I beg your pardon, sir or ma'am, who blames the young men and children being killed in the wars, on President Obama. If you recall, President Bush got the wars started.
First, I do not work for the city, now I'm 70 years young, and leaves, from what I read, are supposed to be bagged in clear bags. Loose leaves, which block gutters, are not going to be picked up.
This paper has gone too far with this obscene editorial cartoon likening President Obama's health care bill to euthanasia of select groups. Who's in charge of this rag -- the Limbaugh/Beck crowd?
Your article on the election did not mention many of the other problems: such as voting machines in Fleming not working, the ink on the ballots causing them to be rejected by the machines, the unorganized workers in the polls, and the poor old people with canes who were looking for assistance and received none.
Was wondering how long it would take before city crews wouldn't be able to keep up with the planned yard waste pick up on Mondays. Lasted just one week, still have leaves bagged out front just waiting.
Could Santa please wait to make his appearance until the day after Thanksgiving? He would be so very welcome then.
Click here to see the previous round of Two Cents entries
Two Cents starter comments will be updated online as new submissions are called in or e-mailed. To contribute new Two Cents items, please call 253-5311 ext. 292 or e-mail twocents@lee.net.
Citizen
Hot Jobs
Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 194 comment(s)
Tom wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:14 AM:
genegirl59 wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:08 AM:
Maybe they can make a Ken for her, but he would have to be a husband or other relative. He could have a car, so she could get out of the house occasionally. "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 23, 2009 9:16 AM:
movedsouth wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:45 AM:
genegirl59 wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:28 AM:
No joke. "
Oa wrote on Nov 23, 2009 5:07 AM:
Regarding your earlier statement that non-believers hate God.. that's nonsense. How do you hate something that doesn't exist? Do you hate leprechauns and unicorns? What I do get a bit upset about is the fact that religious fanatics try to pass laws based on their religion.
I get upset when religious morons try to take science out of the classroom and try to have it replaced with creationism superstions.
As for the "In God We Trust" on or money.... In God WHO trusts? Certainly not me. Why not just have "America is full of superstitious idiots" stamped on our coins instead?
Religious "faith healers"... Those quacks should be locked up. I wonder how many sick folks have died because they didn't seek real medical help, but went to a faith healer instead?
Oh, I could go on and on about why I dislike religion,.. but hate "God", nah I can't hate something that doesn't exist. "
Tom wrote on Nov 22, 2009 8:27 PM:
NOW THAT WAS FUNNY.
See, I have a sense of humor. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 22, 2009 7:18 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 22, 2009 7:15 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:27 PM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 22, 2009 5:39 PM:
movedsouth wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:33 PM:
""When they claim a savings ... in the first 10 years, that's because they start collecting taxes in 2010 they don't start spending money till 2014," said Kyl, helping to kick off the debate senators voted a day earlier to start on the $848 billion package
"Any private or any publicly traded business that claimed it was making a profit because it booked revenue over 10 years but only booked expenses over six years would wind up in jail. That's what this bill does, that's just many of the frauds and hat tricks in this bill," Kyl said on "Fox News Sunday." "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:29 PM:
Students at a local school were assigned to read 2 books, 'Titanic' and 'My Life' by Bill Clinton.
One student turned in the following book report,
With the proposition that they were nearly identical stories!
His cool professor gave him an A+ for this report.
Titanic:.... Cost - $29.99
Clinton :..... Cost - $29.99
Titanic:..... Over 3 hours to read
Clinton :... Over 3 hours to read
Titanic:..... The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Clinton :... The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Titanic:.... Jack is a starving artist.
Clinton :...... Bill is a bullsh*t artist.*
Titanic:.... In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.
Clinton :.... Ditto for Bill.
Titanic:..... During the ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.
Clinton :...... Ditto for Monica.
Titanic:..... Jack teaches Rose to spit.
Clinton :... Let's not go there.
Titanic:..... Rose gets to keep her jewelry.
Clinton :.... Monica' s forced to return her gifts.
Titanic:..... Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.
Clinton :..... Clinton doesn't remember Jack.
Titanic:..... Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.
Clinton :..... Monica.. Ooh, let's not go there, either.
Titanic:..... Jack surrenders to an icy death.
Clinton :..... Bill goes home to Hillary - basically the same thing "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:18 PM:
"this long-winded, fruitless religious debate."
I agree 100%. "
Tom wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:07 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:09 PM:
As far as you "experiencing" "His" presence in your life, I would say that I would wish for you that you would recognize that you are stronger than you think you are, and that thing that you call "Jesus" is just your own willpower breaking through. It makes me sad for you that you can't recognize your own strength and self-worth without what I would consider this "crutch" of "Jesus".
What happens when you "need him most" and "he" doesn't show up? What happens when there's that huge letdown? Do you then go off the deep end, as many people do? When you feel like you've been "abandoned" by your "savior"? Do you waste energy and precious time wondering what you did? Searching your conscience for the little sin that made him forsake you? Such a pointless, futile excercise... "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 22, 2009 11:30 AM:
Now, Feuerbach would go for your theory. His idea was that God exists because people belief in him make his effect real, whether there is, objectively, some cognizant being out there or not is irrelevant. In a nutshell.
I also understand about the Trinity -- doesn't change a thing in my criticism or in the wrongness of a willful and cruel God who asks one of his most faithful followers to kill his own son to prove his loyalty. That's just plain sick. Manifesting oneself later in a human form does nothing to mitigate the wrongness and sickness of a god like that -- it just means Jesus is one and the same with the God of cruelty.
Don't get me wrong -- if people want to believe and have their faiths, as long as it isn't used against others who don't share that faith, it's fine with me. I'm just stating my position on why I wouldn't want to believe in a god like that. "
daviddelker wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:55 AM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:19 AM:
" Bone, you said that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit, right? So.. then.. Jesus got his own mom pregnant with himself?
Does Jesus play a banjo? "How rude can you be.You dont understand the Catholic Religion so you knock it.I will be praying for you and daydreamer. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:16 AM:
one opinion wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:33 AM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 22, 2009 8:29 AM:
daydreamer wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:53 AM:
Oa wrote on Nov 22, 2009 5:53 AM:
Does Jesus play a banjo? "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 21, 2009 8:41 PM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 21, 2009 7:42 PM:
excnyer wrote on Nov 21, 2009 7:38 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 21, 2009 3:47 PM:
Now before you go trying to find some kernel of "abuse" or inauthenticity in my upbringing and degree of type of Catholicism, let me assure you that there's nothing spurious to find. In fact, as I've said 100 times before, my atheism was the "gift" of having gone on a long exploration with the purpose in mind of DEFENDING my religion against the secularists who emerged during the Reagan years. It took me years to finally make up my mind and admit that I just couldn't believe in Catholicism or any kind of religion again.
I don't believe anyone--myself included--is hostile to "God" (not that I believe 'he" exists), nor to Religion as embraced and practiced by decent people everywhere. I believe that "we" here who you think are "so bitter" have had enough of the people who would claim to speak FOR "God" while being so hypocritical at the same time--like the Pope and the Church is about SO MANY things, like Gay Marriage for one, and Abortion. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 21, 2009 2:10 PM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 21, 2009 2:07 PM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 21, 2009 2:03 PM:
excnyer I agree with you.Maybe thats why he is the way he is. I know if God appeared before him he would poop his pants. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 21, 2009 1:59 PM:
And I see that you subscribe to the same inexplicable silliness which tries to confer legitimacy by claiming the weight of numbers, lol. Like movedsouth's and CVN's claims that Faux News is legit because it appeals so handily to people's base instincts.
Here's something to ponder, ecxcnyer--before eclipses were explained, nearly every person you would have asked in the Orient would have told you that a dragon was swallowing the sun. I guess they were correct then, huh?
Ha hA--do you see how amusingly easy it is to refute your side's illogical, pathetic arguments? Please, come to the debate armed, or not at all.
A few weeks ago we had a great debate on the legalization of marijuana. I was 110% against it, until shown some very compelling facts and arguments by posters here. Where's you side's "proof" that "Jesus" existed? I'm still waiting.. "
CVA62 wrote on Nov 21, 2009 1:12 PM:
excnyer wrote on Nov 21, 2009 12:53 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 21, 2009 12:10 PM:
Nope, even if anyone ever convinced me of the existence of a God (not too likely), I would not worship one who would allow such evil and wrong to persist, such suffering of innocents, such cruelty -- that's no god for me. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 21, 2009 11:16 AM:
Figure out that "Argument from Design" yet?
Yaaaaaawwwwwn... "
daviddelker wrote on Nov 21, 2009 10:54 AM:
daviddelker wrote on Nov 21, 2009 10:29 AM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 21, 2009 8:44 AM:
Where the hell were they during the Bush Administration when all the crap that Obama is trying to straighten out now was happening? They were cheerleading and lobbing praise at the Not-So-Great One.
You seem willing to overlook that? Get a clue! "
Oa wrote on Nov 21, 2009 6:17 AM:
That "loving" god of yours, the Bible one that you want me to read about... Oh, I've read about him, alright. I'd be willing to bet I've read the Bible as much as you have. I especially get a kick out of the Old Testament. Ya know, the parts where your loving god destroys cities, drowns every man, woman, child, and animal, except for a select few. Yep, soulds darn loving to me. I've glad my parents didn't love me the way he loved his supposed children.
