Normally I would scoff at the spelling/grammar correction if it wasn't from someone who has claimed to be more evolutionary advanced than other humans.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Go ahead and cite those writings. Try to find one that isn't hearsay.

The same thing could be said of many historical narratives which are generally accepted as accurate. Especially when corroborated with other writings, and archeological evidence. But you and your ilk only seem to have a problem with Biblical writings. You'll forgive me if I don't waste my time.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

The only time being wasted here is you claiming that there are these writings, but not being able to reference or cite them.

You'll forgive me if I laugh at your idea of historical and biblical scholarship.

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Here is a start.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Officer Beam (that's a scary thought) obviously has no interest in such things, so I wasn't going to waste my time. But, there's also Jewish historian Josephus, also known as Roman citizen, Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37-100) was born to an aristocratic Jewish family, served as a priest, and later became the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee following the revolt against Rome that began A.D. 66. Captured by the Romans, Josephus spent his later life in Rome under the patronage of the Roman emperors where he composed his history of the Jewish people and his account of the Jewish war that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70."

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

Why not? Where is that clearly stated in the bible?

Should another sect of christianity treat the old testament just as valid as the new testament, then they would be following the word of god in executing witches.

The rest of your post is interesting, and reflects what you think of the situation of having two very different parts of the bible, but doesn't really pertain to the topic at hand .... killing witches per the command of the bible.

How can you argue what is, or what isn't, in the Bible, if you have never bothered to read it?

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

All the historical records such as Tacitus didn't reflect people that had actual contact with Christ. They had contact with Christians who told them what had "happened." None of them had direct contact with Christ. None. The only information about what he actually might have taught is from the bible. A book well known to be a collection thrown together by the Council of Nicaea which drew from multiple versions of the same books until they got something they liked. It was all a matter of pick and choose to create something that gave legitimacy to what they were doing which was to empower the church.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me documents that show from other sources than the bible which support what the person later known as Christ was actually teaching. You won't because you can't. You can't because they don't exist. All people have is the bible and the hearsay evidence of someone who knew someone who said they knew Christ. I've already discussed the bible aspect and hearsay evidence is faulty by design hence its unsuitability in courts of law. All Christians have is the result of an immense game of telephone. Sorry if this offends you but I prefer to base my life on things a little more concrete.

__________________

And, I'm afraid, it's only a start, not to mention it, again, being hearsay. Other than that there is Josephus, also hearsay. There simply is no reliable independent non-Christian evidence for the existence of Jesus before 150 A.D.

Again, the waste of time here is you simply offering heresay as evidence, and thinking that somehow, magically, that suffices. The only one here not interested in anything is you, in honest, rational discussion, and, given your history, I can see why.

Because Christians are not Jews, seriously, can you really be this dense?

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

I've already eviscerated this point, twice now, it is irrelevant. What we have and know is from the same documentation. Whether it is tampered with, inaccurate, or any other variables we have what we have and no other. The record of Jesus is the same for me, as it is for you, as it is for anyone that picks up a Bible.

Does Jesus' live and teachings support what you find disagreeable about Christianity? Was he a person that loved to stone sinners? Did he cater to the ruling religious class of the day? Not like you'll actually address these points in an honest manner.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

you want to talk about not recognizing parts of the bible now do you?

ever heard the story of christ and the adultress? The whole let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Thats why we don't worry about any of the bullshit from angry wrathful smiting and lightning time. It doesn't matter after that. Its not my place to judge someone, and so i try my best not to.
I don't care if you fuck another dude. have fun with that i guess.
I could care less if someones kid doesnt' obey them, or if you have sex outside of marriage (i actually am rather fond of the latter).

because it doesn't matter anymore.

If you don't like that, well thats fine. have fun being an aetheist or a buddhist or a hindu, taoist, pagan, etc. while i have fun being a christian.
why cant you just accept that not everyone thinks the way you do and leave it well enough alone?
Sure fanaticism of all kinds can cause serious problems. whether that fanticism is religiously based (those jews killed our lord!, or SHES A WITCH) or philosophically based (we must kill everyone who does not support the people's revolution!, or FOR THE FATHERLAND!), or simply based on ignorant principles (racism for example, sexism for another), doesn't really matter now does it? The results are the same. Death, oppression, grievious harm. And everyone is guilty of it at one point or another.

These people in the OP are ignorant, beknighted, foolish murderers who've taken something out of context with the rest of the text (ie they missed the part about judge not lest ye be judged, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone, the message of forgiveness that christ preached, etc) and commited a grievious error, which is the original meaning of the word sin. an error or inaccuracy. I hope the proper authorities punish them accordingly, and i hope they learn the error of their ways. I don't support what they did.

However you seem to be under the impression that because one member of a group acts, it must be sanctioned by the whole group, as you are derisive of christianity as whole. I shall point you to the revolution in russia. They were all aetheist by decree. the religion was the State. and red russia (think stalin, lenin etc) did some pretty horrific things to people. But i don't blame you for that, do i? I don't go around making broad, overly generalized statements about aetheism do I? Nope i sure don't. Because a) you had no part in that (at least i hope. youre not a secret commie general who slaughtered countless people for small ideological, and political differences are you?) and b) I don't generalize the actions of a few individuals onto an entire group.
So why do you?

The veracity of the document you claim to represent what Christ taught is most definitely not irrelevant. If people are taking parts, or the whole thing, as literal truth then the fact that it is a collection of conflicting and often violently brutal directions on how to live one's life which have been thrown together without thought.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. If the church fathers who formed the Council of Nicea didn't want Christians to embrace these barbaric rules then why did they place them in the book which they planned to be the cornerstone of their religion and which millions of people accept as gospel truth?
If modern day Christians don't want these things accepted as truth why don't they convene their own version of the Council of Nicea and rewrite it to be more reflective of modern Christian thought?
If the peaceful and loving parts are what is important then why keep the other parts? Could it be perhaps that they know that a large majority of those that use the bible would go to war because the bible must be used the way it was written because it is the word of god and the word of god can't be wrong.

__________________