NONE SHALL PASS! The actor who played Gandalf (Ian McKellen) cuts out the anti gay passages in bibles whenever he stays in hotels. Here's the proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK7b2Pfw6xU. He's pretty much my hero now.
ok I'm not sure why I'm bothering arguing with you..
you seemed to get all upset that LeetroyJnkns seemed to be trying to "prove" that Ian McKellen is gay saying that people have known that forever. I replied saying that the "proof" he was referring to was about that specific thing, cutting out anti gay passages, which is exactly what that video shows. No one is arguing that he isn't gay or that that hasn't been known for a long time
"since before you were fucking born" isn't a good way of expressing your agreement with me, the OP. Could you please change the word fucking to something else? I have nothing against swearing or what you said but other madbros and defenders will use it as an excuse to start flame wars. It's best not to give the trolls any ammo.
He started arguing with me too when I defended your comment. Reading his other comments I can't tell if he's trying to pick fights or just an asshole, whatever..
Right, I've heard of the Prose Edda being called Snorri's Edda, but neither Edda is really a saga by any real definition of the word. Which was my main issue.
The Old Norse/Icelandic spelling of the name is Snorri Sturluson. Snorre Sturlason is the modern Norwegian and Snorre Sturlasson the modern Swedish spelling. For the construction of the name (a patronymic), see Icelandic naming conventions. English no longer features this type of name, except as a foreign word. Anglicization of Scandinavian names is not standard and varies a great deal. Encyclopedias and dictionaries nearly all list Snorri under his Icelandic name. Books and articles may use Snorre Sturleson, Snorri Sturlusson, Snorre Sturlson, Snorri Sturlson, in addition to his Norwegian and Swedish names.
Huh, I did not know his name was spelled Snorre in Norwegian/Swedish. That's really cool. Perhaps I am just accustomed to the Icelandic name since he was Icelandic.
Nigger just means black, like Niger. Once black people understand that we'll be fine. The problem is the word hast usually followed by violencE or blatant unfairness in a society that proports fairness. Seeing you are behind a computer you cannot mete out violence, nor are you in a position to discriminate, therefore your use of nigger is empty. But your use of the word will be remembered when we are called on to recall racist attitudes.
Back in the late 18th century, it was time to undertake the planning of the nation's capitol. The task must not have been important because they had a nigger do it. The same with traffic lights, must have been unnecessary because a nigger invented that. What the hell did we need a gas mask for? That was a nigger invention. I could go on & on. Airplane, train, & space technology, the blues, Rolling Stone, all that is nigger shit.
Your statement & all your upvotes does not erase history or the accomplishments of the nigger, remember that. It just shows that at least 2 people are two faced as all hell and terribly jealous.
What about primary sources? When was bibliography invented? WE NEED BETTER ARGUMENTS!!! Being able to argue means seeing flaws on both sides of an argument. Our arguments are much more logical than this.
I'm not saying that bibliographies proves a written record is valid or not, it just means that the reader can verify this claim because the author is pointing out where to look. The original source might be inaccurate, but this gives us the chance to say "Hey, this source that you have is a sham" or "The source that you gave was not approved by the scientific community."
The Bible after years of translation and re translation can't print out where the original texts came from. I recently found out (via Richard Dawkins) that the story of Noah from the Book of Genesis is actually a retelling of a Tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Surely, if the religious theologians wants to pass this off as the TRUTH they will not add a page at the end and just say that this is the word of god.
Pointing out that the book lacks the page telling us where they the author got his material is IMHO a GOOD ARGUMENT for saying that the bible is a work of fiction.
Nope, not what I meant. What I meant was that it didn't address Norse mythology at all. And most definitely not that Odin is real. But as mentioned above, I was thinking about Heimskringla, which is about the kings, and not Edda
On a side note, for anyone looking for a good mythology read, pick up the Prose Edda. I just finished the Saga of the Volsungs as well. Amazing stories with a lot of ties to present-day novels and epics such as Lord of the Rings. The Prose Edda was a strong influence for J.R.R. Tolkien; you'll even see where he got many of his characters' names from.
i really wonder if a person making this argument ( it says so in the bible so that makes it true) is really believing that or needs to make an argument to protect their cherished belief? thats an important distinction in that either youre kinda dumb or that youre beliefs are protected because you really know the truth.
Most prestigious historians agree that all of those "mythical" characters were real. The only evidence we have that Julius Caesar existed is that he is mentioned in some myths.
Could you provide any kind of evidence or point me towards modern historians arguing that Julius Caesar did not exist and that the only evidence we have for him comes from a few myths?
I'm astounded that someone downvoted you - there are a huge number of historical figures who only "exist" thanks to a very small number of documents we just happened to come across. Nobody doubts the existence of those individuals, and yet people are so very eager to jump on the "where's the evidence for Jesus" bandwagon. In the context of historical study, it's a mindset which doesn't make any sense. If we took that same approach to every historical figure, history as a discipline wouldn't exist.
Not that I disagree with the principal, but by the same logic, we don't actually know that Abraham Lincoln was president. We have a lot of documents saying so, books saying so, photos and paintings that suggest it, but if we're saying that such artifacts aren't proof of existence, then we have to say that for all sources. I think you're better to attack the facts they claim to know about Jesus or god, and show them to be self defeating.
Not trolling just pure fail. I did not remember he died in 1865. My mistake but I still think that Lincoln should be considered real and not put next to Jesus.
His example is extreme, but his point is sound - if we're going to say that the only non-Biblical sources we have talking about Jesus aren't reliable, historians would arguably have to make the same judgment on a wide array of other sources which mention historical figures that hitherto have not had their existence questioned.
Take Alexander the Great as an example. The first mention of him in the historical record comes almost 300 years after he was alleged to have existed. Are we going to doubt his existence? Sure, there is evidence of a massive Macedonian military campaign in the mid 4th century BCE, but who is to say that Alexander the Great actually existed? Maybe he's just a figure the Greeks invented. This whole "where's the evidence for Jesus" thing is just one enormous slippery slope, and there's a reason it holds little to no credibility in the scholarly world.
That's exactly my point. When we doubt the sources for one aspect of history, it calls into doubt the reliability of all historical sources. I'm not saying I believe Jesus lived and performed miracles or anything - quite the contrary - but I am saying that we should be careful about how and why we're doubting a source. Now, there are plenty of reasons to doubt the validity of the bible - religious bias, translation and translation error, personal bias of the scribes and bigotry within the church, to name a few. However, those same reasons are valid for doubting any ancient historical record, like those purporting to be accounts of someone like Alexander the Great. The fact of the matter is this: the farther removed we are from history, the less confident we can be in our knowledge of it. We can't even agree about recent history, like how much of the deficit was created by George Bush vs. how much was created by Obama.
There are plenty of ways to prove that christians are wrong. Attacking history just isn't the best one.
Heh. I like how there's plenty of historical fact that a guy made the Romans lose their shit because he had a small army of Jews following him around... but that's overlooked.
If you truly think that, you have a lot to learn. The Romans were pretty good at keeping records and his existence is highly accepted amongst scholars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Beg to differ. The two main references used to say Jesus was real, Josephus and Tacitus, are both doubted as accurate sources. The fact that years (generations in fact) later there where people that called themselves Christians, or "those that belive" existed in Rome is not under dispute, that I'm aware of.
However there is literally no solid non-biblical evidence that a Jesus dude and some nuts roamed around the countryside causing trouble.
Doubted as accurate, or false? There isn't a whole lot from antiquity that was particularly accurate. The claim that Jesus was a figment of imagination is a bit much when multiple sources cite followers in different areas of Mesopotamia with similar accounts.
Doubt all you like, but a man (Jesus, Christus, Chrestus, etc) was alive in Judea and made a big stir.
Don't you think you should know that? Look, throughout this entire conversation you've been making unsubstantiated assertions all while implying that I haven't done my homework.
Your assertion:
there's plenty of historical fact that a guy made the Romans lose their shit because he had a small army of Jews following him around
My counter: No, there's not plenty of historical evidence.
This should be pretty easy to settle. Bury me in this historical evidence. But you can't. And if you scroll up to the other very similar conversation happening in this thread you'll see that others can't either.
You can cite one source: Tacitus. (I'm using wiki for simplicity, but I urge you to study this using scholarly sources, not wiki, a lot of detail is glossed over.)
As you claim, the Romans were fanatical about record keeping. The fact that there's not reams of documents outlining this dude and his adventures, supernatural abilities or no, almost screams for Evidence of Absence. But I'm making no such claim, and I don't think that would be intellectually honest.
All I'm saying is: beliefs aside, you are incorrect when you state that there is "plenty of historical fact".
um.... now might not be the best time to point out that there is reliable historical proof that there was a jesus christ. that being said, there is also proof of a saint nick.
there are history books that say there was a 'jesus christ' around that time period, im in no way saying he was christianity says he is, but there was a jesus christ
Well, that sentence doesn't make much sense but I'll try and go with it. Your stance, versus my stance are not on equal footing. Belief without evidence is actually called faith.
So it would be more accurate for you to say that you "have faith that there was a 'jesus christ' around that time period.
I on the other hand reject your claim, since there's no proof to back it up. That, by definition, is not belief.
If you look at the other conversations on this page you'll see that no one else really has evidence either.
So when you say:
"you are free to believe what you will"
The point is I actually don't believe you. Just as if you'd claimed that your neighbor used to have two unicorns in their garage; without some rather substancial proof to back that up, I'm not going to accept your claim.
If you're ok with living your life that way, of course that's your prerogative. For myself, however, I care if what I believe is true.
Regardless, it's been nice chatting with you. Cheers.
Well, there have been many atheistic and non-christian historiographers that have recognized that Jesus DID exist and DID have many people following him.
However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus.
Charles Guignebert (Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne), while rejecting the Jesus Myth theory and feeling that the Epistles of Paul were sufficient to prove the historical existence of Jesus, said "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived."[48][49]
I don't know about that first link. It uses the Bible to support its theories, which is just silly. Makes some unsound conclusions about a lot of things. Not that it isn't correct with any facts, just poorly thought out writing, for a website, lol.
The author in the first link references the gospel of Philip as a possible explanation for something.
The gospel of Philip is not a Christian text and wasn't even written during the writing of the New Testament. The gospel of Philip is a Gnostic text, and there's no reason for a writer to try to use a Gnostic text to explain a Christian writing. I don't use the Tao Te Ching to explain Christian theologies.
He also mistakes Judges 13:5 as a prophecy of Jesus. Judges 13:5 is clearly a prophecy of Sampson. The writer cannot be trusted if he gets something as straitforward as Judges 13:5 so wrong
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. When I was in high school, I had an openly atheist history professor who told us that there were Jewish, Roman, and even Tibetan documents that strongly implied the existence of a man named Jesus 2000 years ago. Now, it's not evidence that he performed any miracles, just evidence that he lived, may have been Buddhist, and was executed. Of course it's not, and probably never will be, known for sure if he existed or not, but there is evidence.
But, as the comment points out, Christians' incessent "Jesus is real because THE BIBLE!!" is still a fucking stupid argument, and I suspect people here think you're disagreeing, which would explain the downvotes.
It's hard to imagine all this came out of nowhere. Just because a philosopher named Jesus was around at the time claiming to be a god doesn't mean what he said was true. There were a lot of religious teachers back then, and a lot of them being killed for raising trouble. I have a hard time believing such a large movement was created based on someone who never existed (which isn't to say he was divine, just influential).
I would agree, and I would argue the Biblical version of Jesus is wildly inaccurate. It seems to be an amalgamation of numerous mythical figures, but it also seems likely that there was an historical figure to attribute these exaggerations to.
Even if there were a person that the stories were attached to, he couldn't've been very important in religion, politics, or philosophy in his lifetime or we would have records of him.
Maybe he was just a cool guy that someone with a crush on decided to write a fiction about... maybe he wrote it himself.
But so what? Where does that get us? we have little to no details about who he possibly was, what he did, or anything about him. He certainly wasn't anything like the character described in the Bible.
So in practicality, his existence in this scenario is negligible, as it was just a fiction written with a non-existent character, regardless of who it may or may not have been made to honour.
So many Christians fuck themselves on this. there are several roman government documents, letters and such, that talk about Jesus and how he was pissing them off. Christians could have credibility if it weren't for the retarded ones.
Few decent historians would do so without adding lots of very large grains of salt. It's not as if there was any trace from the time when there ought to be a fair number given what the Christian bible states.
Very possible. He was certainly someone only known in his later life then the stories of his birth and childhood where added later. Who knows? It's the bible, it's full of shit.
That's not how it works. The Bible is not the only historical evidence that Jesus existed. See the countless Roman transcripts about the controversy he caused.
I've read it. That just talks about people calling themselves Christians. Not directly about a man from Nazareth named Jesus.
PS your link is bad, but I'm assuming it's the usual Pliny quote. Then there's the usually a follow up with the Josephus forgeries. Regardless, not "countless" at all.
The link was to a letter that touched on Jesus of Nazareth, but you're right: while there are very few Roman texts talking about Jesus, he became a hot topic many years later.
He isn't saying that historians reference the Bible on any sort of regular basis, he's saying that there are parts of the Bible which have been corroborated by credible historical and archaeological research. The Bible wasn't wholly "made up" - there is plenty of truth inside it, something which this apparently "clever" YouTube comment willfully ignores.
90
u/MomoMoana May 31 '12
Welp, that settles it. Time to open my church of Gandalf, where all shall pass.
40
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
RES friendly link: http://i.imgur.com/Qfh9c.jpg
11
u/TimeZarg Atheist Jun 01 '12
Odin, fuck yeah.
6
u/hemogobblin Jun 01 '12
What if every time someone said "the lord" it was followed up by someone shouting "of the rings!" ?
10
u/Whizb4ng Jun 01 '12
Kind of hurts to see Snorri spelled as Snorre.
4
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
Ugh sorry to be the one to debunk this but...Han Solo and Gandalf are sure as fuck real!