Bible question for you..... What did your loving god have happen to a group of kids when they laughed at a bald prophet? Loving god, eh? And there's a heck of a lot of worse stories in there about your "loving" god.
If you think the Bible god is a loving god, I'd hate to hear about your love life :) "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 11:37 PM:
BENEFITS PACKAGE: All plans sold to individuals and small businesses would have to cover basic benefits. The government would set four levels of coverage: The least generous would pay an estimated 60 percent of health care costs per year; the most generous would cover an estimated 90 percent
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Income eligibility levels likely to be standardized to 133 percent of poverty, which is $29,327 a year for a family of four, for all parents, children and pregnant women. Federal government would pick up the full cost of the expansion during the first three years. States could negotiate with insurers to arrange coverage for people with incomes slightly higher than the cutoff for Medicaid."
BENEFITS PACKAGE: The least generous would pay an estimated 60 percent of health care costs per year;
OK open heart surgery costs $100K+, I guess with this insurance it's better to go bankrupt for $40K than $100K. The people that can't afford insurance are going to get the cheapest possible. 60%, I've never heard of such low coverage.
CHANGES TO MEDICAID: OK transfer the cost to the states, no problem. It's better than putting the cost in this bill. "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 11:00 PM:
genegirl59 wrote on Nov 20, 2009 10:36 PM:
94% of legal residents under age 65 will be covered and Medicare will be cut. Since Medicare will be cut, does this mean that those over age 65 will receive less benefits to help support this program? Sure sounds like it. So there won't actually be "death panels" - seniors will just in general be told "tough luck, you're not covered for that - go pound sand".
"Fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers". I don't understand what the "fees" will be for; how can the government justify these fees; how will they be levied? Are the fees a punishment to these industries for merely existing? Maybe this is just a start in forcing these companies to close down or at least to only do business with the wealthy who, of course, are going to want insurance beyond what the government offers.
Excise tax on insurance companies selling high-cost insurance (Cadillac insurance?) based on premiums paid - won't the insurance companies just pass the cost on to their customers? "
dan w wrote on Nov 20, 2009 8:42 PM:
ACLU 125 Broad St 18th floor New York, Ny 10004 "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 8:23 PM:
" movedsouth, sorry I thought you were being a racist jerk. Now that I see you were quoting 'MALLARD FILMORE' I'm just speechless.
SADDER STILL!!!! "
Holier than thou!!!!!! LOL "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 8:14 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 8:00 PM:
You could see it in the "Creation" case in Dover Pa. That's just the most blatant, recent example.
And as far as "faith" goes, YES--I saw all those other definitions too, but give me a break Bone--you're just looking (again!) for a way out of a tight spot. You're just pulling straws.
We're talking about "proving" something, and not believing it if it's not able to be proved. In that case, the one definition that I cited is the only one that need be relevant.
Sheeesh, I can't believe I have to explain these things. You DO love to make me jump through hoops to bring you the truth, don't you? "
The Bone wrote on Nov 20, 2009 7:42 PM:
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 20, 2009 7:33 PM:
Karl Now ,I know for sure you dont know crap.Maybe thats what your mother and father told you but its wrong!!! "
Tom wrote on Nov 20, 2009 7:31 PM:
SADDER STILL!!!! "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 7:02 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 6:57 PM:
It's just a case of people wanting to hear what they want to hear. They tune into Faux News because it confirms their prejudices and fears, and plays upon them.
Then there is the segment who tunes in just to watch the stupidity from time to time. That's the segment I'm in--however, under no circumstances do I take them seriously, as Roger Ailes admitted that he started the network in order to deliberately spin the "news" to the Conservative side.
Seriously, it's just a lowbrow entertainment network. You might as well be watching "Rosanne". "
Tom wrote on Nov 20, 2009 6:32 PM:
When you get done shoveing Jesse's card, perhaps you should shove your own.
SAD!!! "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 4:26 PM:
" Can someone explain to me why Conservatives like Chris and movedsouth think that the numbers of viewers of any particular propaganda outlet confers some sort of legitimacy to their lies?"
karl, Did you EVER consider the fact that FOX reports news that the other networks don't report because they they don't want to be on Obama's BLACK list?
Why do they have the most diverse viewers? "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 4:20 PM:
WHO'S COVERED: About 94 percent of legal residents under age 65 -- compared with 83 percent now. Government subsidies to help buy coverage start in 2014. Illegal immigrants would not receive assistance.
COST: Coverage provisions cost $849 billion over 10 years.
HOW IT'S PAID FOR: Fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers. Medicare payroll tax increased to 1.95 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals; $250,000 for couples. New 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Excise tax on insurance companies, keyed to premiums paid on health care plans costing more than $8,500 annually for individuals and $23,000 for families. Fees on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on people who fail to purchase coverage.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Almost everyone must get coverage through an employer, on their own or through a government plan. Exemptions for economic hardship. Those who are obligated to buy coverage and refuse to do so would pay a fine starting at $95 in 2014 and rising to $750."
WHO'S COVERED: They finally addressed the illegals, maybe they should have talked about numbers WITHOUT the illegals, but bigger numbers make it sound more urgent.
COST: OK, pay now and benefits start in 2014, fuzzy math. Tax individuals $200k and couples $250k, somethings out of whack here. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. No cuts in benefits? Excise tax on insurance companies, I'm glad that there is a level playing field? Fines are minimal, I don't think they will send people to jail for those amounts, but if enough don't pay, it's something to consider. "
Tom wrote on Nov 20, 2009 4:01 PM:
By the way the Bible is considered an historical document containing historical events. Not a bunch of fairy tales. "
At the risk of stepping in a pile of religious discussion, there's something I'd like to point out for you to consider.
The Bible as we know it was actually written several hundred years after the events it describes, with the Old Testament being several thousand years.
The events were passed down word of mouth until that time. The average life expectancy was pretty short which means a lot of generations passed until this was written down.
Have you ever played "Gossip" where someone tells one person something and it gets passed on and on until the last person recites what they heard?
It's usually nothing like what was started.
I'm not slamming your religion or your faith, I'm just pointing out that the Bible is unlikely to be the "Word of God" that people think it is. That doesn't mean there is no validity to the lessons and ideals put forth, just that it needs to be kept in perspective and not blindly followed without question. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 3:56 PM:
YES!
EXACTLY!
And what is "faith"??? From the dictionary--"belief that is not based on proof" --there ya go. Your statement there has contained more Truth than any of your other blathering musings.
"By the way the Bible is considered an historical document containing historical events."
Uhhhh,,,,nnnNO, sorry; it is not. Maybe in the Church and the world of Apologetics, but I laughed out loud at that insane misrepresentation! ROFLMAO!
In the world of serious Theological scholarship, the Bible is KNOWN as a collection of ancient myths, allegories, customs and parables woven around a quasi-historical framework. Kinda like "Robin Hood" or "Ben Hur".
Honestly, you amuse me with these pronouncements that have absolutely no basis in fact.
I am still amazed that people such as you don't get the idea that, since it is "your side" that is proposing that an idea is "true", that you cannot therefore use the VERY SAME Scripture and religious texts which allege that idea. On the other hand, my referring to these texts to refute their baseless claims to accuracy and verity is not outside of protocol.
Think of it this way--Johnny has a letter ("scripture") to the principle which his "mother" says he'll not be in school on Friday because he has a doctor's appointment. When called, the doctor's office (independent, unbiased sources) says it has no record of an appointment. The principle ("me") refers to the text of that letter (scripture) and says "So, then; this letter which says X is not true?" When this is confirmed to be false, Johnny ("you") scream "But it's TRUE! My mother wrote it in the letter!" ("It's TRUE! It's in the Bible!")--uhhh.....yyyeah...
KAPEESH?!?! "
gonesouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 2:47 PM:
You seem to ignore the simple fact that it cannot be proved or disproved. It is a matter of "faith". You see I hear stories about relatives and people that lived pre-camera era and I to take the word of the "story teller" as I have no evidense that that person existed.
Again you expect a higher standard of evidence from the those who say Jesus lived than you do for your side. Those that say he lived cannot use religious sources, yet you will use a religious source as long as it supports your side.
By the way the Bible is considered an historical document containing historical events. Not a bunch of fairy tales.
There is more evidence for Bigfoot and UFO's than there is for "Jesus". "
Um ya ok. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 2:33 PM:
It IS easier to watch something that caters to your own fears and bias rather than to have the courage to watch the Truth. Truth hurts more than assuaging propaganda.
How can you actually hope to have productive, meaningful dialogue with people who "think" like this? "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 2:10 PM:
--coming from someone who has the naivete' to propose the "6 days is not 6 days" double-excuse, lol! Yeah, OK; whatever...
I have posted a cogent, intelligent argument supporting my position, and have challenged you "defenders of the Faith" to prove to me with evidence of the SAME STANDARD which would be allowed/disallowed in a modern court of Law, and you have all thus far failed miserably; the BONE being reduced to the one-word answer of "Faith"!? lol!
"...Any source that has any religious affiliation is not reliable..."--YES, CORRECT indeed; you have indeed "seen the light". You might as well trust the testimony of the mother of the defendant? Do you know what "Bias" means?
The argument I have posted is not from any one source; it is the accumulation of years of intense study and exploration of the issue from BOTH SIDES. When all is said and done, I"m sorry to tell you that the evidence weights heavily in the court of "Jesus" having not existed at all.
