I was talking about the presence of the big green one.
I think the ultimate argument against your judgment on anything, D, is that you still hang out with us.
And we deeply appreciate it. 
Right now it’s mostly sunny and just climbing up from a beautiful 63 degrees F low last night to the mid 80s F today, and it seems like a great day to go down into the dimly lit basement and bash out something on the drums, in honor of whatever God or gods or Goddess or goddesses or enlightment or nirvana or whatever one may believe or not believe in. 
Also, Obama rocked Berlin.
Quote: (phoo @ Jul. 24 2008, 11:46 PM)
I was talking about the presence of the big green one.
I knew that phoo. It's GREAT to have Ali-Nergle-Macmic-Greenguy back. There's always a thought provoking comment or two when he's around.
D
Quote:
Also, Obama rocked Berlin.
That a new Death Metal band or sumthin'?
Hey, here's a thought... some mad scientist could combine Al Gore and Barack Obama's DNA and clone a new person quadruply stupid... Of course we'd call IT "Albama" and I personally don't like the connotations...
D
Quote: (Diogenes @ Jul. 24 2008, 10:58 PM)
Quote: (phoo @ Jul. 24 2008, 8:18 PM)
WOOHOO!!! We're back to normal!!!! 'Bout Time!
Depends on ones perception of "normal".
Despite the naysayers, there IS evidence Jesus Christ walked this Earth. "Emmanuel"... God with us. If you look hard enough, you'll find Him. The Prophets foretold His coming and His REASON for coming. Like Prego, it's in there... and not just in The Bible.
Also, think about it for a minute, WHY would anybody CLAIM to be The Messiah, the Son of God, KNOWING he would be persecuted and killed?
Yeah, but the difference is there doesn't seem to be anyone calling others ass holes or getting all riled up. It is nice to discuss this stuff without the trolls.
To address a few of your comments... as for existence... that is hotly debated as there are no contemporary writings to the existence of Jesus as a man. Walking on water, water to wine, and loaves and fishes stories of course can be taken with a grain of salt. So it becomes tough to know who or what to believe. I think one could say it is reasonable to believe that Jesus as a man existed based on what followed... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it could also be considered reasonable to think there would be contemporary accounts of the man especially considering the supposed feats reported in the Gospels. You would think someone would notice something like that at the time.
Now please take what I am about to say right way as I am really just hypothesizing, throwing in a devil's advocate argument, and am about to get very scandalous in a way.
On to why one would claim things just to be persecuted... that is a common cultist tactic. Use persecution and martyrdom as a demonstration of righteousness and devotion. Claiming divinity, an unwavering protector of one's people, an unbreakable devotion to one's people, etc are tactics used by leaders for centuries. Caesar did it, Alexander did it, Hitler did it, Mao did it, Jim Jones did it, Kim Jung Il does it... they claim to sacrifice for the people to establish legitimacy. They also claim to be the people's only salvation in the face of a real or trumped up enemy. (Kim Jung Il and the US) It could be argued that Jesus, or assuming Jesus was never real, Paul played on the Roman occupation much as Al Qaida does today to rile up the masses and believe in a savior that could make it all better. You get enough poor, desperate, fearful, and ignorant people and these tactics seem to work over and over again in history. You can say everything I proposed before is crap, but the fact that there were a lot of pissed off and hungry people in Palestine under the Romans creating favorable conditions for such exploitation is pretty evident. So if I had to make a skeptics argument as to why would he take on such a claim which would/could result in a miserable end... look at all the others in history that have done the same.
Quote:
However, it could also be considered reasonable to think there would be contemporary accounts of the man especially considering the supposed feats reported in the Gospels. You would think someone would notice something like that at the time.
I wanted to clarify this but the edit won't let me.
Assuming the Gospel miracles are myth but the existence of Jesus is real (sort of a moderate skeptic's stance IMO)... the likelihood of contemporary Roman scholars writing about Jesus is low as we don't put the man we think is a preaching nut on the side of the road in our history books either. Just another argument that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Seems to me highly likely that Jesus really existed, and that certain sayings and actions attributed to him are historically accurate. There are multiple attestations from separate traditions of a largish collection of sayings, and some of his actions (including a few texts outside of the canon). That’s about as good as the historical evidence gets, short of actual legal documents. Check out the Scholar’s edition of the Gospels (all of them, not just the cannonical ones!), esp. The Five Gospels for a red-letter edition (and pink and grey and black, too).
The most important question facing Christians today, whether they know it or not (and most don’t), is what exactly can be attributed to Jesus, and what can’t. It is very easy to show that a whole lot of stuff is pure fabrication by, e.g., gospel authors. When you sort through this stuff, and only look at what has reasonable historical warrant, all of the miracles, the salvific function of the crucifixion, the ressurection, all of the stuff central to orthodoxy is gone. What’s left is ethically and spiritually challenging in a way that was radical 2K years ago and is still relevant and even a tad radical today - although it has to coexist with the ethical and spiritual challenges coming out of science that are more radical. We’re probably among the last generations of people who will treat the Bible stories as accurate history, and we may be seeing the end of Christianity, more likley its radical re-formation. I wonder how other religions will change under the same forces, especially Islam, where historical-critical analysis of the Qu’ran is not very well-developed, but where enough is known to pose the same sort of challenges, if Islamic culture allows it to happen.
Well you can type til yer blue in the fingers. (Tom Spademan and his use of words that I have to look up, (rolls eyes))
It all comes down to one word.
FAITH
I have a few thoughts to share guys, but I have too much to do at the moment. Our big “Worship on The Water” is tomorrow evening. A lot of prep work to be done.
I like discussing this stuff when the discussions are civil… it’s when things get stupid I have to bail. I’m not here to beat anybody over the head with what I believe. I am willing to share it. As long as we respect each others views, it’ll be alright.
Later gents! I got gear to gather up!
D
I was brought up Protestant, my Wife is Catholic and I live in a Muslim country. So I’m always reticent about discussing religion. However, I am ok with anyones beliefs as long as they are free to believe it. A friends wife is a member of an offshoot of the Catholic Church who take 10% of her salary, who knock on her door if she wasn’t at Chuch the day before and who tell her who to vote for in her home country. Too many religions are controlling by nature, and this is where it becomes unacceptable.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only safe place to keep my beliefs is inside me and I kind of think that’s where religion is the most important.
Quote: (Yaz @ Jul. 25 2008, 9:44 PM)
Well you can type til yer blue in the fingers. (Tom Spademan and his use of words that I have to look up, (rolls eyes))
It all comes down to one word.
FAITH
Exactly - in the end it comes down to different ways of knowing, faith evidence vs. empirical evidence. I've always found that empirical evidence is a tad more effective than much (most) that is taken on faith. But there is a real, difficult philosophical problem there: why should we prefer one form of evidence over the other?
None of it would be a problem but for what Bruffie has identified - some forms of religion are really antagonistic to freedom. I'm afraid the Abrahamic religions are among the worst offenders, and it is really an odd thing historically that Christianity became a foundational part of the social-political complex of western democracy, since it had to give up so much in the process. I'm waiting to see what will happen in the Islamic world in this respect.
Here’s something cool - a Jesus Seminar fellow named Brandon Scott will be giving the sermon at my father-in-law’s church. Yaz, or anyone reading this thread, if you are looking for a cool book to read, Brandon Scott’s Re-Imagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus" is wonderful. There is no better NT parable scholarship out there. Y’all are invited to the service, too.
Quote:
.....will be giving the sermon at my father-in-law's church.
Well, despite all the discussion, we still don't know who God's son is; but at least we now know who his son-in-law is!
I think we get confused with Religion.
I haven’t said anything about religions, just that “I” have “Faith”.
I put no faith in man or religions, since he invented them.
No Yaz, man did not invent religion.
Look at the evidence from religions around the world…
Beer is a sin.
Cholesterol-laden bacon sandwiches are a sin.
Camaro Super Sports are a sin. (Ok, I’m not sure where that one came from, but I’m repeatedly assured that it’s true.)
Adultery is a sin.
So, it now becomes clear, women invented religion!
See, our male ancestors spent their time hunting, or playing games practising for hunting.
And things ain’t changed much.
Our female ancestors however, spent their time preparing food, looking after the young, and bitching about their men and figuring how to make life miserable for them.
THOU MUST NOT…must not do this, must not do that, and especially, must not screw that buxom young tart who hangs around the camp fire!
Who said beer is a sin? Not my wife!
Ah! She’s either an atheist or a witch then Yaz. Both perfect reasons for having her burned at the stake!
heehee Most likely a Lutheran - they love their beer.
I don’t know where this line came from but I’ve quoted it often when I tell people I ain’t religious.
"Religion is man trying to reach God - Chritianity is God trying to reach man."
Even Jesus couldn’t stand religion - look at who he was fussin’ with all the time. I’m probly one of the least religious people you’d ever meet, I like wine - beer now and then - Kahlua and Milk my fav… been know to dip a pinch now and then, but I firmly believe God knows my heart and loves me anyway. What other people think ain’t my problem, 'specially church folk.
My point is for me personally I can do anything I want as a Christian - of course it’s 'cause most of my wants have changed.
And I agree with yer women folk theory.
Quote:
"Religion is man trying to reach God - Chritianity is God trying to reach man."
Even Jesus couldn't stand religion - look at who he was fussin' with all the time. I'm probly one of the least religious people you'd ever meet, I like wine - beer now and then - Kahlua and Milk my fav... been know to dip a pinch now and then, but I firmly believe God knows my heart and loves me anyway. What other people think ain't my problem, 'specially church folk.
Good werdz Poppa. Beer and Wine are not "sin". Using them to excess IS IMO. When one is drunk he/she does or says things he/she wouldn't normally say or do. You've given up control...
I have a glass o' red every evening about an hour before bedtime. I haven't the stomach problems I use to have that kept me awake half the night since starting this "bad" habit. Also, a good glass of wine with a fine meal is a real joy.
D - ain't never been drunk. I like to be in control of myself.
PS I don't know nothing about beer though. Can't get past the SMELL... ICK!
Personally, I don’t know where the idea that wine and such are sinful came from - Jesus certainly didn’t abstain.