I'm Finally Going To Write the History Channel...

[Stealth Hunter]

Yes, you represent the 5% that believes in nothing, and its quite obvious. Let me guess, you fall into the same catagory that thinks we never made it to the moon.

:rotfl:

I'm sorry, but it's painfully obvious that you were raised from birth to be a Christian follower, and it is also obvious that you know nothing of Atheism. Oh, and we did make it to the moon, JFK was killed by LHO, the government had nothing to do with 9/11, and Ronald Reagan was not Satan...

How do you explain its overtake of the romans a couple hundred years later? A cancer? Hahahaha! Go back to your hole and re-bury yourself. I believe you when you tell me the world is flat, really! Just go away! The flat world society sees you as a prize!

A Roman emperor, perhaps, that made sure all of Rome would become Christian. When you have a generation of children raised with something, they tend to follow it and stick with it. Nero saw it coming, and he tried to destroy the Christians ahead of time. Unfortunately, his attempt by burning Rome in 94 AD failed...

Why bury myself when you're making yourself look like a damned fool? I'm staying out of the ground to watch more of your ramblings.

And the rest of that statement... for your God's sake, man. If you're going to misquote somebody, make it look professional. I know for a fact the world is not flat; I said the Bible said the world was flat. If you can't understand the sentence I used... then I take so much pity on you.

Just go away. You're a thread spammer who has too much time on his hands and an account on this forum, and unfortunately for you, I can find quite a few others that agree with me on that. You're no better than Wastegate was.

The "Flat World Society"?:rotfl:

To begin with, you totally got my quote wrong. Secondly, I know, as I posted, that the world is not flat. Finally, even if I did think the world was flat, you'd have to come up with something better than the "Flat World Society" to bring about a proper and effective insult.

Your claim about Julius Caesar is so preposterous that I should never have tried to dignify it with a contraire comment. If you keep trying to derail my thread, then I'm calling the mods. This started out as a discussion about the History Channel, and thanks to you, you've turned it into a 3 page discussion about Jesus.

And you misspelled "category".

[Sailor Steve]

All those arguments hold up just as well for any religious test, including the Koran.

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/xx.html

"Most of the world" doesn't agree with you, either. Are the Hindus right, and you wrong? The Muslims? And you are probably not Roman Catholic, so you dismiss some books that the majority adheres to. The world may only be 2% athiest, but Protestants make up less than 6%, and you may not be in the majority of those.

Saying that you are all Christian again belies the number of 'Christians' who don't really believe, not to mention the fact that 'Christians' have considered those differences important enough to kill each other over. I don't agree with people who use that fact to condemn all Christians, or Christianity itself; I merely point out that not all who claim to be Christian truly are.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I'm sorry, but it's painfully obvious that you were raised from birth to be a Christian follower, and it is also obvious that you know nothing of Atheism. Oh, and we did make it to the moon, JFK was killed by LHO, the government had nothing to do with 9/11, and Ronald Reagan was not Satan...

You missed by 5 miles - And yes, i liked Ronald Reagan. Wish he was still pres.

A Roman emperor, perhaps, that made sure all of Rome would become Christian. When you have a generation of children raised with something, they tend to follow it and stick with it. Nero saw it coming, and he tried to destroy the Christians ahead of time. Unfortunately, his attempt by burning Rome in 94 AD failed...

Oh! So you've played us all as idiots then since you know of Christians outside of the bible? Nice. A totally biased opinion, but I assume 95% of us expected this from you, with the other 5% knowing it would happen.

Why bury myself when you're making yourself look like a damned fool? I'm staying out of the ground to watch more of your ramblings.

You already buried yourslef. I don't need to help you.

And the rest of that statement... for your God's sake, man. If you're going to misquote somebody, make it look professional. I know for a fact the world is not flat; I said the Bible said the world was flat. If you can't understand the sentence I used... then I take so much pity on you.

Oh I didn't misquote you, I just guided you into making this type of post.

Just go away. You're a thread spammer who has too much time on his hands and an account on this forum, and unfortunately for you, I can find quite a few others that agree with me on that. You're no better than Wastegate was.

The "Flat World Society"?:rotfl:
To begin with, you totally got my quote wrong. Secondly, I know, as I posted, that the world is not flat. Finally, even if I did think the world was flat, you'd have to come up with something better than the "Flat World Society" to bring about a proper and effective insult.

Hahahaha! Funny! I love it. Mr. NERVE is struck!

Your claim about Julius Caesar is so preposterous that I should never have tried to dignify it with a contraire comment. Now, I am actually and officially ending this pitiful conversation.

And you misspelled "category".

I don't think you can end it. But we will see. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

All those arguments hold up just as well for any religious test, including the Koran.

And i expect the same attention to be given.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/xx.html

"Most of the world" doesn't agree with you, either. Are the Hindus right, and you wrong? The Muslims? And you are probably not Roman Catholic, so you dismiss some books that the majority adheres to. The world may only be 2% athiest, but Protestants make up less than 6%, and you may not be in the majority of those.

Saying that you are all Christian again belies the number of 'Christians' who don't really believe, not to mention the fact that 'Christians' have considered those differences important enough to kill each other over. I don't agree with people who use that fact to condemn all Christians, or Christianity itself; I merely point out that not all who claim to be Christian truly are.

I don't think their is a religion that thinks that Jesus did not exist as given in this thread, but I could be wrong. I know at least Muslims acknowledge him, as do Jews, so wouldn't that be a majority regardless? Good thing I was wrong about athiests though - they are a damn cancer, though one that seems to be shrinking.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm done with it. Jesus discussion is over. Let's get the original show back on the road.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I'm done with it. Jesus discussion is over. Let's get the original show back on the road.

As I was aware, religion was the topic for the History channel. How can you avoid it?

-S

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I don't think their is a religion that thinks that Jesus did not exist as given in this thread, but I could be wrong. I know at least Muslims acknowledge him, as do Jews, so wouldn't that be a majority regardless? Good thing I was wrong about athiests though - they are a damn cancer, though one that seems to be shrinking.

-S

I'm not arguing the question of whether he existed. Enough early Christians thought so to make a difference. What I take exception to is the statement that "There is more documented evidence on him than any person in HISTORY!" This is not even remotely true. I also take exception to the idea propounded by people I talk to-and listen to-that the documentation is 'proof' not only of existence, but also of divinity.

As for the History Channel, I stopped watching years ago. I participated in too many discussions at Warships1/Navweaps that started with "Did you see that show on xxxxx last night? Do they ever get ANYTHING right?!"

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I participated in too many discussions at Warships1/Navweaps that started with "Did you see that show on xxxxx last night? Do they ever get ANYTHING right?!"

I am familiar with Navweaps but I don't know "warshhips1" What is that?

Always looking for other naval historical sources

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"There is more documented evidence on him than any person in HISTORY!"

I showed evidence above to prove you already wrong here, so how is it that you forgot about that? More documents exist on him than any person in history, at an approximate rate of 100:1 over the second most, which is homer. So what were we talking about then?

-S

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am familiar with Navweaps but I don't know "warshhips1" What is that?

Always looking for other naval historical sources

Warships1 http://warships1.com/ was a fantastic site for naval history, created and hosted by Guy Derdall and Tony DiGiulian. There was a section on all types of warships, with histories, pictures and stats for a huge number of ship classes, plus links to all sorts of technical articles written by some of the top experts in the field. A lot of it is still there, but the ships sections have been closed for some time.

NavWeaps is Tony D.'s effort to keep most of it going, and it's going well. Pretty much everything has been transferred; the only thing really missing is the Ships pages. The discussion boards are still there, I just miss some of the talks that used to go on there.

[Platapus]

Good gouge on the site thanks

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I showed evidence above to prove you already wrong here, so how is it that you forgot about that?

You've actually shown no evidence at all. You made a statement (more than 5300 Greek manuscripts), but didn't even show where this statement comes from. In fact it comes from a Christian Apologist website http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm , and HE doesn't give any authoritative demonstration. So, where are these 5300+ manuscripts? The truth is, as I said, most of the extant manuscripts are copies of others; so how many original manuscripts actually exist? None. Everything we have is a copy, usually of another copy. So what manuscripts, even copies, are there really? A good start is here:
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

As you can see, when we say "Manuscripts", we are not talking about whole copies of the New Testament, we are talking about a copy of one letter here, and a fragment of a Gospel there. None of the letters are records of the life of Jesus - they are all directives on how to live the proper Christian life. In fact, when the epistles refer to him at all they refer to the Lord, never the man. Likewise the Gospels: they tell the story - they never try to read like an actual biography.

More documents exist on him than any person in history, at an approximate rate of 100:1 over the second most, which is homer.

Again, you make a flat statement with no supporting evidence. The 'documents' are all religious in nature, and have no supporting historical record. And again you compare the Bible to Homer, whom we already agree is nothing more than a fabulous set of mythical stories. Are you saying the Bible is the same?

So what were we talking about then?

I was talking about what can be supported by historical records and what can't. You seem to be talking about proving a religious belief is true based on the number of people who believe it.

To attempt to steer this away from pointless bickering about who put their gladius and spear where, I'd like to point out that much of the military stuff, like mail call, moved to another station owned, presumably by Discovery like the history channel is, called the Military Channel on some sort of comcast cable deal. Much of what I've seen on there IS on discovery channel, but only comes on at odd hours compared to round the clock war.

I wish the History channel wasn't so West-centric, I'd love a good history of central and east asia. Besides WWII Japan.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by orwell

I wish the History channel wasn't so West-centric, I'd love a good history of central and east asia. Besides WWII Japan.

As I said, I haven't watched in a long time. Before Discovery Channel broke into several specific groups, Wings was just another show they had on. I thoroughly enjoyed it, even to the point of taping every episode I could, but was disappointed that they never did a series on Axis aircraft. Did they ever finally do one, and I just missed it?

[kiwi_2005]

If your sick of the history channel your find alot of history on youtube! Especially about the world wars. That place is stacked with history. Ive watched more blacknwhite War documentary's on youtube than anywhere else.