Until you can give me objective, unbiased confirmation of "Jesus"' alleged literal existence, there's really nothing to talk about with you, as you obviously have nothing to add.
There is more evidence for Bigfoot and UFO's than there is for "Jesus". "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 1:59 PM:
And I'm quite real, I assure you; I touched myself just now to reassure myself of that.
Obviously, you have nothing to contribute. I win again. "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 1:18 PM:
gonesouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 11:39 AM:
Is that just to much to think about. Why is pulling at straws. Time is a man made thing.
I re-read your posts and I must say Sorry. I now see that my thinking has been so off. I can now see the light.
Any source that has any relgious affiliation is not reliable and any source you site is the end all be all.
I can tell by your writings that you are like most people and cannot except what cannot be explained by science or hard evidence.
By your standards anyone not mentioned by name did not exist. Without "relics" or physical evidence how can we be sure anyone prior to the invention of the camera truley lived. It is all hearsay and story. Just seems your standard for dissproving the existance of Jesus is lower than that of those who believe he truely walked this earth. "
Tom wrote on Nov 20, 2009 11:07 AM:
Leahy and Graham together have less common sense and grasp of reality than a housefly. Both do nothing but try to score political points. "
Tom wrote on Nov 20, 2009 11:04 AM:
I watch Fox quite a bit.
I've always felt it's the best way to find out the real truth. Whatever they say on Fox is exactly 180 degrees from the truth, so you can safely assume the opposite is the truth. "
chris van note wrote on Nov 20, 2009 11:04 AM:
http://wcbstv.com/911/eric.holder.911.2.1320955.html
Schumer: 9/11 Trial Could Cost More Than $100M
Holder, Grilled By GOP Senators, Defends Decision To Hold Trial In NYC
New York's senior senator expressed concern over the cost.
"Rough estimate from the city of New York, which I received yesterday, place the added cost of moving the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other terrorist suspects to New York somewhere in the ballpark of $75 million, that's a minimum," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Schumer said extra security procedures could push that number up to $100 million, and asked that the federal government foot the bill.
Hey, its only our money right? So it costs 100 million dollars for something that we could do for basically free right at Gitmo. Meh...Dear Leader and his lacky Holder thinks its a good idea so we shouldn't question their judgement:its Un-American.
But so long as it can be used as an opportunity for Bush-bashing and sanctimonious posturing, that's fine with our current rulers. "
carlred wrote on Nov 20, 2009 10:58 AM:
chris van note wrote on Nov 20, 2009 10:50 AM:
NOV. 18, 2009
FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,868,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
CNN KING 835,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
CNN COOPER 611,000 "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 10:22 AM:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/senate-house-health-bills-compared/ "
one opinion wrote on Nov 20, 2009 10:13 AM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 10:12 AM:
Show me a "relic" of "Jesus"
And that silly argument of "6 days" not really meaning "6 days" is just sheer pulling-of-straws" It's like the cheating husband saying "Well maybe that was just a wrong number?" when the wife picks up the 11:00 pM booty call from the mistress. Gimme a break...
The other reason is the search for genuine Truth. NO matter what opinion you may cite without merit or proof behind it, it is simply not good enough to say "We have thousand-year-old Scripture that says it's true; that means it's true!" Come on!--will you not demand more from your intellect?
You DO know that in the Dover, Pa. case, in which the schoolboard tried to force Creationism upon the classrooms, the court case ended in a verdict in which the presiding judge harshly scolded the Creationist members of the schoolboard for being blatantly untruthful and deceitful in their answers and testimony, not to mention their promotion of their Creationism agenda in school? It is also a sad-but-true fact that in many Churches and denominations, it is taught that "a lie in the service of the Lord is not a lie at all", meaning that whatever needs to be done or said to promote the LOrd or the religion is just fine, and forgivable.
Given the propensity of Christians to outright lie in order to advance their faith, one would be a fool to take Scripture as any definitive, trustworthy source. I find that notion completely absurd, and anyone who seeks to know the real story behind Christianity should as well.
Of course, you could always go the "Blessed are the Ignorant" route? Your choice... "
chris van note wrote on Nov 20, 2009 10:09 AM:
I can just feel it.
And some more words of wisdom from the party in charge:
In case you doubted how utterly stupid the leadership of the majority party in the senate is, consider this gob-smackingly stupid quote from Vermont's seniorsenator, Pat Leahy.
"The red herring that my friend [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.] was covering is not realistic," Leahy said during an appearance on "Washington Journal" on C-SPAN. "For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden — we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him," Leahy added.
This is the Liberal/Democrat mindset. They have no interest in interrogating OBL to find out what he knows about terror networks or future mass casualty terror plots. In the Obamunist world, terrorists are, at worst, criminals --- kind of like arsonists, just on a bigger scale, (and with legitimate grievances against American power, of course) These people are too stupid to think beyond putting terrorists in prison. The idea that Islamic Fascism is an ideology with objectives far more dangerous than burning down buildings just can't fit into their tiny leftist minds. "
Tom wrote on Nov 20, 2009 9:54 AM:
You might be on to something there. Except maybe Dick Cheney was behind him with a "Cattle Prod" honing up on his abuse and torture techniques and then being protected by the Church instead of defrocked and prosecuted. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 9:41 AM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 9:40 AM:
Perhaps you could elucidate exactly what "BS" you're talking about? Have you anything to contribute? Or is your post just evidence that you are frustrated by your inability to do so? "
gonesouth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 9:29 AM:
Karl how do you know it did not take six days? You seem to think that the time frame in which God would have used is the same time frame that Man has defined. Man has defined what time is. We decided a minute is 60 seconds, a day is 24hrs, and what exactly they are.
who is to say God did not put things into motion and then let evolution take over.
Unless you build a time machine and take us believers back to show us Jesus did not exist there is no evidence that will prove your point. You as well as believers in his exsitance rely on writings that are thousands of years old. We know people lived due to relics but unless they kept an official directory with everyones name and date of birth ect (which is a modern thing early 1900's I believe) then this whole argument is just stupid. If you do not believe fine you decided to leave your faith. Your problem. Hope you are truely not that unhappy of a person that you feel the need to attack peoples beliefs. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 20, 2009 9:06 AM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 20, 2009 9:04 AM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 20, 2009 8:30 AM:
Ask yourself this--why, in your statement, would you automatically assume that because some lace is beautiful or aesthetically striking that is is somehow evidence of "God"? I mean, go to some desert wasteland or decaying swamp and tell me the same?
Nature is indeed grand, but why not give it credit on its own without ascribing its origin to some mythical creature? Your question to me need not have even been posed had you done some basic research. "
chris van note wrote on Nov 20, 2009 8:22 AM:
Should be required viewing for panty waists like Karl. "
one opinion wrote on Nov 20, 2009 7:58 AM:
Oa wrote on Nov 20, 2009 6:24 AM:
Just out of curiousity, do you deny that the universe is expanding? "
Tom wrote on Nov 19, 2009 8:50 PM:
" If you are white and don't vote for it, does that make you a racist?"
I'm pretty sure Al Sharpton will be pointing out that very thing tomorrow. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 19, 2009 7:57 PM:
There are some Eastern religions that have some very beautiful stories and valid applications, but the difference is that, for the most part, they don't take them LITERALLY. That's where the three Great Patriarchal Religions--Judaism, Islam, and Christianity--fail. They propose that everything in their Scripture LITERALLY "happened", and what's more, that it's ALL "true", and "historical", and they defend that to the death. In all that literalism, the real message and Truth gets lost.
Look--back "in the day", people were NOT, for the most part, literate. There were few scribes, really. Oral tradition--storytelling--was the way that people transferred information. In order to get certain stories to "stand out" and attract attention, "really important" stories like those of god and religious figures were grandly embellished with fantastical details of miracles and magical deeds. Details were added to confer a "special status" on certain people. There are literally dozens of gods who were said to have been born of virgins. The reason is simple--if "God A" was born of a virgin, then your "God B" would have to be the same, or be not-as-great in stature. Kind of a "my god is better than your god" syndrome.
Christianity is no different. "Jesus" was invented as a vehicle for the message of a new religion which was intended to appeal to both Jews AND NON-Jews (gentiles). This was intended to replace the militant messianic Judaism which resulted in the Great Revolt and the Jewish Wars, in which Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews cast out into the "diaspora". With their temple destroyed and their faith shattered, the time was ripe to introduce a new religion which not only blamed Jews for the death of its "Savior", but also appeased the Romans by instructing "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's."
This new religion would replace that old, rebellious, warlike Judaism as a religion of peace and kindness. The absorption of non-Jews into the new religion was intended to dilute the proportion of Jews in it, thus preventing the resurgence of the same old "troublesome" Judaism. That is why there are so many elements of both Jewish traditions AND recycled Pagan traditions in Christianity. It was designed specifically to appeal to BOTH segments of society. It was based on the Elysian Mystery religion--which was huge at the time, and built around a Jewish framework.
Look, if I knew how the Universe started, I'd be on the cover of "Scientific American", "Newsweek" and National Geographic! I don't claim to know that. But what I DO know is that I could never believe that it was just conjured up out of nothing in 6 days by some mythical "god". The story of Genesis was not meant to be read literally--or perhaps it was at the time? But one thing's for certain--we have evolved beyond such simplistic explanations.
