You couldn't be more wrong.

Posted by Sully

no its a fantastic crowd control technique.. just ask Constantine..


BTW I am a humanist not an atheist.

Being a bigot means someone intolerent of opinions or lifestyles..Yeah I am intolerant of religion in general because it has caused so much evil in the world. I would much rather be a religious bigot intolerant of stupid behavior than a co- conspirator of mass murder in the name of your loving god.

Sully.. here ya go.

en.wikipedia.org

Really, there is nothing in the world more egocentric than an infant. The process of raising a child is a long frustrating attempt to disabuse that child of that egoism. Children of two or three can't even understand the concept of sharing nor are they generally capable of empathy.

----

Definately. I have a 2 1/2 year old.

Okay, okay, so Mr. Cameron may be out on a bit of a limb (scientifically speaking), but I will wait to see how well, or how badly he ties his supposed "data" together.

But I've read a number of articles on this subject now, and I just love it when the Christian Theologian of course says it must be the "scientific equivalent of horsesh*t"...that's just rich, A). because the average theologian knows so much about science, and B). because they are covering the wellspring of their own careers, namely the Christian Faith...

no matter how it turns out, those who want to keep on believing what they are believing will tear it to shreds, and some of those who are non-believers will of course say that he is right, that this is proof that, "they were right all along, and all the rest were fools"...

On the other hand, I just want a big bowl of popcorn, and to see how plausible or unplausible the whole thing seems to be...

Certainly beats American Idol and all that other crap on T.V.

Constantine used religion to gain power. He didn't convert until he was on his death bed. If anything he was a follower of Apollo. He alone changed the church as much as anyone after him.
There were to many different beliefs when he came to power, he used religion to make people all beleive in the same shit, no more controversy between his people. Much like some religion is used today and much like how many political ideologies work today. It's not religion, it's the abuse of religion--power. Christianity has been hijacked in the past, but Islam is even worse. They call for killing.

"Being a bigot means someone intolerent of opinions or lifestyles..Yeah I am intolerant of religion in general because it has caused so much evil in the world."

OK, so you admit to being a bigot. And all bigots claim that they don't like whoever it is they are bigoted against for a good reason - almost always that those people are "evil".

" I would much rather be a religious bigot intolerant of stupid behavior than a co- conspirator of mass murder in the name of your loving god."

I'm not religious, numbnuts. I just don't like bigotry. I would expect a self-proclaimed "humanist" to be the same way. But you are really just a hypocrite who bought into the faux-intellectual theory that religion is the root of all evil. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny but you enjoy the feeling of superiority you get from it so you're going to run with it.......

Greed/selfishness/vanity is the root of all evil. Religion has been used by the greedy and selfish to promote their goals, as has many other ideologies. You really think the Crusades were about religion and not about powerful people expanding their sphere of influence? Sucker.

I love science and am fascinated by it, but the day human beings use its principles to govern society is the day we lose our humanity. Everything you value as a human being--trust, hope, friendship, justice, familial love cannot be understood by any scientific means or measure.


I don't think you need religeon for that. It's just the right thing to do. Infants and young children are natural narcisists but I think empathy and other appropriate social behaviors come naturally if the child is properly raised. I dare say humans were probably teaching social protocal in various forms before they were totally human and certainly long before any organized religeon at any rate.

As S K I USA pointed out, my main point was that powerful people will always use some kind of ideology to get others to do violence on their behalf. Religion itself is no more the cause of violence than any of the other tools that have been used in recorded history.


That's true but Religeon has a quality that makes it particularly effective as a tool of manipulation. Religeon requires a suspension of reason for it's very existance, it's this same suspension of reason that tyrannical leaders depend on in order to decieve their subjects and convince them to act in an otherwise unnatural fashion. Since the very foundation of science is an absolute dedication to reason and logic in all things a purely scientific society would be highly problematic for manipulation by devious authorities

DOGMAN

THE JESUS TOMB? TITANIC' TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START


benwitherington.blogspot.com

Grendel,

I quoted Empedocles to show that morals and virtues were not coupled with religion as you said. I showed that as early as 4BC an individual was questioning what love was, and why it existed, he mentioned nothing of religion in his explanation. That was what teh passage was there for. I do agree as time has progressed teh vast majority of civilizations have believed in one or many gods. It seems very logical to me as it is a natural progression from teh gods of everything to teh god of one. Eventually I believe it will lead to the god on none and a time where science is fact, religion is fairy tale(my brainwashing, although my family only pushed catholicsim on me, I read many other books on religion out of curiosity). I can't say if a world without a god would be a Utopia (can't imagine it would be worse than the havoc that's played out routinely on my nightly news right now). Survival of the fittest can be a species viewpoint, spread our galactic seed, and be a uniting cause for all mankind. Accepting that everyone in a very distant way is a brother or sister would help reduce the amount of hatred and bigotry that exists today, my opinion.

damn that pesky "teh" word.

