I would probably talk with George and ask him why he is doing all this (Making the country look bad and all)

If I could get him to speak candidly about his political career, Vladimir Putin.

If you count Jesus as a political leader, as he caused so much anti-roman sentiment... I'd sit down and get to know this guy for myself.

BUT, he's more of a religious guy, obviously LOL. So I'd have to say Martin Luther King Jr... I'd probably come away from that conversation feeling like I had just talked with the greatest man alive, and feel like a piece of crap myself.

I had assumed the question was for living people only, if I could pick the deaduns too, I'd probably go for the original gangsta, George Washington. The man singlehandedly ensured the Union would endure for generations when he stepped down after his second term as President. That was an amazing act of self-sacrifice that would simply never happen today.

If you were to have a talk with any political leader who would it be?

Václav Havel would be a possibility.

But if he were standing in the docket in The Hague being tried for war crimes, I guess I'd instead have to opt for G. W. B*sh......just so I could ask him how he felt about his pending execution, and laugh at him as he cringed in terror and pissed his pants.

If you count Jesus as a political leader, as he caused so much anti-roman sentiment... I'd sit down and get to know this guy for myself.

Oh. Well, if imaginary supernatural beings are to be included in it, I guess I'd probably choose Zeus. Or maybe Poseidon.

You didn't specify living or dead, so I'm going with dead.

Thomas Jefferson.

Andrew Jackson or Henry VIII or Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Ahmadinejad.

GWB..to really find out what's up.

Martin L. King Jr. Just to have a talk. Talk about anything. He seemed so optimistic.

Oh. Well, if imaginary supernatural beings are to be included in it, I guess I'd probably choose Zeus. Or maybe Poseidon.

I guess you have to ignore the non-biblical written accounts of jesus by roman scholars... even though they weren't in detail.. there was most certainly a Jesus who lived in Nazareth, and had a following after the death of john the baptist... whether all the stories are true is based on religious faith.

Adolf Hitler. The man facinates me.

I thought about that rendova.. but he was kind of a nut. An egomaniac.. I think I already have a good impression of him. He might be one of those charmers who can make you think he's right on anything.. which would be interesting to take in with 20/20 hindsight. No doubt the man had charisma and passion, but also was severly paranoid and borderline insane. Lucky for the world, he thought he was invincible, and attacked on 2 fronts...

What you say is true, but if he was insane, so were the rest of his countrymen.

It fascinates me, the way he came out of nowhere and took over.

Václav Havel would be a possibility.

The actor turned politician? Shades of Ronnie Ray-Guns!

For me, it would be Thomas Jefferson.

Hitler would also be very interesting to talk to... Also Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, famous for funding Columbus' expeditions and also less so for being the parents of Henry VIII's first wife, Katharine of Aragon and completing the Reconquista to reunite Spain. It would also be interesting to talk to Lenin or Stalin.

Adolf Hitler

Michael Collins

i would not be able to face hitler, but thats just me.

I guess you have to ignore the non-biblical written accounts of jesus by roman scholars... even though they weren't in detail..

"The fact that no history, sacred or profane,—that not one of the three hundred histories of that age,—makes the slightest allusion to Christ, or any of the miraculous incidents ingrafted into his life, certainly proves, with a cogency that no logic can overthrow, no sophistry can contradict, and no honest skepticism can resist, that there never was such a miraculously endowed being as his many orthodox disciples claim him to have been. The fact that Christ finds no place in the history of the era in which he lived,—that not one event of his life is recorded by anybody but his own interested and prejudiced biographers,—settles the conclusion, beyond cavil or criticism, that the godlike achievements ascribed to him are naught but fable or fiction"._________Kersey Graves

....there was most certainly a Jesus who lived in Nazareth, ....

In the search for historical confirmation of this supposed hometown of a supernatural being, no source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (both real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.


... whether all the stories are true is based on religious faith.

Faith --
n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

I wouldn't care to much to speak with Hitler. I mean, what could he have to say that wasn't written in his book, Mein Kampf? I imagine him to be a man wholly without interesting facets that would make him a worthy discussion partner. Ditto for G.W. Bush. Jesus might be interesting, if only because of all the mysteries surrounding his life. For all anyone truly knows, he may well have been a pawn used by religious leaders to advance their political aims. But Jesus wasn't really a political figure, at least not as he was written about. If he was the founder of a new religious cult like is believed, I imagine talking to him would be much like engaging a hippie.

Abraham Lincoln because even if political topics were exhausted I think he'd still be interesting.

And as a round-table, Moctezuma, Cortes and me.

Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy (who were friends) together.

It would be interesting... to say the least.

FT, what are your sources? There are multiple sources to Jesus through roman writings... I own a few documentaries, recent ones (2006), which go into detail on the subject.

Meanwhile you have a quote... and your sources, where you usually chill in the cyber world, hardly lead me to believe that you don't have an agenda here or are hangin out in anti-christian places. Hell you'd probably shit on the whole religion if you could....

FT, what are your sources? There are multiple sources to Jesus through roman writings... I own a few documentaries, recent ones (2006), which go into detail on the subject.
I like to think of myself as fairly impartial in the whole Christian vs. atheist debate, since I have called myself an atheist before and I have also considered becoming a Christian before... And I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that Jesus was definitely a real person who existed at that time. I personally think he did exist, but I wouldn't say that there is too much compelling evidence for it.

Nazareth, on the other hand, has zero evidence for its existence at the time that Jesus supposedly lived. Obviously it would be very difficult to prove that it didn't exist, but the lack of evidence either way shouldn't lead anyone to the conclusion that it did. I should add that I don't think this has any bearing on the existence of Jesus himself.

There is definitely more about Jesus written than Nazareth... that's a very interesting topic.

They found a plate reading "goliath", in their own language, where he supposedly was from (goth)...

Too bad I can't put documentaries on VHS on here lol.

Well can you think of any compelling evidence you've seen that seems like proof of Jesus' existence?

A few roman scholars wrote about Jesus, and that he had a following, although that wasn't uncommon at the time. Very little is said, but there seems to be a "Jesus" that was a very influential person at that time.

A few roman scholars wrote about Jesus, and that he had a following, although that wasn't uncommon at the time. Very little is said, but there seems to be a "Jesus" that was a very influential person at that time.
I've never been able to find any evidence mentioned anywhere that people before 60 AD or thereabouts had anything to say about anyone named Jesus.

Wall in Jerusalem ''Jesus waz ere''.

you are right about the time period.. but then again, none of the gospels were written at the time of Jesus, but at least a generation after.

The roman most famous is Josephus, who wrote these two passages:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

So there are two accounts of non-biblical reports of Jesus, and it describes much of what the bible spoke of, of course not in the same detail.

Wasn't Jesus a very common name at the time?

I'd have to say Martin Luther King Jr... I'd probably come away from that conversation feeling like I had just talked with the greatest man alive, and feel like a piece of crap myself.
No kidding. Me too.

Wasn't Jesus a very common name at the time?
It still is in east L.A.

It still is in east L.A.

You punk! :D

I try. :)

Decka: Those were written after the death of Jesus, around the same time as the gospels, like you said. Therefore they were written after the development of Christianity and probably used Christian texts as their source. This makes them no more convincing than using the actual Bible as evidence for Jesus' existence... What would be convincing is a mention of Jesus from his lifetime.

There are multiple sources to Jesus through roman writings...

Really?

Name a couple.

Meanwhile you have a quote... and your sources, where you usually chill in the cyber world, hardly lead me to believe that you don't have an agenda here or are hangin out in anti-christian places.

From the way that's worded, I am unsure of your meaning.

What could you possibly know of ""where I usually chill in the cyber world"...??

I cannot tell if you're alleging that I do hang out in anti-xtian places or that I do not.

I have done so, but very rarely.

Hell you'd probably shit on the whole religion if you could....

True.

I can assure you, I'd do far more than *shit on it* if it were within my power. I would --in the same manner that I view things like child molestation or brain cancer-- very much like for humankind to never be troubled by it or afflicted with it again.

____________________

I was deeply exposed to the Christ-psychosis when young, but my mind was not as susceptible to religious-psychosis as those of most of my friends and other people I know who still cling to their superstitious belief in an omnipotent entity. I was cured by assimilating knowledge and becoming skeptical of the idiotic fairy tales of religious delusions, while the schizoaffective people around me totally succumbed to the pathogen. People can have all of the education available, but if their brain is susceptible to temporal lobe epilepsy or the religious meme, they'll simply be very well educated INSANE people.

I was deeply exposed to the Christ-psychosis when young, but my mind was not as susceptible to religious-psychosis as those of most of my friends and other people I know who still cling to their superstitious belief in an omnipotent entity. I was cured by assimilating knowledge and becoming skeptical of the idiotic fairy tales of religious delusions, while the schizoaffective people around me totally succumbed to the pathogen. People can have all of the education available, but if their brain is susceptible to temporal lobe epilepsy or the religious meme, they'll simply be very well educated INSANE people.

who said this?

who said this?
You guys. You're on his side, remember? :thumbs:

You guys. You're on his side, remember? :thumbs:

you know what i mean...