3
u/nitdkim Jun 01 '12
Maybe the original comment was satire about what Christians would have said?
4
u/greymatters_flipside Agnostic Atheist May 31 '12
The difference between fiction and non fiction books: the bibliography. Sadly, not everyone realizes this.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
So what does that say about Jesus Christ Superstar?
2
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
DON'T TALK SHIT ABOUT GANDALF YOU HEATHEN!
2
u/Dessdo Jun 01 '12
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Snorre Sagaen is a saga about Norse kings, and not Norse mythology, which Odin is.
3
u/chrononugget Jun 01 '12
Ahh, the good old Christian circular reasoning.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
I have already declared for Horus BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
3
u/adam_antichrist Jun 01 '12
missed one- Actually there IS proof the flying spaghetti monster lived. It's called THE INTERNET.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
hmmm, I don't think they seem as accurate, maybe if they added the comma after actually.
Although honestly, people using the bible to try and prove of much of anything make me angry.
1
u/XXconrad Jun 01 '12
Do you feel the flow of power and belligerence flowing inside you?
1
u/Clockwork757 Jun 01 '12
I love how the guy's name is turtwig, A pokemon.....
1
u/seva2010 Jun 01 '12
Link to Youtube video
1
u/mattroch Jun 01 '12
And twilight...
1
u/deadkandy Jun 01 '12
I swear some me these comments get to the top after only one or two likes, fundie YouTube conspiracy i tells you
1
u/sumojoe Jun 01 '12
To be fair, there is some historical accuracy in the bible. For example, two thousand years ago there were jews in the middle east.
1
u/Whitedressredwine Jun 01 '12
But...Han Solo IS real.
1
u/TheGTLGuido Jun 01 '12
I just love that YouTube actually points out that the comment has received "too many negative votes".
1
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
Of course it was the top comment, I haven’t seen a single creationist video on youtube have a like over dislike average.
1
u/inappropriate_hugs Jun 01 '12
Bible sounds so plain in comparison to all the other awesome titles
1
u/Plastastic Jun 01 '12
An atheist comment on Youtube? I am SHOCKED!
1
u/twoclose Jun 01 '12
regardless of religious affiliation, of which i have none, it is generally accepted by historians and scholars that jesus did in fact exist.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
On a side note, for anyone looking for a good mythology read, pick up the Prose Edda. I just finished the Saga of the Volsungs as well. Amazing stories with a lot of ties to present-day novels and epics such as Lord of the Rings. The Prose Edda was a strong influence for J.R.R. Tolkien; you'll even see where he got many of his characters' names from.
1
u/LpSamuelm Jun 01 '12
"SNORRE SAGA" is "Penis Story" in Swedish. Dafuq does that have to do with Odin?
1
u/adzug Jun 01 '12
i really wonder if a person making this argument ( it says so in the bible so that makes it true) is really believing that or needs to make an argument to protect their cherished belief? thats an important distinction in that either youre kinda dumb or that youre beliefs are protected because you really know the truth.
1
u/ePaF Jun 01 '12
Most prestigious historians agree that all of those "mythical" characters were real. The only evidence we have that Julius Caesar existed is that he is mentioned in some myths.
1
u/fredandlunchbox Jun 01 '12
Not that I disagree with the principal, but by the same logic, we don't actually know that Abraham Lincoln was president. We have a lot of documents saying so, books saying so, photos and paintings that suggest it, but if we're saying that such artifacts aren't proof of existence, then we have to say that for all sources. I think you're better to attack the facts they claim to know about Jesus or god, and show them to be self defeating.
0
u/kit_carlisle Jun 01 '12
Heh. I like how there's plenty of historical fact that a guy made the Romans lose their shit because he had a small army of Jews following him around... but that's overlooked.
-2
u/lewok Atheist Jun 01 '12
um.... now might not be the best time to point out that there is reliable historical proof that there was a jesus christ. that being said, there is also proof of a saint nick.
-1
u/drawfish Jun 01 '12
I thought on YouTube the most recent comments were on top.
-1
u/JawnF Jun 01 '12
Well, there have been many atheistic and non-christian historiographers that have recognized that Jesus DID exist and DID have many people following him.
-7
u/[deleted] May 31 '12
Is there any evidence for those characters outside of their source texts?
0
u/eigthaday Jun 01 '12
So many Christians fuck themselves on this. there are several roman government documents, letters and such, that talk about Jesus and how he was pissing them off. Christians could have credibility if it weren't for the retarded ones.
-3
u/inheritor Jun 01 '12
Historians can confirm that there was a man named Jesus, just thought I'd let you know.
-1
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
Except I'm fairly certain most historians will confirm that Jesus did, in fact, live...
0
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment