tomb of christ

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

You appear to want it both ways.

You beat me to making exactly the same obvious point

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

And, no doubt, if they weren't mentioned then you would use that as an argument for not believing them.

There is no evidence of John inventing doubting Thomas at all. I presume you are taking a blind step of faith in stating it as if it were a fact.

There is no evidence for the authors creating any of the elements I find suspicious but this does not mean they should be automatically assumed to be true. When I look at the post resurrection accounts I see three different attempts by Matthew, Luke and John to show Jesus was a physical body. We already know that this was an issue for early Christianity with many groups believing in a non-physical body.

How I see it is that this was a significant issue for the authors of these three Gospels. Matthew and Luke were quite likely working from an early copy of Mark and as a result alot of their details agree up until the burial of Jesus. Mark does not deal with the resurrected Jesus and now we find Matthew and Luke diverging. It seems to me that they each felt compelled to verify the physical nature of Jesus but none were aware of the same events. Luke has Jesus eat a piece of a fish and Matthew has the women touch his feet, obviously desperately trying to prove his physical nature yet they somehow forget to mention the most obvious proof that Jesus offered, a disciple actually putting his hand inside the wounds. There is surely no way that they could not have been aware of this if it actually happened. It trumps their rather meagre proofs and would be a far more memorable event than Jesus eating a fish. The whole thing reads to me like three men in different parts of the world being forced to invent proofs because they have no answers to very valid questions being put to them.

As for the guard being put on the tomb it is actually quite a funny read. No one else bothered to mention this significant event apart from Matthew. I think he invented the guards at the tomb in order to prove the body was not stolen however he gets tangled up in his lie and tries really hard to untangle his accounts. I imagine when he was first telling the story it went something like this:

Skeptic: Hey Matthew, Thanks for coming to visit our town. I have just one question that I need clarifying and who better to ask than yourself. How do we know that the body wasn't just stolen from the tomb?
Matthew: Eh, because there were guards on the tomb.
Skeptic: Are you sure? Nobody else mentions any guards.
Matthew: Well it wasn't really important enough to mention. Anyways Pilate ordered guards to be put on the tomb so obviously the body couldn't have been stolen. End of story.
Skeptic: That answers my question. I assume these guards are now prominent members of the Christian church after being the first witnesses to the greatest event in the history of mankind, can you arrange for them to visit our town and speak to us?
Matthew: Em, I'm afraid I can't do that, you see they aren't actually believers in Jesus.
Skeptic: You mean they saw a corpse come back to life but they still don't believe?
Matthew:Ah, you see the guards were bribed by the Sanhedrin not to come forward and tell what they saw.
Skeptic: Wait a second, how do you know what the Sanhedrin said to the guards if they were succesfully bribed to say nothing?
Matthew: I just do.
Skeptic: But to admit being bribed would have meant execution for a Roman soldier, why would they do that?
Matthew: Em, hmmmm, They, eh...Well the Jewish priests said they would stand up for them.
Skeptic: Do the priests in Jerusalem have much say in the disciplining of corrupt Roman soldiers by their officers?
Matthew: I dunno...why not? Ah, the soldiers were to say to their superiors that the body was stolen by the disciples.
Skeptic: But they were posted there to stop the body from being stolen, how would they explain that?
Matthew: Good question.............I know, they would say they were asleep.
Skeptic: Such a flagrant deriliction of duty would have them executed a second time...Hold on, asleep? How on earth would they know the disciples stole the body if they were sleeping?
Matthew: :mad: Jesus says if you don't believe you will burn in hell for all eternity. I win.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You appear to want it both ways.

As do you.

If one author (let's say Mark) mentions something that another author (let's say John) omits then we get the inevitable posts saying stuff like: "Ah, if this was true or important then John wouldn't have missed it out. Therefore we can conclude the event probably didn't happen!"

If, however, a detail is mentioned that demonstrates the two be in harmony then we get the other kind of posts: "This looks too neat to be true. There must have been collusion between Mark and John. Therefore we can conclude the event probably didn't happen!"

Such tactics demonstrate that you, Depeche Mode, and a few others, want to have your cake and eat it. That you should then turn around and attempt to accuse me of the same displays breathtaking effrontery.

My position is quite simple, and perfectly reasonable. If you take a collection of eye witness accounts to any historical event or process then you may expect to see some patterns emerge:
1. There will be some details that all eye witnesses mention because they were either so important, or so emotive.
2. Some eye witnesses will focus in on certain details that either were particularly meaningful for them, or which are seen as more relevant to the slant they are putting on the event.
3. Some eye witnesses, wanting to make sure that they are being accurate, will doublecheck with other eyewitnesses to confirm the accuracy of their memories.
4. Some eye witnesses may stress certain aspects of their testimonies because they are aware that false rumours are misrepresenting the events in question. Therefore they point out things that they saw which contradict those false rumours.

Let's apply all of the above to a road accident witnessed by several witnesses - A, B & C.
1. All of the witnesses remember that the red car was travelling too fast.
2. Witness A noticed that the blue car failed to indicate when it turned right. However, Witness B's line of sight meant he didn't see that. Witness C had seen the blue car turning but, because any indicating was done when the blue car was out of sight of the red car, she didn't view the matter as relevant.
3. Witness B was pretty sure that the red car had run a red light on the way to hitting the blue car, but checked that fact first with Witness A and Witness C because he didn't want to accuse the driver unfairly. The other two witnesses confirmed the accuracy of his memory, and as a result of that conversation all of them described the running of the red light in near identical terms.
4. Witness C had hear a rumour that the driver of the red car was claiming that he had been blinded by the sun at the time of the accident. However, she distinctly remembered that the sky had been overcast. Therefore she specifically mentioned that fact in her testimony so as to counteract what was an obvious attempt by the driver of the red car to evade responsibility for the accident.

That is how eye witness testimony works. This is true of a car accident, of the siege of Leningrad, the FA Cup semi final, or the events described in the Gospel.

I am arguing that the Gospel accounts display the characteristics we should expect of eye witness testimony. To therefore accuse me of thereby "wanting it both ways" is sheer nonsense.

Now, if you have evidence that the events described didn't actually happen at all, or if you have evidence that they happened differently from how the available sources describe them, then put that evidence on the table and we can all look at it together. The problem, however, is that you have no such evidence.

What really makes me laugh is how, on the A&A forum, you and others like to keep affirming how you form your opinions by evidence rather than by faith. However, then you come onto this forum and summarily reject the available evidence and then propose alternative theories based on nothing more than your faith that the Gospel accounts are inaccurate.

BrianCalgary

And therein lies my confusion with posters. They stand up and spout evidence, evidence, evidence then when it is presented they reject it.

Then they come up with theories hat have absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever and claim that they coule be true.

Oh well.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Such tactics demonstrate that you, Depeche Mode, and a few others, want to have your cake and eat it.

Well yes but none of us are working on the assumption that all of this must be describing completely imaginary circumstances, where you (and most Christians) are working on the assumption that this must be describing completely real circumstances and events.

So we on this side are at an advantage.

I will happily accept that some of the details are probably accurate, if you will happily accept that some of the details are fictionalized or imaginary.

PDN wrote: »

If you take a collection of eye witness accounts to any historical event or process then you may expect to see some patterns emerge:

You can also though expect that people will fictionalize details for a number of various reasons.

You are starting from an assumption of an event and looking at how closely witnesses record these details, which you already know because you are starting from it.

With relation to the Bible since we have no independent information it is more correct (coming at it from a non-biased, non-faith based position) to assume that you don't know any of the actual details and work backwards from the witness testimonies, discarding details that appear to be fictionalized.

A movies such as Rashomon explores these concepts.

PDN wrote: »

I am arguing that the Gospel accounts display the characteristics we should expect of eye witness testimony. To therefore accuse me of thereby "wanting it both ways" is sheer nonsense.

But parts don't, that is the point.

PDN wrote: »

Now, if you have evidence that the events described didn't actually happen at all, or if you have evidence that they happened differently from how the available sources describe them, then put that evidence on the table and we can all look at it together. The problem, however, is that you have no such evidence.

I don't, but then I'm not coming from the position that it must have happened unless there is evidence that it didn't.

That is a religious position, a position of faith, not one of historical independence or objectivity.

You believe all this happened as it did because of your religious convictions, not because you have any proper reason to. You then work from that position to see if there is any way to fit the testimony around the key events that you have already accepted happened.

Needless to say that isn't the way I do it, nor do I believe it is the way you would approach any other religion's descriptions of supernatural or miraculous events.

