Nevets's avatar

Nevets

A member since

0
3
9

Total posts: 57

Posted in:
Are JWs christians?
-->
@Tradesecret
They self identify as Christians but are liable to be rejected as such by mainstream Christianity due to their differing beliefs regarding the Trinity.

Jehovah's Witnesses identify as Christians, but their beliefs are different from other Christians in some ways. For instance, they teach that Jesus is the son of God but is not part of a Trinity.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Why no history/mythohistory section on Dart?
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps a category named "History & Mythology" would be better in this case.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Why no history/mythohistory section on Dart?
-->
@zedvictor4
Zedvictor4  wrote...
How do you make that distinction?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Why no history/mythohistory section on Dart?
-->
@zedvictor4
Zedvictor4 wrote...
"Mythohistory"....Never heard of it

Is that an American compound?
Egyptian pharaohs and Roman emperors would be history.
Pre Roman British monarchs and Irish high kings would be mythohistory.
Created:
0
Posted in:
How do we stop giving religious movements airtime and oxygen without talking about them?
-->
@Timid8967
Timid wrote...
It was put to me that I am inconsistent in my position in respect of the above question. And perhaps, he is correct in his assessment. 

Nevertheless, until there is a simple manner on how we can do it, then the ordinary cut and thrust of the so called religious discussion on this forum is unhelpful. 

It goes around and around and around - it gets bitter and twisted and nasty. 

I wonder how many others think this is the case or whether I am alone?  Please care to comment. 
I don't think it is the discussing of religion that is the problem. The problem is when people begin pushing their opinion on others. Getting angry. And getting personal, and completely derailing threads.

Therefore, in order to discuss religion at the same time as remaining neutral, practise what one preaches and don't fuel the fire by pushing opinions. Getting angry. Getting personal, or responding to off topic posts simply because one disagrees.

This way one can discuss religion at the same time as remaining neutral, and not adding to the fighting.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Was Jesus homosexual?
The bleeding woman

RM says that the only woman Jesus helped was Mary Magdalene. But what about the Bleeding woman?

Jesus healing the bleeding woman (or "woman with an issue of blood" and other variants) is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels (Matthew 9:20–22Mark 5:25–34Luke 8:43–48).[1]
Infirm woman

And the infirm woman?

Jesus healing an infirm woman is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels (Luke 13:10-17).[1]

Created:
0
Posted in:
Why no history/mythohistory section on Dart?
History sections and mythohistory sections usually do very well on websites. Shouldn't Dart implement this?
Created:
1
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
-->
@BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas wrote...
Nevets,

YOUR QUOTE RELATING TO JESUS' MODUS OPERANDI: "I think you mean Yeshua, not Yahweh."

When Jesus becomes God within the scriptures (John 1:14), and since there is only one God the Hebrews worshipped (Isaiah 44:5), then that God is in fact "Yahweh," therefore Jesus is Yahweh god incarnate and not Yeshua.

In the modern western world we usually know Yeshua as Jesus. And we typically refer to Yahweh as God.
Whilst we mostly know that there is an argument to be had regarding the bible and whether or not the bible referred to Jesus as God or not, we typically do not refer to Jesus as God, nor do we typically refer to God as Jesus.
Therefore the same would apply to Yeshua and Yahweh.
They are typically regarded as two seperate entities, even though there may be or may not be passages within the bible which contradict this.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Maybe Methuselah was not so old afterall
BrotherDThomas wrote...

Nevets,

Relative to your extreme ages of Biblical characters, how do pseudo-christians deal with the blatant contradiction in what is shown within this passage stated by Moses: “The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10)."

EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). Therefore Moses stating the above Biblical axiom blatantly contradicts your treatise upon Bible characters living in the numbers you represented, now what?  
You ask good questions Bruv 👍
Created:
2
Posted in:
Maybe Methuselah was not so old afterall
-->
@zedvictor4
zedvictor4 wrote...
Notwithstanding exaggeration.

Moon cycles is probably best bet.....Especially before the movements of the Earth relative to the Sun became an accepted fact.

That would put old Thusey in his seventies.....Probably a ripe old age for the time.
That is actually not a bad theory.
12 x 78 = 936.
We currently live on average the exact same number of months that biblical figures used to live years.

Created:
4
Posted in:
Maybe Methuselah was not so old afterall
-->
@fauxlaw
This may be compatible with your theory, but not with the theory I proposed in the opening post.

Eridu

The problem is Eridu. Eridu was once also thought to be a mythological location. But Eridu has been found. However archaeologists claim that the location dates to no further back than 5,400bc.

Eridu appears to be the earliest settlement in the region, founded c. 5400 BC, close to the Persian Gulf near the mouth of the Euphrates River. Because of accumulation of silt at the shoreline over the millennia, the remains of Eridu are now some distance from the gulf at Abu Shahrain in Iraq.
Myth and Legend

But Eridu only dating back to 5,400bc is not consistent with the Sumerian stories of kings from Eridu, such as Alalnger, reigning for 36,000 years.

In Eridu, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alalngar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridu fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira.
Conclusion

Therefore, at the same time as proposing that mythological and biblical figures may have certain historicity, I am trying to remain consistent with current scientific and archaeological understanding. So I propose that it is in fact most likely the mathematics that require scrutinising.

However I totally respect your opinion and belief, and if you can support it further with evidence, no matter how anecdotal, please feel free to do so.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
-->
@Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge wrote...
The earliest mentions of "Jesus" are impossible because the name Jesus is a translation into itself, the earliest mentions of the Hebrew translation are the books of the bible - that is all - you historians reacting to these claims, but not actually verifying them.
Does that really mean anything though? Name spellings differ from language to language. Take Peter for example. Regardless of what his name is in different languages it is still the same person we refer to as Saint Peter in English.

Created:
1
Posted in:
Maybe Methuselah was not so old afterall
Methuselah

What is one of the biggest arguments "against" the historicity of biblical characters? Well of course, it is their unbelievable longevity.
Take Methuselah as an example, he is said to be the bibles longest living human at an incredible and unbelievable 969 years.

