If the Catholic League thought "Bloody Mary" was bad ...

.. what do you think they'll have in their expected press release tomorrow?

I haven't checked yet, but you can bet Wild Bill Donohue is foaming at the mouth and filling his toilet with steaming bricks of self- righteous fury. It would be really ironic if he complains about Kyle killing Jesus, because that scene was a direct reference to "The Passion of the Christ," which Bill praised lavishly and defended against all detractors on every talk show that would have him after the movie was released.

I thought it was a brilliant episode--I just wish I knew what they were singing in Latin to "Peter Cottontail." That was hilarious!

And here are a few quotes from Bill Donohue, who seems to be obsessed with sodomy, although he dismisses pedophile priests as no big deal because they account for less than 1.5% of all priests. Any reasonable person in his position would be outraged by even one instance of priestly pedophilia, but Wild Bill would rather attack those who dare complain about it. What a guy!

On the December 8, 2004 broadcast of Scarborough Country, in a discussion of Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, Donohue claimed, "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the Messiah."

"Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism."

"Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face."

"One the biggest myths in Hollywood is the notion that 'South Park' creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker have the guts to take on controversial subjects. Already, some pundits are congratulating Stone and Parker for doing an episode on the scandal in the Catholic Church. But the way Stone and Parker have decided to approach the subject shows cowardice, not courage.

"The promo is dishonest. The scandal in the Church is not about priests having sex with prepubescent boys. It is about priests having sex with postpubescent young men. The former is called pedophilia and the latter is called homosexuality. So if Stone and Parker really had guts, they would do a show on gay priests. But, of course, like so many other intellectually dishonest elites in our society, they will go to any length to protect homosexuals.

"It is worth noting that in a recent survey conducted by the Washington Post-extending back four decades and covering 60,000 priests -it was disclosed that less than 1.5 percent of the priests were involved in sexual misconduct with minors. It is also worth noting that the 2 percent of our society which is homosexual accounts for over half the AIDS cases in this country. Now if the statistic on priests merits an episode on 'South Park,' it is fair to ask why the figures on gays and AIDS don't merit a whole season of fun? But like I said, Stone and Parker are cowards, and that explains why they'll never air a show on the homosexual contribution to AIDS."

Vic

Here's a link to that press release. It's actually pretty tame and Bill even makes a little joke. He's undoubtedly going ballistic in private, but he apparently knows better than to confront Matt and Trey about it. He's a lout and a crass blowhard, but he's no dummy. I'm sure he knows what happened to Sally Struthers when she complained.

"vic arpeggio" wrote

AKA:

"Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk."

I would think the only person to actually get Comedy Central to pull an episode (albiet temporarily) due to content would be more confrontational. Perhaps he's learning.

"vic arpeggio" wrote in message news:[email]...

What happened to Struthers?

In the first Starvin' Marvin episode, they portrayed her as being incredibly obese and had her stealing and eating all the food she was soliciting for Ethiopa. She complained about it, so in the next Starvin' Marvin episode they essentially turned her into Jabba the Hutt.

Vic

""Chris �"" wrote in message news:[email]...

And here it is : http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070405_south_park_donohue.htm (Pretty tame....shucks) April 5, 2007

"SOUTH PARK" LAMPOONS BILL DONOHUE

On last night's episode of the Comedy Central show "South Park," Catholic League president Bill Donohue appeared as one of the cartoon characters, along with a figure of Pope Benedict XVI. The Easter script depicted Donohue chastising the pope for being "too soft." Donohue then takes over as pope. When a Jesus figure appears, he has both the pope and Jesus arrested. After Jesus is killed by Kyle, he resurrects and kills Donohue.

Donohue commented on this today:

"I have no idea why 'South Park' creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker caricature me as a heartless thug. In any event, I stand convicted and have no defense. Now I have to get back to business-I hear someone just took some liberties with the Easter Bunny."

"When a Jesus figure appears, he has both the pope and Jesus arrested. After Jesus is killed by Kyle, he resurrects and kills Donohue."

Someone needs to tell the authors of that article it was Jesus.

"I have no idea why 'South Park' creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker caricature me as a heartless thug."

Um because he is? Just look at how the fascist treated John Edwards's staff members just for posting anti Catholic content and exercising there first amendment rights.

Great article though

"RobMac" wrote in message news:[email]...

What did he do to them?? I've been out of the loop on that...

"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...

Something about demanding John Edwards fire them. It was on Bill O'rilley ages ago so I forget all the facts. At least I think he was the guy. I remember it was the head of the catholic thingy.

I'm sure if he had his way they would be burnt at the stake as heretics. So as you can tell I'm really glad Matt and trey turned him into the main bad guy on last weeks show.

You mean he exercised his right to free speech?! How DARE he! LOL Don't forget, free speech goes both ways. Demanding someone be fired is just flapping your lip. If he hadthe power to fire them and did so, or used coercion to make someone else do it, that would be more like fascism.

Having the right to say something does not insulate you from the consequences of what you say. See Imus, Don.

""Chris �"" wrote in message news:[email]...

Right. Also, being criticized for saying something does not constitute infringement of your first amendment rights.

""Chris �"" wrote in message news:[email]...

I dont know but it will be even more funny then the bloody mary one. I thought the Easter episode was a hoot. I love it when they bash religion.

"seon ferguson" wrote in message news:4616243a$0$17266$[email]...

Too bad Chef didn't.

"Vic Vega" wrote in message news:b3sRh.4$SK3.1@trnddc03...

Ah but in his defence they were bashing a cult :p

I loved it when they bashed the Scientologists and sort of bashed the Mormons. Bashing the Catholics, well... it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...

So is bashing scientology, its way nuttier then Catholicism. In my opinion compared to scientology Catholicism is science.

I'd say same level of nuttiness, Scientology is just more "camp" while Catholicism is paranoia with a chewy mysticism center inside

In article , "Bubba" wrote:

The real difference is that Scientology is newer. Come back in a few hundred years, and Scientology will be just another mainstream religion, like Catholicism. The Xenu story is no sillier than the Christ story.

Tim Smith wrote:

The atheism story is the silliest of all.

"Joel" wrote in message

Like the others, it's a story. A story, it happens, that was told by William Ockham.

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

Now there's no one that loves Ockham's Silver Razor more than I do, but when confronted by the Plenitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_plenitude), I must defer.

"Opinicus" wrote:

I can't say I find abstract ideas all that meaningful. Some people love to attach themselves to intellectually intriguing concepts, but fail to test them adequately - like, at all. Those concepts are treated like scientific theory, when they're really just spew.

Joel wrote:

Is it, now? Because we don't believe in existence of invisible beings who create universes, thunder and rain and who send angels down to Earth to inseminate virgins whose sons are to die on the cross for "our sins". Silly me.

Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

More like because you believe "evolution" could happen without a guiding force. Or that the universe just happens to exist, with no further reason for its existence.

I'm not preaching Intelligent Design as a school curriculum, by any means (it is a type of religious belief), but nevertheless, it's a worthy philosophy. Atheism is really just a form of schizophrenia.

Joel wrote:

Argument from ignorance, or rephrased for someone who obviously hasn't read a book other than the Bible: "I don't know what caused X, so I'll assume that an invisible being Q did." Occam's razor deals with your gods effectively, or restated, why only one god? If the Universe needs a creator, then this creator needs a creator, ad infinitum. Yet, not only is there no indication of this so-called creator, all religions so far turn out to be a complete collection of bullshit made up by ignorant goatfuckers thousands of years ago. As for your "guiding force", where the fuck is it? Figments of your imagination count for shit. Why does your god just happen to exist, with no further reason for his existence? Oh, wait, one third of him had a reason for his existence, didn't he?

Really? then consider this: there are literally thousands of gods and you just believe in one more than atheists. Enjoy your schizophrenia.

Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Oh, please, you child. You guys always resort to that kind of emotional, ad hominem bullshit. Don't get your panties in a bunch, just 'cause you were stupid enough to take on this argument. Be a man.

Very meaningful.

You think so? A miracle happened, somewhere, to be sure. It wasn't simply the universe Banging itself into existence, though.

I know you'd like to think you're already as aware as you'll ever be - but I hope, for your sake, that that is not the case. We are more than physical beings.

Nonsense. If you really think the Bible could have been fabricated, you are not even worth arguing with. Yet, I try, because I'm foolish enough to actually care about prompting obnoxious, schizo twerps like you into opening your minds. Guess I get what I deserve.

Whatever. It's so obvious that DNA was created by an intelligent force, and that evolution didn't happen by Mrs. Garrison's "retard babies". Wake the fuck up. Yahweh is a miracle, and he performed a bunch of miracles, but *that was the miracle*. There's a *point* to life.

You don't know what I believe, you moron. If you want to define "gods" as beings who resemble Yahweh, sure, there are thousands if not millions. But they aren't deities. There is also a collective deity, but it is not a being - more like a network.

"Joel" wrote in message news:[email]...

LOL.

As an atheist, I was going to join in this discussion at the "The atheism story is the silliest of all." point. Now I'm so glad I didn't. Let people enjoy their imaginary friends, that's my new motto.

Plus I cannot take people seriously who earnestly argue that the theory of evolution is nonsense. To me, Creationism is as good a barometer of intelligence as, say, astrology. But then I am a Leo, after all.

Pink Freud wrote:

Excellent. Witnessing people argue about religion is like standing on the rim of a pit filled with shit, watching people swimming in the shit. You laugh at them, but they can't hear you laughing, so you jump into the shit with them so they can hear you laughing at them. IMO that's what participating in a god debate is like.

"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...

Nah. As an atheist I dwell in one of those nice balcony-boxes just over the shit. And I have a plunger with a 6-ft handle.

"Pink Freud" wrote in message news:[email]...

The other people see themselves in the exact same position: sitting in the balcony while all the others swim in shit. From a non-participating observer's viewpoint, you're no different. If you're like other atheists, you believe there is no God or Gods, which is just another belief. Arguing about beliefs is like swimming in shit.

"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...

er... in the strictest sense, humans argue about beliefs almost every time they speak.

I'm not sure why religion should be such a taboo area in the sphere of beliefs. Beliefs and religions can change, and if noone ever discussed these things (or yes, even argued about them) then we would probably still be in the dark ages.

"Pink Freud" wrote in message news:[email]...

You seem to be using the words "discuss" and "argue" interchangeably, which means we have a communication gap.

"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...

They're synonyms, so you can relax. Communication's fine.

"Pink Freud" wrote in message news:[email]...

How odd that you would make the assumption that there isn't a communication problem. I am using the word discussion to mean a polite conversation, and by "polite" I mean no obvious disrespect being shown for any of the conversants. I am using "argument" to mean a conversation which includes obvious disrespect being shown by one or more of the participants.

Before you posted in this thread, one poster referred to another's beliefs as "schizophrenia" and another (or possibly the same one, I don't know) called someone else a moron.

Since my use of "argument" and "discussion" is incorrect, I revise my statement "Arguing about beliefs is like swimming in shit" to "Joining a discussion about religion in which at least some of the participants have abandoned even the pretense of respect for others in the discussion is like swimming in shit."

Of course, that's just my opinion. Some people enjoy heated arguments. Nothing wrong with that.

"That Guy" wrote:

I meant that literally. Schizophrenia (literally "split mind") is the state of either being unaware of psychic phenomena, or having a chemical imbalance preventing the use of it (i.e. "paranoid" schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder).

An atheist, who truly believes what he/she says, is the unaware type.

Joel wrote:

This is rich. A person who believes in imaginary invisible beings that no one can see, hear or otherwise perceive, accuses sane people of being schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is characterized by delusions such as your religious belief, hallucinations such as ability to communicate with invisible beings, and behavior such as your deliberate lying to twist reality to conform with your mental illness. But of course, anyone who knows what schizophrenia is can see through your bullshit: to define this mental illness as "being unaware of psychic phenomena" is just plain stupid. I mean, really, are you that desperate? Lying for Jesus, are we?

Webster - schizophrenia: a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as delusions), perception (as hallucinations), and behavior.

Now, clearly, your imaginary beings and your stubborn belief in them in spite of any lack of evidence constitute a delusion, no?

"Joel" wrote in message news:[email]...

Wow. That's interesting, thanks.

Here on Earth, however, schizophrenia is defined as:

"a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations."

Your posts come across as very arrogant. Were you aware of that?

I'm happy for people to have their own beliefs. Believe in rocks if you want, as long as you don't throw them at me. But if you want to engage in a serious logical discussion on Usenet then maybe you had better make sure it doesn't have anything to do with the origin of species or the nature of the universe. Logic has no respect for your cute imaginary friend, and science doesn't really care about being PC.

I have a few mainly subconscious benchmarks for people's intelligence. I listen for the following quotes, or variants:

1) "The theory of evolution is false. God created the original humans and we are all descended from them."

2) "There is some real truth in astrological predictions. I sincerely believe that the path of the planets influences a person's behaviour based on what time of the year they were born."

• "The Earth is flat. Look... you can see the edge from here..."

4) "I love how feng-shui focuses the inner lines of psychic energy and channels them to increase the well-being of the soul and drain negative emotions."

5) "Schizophrenia (literally "split mind") is the state of either being unaware of psychic phenomena, or having a chemical imbalance preventing the use of it (i.e. "paranoid" schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder)."

Basically, if you hear a person say any of these things, they've got serious logic problems. Do you score more than two, out of interest?

"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...

Thank you. I will now continue poking the fundamentalist with a pointy stick, if that's cool.

"Pink Freud" wrote:

There aren't any fucking fundamentalists here, you cock-smoking nerd. I'm a fucking alcoholic. My beliefs are not something I give two moist shits about on Sunday mornings, gaywad.

I fucked the Virgin Mary. Literally.

"Joel" wrote in message news:[email]...

There's your definition of schizophrenia, Joel.

"Pink Freud" wrote in message news:[email]...

Since you apparently blew Joel's fuse, I'd like to ask you a question: What can you know for absolute certain? Another way to ask this is, "What, if anything, can be known with absolute certainty?"

"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...

I know that I exist, because if I didn't exist then I couldn't ask the question "What, if anything, can....". I'm not sure *you* exist though. No offense. You could just be a figment of my imagination.

"Pink Freud" wrote in message news:[email]...

This is an excellent start!

However, you need to go deeper. Your "knowing" that "you" "asked a question" is based on several presumptions. First, there has to be something which you refer to as "I" in order for that "I" to have been the one who asked the question, so you're basing your existence on the assumption that you exist.

Second, you assume you "ask[ed] the question." How do you know you asked a question? How do you know for certain that you (or someone else, if there is no "you) aren't dreaming all this, or that this is all some sort of halucination? Maybe there is no such thing as a question, the concept of question is just another of thoise things which maked perfect sense in a dream but upon awakening has no meaning at all?

Absolutely true! And you or I could be a figment of someone else's imagination, or part of a dream of some alien being, or some random interaction of interstellar gas, or something beyond existence or conceptualization, and not have any way to know it.

It might seem like the like of reasoning I'm using would ultimately result in nothing being knowable. However, it actually results in one thing and only one thing being knowable.

What is that one thing? I believe that if you think about it, you'll get it.

"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...

'I think, therefore I am."

Never a truer word spoken.

I know I can think because even if I ever had doubts, "doubt" itself must involve me thinking.

Heh. You a Hitchhiker's fan?

'It's nothing to do with me,' he said, 'I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.' 'Ah!' barked Zarniwhoop, 'you say "The Lord". You believe in something!' 'My cat,' said the man benignly, picking up it up and stroking it. 'I call him The Lord. I am kind to him.' 'Alright,' said Zarniwhoop, pressing home his point, 'how do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what he thinks of as your kindness?' 'I don't,' said the man with a smile, 'I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. Do you behave any differently? Please, I think I am tired.' Zarniwhoop heaved a thoroughly dissatisfied sigh and looked about. 'Where are the other two? he said suddenly. 'What other two?' said the ruler of the Universe, settling back into his chair and refilling his whisky glass. 'Beeblebrox and the girl! The two who were here!' 'I remember no one.l The past is a fiction to account for...' 'Stuff it,' snapped Zarniwhoop.

"Pink Freud" wrote in message news:[email]...

Nope. Sorry. Excellent try, though. The problem with your statement is that it asserts the proof that you exist is that you think, which relies on the assumption that there's a "you" to think in the first place. It's like saying you know your cat exists because he eats. If your cat was a figment of your imagination, that figment could certainly be capable of eating.

But that statement relies on another presumption as well. It asserts that thought is taking place. That's an assumption, because it can't be proven. It might seem like thought is occurring, but that doesn't make it so.

You're getting closer. All you have to do is go a little deeper. Look at why you believe there's a "you" and why you believe that you think, or why you believe there's an earth, etc--all your beliefs hinge upon one thing. That one thing is the only thing that can be known for certain. What is that thing? There is a clear answer, I'm not trying to get you into some pointless circular debate.

A little. I haven't seen the film, though.

That stuff is great writing, but it's just not my thing. Ever read Huxley? (That could be a clue)

"Pink Freud" wrote in message news:[email]...

It's cool with me. :-)

That Guy wrote:

Is that right? So if I say that you're a pedophile rapist who owes me a million, that's just another belief with no consequences, right?

And when you believe there is no Santa Claus, UFOs, gremlins, ghosts, spoon bending, vampires, werewolves, that's just another belief?

Hundreds of philosophers would be so delighted to hear you designate their life efforts.

"That Guy" wrote:

Unfortunately, it ends up that way. I must have a really gigantic heart, to tolerate these mindless geeks' insults just so they might get a heads up. I would think I have enough crap to deal with, without that, but apparently not. What a guy, I am.

"Pink Freud" wrote:

Keep patting yourself on the back. You just don't know what you don't know. That really is how simple it is. You're afraid to really dig deep.

You want proof? It will come, whether you want it to or not. Time is on aware people's side.

"Joel" wrote in message news:[email]...

Ahhh, that'll be the Mormons then. Yes, the MORMONS.

The fundamental principle of virtually every religion can be distilled down to four words: "Don't be an asshole." Everything else is just window dressing. If more people understood that, there wouldn't be so much needless conflict in the world.

Vic

"vic arpeggio" wrote in message news:[email]...

Depends on what you define as a religion, I guess. I would say that while not being an asshole is part of the path to enlightenment, it's not fundamental to Buddhism as taught by the Buddha. If asked to define the fundamentals of what the Buddha taught, I wolf say awareness and patience.

I'm going to stand by my assertion. Even though Buddhism doesn't necessarily command people not to be assholes, it strongly suggests that an asshole isn't going to achieve enlightenment. Whether it's commanded or merely suggested, the message is the same.

And while I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion that believes only assholes go to Heaven or achieve enlightenment, I'm essentially talking about the major faiths.

Vic

"vic arpeggio" wrote in message news:[email]...

Are you sure you don't want to at least re-word it? Your assertion was "The fundamental principle of virtually every religion can be distilled down to four words: "Don't be an asshole.'"

Right, but that's just one message. It's not "the fundamental principle." In fact, the phrase "to be an asshole" could be considered meaningless in Buddhism. My understanding is that being an asshole amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. But so does chasing after pleasure and running from pain. A meaningful response is a response to something real rather than to an illusion.

Yep, I assumed as much. Buddhism, Hinduism and the three Ibrihimic ones, right?

Nope. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I guess don't know enough about Buddhism to say whether or not it recognizes a concept of "assholessness," but I think you're taking me too literally. I agree that chasing the pleasures of the flesh or running from pain doesn't necessarily make one an asshole, but my original point is that stripped down to their essences, most religions aren't all that different from one another. If people could get past all the bells and whistles and pomp and circumstance and concentrate on not being assholes, the world would be a much better place.

Vic

"vic arpeggio" wrote in message news:[email]...

Yeah, I can see that. Good point. :-)

Joel wrote:

And you don't see the irony in the above where you accuse me of ad hominem and proceed to spank the rhetorical monkey with "You guys always..."?

??? It's your position, not mine. If you realize it's stupid, that may the first step.

And how do you know? Once again you're arguing from ignorance while using special pleading. We know the Universe exists and even though we will never have the answers to some questions, we can still look for them. Pulling imaginary beings out of our ass is not looking, it's a cop-out.

So you keep saying. Where is the evidence? You keep bleating about gods, angels, devils, souls, hells, heavens, immaculate conceptions, miracles and other such shit, yet the only thing you have to offer to support this nonsense is "knowing in your heart" and Jesus' face in a sandwich.

The Bible is a mish-mash of stupid ignorant stories, bad poetry, endless genealogy, ancient rudimentary legal system (and a cruel and primitive one to boot), failed prophecies, etc. If you think a book like the Bible "can not be fabricated", you're pathetic - just look at Joseph Smith's and Hubbard's bullshit. Same difference.

How is that obvious, oh, enlightened one?

Sure there is. And just what would that be? To be an automaton who grovels and praises the insecure alpha dog in the sky who might otherwise get in one of his genocidal moods once more?

What the fuck do I care? You believe in supernatural, imaginary beings simply and exclusively on the grounds that someone else told you that was so. You prefer not to think rationally and resort to superstition for whatever reason.

Really? And you know all of this "in your heart", yes?

"Joel" wrote in message news:[email]...

This is a common tactic of the mentally ill. They've been told they are schizo so many times, but can't accept it, so they turn around and call their critics schizo.

Take your meds, psycho monkey boy.

"Eric Gisin" wrote:

Everyone was schizo, sometime. That's what you retards don't get. You don't have to "take meds" to be schizo. Being atheist is plenty.

Take your lack of a sex life, psycho-nerd boy.

Yup, the entire theory is based on random events either being rewarded or punished.

A scary proposition, which is why humanity has been creating God images since we began walking upright. Since science can never explain why or by whom the universe was created, it's a fertile ground for humanity's speculation.

I choose to believe in an all-powerful creator because it gives events around me some sort of purpose. But defining this creator is an exercize in futility and believing one group's version over another to the point of intolerance and even outright violence is silly in the extreme.

Of course it is. While I'm not saying Jesus died and resurrected himself, the entire story could make sense if this one problem could be logically explained. Perhaps Jesus did not die. Perhaps a lookalike "rose from the grave". Perhaps his resurrection was a hoax. There's not a single part of the Xenu story that could possible have happened. At least we know Jesus Christ definatley existed.

Chris � wrote:

What the fuck are you talking about? Other than the Bible, there is *zero* reference to Jesus or anything about his alleged existence. None. Everything that was ever written about Jesus, including the epistles, was written some hundred or more years later.

Jesus Fucking Christ, you people should really employ the resources of your local library and stop aping your local pedophile priests.

If memory serves me correctly, Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

See, folks? You can believe just about anything without believing in anything.

Reaper G wrote:

OK, asshole, then I assume you are able to provide a source, outside of the Bible, than clearly and unmistakably mentions Jesus and any of his alleged miracles, any part of his life and anything about his death. The source must be contemporary, i.e. scrolls written some hundred years later do not count. Likewise, any texts describing Christianity and/or the followers of Jesus do not count. The Romans were almost as fanatical about keeping records as the lunatic Nazis were some 2000 years later, yet nowhere is Jesus mentioned in any of the contemporary Roman texts. I'm all ears.

If memory serves me correctly, Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

Do the hundred gospels not included in the Bible count?

A hundred accounts of Jesus's life within striking distance of His life vs. historical revisionism by God haters with chips on their shoulders. Who should I have an easier time believing?

BTW, I couldn't help but notice your absence when SP lampooned Richard Dawkins.

"Reaper G" wrote:

Yeah, I really don't know where that guy is coming from. I'm not an historian, or anything, but I've always heard of various records of Jesus' life/death, apart from the New Testament, and his statements about the NT itself don't ring true, either, to say the least.

I certainly don't need historical proof of something so self-evident, anyway. As people like ourselves know, the proof comes from shared experiences with other aware people - the atheists can tell themselves whatever they want about such assertions, but we know they're completely valid, whether we can "prove" it to them, or not.

"Joel" wrote in message news:[email]...

You should root out those records and provide links... you might educate a few atheists yet.

"Joel" wrote

The ONLY Roman-period reference to Christ is in Tacitus' *Annals* and that's probably about a century after the fact and may not even be genuine. (Though personally I think it is.)

The entire quote is this:

"Auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat."

Which, if my highschool Latin and four years in college serve me correctly means something like this:

"The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius."

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

Reaper G wrote:

For what? "Gospels" that were so important they weren't even included in the Bible when the powers that be decided what was going in and what wasn't? "Gospels" that cannot be dated to the first century? "Gospels" that contain such bizarre references to Jesus as a snake-god? Those gospels?

What hundred accounts? Stuff written post-facto based on myths, just like in any other religion. Even the New Testament gospels have so widely different versions of the last days of Jesus, that it is impossible to reconcile them all and come up with a narrative that is not contradictory to all of them.

Btw, I don't hate any gods any more that you hate Zeus, Mitra, Odin or Shiva.

What's that got to do with anything?

If memory serves me correctly, Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

There are four official Gospels and a hundred others that the Vatican has stashed away. And so what if there are varying accounts of Jesus's life? That applies to any historical figure with a number of autobiographies about them.

Wasn't it nice to see atheism treated as just another religion, and Dawkins treated as just another fundie kook?

Josephus was not a Christian.

I am neither Catholic nor Christian, dumbass.

Nor Tacitus, nor Suetonius.

The idea that the gospels were written ca. 130+ is laughably uneducated.

Quite why any sensible person would believe so credulously in the establishment we are not told.

I bet you get flamed all the same.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris � wrote:

So what? The question is not what he was or wasn't, but whether Testimonium Flavianum is genuine or a fake. All indications and a general agreement is that it is a pollution of the original text. Origen mentions Testimonium Flavianum exactly zero times.

Who cares?

Yeah, but most people know something about what Catholics believe--and Catholics don't normally sue the ass off folks who make fun of them. Scientologists are secretive about their beliefs, have copyrighted them and bla bla bla.

I love it when they bash anyone who doesn't get bashed enough elsewhere (i.e. liberal activists like Rob Reiner, etc.)