I don't know where you get the statement that the "Big Bang" theory was "proven wrong"? lol--REALLY?! BY WHO?! Enlighten me, please! "
excnyer wrote on Nov 19, 2009 7:39 PM:
genegirl59 wrote on Nov 19, 2009 7:20 PM:
And how about the new guidelines for mammograms? If that ain't a red flag for future cutbacks when we get government-run health care, I don't know what is. It also opens the door for private insurance to deny claims based on government advice. "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 19, 2009 6:04 PM:
If you're Black, vote Black!
I know what they can do with that race card!!!!! "
Tom wrote on Nov 19, 2009 4:43 PM:
KSM is an enemy combatant (a soldier caught on the battlefield).
Yep! Then US and Bush and company are also absolutely guilty of war crimes for violating practically every section of the Geneva Conventions (denial of Red Cross visitation, denial of access to representation, denial of humane conditions and treatment, and let's not forget your favorite TORTURE).
And as you like to mention Nazis, didn't a whole bunch of them get into a little trouble for doing those same things to prisoners? Did you bother to actually read my previous post concerning this?
As for Osama Bin-Laden, I really don't believe he should be tried in NYC in civilian court. Also not in a US Military Court. He is an International criminal that has been responsible for heinous crimes around the globe (the American lives lost pale in comparison to what other countries have lost) and should be tried by an International Court. The entire world deserves a shot at this guy.
Now you ask "who cares if they like us"?
Well, that would be anybody with an ounce of common sense. You see, if somebody likes you, they might be a little less likely to try to kill you.
But I guess in your view, it's better that they hate us and want to kill us so that you can be justified in torturing and killing them first. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 19, 2009 3:59 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 19, 2009 3:49 PM:
If we try them in military trials--as Tom pointed out--they are denied access to certain documents and procedural matters--EXACTLY what would give them the mantle of "persecuted martyrs" in the eyes of the Muslim world.
If we try them in criminal court, it paints them as mere "Criminals" who were entitled to the FULL PROCESS of the Law. Thus, when they are convicted, there is a legitimacy to the process that can't be turned around into a propaganda victory for AL Queda and a recruiting tool.
How hard is that to understand? "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 19, 2009 3:08 PM:
Tom wrote on Nov 19, 2009 2:50 PM:
Good one.
That sounds like the most sensible health care plan yet. But only 2 representatives? "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 19, 2009 1:33 PM:
Senior health care solution--according to Maxine
Senior Health Care Solution
So you're a senior citizen and the government says no health care for you, what do you do?
Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, and all the health care you need! New teeth, no problem. Need glasses, great. New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart? All covered.
And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. Plus, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore.
IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?! "
chris van note wrote on Nov 19, 2009 11:59 AM:
My answer is: Who cares if they like us?
Did you catch Lindsay Graham stump our AG with a very simple question? This is from the NPR transcript:
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
And this gem of an exchange:
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
Frightening who we have in charge. Clueless moonbats. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 19, 2009 11:14 AM:
The story of Moses' parting of the "Red" Sea is an allegorical myth, meaning that a natural occurrence was written into the Bible as being a "divine" happening. First of all, the mistranslation should read "Reed", or "Sea of Reeds", and the alleged place was not a "sea" at all, but a small lake that historical archaeologists have found has long since dried up. It was in an area filled with seismic fault lines, and the lake dried up because of a seismic rift which opened up in it and drained the water level. The entire area has been explored and dug, and there has been no evidence of Roman Chariots, armor, weapons, etc, that would have been there had the mythical "drowning" of the Roman Army happened.
There is even contemporary evidence that "Sea partings" are natural occurrences--every year, near Korea, at the Jindo Islands, the sea falls to such a low tide that there is a sandbar exposed for 2.8 miles between two islands there, and there is an annual festival where people walk from one island to the other. Is it "God"?! NO, it's all a natural occurrence of the moon and the tides.
The "killing of the first born" was/is also a natural occurrence, and one that actually was repeated in Cameroon in 1984, at Lake Nyos. This is fascinating--about 3500 years ago, a massive volcanic eruption happened on the Greek isle of Santorini, only about 500 miles from Egypt. This caused a huge earthquake, as the rift between the Africa and Asian plates go under Santorini. The gas that was released caused bodies of water to turn red (This also happened at Lake Nyos in Cameroon), and the ash clouds filled the skies with darkness. (The "7 plagues")
NOw check this out--in Egyptian society at the time, the first-born had the special privilege of sleeping in the bottom-most rung of the bed, close to the ground. Adult males and other offspring slept on higher rungs of the bunk beds which were used to conserve space.
In seismic eruptions, one of the great dangers is the release of carbon dioxide gas, which hugs the ground. The Egyptian children who died were killed as a result of carbon dioxide poisoning. In Cameroon at Lake Nyos, THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED!--the people who were sleeping on the ground died, while those on higher sleeping perches survived.
What this shows is that the early writers of the Bible understandably misinterpreted very real, actual scientific--albeit, real--events, and just like you would expect from a scientifically ignorant people, saw it as an "act of God"--much as they explained lightning and other natural occurrences. This is a common attribute of Scripture in EVERY religion--the scientific ignorance which manifests itself as "divine".
There is also general consensus among Theologians that the entire story of the Jews' exodus out of Egypt is a complete myth as well, invented in order to invest this traditionally nomadic people with a unifying "History" with which to unite them when they finally grew too large to keep endlessly traveling, and as a way to explain why they left behind their "traveling pants" and started putting down roots and tubers. But that's another debate...
IN any case, none of this interesting tangent "proves Jesus". It is simply a footnote. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 19, 2009 11:09 AM:
Tom wrote on Nov 19, 2009 10:58 AM:
By placing him under civilian trial, he can be found guilty of mass murder with the real possibility of the death penalty.
And yes, I do think he's guilty of mass murder and should receive the maximum punishment. However I also believe he should receive a fair trial before being hung rather than the other way around. Rule of Law and all. I'm funny that way.
As for the lesser folk in Gitmo, many were not taken on the battle field or during commission of an attack.
Most were renditioned and may have no involvement in terrorism.
If they were soldiers captured during battle, then the military might have a case for assuming jurisdiction.
As for Obama not letting the Military handle it, the same could be said for the previous administration. Remember them? Send less than half the troops the military said was needed and then try to run it on the cheap when it was obvious that it wasn't going well.
Have you noticed how the International community is being more receptive to Obama's "think first" policy?
But Chris, you probably think it's OK to just dive in with no plan, no support, and no hope of actually resolving it. "
genegirl59 wrote on Nov 19, 2009 10:52 AM:
movedsouth wrote on Nov 19, 2009 10:25 AM:
chris van note wrote on Nov 19, 2009 9:45 AM:
To refresh the liberal memories here which tend to be very, very short:
Military commissions were not just the work of Bush and Cheney, they were created by Congress and Obammy supported them.
BTW: KSM was ready to plead guilty in a military tribunal. How much more successful does he think a civilian trial can be?
What is the point? "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 19, 2009 4:59 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 19, 2009 4:58 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 19, 2009 4:56 AM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 19, 2009 12:33 AM:
That's a B-A-S-I-C tenet of debate and argument. I suspect that you're just intimidated by the ease with which I destroyed your attempt at an argument with this whole, weak "Argument from Design" folly--I mean, come on, david--this is like, first-year Atheism 101 here! How about doing some research and coming to the fight armed?
I'm more than up for a serious debate, but coming at me from the "Design" argument, and then topping it off with feigning that you don't understand the allusion/metaphor of the "unicorn" refernce, well; frankly, you're just being immature and annoying.
If you have nothing else to offer and have reached the limits of your ability to contribute to the debate, then how about sitting on the sidelines and being quiet while the big boys play? OK? Thanks; have some popcorn. "
anonymous wrote on Nov 19, 2009 12:01 AM:
Remember, it is always best to ignore the ignorant. "
cm wrote on Nov 18, 2009 11:41 PM:
cm wrote on Nov 18, 2009 11:38 PM:
silly Romans should have passed down honest stories instead of lies.... "
daviddelker wrote on Nov 18, 2009 9:56 PM:
So, anyway, Karl, I am still waiting for your proof that Christ did not exist. I guess if you want to compare him to a unicorn, that's fine, but many people that dwarf you with their intellect, believe. (maybe you wouldn't admit that anyone is smarter than you though) You can't compare the Christian religion to leprechauns, or unicorns. That is where you are stretchng it. You seem like a smart guy, but when I pick apart your thesaurus-ized postings, I don't see much in the way of substance. Anyway, goodnight everyone. I'll pray for you. Well, not really, but I wish you well. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 9:09 PM:
Always nice to know that I git a nerve!!!
(BIG smile!) "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 18, 2009 8:56 PM:
movedsouth wrote on Nov 18, 2009 7:32 PM:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obamas_home_teleprompter "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 18, 2009 7:14 PM:
IS SATAN REAL?
Church was in full swing..... Pews were packed.. Suddenly, Satan appeared at the front of the church. Everyone started screaming and running for the exits, trampling each other in a frantic effort to get away from evil incarnate.
Soon everyone had left the church except for one elderly gentleman who sat calmly in his pew without moving, seeming oblivious to the fact that God's ultimate enemy was in his presence.
So Satan walked up to the old man and said, "Don't you know who I am?"