"Since the very foundation of science is an absolute dedication to reason and logic in all things a purely scientific society would be highly problematic for manipulation by devious authorities"

Well you think such a society would be superior then, right?

Suppose outsiders with different beliefs were trying to influence or "bring down" that perfect society. People might kill to stop them, right?

As long as you can convince any group of people that they are superior to others and that those others are trying to drag them down, you can get people to kill for you.

"OK, so you admit to being a bigot. And all bigots claim that they don't like whoever it is they are bigoted against for a good reason - almost always that those people are "evil"."


So does this mean you think everyone should tolerate all things and all people under any circumstances all the time.

Similarly Grendel says;

"Many here say those who are religious are gullible and have been brainwashed into believing something. Let me ask you, are the brainwashed usually aware that they are brainwashed? If you say no, how do you know that what you say and believe is not because you have been brainwashed?"

So the only way to know you are not brainwashed is to acknowledge that you are?

DOGMAN

"Since the very foundation of science is an absolute dedication to reason and logic in all things a purely scientific society would be highly problematic for manipulation by devious authorities"

Well you think such a society would be superior then, right?

Suppose outsiders with different beliefs were trying to influence or "bring down" that perfect society. People might kill to stop them, right?

As long as you can convince any group of people that they are superior to others and that those others are trying to drag them down, you can get people to kill for you.


Posted by Sully



I didn't say I thought it would be superior, I really don't know. I was simply pointing out the flaws in the arguments put for in this thread against a purely secular science based society. Specifically the notion that all morality would decay and that such a society would be just as susceptible to erronious manipulation as a religous one. I'm not saying I think it would be impossible to manipulate such a society to act against it's own best interests, just that is it would be more difficult to do so with a highly reasoned culture than a highly religeous one.

DOGMAN

Since the very foundation of science is an absolute dedication to reason and logic in all things a purely scientific society would be highly problematic for manipulation by devious authorities

Premise: The natural world works according to survival of the fittest.

Premise: The biological imperative of all animals is to survive and propagate the species.

Premise: Human beings are sentient animals.

Premise: All animals must compete and fight for natural resources to live and to propagate the species.

Premise: When animals kill other animals or even members of their own species, they are merely acting according to their biological nature. (Animals are amoral)


Given the premises listed above--all I believe based on a scientific understanding of biological organisms, think of the wonderful conclusions that can be drawn with the aid of logic that could help provide guidelines for human behavior.

Think of the wars that can be justified based on survival of the fittest. Think of the genocides that can be enacted from such pure scientific reasoning. Eugenics anyone?

Too often people consider logic to be equivalent to truth. It is not; it is a tool by which one can arrive at truths, but like all tools it depends upon how it is used.

In fact, the truths that logic provides are all based on the premises one starts with. Start with a cold, scientific view of human beings and see where your logic can (not necessarily) but can lead you.

In the hands of a convincing leader, a purely scientific society can logically deduce the necessity for concentration camps, forced euthanasia, genocide, sterilization, denial of personal freedoms.

Science is amoral; to be human we can't be. We have to have something beyond science to guide our lives--in the past and the present this has been satisfied by philosophy and/or religion.


Cheers


Scholars Slam Jesus Tomb Claims

Oscar-Wining director James Cameron's explosive claims, in a new documentary that Jesus was buried in a nondescript cave in southern Jerusalem, and might have had a son, were met with derision Sunday by clergymen and archaeologists. Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site said the filmmakers' assertions are false.

www.christianpost.com

So the only way to know you are not brainwashed is to acknowledge that you are?

No, it is to admit your limitations in understanding what can be known. The problem IMHO is that too many people, religious, atheists, scientists, etc. can't see the box that they live in, and thus they never question who made the box and put them in it.

No one lives outside of the box; we can trade one for another, but we never get out of one completely. IMHO the best we can do is try to see the world from the inside of a variety of boxes--and refrain as much as possible from judging them too harshly. Even so, I think your heart and head will only be comfortable in one (maybe two).

Read Plato's "Allegory of the Cave."

Cheers

Sully---My point was that religions have killed millions in the cause of their God or religion. There have not been millions killed in the name of atheism or its beliefs.

Grendel, if only all your premises were correct your argument would be sound.

