Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Let me join :D Buckethead is my favourite. I like Binge and Grab.

At 1/20/10 03:59 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/20/10 03:42 AM, Syncakes wrote:

Even Titus Flavius Josephus

Not, "even", ONLY Josephus documented the life of Jesus. And that's still uncertain.

The bible is not reliable as a standalone historical document. Some parts do deal with real events and real places, but we know only because we were able to confirm it independently.

Only Josephus? What of Tacitus?

I do agree though, that the Bible is not a reliable standalone historical document. It's not a history book, and it never was meant to be one.

At 1/20/10 02:41 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/19/10 11:45 PM, falz3333 wrote: The bible is not a story book to christians. You denying its veracity, to a lot of them, is like saying the holocaust never happened

But then I could sit there and say that we have so much proof that the holocaust DID happen and deniers are full of shit. Whereas Christians have no solid proof that ANYTHING in the Bible happened, and there's actually a ton of proof to wholly and completely debunk entire sections of it...therefore I can doubt the hell out of the Bible as a source of unimpeachable fact. Not only doubt, but flat out state that it isn't.

That's the difference. Nice try with the emotional appeal there though...but this is why such tactics don't work in a debate based on facts.

The Bible has been used by historians. It is historically accurate. To say that there is no solid proof that ANYTHING in the Bible happened is a misinformed statement--if you have ever read the Bible, and paid attention to history classes, you'll see the connections. Even Titus Flavius Josephus, a Roman citizen documented the life of Jesus (a long with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD).

And by the way, absolute truth does exist.

At 1/19/10 03:16 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/19/10 02:53 PM, chairmankem wrote:

At 1/19/10 02:20 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Can't sustain an empire by being idle, my boy.

Can't sustain an empire for long, period.

The Roman Empire lasted over 1500 years.

If you count the Byzantine Empire as being part of the Roman Empire, it would have lasted almost 2000 years. In terms of Roman Empire, the traditional ending date is in 476 when the Western Roman Empire collapsed.

Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference. Nations come and go, conquer or be conquered. Although, China had a nasty habit of absorbing it's conquerors.

Even Churchill, in his "This was their finest hour" speech, famously said: " Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'"

Ironically, the British Empire did not last much longer after that.

I've always actually thought of that myself. I think it's because of the country's founding or early ideas--early presidents did not like the idea of colonialism. When China was being forced to sign extraterritoriality treaties to Western nations and all that stuff in the late 1800s, the US jumped in and stopped them from doing it.

Was it because they wanted to protect China? Or was it because they just didn't want to see countries like France, Russia, and Britain get ahead?

It's a bit funny when people are looking to keep world peace, they just end up making the entire war bigger. It's like joining a fight to end a fight. You just end up getting a higher amount of total bruises and aches.