random evil guy

it isn't? says who. i've used wikipedia quite often and have never experienced any problems...

"Every Scholar out there"? None of the ones I know, and my doctorate degree isn't even in Religion... There is no evidence it is forged, only anti-christian wishful-thinking. The oldest remaining copies date back to when Christianity was an illegal sect within the Roman Empire. How did your "Christian conspirators" sneak into the Roman Libraries and change a highlty venerated historical document and then get all the Anti-Christian Roman Scholars to decide to leave the part about the made up Jesus guy? Like I said, believe or disbelieve Christ was God. But don't be naive enough to doubt a valid historical document just because you have an agenda against Christianity... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> josephus was a jew. he would never refer to jesus as christ. it is a fact. the passage is forged, but it is uncertain to which degree. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Josephus does not call him Christ. He refers to him as Jesus of Nazareth. There is no reason to believe Josephus thought him anything more than a local oddity. I call him Christ out of respect. Saying "It's a fact" and "It is forged" in response to my saying it is not forged is not a valid argument form. I agree that a Jew would never call him the Christ. A Christian forger might, but the passage wasn't forged was it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus -this is the usual translation of the passage in question. http://www.josephus-1.com/ http://www.bibleviews.com/non-biblical.html http://www.biblehistory.com/203.htm there is no way a jew would refer to jesus as christ. deal with it. the paragraph is, at least to some degree, a forgery.

"Every Scholar out there"? None of the ones I know, and my doctorate degree isn't even in Religion... There is no evidence it is forged, only anti-christian wishful-thinking. The oldest remaining copies date back to when Christianity was an illegal sect within the Roman Empire. How did your "Christian conspirators" sneak into the Roman Libraries and change a highlty venerated historical document and then get all the Anti-Christian Roman Scholars to decide to leave the part about the made up Jesus guy? Like I said, believe or disbelieve Christ was God. But don't be naive enough to doubt a valid historical document just because you have an agenda against Christianity... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> josephus was a jew. he would never refer to jesus as christ. it is a fact. the passage is forged, but it is uncertain to which degree.

No, it's not a matter of bias. We're all biased one way or the other, aren't we? It's a matter of "infidels.org" not being worth jack as a reputed source of historical research. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, in this case they are. they're just refering to other, usually well renowned sources. i.e. the forged reference to jesus in Josephus. it is not infidels.org's claim that it is a forgery. every scholar out there agree that the passage is, at least to some degree, forged. the article is just a summary of all the different arguments that might show that jesus never lived. edit: however the most compelling "evidence" is for me, the sheer number of forgeries the early christians produced. why did they have to lie if jesus really lived and was such a great man?

no, it is not proven that jesus did in fact exist. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...eally_live.html now, you might say "infidels.org" are biased and maybe they are. that is not the point. the thing is, it is still uncertain whether the historc jesus really did live...

what you saaaaaaaaaay lyyyyyyyyyyla.. :D

Oasis - Don't believe the truth! YEAH! this is their best album since morning glory.

huh? of course it's something you believe in .. everything is! how can you be 100% certain of anything?? you can't .. everything requires different degrees of faith, nothing is certain, and that includes science and mathematics! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, math just is. math is useless on its own. it is a self contained reality. it has nothing to do with beliefs or perception. it just is. i.e. a mathematical proof is 100% certain. it is not debatable. if something is mathematically correct, it is 100% correct.

chelsea's victory has nothing to do with capitalism. abramovich "stole" money from russia and is now spending it on a football club. according to reports(the independent and others) he has spent more than

russian mafia bastards! bought the title. the title which should have been ours!

well, i don't know if the ball crossed the goal line, but i don't think liverpool should have been awarded a penalty anyhow. baros came flying in with the studs on his boots directed at cech's head. ...and i'm not biased. i'm an arsenal fan and i hate both chelsea and liverpool. :D

It still requires belief .. because you believe in the system of logic and mathematics .. science proves it self within this system, which can't be proven out of own boundries .. like religion, so therefore it requires faith as well! and to use a Holdberg's Montanus string of logic Science is therefore a Religion! No because if you prove something in a religion it seizes to be about faith .. and when it's about faith some people, who are addicted to logic, find it stupid .. Religion doesn't need, and is better without, the scientific approach of evidence .. Disclaimer: everything here is of course just my opinion <{POST_SNAPBACK}> math isn't something you believe in. math just is.

milan. easily.

you just gotta sling some insults, don't you? can't live without them... go back and read my posts. i said, specifically, that polls like these are typically agenda driven. somebody has a point to prove, and it's usually obvious what that point is. show me the actual questions used in these polls, for the entire poll, and i may reevaluate. you stated the polls first. why don't you show me these polls are statistically significant or YOU shut up. you just don't get science, do you? people like you are the reason polls are worthless, yes, in general this time. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> exactely how are these studies biased? they just asked simple questions to classify the subjects of the study. questions like: "do you believe i an afterlife". "do you believe in a personal god". "religion is very important in your life". you mean they are somehow tricking the subjects. so somehow religious people say they are non-religious and vice versa? because the studies themselves are flawless. i.e. so what you're saying is that somehow they've "rigged" the polls? that maybe strongly anti-religious people are in fact religious...? and btw, yeah i don't get science. that is why i just handed in my master thesis in abstract algebra...

?sd

that doesn't make their agenda any less apparent. studies show what they want, tendency, trend, fact... i bet i could poll 100 scientists and 90% would agree that polls are worthless. oh, and yes, i have personal access to many more than 100 scientists... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so you're trying to discredit the results by saying polls in general are biased? that's pathetic, even for you... either prove that these results are wrong, the studies are biased or shut up... "

they're all probably bogus, too. these are studies that are normally run by people with agendas. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> because you say so...? here is the link: http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligen...20religion.html the point is they all show the same. key word here is tendencies...

there are a ton of studies like these out there and they all say the same: smart people don't believe in god... :D

sting - mad about(live) great song. one of a few sting classics after the police... other than that, the jayhawks, bigbang and rob thomas' new album...

hall&oates - out of touch. a real classic! :D

Actually I found the soundtrack to be rather lackluster and dull. Only a few tracks ("Battle of the Heroes", "Grievous talks to Lord Sidious") are actually worth something. TPM's and the OT soundtracks are much better. Perhaps JW has been finally squeezed dry... As for the topic itself, I'll reserve my opinion until I watch the movie. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> agree. the old soundtracks are much better, with classics such as throne room, imperial march and the binary sunset theme.

i think a new hope is the best of the OT. it's just good old storytelling with a great musical score...

the original is one of my all time favourites. definately in the top 3 for me... reloaded was ok. good action, but not even close to the first one. revolutions was by far the worst of the three.

education and the environment. that is the only things that should matter. nevertheless, the said issues are neglected throughout the world. it really is a f*cked up world... btw, bill maher knows what he's talking about. gas is not too expensive; it's too cheap!

what happened to it? too controversial?