I hope not, because port is my wine of choice and I would be like, “fuck you, Jesus. I wanted to drink that!”

Are we talking about whether or not a historical person the Jesus of the Bible is based on existed or are we talking about whether or not there were any contemporary accounts? Because those are two very different things.

As I suggested in the beginning, whether or not a “real” Jesus existed is not really relevant, because if we did, we know nothing about him except what was written a long time after he would have died, which we can’t trust. Which is the same reason not to trust Plato’s dialogues even if Socrates existed. Plato wrote them long after Socrates died.

Despite being in Israel and obviously suffering from that inherent bias, the Times of Israel actually does some pretty solid reporting overall.

Written while Jesus was still alive? If so, please present said writings. If not, that doesn’t really change my point.

In other words, 36,000 children in Gaza have been killed by Israel.

No worries.

You reported two which have already been deleted. Your instance has apparently not caught up yet. You should see the modlog.

Their posts accusing people of being antisemitic were deleted and they were banned, so yes. They also broke that rule.

There’s nothing to read about when it comes to any real Joshua, son of Joseph the Carpenter of Nazareth because nothing has been written about such a person.

Ok, if you want me to sum up in a way that addresses it: Because the Jesus OP is very likely thinking of is fictional, there is no real physical proof of his existence.

I have said this many times-

It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if there was a “real” Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus that is worshiped is an impossibility. A fiction. His life is full of details that defy basic biological and physical laws. On top of that, nothing he supposedly said was written down at the time, so we have no idea if what is recorded to have been his sayings in the Bible are things he actually said.

I always relate it to Ian Fleming having a schoolchum who’s father’s name was Ernst Stavro Bloefeld. So was there a real Ernst Stavro Bloefeld? Yes. Was he a supervillain fighting the world’s greatest secret agent? No.

So you’re not going to respond to what I have now said to you twice. I see.

Well then I guess you will continue to be disappointed, as will the person who complained to me.

I was tired of the slap fight and deleted a lot of comments, including most of OP’s comments and then banned OP.

You’d think people would be happy OP was banned. Apparently not.

Edit: I should also note that the particular user who is complaining gets flagged constantly, their comments rarely deleted, and I know I’ve never banned them, so I’m sorry you both think I’m treating them so horribly.

Then the non-intense but never-ending phase begins.

They don’t need an intense phase at this point. Who’s left?

If you think “just casually denying genocide?” is a civil way to respond to someone, I guess you will continue to be disappointed.

You are free to go to the modlog and see the comment that was deleted and see that it was clearly not a civil comment.

You can also see the many other uncivil comments that got removed, including many of OP’s comments.

Edit: OP was also banned while the person complaining was not.

Okay, then why did you say:

Good thing I wasn’t grabbing all of history in my statement then, just 2 plot points.

When I was literally discussing those two plot points?

I’ll paste what I said again. Maybe you’ll have a legitimate response to it?

Would there have been no Nazi party if World War I never happened? Was Hitler’s rise to power in part due to his experiences in World War I and the economic crisis Germany was put in due, in part, to World War I? We have no way of knowing.

Maybe if Victoria and Albert hadn’t married, World War I would still have happened, but been even worse because there would have been even greater enmity between the British and the Germans. We can’t know. The best we can do is write speculative fiction.

You are free to explain why someone is denying genocide. You are not free to make that accusation because you do not know the reasoning behind their statements. People have the right to disagree that something is happening and be wrong. People also have a right to be ignorant about a subject and make ignorant statements. You, as a user, have a right to tell them why they are wrong or why their statement is not true.

You do not have the right to accuse someone of supporting genocide unless they are making a statement that calls for violence. That is against the rules. The comment you responded to did not call for violence.

I do not agree with their claim that genocide is not happening. People denied the Holocaust was happening while it was happening. That doesn’t mean they would have marched Jews into the ovens themselves if they had the chance.

If you disagree with my moderation, you are free to report it to the admins.

And that is the end of this discussion.

Did you not read past the first paragraph? Everything else I wrote was about WWI and WWII. I literally talked about Hitler.

They should. Religious institutions should always have to pay taxes.