"Premise: All animals must compete and fight for natural resources to live and to propagate the species."

Sometimes fighting and competing does not promote the propogation of the species, as in all social predators, to differnet degrees, from Lions to wolves and dogs (who hardly fight at all amongst themselves and are invariably the most succesful pack hunters in their ecosystems) to chimps to humans.

"Premise: When animals kill other animals or even members of their own species, they are merely acting according to their biological nature. (Animals are amoral)

Yes, but only when these behaviors are part of that specific species specialized survival strategy. Killing at every given opportunity is not part of many species survival strategy and there are abborations in nature just as in human society. Sometimes an animal will have an unnatural habit of killing it's own kind. Obviously these animals are unable to procreate. Example: individual squirrels have been known to, on rare occasions, seek out and kill all infant and young juvenile squirrels, this is believed to be disfunctional behavior. Now if a societies primary ideology was based in science most members of said society would be, presumably, very familiar with all of these facts and would be skeptical of a leader who tried to convince them that antisocial behavior would be beneficial to society, seeing that humans are in fact one of those social animals who depend on civil behavior for there very survival.

DOGMAN

SULLY--" as you can convince any group of people that they are superior to others and that those others are trying to drag them down, you can get people to kill for you."

Thats why we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy

"No, it is to admit your limitations in understanding what can be known."

Impossible! My intellect has no limitations!

Just kiddin, I agree completely.

DOGMAN

"Sully---My point was that religions have killed millions in the cause of their God or religion. There have not been millions killed in the name of atheism or its beliefs.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob"


That's because atheism is not itself any particular belief. You cannot have as motivation an bsence of a belief.

Like you can't run your car on an absence of fuel.

DOGMAN

My point was that religions have killed millions in the cause of their God or religion.

The separation of religion and the state is a relatively new historical phenomenon, generally peculiar to the West, but has spread. Muslims, for example, do not separate them and are as puzzled by our need to do so as we are by their unwillingness to do so.

So to say that religions is the cause of all of these wars in the past is to assume that religious ideas are separate forces and beliefs from political, moral, philosophical and ethical values--from political and economic realities even. Moreover that religious ideas in a society individually exerts some kind of force on the others and seduces the society to go to war. This may have a degree of truth for us today, but certainly not so in almost any society pre-1700.

It is to see past cultures and civilizations through lenses ground by our own cultural understanding of the world.


That damn box again.

Cheers

That's because atheism is not itself any particular belief. You cannot have as motivation an bsence of a belief.

No? No motivation based on the absence of beliefs?

Perhaps not, but certainly you can have websites, institutes, publications, scholarships, meetings, organizations, foundations, fundraising, lobbyists and promotions for the absence of belief. Just no motivations.

I think I am beginning to understand, atheism.

Cheers

Grendel, if only all your premises were correct your argument would be sound.

Dogman


I did say:

In fact, the truths that logic provides are all based on the premises one starts with. Start with a cold, scientific view of human beings and see where your logic can (not necessarily) but can lead you.

If one accepts a scientific view of human beings as animals then one needs to look at our biology and psychology to decide if our nature is communal egalitarian or predatory.

It seems to me that it is both. As such war and violence (not just defensive either) of one community against another can be justified logically based on the need for the community to survive--a wolf pack mentality. No doubt other even more heineous malevolent actions could be justified by this--even with the group.

Think of Ancient Sparta who use to expose their babies to the harsh elements right after birth-- to separate the weak (who would die) from the strong, to make the best warriors that would promote the city.


Must go again. Check back later tonight.

It has been fun.

Cheers

"Sully---My point was that religions have killed millions in the cause of their God or religion. There have not been millions killed in the name of atheism or its beliefs."

Atheism is relatively new. If it ever becomes a majority belief (or lack of belief for you sticklers) then you can bet people will be persecuted for not being atheists.

My comment about the commies was more in line with the standard that is most often used on Drudge: If a Christian does something bad, whether or not it was motivated by Christianity, then Christianity is blamed and the action is ascribed as typical of all Christians. If you apply the same standard to atheists, then my comment about the commies killing people stands.

I'm not religious, numbnuts. I just don't like bigotry. I would expect a self-proclaimed "humanist" to be the same way. But you are really just a hypocrite who bought into the faux-intellectual theory that religion is the root of all evil. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny but you enjoy the feeling of superiority you get from it so you're going to run with it.......

Greed/selfishness/vanity is the root of all evil. Religion has been used by the greedy and selfish to promote their goals, as has many other ideologies. You really think the Crusades were about religion and not about powerful people expanding their sphere of influence? Sucker.