Methuselah (US/məˈθuːzˌlɑː/) (Hebrew: מְתוּשֶׁלַח‎ Məṯūšélaḥ, in pausa מְתוּשָׁלַח‎ Məṯūšā́laḥ, "Man of the javelin" or "Death of Sword";[1] Greek: Μαθουσάλας Mathousalas)[2] was a biblical patriarch and a figure in JudaismChristianity, and Islam. Having died at the age of 969, he lived the longest of all human figures mentioned in the Bible.[3] 
Enmebaragesi

However, we have a king on the Sumerian king list named Enmebaragesi whom is credited with having reigned in Sumeria for 900 years and until recently was thought to be a mythological figure. However recent archaeological excavations have found Enmebaragesi a place in the history books afterall.

Enmebaragesi (Sumerian:𒂗𒈨𒁈𒄄𒋛)[3] originally Mebarasi (Sumerian:𒈨𒁈𒋛)[1] was the penultimate king of the first dynasty of Kish and is recorded as having reigned 900 years in the Sumerian King List. Like his son and successor Aga he reigned during a period when Kish had hegemony over Sumer.a[4] Enmebaragesi signals a momentous documentary leap from mytho-history to history, since he is the earliest ruler on the king list whose name is attested directly from archaeology.
Cattle count

Now even though Enmebaragesi is now believed to have historicity, we still have the problem of this 900 year reign. Obviously we do not believe he reigned for 900 years.
My initial theory was that the 900 years represented tax years, and not calendar years, as the ancients used to operate a tax system called the cattle count which did not operate around the current annual year system. However I have kind of ditched this theory, because for Enmebaragesi to have reigned for a total of 900 cattle counts would have meant his administration was a very greedy administration indeed, and his people must have been extremely poor having to keep up with all those cattle counts.

In ancient Egypt, the cattle count was one of the two main means of evaluating the amount of taxes to be levied, the other one being the height of the annual inundation. A very important economic event, the cattle count was controlled by high officials, and was connected to several cultic feasts. In addition it served as a means of dating other events, with the entire year when it occurred being called "year of the Xth cattle count under the person of the king Y". The frequency of cattle counts varied through the history of ancient Egypt; in the Old Kingdom it was most likely biennial, i.e. occurring every two years, and became more frequent subsequently.
Ziusudra

A better explanation might come from Ziusudra, whom is a Sumerian king that is also being thought of as less and less mythological and more and more historical with archaeological excavation. Apparently Ziusudra is credited with a reign of 3,600 years. It has been suggested though, that this is a copyist error with 10 sars being (which equals 3,600 years) mistakenly used instead of 10 years. Therefore archaeologists would be of the belief that Ziusudra reigned for 10 years, not 10 sars.

 He is recorded as having reigned as both king and gudug priest for ten sars (periods of 3,600 years),[3] although this figure is probably a copyist error for ten years.[4] 
Conclusion

So do we now have to review the actual ages of those mythological and biblical figures? They may not be that old afterall.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion
-->
@Jamball
Jamball wrote...
Moses may be a myth to people who have no faith but even Egyptian sources are less reliable than the Bible which is strong proof of  Moses and all that happened.
Interesting statement Jamball. Perhaps deserving of an entirely new thread of its own. Biblical sources versus Egyptian sources.


For Egypt we have a complete list of pharoahs dating back to the predynastic period of approximately 3250bc.


We have a complete list of Egyptian viziers dating all the way back to the Egyptian fourth dynasty.


We have a complete list of High Priests of Ptah dating back to the Old Kingdom fourth dynasty.

Ancient Egyptian papyri List of ancient Egyptian papyri

We have lists of ancient Egyptian papyri that date back to 26th century bc.


We have so much archaeological evidence such as pyramids and mummies, such as the mummified corpse of Ahmose I in the link above.

Biblical sources are more reliable?

Yet very little of what is kept from ancient Egyptian sources corroborates much written in the bible. Yet you say that what is written in the bible is more reliable than that of what was written by the ancient Egyptians on steles, papyrus and tombs? What brings you to this conclusion?

P.S

Jamball removed his/her post while I was writing this reply




Created:
2
Posted in:
Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion
-->
@fauxlaw
Fauxlaw wrote...
Which include that which you continue to ignore: the included story of a higher law than the law of Noses: the promise of a Messiah, embodies by Jesus Christ.

Your awareness needs enlightening:

1. Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, Genesis through Deuteronomy [299 pages in my KJV] He is a Levite, not of Judah.
2. Joshua, the author of his self-named book [173 pgs[ Josh is of Ephraim, not Judah
3. Ruth, the next author [4 pgs] She is not of the House of Israel at all, but a Moabite.
4. Samuel, both books [86 pgs] is also a Levite, not of Judah.
5. Kings [2 books about David] [90 pgs], our first biblical Jew.
6. Chronicles [2 books about Jews, attributed to Ezra, a Jew [360 pgs] Ezra is of Judah, but he reviews for us the lineage of Jacob [Israel] and his 12 sons.
7. The balance are from Judah, with the exception of Malachi, a Levite. [15 pgs].

Virtually half of the O.T. [ 577 of 1184 pages] is written by, or attributed to authors who are not of the House of Judah.

If I can look this stuff up, so can you. Why don't you?

Hebrew bible

Every single person you mention, including Moses, was brought to fame by the Hebrew bible? 
The Pentatuech was also a book of the Hebrew bible?

Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/Hebrew: תּוֹרָה‎, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books (Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses) of the Hebrew Bible.
Conclusion

Is it not fair to conclude that had it not been for Hebrew scholars we today would never have ever heard of Moses, Joshua,  Ruth, Samuel, et cetera?
Whilst the authors of the Hebrew bible may or may not point to earlier historically objectionable writings as their source, "we" as Christians, Catholics, Muslims or other, mostly get our version from the Hebrew scholars? The fact that you yourself believe that the writings come from earlier sources actually comes from the word of Hebrew scholars?

Created:
2
Posted in:
Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion
-->
@fauxlaw
Fauxlaw wrote...
Influence? Of course. But we're talking origins of religions here, or do I misunderstand what you mean by "creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion?" Your words, my friend, not mine. And since the advent of the Messiah is taught to Adam and Eve, a point you have completely ignored, by the way, and repeated in Judaism when Moses brought the Law, which included, had you forgotten [an apparent epidemic] all tribes of the House of Israel in Egypt, and brought out of Egypt by Moses, and established in Canaan as multiple tribes, not just the House of Judah.  Your first citation goes nowhere. The second only mentions the Jews, not any other House of Israel. You cannot combiine them. all together as even many "scholars" do, because they are of very separate material lineage [four mothers, no? not one]. Gather your entire history. Selective history might be interesting, but we're allegedly talking origins here. Stick to your subject.

Your source may claim, "Early Chgristianity began as a first century Jewish movement," but as I have demonstrated, Christianity, a religion, after all, based on Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Redeemer, the Bruiser of Satan's Head, was taught to Adam and Eve, millennia before the first century.  

You are ignoring origins. Stop, wake up, read the texts for what they are telling you.  Paul did not invent "Christ, and Christ crucified" as a teaching point.
Hewbrew bible

But the main root source for the Adam and Eve story was the "Hebrew bible".?

In the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible, chapters one through five, there are two creation narratives with two distinct perspectives. In the first, Adam and Eve are not named. Instead, God created humankind in God's image and instructed them to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden

I must be missing something. I fail to understand how using Adam and Eve as an example removes Judaist influence. As far as I am aware the Hebrew bible was written by mostly Judeans. They are the source for all other Adam and Eve accounts?


Created:
2
Posted in:
Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion
-->
@fauxlaw
Fauxlaw wrote...
You're entertaining an historic misconception. Christianity and Islam did not split out of Judaism. Not if the history is really understood for what it is. 
1. Abraham [or Abram], was Judah's Great grandfather [Judah, for whom Judaism is named].
2. Actually, it was not even Judah who promulgated Judaism; Moses is you promulgator, 6 or 7 generations following Judah, being the one who delivered the Law [of Moses].
3. From the Law of Moses [Judaism] we are introduced to the concept of a Messiah [Christ, and Christianity].
4. Adam and Eve are advised [Gen 3] that Eve's seed [her descendent] will bruise the head of the serpent [Satan]. The bruising descendent is Christ.
5.Let us recall from Exodus that the Lord gave Moses commandments, written by the Lord on tablets, commandments re: the proper worship of God, and the proper comportment of the people with one another, and in just those 10 commandments are the principles taught by Christ in two sermons: on the Mount, and the Bread of Life. But also recall by further reading in Exodus that Moses came down from Sinai and observed the people breaking virtually all the Commandments just received, which actually included the building of a tabernacle, after which the first Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem was eventually built, and renovated on at least two occasions before Christ came. The Lord then gave just a replacement of the tablets, the 10 commandments, and then over time taught them the detail of obedience that is the sum of the Torah today, but none of the higher law originally given but from the 10 Commandments. That higher law would be withheld until Christ came. Thus, by his coming, Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, offering its replacement, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which should have been what was lived all along, the higher law, since Adam.
6. Islam owes allegiance to Abraham, but not to Judah. Islam comes from Abraham through Ishmael, not Issac. Abraham, therefore is a fountainhead for Judaism, and then Islam, but the idea of a Redeemer of mankind, a Messiah, is as old as Adam and Eve.
Jewish old testament

Well they certainly had an influence didn't they? Afterall it was the Jews that authored the old testament.

As previously pointed out, the Five books of Moses had been canonized in the year 444bc. During the subsequent five hundred years, under Persian, Greek, and Roman domination, the Jews wrote, revised, admitted, and canonized the Jewish old testament.
Early Christianity was a Jewish movement

The early movement which later turned in to Christianity, was originally a Jewish movement.

Early Christianity began as a Jewish movement in the first-century Palestine.
Jesus was Jewish

Even Jesus was Jewish.

Jesus[e] (c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,[f] was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader.[11]
Influence

I think it is fair to conclude that Judaists from the Kingdom of Judea pre-date Christianity and at least have some influence on both Christianity and Islam.
Created:
2
Posted in:
Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion
RationalMadman wrote...
Many physical things have been proven wring since then, regarding scientific facts but fubnily enough the one thing that may be true is that we live on a stationary flat disc, as the Bible old testament (which is identical in storyline to the Torah) strongly implies. The Qur'an also implies this at certain points since it supports the old testament Bible being true.
Photos of Earth from space

Here are some photos of planet earth from space.

Created:
2
Posted in:
Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion
Polytheist Witch wrote...
Do you mean Judaism or all the Abrahamic religions? Cause Judaism is still a fairly closed religion. You get converts but most are born into the faith and it's still strongly tied to the Jewish people. 

Formed from this soil:

According to the book "formed from this soil", all Abrahamic religions take their roots from Judaism. Therefore Judaism would most likely be closest to the roots of Abrahamic religion?

The two largest religious traditions in the world today both emerged from a common monotheistic orientation originating originating in the Middle East. 
Both Christianity,  the largest worldwide religion in numbers of adherents, and Islam, with the second largest number of followers, share a common beginning in the monotheism of the Judaic religion.

Created:
1
Posted in:
Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion
Antitheists and Atheists

This thread mostly concerns those that oppose theism, though not exclusively. Theists are still welcome to share their theory. But what I mostly want to know is what your interesting theories are for the creation of Abrahamic religion and how and why it evolved to become the world-wide phenomena it is today? Did it begin as some nefarious conspiracy involving a secret cabal to take over the world? Or did it all just come about by accident?

Example

I will give an example of a theory.
Based on the Wikipedia link below, one might conclude that Abrahamic religion began as an alternative means to conquering Canaan, and perhaps even usurping power away from the Egyptian pharaohs.

The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of these Canaanite peoples and their cultures through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh.[90][91][92][93][94][95]
Theories

So what are your theories regarding how it all began, and why?
Created:
0
Posted in:
God and Hitler
There is no factual knowledge based answer for this question and is all just a matter of opinion. Imao
Created:
0
Posted in:
RELIGION POLL #1: Resurrection
-->
@MisterChris
MisterChris asked...
RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?

The best argument for the resurrection is the alleged 513 witnesses that attested to seeing Jesus after his death.
The best argument against the resurrection is the billions that did not attest to seeing Jesus after his death. 
Created:
1
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
-->
@Timid8967
Timid8967wrote...
I don't need a theory. I leave that to others who are much cleverer than me.  I just think that if we give air time to a myth which we think ought to be canceled - then we undo ourselves. 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Created:
1
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
-->
@Timid8967
Timid8967...
So why give air to a subject that ought to be closed down? It seems to me - the more you bring this sort of stuff up - the more air time and the larger the myth becomes. 
So what is your theory on how the myth originally began? 
Created:
0
Posted in:
Ask me anything
-->
@Benjamin
Benjamin wrote...
I am Benjamin, I live in Norway.
Do you agree with me when I say that the Norwegian fjords are of the most spectacular and magical locations in the entire world?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
-->
@Timid8967
Timid8967 wrote...
What is the evidence that Jesus ever existed? 
There is nothing conclusive as far as I am aware.
Created:
2
Posted in:
Noah's arch must be pretty big.
Noah's Ark

It is actually Noah's Ark.

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical HebrewTevat Noaḥ)

Though I am a fine one to talk. I am the master of typographical error.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Mytho-historical coincidences in the old testament
-->
@Stephen
Stephen wrote...
 Many of the Old Testament biblical stories are lifted from  ancient Sumerian epics.. This is a proven fact. They were likely to have been copied during the exile in Babylon.
ABRAM aka Abraham came from Mesopotamia. It is believed that he was "called by god" to leave his homeland to create a new nation elsewhere.

Noah

Another good example of a Sumerian coincidence might come from the flood narrative? Apparently Noah was pre-warned about a coming flood and instructed by Yahweh to build a giant boat to preserve human and animal life.

According to the Genesis account, Noah labored faithfully to build the Ark at God's command, ultimately saving not only his own family, but mankind itself and all land animals, from extinction during the Flood

Utnapishtim

By coincidence there was also the Sumerian story of Utnapishtim whom was pre-warned of a coming flood and ordered by Enki to build a giant boat called "the preserver of life".

He is tasked by the god Enki (Ea) to abandon his worldly possessions and create a giant ship to be called Preserver of Life.
The Preserver of Life was made of solid timber, so that the rays of Shamash (the sun) would not shine in, and of equal dimensions in length and width. The design of the ship was supposedly drawn on the ground by Enki, and the frame of the ark, which was made in five days, was 200 feet in length, width and height, with a floor-space of one acre.[2] The ark interior had seven floors, each floor divided into 9 sections, finishing the ark fully on the seventh day. The entrance to the ship was sealed once everyone had boarded the ship.
He was also tasked with bringing his wife, family, and relatives along with the craftsmen of his village, baby animals, and grains.[2] 

Created:
0
Posted in:
Mytho-historical coincidences in the old testament
-->
@fauxlaw
Fauxlaw wrote...
Only by tradition, which generally does not have a scholastic source, such as the location of the Garden of Eden, is the garden located in Sumerian territory. There is no empiric evidence of it, certainly not by etymology.
Garden of Eden

The theory that the Garden of Eden was based in Sumeria does appear to be gaining support however.

Another favorite locale for the Garden had been Turkey, because both the Tigris and the Euphrates rise inthe mountains there, and because Mount Ararat, where Noah's Ark came to rest, is there. In the pasthundred years. since the discovery of ancient civilizations in modern Iraq, scholars have leaned toward theTigris-Euphrates valley in general, and to the sites of southern Sumer, about 150 miles north of the presenthead of the Persian Gulf, in particular (map, above).To this southern Sumerian theory Dr. Juris Zarins, of Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield,would murmur: "You're getting warmer. For Dr. Zarins, who has spent seven years working out his ownhypothesis, believes that the Garden of Eden lies presently under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and hefurther believes that the story of Adam and Eve in-and especially out-of the Garden is a highly condensedand evocative account of perhaps the greatest revolution that ever shook mankind: the shift from huntinggathering to agriculture.
Adam

In support for the theory that Gu-Edin could be worth looking at as a historical root for the legend, I would also point to a coincidence within a coincidence.

The coincidence being that the Garden of Eden was supposed to be the location for a king named Adam. Adam was the first man.

Like the Genesis flood narrative, the Genesis creation narrative and the account of the Tower of Babel, the story of Eden echoes the Mesopotamian myth of a king, as a primordial man, who is placed in a divine garden to guard the Tree of Life.[10] 
Eannatum

It just so happens that a king named Eannatum may be regarded as one of the first emperors in history, and he waged a war against Umma over the fertile plain of Gu-Edin.

Eannatum (Sumerian: 𒂍𒀭𒈾𒁺 É.AN.NA-tum2) was a Sumerian Ensi (ruler or king) of Lagash circa 2500–2400 BCE. He established one of the first verifiable empires in history: he subdued Elam and destroyed the city of Susa as well as several other Iranian cities, and extended his domain to Sumer and Akkad.[1] One inscription found on a boulder states that Eannatum was his Sumerian name, while his "Tidnu" (Amorite) name was Lumma.

He entered into conflict with Umma, waging a war over the fertile plain of Gu-Edin.[1] 

Created:
1
Posted in:
Mytho-historical coincidences in the old testament
Garden of Eden

The word Eden allegedly derives from the Sumerian root word "Edin" meaning "plain" or "steppe".

The name derives from the Akkadian edinnu, from a Sumerian word edin meaning "plain" or "steppe", 
Gu-Edin

It just so happens that there was indeed a historical plain in Sumer named Gu-Edin.