The man replied, "Yep, sure do."
"Aren't you afraid of me?" Satan asked.
"Nope, sure ain't." said the man.
"Don't you realize I can kill you with a word?" asked Satan.
"Don't doubt it for a minute," returned the old man, in an even tone.
"Did you know that I could cause you profound, horrifying, AGONY for all eternity?" persisted Satan.
"Yep," was the calm reply..
"And you're still not afraid?" asked Satan.
" Nope," said the old man.
More than a little perturbed, Satan asked, "Well, why aren't you afraid of me?"
The man calmly replied, "Been married to your sister for 53 years." "
genegirl59 wrote on Nov 18, 2009 6:48 PM:
movedsouth wrote on Nov 18, 2009 6:30 PM:
My 4:55 post was information I got from MSNBC, yes MSNBC. My garage TV has a problem with channels over 50. FOX is on 58.
I went with what I heard then, now I hear that it was 31 million more covered. The price is $849B. It was reported as breaking news, sorry for posting before I checked several sources. I normally check, but hey, it was MSNBC. "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 18, 2009 6:06 PM:
Tea and crumpets won't do it. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 18, 2009 5:56 PM:
" If Jesus really existed then why has he refused to produce an authentic notarized birth certificate signed by witnesses? Where's Orly Taitz when you need her? "
What the hell are you talking about. When you have something to say then say it "
smdmfrmr wrote on Nov 18, 2009 5:49 PM:
smdmfrmr wrote on Nov 18, 2009 5:36 PM:
oldtimer wrote on Nov 18, 2009 5:35 PM:
Booth"
Are you sick of Karl's BS post's "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 5:20 PM:
"Stupid is as stupid does, Gump!" That includes "Torture", oh Gump-o'-the'South. "
Tom wrote on Nov 18, 2009 5:00 PM:
I'm staying out of the religious debate. Too much like sticking your hand between a couple of Pit-Bulls.
But to respond to the evolution questions, the apes that exist today are different than what they evolved from. I don't know if humans really evolved from ancient "apes", but it is possible that we had common ancestors.
Evolution is really nothing more than mutations. Some species will mutate into different branches.
Ancient "apes' from one area may have mutated in a different way than "apes" in another area. One branch evolved into modern apes while the other evolved into humans.
Dinosaurs don't live in NY because the mutations dead-ended instead of adapting to the climate changes.
Any that may have started to adapt got killed off by the emerging competition, us. "
united we wish wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:55 PM:
movedsouth wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:55 PM:
Tom wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:43 PM:
Right!!! Terrorists will only attack because there's a trial. If you hold a "Drumhead" in Gitmo, then they won't attack.
And maybe, just maybe, if they like us, really like us.
Actually, yea. If the people of the world look at the US and see that we do what we say and they can believe in fair treatment and respect for their culture and beliefs, (basically realize that they can trust the US) they will be far less likely to turn to terrorist organizations.
GWBush and company were the most effective recruitment tools for Al-Queda after the invasion of Iraq.
Just curious Chris. If it were in your power, would you round up all the Muslims and put them in detention centers because they might be terrorists? How many would you torture to prove they are terrorists?
When you run out of Muslims, would you go after anyone else from the Mideast? If they are from there, they might be terrorists. You can always tell. They have that terrorist look.
Yeesh!!! Chris, Jack Bauer is a fictional character in a TV show.
And just to be mean, Kiefer Sutherland is a MODERATE. EEEEEE!!!!! "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:40 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:39 PM:
You never address issues--really, sincere, relevant issues--that are brought up in posts. You just kinda simpleminded plow through your own opinion, not even hearing the other poster.
You do this a lit, you know. It's something you should explore and analyze for your own well-being and respect. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:37 PM:
I don't have to "Prove" that "Jesus" existed if there's no proof that he did.
That's a simple rule of proof. A scientist or logical minded person doesn't have to seriously consider whether something existed in the absence of proof. If someone claims that someone or something existed, then it is up to them to provide the evidence for that claim. Otherwise we would go around chasing down every child's "monster under the bed" or in the closet just because they said they "saw" it or they "know it's there".
Please, don't give me that tired old "too complex" argument. That;s such an old, also-debunked argument, called "The Argument from Design". Please research it to understand its fallacy! Yeah, there's a lot of wondrous things that happen in the world, but there are also spectacular failures and errors that kill entire species, or turn out deformed or twisted. Just because you don't have the capacity to understand something doesn't automatically confer some sort of "divinely ordained" status on it. That's the refuge of a lazy mind.
You can believe what you want about apes; me? they just plain scare me after that lady got her face ripped off... "
movedsouth wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:33 PM:
I read Tom's rebuttal, and I have to disagree. He fails to consider the possibility that many lives could be saved. No one knows for sure what would happen, but I believe that, if intel was that strong, we should do EVERYTHING possible to prevent it. The argument that torture reduces us to their level is BS. They are looking to kill many, and we are looking to save many lives. Let them wear a uniform and they will have the rights under the Geneva Convention. A towel around their head is not a uniform. "
smdmfrmr wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:22 PM:
chris van note wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:10 PM:
Got it. "
daviddelker wrote on Nov 18, 2009 3:59 PM:
Tom wrote on Nov 18, 2009 3:36 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 2:00 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 1:58 PM:
Ironically, the recognition and admission that there actually was NOT a "historical Jesus" would do much to re-focus people on what "Jesus" was actually supposed to represent.
Don't you find it sad that people focus so much on the trivial minutiae of "Jesus"--did he walk here? What would he have looked like? What did he really born of a virgin? Did he really die on a cross, or a post? Did he say these things in order on the cross? Where did he spend his youth, or teenage years? Was he a carpenter or not?
All these truly irrelevant, trivial details that add NOTHING to understanding WHY "Jesus" was invented, and WHY and WHAT "he" was supposed to represent. Wouldn't it be interesting to say that the man/god aspect of "Jesus" was supposed to represent the duality of imperfection/perfection within us all? That his compassion and liberal views toward the downtrodden are supposed to inspire the same leanings in all of us?
But what do we get instead? Endless harping-on by the Church about how "God so loved the world that he sent his only son" to suffer and die for our transgressions. Yaaaawn. WHAT is the purpose of that garbage, if not to control and manipulate through GUILT?!
WHy not just admit that when Christianity was invented, it was proposed as an antidote to the type of violent, fundamentalist Judaism that existed at the time, and that it was intended to be a new religion that was more IN-clusive, less EX-clusive, and that everyone who followed that philosophy was worthy of a "New Life" with these guiding principles? Wouldn't that do a LOT to teach people and enlighten them--rather than all this focus on Virgin Births, and Death, Blood and Gore. So much of the beautiful, metaphorical narrative has been literalized by simple-minded people over the course of thousands of years, that the inspiring symbolic message has become buried in the literal trappings and dogma.
Now do you see why I think it's so important to dis-prove the "existence" of "Jesus". We could again discover the real "heart" of Christianity. By the way--doesn't it strike you odd that the new religion wasn't called "Jesusians"? Why call it after simply an "anointed one"? It is because, in Paganism, EVERY PERSON had an opportunity to become "anointed" and therefore, "godlike". But not in an arrogant, prideful way, but in a humble, beneficent, enlightened way that rejected our base instincts (like Torture!) and embraced the full of Humanity.
Hell, if the Church did that--denied the historicity of "Jesus" and told the truth about what it really MEANS to be "Christian", I might start going back to church! lol! "
Tom wrote on Nov 18, 2009 1:43 PM:
A terrorist that plants a bomb a week ahead, risking accidental discovery of the bomb, would be the worlds most inept and stupid terrorist. That's why suicide bombing is the rage, nearly impossible to stop without at least doing damage to those on the periphery.
Assuming it is the worlds most inept terrorist and he did plant a bomb capable of killing thousands, he wasn't doing it alone (he will at the least have handlers that know the plan). While he's being tortured and probably lying to the torturers, his companions will either move the bomb or move up the detonation.
And of course the most obvious thing. How do you know he's even a terrorist that planted a bomb? Someone else that got tortured told you? What if they lied and said a name of someone they just didn't like? Congratulations. You've just turned this guy into someone who will now hate all Americans and likely WILL become a terrorist.
Oh, but wait. You killed him with the torture so you don't have to worry about him anymore. Now you only have to worry about everyone he knew, family and friends, seeking revenge. But thank god, you're safe now. The bomb didn't go off, and you just knew it was there. A big old 'WMD". Intelligence said so.
Wave that flag and rip that Constitution. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 1:37 PM:
Anyhoo--your post there is a false premise, which is that you need to prove a negative in order to consider it true. There are no unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, nor any evidence for them so one needs not to waste one's time trying to "disprove" them.
Imagine ANY fantastical thing--now tell me "Well you can't PROVE that it DOESN'T exist--therefore it MIGHT be true!" Uh; not exactly.
The burden of proof is on the proposer of the idea. If you propose that something is true, you have to accept the burden of proving that that IS "true".
Could you imagine a court case in which the lawyer said, "Well is there any evidence that the 'real' murderer is NOT just a story made up by the defendant?" (Think "O.J"!) Would that stand in court?
Also, don't confuse the clarity of being able to discern an unproven proposition with "faith". "Faith" is believing in things that are not proven or unprovable, WITHOUT questioning them or demanding proof. An Atheist such as myself says "I don't believe in X because you have not proven to me that X exists." That's NOT "faith", that's just deductive and logical reasoning--so don't confuse the word.
Get it now? "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 1:24 PM:
I just realized the crux of the problem here--you are genuinely so afraid of having to take responsibility for making a TRULY MORAL DECISION (NOT to torture) and of having to stand in front of a jury of your peers and be judged on the face of your decision that you would be willing to sink to the level of moral depravity in order to absolve yourself before the "jury".
I sincerely "pray" that you never get in any situation of authority, where you have the power to make these types of decisions.
I think it's a good thing that you were denied military service. Your moral foundation is WARPED, man!
to quote Pink Floyd: "Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fears, I sentence you to be exposed before your peers..."
You have been... "
Tom wrote on Nov 18, 2009 1:07 PM:
As to Nuremburg, you said it. International Military Tribunal which tried the leaders. Isn't that what we're being told these guys are? Leaders? International criminals that have declared war on the world?
Even the Control Council 10 you mention for low level war criminals was done with full International sanction. You seeing any International involvement in Gitmo?
As for your obvious disdain for nasty little things like the "Rule of Law" and the Constitution (at least when they disagree with your views), all I can say is you should consider moving to a nice little country in South America where you can be the "Banana Republic Dictator" you really want to be. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:43 PM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:34 PM:
daviddelker wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:27 PM:
chris van note wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:23 PM:
BTW, the issue at hand is what sensitive information will be revealed in a US court of law, since KSM is being tried as a murderer in a civilian court, rather than as a suspected terrorist in a military court where that information will be protected..
But then again, the left never seems to have a problem with revealing sensitive material.
With regard to your "torture" nonsense:
When the bomb goes off or the plane flies into a building and you had a chance of stopping it and you didn't because you didn't want us to look bad...
I wonder what you'll tell the victim's families. Ooops? We could have roughed the guy up a bit to get the info but we thought it best not to for fear of offending someone, somewhere. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:18 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:17 PM:
First of all, your (and by "your" I mean your fellow Conservatives, too) obsession with trying to equate the concept of keeping our nation's moral high gorund with "weakness" or "warm and fuzzy"-ness speaks volumes about your own insecurities and perverted perception of what constitutes "macho" or "tough". Ithas NOTHING to do with "being liked" for crissakes. Ithas to do with recognizing that we cannot hold one man down in the ditch without staying there with him as well, to use an old adage. When we Torture, WE "become" the same, immoral despots that we claim to disdain, and for which our Laws have been constructed to so prevent. Honestly, I'm blown away that you don't seem to understand this.
The scary thing is, I"m sure that you DO understand this, but that you follow the typical pattern of behavior of this new breed of "Dick-Cheney-Conservatively-minded" people who think that's there's one set of rules for us (or you), and one for everybody else. This is almost by definition, a sociopath, or a psychopath's view of the world and society.
Next, "These dirtbags committed an act of war and should be treated as such."--so if WE commit legally-defined "Acts of War" (Torture), then shouldn't WE be "treated as such", or does that blatant hypocrisy just rest well with you?
You also have chosen to ignore the irrefutable evidence that, throughout History, torturing people has produced false confessions, lies, and useless "information" because people will say ANYTHING to get the pain to stop. That's just an inconvenient truth for you, I suppose--or are you such an acolyte of Jack Bauer that you think that it's like a "Magic Truth Pill"? Unbelievable, really.
Lastly, Chris, that "moral dilemma" is just another variant on the old "moral question" of the two train tracks--you know; there's a man on the tracks, drunk, on the other track, there's another train coming. DO you switch the track and kill one man, or do you kill dozens? It's a bullship question that seeks to divert the issue and set a false premise for "morality". What would YOU do, Chris, if the town to be destroyed was a town in, say, Afghanistan, and the guy setting the bomb was a rogue, psychopathic American general and a decorated war hero? Kinda sets the whole premise on it's ear, doesn't it? What if the guy who "set the bomb" was the Vice President? Would you prosecute him later if the charge was true?
Chris, I have already elucidated my understanding of "Morality" here on this site, and so have you--in your most perverted manner. Nothing more to say here. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:01 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 18, 2009 11:59 AM:
Your efforts would be better spent coming up with some other more effective way to find the bomb which doesn't involve lowering yourself to the level of the terrorists themselves. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 18, 2009 11:55 AM:
When we resort to cruel and inhumane terrorist tactics, particularly when we have signed binding agreements not to do such things, particularly when we have made international denunciations of such things when perpetrated by others, we are NO BETTER than the scum of which we are purportedly trying to rid the world, and have the added sin of hypocrisy on our heads as well.
No amount of double-speak, twisting of words and tortured logic can change that basic fact, Big Brother.
(It is also a known fact that information obtained by torture is not reliable, as the person being tortured will tell you whatever s/he thinks you want to hear to make you stop -- I thought we'd figured that much out since the Middle Ages). "
chris van note wrote on Nov 18, 2009 10:48 AM:
Liberals seem to all be concerned about our reputation as if we were in High School. By "reputation" I mean an obsession with being "liked". The Obambi movement is predicated with the notion that if we are soft, warm, and fuzzy enough (with the offering of muffin baskets and lots of hugs), then this will improve our global standing and the mean old terrorists will stop what they are doing.
I believe it immoral if we capture a terrorist such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, give him Constitutionally protected Privilege's or Right's, and by doing so hi
ndering our chances of saving lives.
This idea that if we do whatever it takes to extract information, even it that means roughing him up, makes us no better than the terrorists is the antithesis to moral. What's the use in saving face if you risk not saving lives? That, my friend, is immoral.
And you are confused: a war is fought by soldiers, not by lawyers. These dirtbags committed an act of war and should be treated as such.
Here is a moral dilemma I found on the Al Gore (tm) Interwebs, what would you do?
Authorities have learned that a terrorist has planted a device that will explode in an American city next week. Thousands of people will likely die. The terrorist is arrested. He refuses to say where the device has been planted. You are in charge. You believe that the only way to get the terrorist to talk and to save thousands of lives is to use torture. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 9:21 AM:
Does anyone else here find it profoundly disturbing that Chris would find no place for a "Moral argument" when we're talking about Nazi's and Torture?!
And Chris--where the hell is the "moral argument" in Tom's post? The fact that he says "It's up to the accused to prove their innocence but the military court can deny them access to a favorable defense."--that's not "Morality" Chris; that's called a "fair trial"!
You moral depravity and confusion continues to unnerve me. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 9:18 AM:
BONE, once again--you can't use the Bible to attempt to authenticate "Jesus"! DO you think they would ever allow that in court? It's like using the protesting letters of defendant to his ex-wife to try to "prove" to her that he didn't have that affair. Come on...
When I say "eyewitnesses to Jesus" I mean the contemporary writers at the time. All those that I mentioned. People who lived during what would have been "Jesus'" life and death. Show me where they write of SPECIFICALLY "Jesus"--not just some generic "anointed one"--and I"ll start to consider that.
By the way, do you know that in the early "Mystery" religions--which talked of dying/rising god/men, and of men being "resurrected" into a "godlike" state by renouncing things like materialism and vice; i.e., a "new life"--the new Initiates into the religion were "anointed" with oils by their priestesses, sent into a cave for three days, and then the rock rolled back three days later to have them "reborn"?
Celsus complained about the Christians saying something like "everything they do, the pagans have done better". (Not exact quote, but exactly the import of the words) He meant that the Christians took the Mystery religion and copied it, making up their new religion, but literalizing it, whereas the Mystery religions were all allegorical/metaphorical. "
chris van note wrote on Nov 18, 2009 9:12 AM:
"The Nuremburg Trials" were actually entitled the "Trial of the Major War Criminals" before the International Military Tribunal, which tried the most important leaders of Nazi Germany. The second set of trials, for lesser war criminals, was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10, at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals.
Hmmmm, did you catch that they were both military tribunals? NOT civilian courts that tried those people.
And you bring up the moral relevance arguement like any good liberal would. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 18, 2009 6:10 AM:
Most of the miracle stories contained in the gospels are legendary or at least are dressed up with legends. But there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries’ understanding, miracles, that is, deeds that were the result of supernatural, divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons. "
Oa wrote on Nov 18, 2009 5:44 AM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 18, 2009 5:37 AM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 18, 2009 2:36 AM:
Flavius Josephus--already debunked that. No good.
Julius Africanus--a Christian writer, possibly a bishop of the Church. No good--too much bias.
Pliny the Younger--did NOT mention "Jesus" as you claim, only mentions "Christians"--which no one disputes were around. He identifies them in Asia Minor--no mention of "Jesus" though.
The Babylonian Talmud--does not say "Jesus" but 'Yeshu" again--part of the "SEPHER TOLDOTH YESHU" Jewish legend which identifies a "Yeshu" son of Pantera--NOT "Joseph". NO current Jewish scholars even recognize this as a reference to "Jesus". IN any case, it is merely a legend anyway--a satire, and written too late to have been an independent account of "Jesus". It wasn't even translated into Latin until I think the 13th century? Scholars roundly dismiss it as a reliable reference.
Lucian of Samosata--wrote of Christians, which no one doubts existed? Still, written at least 100 years after "Jesus", so he is writing what he heard, not what he KNEW. Consensus--did not mention "Jesus". No good.