Posted by Sully

..So bigotry against the evils of the dominant religion(s) is bad eh?

Sully ..bone up on secular humanism a bit before spouting off bullshit and acting all tough..you ain't all that girlfriend.

Its obvious a nerve has been hit when you act self-righteous and start name calling.. go worship your false idol and leave the thinking to the adults.

"..So bigotry against the evils of the dominant religion(s) is bad eh?"

'Bigotry' is always bad, there is no positive connotation to the word. When you ascribe the "evils" committed hundreds of years ago to present day people based solely on religious beliefs, you are being a bigot. When you ascribe the "evils" committed by a small percent of people within a given group to the whole group, then you are being a bigot.

So when you talk generally about religious people as if they are all evil morons, you're a bigot.

"Its obvious a nerve has been hit when you act self-righteous and start name calling.. go worship your false idol and leave the thinking to the adults."

Now that's funny. Whine about name calling and then call me a child while making a strawman arguement that I "worship false idols" when I haven't been to a religious service (aside from weddings and funerals) in 20+ years.

The "nerve" you hit is that I find prejudiced, faux-intellectual dogma very annoying when vomitted by arrogant fools.

"Think of the wars that can be justified based on survival of the fittest. Think of the genocides that can be enacted from such pure scientific reasoning. Eugenics anyone?"

I am sure they won't measure up to trying to purge the world of Jews, or the Crusades, or Huguenot Wars.....but why stop there, the child molestation, the rape, self-mutilation, murder, suicide bombers are all great things religion has brought us. Nice path the religous follow, how about stealing from the masses, slavery, taking advantage of the poor and uneducated..man those religous peeps have nailed it.

Since you have brought it up, the globe has been predominantly ruled by religous beliefs for the last 8,000-10,000 years. How many wars in that time span, how much peace have we seen?

Look at the list of conflicts in the world today..check out teh religous tolerance website, they will show you....

here is the link.

www.religioustolerance.org

Yes, you sure can get away with lots of bullshit in teh name of religion.

Some moronic loser out here said christians just don't go around killing or ordering the killing of others. A lib wisely posted that PR said to kill another loser, Chavez.

I would offer up a more extreme, perverse and disgusting example. One most of you christians probably didn't even know about.......

"Christian rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army are conducting a civil war in the north of Uganda. Their goal is a Christian theocracy whose laws are based on the Ten Commandments. They abduct, enslave and/or raped about 2,000 children a year."

Corky, what smart ass thing do you have to say about this. Please justify why you support a religion that kills, murders enslaves and rapes children???

The "nerve" you hit is that I find prejudiced, faux-intellectual dogma very annoying when vomitted by arrogant fools.

Posted by Sully

you really should channel the self-righteous indignation toward someone who gives a flying fuck. The only arrogance exuded here is by you Sully the conqueror..

Grendel,

wasn't that last post a shining example of the beacon of hope christianity brings??

My Dear Bob---You complain Christ's miracles weren't public enough. Then, reminded of a very public one (Loaves and Fishes), you complain it wasn't a necessary one.

My goodness, but your standards are high.

"My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me....?"

Why not read that statement for what it is, the cry of a frightened man in agony?

Bob, it's apparent to me you hate Christianity. I don't know what to say to except: 1) It doesn't bother me in particular, 2) I'll pray for you.

"Since you have brought it up, the globe has been predominantly ruled by religous beliefs for the last 8,000-10,000 years. How many wars in that time span, how much peace have we seen?"

The answer to that question is irrelevant unless you have something with which to compare it.

Do you have any data as to the amount of violence committed worldwide during a period when the world was not "predominantly ruled by religious beliefs"?

Just pointless......

Religion doesn't cause violence. People cause violence. When have the powerful ever told the people they are sending to war "I want you to go risk your life and to kill others so that me and my buddies can become more wealthy and powerful!"???? Don't be such a sucker.

"Why support a religion that kills, enslaves, and rapes children.....?"

People do that, my boy. People.

"If, as seems likely, the conclusions (by Cameron) prove somewhat less than airtight, the most instructive aspect of the film will be the public's reaction to it.

Cameron and Jacobovici will mortally offend many Christians. Some critics will personally vilify them, while others question their motives and integrity.

But prominent Christian clergymen won't issue any death warrants, and the Vatican won't call upon "all believing Christians" to avenge the insult. Neither Cameron nor Jacobovici will have to spend the next decade or so in hiding.

Now imagine if they'd gone after Mohammad instead of Jesus . . ." By MARK GOLDBLATT
www.nypost.com

"Why support a religion that kills, enslaves, and rapes children.....?"

People do that, my boy. People.

"Why support a religion that kills, enslaves, and rapes children.....?"

People do that, my boy. People.

Three of the same post. It's a miracle.

"you really should channel the self-righteous indignation toward someone who gives a flying fuck. "

I never thought you cared that much. But you care enough to keep responding.

I admit that about myself. How petty not to considering it is indisputable.

"The only arrogance exuded here is by you Sully the conqueror.."

OK, but it was directed at one person and for something specific rather than towards millions of people who's actions widely vary because they fall into an extremely general demographic I don't like.....

"When have the powerful ever told the people they are sending to war "I want you to go risk your life and to kill others so that me and my buddies can become more wealthy and powerful!"???? Don't be such a sucker"

Wow, I had to wipe the tears off my keyboard before I could start typing that was so funny.

So you only think people take advantage and manipulate others when they tell you they are doing it. O.K., I am destroying your cred, because your posts have no substance.

It's only irrelevant if you can't defend it, which you obviously can't.

If all you religous people collectively hold your breath for just a little longer than you should, I will tell you how great a place the planet will be when religion goes teh way of the fairy tale.

"Why support a religion that kills, enslaves, and rapes children.....?"

"People do that, my boy. People."

Yes they do Papa yes they do, but they do it based on what they believe in.


Zed,

reread,

"Their goal is a Christian theocracy whose laws are based on the Ten Commandments. They abduct, enslave and/or raped about 2,000 children a year."

People acting based on religous beliefs...come on Papa wake up.

Corky, Buffalo Bob is right. The Torah and OT were stolen from myths that predate Judaism by a millenium. The Torah and OT are just re-writes (and not very good ones) of ancient Sumerian, Babylonian and a handfull of other myths. Religions have been stealing from each other since the first priest decided it was a great way to sieze political power.

As for this being the tomb of "Jesus"... who cares? Let the whackjobs who need someone to tell them how to live and what to do worry about it. I've got more pressing concerns.

My Dear Mongrel----

It's people. There's something wrong with us. Doesn't mean we're not worthy of being loved, though.

Let me state, with greatest seriousness, I have met many persons for whom religion is already "just a fairey-tale". The lives they create is an improvement upon nothing.

"So you only think people take advantage and manipulate others when they tell you they are doing it."

That is exactly the opposite of what I was telling you. And really, its not my fault you misunderstood......

Of course someone who is manipulating others isn't telling the truth. What do you think "manipulation" means? Religion is the false reason that is used to justify wars that are being fought for entirely different reasons. It isn't the cause, it is one of many excuses. To blame religion is to fall for the same lie as the zealots who fought the war. Get it now?

"O.K., I am destroying your cred, because your posts have no substance."

Ummmm, yeah. Good job.

"If all you religous people collectively hold your breath for just a little longer than you should, I will tell you how great a place the planet will be when religion goes teh way of the fairy tale."

Wow, you're more ambitious than Hitler!

Zed,

I am confused, I do not want to experience killing someone. I do not think it's a pleasurable event, and it's one that even in the worst case scenario(someone breaks into my house to harm my family) I envision shooting him in the knee and not killing them. I certainly may let my fight or flight response get teh best of me and actually kill, but it's certainly not soemthing I want to do.

Scared to ask, but why do you?

"Religion is the false reason that is used to justify wars that are being fought for entirely different reasons. It isn't the cause, it is one of many excuses. To blame religion is to fall for the same lie as the zealots who fought the war. Get it now?"

Please elaborate, I would love some examples since it seems so common.

"Wow, you're more ambitious than Hitler!"

Not ambitous but certainly more hopefull, are you blue yet?

"Let me state, with greatest seriousness, I have met many persons for whom religion is already "just a fairey-tale". The lives they create is an improvement upon nothing."

Wow aren't we judgemental of others. I will give you your opinion, then call bullshit.

All teh people I have met and known who are not religous, live a more respectful quality life than those who follow religion, period.

Off to watch my team make the NCAA's......

"Scared to ask...."

Poor, very poor, attempt at a dig my friend. Five points from Griffendoor.

I think it's interesting people think of themselves as being "good". Ah, well, even Zed has such conceits occasionally.

Atheists seem think "goodness" abounds in man's natural state, free from religion. Never seen a single shred of evidence for that idea.

"The lives they create is an improvement on nothing...."

Of course it's a judgment. But if people seem miserable, they usually are. Not rocket science.

"but it's certainly not soemthing I want to do.

Scared to ask, but why do you?"

I often disagree with Zed, but I've never seen him wish death on anyone. We do have a very recent example of you proclaiming the world would be a better place if billions of people were to die.... (By the way, saying that the world would be better off "without this group of people" is exactly the type of ideology that starts the most nasty wars. Look up the Nazis sometime, genius.)

"Please elaborate, I would love some examples since it seems so common."

You don't know of any examples where one group of people is trying to take resources from another and using religion as the excuse? The most glaring example is the current civil war in Iraq - Shias and Sunnis fighting for control of the country's wealth and using religion as the excuse. Its in the news every fucking day. Are you really that blind?

"Not ambitous but certainly more hopefull, are you blue yet?"

Clever. But I'm not religious. I just don't define people by whether they are or not because it is obvious to anyone who takes their head out of their ass once in a while that religious people can be very kind, very violent or anywhere in between..........


Show me an athiest war, one where athist waged war on any peoples to eradicate them from any lands.

I can/have shown countless religous wars.......

Who acts better....come on Papa, it's not rocket science.

Or consider this shred one.

Good night.

Atheists seem think "goodness" abounds in man's natural state, free from religion. Never seen a single shred of evidence for that idea.

Not this one Zed. If man was free from religion, there would still be politics. If he was free of politics, he would still not be free of his biological nature.

"Who acts better...."

How many innocent people have atheists communists slaughtered? Whether or not they were doing it to promote atheism, you can't say they "act better" than people who kill innocents for other reasons. Atheists kill people all the time. The absense or presence of religious belief does not indicate one's behavior. That you believe it does in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (aka the entirety of human history) makes you a bigot.

"Or consider this shred one."

Along with your belief that atheists "act better" this is proof that you suffer delusions of grandeur. Your ramblings only betray itense ignorance and hatred.

Show me an athiest war, one where athist waged war on any peoples to eradicate them from any lands.

One could make the argument that all wars not fought in the name of some God or Religion are "atheist" wars.

Since those religous wars presume that it is God or religion alone that is worth fighting and dying for, it follows then wars fought in the name of land, nation, political ideology etc. presume that God and Religion are irrelevant and non-existent for developing a rationale for going to war.

Sully
That's an old canard. The communists would not tolerate any other form of authority. They didn't give a shit about spreading atheism, they were out to spread communism. It does show how much religion and politics have in common.

Science is a better example of what a reality based belief system can accomplish. Still, human nature is what it is. People bent on violence and dominations will find any excuse to justify their ends.

Ray, Communists are atheists. Atheism and communism are inextricably linked.

And Communism, with atheism at its core killed an estimated 200 million people in the 20th century.

That's far more then were killed in all the crusades put together

"That's an old canard. The communists would not tolerate any other form of authority. They didn't give a shit about spreading atheism, they were out to spread communism. It does show how much religion and politics have in common."

Ray, I specifically said that it doesn't matter whether they were killing to spread atheism or not. The fact that they were atheists didn't prevent them from finding excuses to kill innocent people in order to advance their personal goals. I was responding to the premise that atheists "act better". Those atheists were certainly as bad as any tyrants in history, regardless of whatever excuses they used to justify their actions.

"Still, human nature is what it is. People bent on violence and dominations will find any excuse to justify their ends."

Agreed.

I guess it begs the question......do our residents here at the DR think the Iraq counts as a "religous" war? Meaning that all the deaths in this war are chalked up to "Christians" killing?

I think bob and Data and others see it that way. If I'm wrong then tell me.

Bowa
Your argument is meaningless.
Communism is an ideology. Science is not.
Political ideologies in all their forms are by far the main source of human violence. It would be very unusual for scientists to engage in violence over differences in belief. The reason is because reality is the arbiter.

I say the violence in the ME is a combination of politics and religion, a lethal combination.


"Corky, what smart ass thing do you have to say about this. Please justify why you support a religion that kills, murders enslaves and rapes children???

Posted by Liberal_Mongrel"


This strawman has pretty much had the stuffing knocked out of it, so I won't pile on. Much.

It must be nice to say one has "no belief", so that he cannot then be found guilty by association with anything or anyone.

However, it is men who kill, not their religions. Religion may be the excuse, but it is rarely the means.

But if you wish to put up the number of people killed in wars caused by religious leaders against those caused by secular ones in the last two centuries, you might have to eat your strawman, perhaps with a little vinaigrette?

I personally have little use for organized religion, per say. I just jumped this thread because it as was obvious to me as it was to the archaeologists that this Jesus Tomb is a hoax, a profitable hoax, but a hoax all the same.

I actually had some hope that some posters who bash (fear) religion, mostly as a personal past-time out of a sense of pseudo-superiority, might actually be consistent enough in their philosophy to add their seemingly ever-present indignation to this hoax.

But sadly, I have seen little other than normally tolerant liberals turn into bigoted bastards when it is their favorite thing to hate, Christianity, on the docket.

I hate hypocrites, too, whether they are televangelists or inconsistent "liberals".

Not a whole lotta difference, really.

I did agree with this though.....

"The "nerve" you hit is that I find prejudiced, faux-intellectual dogma very annoying when vomited by arrogant fools.

Posted by Sully"



Well, I see none of the slightly cognizant baboons got any Drudgie points at the link I put up this PM.

I'm sure it's not because they are "weak-minded", however. I would never call someone that, just because of their beliefs, even if they believe that they have no soul.

Perhaps they are correct.

Toodles








I read you Sully.

One thing that has to be said here. It is politics that has the means to commit violence, not religion. In its best days, the Catholic Church had no army or police power. The Inquisitors and the witch hunters could not have acted without political sanction.

"I say the violence in the ME is a combination of politics and religion, a lethal combination."

Isn't it because Ishmael got dissed?

Bowa
Your argument is meaningless.
Communism is an ideology. Science is not.


Ray, There are no communists who are not atheists. Stalin was an atheist, so was mao, so was every other soviet leader. How can you possibly say an argument which states this fact is meaningless? Maybe it's only meaningless to you because it doesn't fit in with your worldview. That is understandable if narrowminded. I am sure your arguments are meaningless to many people for the same reason.

Atheism is not science. Atheism is an ideology. Much like Communism is an ideology. They are two ideologies which complement each other and are inextricably linked.

And Communism, with atheism at its core killed an estimated 200 million people in the 20th century.

That's far more then were killed in all the crusades put together

"There are no communists who are not atheists. "

Thanks..........I needed the belly laugh.


Tell another joke!

There must be lots of Muslim and Christian communists.

Atheism is, however, a major tenant of Marxism, is it not?

Not too political Christian communism as a religious sect is described here:

en.wikipedia.org

Danforth and Corky,

Christian communism?

Ah yes, the old strawmam of trying to destroy an entire argument by pointing out the few exceptions to the rule.

rational people will make absolute statements because it is understood that there are always exceptions to the rule.

When I said, ""There are no communists who are not atheists.", of course I was thinking of only the major communist nations and their satellites. And between the Atheist USSR and China, and their Atheist satellites in Asia and S. America, etc. a estimated 200 million people were killed in the 20th century.

That is the major point I was making.

To ignore that point and throw out "Christian Communism" as proof that my whole argument is wrong is laughable.


Bowa

I said
Atheism is, however, a major tenant of Marxism, is it not?.... agreeing with you.

I also mentioned the same in my 9:24


And I think truly communal Christianity is an interesting phenomena.

A number of Christians, of various political persuasions, object to the use of the word communism in the term "Christian communism" due to that word's association with the governments of nations such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea and other countries often known as "communist states" and considered oppressive where most of Christian Communism is practiced which mostly in Western Civilization, most notably, in the United States of America, however, there is a small controversy over whether Cuba is or isn't oppressive amongst Americans and people of other Western nations, for more info, see Human rights in Cuba.

Many of the policies adopted by the governments of those countries were arguably un-Christian in character, including cults of personality, purges, the limitation or abolition of many personal freedoms, and, most importantly for Christians, official state hostility towards religious institutions. As such, many Christians argue that the title of Christian communalism should be used, rather than Christian communism.

On the other hand, Christian communists believe that it is necessary to employ the word communism in order to capture the essence of their position on economics. They point out the existence of significant communist opposition to the totalitarian "communist states" of the 20th century (including, for example, Trotskyism), and argue that, if they were to abandon the term communism, it would only serve to further obscure the history of that opposition.

Thus, Christian communists hold that the term 'Christian communism' is accurate and appropriate, as long as it is specified that they belong to the democratic, anti-Stalinist branch of communism.

Communism did not kill in the name of atheism. Communists did not kill people because they were not atheists, or because they believed in God.

Only religion does that.

God was not important to the communists. To blame any deaths they caused because they were atheists, is as logical to blame the deaths on them because they like ice cream. Neither ice cream or atheism had anything to do with the killing.

Communism is an economic system--not a religious system.

Communists did not kill people because they were not atheists, or because they believed in God.

Only religion does that.



Does that make their killing better?


God was not important to the communists. To blame any deaths they caused because they were atheists, is as logical to blame the deaths on them because they like ice cream. Neither ice cream or atheism had anything to do with the killing.


Then you appear to grossly misunderstand why their atheism is brought into the discussion - it's inevitably thrown in as a response to some bullshit argument that religion is the root-cause of the world's conflicts AND killing.

When one issues such a proclamation, Communist attrocities are brought up because, as you so adroitly pointed out, the root cause of their killing had NOTHING to do with religion.

The root cause of killing is that one man does not do what the other wishes him to.

Religion is the most widely used excuse for the justification of said killing. But it's not the sole excuse, or reason for murder.

Someone once told me that the cancer of mankind was cognitive dissonance. Add in fundamental attribution error, and now you're cooking with gas.

Jeff J---A point you seem to miss.

Religious people kill because of religion.

Communists kill for communism.

Atheists do not kill for atheism.

The cancer of mankind is religion.

It is terminal. Our species is as valid as the dinosaur.

I thought this was funny:

archive.salon.com

Explains The israeli/palestinian conflict rather nicely.

A point you seem to miss.

I didn't miss a point because there was no point.


Religious people kill because of religion.

Communists kill for communism.

Atheists do not kill for atheism.



The 2 biggest killers of the 20th Century (Communism and Naziism) killed for reasons other than religion. This undeniable fact brings us back to your original point regarding religion which is: What is your point?


You say religion is the cancer of mankind. You do this by focusing solely on the bad deeds in the name of religion, while conveniently ignoring the good deeds. You then point out that killing occurs because of religion, a point that is not in dispute. I then point out that Communism and Naziism killed far more for non-religious causes than any religious cause in the 20th Century. My point being that if religion were eradicatted, mankind still kills at an almost unimaginable rate for reasons other than religious intolerance.

The Discovery Channel documentary won't prove or disprove anything. But I think it brings up interesting questions about the nature of written and verbal history.

Can we trust the word of texts, repeatedly re-translated for centuries? Or trust the word of a church that was once, in essence, the governing body of Europe (well-documented in it's corruption during the Middle Ages) to have based it's decisions in The Word rather than the politics of the time?

I enjoy friendships and affiliations with people of many faiths. Through those relationships I learn how my faith and beliefs converge with many different religions.

I believe in Christ's teachings of love, kindness, charity, and understanding. I believe His accomplishments, would be made MORE REMARKABLE were He a man of flesh like the rest of us. Few other individuals have been as celebrated throughout history. If Jesus was simply a beautiful man who delivered a gospel that has lasted 2,000 years, wouldn't His story be MORE inspirational than the story of "a man born of a virgin with a God as a father"? Wouldn't a human Jesus validate our power as human beings?

Does it take the son of a deity to perform remarkable deeds? If we believe that only individuals with the divine spirit within them can truly change the world, do we become apathetic, looking to them to save the world for us?

If Christ returned, would Christians believe His word, or would they call Him a liar and claim it was all a publicity stunt? Would Christians welcome The Messiah or would they become the Romans, vilifying him for his claims?

I would think Christians would be interested in the possibility of physical evidence of Jesus' life beyond The Word. This discovery/claim, be it true or false, does not question or dispute faith. It only seeks to uncover more about the history of a religion and a culture.

Is this really the tomb or remains of the one Jesus Christ? We can never know for sure. A person would be wise, however, to honor Christ's teachings with tolerant and open dialogue. Attacking James Cameron for being the famous filmmaker attached to the project does even less to address spiritual, historical, and theological matters than the (supposedly) science-driven documentary itself. Cameron has publicly stated that he welcomes the dialogue that results from this documentary (see interview at:
www.msnbc.msn.com ).

I, for one, am curious about this ancient burial site regardless of the family inside. Every new discovery serves to teach us more about ourselves.

NOTE FOR "JEFFJ": The massacre of Jews is historically linked with the story of Judas' betrayal of Jesus. This is true of Nazism during the The Holocaust.

The violence of Communism, however, does tend to be less selective in it's persecution of minorities.

WIKIPEDIA SAYS OF HITLER:
In later life, Hitler's religious beliefs present a discrepant picture: In public statements, he frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and belief in Christ. Hitler's private statements, reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but also critical of Christianity. However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism, and ridiculed such beliefs in his book Mein Kampf. Rather, Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.

BASE CONCLUSION: Hitler based his persecution of Jews partially through religion, regardless of how he twisted the religious beliefs.

Nearly all religions preach peace and kindness. It is the extreme fanatics, misinterpreting the word of their religion, who use it as a weapon.

The 2 biggest killers of the 20th Century (Communism and Naziism) killed for reasons other than religion.

Huh. And here I was all discombobulated thinking Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable