Gandelf wrote:I'm not talking about anything other than the historical truth of a man named Jesus who was publicly executed. It is well documented in official Roman records of the time that a man named Jesus was executed. As you know, at that time the Romans were not Christians, they still believed in a pantheon of Gods. These documents have been verified as been authentic. Naturally, the Romans don't make any religious claims about who Jesus was, just that he was a man who was tried and executed. That's irrefutable evidence. It's not religious in any way, but it's irrefutable, official Roman documentation. Just because it's 2,000 years old doesn't make it less creditable. If the age of documented evidence were used as the method for determining the accuracy of such material, who would have the authority to say how old such material has to be for it to be confirmed as genuine? I for example, could say that the evidence about Guy Fawkes was not irrefutable because it's over 300 years old. But, we accept it as true. So, why do you have a problem with accepting 2,000-year-old non-religious, official Roman evidence? It's not the Bible, but recorded fact.
The account of Jesus' life in the New Testament synoptic Gospels, coincides with the Roman documentation, as well as documentation found in the Talmud. Three very different sources, with different view points on the life of Jesus, recorded by people from different backgrounds in the society of the time.
So, I'm not making any other statement, other than the fact that a man named Jesus did exist and that it was the same man who is recorded in at least three different sources. That's irrefutable fact.
Documents relating to Guy Fawkes can be traced back alongside families passing the information down so it's entirely verifiable from accounts of the events passed down through the ages.
Indeed it is irrefutable that there exists documents mentioning someone called Jesus, what can be questioned however is their authenticity. There's a good chance someone called Jesus probably was executed, but then I'm sure there was a James, a John and various other random names of people who were executed. Realistically Jesus probably was someone who liked to stir up the crows and rebel hence how he got a name for himself but again the point is there was nothing special about him, and as there was nothing special about him why does that have any bearing on what you're trying to put across at all? As I pointed out in the previous thread the Bible is just a story that is based around real events with added fiction in like millions of other books through the ages.
Banana wrote:blah blah too much to copy and paste
Well yeah, I often said when visiting Arizona that religion has certainly played it's part in history, it gave people hope when travelling and exploring some of the harshest landscapes in the world, certainly religion has done a lot right that's for sure. In history it being used as a tool to control people was also very useful, it did indeed do the things you said, control people and convince them not to murder, steal and such. I certainly agree religion hasn't entirely been historically bad, although we can't ignore it being used in the other way - to convince people that we needed to masacre people of other religions (i.e. the crusades). Nowadays however, religion is obsolete, we're educated enough to understand the benefits of respecting each others right to life and so on. We don't need hope to travel and explore now, we have GPS, we have thermal clothing, we have packet food etc. etc. Religion arguably historically outweighed the bad (the masacres) with the good (the creation of a civilised society etc.) however as I say, now it's totally obsolete, it no longer outweighs the bad with the good, too much is done in the name of religion that's bad to be possibly outweigh the minimal good it does nowadays.
) and a god that rewards you for being 'nice' 
