Out of the many ways of critically analysing the article, a very personal attack 6 years late seems to be the least effective method.

Stay out of real science and history. You're not good at it and it just embarrasses the Christians around you who know better. Augustine of Hippo would have swatted your head for this unseemly display of ignorance and bad logic.

(For onlookers:

4. Mainstream academia? No. Of almost entirely Christian dominated theology idiots. If a lot of people hold a wrong idea, it's still wrong.

3. Not one of those sources was contemporaneous. Many are forgeries. The rest are hearsay or degraded copies of copies of copies of anonymous texts.

2. They lied. A lot. Just like seminary graduates, who learn the truth about their religion and then must lie to the flocks to get paid. It's weird you keep thinking they were honest and upright, considering that the little criticism they failed to destroy indicates they were vipers and brutes. Anyway. I've read one text from about the 300s or 400s where the writer, a monk, was very worried because he couldn't seem to find a single bit of evidence supporting the idea of a historical jesus. He knew they should have one, but he couldn't seem to find it. Also see point 4: they believed a lot of things that were incorrect. Their beliefs are not evidence. Not even strongly held beliefs are evidence.

1. St. Paul admitted in his writings that he'd never laid eyes on Jesus, so his vision was the same as any lunatic might have. Of course, who even knows if Paul existed. We have the same embarrassing lack of contemporaneous evidence of his existence as we do of Jesus. Oops. Dude was supposed to be a big name in the Jewish hierarchy, so I consider that lack way worse than that of some wild eyed nutjob running around Jerusalem shrieking about the end of the world (along with dozens of other similar nutjobs-- tensions were very high in the area, thanks to the Roman occupation and all).

Is this really how cheaply you've sold yourself?

The only writer of the period who seems to have had any interest at all in people like Jesus (or whose writings survived while other historical documents did not) was Yosef ben Matityahu or Flavius Josephus. This means that if Josephus did not mention Jesus while mentioning other such figures like Theudas and John the Baptist, our atheist friends might actually be able to make a real argument. The problem is that Josephus does mention Jesus - twice, including one mention of his half brother- James. It is almost tragic to watch the mythers literally twist themselves into pretzels to explain Josephus' words away.

Whether or not you accept Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, no serious minded person can make the case that He was little more than a myth. History tells us otherwise.

How, exactly, are you serving Mary, John?

you ask "why hospitals?" The root of that word is hospitality or looking after your neighbour. You may have heard of Knights Hospitalliers Errly Christian monk/knights who founded modern hospitals? Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a
hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine
innovation [ reference James Edward McClellan and Harold Dorn, Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), p.99,101.]

So the answer to your question Why Hospitals is "because of Early christianity"

Actually the Far East religions -or spiritualities, if you prefer it so DO have a lot to teach.

“If you don’t tend to one another, who then will tend to you?” - Buddhism compare to Mark 12:31 written 4 to 6 CENTURIES later

"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." Can you say Inquisition?

"However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?" Just how long has Matthew 25:42-46 been collecting dust? And have you read Jack Chick's brand of Christianity lately?

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule."

Even one of their generals had a better handle on things:

"A government should not mobilize an army out of anger, military leaders should not provoke war out of wrath. Act when it is beneficial, desist if it is not. Anger can revert to joy, wrath can revert to delight, but a nation destroyed cannot be restored to existence, and the dead cannot be
restored to life. Therefore an enlightened government is careful about this, a good military leadership is alert to this. This is the way to secure a nation and keep the armed forces whole." - Sun Tzu Art of War

To be fair Operation Downfall was looking at 1 million Allied and as many as 6 million Japanese dead with gas attacks on the table (

Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947) Also as demonstrated by the attempt to break in to the radio station to get the record with the formal surrender on it you had several in power who were going to fight to the last Japanese.

Well we are apologizing (somewhat) to the Native Americans for basically destroying their cultures and breaking nearly every freaking treaty we made with them and we "won" that conflict.

Actually the evidence is on par with what we have for Robin Hood, Ned Ludd, John Frum, and John Henry and we aren't sure any of them actually existed as real people.