Jesus: Tales from the Crypt

[Sinn Fein]

Jesus: Tales from the Crypt (http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html)

Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. 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.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned.
--Tim McGirk/Jerusalem

[Kugzilla]

and we cant find bin laden?

[Havoc]

yeah i don't get this dna proof they say they have. anyway anything that annoys religious people is something i can get behind

[Darth Mode]

Think Bill Donohue will be first in line to see this flick?

[TrybalRage]

The languages of the period were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, (which people can still read) and it took 20 years to decipher that?

[westben2002]

all i wanted to know is how did jesus assend?

was it like a baloon or a rocket ship...or did jesus need some take off land like an airplane would need? (R&F callback)

[TreeFortRichard]

I heard they opened it up and only found a papers and a coke bottle

[Trippy]

all i wanted to know is how did jesus assend?

was it like a baloon or a rocket ship...or did jesus need some take off land like an airplane would need? (R&F callback)

It was a jetpack fueled by holy water.

[abudabit]

all i wanted to know is how did jesus assend?

was it like a baloon or a rocket ship...or did jesus need some take off land like an airplane would need? (R&F callback)

God owns a transporter. STNG era transporter.

[Jimmy's Dignity]

this was my favorite Tales from the Crypt


http://www.obscurehorror.com/demonknight.jpg

[Ben's Bulge]

So the man who directed The Terminator has found the remains of the man the world's major religion is centered around. What the hell, why not.

[abudabit]

He didn't find it, it was found by construction crews in Israel and gained archaeologist attention 20 years later. Cameron is filming the documentary about it.

[MrBogey]

Don't people ever get tired of falling for hoaxes?

[Jimmy's Dignity]

So the man who directed The Terminator has found the remains of the man the world's major religion is centered around. What the hell, why not.
sounds like a good movie...lets see who we could get to direct it...

[CM Mark]

sounds like a good movie...lets see who we could get to direct it...
M. Night Shamadamadingdong

[Kugzilla]

has anyone else seen other info on this elsewhere? cant find much

[mascan42]

But I thought Jesus became an entity after his body dead.



*hopes somebody got that really old callback*

[Kugzilla]

Jesus still rocks.

[Havoc]

Don't people ever get tired of falling for hoaxes?
no and that's why religions are still around

[Sutsu]

See, my question is what you could prove with 2000 year old DNA, other than family relations. Unless one of the DNA comes up perfect like Leeloo's from the 5th Element, all it's gonna show is yep, this guy was a living human being before he was dead.

How long until some lunatic guts Cameron in the middle of the street singing God is Great? Oh wait, that only happens when Islam gets attacked.

[CM Mark]

stuff from the discovery channel

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000&dcitc=w19-506-ak-0002

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html?dcitc=w99-502-ah-1024

[Vyce]

I've said this elsewhere, I'll say it here. Regardless of what one believes in, I'm not going to be going by the guy who did the Terminator films as the definitive source to prove or disprove the deity of Christ.

[Screwtape]

sounds like horseshit

[TrybalRage]

Why would his friends/followers leave evidence with his name on it if they are part of a religion that teaches he isn't dead? Wouldn't they just leave his grave unmarked, as to leave no evidence?

[patbattlefield]

I've said this elsewhere, I'll say it here. Regardless of what one believes in, I'm not going to be going by the guy who did the Terminator films as the definitive source to prove or disprove the deity of Christ.

And this info has been around for 20 years and he is the first one to "discover" it? I don't buy it.

Why would his friends/followers leave evidence with his name on it if they are part of a religion that teaches he isn't dead? Wouldn't they just leave his grave unmarked, as to leave no evidence?


exactly.

[Deadbent]

See, my question is what you could prove with 2000 year old DNA, other than family relations. Unless one of the DNA comes up perfect like Leeloo's from the 5th Element, all it's gonna show is yep, this guy was a living human being before he was dead.





Yes. Dna testing would only come up to your satisfaction if it matched what you saw in the Fifth Element. Yeah. :icon_roll

[cozzie]

you telling me, Eveything I believe and have learned is False?????

[CM Mark]

Why would his friends/followers leave evidence with his name on it if they are part of a religion that teaches he isn't dead? Wouldn't they just leave his grave unmarked, as to leave no evidence?
Because technically they weren't christians. they were jews. christianity didn't really start until hundreds of years AFTER Jesus's death

[Sutsu]

Yes. Dna testing would only come up to your satisfaction if it matched what you saw in the Fifth Element. Yeah. :icon_roll

Well, aside from the OBVIOUS sarcasm of my statement, how would you use DNA to prove this was the Jesus everybody sings praises about? Granted, my understanding of DNA is pretty limited, but I didn't think you could tell someone's identity through DNA unless you had something to specifically link it to or match it to. So without a 100% certain source of DNA from Jesus of Nazareth, how would you be able to look at this DNA that they gleaned and say 'Yep, this was Jesus alright'. Only thing I could think in all seriousness of is maybe if there's some leftover to the Shroud of Turin, Veronica's Veil, the Image of Eddessa, or anything else like that. If you believe in any of that stuff.

[TrybalRage]

So, you are saying no one followed the Jesus, or the idea of him, until hundreds of years later? Even thought the gospels, and revelation have been dated within 100 years of his death?

This tomb was created by someone, you think it would have been brought up way back then...

"Uh... dudes? That Yeshua guy is buried right over there. Why do we keep putting up with the beheading and stuff?"

[bethm1b]

O.K. the guy couild rise from the dead, but he couldn't leave a vid?

[MJMANDALAY]

RUBES

[supertool]

We couldn't prove OJ was guilty with DNA and yet....
I geuss it's time to round up all those Merovingian royals and the Priory of Sion.
Anyway, if your really interested, here's a link to Cameron's last movie on the subject....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC7XtpgrD9I

[BIV]

Is anyone else thinking what I am thinking? JESUS CLONES!!!

Finally, we can find out if he was black....

[patbattlefield]

Because technically they weren't christians. they were jews. christianity didn't really start until hundreds of years AFTER Jesus's death

wrong. it began immediately following his death. his followers continued his teaching and the movement grew until it became the state religion of rome in 313AD.

[Havoc]

don't some christians believe he spiritually ascended into heaven and left his body behind? so who cares if they possibly found where he was buried

[patbattlefield]

don't some christians believe he spiritually ascended into heaven and left his body behind? so who cares if they possibly found where he was buried

If it was even plausible I wouldn't care. This is just a cheap parlor trick to make a few bucks. Its like the religious version of alien autopsy.

[patbattlefield]

In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. 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.

From this article:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHI2MO2.html

[patbattlefield]

Some are so eager to destroy christian faith that they will blindly accept anything that supports their convictions in the same manner in which the christians who they despise will accept the same kind of information. Ironic.

Edit: doh, I meant to add that to my last post. Sorry.

