Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Maliagar, I think everybody here is of an age that we've already had the religious bit.

Not everybody must be like a Mother Theresa...

I will not see this movie with Mel Gibson...

which sounds a lot like a description of his own religious conversion.

I won't because it promises graphic scenes of the beatings he received as well as the horrors of the Roman's execution. No different, I'd say, than a nasty scene I saw yesterday on the Animal Planet...

well maliagar i really have to as what your motive is in presenting you ideas on this forum, it doesn't seem to be debate of ideas as you have not answered either craven nor frank, you appear to have gotten the consistent message from others here that they are not interested in being witnessed to, I have seen viturally no response from you regarding the topic of this thread so i am left with the poser of just what is it you are attempting to accomplish here? btw its just my curiosity I'm not making a statement.

Oh, very different. You have to understand the purpose of Christ's passion. He died for you and for me and for everybody else.

maliagar wrote:

Oh, very different. You have to understand the purpose of Christ's passion. He died for you and for me and for everybody else.

Since Jesus didn't even exist, the point becomes moot in its pure unadulterated ludicrousness.

The crux of the argument is that out of the 200 or so historians around at the time, exactly ZERO recorded the existence of this person who supposedly did all this neat-o stuff.

Also, all epistles have been shown to be fraudulent (most written 400 years or so after they were supposed to have been).

The box, again another case of wishful thinking on part of the church.

The whole mythology is based in taking a bunch of ancient myths, and sticking them altogether for the hoi polloi to understand and lap up.

Read "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" for more info.

Read the Gospels, letters of Paul the anti-Christian who converted, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, and the Roman historian Tacitus.

I would have to have too much FAITH in just one author to agree with you.

maliagar wrote:

Read the Gospels, letters of Paul the anti-Christian who converted, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, and the Roman historian Tacitus.

I would have to have too much FAITH in just one author to agree with you.

Show me evidence. Proof. Not speculation. Thousands of years and nothing, absolutely nothing but hoi polloi.

Wow...we have a Christian evangelist aboard. Maliagar, you are our first.

you'll perhaps acknowledge that the 'gospels' kind of beg the question of historicity

Evidence? The very same type of evidence we have that Julius Caesar ever existed. Historical evidence. The type of evidence we usually accpet when it comes to historical characters. The same evidence we have that Buddha or Moses ever existed.

Notice that I don't say "The evidence that I have", but "the evidence that we have".

Different fields have different standards of evidence. The standards of history are not the same as the standards of biology, or of psychology, or of archaeology.

maliagar wrote:

Evidence? The very same type of evidence we have that Julius Caesar ever existed. Historical evidence. The type of evidence we usually accpet when it comes to historical characters. The same evidence we have that Buddha or Moses ever existed.

Notice that I don't say "The evidence that I have", but "the evidence that we have".

Different fields have different standards of evidence. The standards of history are not the same as the standards of biology, or of psychology, or of archaeology.

Translation : You've got natha to show. Semantics are always fun though.

That's argument, logic, empirical evidence (from the human and social sciences)

Now, if you prefer to disregard what I say, just call it "semantics" and forget about it.

maliagar wrote:

That's argument, logic, empirical evidence (from the human and social sciences)

Quote:

empirical evidence?

Yes, empirical evidence. If you go and observe for yourself how the human and social sciences actually work, you'll understand what I say.

Quote:

Thousands of years and you have nothing but myth....if otherwise, SHOW ME.

Ignorance can be very daring. Can you "show me" the evidence for George Washington? I'll say this one more time: We have more evidence for the existence of Christ than for Julius Caesar. You can do your research and think a little, or you can stick to your prejudices.

Quote:

I don't discount people's lack of critical thinking skills...

Yes, you're my witness. If you say so, I must be totally lacking of critical skills.

Quote:

...and their pure unadulterated stupidity.

Quote:

I don't have a need to understand the hoi polloi. I merely have a need to laugh at them.

Then satisfy your need and when you finish come back to argue... not just to vent your prejudices.

Quote:

So there is, according to my calculations, a probability of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 that god exists according to the evidence..hahaha or rather lack thereof and a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance I exist.

You must be an excellent mathematician...

[quote="maliagar
That's why there are many other "gospels" that didn't make it into the Bible. In the 3d, 4th, and 5th centuries the Church decided that they were not reliable.

There, you see, censor. All the books could have been included, for the sake of the people today who no doubt could have made up their own minds about what is and is not reliable. Did it take 3 centuries for these early people to decide what was "not reliable?" Must have been shocking information, indeed. "Unreliable gospels" - an oxymoron.

Let me give you just one hint: Some people wrote fake gospels to advance non-Christian ideas (such as Gnosticism). The Church had to leave these gospels outside. Now I'll leave you so that you can do your homework.