PDN wrote: »

What really makes me laugh is how, on the A&A forum, you and others like to keep affirming how you form your opinions by evidence rather than by faith. However, then you come onto this forum and summarily reject the available evidence and then propose alternative theories based on nothing more than your faith that the Gospel accounts are inaccurate.

If you are serious rather than simply venting, then you are really showing a startling lack of understand of the human condition.

People lie. People make mistakes. People embellish. People have false memories.

All these aspects must be taken into account when assessing any personal accounts, particularly when these accounts are recorded years after the events and when they are describing supernatural events.

To say that we on the skeptic side are showing some sort of faith based bias by not accepting everything in the New Testament accounts as face value gospel (excuse the pun) is ridiculous.

I wouldn't do that for any other religion or religious accounts (from Scientology to Johnstown), I'm not sure why you would expect me to make a huge exception for your particular religion simply because you believe it.

To say that until you have evidence otherwise it is proper and correct to believe all these accounts is again ridiculous from the point of view of objectivity.

When you do this you simply show that you are motivated by religion not any proper search for accuracy.

Which is fine, but lecturing the rest of us is a bit rich.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And therein lies my confusion with posters. They stand up and spout evidence, evidence, evidence then when it is presented they reject it.

Well yes, that is what being objective is all about.

Using a topical story from the news, a girl went "missing" a few months ago in England, and her mother explained to the police about how it happened. It now turns out that the mother was in on it and it appears to have been a way to make money from the papers.

Simply being presented with testimony that something happened is not a reason to accept that it did, particularly when the testimony is either describing something rather unbelievable, or when there are problems with the testimony that appear when you properly look at it.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Then they come up with theories hat have absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever and claim that they coule be true.

Again, yes we do. You only think that is bad because you have a vested interest in a certain face value interpretation being correct.

The police in the example above no doubt didn't take the mothers story at face value, and from that did some further digging into the matter.

I don't take the gospel stories at face value. They don't stand up well.

Now if I could I would do further digging, but that option is about 2000 years too late. All we have left is the Bible's account of the events. So it would be like going back to the mother's story years later and trying to demonstrate that she is either lying or telling the truth. Its not possible.

But then I don't really care that much. The Bible story is most likely not true. I don't need to find out what really happened, because well life is too short and I have better things to do than dedicating my life to time travel simply to demonstrate conclusively that it didn't happen as it is described.

It is enough to know that the story is dodgy and has problems.

As I said to PDN we on this side of the fence have the advantage of not being that invested in the out come. I don't need to prove conclusively that any of my theoretical events that explain events in a non-Biblical way actually happened, their theoretical existence and plausibility, coupled with the complete lack of any evidence that anything in the Bible actually happened, is enough.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And therein lies my confusion with posters. They stand up and spout evidence, evidence, evidence then when it is presented they reject it.

Perhaps you're not really understanding why we're rejecting the evidence as unreliable.

For example, a piece of text saying that somebody died and then came back to life is one piece of evidence. We add this to the evidence that many other religions have similar stories. We also notice that people these days do not come back to life, and that people with religious agendas frequently misrepresent evidence. From reading contemporary texts, we find that authors back then were quite often sloppy about details to start with.

We therefore tentatively conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the original story was either inaccurate reported or else accurately reported originally, but changed somewhere between then and now. If more convincing evidence is presented in the future, then we may change that tentative conclusion.

If you make your way through this reasoning, you'll find out that it's less about proving you guys wrong -- I can't imagine a more pointless way to spend time -- and much more about coming to a reasonable conclusion from the evidence presented.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Then they come up with theories hat have absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever and claim that they coule be true.

If you're referring to evolution here, then I suggest that you go back to a few posts I made last August (just before I disappeared for my holliers) in the creationism thread where historical evidence was given to you in abundance. It's up to you whether or not you want to read it, but please don't say that it doesn't exist.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Using a topical story from the news, a girl went "missing" a few months ago in England, and her mother explained to the police about how it happened. It now turns out that the mother was in on it and it appears to have been a way to make money from the papers.

Simply being presented with testimony that something happened is not a reason to accept that it did, particularly when the testimony is either describing something rather unbelievable, or when there are problems with the testimony that appear when you properly look at it.

And, once evidence is found that the mother is lying, then is the time to speak it out and for the police to charge her. What we don't do is to go around, with no evidence at all, telling everyone that we think the child's parents are lying.

You are entitled to hold whatever beliefs you want. You may choose to believe, for example, that the McCanns secretly killed and ate their daughter. No one can force you to believe their testimony. But if you are going to go out of your way to propagate your theory then people are entitled to ask you for some evidence. Simply pointing out that another mother lied about her daughter's 'disappearance' does not constitute evidence.

You go out of your way to come onto the Christianity forum to argue that the Gospel accounts are untrue. It is perfectly reasonable for us to ask you to present evidence for that fact. If I go onto the A&A board and assert that a statement there is not true, then the burden of proof is on me to produce evidence.

As I said to PDN we on this side of the fence have the advantage of not being that invested in the out come.

Not so. You have much more invested in the outcome.

If it turns out that the Gospels are fictitious, and that my faith has been built on a fallacy, then what have I lost? My faith has brought me from a miserable life as a homeless alcoholic to a wonderful life. Application of biblical principles has helped myself and my wife build a marriage and a home that are a constant source of joy to us. I am surrounded by good friends, and my faith has placed me in in a community that really cares for each other. I get to travel to loads of different places and have the incredible satisfaction of implementing humanitarian aid projects that save lives and help some of the poorest people in the world. I think that I am either very blessed by God or just one of the luckiest people alive to get so much out of life. So, even if I turn out to be wrong, what have I lost?

On the other hand, what if you are wrong? What if the Gospels are true, and Jesus really is the only way to the Father? Oh dear ....

You have much more invested in this than me.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And, once evidence is found that the mother is lying, then is the time to speak it out and for the police to charge her.

Yes but I'm not trying to convict the authors of the gospel of telling fibs. The police didn't believe the mother from the start, and because it was important to find out what really happened they went searching for what really happened.

I don't really care what really happened, I'm content knowing that it isn't what is described.

PDN wrote: »

What we don't do is to go around, with no evidence at all, telling everyone that we think the child's parents are lying.

Well we might. I'm sure the police officers told each other than they didn't believe the mother. It would be rather bad policing if the police didn't share with each other their reservations in her story.

PDN wrote: »

You are entitled to hold whatever beliefs you want.

Well at least until the revolution ...

PDN wrote: »

But if you are going to go out of your way to propagate your theory then people are entitled to ask you for some evidence.

Certainly, and I can tell you exactly what I find boloney about any part of the Bible.

You are entitled to say, if you wish, "I want hard evidence", and I can't give you any. But then you can't give me any hard evidence that any of it happened.

PDN wrote: »

Simply pointing out that another mother lied about her daughter's 'disappearance' does not constitute evidence.

It doesn't. But then simply having the mother say her daughter was abducted doesn't either.

This is the bit about your cake and eating it to. There is no evidence external to the writings of the authors that anything in the Bible ever happened. Faced with that believers when trying to justify their believe have turned to the text itself, and have put forward the assertion that the text appears to support the idea that the authors had accurately record testimony, and that the testimony itself is accurate.

You can't then complain when people like myself who don't accept that use the same text in support of the position that in actual fact there are problems with accepting the testimony as accurate.

In absence of any external evidence we both use the text to support our positions.

PDN wrote: »

You go out of your way to come onto the Christianity forum to argue that the Gospel accounts are untrue.

Er, ok ... don't you go "out of your way" to come onto the Christianity forum to argue that the Gospel accounts true?

What is the difference?

PDN wrote: »

It is perfectly reasonable for us to ask you to present evidence for that fact. If I go onto the A&A board and assert that a statement there is not true, then the burden of proof is on me to produce evidence.

It certainly is, and as far as I can tell from this thread at least anyone who has stated a position has been trying to back it up.

What is annoying though is that you are calling for evidence external to the text itself to back up the position that the text is not describing things accurately, a standard of proof that you (for some reason) aren't calling for with people who claim that the text is accurate and that this fact can be determined from the text itself.

PDN wrote: »

Not so. You have much more invested in the outcome.

I assure you I really don't. I have the same invested in the outcome of this discussion as I don't arguing with someone who says Zeus or Thor are really and will punish my disobedient ass (the later being a conversation I have actually had).

Your religion no more troubles me than any other.

PDN wrote: »

If it turns out that the Gospels are fictitious, and that my faith has been built on a fallacy, then what have I lost?

Your entire faith, your entire system of beliefs and moral, your entire sense of purpose and meaning and your faith in salvation and the afterlife.

Which, you know, is a lot to some people.

A realization of fraud in religion (most often found in cults) is often equated with the realization that a parent has committed a crime or has been leading a double life, which is understandable as religion acts as an authority figure in most followers lives.

The phrase "my life has been a lie" is often used.

PDN wrote: »

On the other hand, what if you are wrong? What if the Gospels are true, and Jesus really is the only way to the Father? Oh dear ....

Why, what happens to me?

You don't believe in the traditional concept of hell, to you hell seems to be just "absence from God".

Considering I believe that when you die you simply cease to exist, I would much prefer to continue to exist in hell. In fact that sound preferable to heaven in a lot of ways.

So figures crossed your religion is true.

There are plenty of other religions both of us should be more worried about us rejecting.

Pompey Magnus

What is the evidence though? We have four Gospel accounts of the resurrection and none agree on anything.

Mark says Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome find an empty tomb, are told by a young man to inform the disciples to find Jesus in Galillee but they never tell anyone because they were afraid so the risen Jesus is not witnessed.

Matthew says the two Marys actually see the resurrected Jesus and unlike in Mark they do tell the eleven disciples to meet him in Galilee, the encounter takes place and the story ends at that.

Luke says the two Marys and Joanna are told by two men that Jesus is risen and they inform the disciples. Luke claims however that two followers of Jesus are the first to see the risen Jesus and the eleven encounter Jesus in Jerusalem, not Galillee. He then mentions Jesus being taken into Heaven.

John says that Jesus was already prepared for burial by Joseph and Nicodemus and that Mary Magdalene was going to the tomb alone for unspecified reasons. She finds the tomb empty and runs to tell the disciples, John then places her back at the tomb crying and she alone is the first person to encounter the risen Jesus. John then says that Jesus next appears in Jerusalem to 11 of the 12 disciples as Thomas wasn't present (John must have forgotten about Judas). After this it looks like John intended to finish his account but then must have a flashback and throws in a last blast of visits by Jesus.


The only half significant agreement between the Gospel accounts is that Luke and John agree the first time Jesus appears to the disciples happens in Jerusalem. How can all four Gospels agree on a completely irrelevant point that Joseph was from a town called Arimathea yet none agree on who was the first person to meet Jesus?

To say that we are going without evidence is not strictly true. What we have to go on is four testimonies from people who we do not know and so have no reason to trust them, we base our acceptance of their claims on how well they put them and how they support one another. The fact is that after the death of Jesus their details do not agree. This is the time when absolute certainty and accuracy is needed the most from our "witnesses" but instead it is the least reliable period in the life of Jesus, it is utterly unimportant that the synoptics all know that Simon was from Cyrene or Joseph was from Arimathea, I don't care. I want to know who was the first person to see Jesus alive. Where did he/she/they see him? I cannot get these details from the Gospels as they say extremely different things. I would consider the fact that such discrepancies are present in the accounts is evidence against their accuracy.

I think there is plenty of circumstantial evidence against believing the accounts of the Gospels.

PDN

Er, ok ... don't you go "out of your way" to come onto the Christianity forum to argue that the Gospel accounts true?

What is the difference?

What I much prefer to do on the Christianity forum is to discuss the implications of Christian belief wityh other Christians so that we can practice our faith better and be better people.

However, a large portion of my time here is spent pointing out some of the more nonsensical arguments and false statements posted by those who want to attack Christian beliefs.

It certainly is, and as far as I can tell from this thread at least anyone who has stated a position has been trying to back it up.

What is annoying though is that you are calling for evidence external to the text itself to back up the position that the text is not describing things accurately, a standard of proof that you (for some reason) aren't calling for with people who claim that the text is accurate and that this fact can be determined from the text itself.

Evidence within the text is fine. Just saying, "I think John is lying at this point" does not constitute evidence.

I assure you I really don't. I have the same invested in the outcome of this discussion as I don't arguing with someone who says Zeus or Thor are really and will punish my disobedient ass (the later being a conversation I have actually had).

Your religion no more troubles me than any other.

So why do you post more here than on the Paganism, Spirituality, Buddhist or Islam boards?

Why, what happens to me?

You don't believe in the traditional concept of hell, to you hell seems to be just "absence from God".

Considering I believe that when you die you simply cease to exist, I would much prefer to continue to exist in hell. In fact that sound preferable to heaven in a lot of ways.

So figures crossed your religion is true.

Depends what you mean by traditional. I have stated that hell is not necessarily literal fire, and may mean being eternally cut off from God's presence in the company of all the others who rejected Him. That would mean spending Eternity with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot, Pope Urban, Caligula etc.

I personally would prefer to cease to exist, but there's no accounting for taste.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The only half significant agreement between the Gospel accounts is that Luke and John agree the first time Jesus appears to the disciples happens in Jerusalem. How can all four Gospels agree on a completely irrelevant point that Joseph was from a town called Arimathea yet none agree on who was the first person to meet Jesus?

This silliness is as depressing as it is tiresome.

If several people happened to mention Leonardo daVinci would you bang on with questions such as, "How come they all remember an irrelevant point such as the fact that he came from Vinci?"

Those are exactly the kinds of details that eyewitnesses tend to remember.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

However, a large portion of my time here is spent pointing out some of the more nonsensical arguments and false statements posted by those who want to attack Christian beliefs.

Well, take that and flip it. I spend a large portion of my time pointing out some of the nonsensical arguments and false statements made by people who wish to push Christian belief.

Its not that I have anything against Christian belief per-say. Its that I have something against nonsense.

I "go out of my way" on other forums to do the same thing.

Perhaps I need a dog ...

PDN wrote: »

Evidence within the text is fine. Just saying, "I think John is lying at this point" does not constitute evidence.

True, but I think people are saying a little more than that ...

PDN wrote: »

So why do you post more here than on the Paganism, Spirituality, Buddhist or Islam boards?

Because they have stricter charters.

Consider it the cures of being so open to discussion

PDN wrote: »

Depends what you mean by traditional. I have stated that hell is not necessarily literal fire, and may mean being eternally cut off from God's presence in the company of all the others who rejected Him. That would mean spending Eternity with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot, Pope Urban, Caligula etc.

Possibly, but it would involve spending an eternity with most people, as most people aren't in heaven I think we can both agree.

I'm sure on a whole the more interesting people are in hell. Gandhi for example. And Plato.

PDN wrote: »

I personally would prefer to cease to exist, but there's no accounting for taste.

No me, I find such an idea terrifying.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

This silliness is as depressing as it is tiresome.

If several people happened to mention Leonardo daVinci would you bang on with questions such as, "How come they all remember an irrelevant point such as the fact that he came from Vinci?"

Those are exactly the kinds of details that eyewitnesses tend to remember.

There is a difference between the greatest artist of the Renaissance who has been name is tied to some of the greatest works of art create by humanity and a random man who spent perhaps 10 minutes unvoluntarily carrying a cross for Jesus. I would disagree that eyewitnesses would remember Simon came from a particular Greek colony in Libya better than who was the first person who witnessed the risen Jesus or where it happened.

You may find these inconsistencies tiresome but I am afraid I think they are valid concerns. If you ask us to trust these accounts we need to know what we are supposed to trust. Who do you believe first saw the risen Jesus? Did Jesus appear to the disciples at Galilee like Matthew says or in Jerusalem like John and Luke say or not at all like Mark said? Do you not think these are valid questions in building a picture for what happened with the aim of judging the accuracy of such extraordinary claims?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Because they have stricter charters.

So the charters of these other forums prevent you from questioning their belief

Popinjay

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So the charters of these other forums prevent you from questioning their belief

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054916453

Tends to be enforced and interpreted rather more strictly than would be the case in here or A&A. Internal discussion seems to be the mainstay of the forum rather than outside questioning.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So the charters of these other forums prevent you from questioning their belief

Pretty much. The Islam one does at least, and Spirituality and Paranormal ones.

And who wants to argue with a Buddhist.

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote: »

And who wants to argue with a Buddhist.

China?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

And who wants to argue with a Buddhist.

A Buddhist's wife?

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

China?

Touche

Asiaprod

PDN wrote: »

A Buddhist's wife?

Funny you should say that, just had a whopper last night with the Buddhist wife and she won:Das usual..I have deep Karma:p