[fuckwit]

what if this is the anti-christ?


dun dun dun

[Havoc]

so it's more plausible that he rose from the dead and ascended into the sky than that his body was buried in a tomb with his family?

i'm not saying i absolutely believe they found him but no matter how many people agreed and even if there was undeniable proof everyone would still be calling it a ploy to get money or to trick people

[TrybalRage]

so it's more plausible that he rose from the dead and ascended into the sky than that his body was buried in a tomb with his family?

i'm not saying i absolutely believe they found him but no matter how many people agreed and even if there was undeniable proof everyone would still be calling it a ploy to get money or to trick people

Like I said, if there were a bunch of people going around saying that he went up to heaven, this tomb should have come to light a long time ago. It was known long enough where it was that his supposed kid was buried there too. Christians trying to keep the faith would have destroyed this stuff long ago, or enemies of Christians would have paraded them around.

He found these boxes in a warehouse, after the BBC did that show. There weren't even bones anymore.

[tattered]

how would it destroy a religion if it was proven jesus was just a carpenter with good ideas.....i mean the guy did have good ideas and what not..

[patbattlefield]

how would it destroy a religion if it was proven jesus was just a carpenter with good ideas.....i mean the guy did have good ideas and what not..

good point, but that's not the argument here. basic critical thinking puts holes all through this film.

[VomitBag]

Well...the bbboys wanted it:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2941/jesustombwowjo4.jpg

:puke:

[EvilHomerJ666]

From what I heard, apparently their were no bones in Jesus' "tomb". The point of these tombs weren't for people who died recently, their bones were moved after an amount of time to these tombs. As for the question on to why or do I believe this. Why not? Christians put faith in a Non-Christian who choose a council of people to pick the scriptures that belong in the Bible. Is it really that far of a reach to read this then?

[highway23]

They should have Geraldo Rivera open it up

[vcdburn]

Shouldn't the title read Jesus's not Jesus'

[tattered]

good point, but that's not the argument here. basic critical thinking puts holes all through this film.

basic critical thinking turns Jesus' divinity into swiss cheese....

[JoeFromS.Jersey]

wrong. it began immediately following his death. his followers continued his teaching and the movement grew until it became the state religion of rome in 313AD.
Good call Pat, I was going to chime in with a "Your wrong" here too but you beat me to it.

See also: Basically the entire new testament. Specifically of value in refuting what Bagel said would be Paul's letters to the churches (Philippians, Colossions, etc) which were letters written by Paul (Saul) to the new Christian churches in the years following Jesus' death/resurection.

As for the tomb...it doesn't make sense. Mary, Jesus, Joseph...they were a Galilean family. They wouldn't have a family burial plot in Jeruselam, it would have been in Galilee if anywhere. Not to mention they were poor and wouldn't have been able to afford said family burial plot. It likely would have been a community one, OR one gifted to Jesus by a wealthier follower. IE the tomb he was placed in after the crucifixion.

[Sprite]

:hippie: - "Hey look, my own thread."

[patbattlefield]

basic critical thinking turns Jesus' divinity into swiss cheese....

there is more physical evidence and testimony to prove that than there is you were born.:icon_wink

[MATTHEMARINE]

My Otheraybe We Should Focus On Our Country More Often And Help Our People Instead Of Eveeybody Else. You Found Jesus After 2000 Years But You Cant Find Bin Laden That Coward

[The Stormrider]

Shouldn't the title read Jesus's not Jesus'

Nah, if it ends in an 's' you only need the apostrophe.

[jb9152]

My Otheraybe We Should Focus On Our Country More Often And Help Our People Instead Of Eveeybody Else. You Found Jesus After 2000 Years But You Cant Find Bin Laden That Coward


OK...




wait, what?

[patbattlefield]

think about this as well: the teachings of jesus were seen as a threat at the time by the jewish religious leaders and the roman government. there were roman guards posted at his tomb at the time of his resurrection. don't you think that if the body existed in a family tomb that someone would have displayed it to destroy the christian movement's credibility?

[6DollarDrunk]

and we cant find bin laden?

look how long it took to find jesus. Now apply that formula to bin laden and thats when we'll find him.

[EvilHomerJ666]

A few people here are claiming this man is trying to ruin Christianity. Christianity ruined it self by not being honest with people in the first place. The Bible did not include all of the teachings of Jesus at the time. They merely included the ones that made him look his best.

[patbattlefield]

A few people here are claiming this man is trying to ruin Christianity. Christianity ruined it self by not being honest with people in the first place. The Bible did not include all of the teachings of Jesus at the time. They merely included the ones that made him look his best.

true, but I don't think that those other teachings take away from his divinity; they only take away from the church's definition of divinity.

[EvilHomerJ666]

true, but I don't think that those other teachings take away from his divinity; they only take away from the church's definition of divinity.

I'm not debating Jesus' divinity, that is a subject for each individual to make a choice about. My point is I have a problem with Religions. Chris Rock said it best in Dogma(Written by Mr. Kevin Smith), people took a good idea and made a belief stucture out of it.

[patbattlefield]

I'm not debating Jesus' divinity, that is a subject for each individual to make a choice about. My point is I have a problem with Religions. Chris Rock said it best in Dogma(Written by Mr. Kevin Smith), people took a good idea and made a belief stucture out of it.

there's nothing wrong with religion; it's people that suck.

[robertkeys]

what does this have to do with faith?
you only need proof to satisfy your disbelief.
though some of the one liners are funny.

[Captain_Spaulding]

Religion is for silly folk, but boy will my commercial get a ton of views during that special. Jesus gonna make me rich.

[zorro6204]

This kind of stupid ass shit doesn't belong on a highlighted thread, or on the website at all for that matter.

[Hobo_Cum]

when they found the coffins they also found the spear of destiny. james cameron is gonna use it to kill a woman so that the son of the devil can enter into our world....

and they can also test the blood on the spear against the DNA in the coffins to see if its really heyzeus

[TrybalRage]

The title of this thread should really be fixed... no bones or bodies are around, just empty boxes.

EDIT: Not the title of the thread, but the title of the announcement.

[tstlkevanilla]

bravo sierra

[alabamatrucker]

As a devout roman catholic and a truck driver from alabama...lol i have to say this is rediculous. I will not ever believe that nonsense. I hope donohue gets ahold of these idiots and sets them straight. I love donohue, and you gotta admit having sex in a catholic church is never a good idea. Thats about all i have to say. God Bless

Donohue in '08

[bethm1b]

I've never met Jesus and he said he was coming back, and that was a couple thousand years ago. I'm inclined to believe the Jews were right. Christians need to wake up to the fact that the people who are telling them this fairy tale don't even believe it. Religion is an Opiate for the Masses. It's also a business. Some form of God does exist. but nothing like the crap we're being told. If jesus is real, when I die, he can just be the forgiving guy he is and pardon me for my mistake.

[alabamatrucker]

The catholic church has been around since the time of the apostles. All these other protestant churches came from the protestant reformation time period. These were basically catholics who broke away from Gods Church-the Catholic Church and made up their own religion and edited out stuff they didnt think was important. Yes it wouldnt suprise me that alot of people get fed up with organized religion because i have in the past. Alot of these other religions are not following the proper path. Alot of them are more concerned about who their members are in the community and how much money they make or how much influence they have in the community. They seem to be extremely judgemental and more about teaching hellfire and brimstone rather than teaching about love and grace. They retain more members by scaring people into their church. I hope one day all the protestant churches will see the error of their way and come back to the original church(the catholic church). I know im gonna get blasted because of this post but oh well. Love you guys

Alabamatrucker

[abudabit]

The Catholic Church isn't the original church. The original churches were banned by the Romans. The Romans then created the Catholic Church - an organization which has been from the beginning about political control.

