<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Sep 12 2007, 06:34 PM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Sep 12 2007, 06:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/sep/12ram.htm
Centre says no evidence to prove existence of Ram
----------------------------------------
How came none of our people can say right away to these people"There still is no evidence to prove Jesus existed either, but they still do not go around destroying Nazareth"[right][snapback]73014[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In fact, there's actually no comparison between Nazareth and Ramar Sethu (as K Elst explains sensibly in (2) below).
(1) There could never have been any 'jeebus the christian saviour of Nazareth' as christo liars keep whining on about. There was no Nazareth as any place to live in in alleged jeebus' time:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2a.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Since Nazareth did not exist until the 2nd century</b>, when the gospels were being written, this also demonstrates conclusively that the Jesus myth is exactly that, a myth and not based upon reality.
From: Are the Gospels True? A look at the nativity/infancy teachings<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>...archaeological excavations at present-day Nazareth -- ...carried out by Franciscan monks and priests... -- have failed to show the remains of a single building credibly datable to the first century B.C.E. or the first century C.E. The oldest buildings found seem to date from the last half of the third century</b>, and there is no information to indicate what the inhabitants of those buildings called their village.
Before the second or third century C.E. -- going back to the Middle Bronze Age -- the site now occupied by Nazareth was a necropolis, a city of the dead. The hillside underlying part of the present city is riddled with tombs and natural caves which for over a thousand years were used for burials. Since Jewish law prohibited cemeteries from being in the midst of inhabited sites, we can be quite sure that there was no Jewish city at the present site in the days when a supposedly Jewish Jesus is supposed to have been running loose there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(2) All the 'christian holy sites' in the 'holy' ME region of the christians are well-known to be huge frauds - see Koenraad Elst's writings below. And then he makes the only point that needs to be made about Ayodhya (same is applicable to Ramar Sethu):
http://hamsa.org/appendix2.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Christian sacred places in Palestine</b>
A book well worth reading for those engaged in controversies over sacred sites, in particular concerning Christian churches in South India, is Christians and the Holy Places by <b>Joan Taylor, a historian from New Zealand.2 It shows that the places where Christians commemorate the birth and death of Jesus have nothing to do with Jesus, historically.</b>
<b>The Nativity Church in Bethlehem was built in the fourth century A.D. in forcible replacement of a Pagan place of worship, dedicated to the God Tammuz-Adonis.</b> Until then, it had had no special significance for Christians, who considered pilgrimages to sacred places a Pagan practice anyway: you cannot concentrate in one place (hence, go on pilgrimage to) the Omnipresent. The concept of "sacred place" was introduced into Christianity by converts, especially at the time of Emperor Constantine's switch to a pro-Christian state policy.
<b>The Christian claim to Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace was a fraud from the beginning, as Cambridge historian Michael Arnheim has shown</b>: through numerous contradictions and factual inaccuracies, the Gospel writers betray their intention to locate Jesus's birth in Bethlehem at any cost, against all information available to them.3 The reason is that they had to make Jesus live up to an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah was to be born there.
(My statement: Just like the late gospel fibbers didn't bat an eyelid when insinuating Nazareth into their fable, Bethlehem was just as foolishly inserted. Lying about real Gods would be bad, but lying for non-existent gawd is pathetic. <- Now why is it so easy to swap 'pathetic' with 'christianism'?)
<b>The Holy Cross Church in Jerusalem was built in forcible replacement of a temple of the fertility Goddess Venus</b>, at the personal initiative of Emperor Constantine. His mother had seen in a dream that Jesus had died at that particular place, though close scrutiny of the original Christian texts shows that they point to a place 200 metres to the south. Constantine had the Venus temple demolished and the ground searched, and yes, his experts duly found the cross on which Jesus had died. They somehow assumed that their forebears of 33 A.D. had a habit of leaving or even burying crucifixion crosses at the places where they had been used, quod non. <b>The Christian claim to the site of the Holy Cross is based on the dream of a gullible but fanatical woman</b>, and fortified with a faked excavation.4
<b>Remember the Ayodhya debate, where Hindu scholars were challenged to produce ever more solid proof of the traditions underlying the sacredness of the controversial site? Whatever proof they came up with was automatically, without any inspection, dismissed by the high priests of secularism as "myth" and "faked evidence". It was alleged that there was a "lack of proof" for the assumption that Rama ever lived there. But in the case of the Christian sacred places, we do not just have lack of proof that the religion's claim is true, but we have positive proof that its claim is untrue, and that it was historically part of a campaign of fraud and destruction.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Terrorist ideologies will destroy all. (The truth means nothing to them. In fact, they consider truth to be their worst enemy. Hence they try to murder truth wherever they find it: by falsifying records, or through use of a media blitz to spread what's no more than mere claims, or media's strategic silence on any factual evidence presented, and by blatantly doing away with the only actual evidence like they are now trying to do with the Ramar Sethu, and the other techniques of the lying ideologies.)
As the dastardly Dark Helmet says to the hero Lone Star in the parody-comedy 'Spaceballs': "Now you know why Evil always wins. Because Good is dumb."
Yeah, tolerance for intolerance (which is also the mindset expressly inculcated by psecularism, itself the puppet of christoislamicommunism) will crown terrorist ideologies king.
Centre says no evidence to prove existence of Ram
----------------------------------------
How came none of our people can say right away to these people"There still is no evidence to prove Jesus existed either, but they still do not go around destroying Nazareth"[right][snapback]73014[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In fact, there's actually no comparison between Nazareth and Ramar Sethu (as K Elst explains sensibly in (2) below).
(1) There could never have been any 'jeebus the christian saviour of Nazareth' as christo liars keep whining on about. There was no Nazareth as any place to live in in alleged jeebus' time:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2a.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Since Nazareth did not exist until the 2nd century</b>, when the gospels were being written, this also demonstrates conclusively that the Jesus myth is exactly that, a myth and not based upon reality.
From: Are the Gospels True? A look at the nativity/infancy teachings<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>...archaeological excavations at present-day Nazareth -- ...carried out by Franciscan monks and priests... -- have failed to show the remains of a single building credibly datable to the first century B.C.E. or the first century C.E. The oldest buildings found seem to date from the last half of the third century</b>, and there is no information to indicate what the inhabitants of those buildings called their village.
Before the second or third century C.E. -- going back to the Middle Bronze Age -- the site now occupied by Nazareth was a necropolis, a city of the dead. The hillside underlying part of the present city is riddled with tombs and natural caves which for over a thousand years were used for burials. Since Jewish law prohibited cemeteries from being in the midst of inhabited sites, we can be quite sure that there was no Jewish city at the present site in the days when a supposedly Jewish Jesus is supposed to have been running loose there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(2) All the 'christian holy sites' in the 'holy' ME region of the christians are well-known to be huge frauds - see Koenraad Elst's writings below. And then he makes the only point that needs to be made about Ayodhya (same is applicable to Ramar Sethu):
http://hamsa.org/appendix2.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Christian sacred places in Palestine</b>
A book well worth reading for those engaged in controversies over sacred sites, in particular concerning Christian churches in South India, is Christians and the Holy Places by <b>Joan Taylor, a historian from New Zealand.2 It shows that the places where Christians commemorate the birth and death of Jesus have nothing to do with Jesus, historically.</b>
<b>The Nativity Church in Bethlehem was built in the fourth century A.D. in forcible replacement of a Pagan place of worship, dedicated to the God Tammuz-Adonis.</b> Until then, it had had no special significance for Christians, who considered pilgrimages to sacred places a Pagan practice anyway: you cannot concentrate in one place (hence, go on pilgrimage to) the Omnipresent. The concept of "sacred place" was introduced into Christianity by converts, especially at the time of Emperor Constantine's switch to a pro-Christian state policy.
<b>The Christian claim to Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace was a fraud from the beginning, as Cambridge historian Michael Arnheim has shown</b>: through numerous contradictions and factual inaccuracies, the Gospel writers betray their intention to locate Jesus's birth in Bethlehem at any cost, against all information available to them.3 The reason is that they had to make Jesus live up to an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah was to be born there.
(My statement: Just like the late gospel fibbers didn't bat an eyelid when insinuating Nazareth into their fable, Bethlehem was just as foolishly inserted. Lying about real Gods would be bad, but lying for non-existent gawd is pathetic. <- Now why is it so easy to swap 'pathetic' with 'christianism'?)
<b>The Holy Cross Church in Jerusalem was built in forcible replacement of a temple of the fertility Goddess Venus</b>, at the personal initiative of Emperor Constantine. His mother had seen in a dream that Jesus had died at that particular place, though close scrutiny of the original Christian texts shows that they point to a place 200 metres to the south. Constantine had the Venus temple demolished and the ground searched, and yes, his experts duly found the cross on which Jesus had died. They somehow assumed that their forebears of 33 A.D. had a habit of leaving or even burying crucifixion crosses at the places where they had been used, quod non. <b>The Christian claim to the site of the Holy Cross is based on the dream of a gullible but fanatical woman</b>, and fortified with a faked excavation.4
<b>Remember the Ayodhya debate, where Hindu scholars were challenged to produce ever more solid proof of the traditions underlying the sacredness of the controversial site? Whatever proof they came up with was automatically, without any inspection, dismissed by the high priests of secularism as "myth" and "faked evidence". It was alleged that there was a "lack of proof" for the assumption that Rama ever lived there. But in the case of the Christian sacred places, we do not just have lack of proof that the religion's claim is true, but we have positive proof that its claim is untrue, and that it was historically part of a campaign of fraud and destruction.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Terrorist ideologies will destroy all. (The truth means nothing to them. In fact, they consider truth to be their worst enemy. Hence they try to murder truth wherever they find it: by falsifying records, or through use of a media blitz to spread what's no more than mere claims, or media's strategic silence on any factual evidence presented, and by blatantly doing away with the only actual evidence like they are now trying to do with the Ramar Sethu, and the other techniques of the lying ideologies.)
As the dastardly Dark Helmet says to the hero Lone Star in the parody-comedy 'Spaceballs': "Now you know why Evil always wins. Because Good is dumb."
Yeah, tolerance for intolerance (which is also the mindset expressly inculcated by psecularism, itself the puppet of christoislamicommunism) will crown terrorist ideologies king.