Mara Bar-Serapion--talks about an "executed wise king". NOT "Jesus". Again, no mention of "Jesus" at all.
Gnostic writings are not reliable sources either, as their authorship are all early Christian writers--I mean, come on; they're called "Gospels" for a reason. Too biased, not reliable, and in any case, all written after "Jesus" allegedly died.
Show me a direct reference from a person who lived during the time of Jesus, saw him, or knew him, and who is not a Christian who is biased to proclaim the "Good News". To this day, that is not yet possible. "
Tom wrote on Nov 17, 2009 10:33 PM:
Most of those in Gitmo are being held for vague charges of International Terrorism but the US has excluded International involvement in "justice" for them.
The chances of them getting a fair trial under a solely US military tribunal is zero.
In military court there is no presumption of innocence and evidentiary rules are far different then civilian court.
It's up to the accused to prove their innocence but the military court can deny them access to a favorable defense.
If they are guilty of heinous crimes, then by all means hang them. But I think it might be a good idea to prove it in a court of law first. Otherwise, WE are THEM. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 7:52 PM:
What we need here are reliable, FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNTS FROM CONTEMPORARIES OF "JESUS" who actually SAW and/or knew of this alleged figure. Can you produce that?
Come on now. Would you trust the results of a study on public opinion of Gay Marriage by any random Gay Rights organization? Of course not.
BONE, you have made another basic mistake--cutting and pasting from a Biblical Apologist's website. Come on now. As I said--I believe you are out-of-your-depth on this question. You cannot just content yourself with rote repetition of Apologist writings and proclamations and expect that to suffice for real, honest answers?
I already have THOROUGHLY debunked Josephus. Other "sources" you cite have been proven to have interpolated writings in their text, just like Josephus. It seems that you Christians are so eager to find proof for "Jesus" in ancient writings that you'll take any mention that is scribbled in and consider it authentic? That's setting a pretty low bar.
Also, please realize that you both are trying to use sources that ALL lived AFTER "Jesus" allegedly lived--sometimes by literally CENTURIES afterward. This means that the "Chrestus" or any derivation thereof which might be in their reports are basically HEARSAY. THEY ARE NOT 1ST PERSON ACCOUNTS. And if they're getting these accounts from "Christians", well, then we have that same problem about credible sources....
A second major problem--acknowledging the existence of "Christians" is NOT acknowledging "Jesus" Christ! There were any number of people calling themselves messiahs and "anointed ones" during the Jewish messianic movement existing at that time, and if the text does not EXPLICITLY SAY "JESUS" Christ, then the reference to "Christians" is simply circumstantial evidence, and would never hold up in a court of Law. THAT Must be our standard here, and so far, your "sources" do not meet that criterion. Half of BONE's sources are early Christian apologists (worthless) and/or second-or-third century writers who simply wrote of "Christians" who followed a "Christ" or "anointed one". That could have meant ANYBODY. YOU MUST FIND REFERENCES TO "JESUS"
Bone, in at least two instances, you worngly attributed your writers to have mentioned "Jesus", when they explicitly did NOT. YOu are extrapolating that. because they mention a "Chrestus" that >>>"that means "JESUS!!" That is not honest inquiry or discovery.
I am on my way out the door to my GF's house, but will come back later tonight and dissect your "sources" there, one by one. "
bassistlearningdrums wrote on Nov 17, 2009 6:26 PM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 17, 2009 6:19 PM:
Answer: Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).
Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.
Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.
Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.
In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).
There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
But with all the proof here Karl will say he is right and this shows no proof. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 17, 2009 6:12 PM:
cm wrote on Nov 17, 2009 5:53 PM:
Origen - Matthew X, XVII
Origen, - Against Celsus I, XLVII
This tells us that the later passage about 'James, brother of Jesus called Christ' certainly existed in Josephus in Origen's time because he uses the phrase 'called Christ' twice. It cannot be a Christian interpolation as they called James either 'James the Just' or 'James the Brother of the Lord'. The reference to 'James, brother of Jesus called Christ' is still found in Antiquities 20 and this by itself torpedoes the idea that Jesus never existed.
Origen also says that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah so our present day passage on Jesus in Antiquities 18 cannot have existed although the passing reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20 is further evidence that he was actually mentioned in less flattering terms. It should be pointed out that Origen himself reads too much into Josephus who does say the people thought the killing of James was wrong but does not go quite so far as to blame the entire Jewish War on the event.
In history there is little that is certain but there is also a level of scepticism that makes the task of the historian impossible. Furthermore, the thesis that Jesus never existed requires selective scepticism about which sources are reliable and how others are interpreted. In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 4:53 PM:
Deal with it--it worke din Nuremburg because WE had the "moral high ground".
If you can't see and admit that, it's YOU who is "mentally challenged". Sheesh--you're as willfully obtuse as BONE is about this Jesus question.
Chris, do you have the NEWSWEEK "Sarah Palin" cover stuck on the ceiling over your bed yet? lol! "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 4:31 PM:
There's nothing wrong with people believing in God, David.
What's being debated here (or what I THOUGHT was a debate) was the "Proof" for a historical "Jesus". Mind you, I DID NOT issue this challenge--it was the BONE who put up the challenge, and then failed so miserably in his theological battle. Read my post on Josephus carefully. This is often cited as "proof" of Jesus, but it has been thoroughly debunked. And you're wrong about the Jews mentioning Jesus. There is a whole book on it--"The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" that explains the whole fallacy of the Jews allegedly knowing "Jesus". That idea is just another fraudulent lie put out by "Jesus" defenders that they know most people will never challenge or research. IT IS THOROUGHLY FALSE.
There IS A book in Hebrew, called the SEPHER TOLDOTH YESHU which gleans elements of an ancient Jewish satirical myth about a "Yeshu" who was the ba*tard son of a certain "Mary" and a soldier named Pantera. He was described as a magician and a fantastical, satirical figure. The entire book is widely recognized as an absolute fraud, an invention of Christian clerics and propagandists of the Middle Ages.
By the way, as far as Josephus, there is NO mention either of "Jesus", John the Baptist, or James in Josephus' "The Jewish Wars", which was written 20 years EARLIER than the disputed "Antiquities". Don't you think that an author would write in a reference to these supposedly "important figures" in his FIRST book? Especially one dealing with the Jews 20 years earlier? "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 4:12 PM:
It's quite obvious that you subscribe to the "If I say it enough times then it's true"
First of all--"Nazareth" didn't even EXIST until AT LEAST 300 C.E. THIS IS VERIFIED BY JEWISH SCRIPTURE! You can't even get the most BASIC details right?!
Once again, Bone--the passage in Josephus HAS BEEN DEBUNKED AS "FALSE".
ALL copies of Antiquity of the Jews come down to us from Christian sources. The oldest are from the 9th-10th century. It is important to note that "Josephus" was NOT EVEN AN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY to "Jesus". He wrote the "Antiquity" book in the year 93 or 94--after the alleged "Jesus'" alleged "death".
Of the two mentions of "Jesus" in Antiquities, ONLY the "Testimonium Flavianum" is considered to have any chance of authenticity. But even that is easy to debunk.
First of all, unless Josephus HIMSELF has independent, FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE of "Jesus",--and did not merely rely upon Christian "sources"--then this claim is worthless. As early as the 16th century, both Jewish and Christian scholars started to doubt the authenticity of the passage. NO SCHOLAR with any integrity today maintains that he entire passage could be true. The first problem is the one about calling "Jesus" the "Messiah"--something ONLY a Christian would have done. NEVER a conservative Jew!
Furthermore, when studied from the point of Linguistics and Typology, the whole passage completely interrupts the flow of the preceding and following three paragraphs. IN other words, you could remove it entirely, and the whole chapter flows MUCH more smoothly and with greater continuity and flow. This is POWERFUL evidence of Christian meddling in the text.
Also, though "Antiquities" contains detailed chapter headings in the table of contents, NOWHERE is "Jesus" mentioned in the table of contents! Such a significant figure, and no mention of him? Nonsense. The Christians who wrote in the passage missed that significant error.
Understand that these table of contents for each chapter are EXPLICIT. They list things like; "How Salome the sister of Herod died and left her possessions to Julia the wife of Caesar." and "How Pontius Pilate wished to bear busts of Caesar secretly into Jerusalem, and the people did not accept this, and rebelled."--little, trivial things--and yet NO MENTION of a man who allegedly spawned a new religion, a political movement, was called a "Christ" and was executed? Honestly--it completely strains credibility.
In addition; Josephus was a Jew who vigorously denounced the "Messianic" movements popular in his day, and he ALWAYS wrote pretty negative, cynical comments about any of the would-be "messiahs" and criminals who were executed or punished by the Romans, and yet, in the "Testimonium" passage, it's like a glowing endorsement of Jesus--who would have been executed in an exact same manner, under the same circumstances as that which Josephus so clearly disdained. Of course, if later Christians wrote in this phony piece of "witnessing", it would completely and plausibly explain that?
But here's some of the most d'amning evidence that this passage was "written in" by Christian scribes. Until the reference to the Testimonium passage is mentioned by Bishop Eusebius in 324, there is NO OTHER REFERENCES to the passage, even by Christian apologists who had referred specifically to "Antiquity" --even specifically to book 18!