Back before the Catholic Church (guess why it's called the Roman Catholic Church) churches were mobile and low profile, they wandered cities preaching and worshipping. They were called Jesus Cults by the Romans.

[alabamatrucker]

Ya im gonna have to go ahead and disagree.. ummmm hummmmmmmmmm
Alot of people have made false accusations about the history and origin of the first church. I still whole heartedly believe the Catholic church is the first church. Alot of people think different but thats the beauty of religion in america, you can believe whatever you want to.

[abudabit]

Ya im gonna have to go ahead and disagree.. ummmm hummmmmmmmmm
Alot of people have made false accusations about the history and origin of the first church. I still whole heartedly believe the Catholic church is the first church. Alot of people think different but thats the beauty of religion in america, you can believe whatever you want to.

Unlike with the early Catholic Church, which proclaimed all the other pre-existing churches heretics and tried to shut them down. I'm not anti-Catholic, I'm just stating historical facts. There were churches before the catholics (the term first appeared in 100 ad and wasn't a reference to a church but instead to a movement). On top of whic there were multiple catholic churches, it wasn't until the Romans pushed thier weight around that THIER government supported church became The Catholic Church.

Catholic btw means universal / general, as in the catholic movement was the most popular Christian school of thought in 100 ad. It wasn't a church though, it was a movement. The Roman Catholic Church was quite a few generations later.

The Roman Catholics were the first international unified church, they were the first intercontinental unified church, but they weren't the first church by a long shot. They weren't even the first church to practice catholisism.

[cokelogic]

This story will be eclipsed by the Santa Coffin.

[Rich W.]

Well now that we know where he is... it should be easier for Reg Wells to help NoFilterPaul find Jesus,,,

BTW...There is no invisible omnipotent force of creation...

[Sinn Fein]

BTW...There is no invisible omnipotent force of creation...

Thanks for setting us straight. :icon_roll

[generoso]

See, my question is what you could prove with 2000 year old DNA, other than family relations. Unless one of the DNA comes up perfect like Leeloo's from the 5th Element, all it's gonna show is yep, this guy was a living human being before he was dead.

How long until some lunatic guts Cameron in the middle of the street singing God is Great? Oh wait, that only happens when Islam gets attacked.
I read the article
the proof is they they found 5 of theses boxes 3 where marked "Jesus" "Mary" and "Joesph" the 4th was marked " Judah son of Jesus" amd 5th marked in another writing dechpred to be Mary Magleen" ..Now even though you can't prove that this was jesus. You could now prove the bones from the Jesus box could have came from the dna mixed by the Joesph and Mary Bones. Taken that and get the dna coding from the jesus son bones and see if they match both Jesus and Mary M. than you could assume they yes those bones were the son of the other 2.
So there could have been another family of jesus mary and joesph who knows ...But interesting say the least..

[Sutsu]

I read the article
the proof is they they found 5 of theses boxes 3 where marked "Jesus" "Mary" and "Joesph" the 4th was marked " Judah son of Jesus" amd 5th marked in another writing dechpred to be Mary Magleen" ..Now even though you can't prove that this was jesus. You could now prove the bones from the Jesus box could have came from the dna mixed by the Joesph and Mary Bones. Taken that and get the dna coding from the jesus son bones and see if they match both Jesus and Mary M. than you could assume they yes those bones were the son of the other 2.
So there could have been another family of jesus mary and joesph who knows ...But interesting say the least..

Yeah, beyond the person in the Jesus box coming from the persons in the Mary and Joseph boxes and the person in the Judah box coming from the persons in the Jesus and Mary Magleen boxes, that's it. And who's to say that the people even in these boxes were the names on them. Even if you take out any religious implications on this, there's no way to prove anything beyond this group of people in boxes named as such were related. Big whoop!

[BCH]

Perhaps, given his popularity, Jesus was a name given to many children around that time? After all, I have a buddy whose last name is wayne and his parents named one of their sons John. 2000 years from now if we find his grave stone and it says "Here lies John Wayne" are we to assume it's the coffin of the duke? THen when we test the DNA of he and the bodies buried with him and find that they are indeed related to each other, how does that prove that he's the hollywood actor or not?

[tstlkevanilla]

This kind of stupid ass shit doesn't belong on a highlighted thread, or on the website at all for that matter.

Because you say so right? :icon_roll

[patbattlefield]

interesting that Jesus' name, Yeshua, was a very popular name at the time as well the name Maryām and Judah for that matter were very popular names. it would be like someone finding a tombstone 2000 years from now with the name john smith and assuming based solely on name that it was the founder of the Jamestown colony.

[AngryDragon]

Why would his friends/followers leave evidence with his name on it if they are part of a religion that teaches he isn't dead? Wouldn't they just leave his grave unmarked, as to leave no evidence?


That's because he was just another holy man when he was alive. Christianity didn't really take off until long after he was dead.

[tattered]

there is more physical evidence and testimony to prove that than there is you were born.:icon_wink

you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that ole joe never gave it to mary? you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his body disappeared from the cave? you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "God" exists and Jesus was his son?

Crictal Thinking and the Scientific method prevent you from being able to prove this...esp part 1 of Question 3. remember to use the Scientific method you must be able to observe your subject. you can prove i exist...you can come to my house and see me there is more proof that i exist then god

[BCH]

This kind of stupid ass shit doesn't belong on a highlighted thread, or on the website at all for that matter.

Thanks for the advice on running the board sir, We'll take it from here Ok?

[The Stormrider]

This story will be eclipsed by the Santa Coffin.

:clap: Line of the thread.

[tar_baby]

making these kinds of claims isn't gonna make God happy at all

good luck bro...

[generoso]

Yeah, beyond the person in the Jesus box coming from the persons in the Mary and Joseph boxes and the person in the Judah box coming from the persons in the Jesus and Mary Magleen boxes, that's it. And who's to say that the people even in these boxes were the names on them. Even if you take out any religious implications on this, there's no way to prove anything beyond this group of people in boxes named as such were related. Big whoop!
Excalty ..You don't ....Lets say as hypothetical this is the true bones of Jesus...And I have to give my son credit for this. Even though wacky it could explain Revelations in the bible that Jesus rises again. Maybe not in the way we were taught as living breathing human. But he bones were dug up from there resting place. And he has litterly risen again from the grave...

[ImAlrightSpider]

you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt ... you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt ... you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "God" exists and Jesus was his son?

Crictal Thinking and the Scientific method prevent ...



This is what I don't understand about this whole deal. If you have FAITH, then you don't need proof, right? I have been going around all day wondering why the people who are upset about this are the ones who claim to have faith.

Personally, I doubt that this was the tomb of "the" Jesus. Not because the Bible says that he bodily ascended into heaven, but because I think we would have probably found this before now. What makes us think that we are more apt to find this now than in 120 AD? There are so many revered places in the world, many of them older than this one, that have been preserved for hundreds of years.

Despite my logical doubt that this is the actual tomb of Jesus and his family, my faith remains unshaken. If this were, in fact, the tomb of Jesus, then that would be amazing. The idea that he was not bodily assumed into heaven does not shake my faith that he is the son of God, and is the way into heaven after death.


Sorry, just had to air my confusion on what seems to me to be a very vocal lack of faith. By the way, these are not the rantings of a born-again Christian. I (probably like many of you) am a more-or-less "Christmas and Easter" Catholic.

[tar_baby]

Personally, I doubt that this was the tomb of "the" Jesus.

http://booreview.com/images/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg
this guy?

[tattered]

http://booreview.com/images/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg
this guy?

clappy hands to you sir :clap:

[ImAlrightSpider]

http://booreview.com/images/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg
this guy?


Yep. That's the guy I was referring to. :icon_mrgr

[LiLJimmysHog]

Just my penny and a half.....I got some of this info from either the wall street journal or usa today, dont remember which one.....The theory is a statistical based on the fact that they found the name Jesus on one coffin and the name mary on the other. The DNA does not match so they assume "mary" is mary magdelin....Ok that being said, the article went on to say that according to burial records the name Jesus would have been in the top 10 list of most popular names, the name mary was also very popular something like 21% of females were named mary....It also said that there is a 1 in 600 chance that this is the Jesus Christ that we all know and love......not taking sides here, just my penny and a half....but I say FFRRRRUUUNNNKKKIIISS

[EvilHomerJ666]

making these kinds of claims isn't gonna make God happy at all

good luck bro...

God Loves Everyone Equally. Atleast thats what the "Bible" says.

[tattered]

God Loves Everyone Equally. Atleast thats what the "Bible" says.

only if you accept him as the one true god....so he is like head of a high school clique..if you dont worship him you dont get to sit at his lunch table

[Sutsu]

God Loves Everyone Equally. Atleast thats what the "Bible" says.

Uh, no it doesn't. God fucked a LOT of people up in the bible when they pushed his buttons enough. He's more kinda like the father that loves you but isn't afraid to beat the shit out of you when he catches you stealing his car while you're high.

[Cage]

Great title for this thread Jesus: Tales from the Crypt

[Marshmallow_Ass]

Discovered in the 80's??

No bones??

No wonder the media doesent give a shit.

The only reason it's being talked about now, is because, someone made a documentary.

It's all BULLSHIT. There's nothing new here. Fuck the "coffin of jesus"

[patbattlefield]

you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that ole joe never gave it to mary? you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his body disappeared from the cave? you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "God" exists and Jesus was his son?

Crictal Thinking and the Scientific method prevent you from being able to prove this...esp part 1 of Question 3. remember to use the Scientific method you must be able to observe your subject. you can prove i exist...you can come to my house and see me there is more proof that i exist then god

ok i worded that incorrectly. 200 years from now there will be more evidence that jesus was born, died, and rose again than to prove you existed. you cannot prove any history with the scientific method. you can only rely on recorded history and testimony.

[thrawn42]

Always was curious why people still call him "Jesus." If you look for Jesus on that box, you won't find it.

The guy's name was Joshua. We know Jesus is from the greek translation. Is the name still kept to keep the distinction between him and the original biblical Joshua?

[supertool]

I don't doubt that Jesus existed, in fact, a lot of written testimony proves for the most part that he not only did exist but greatly affected and influenced the lives of many people around him. Not likely a God, but an old school Jim Morrison with fantastic charisma and a positive message. Perhaps even, as some have speculated, an Egyptian magician.

The Romans decided Jesus was a true diety, mostly because admitting that an ordinary man could born and rise to a position of divinity would open the door for future usurpers to the roman empire.
I don't mean to stomp on anyone's religious beliefs, but consider these coincidences with regard to Jesus's story of origin and that of pagan gods worshiped for hundreds of years before his birth:

The winter solstice occurs about DEC-21 each year. It is the day of the year when the night is longest and the daytime shortest. Using the crude instruments available, ancient astronomers were able to detect by DEC-25 of each year that the daytime had become noticeably longer. This date was chosen, and remains, the traditional date for followers of many different Pagan religions to celebrate the rebirth of the sun. Following the solstice, each succeeding day has slightly more sunlight than the previous day. It was seen as a promise that warmth would return once more to the earth. Numerous pre-Christian Pagan religions honored their gods' birth or rebirth on or about that day. Their deities were typically called: Son of Man, Light of the World, Sun of Righteousness, Bridegroom, and Savior. Some examples are:

Roman Pagan Religion: Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE.
Greek Pagan Religion: Dionysus is another savior-god whose birth was observed on DEC-25. He was worshipped throughout much of the Middle East as well. He had a center of worship in Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE. Some ancient coins have been found in Gaza with Dionysus on one side and JHWH (Jehovah) on the other. In later years, his flesh and blood were symbolically eaten in the form of bread and wine. He was viewed as the son of Zeus, the Father God.
Egyptian Pagan Religion: Osiris is a savior-god who had been worshipped as far back as Neolithic times. "He was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods...the Resurrection and the Life, the Good shepherd...the god who 'made men and women be born again'" 5 Three wise men announced his birth. His followers ate cakes of wheat which symbolized his body. Many sayings associated with Osiris were taken over into the Bible. This included: 23rd Psalm: an appeal to Osiris as the good Shepherd to lead believers through the valley of the shadow of death and to green pastures and still waters
Lord's Prayer: "O amen, who art in heaven..."
Many parables attributed to Jesus.

Worship of Osiris, and celebration of his DEC-25 birth, were established throughout the Roman Empire by the end of the 1st century BCE.

Persian Pagan Religion: Mithra was a Persian savior. Worship of Mithra became common throughout the Roman Empire, particularly among the Roman civil service and military. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity until the 4th century. Their god was believed to have been born on DEC-25, circa 500 BCE. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi. This was celebrated as the "Dies Natalis Solic Invite," The "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun." Some followers believed that he was born of a virgin. During his life, he performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. He celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples. He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21.

The Babylonians celebrated their "Victory of the Sun-God" Festival on DEC-25. Saturnalia (the Festival of Saturn) was celebrated from DEC-17 to 23 in the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: DEC-25. After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted this date as the birthday of their savior, Jesus. The people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of a God on that day. So, it was easy for the church to divert people's attention to Jesus' birth.

Tammuz, Adonis, and many other ancient pagan gods share a very similiar orgin as well.

Is it really so much of a stretch to believe that perhaps a lot of what we presume to know about Jesus was made up?

[mascan42]

This is what I don't understand about this whole deal. If you have FAITH, then you don't need proof, right? I have been going around all day wondering why the people who are upset about this are the ones who claim to have faith.
To paraphrase from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

God refuses to prove He exists, because proof denies faith, and without faith, He cannot exist. So if we ever found proof that God exists, by His own logic, He wouldn't.

Wrap your head around that one. :icon_conf

[Sutsu]

To paraphrase from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

God refuses to prove He exists, because proof denies faith, and without faith, He cannot exist. So if we ever found proof that God exists, by His own logic, He wouldn't.

Wrap your head around that one. :icon_conf

Except that he created the babelfish, disproving himself that way.

To further that line of thought, though, God also gave us free will and if he just came down and said "Ok, here I am, you'd have to be stupid not to recognize me" it would pretty much negate that free will.

[Ballbuster1]

I'm agnostic. I'll wait til I'm dead and see what happens before any of this
really matters to me. There's too many varying stories on religion and history
for me to form a reasonable opinion on it all.

[Kugzilla]

But Jesus still rocks.

[Plunkies]

Who cares either way? Even on the tiny chance that it is the real Jesus, and is then somehow proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...so what? Then what happens? The religious nuts deny it just like they deny dinosaurs and evolution and anything else they deem inconvenient to their brand of comforting fairy tales.

"Jesus' corpse was placed on Earth by the devil to shake our faith! Oh noes! I won't fall for that! The complete destruction of the foundation of my entire religion only makes my faith in it even stronger! YAAAAAY!"

Even the most blatently obvious, provable facts are easily shaken off by those with "faith". Faith is nothing but stubborn, voluntary stupidity and all the evidence in the world can't cure stupid.

A leader of a cult doing magic tricks with fish is NOT the son of God. Just because you'd otherwise feel like your life is meaningless does not mean a God put us here for a reason. Just because death scares you does not mean you will have an eternal life in heaven. If reading common sense shit like this sounds silly to you then I doubt all the Jesus bones, dino bones, and transitional fossils in the world are going to make much of a difference either.

Except that he created the babelfish, disproving himself that way.

To further that line of thought, though, God also gave us free will and if he just came down and said "Ok, here I am, you'd have to be stupid not to recognize me" it would pretty much negate that free will.

"Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster."

[tattered]

Who cares either way? Even on the tiny chance that it is the real Jesus, and is then somehow proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...so what? Then what happens? The religious nuts deny it just like they deny dinosaurs and evolution and anything else they deem inconvenient to their brand of comforting fairy tales.

"Jesus' corpse was placed on Earth by the devil to shake our faith! Oh noes! I won't fall for that! The complete destruction of the foundation of my entire religion only makes my faith in it even stronger! YAAAAAY!"

Even the most blatently obvious, provable facts are easily shaken off by those with "faith". Faith is nothing but stubborn, voluntary stupidity and all the evidence in the world can't cure stupid.

A leader of a cult doing magic tricks with fish is NOT the son of God. Just because you'd otherwise feel like your life is meaningless does not mean a God put us here for a reason. Just because death scares you does not mean you will have an eternal life in heaven. If reading common sense shit like this sounds silly to you then I doubt all the Jesus bones, dino bones, and transitional fossils in the world are going to make much of a difference either.



"Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster."

i like the cut of your jib sir...ill have to remember this for future use

[supertool]

Puppets, Or perhaps, randomly rewarded and punished sea monkeys. Either way you make excellent points. You don't have to be an epistemologist to recognize these axioms.
Of course, what you might think should be painfully apparent to most, crumbles in the face of the faithful. Inexorably, most logically consistent propositions are left to be considered by just a few forward thinking individuals. Individuals who realize that the core principles driving almost all religions were formulated thousands of years ago by people who weren't even sure what the sun or the moon was.

People who read the Bible and take it literally are not only making a leap of faith, but are completely fucking suspending disbelief. Take for instance the story of Noah's ark. Noah had seven days to collect two of every animal on earth. Now, with thirty million species of animals known to exist today, Noah would have had to put fifty pairs of animals on the Ark a second. Realistically, this would take him about thirty years. ( unless the ark was actually the starship Heart of Gold utilizing it's Infinite Improbability Drive.)

[patbattlefield]

"Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster."

There is one critical flaw in that argument. Just because one has prior knowledge to all events that will ever happen it is only a paradox if he interferes. It makes sense to me if there is an all knowing powerful being that he would be able to have this knowledge. You forget the secret of the universe which is anything but supernatural: math. If one had the advanced mathematics to calculate all space and time in the universe and "see" everything down to a subatomic level you could predict the future. Everything in the universe is cause and effect; if some "super being" had the ability to comprehend the universe on such a high level he could simply see the future by creating and solving the most complex equation ever. Think about it...even we as human beings as complex as we are are a series of electrical impulses that respond to stimuli. It is way beyond our level of intelligence or understanding to even begin to comprehend this, but that doesn't make it impossible or "supernatural", just simply beyond our rung of the "evolutionary" ladder so to speak.

[BeerBelly]

God made the universe you can't get somthin from nothin deal with it

[patbattlefield]

God made the universe you can't get somthin from nothin deal with it

then how do you explain where everything came from? when did "existence" begin? if not God then what or who? everything has to come from somewhere but for there to have been a universe it had to have come from nothing if there was a beginning to that same universe....now that's a paradox!

[BeerBelly]

then how do you explain where everything came from? when did "existence" begin? if not God then what or who? everything has to come from somewhere but for there to have been a universe it had to have come from nothing if there was a beginning to that same universe....now that's a paradox!
no parodox just God

[patbattlefield]

no parodox just God


lol i misread your post....my bad.:action-sm

[WhiteHonkyDevil]

But Jesus still rocks.

You got that right..

http://static.flickr.com/44/129917130_e7aa3d9ffd.jpg

[BeerBelly]

just think

[Plunkies]

There is one critical flaw in that argument. Just because one has prior knowledge to all events that will ever happen it is only a paradox if he interferes.

You're incorrect. Ironically, even if you were right, you would still disprove the Christian god (Logic and religion don't get along very well it seems). Specifically, you would have disproven prayer. Prayer is interference. Jesus and the God of the bible repeatedly drive home the fact that if you ask for something and believe, god will grant it. However, I'll leave the disproving of prayer to this website...http://whywontgodhealamputees.com (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)...even the url itself smashes the very concept of an answered prayer.

Anyway...You're correct in saying that omniscience alone doesn't necessarily disprove free will, since there is no explicit control being exercised. However, if you add the attributes of Omnipotence and Creator of the universe to your definition of God, then there can be no "free will" of any kind. The "control" missing from the omniscience-alone argument is the act of creation (The ultimate "interference"). This control is absolute due to God's omnipotence. A God with these attributes in fact must have explicitly caused each and every event that will ever occur (done at the moment of creation). The only way to allow for some sort of free will to exist is to modify God's attributes such that He is not either omnipotent, omniscient, or the creator of everything.

For example, "free will" would be theoretically possible if:

1. God didn't know what his creations would do (not omniscient).
or
2. God didn't have the ability to control every aspect of what He was creating (not omnipotent).
or
3. God didn't create the entire universe (not creator).

Without modifying one of these three attributes, there is no alternative to a deterministic universe with each event explicitly controlled by God.

God made the universe you can't get somthin from nothin deal with it

Your argument was permanently refuted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) over 600 years ago. Try again.

[patbattlefield]

You're incorrect. Ironically, even if you were right, you would still disprove the Christian god (Logic and religion don't get along very well it seems). Specifically, you would have disproven prayer. Prayer is interference. Jesus and the God of the bible repeatedly drive home the fact that if you ask for something and believe, god will grant it. However, I'll leave the disproving of prayer to this website...http://whywontgodhealamputees.com (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)...even the url itself smashes the very concept of an answered prayer.

Anyway...You're correct in saying that omniscience alone doesn't necessarily disprove free will, since there is no explicit control being exercised. However, if you add the attributes of Omnipotence and Creator of the universe to your definition of God, then there can be no "free will" of any kind. The "control" missing from the omniscience-alone argument is the act of creation (The ultimate "interference"). This control is absolute due to God's omnipotence. A God with these attributes in fact must have explicitly caused each and every event that will ever occur (done at the moment of creation). The only way to allow for some sort of free will to exist is to modify God's attributes such that He is not either omnipotent, omniscient, or the creator of everything.

For example, "free will" would be theoretically possible if:

1. God didn't know what his creations would do (not omniscient).
or
2. God didn't have the ability to control every aspect of what He was creating (not omnipotent).
or
3. God didn't create the entire universe (not creator).

Without modifying one of these three attributes, there is no alternative to a deterministic universe with each event explicitly controlled by God.



you're assuming I believe everything that every other normal christian believes. belief in God doesn't necessarily mean unwavering belief in every word of the Bible. and isn't it free will? as long as I believe I am making my own choices and feel free to do so what is the difference? perception is the only reality that matters.

believing in God is so much easier when you don't view the Bible as complete fact like most Christians do.

[patbattlefield]

Your argument was permanently refuted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) over 600 years ago. Try again.

That only applies because its too hard for science to explain. Just because we can't understand something doesn't make it wrong. Do you realize how many scientific theories have been proven wrong in the past century? We know jack shit on a cosmic level.

That principle is modern science's way of excusing its own limitations. New major discoveries are made by those who are willing to discard previous thought and consider those unnecessary multiplications.

[Plunkies]

you're assuming I believe everything that every other normal christian believes. belief in God doesn't necessarily mean unwavering belief in every word of the Bible. and isn't it free will? as long as I believe I am making my own choices and feel free to do so what is the difference? perception is the only reality that matters.

Sure whatever. Perception. What difference does it make whether something makes sense or not, just as long as you feel better about yourself.

This is boring me. You take no stance on anything, everything you say is vague, you don't define what you believe and you have no reasoning behind any statements you make. Although I guess that's one way to combat logic.

So basically you don't believe in the bible or the christian god but you call yourself a christian? Why bother? You should look into agnosticism. All the benefits of never having to take a stand or define what you believe in while at the same time making you look more intelligent.

That only applies because its too hard for science to explain...

That principle is modern science's way of excusing its own limitations. New major discoveries are made by those who are willing to discard previous thought and consider those unnecessary multiplications.

Uh....no. You don't understand occam's razor at all, try to prevent your psuedo-religion from making you stupid and go read the link, it thoroughly explains what it is and what it can be applied to. There's no reason for you to not understand.

Just because we can't understand something doesn't make it wrong. Do you realize how many scientific theories have been proven wrong in the past century? We know jack shit on a cosmic level.

Ugh, every bit of this post is so obnoxiously wrong that it's too much of a chore to systematically pick it apart. I hate having to refute 2 small paragraphs of stupidity with a fucking essay just to address all the errors. Fuck that, I'll try to keep it short for my own sake.

Your first sentence of that quote...I assume by "something" you mean god? What understanding of god? There's nothing to understand. There's no evidence for god. There's nothing that even gives us a reason to believe in a god. What is there for us to understand? Your "something" should be the origin of the universe, and just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean we should just assign magical super beings to it rather than actually trying to figure it out through logic and science. You can't explain away human ignorance with gods and magical entities. Humans used to do that a long time ago. They even thought the sun was a god rather than a giant ball of hydrogen! Imagine that! Go worship the sun shitdick.

Your second and third sentences can be summed up by saying "we don't know everything, so we can't know anything". Is this how you justify your beliefs? Intellectual laziness at its finest. Here's a wacky idea, how bout just trying to prove god himself? Oh that's right you can't. So you just sit there babbling about how little we know so we can't be sure of whether God or Santa or unicorns exist. Blegh.

[CM Mark]

To paraphrase from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

God refuses to prove He exists, because proof denies faith, and without faith, He cannot exist. So if we ever found proof that God exists, by His own logic, He wouldn't.

Wrap your head around that one. :icon_conf
the answer is 42

[patbattlefield]

Sure whatever. Perception. What difference does it make whether something makes sense or not, just as long as you feel better about yourself.

This is boring me. You take no stance on anything, everything you say is vague, you don't define what you believe and you have no reasoning behind any statements you make. Although I guess that's one way to combat logic.

So basically you don't believe in the bible or the christian god but you call yourself a christian? Why bother? You should look into agnosticism. All the benefits of never having to take a stand or define what you believe in while at the same time making you look more intelligent.



Uh....no. You don't understand occam's razor at all, try to prevent your psuedo-religion from making you stupid and go read the link, it thoroughly explains what it is and what it can be applied to. There's no reason for you to not understand.



Ugh, every bit of this post is so obnoxiously wrong that it's too much of a chore to systematically pick it apart. I hate having to refute 2 small paragraphs of stupidity with a fucking essay just to address all the errors. Fuck that, I'll try to keep it short for my own sake.

Your first sentence of that quote...I assume by "something" you mean god? What understanding of god? There's nothing to understand. There's no evidence for god. There's nothing that even gives us a reason to believe in a god. What is there for us to understand? Your "something" should be the origin of the universe, and just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean we should just assign magical super beings to it rather than actually trying to figure it out through logic and science. You can't explain away human ignorance with gods and magical entities. Humans used to do that a long time ago. They even thought the sun was a god rather than a giant ball of hydrogen! Imagine that! Go worship the sun shitdick.

Your second and third sentences can be summed up by saying "we don't know everything, so we can't know anything". Is this how you justify your beliefs? Intellectual laziness at its finest. Here's a wacky idea, how bout just trying to prove god himself? Oh that's right you can't. So you just sit there babbling about how little we know so we can't be sure of whether God or Santa or unicorns exist. Blegh.

Its called a non-linear approach. And you do enjoy putting words in my mouth. I don't say we can't know anything just that we can't ever say we have the answer to anything for sure when our perspective on the universe is so limited. You have to take what you know and use it but keep an open mind to challenge that knowledge and be willing to change your mind. In the end, you have no more a right to say there is no God than I to say that your belief there is no God is incorrect. Sometimes when you don't have all the information needed to find the answer you have to go on faith. Now there's a concept that people like you will never be able to understand.

[abudabit]

What if each solar system were an atom, and each galaxy were a cell, and the universe is a being?

[patbattlefield]

What if each solar system were an atom, and each galaxy were a cell, and the universe is a being?


what does that make us? subatomic particles?:icon_mrgr

[BroGonzo]

Religion is a disease whose spread only benefits religion itself, not its adherents. Convenient that following an arbitrary set of rules is repayed only after death, isn't it? It's much harder to get any good testimonials that way.

[patbattlefield]

Religion is a disease whose spread only benefits religion itself, not its adherents. Convenient that following an arbitrary set of rules is repayed only after death, isn't it? It's much harder to get any good testimonials that way.


I think that anyone that has been helped by the charity of a church congregation would disagree with you.

[BroGonzo]

I think that anyone that has been helped by the charity of a church congregation would disagree with you.

Then attribute that to the generosity of a community, not to some benevolence on the part of a god or a religion itself.

The ultimate "prize," which is generally eternal life (depending on the religion), is pretty hard to guarantee.

[patbattlefield]

Then attribute that to the generosity of a community, not to some benevolence on the part of a god or a religion itself.

The ultimate "prize," which is generally eternal life (depending on the religion), is pretty hard to guarantee.


even though there are variations to each major religion in the world the gist of them all is that if you live righteously in this world you will be rewarded in the next. I don't see how that's such a bad thing.

[BroGonzo]

even though there are variations to each major religion in the world the gist of them all is that if you live righteously in this world you will be rewarded in the next. I don't see how that's such a bad thing.

It's a nice idea, just conveniently impossible to actually demonstrate.

[patbattlefield]

It's a nice idea, just conveniently impossible to actually demonstrate.

so is quantum physics

[BroGonzo]

so is quantum physics

So why believe in either of them?

In the spectrum of things that we're unable to prove or demonstrate, eternal life in heaven exists somewhere near faeries and the Easter bunny.

Quantum physics is at least grounded in observable phenomena.

Religion benefits from the participation of its adherents without actually having to give them anything. Instead, there's a promise of eternal life.

[patbattlefield]

So why believe in either of them?

In the spectrum of things that we're unable to prove or demonstrate, eternal life in heaven exists somewhere near faeries and the Easter bunny.

Quantum physics is at least grounded in observable phenomena.

Religion benefits from the participation of its adherents without actually having to give them anything. Instead, there's a promise of eternal life.

it may be pointless it may not...but its not a disease. in the end you live a life that served your fellow man. I see no ill in that.

[BroGonzo]

it may be pointless it may not...but its not a disease. in the end you live a life that served your fellow man. I see no ill in that.

If serving your fellow man is the goal, you don't need religion to accomplish it.

The problem is that when religions act as organizations, it's generally a negative impact on the rest of humanity. Witness the Crusades, the Inquisition, and any instance of jihad.

Fighting wars in the name of a religion doesn't do any good for the people practicing or fighting for the religion; only the religion benefits (if it should be victorious). In that way, religions act as sociological viruses, replicating themselves and killing off "hosts" if need be.

I think I can live a good, respectable life without making the ridiculous compromises and accepting the negative elements that just about every organized religion comes packaged with.

[patbattlefield]

If serving your fellow man is the goal, you don't need religion to accomplish it.

The problem is that when religions act as organizations, it's generally a negative impact on the rest of humanity. Witness the Crusades, the Inquisition, and any instance of jihad.

Fighting wars in the name of a religion doesn't do any good for the people practicing or fighting for the religion; only the religion benefits (if it should be victorious). In that way, religions act as sociological viruses, replicating themselves and killing off "hosts" if need be.

I think I can live a good, respectable life without making the ridiculous compromises and accepting the negative elements that just about every organized religion comes packaged with.

I'm a preacher's kid you don't need to tell me of the downfalls of organized religion. all i can say about that is perhaps they need to read the bible more closely...
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives
himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:
to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
James 1:26-27

[Plunkies]

In the end, you have no more a right to say there is no God than I to say that your belief there is no God is incorrect. Sometimes when you don't have all the information needed to find the answer you have to go on faith. Now there's a concept that people like you will never be able to understand.

But you're wrong. I completely have the right to say there is no god. It is the logical conclusion to make. You don't have to go on faith, you can just use critical thinking and make an intelligent decision instead. There's absolutely no reason to think any god exists and very good reason to assume they don't exist and never have.

I don't believe in your god for the same reason you don't believe in unicorns, faeries, Allah, the flying spaghetti monster and Thor. I'm sure the believers of such things would tell you that you have to have faith, but deep down you'd know that to be ridiculous. And since they have no proof of their existence then the reasonable stance is to assume they don't exist. You've probably already taken that stance, yet you can't do the same with your own god. Why? What makes your god more believable? I'm guessing nothing, except for the fact that you were brainwashed since childhood to believe in it.

[patbattlefield]

But you're wrong. I completely have the right to say there is no god. It is the logical conclusion to make. You don't have to go on faith, you can just use critical thinking and make an intelligent decision instead. There's absolutely no reason to think any god exists and very good reason to assume they don't exist and never have.

I don't believe in your god for the same reason you don't believe in unicorns, faeries, Allah, the flying spaghetti monster and Thor. I'm sure the believers of such things would tell you that you have to have faith, but deep down you'd know that to be ridiculous. And since they have no proof of their existence then the reasonable stance is to assume they don't exist. You've probably already taken that stance, yet you can't do the same with your own god. Why? What makes your god more believable? I'm guessing nothing, except for the fact that you were brainwashed since childhood to believe in it.

this is the part of the argument where things get tautological.

[Plunkies]

this is the part of the argument where things get tautological.

You don't have the ability to defend your beliefs anyway. Hopefully justifying them to yourself is significantly easier.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

[patbattlefield]

You don't have the ability to defend your beliefs anyway. Hopefully justifying them to yourself is significantly easier.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist as were a lot of Founding Fathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

That quote isn't him expressing his disbelief in a Creator; just an expression of his opinion of contemporary christian faith. Nice try, though.

[Plunkies]

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist as were a lot of Founding Fathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

That quote isn't him expressing his disbelief in a Creator; just an expression of his opinion of contemporary christian faith. Nice try, though.

Did I say he wasn't? I just thought it was an interesting quote. Not entirely sure what I was trying, but evidently I failed in your eyes. Hrm, let's try again.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
— Benjamin Franklin

"Jesus, in fact, was typical of a certain kind of fanatical young idealist: at one moment holding forth with tears in his eyes about the need for universal love; at the next, furiously denouncing the morons, crooks and bigots who do not see eye to eye with him. It is very natural and very human behaviour. But it is not supernatural. Many of the great men in history (for example Socrates and Gandhi) have met criticism with more dignity and restraint."
— Some Jesus Hater

"It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity."
— Abraham Lincoln

"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions.
— Bertrand Russell

"We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us."
— Mark Twain

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
— Albert Einstein

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god? Every time we go to church, we're just making him madder and madder."
— Homer J. Simpson

[tattered]

Did I say he wasn't? I just thought it was an interesting quote. Not entirely sure what I was trying, but evidently I failed in your eyes. Hrm, let's try again.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
— Benjamin Franklin

"Jesus, in fact, was typical of a certain kind of fanatical young idealist: at one moment holding forth with tears in his eyes about the need for universal love; at the next, furiously denouncing the morons, crooks and bigots who do not see eye to eye with him. It is very natural and very human behaviour. But it is not supernatural. Many of the great men in history (for example Socrates and Gandhi) have met criticism with more dignity and restraint."
— Some Jesus Hater

"It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity."
— Abraham Lincoln

"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions.
— Bertrand Russell

"We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us."
— Mark Twain

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
— Albert Einstein

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god? Every time we go to church, we're just making him madder and madder."
— Homer J. Simpson

thats some good pwnage :clap:

[patbattlefield]

Did I say he wasn't? I just thought it was an interesting quote. Not entirely sure what I was trying, but evidently I failed in your eyes. Hrm, let's try again.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
— Benjamin Franklin

"Jesus, in fact, was typical of a certain kind of fanatical young idealist: at one moment holding forth with tears in his eyes about the need for universal love; at the next, furiously denouncing the morons, crooks and bigots who do not see eye to eye with him. It is very natural and very human behaviour. But it is not supernatural. Many of the great men in history (for example Socrates and Gandhi) have met criticism with more dignity and restraint."
— Some Jesus Hater

"It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity."
— Abraham Lincoln

"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions.
— Bertrand Russell

"We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us."
— Mark Twain

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
— Albert Einstein

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god? Every time we go to church, we're just making him madder and madder."
— Homer J. Simpson


Congratulations on mastering Google and copy paste.

Most of the people in that list still believed in a Creator.

thats some good pwnage :clap:


was it.

[patbattlefield]

try again?

here i'll get you started:

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.
-Benjamin Franklin

"In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book."
-Abraham Lincoln

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

- Bertrand Russell

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

- Albert Einstein

[tattered]

was it.

indeed

[patbattlefield]

indeed

read above...anyone can find quotes to agree with them. talk about being intellectually lazy...:rolleyes:

[tattered]

read above...anyone can find quotes to agree with them. talk about being intellectually lazy...:rolleyes:

pat least he took the time to find some instead of just mocking you

[Dopie Opie]

Eternity scares the shit out of me. Regardless of everlasting life or rotting in a hole in the ground forever, it is the idea of eternity that I cannot put my arms around.

[patbattlefield]

pat least he took the time to find some instead of just mocking you

oh yea so hard. i spent 5 minutes on google and found the same thing. real brilliant.

there are several sites that have that info all ready to copy/paste here is one:

http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewQuotes.php

real original thought.

[supertool]

I think that anyone that has been helped by the charity of a church congregation would disagree with you.


Yeah, and those who found themselves on the wrong side of the crusades might disagree with you somewhat.

[patbattlefield]

Yeah, and those who found themselves on the wrong side of the crusades might disagree with you somewhat.


So I should lump in all atheists with the oppression of Soviet Russia? Just because things are done in the name of religion doesn't mean all religion is tainted. Horrible acts of cruelty and oppression have been done by all kinds of groups that doesn't mean that the religion they claimed to be acting on behalf of is to blame. In fact, the Scripture contradicts most of what was done in the Crusades.

[supertool]

So I should lump in all atheists with the oppression of Soviet Russia? Just because things are done in the name of religion doesn't mean all religion is tainted. Horrible acts of cruelty and oppression have been done by all kinds of groups that doesn't mean that the religion they claimed to be acting on behalf of is to blame. In fact, the Scripture contradicts most of what was done in the Crusades.


Historically, atheists have caused far less trouble than than religious zealots- and "scripture" is full of examples where god bitch slams people for simple acts non belief, indiscretion, or just for the hell of it.

Do I think all religion is tainted? Yes. Do I think that all aspects of religion is tainted? No. Most religions contain some fairly grounded principles. "Do not kill. Don't steal, etc." These are proper guidelines for civillized society. However, in today's world, do you really need a belief in an invisible guy in the sky to act civillized?

You say that horrible acts of cruelity and oppression performed by certain groups don't nessacarily reflect the doctrine of their religion, but man, fucking results are results.

[patbattlefield]

Historically, atheists have caused far less trouble than than religious zealots- and "scripture" is full of examples where god bitch slams people for simple acts non belief, indiscretion, or just for the hell of it.

o rly? what was the death toll of stalin? in communist china?

Do I think all religion is tainted? Yes. Do I think that all aspects of religion is tainted? No. Most religions contain some fairly grounded principles. "Do not kill. Don't steal, etc." These are proper guidelines for civilized society. However, in today's world, do you really need a belief in an invisible guy in the sky to act civilized?

if you can act civilized without faith good for you. I never said we needed God to act civil.

You say that horrible acts of cruelity and oppression performed by certain groups don't nessacarily reflect the doctrine of their religion, but man, fucking results are results.

people don't need religion to kill each other they just choose to use it as a scapegoat to excuse their actions. that doesn't condemn the religion it condemns the people who committed the atrocities. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. You can't blame a religion. There isn't this big mystical force called religion that makes people go out and do horrible things to other people; people make that choice on their own, some of them just twist their "faith" and use it maliciously to further their political agenda.

[BeerBelly]

picture a blank canvas , this is "space" now where are the stuff to make a big bang

[Dopie Opie]

From nothing comes nothing

[supertool]

o rly? what was the death toll of stalin? in communist china?
Yes, really. you obviously have a computer, look into some facts. Do you really think the death tolls, while enomous, of stalinism and communist china put a dent in numbers racked up by religion in the past two thousand years? The holocaust alone gets you a good chunk of the way there.

[if you can act civilized without faith good for you. I never said we needed God to act civil

I've somehow managed not to be not be a homicidal, power hungry, maniac without religion. Something many others who have flown the banner of one god or another have been unable to manage.

people don't need religion to kill each other they just choose to use it as a scapegoat to excuse their actions. that doesn't condemn the religion it condemns the people who committed the atrocities. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. You can't blame a religion. There isn't this big mystical force called religion that makes people go out and do horrible things to other people; people make that choice on their own, some of them just twist their "faith" and use it maliciously to further their political agenda.


__________________

Duh.
This grows tiresome, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[supertool]

From nothing comes nothing

A flute without holes is not a flute.
A doughnut without a hole is a danish.







And a radio show without a hole is O&A.

[Butter Nuggets]

Do you really think the death tolls, while enomous, of stalinism and communist china put a dent in numbers racked up by religion in the past two thousand years? The holocaust alone gets you a good chunk of the way there.


Does it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism)

94 million and counting is quite a hurdle.

As a bonus it took the Commies less that a century.

[tattered]

Does it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism)

94 million and counting is quite a hurdle.

As a bonus it took the Commies less that a century.

from you link

Using unofficial estimates he cites a death toll which totals 94 million

[Butter Nuggets]

Using unofficial estimates he cites a death toll which totals 94 million

I know, but what or who makes it official? And what makes that more accurate? In this situation, an official estimate seems like one from the Communist government accused. The article also mentions some of the reasons for those numbers. At any rate a book by someone not controlled by the Communist state is more credible than anything offical from a Commie government.

[Plunkies]

o rly? what was the death toll of stalin? in communist china?


There's a bit of a difference. They weren't killing in the name of atheism and free thinking and science. Mao and Stalin weren't trying to spread atheism. They both wanted to be worshipped, they both wanted to be god themselves and didn't want other gods in the way. They were replacing one cult with their own cult. The death toll of Stalin and communist China are just more ways in which religious thinking and religious persecution are dangerous and destructive.

[TrybalRage]

What about all the deaths placed at the feet of people who just wanted power?

Napoleon, Alexander, the empires of Persia, Rome, etc.

Religion is a drop in the bucket compared to the lust for control.

Although, one could argue that religion is a desire to control - but MEN use religion as a way to control others.

[supertool]

Does it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism)

94 million and counting is quite a hurdle.

As a bonus it took the Commies less that a century.


Perhaps you would like to add these up. I can't seem to find the time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ancient Pagans
As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission
Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crusades (1095-1291)
First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
(In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]
Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heretics
Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witches
from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
incomplete list of documented cases:
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious Wars
15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jews
Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain