KalBahamut's April Fools Quiz

Nah I had some $100 headphones back in the 90s. They were sweet, though.

It can be used to mean that, in a metaphorical sense. Sort of the same way we can talk about "the war on poverty" without actually dropping bombs on poor people. But that doesn't change what the word "war" means.

Yay. I caught another one.

aside: of course, if he wasn't a real person, then he no more founded Christianity than Zeus found Greek pantheism, or Shiva founded Hinduism, and stating that he did is every bit as silly as making either of those claims. Currently the consensus is that the stories were at least based on a flesh and blood man, but in a century or so we may think differently.

If someone died today and noone wrote a single thing about him until 2037, you wouldn't think that was a long time? Also, where do you get 20 years from? Mark was written about 35-40 years after the alleged death of Jesus, and is usually regarded as the oldest of the gospels. Ask yourself, why is it just because something was written 2000 years ago before the birth of such concepts as skepticism, scientific method, fact checking or journalistic integrity does it instantly become infinitely more credible? Can you imagine how little you would regard a claim made today, published by an anonymous author, that there was a messiah that you had heretofore never heard of, who had died in 1977? And while this "messiah" performed miracles, resurrected corpses, walked on water, and came back to life causing earthquakes and zombie hordes etc, oddly NOBODY saw fit to write any of this down in the intervening 40 years? Think of how easy it would be to disregard these claims out of hand.

That's simply unbelievable. There are many many many many records from every province of the Roman Empire from the first century. The were many literate Romans. They were meticulous record keepers. We have many records of very mundane things. And you expect me to believe that of the many astounding and miraculous things described in the Bible we have not a SINGLE extra-Biblical account? Including the sun being blotted out which would have been observable all over the entire planet. That's not just unlikely, it's impossible.

I started replying to every bit of nonsense here but I got tired. The fact that no extra-Biblical accounts exist of any of the many miraculous events in the Bible should prove to you that the Bible is false but I'm aware of how powerful denial and self-deception can be.

As to there being extra-Biblical accounts of certain things in the Bible, I never said the ENTIRE Bible was a fabrication. We know Pilate and Herod were real people they are very well documented. We know the Roman Empire was real. We know ancient Egypt was real. We know some ancient Hebrews were held in captivity in Babylon. There is some archaeological evidence for the kingdom of David. None of this proves that Jesus was a real person or that the (contradictory) accounts of his life in the gospels are accurate. If you want to say that it does, then I submit that the existence of New York City proves that Spider-Man is a real person.

I'm familiar with Ehrman. I tend to agree with him. I think Jesus was likely a real person. I can see the Bible contains all sorts of obvious fabrications. I assume that the life of Jesus as told in the Bible is heavily mythologized. I see the many obvious contradictions in the Bible, along with historical inaccuracies, additions, errors, etc. I think Ehrman would agree with all these things. I've listened to many of his lectures.

Where we would disagree is I think that he is too quick to dismiss the Jesus mythicists, like Richard Carrier (they hate each other). It's my personal opinion that Ehrman and most historians have a more plausible case, but Carrier's position is worth considering, and even if Jesus were a real person it doesn't change the fact that we have ZERO evidence of this. If he were just a carpenter's son and itinerant rabbi who was executed by the Romans that would be peculiar. If he was a living god who performed miracles publicly, it seems impossible.

And finally, all of the above is irrelevant to the quiz. Jesus could have been the living son of God. He could have performed miracles. He could have been executed and then resurrected before ascending to heaven. And he still wouldn't be the founder of Christianity.

Someone here had previously asked if I was familiar with Bart Ehrman (noted Biblical scholar who is on record as disagreeing passionately with Jesus mythicists), I think implying that he'd disagree with me. But we actually agree on almost all points.

So I can stop being an animal? What am I supposed to be then? A plant? Fungus? I like being an animal.

so a sheep, then?

No, I am not. Nor is that something to be wished for. But I'm happy the reference wasn't lost.

I was never a Catholic.

The Catholic Bible isn't that different from your redacted and abridged version. Their Bible has nothing to do with Catholic reverence for saints. That comes more from the fact that Christianity didn't become popular and widespread until it was co-opted by Constantine and became a thoroughly Roman religion. The saints were basically the Christian version of Roman polytheism. But that's not the only thing; it's impossible that there are not elements of Roman polytheism in whatever backwoods fundamentalist version of Christianity you have, in your obviously limited experience in the world, come to haughtily believe is the True Christianity.

You'll have to provide a source. Because there were also a lot of false claims that artificial sweeteners caused headaches, that red M&Ms caused cancer, etc etc. There was one (now seen as flawed) study on Saccharine back in the 1970s that led to this sweetener being banned in the US link, even while it continues to be used in most other countries.

I've never seen that inspire wrath. Though I guess I could imagine some Christians who hate Islam getting mad about that. And these days... tons of people will argue with you over facts.

oh. Well... they're not the same thing. Even if one spawned the other. And if you believe that these imaginary characters exist, implying that they're all the same I can see as something that would make you angry. But what you said before is different from that. If you told someone "Allah" is the Arabic word for "the god".... that's quite a bit different from saying "you know, Allah is the same god as the Christian god."

No I didn't miss anything. But I do think you may be exaggerating a little. And also the first thing you said is a little misleading.

According to Muslim tradition, the god of the Jews and Christians is the same god that they worship, even though the Jewish and Christian holy books have been corrupted and the Jews and Christians worship wrong.

According to Jews and Christians, though, Muslims are blasphemers and heretics following a false prophet.