Gu-Edin (also transcribed "Gu'edena" or "Guedena") was a fertile plain in Sumer, in modern-day Iraq. It lay between Umma and Lagash, and claims made on it by each side were a cause of war.[1] Argument over the territory continued for around 150 years.[2]

Jacob/Israel

According to Genesis 46:27 Israel and his entire house of 70 gathered up their livestock and went to meet an unnamed pharoah.

Israel and his entire house of 70,[46] gathered up with all their livestock and began their journey to Egypt.

Userkaf

According to Egyptologists Egyptian fifth dynasty pharoah Userkaf had  70 women and a chieftain sent to Egypt from Canaan.

while the Old Kingdom annals record that he received tribute from a region that is either the Eastern Desert or Canaan in the form of a workforce of one chieftain and 70 foreigners[102] (likely women),[93

The exodus

The Israelites were made to depart Egypt, according to myth.

The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Yeẓi’at Miẓrayim: lit. 'Departure from Egypt') is the founding myth of the Israelites.[1]
Conquest of the Hyksos

According to Egyptology, Ahmose I did indeed lead a military expulsion of Asiatics out of Egypt during the ancient Egyptian 18th dynasty.

Ahmose began the conquest of Lower Egypt held by the Hyksos starting around the 11th year of Khamudi's reign, but the sequence of events is not universally agreed upon.[25]

King David

King David is alleged to be the first king of the united monarchy of Israel and Judah.

David[b] is described in the Hebrew Bible as king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah.[6][
Solomon the temple builder

His son and successor was king Solomon the temple builder.

Solomon (/ˈsɒləmən/Hebrew: שְׁלֹמֹה‎, Shlomoh),[a] also called Jedidiah (Hebrew יְדִידְיָהּ‎ Yedidyah), was, according to the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament,[3] Quran, and Hadiths, a fabulously wealthy and wise king of the United Kingdom of Israel who succeeded his father, King David.[4] 
Osorkon I

By coincidence, Egyptian pharoah Osorkon I the temple builder and second pharoah of Egypts 22nd dynasty appears to have inherited the kingdom of Israel from his father.

The son of Shoshenq I and his chief consort Karomat A, Osorkon I was the second king of ancient Egypt's 22nd Dynasty and ruled around 922 BC – 887 BC. He succeeded his father Shoshenq I, who probably died within a year of his successful 923 BC campaign against the Pilistines and the kingdom of Israel. Osorkon I's reign is known for many temple building projects and was a long and prosperous period of Egypt's History.

Created:
1
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
RationalMadman wrote...
Yahshuah, not Yeshua. There's a significant semantic difference. Yahshuah means 'your saviour'.
Yehoshua

According to my source his name was actually Yehoshua. Though Yehoshua can be shortened to Yeshua.

"Jesus" is an Anglicized form of the Greek name Yesous found in the New Testament. Yesous represents the Hebrew Bible name Yeshua, which occurs as "Jeshua" in English Bibles (Ezra 2:2; Neh 7:7). In Medieval English the "J" was pronounced as a "Y."

"Yehoshua"
Yeshua, in turn, is a shortened form of the name Yehoshua ("Joshua" in English Bibles).
Yahweh

He was almost definitely not known as Yahweh however. Yahweh was the state God of Israel and Judah, according to the world history encyclopedia.

Yahweh is the name of the state god of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and, later, the Kingdom of Judah.

Created:
1
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
RationalMadman wrote...
Jesus' actual name during his era was Yahweh, not Jesus

I think you mean Yeshua, not Yahweh.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
-->
@Castin
Thank you Castin.

I would also appreciate your opinion regarding my response to Mandrakel.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
-->
@Mandrakel
Mandrakel wrote...
I think that there is a general consensus between historians, both theist and atheist that Jesus Christ did exist.
Perhaps we are not looking for a family with the surname Christ however? Afterall Jesus was not the only person to be given the title "the good"? Take for example, Socrates Chrestus. Or "Socrates the good".

Socrates Chrestus (Greek: Σωκράτης ό Χρηστός; Chrestus (The Good)[1] died 90–88 BC) was the second son of Nicomedes III of Bithynia. He usurped the Bithynian throne by deposing his elder brother or half brother, Nicomedes IV of Bithynia.

Created:
0
Posted in:
Earliest mention of Jesus Christ
Pauline epistles

Forgetting about whether or not Jesus Christ was born to a virgin and rose from the dead after three days, I want to know what the earliest historical attestation for Jesus Christ is, and according to google the earliest historical written reference for Jesus comes from the Pauline epistles, dated to approximately 50 or 60 AD.

Given that the Pauline epistles are generally dated AD 50–60, they are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.[129] These letters were written approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus, around AD 30–36.[129]

What about the earlier mention by Claudius?

But, do we have an earlier mention by Claudius? It has been claimed that Roman emperor Claudius made a reference to an individual named Chrestus  sometime between 41 ad and 54 ad. The reference is as follows:

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
Historicity

Certain historians and scholars apparently accept that this remark attributed to Claudius is genuine

As it is highly unlikely that a hypothetical Christian interpolator would have called Jesus "Chrestus", placed him in Rome in 49, or called him a "troublemaker", the overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that the passage is genuine.[23]

Sagas of Iceland

The Sagas of Iceland were written a good twenty years after the events spoken about (feel free to correct me regarding the actual amount of years). Yet we typically do not doubt that Norse explorers were indeed amongst the first to inhabit Iceland, and we generally do not accuse the Icelanders and Norwegians of lying, just because the Sagas were written "after" the events.

This may be a terrible example. However I am sure there are plenty other examples of matters written after the fact that we just take as gospel without question.

The Sagas of Icelanders say that a Norwegian named Naddodd (or Naddador) was the first Norseman to reach Iceland, and in the 9th century he named it Snæland or "snow land" because it was snowing. Following Naddodd, the Swede Garðar Svavarsson arrived, and so the island was then called Garðarshólmur which means "Garðar's Isle".
My question

So my question is. Do you agree that the Pauline epistles are the first historically reliable mention of Jesus Christ? Do you believe that Claudius was referring to Jesus Christ? And is it not reasonable to conclude that a historical mention of Jesus Christ within approximately 17 years of his death points to Jesus Christ being an actual historical figure at the very least? Even if we doubt his divinity and the miraculous claims attributed to him, there is evidence to suggest he was at the very least historical, and there probably was indeed a man named Jesus Christ with a mother probably named Mary?
Created:
1
Posted in:
Who first decided that culture could be cancelled?

Dating back to the 6th dynasty the ancient Egyptians used to write the names of enemies (usually asiatics) on objects which became known as the execration texts. Having ones name written on the execration texts was believed to act like a curse. 

This could perhaps be one of the earliest known forms of cancelling another person, or people.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Why is murder actually wrong.
-->
@Checkmate
The Golden Rule
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." - Confucius

So would you like to be murdered? If the answer is yes, then somewhat frighteningly perhaps for you murder is ok. But it is most likely you do not want to be murdered because you feel that would be wrong of someone.
So if you can think of no other reason why murder might be wrong, then just ask yourself if you yourself would like to be murdered, and then ask yourself why you feel that it would be ok to treat someone else in a manner that you yourself would not wish to be treated.

 Also belief in God is not necessary to endorse The Golden Rule. The concept pre-dates the writing of the old testament.

Unfortunately "the golden rule" does not stretch to otters, and other animals. But the same rules mostly apply to most other species that tend to view species other than themselves as fair game.

Created:
1
Posted in:
Is it Racist to Not Date a Particular Race?
-->
@coal
If the reasons for the rejection prejudiced then of course that is racism. 
It would however still be considered harassment if the rejected person did not accept the rejection.
I am aware that the standards are slightly different regarding business and employment, but this is simply what society has decreed.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Poll - American Racism
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
(1) no
(2) no
(3) yes
Created:
0
Posted in:
The media, and the desire to "scoop"
-->
@fauxlaw
I think the type of news reporting you are referring to is "breaking news",  which usually relies on sketchy eye witness accounts and is mostly reporting on what the current rumour is, as opposed to reporting on established official facts.
In almost every single breaking news event those rumours get misconstrued as "facts" by certain individuals. Especially conspiracy theorists that accuse news channels of having initially told the truth, just to later be forced by tptb to change the story. Examples of this can be found in almost every single conspiracy theory from Sandy Hook to the Saudi air line pilots that were "apparently" found alive on 9/11.

There are indeed major criticisms regarding this type of news reporting as 24hour news channels are under a great amount of pressure to fill air time and they often find themselves reporting on live events that turn out to be relatively minor and they never return to the story with updates, and so their initial rumour mongering remain as the only correspondence available and can be misconstrued as fake news. Conspiracy theorists would say "lies".



Created:
1
Posted in:
Cannabis Benifits{ Pros } Outweigh Negatives { Cons }
Amongst the Pro's of making Cannabis legal would be the vast amount of money that could be made by the pharmaceutical industry. It would become the cash crop of the national economy.

Amongst the cons is the potential mental and physical side effects such as impaired short term memory, as well as the potential for general misuse  which can induce anxiety, delusions, hallucinations, panic, paranoia, and psychosis.

Physical side effects of misuse can result in an increased heart rate which is extremely dangerous for those that may be at high risk of having a heart attack.

Other negative effects are financial as Cannabis use can become a very costly habit.

A lot of people claim to use Cannabis for spiritual purposes which is quite debatable. Others may argue that the spiritual experiences the Cannabis user is claiming to experience may in fact be the grandiose delusions that they were pre-warned about.
Created:
1
Posted in:
Most Bad Ass Woman in History
-->
@Danielle
Definitely "Irene of Athens".
Had her own sons eyes gouged out and later had him murdered, all so she could remain empress of the Byzantine empire a little longer and not have him remove her.

Though I am not sure that bad ass cuts it. Totally deprived and inexplicably evil beyond words might be closer to the mark.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
-->
@PGA2.0
I can't help but feel Atheism is just yet another theism. Whether or not the word a theism is intentional or by accident is besides the point. Atheism is still a theism as far as I am concerned.
Whilst a theist usually believes in the existence of deities, an Atheist usually believes that deities do not exist.
Atheists usually cite a lack of empirical evidence amongst their reasoning for not believing, whilst apparently forgetting that a lack of empirical evidence does not support an Atheists own beliefs any more than it does a theists.
Atheists also tend to cite the problem of evil in their argument and argue that if their was an actual god there would not be the pain and suffering we experience today. But they do so without empirical evidence that this is the case.
Other popular arguments include  the argument from inconsistent revelations, and all arguments are totally conjectural, and ultimately a matter of belief.
An Atheist also typically argues that the burden of proof lies with the theist. However surely if someone is claiming a belief in something then they also have a duty to provide proof for their belief.
Therefore I would not say that Atheism is any more reasonable then Theism. Certainly an Atheist should feel free to express their opinions on the subject. However there is no validation for joining a society which sets itself up in direct opposition, and that is exactly what Atheism has became. To be an Atheist is to be part of a society which opposes the beliefs of others without empirical evidence to support their disbelief.
Created:
3
Posted in:
Necessary evils
-->
@secularmerlin
Under cutting competition in order to put them out of business (even offering services for free) and then putting prices back up again, and even higher than they otherwise would have been once the competition is dead. 
It is something that one does not like doing. Feels extremely sorry for the person he is doing it too. But that is the nature of business and one cannot survive in business without trying to dissuade others from thinking about competing and encouraging them to find a different niche.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Is incest morally acceptable?
-->
@Juice
I believe a person should as much as possible strive to be non judgemental and refrain from insisting that everyone else must follow the rules decreed by society, at the same time as accepting that there is a reason that incest is considered taboo, with that reason being most consider it unnatural.
I am mostly of the opinion that what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults is to the greatest extent nobody else's business and two consenting adults should feel no obligation whatsoever to feel any requirement to divulge upon what goes on behind closed doors.
Having said all this. I personally cannot imagine how a male could be attracted to anyone else other than a fully grown female outside of ones own family, and I would imagine that to have a sexual relationship with a member of ones own family would be a recipe for disaster. What happens when one of the consenting adults wants out of the relationship to have a sexual relationship with someone else? Do they just go back to being brother and sister? Or is that the family unit split apart forever?
Created:
0
Posted in:
Women when they get beaten
-->
@Utanity
Violence should always be the last option regardless of whether the person is a male or female and before using violence against anyone a number of criteria need to have been met. 
Remember, it does not matter who said the first thing. We cannot always say the right thing at all times. But from the moment someone has taken offence and a disturbance has ensued "you" need to have been seen to attempt to de-escalate the situation by being apologetic and assuming a non aggressive posture and remaining calm. 
In the instance that this has not de-escalated the situation it would be advisable to have been seen to try and walk away and been followed. It would also be advisable that you have been seen to ask the person politely to stop following you. It would also definitely be advisable that you have been seen to be the first to be assaulted. Once you have been seen to do all this you have now met the criteria for not only using self defence, but making a citizens arrest and holding the person until police arrive to charge the person with breach of the peace.
Unless you have met all the above criteria, your actions were unwarranted regardless of the persons sexual identity, political opinion, religious opinion or other.
Also when using self defence you usually do not begin plummelling your opponent, but don't be affraid to be heard to announce that you are frightened, and warn them that should they try to get back up you will need to acquire more force to keep them down should they resist, beacuse you are frightened of them. Also you can try de-escalating the situation even more by not being frightened to tell them the reason I am frightened of you is because you are harder than me. This will make it easier for them to back down without having to save face.
But nine times out of ten if you followed the first rule of remaining calm and de-escalating the situation with a nice smile and non aggressive posture, the fight will not ensue anyway and your opponent will also usually calm down and be quite thankful that they are not in a fighting situation, as nobody deep down enjoys the risk of getting hurt.
But a woman being nasty and vindictive alone does not warrant being hit. You do have the option to exercise your rights to cut your emotional attachment to the person and simply have nothing more to do with her. Hitting her is going to solve nothing.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Sports - What are they?
The first rule of sport is that it be a game. This could also include fighting, which would be sport at its most extreme. 

Sport should be won by the participant that has displayed the most skill and physical ability, and this is ultimately true with fighting were you would expect the person with the most skill and physical ability to win the fight.

Sport should also be entertaining to spectators, and from the school playground to Roman amphitheatres nothing has thrilled crowds more than the spectacle of sport at its most ultimate. The most ultimate being a good old fashioned fight.

Sport can be participated in at an individual level, or as part of a team. Team sport at its most ultimate would be mob fighting, which if legal would draw in far bigger crowds than two individuals fighting. Possibly the closest thing we currently have to mob fighting might be tag team wrestling.

Sport usually has more than one participant and is usually part of a tournament set up such as a league or knock out competition. The objective is to win the tournament and be announced champion in that field. Taken to the ultimate, the objective would be to be named hardest person in the world.

In order to excel at sport you usually require key attributes such as athleticism and dexterity, and also intelligence. It is inconclusive which attributes outweigh the other. Sometimes a person with lots of experience and intelligence may defeat a person with lots of physical ability and athleticism. on other occasions a person with lots of physical ability and athleticism may be too much for a person with lots of experience and intelligence to handle. Taken to the ultimate there is only one way to resolve this dispute and that is to get in the ring.

However, usually what seperates sports from illegal fighting is the adherence to rules and customs. Real fighting has no rules and no customs and the winner can only be decided when one surrenders, is incapable of continuing or people from the crowd have intervened.

The downside of rules and customs is that we are not always getting a true reflection of what would actually happen without the intervention of a referee. 

Sport should also usually come with a reward for the winner. With rules and customs that reward is usually a trophy for the winner and medals for the runners up. Taken to the most ultimate sport would be a gamble between two participants betting on themselves with the winner taking everything and loser losing his/her money. Though under current rules and regulations this would be considered illegal unless the bet is placed in a licensed premises. Two individuals putting money in to a pot with a winner takes all agreement is the equivalent of pool sharking. Something which goes on regularly in most pubs with a pool table.

Football has likely became the most popular sport as it contains elements of every single attribute you could think of which are required to participate in sport.
Created:
0
Posted in:
DebateArt Member Interviews & Survey
-->
@Theweakeredge
1. Generally, how do you identify politically?
According to my political compass I am Libertarian to the left of mid centre which I am disappointed about as I wanted to hit the bullseye so I better try again.

2. Given the following 6 political identities, which do you most closely relate to? (Anarchist, Liberal, Centrist, Libertarian, Conservative, Authoratarian) 
Despite the fact my political compass says I am to the left near centre, I would personally answer to being a Centrist. I think it was strong radical views on giant corporations that prevented me from at least hitting the 25.

3. If you were to choose 4 political identities as the most common - which four would they be?
Republican direct democracy. Some might call it a form of Anarchy. There are also some ideologies in Communism that I would actually agree with.

4. If you were to briefly describe your general political identity - how would you?
I would claim Apathy on the subject as my views need not be discussed in public.

5. If you were to briefly describe your closest-relative political identity - how would you?
Apathetic

6. If you were to briefly describe the political identity which is directly opposed to yours - how would you?
Absolute monarchy is the polar opposite of republican direct democracy.
7. If you were to list the positions most integral to your political identity - what would they be? (listed from least to most important)
The most important part of my philosophy is higher per capita wealth. So others may even say that there is a touch of Communism in there.

8. If you were to list the top 4 positions which you most agree with, what four would they be?
The philosophy of Republicanism. the philosophy of Direct democracy. And sympathising with the need for Anarchy whilst remaining publicly Apathetic in the name of peace.

9. Do you consider your political identity widely represented in your respective government?
Not at-all. Direct democracy is considered a threat to representative democracy.

1. What do you believe to be the biggest social problem of today's era?
Capitalism and privatisation.

2. How do you think this problem could be solved generally?
By communities owning their own resources and having political municipal control over their own affairs.

3. What do you think of these sexual/gender identities; Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, or Asexual?
People are what they are and I am what I am. I don't have a problem with them if they don't have a problem with me, eh.

4. What do you think of cultural labels such as "cultural marxists" or "TERFs"? (though not limited to those labels specifically)
I think in general cultural labels are useless unless you believe that by self identifying to a particular label you will invoke some type of self fulfilling prophecy. Apart from that labelling is usually simply negative stereo-typing and something we do as it has became the cultural norm.

5. Which, if any, circumstances do you believe justifies abortion?
If the Mother is likely to die during child-birth would certainly be an acceptable reason.

6. What do you believe to be the ideal home environment?
A Mother that works in the house and looks after the children with a Father that goes out and makes a decent living. Is also good to have two children instead of just one as children with no brothers and sisters sometime struggle more in school social settings. Of course it is fine for the man to stay at home whilst the Mother goes out and makes a decent living. But the man does not look after children so well and lacks the Motherly instinct.

7. What do you believe to be the most important value to instill in young individuals?
Responsibility and self discipline.

8. What do you think of cultural movements such as BLM or Feminism?
Radical groups like this I would say are probably a little biased, blinkered and extreme.

9. Should taxpayer money be used to support policies such as Universal Healthcare and Universal Secondary Education?
Yes, definitely. Everyone should be pitching in. I am not against tax. It is where the tax goes that is the issue.

1. Generally, which religion do you identify with?
None. I self identify as a non theist but not an atheist. I am unreligious but not irreligious. I have no objections to others practising their beliefs and what I believe is a secret and does not need to be discussed. It is not important. And this is a philosophy adopted to end religious war.

2. Generally, do you believe religion to be important to society - how so or how not?
As a non-theist that believes that I should keep my beliefs a secret I should not really answer this as it could upset religious people. But no, I do not believe religion to be important in society because there are plenty unreligious people in the world which do not destroy society.

3. Do you believe the religion you identify with is being persucted or bigoted against?
No. I do not identify with any religion so it would be impossible to feel persecuted or bigoted against.

4. Do you believe that its important for education to instill relgious values into children?
No. I am against this. I believe a child should be free to make his/her own mind up when he/she gets older.

5. Aside from the god of your religion, do you believe that religion is the most important aspect of life?
No, religion is not the most important aspect of life in my opinion.

6. Do you believe that everyone else, or the majority of people, should be of your religion?
No, I believe that we could know eachother for many years without even knowing eachothers personal beliefs, as it is not important. Unless of course one really feels they need to talk about it then of course we should be willing to lend an ear and perhaps offer an opinion if requested. It also does not have to be something which "cannot" be discussed, as that would be practising non-theism religiously, if that were the case.

7. What do you think of indivudals who do not affilate with your religion?
I don't know if they affiliate with non-theism unless they tell me. And if they don't I 100% don't mind. As I have no strong religious belief I have nothing to be angry about regarding what others believe.

8. Do you believe that the church and government should be seperated?
Yes I do. The church could disappear and I would not blink an eyelid.

9. Do you believe that individuals have a freedom from religion as well as a freedom to religion?
I have conducted no studies on who has the greater individuality.

1. Generally, do you believe science to be an accurate way of interpreting and describing our reality?
The theories of Quantum Mechanics and sub atomic light particles certainly give a more Scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe than genesis.

2. Do you believe that the theory of natural selection and evolution is how the current species of the earth developed?
Yes, most likely. All created from abiogenesis

3. Do you believe that creationism is how the current species of the earth developed?
They most likely developed from organic compounds from beneath the sea. Abiogenesis.

4. Do you believe that the big bang and cosmologic evolution is how our current universe "began"?
No, I believe the process was in motion before the big bang. I believe that Quantum mechanics is exploring sub atomic light particles to help explain the most early stages of the creation of physical matter and the lead up to the big bang.

5. Do you believe that the oblate spheroid model of the earth is accurate in regards to the shape of the earth?
I believe the Earth is the same shape as viewed from Nasa photos.

6. Do you believe that climate change is happening at an increased rate?
Actually, I am undecided on this. I believe that there is a certain truth to it. A lot of fear monger thrown in. But ultimately, the climate has been changing for billions of years and will keep changing whether we like it or not. Though we may be speeding up the process, certainly.

7. Do you believe that there are genetic differences between different ethnicities aside from melalin content?
Very slight. But there are definitely differences between say, the Pygmy peoples that grow on average  from anywhere between 4ft5 and 4ft11, and those of other countries and cultures that average 5ft8 or 5ft9.

8. Do you believe that IQ tests are accurate ways of measuring an individual's intelligence?
No, because IQ tests improve everytime you take them. Like everything else, you can practise taking IQ tests. Almost all the geniuses in the world that are attributed as having incredible IQ's had to practise to get that high. They did not get such a high IQ result on their very first test.

9. Do you believe that the current scientific consensus is accurate in regards to the description of reality?
I don't think there is an overall Scientific consensus regarding the nature of reality.


Created:
0
Posted in:
Pre-MEEP: Enforcable rule on colluders, live coaches, 'assisters'...
The coaching could easily go on via personal messages or text messages.
At least if people make their opinions known in the comment sections then it makes it harder for them to vote for the person they are coaching as everyone can see that right from the start this person has been biased to his or her personal opinion on the subject.
Also it would be good for a debater to get a whiff of what the voters are seeing, as having the opportunity to also debate the voters and prove them wrong would be an advantage to the debater, not a disadvantage.
But it really does not matter where a debater gets his or her information from. Whether it be from Wikipedia. Newspaper. Book. Bible. Youtube. Another user. What difference does it make?
Created:
1
Posted in:
Yahoo Answers is shutting down on April 20th - Chance to get some more debaters and donaters!

Their platform is still just "what will I do now" question after question.


Created:
0