Wikipedia: “We’re Stuck With a Bunch of Creepy Otaku”

Ignore that part, its irrelevant.
What i am trying to say is that, why do they want to find out more about porn stars? If you want to fap on porn, then go on porn websites. They are better aren't they?

"*orn"
"p*rn"

Really? Do you actually think that on a site like this, people would be offended if you used the word porn?

People need to stop censoring themselves. IMO self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship (and the most annoying).

I don't get it. why do they go on wiki to watch *orn? About 40% of the websites is all about p*rn...

and bad words are allowed here anyway

Porn is not a bad word, my child.

@22:33
Self censorship avoids forced censorship on some networks where political correctness is some kind of supreme ideal (X-Box live for example). Better to put one extra star than face a possible ban.

let's not forget eroge

If jesus is a real person and did what the bible states that he did, then he's a zombie.

Suck it christians!

Artefact, you might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus (and its sources, if you don't trust the article).
Although the first non-Christian sources acknowledging Jesus's existence came a couple of decades later, the very fact that He was mentioned by non-Christians that quickly should at least tell something.

But the best proof we have is Christianity - it is a historically undoubted fact that Christianity originated around the time of Jesus's claimed death. SOMEBODY must have started it.

And there's a last thing - in myths and legends about persons, they never created characters. They took a famous person and presented them as the person the story was about, and retold and retold the story, and with each time it's relayed to another person, it got more exaggerated, until it became a myth or legend. Even if the Christian view on Jesus would not be correct, it's very unlikely that there never was a person named Jesus that was the origin of the story.

Also, >2007. Seriously, do you have any idea how fast Wikipedia changes? Between 2007 and now, the amount of articles on the English Wikipedia has doubled.

So what are we here for? talk about one piece or about religion?

i would say one piece. :)

IIRC, there is a mention on a Roman census form of someone who would qualify as Jesus though. Think he's indicated as the son of Joseph, considering Roman law did things by way of the father, whereas in Judaism, the mother's line is which matters.

But it's been a while since I read about that stuff.

Then there's the stuff with James the younger, who may or may not have been the brother of Jesus, could be half-brother or full brother.

The Gospel by Mary Magdalene who may or may not have been his Missus. (what with the whole Rabbi thing and you can only be a Rabbi if actually married.)

And of course, there's this hypothesis that Jesus didn't die on the Cross, but survived, ended up in a coma, before finally waking up and getting out of Dodge together with Mary Magdalene and heading elsewhere to live and having some kids with her.

uuhh you lost me in the second sentence man. idk if you meant to say that or it came out wrong but i barely understood what YOU said.

Wonder why the hell he even tried to look cool saying all that bullshit, even though he didn't even know what the previous guy said.

Nocturne, it hardly seems right to compare a philosopher's existence to that of the Alpha and Omega in human form. Socrates' existence or lack thereof also doesn't seem to affect the teachings attributed to him. Jesus's teachings however are pretty null and void if he wasn't who he said he was, if he *was* at all. I don't think there are any good moral teachings in the bible that couldn't be derived from simple reciprocity and ethics.

Also, from what I've heard, historians lean more towards the "Jesus was just another repackaged Gilgamesh that happened to stick" angle.

@nocturne
We have written evidence from a large number of well respected historians at the time that Socrates existed. Some of that evidence that we can traced back to original manuscripts which are beyond any doubt authentic (well, unless the devil magically changed it to test us!).

How many of these historians wrote about him? Care to guess? 0. Nil. Zero.

You'd think that the son of god who can cast magical spells would make quite an impression at the time. Heck, some dude getting up form the grave would have been quite the thing. It's not like we lack historical books from the time.

Go watch the first 1/3 of the movie "Zeitgeist". It's a real eye opener.

Instead of being anonymous, and attacking people indescriminately - while hiding anonymously,... why not be yourself and register as yourself.

That way, if we don't agree with your rants, we can vote if your opinion stinks or is fine just as what it is.

sighs

@2:20

Zeitgeist...

If that's considered to be an eye-opener by your standards, I'd be afraid to ask what your tastes in documentaries are.

Nevertheless, even if I didn't know about information regarding Jesus's historicity, I'm inclined to agree with nocturne simply on the basis of credibility.

Or perhaps the New Testament was originally based on Vedic stories.

missing the point, i believe
(also, i'm pretty sure the Japanese don't apologize for their nation, judging by that thing a while back about editing their textbooks)

So...
Japanese historians working in Japanese studies departments are merely apologists for their nation?
LGBT historians who are gay and are working in LGBT studies departments are merely apologists for their sexual orientation?
Afroamerican historians who are black and are working in Afroamerican studies departments are merely apologists for their race?

"Other academics don't take them seriously"
Maybe you're confusing Theology and History (and also Biblical Archaeology). A lot of historians are atheists or agnosticists and take the Bible as a simple source of information. There's an intense debate around the subject of the historicity of Jesus.

Here's the thing, though. No one doubts Socrates ever existed, though we only know of him through the writings of his pupils. But people doubt the existence of Jesus despite there being non-biblical evidence of the existence of the Apostles as well as St. Paul, further compounded by mentions of early Christians by Roman historians since the time of Nero. I can only explain it as an irrational fear of Jesus' historical existence as somehow vindicating the religious claims of the Christian faith, despite the evidence making no corroboration of those claims whatsoever. The evidence isn't concrete, and is still subject to doubt (just not abject rejection). But if you weigh one argument against the other, it becomes pretty clear which one should be the prevailing opinion to adopt.

And non-religious folk are actually quite numerous in the fields of religious studies (philosophy of religion, history of religion, theology, and so on).

Haha indeed

Jesus is real. He's my esse!

There is little doubt that he did, in fact, exist. Whether or not he was a prophet or the savior of humanity is another question entirely.

Someone's beating that horse again I see

>>So One Piece defeats a fictional man? :\

Fixed.

Even the dead fear the might of Grand Line...

Yeah you're one to talk, though I barely understood what the hell you said. I'm sorry its that and not Japans way of saying hello. I think its called surprise sex or rape either ones fine.

usually, people look up information on things like this to avoid wars and death. Imagine if your average Joe new more about Bush before his elections...Those sort of things are suppose to be caused by ignorance...isn't learning about them productive.

One piece is fictional too, but......

Rather K-on(I dislike k-on) to be a top list then a imaginary god who make people kill and die.
Rather these "creepy" japanese things then columbine, 9/11, and thousands murderers and thiefs.

So before calling Japan weird look to your own country, rather "creepiness" then violence and dump religions.