That means TWO HUNDRED YEARS go by, and NOT ONE!--writers like Origen, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Justin Martyr, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Minucius Felix, and Lactantius all fail to mention or use the Testimonium passage! All these writers were demonstrably familiar with Josephus' works, and used it liberally in their defense of Christianity and "Jesus"--and yet NOTHING from them about the passage?!?
Origen alone UNDOUBTEDLY read the 18th book of Josephus--he uses it to defend John the Baptist, YET NEVER MENTIONS THE "TESIMONIUM"?!
It is unmistakable, Bone--the passage mentioning "Jesus" in Josephus' "Antiquity" is a FRAUD.
BONE, I realize now that you are completely unable and unprepared to even debate this subject. Your mind is as closed as the old Churches which have been locked and shuttered for years because of lack of parishioners. All you're willing to do is recite tired old dogma and Apologetic junk.
That's not "debate". That's not "Truth" That's just evasion and unwillingness to open your mind and recognize what is almost universally recognized among serious Theologians today--that "Josephus" is FALSE "testimony", and if "Josephus" is all you've got (because NO OTHER AUTHORS AT THE TIME mention "jesus") THEN YOU GOT NOTHING.
YOU GOT NOTHING, BONE. Sorry to see that you're unarmed in this debate. I really expected more than to have you throw such weak rhetoric at me. "
chris van note wrote on Nov 17, 2009 4:11 PM:
By you bringing up the "nazi" comparison, you have shown all of us just how much you don't know about history.
BTW, the last time a terror subject was tried in NYC and for those too liberal to remember, Lynne Stewart, attorney for the blind cleric, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, leaked strategic government information gathered through discovery to the cleric’s cohorts in al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization. (For this act of treason, Stewart, was sentenced instead to 28 months in prison and was disbarred)
The damage was done, however. Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya knew all they needed to know about how U.S. intelligence monitored acts of terrorism, who was on their watch list, and how to circumvent these pitfalls in planning future terrorist acts.
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya was/is affiliated with Al Queda.
Not saying it will happen again, but you never know. BTW, according to CNN their latest poll asked the question of how to handle KSM, and 64% took the “un-American” position of backing military tribunal. "
daviddelker wrote on Nov 17, 2009 4:02 PM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 17, 2009 2:33 PM:
The Bone wrote on Nov 17, 2009 2:29 PM:
But Karl admits that Josephus was here but thats no proof. All I can say is "FAITH" and he has none. All he believes in is material stuff. What a shock it will be for him when he finds out that God is real. To live in Hell for ever I just cant imange it. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 2:24 PM:
Chris, honestly--whatever you define as "nonsensical liberal logic", I'm PROUD INDEED to embody that. "Mentally challenged Liberal/Democrats" were RIGHT about the phony War, RIGHT about WMD's, RIGHT about Bush and Cheney, RIGHT about the crimes of the Bush Administration, and just about EVERYTHING else that the Conservative nincompoops effed up the whole last decade.
We have lost the moral high ground because we have reduced ourselves to the level of the Nazi's. Let the terrorists be served in civil court--and let Justice be served, whatever the outcome. It would be GREAT to see Bush and Cheney put under the gun, and their actions recognized as criminal. Maybe AMerica could get back to being a shining example to the world? "
united we wish wrote on Nov 17, 2009 12:37 PM:
chris van note wrote on Nov 17, 2009 11:58 AM:
Its all a "Lets Get Bush/Cheney" thing to people of Karl's ilk. Pretty pathetic.
Military commissions are designed to give these non-citizens their day in court, protect their rights and US intelligence at the same time.
Pretty straight forward even if you are a mentally challenged Liberal/Democrat...
Worked pretty well at Nuremburg. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 11:45 AM:
Actually, it is I who forgive your ignorance and willingness to buy into dogma without adequately doing the research. This is not surprising to me, however, as, as a former Christian myself, I know the whole barrier of Fear that ALL religions erect in order to stifle honest inquiry and intellectual curiosity. Your loss, but I encourage you to do some honest research outside of biased, Apologetic circles.
If you would have the courage to read BOTH sides--as opposed to merely reciting tired dogma--you would indeed learn that what I have said is indeed the Truth--that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reliable or unquestionable corroborating evidence outside of the Bible for a "historical" "Jesus". NONE.
ZILCH. Sorry, but it just doesn't exist. Don't shoot the messenger here. I'm merely pointing out what is the Truth.
When you do your research and can do more than just offer dogma and all the predictable doom-and-gloom admonitions which faze me not, I would be happy to entertain your musings once more. "
Sam wrote on Nov 17, 2009 10:34 AM:
It isn't a wonder that "liberals" get a bad name... every time you open your mouth, you just add to what people think about liberals - clueless, bleeding hearts. Do everyone a favor... refrain from publicly displaying what an idiot you really are.
As far as JESUS is concerned, you're not so intelligent as you think. If you really were capable of reading and/or listening, you would know without a doubt that HE existed on earth and ascended into Heaven.
In the spirit of Jesus, I forgive you for your outbursts of ignorance. I pity you for not knowing our Lord and Savior. I pray for your eternal soul. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 10:23 AM:
It would be FITTING JUSTICE if the Bush Administration finally got its day in court, because obviously our elected leaders lack the cajones to bring them properly to a War Crimes trial. THAT is the Stain of Shame that our nation STILL bears. "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 10:20 AM:
If we can hold people like Richard Ramirez, Son of Sam, and some of these serial killers, we can hold a bunch of grizzled old religious nutcases.
And Dick Cheney should be right in there with them. THAT's the REAL TRAGEDY of this trial-that the co-conspirator is not in there with them, but the "victors" always write the history books, right? "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 10:17 AM:
HUH!???
Are you trying to infer that you have somehow solved or ameliorated the problem of the denial of 1,049 civil rights that are denied to Gays under marriage laws by pointing out that people can make independent living wills? shhhheeeeesh.
Honestly--your "logic" is like a moth, beating itself silly against a bright light bulb! "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 17, 2009 10:13 AM:
THAT'S IT?!?
I thought you were going to PROVE to me that "Jesus" "existed"?!?
Is that all you got? Seriously?
Not much of a defense of your faith at all! I was expecting much more--at least a college try?!
So will you at least concede that Truth then? That there is NO historical proof for "Jesus"? "
Unknown... wrote on Nov 17, 2009 9:56 AM:
chris van note wrote on Nov 17, 2009 9:56 AM:
Even our feckless gov. Patterson knows this is a very bad idea.
Other than to give liberals a trial of the Bush administration by proxy, I see no reason for these soapboxes-for-terrorists, a.k.a., “trials,” to take place anywhere else but Gitmo.
My only two hopes are that there aren't any jihad/terror attacks during this show trial and that these dirtbags get a female Jewish judge. "
CVA62 wrote on Nov 17, 2009 7:50 AM:
cm wrote on Nov 17, 2009 7:49 AM:
the big truck comes on Thursday's, they open the bags dump the leaves into the truck, and leave your bags on the ground...so you can reuse them!
I don't rake leaves,
I am surrounded by oak trees, I would spend wasted days/weeks/months trying to keep up with it.
however it worked as a great punishment for the boys when they lived home--lol "
cm wrote on Nov 17, 2009 7:44 AM:
if not I will be sure to mail him one for Xmas! "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Nov 17, 2009 7:42 AM:
Writing on paper, voting in the open with no real privacy and counting ballots by hand sound like a big step BACKWARDS to me, "new with bugs" or not. "
cm wrote on Nov 17, 2009 7:41 AM:
in fact making a will, healthcare proxy, living will, and stating your beneficiaries is what EVERYONE should do!
ps..I do dabble in the law on the side, for fun..Cornell law is one of my Fav NY sites.. "
The Bone wrote on Nov 17, 2009 7:21 AM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 16, 2009 9:27 PM:
CVA62 wrote on Nov 16, 2009 7:34 PM:
re: Leaves. Don't bag the leaves. Clog the gutters and storm drains. The rain and snow melt backs up and floods the neighborhood. Then watch the complaints roll into City Hall.....OR.....let the City deal with them and send YOU a bill.
re: This Paper (or RAG). It seems I recall something called the First Amendment. LOOK IT UP!
re: Election woes. It's a new system. It has bugs. Perhaps your list of problems will help the Election Committee fix them. KEEP THOSE CARDS AND LETTERS COMING PEOPLE! (To the Board of Elections - NOT the Citizen.)
re: Leaves (AGAIN!). Be patient.....they'll get to ya!
re: Santa. OK, then YOU go tell the Big Guy to go back to the North Pole! "
genegirl59 wrote on Nov 16, 2009 7:24 PM:
Karl and Bone are still beating each other up. Has this been going on for the past 3 weeks?
Jesus, Mary and Josephus you two.....
LOL "
Dilligaf wrote on Nov 16, 2009 6:56 PM:
whybother wrote on Nov 16, 2009 6:00 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 16, 2009 5:17 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 16, 2009 5:15 PM:
Bone, COME ON NOW.
I could--and SHOULD say--"See? When Bone knows that you've demolished their religious propositions, she completely evades any meaningful response."
If you want a debate in which you only get to choose the answers you want to hear, that's not a debate--that's an Apologetics class. lol.
Go ahead--prove that "Jesus" existed. Refute my post. Prove me wrong? I'm waiting... "
liberal karl wrote on Nov 16, 2009 5:12 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Nov 16, 2009 5:10 PM: