Roark

GottaExecute69

Maybe they are leaving to go play for Satan's team.

I would classify myself as neither a Bo support nor a Bo hater. I would have been fine either way SA went after the season. However, this statement is a crock of crap. So obviously what I said does not apply to you. I'm talking about the apologists who in 10 years, when Bo still hasn't won a championship, will still be praising him for his teams' graduation rates, or for how much the players adore him. 8 win seasons are enough. The occasional CCG appearance is enough. Moral victories are enough. So maybe I misspoke. Bolievers would love to win a championship to validate their cult of personality, but failing to do so will never be seen as a negative and certainly wouldn't be grounds for termination. Once again, not true. Just because someone thinks Bo is the guy for next few years doesn't mean they're resigned to mediocrity. Quit trying to pigeonhole people into tidy roles you think you can define...it doesn't work. So you're saying that there really are no rabid Bo backers, and that the support of the people I'm referring to only extends to the "next few years"?

I would classify myself as neither a Bo support nor a Bo hater. I would have been fine either way SA went after the season. However, this statement is a crock of crap. So obviously what I said does not apply to you. I'm talking about the apologists who in 10 years, when Bo still hasn't won a championship, will still be praising him for his teams' graduation rates, or for how much the players adore him. 8 win seasons are enough. The occasional CCG appearance is enough. Moral victories are enough. So maybe I misspoke. Bolievers would love to win a championship to validate their cult of personality, but failing to do so will never be seen as a negative and certainly wouldn't be grounds for termination.

I have a suspicion that many of the people on Team Bo don't really care about him winning championships.

There are probably a few coaches that could, but NONE of them would be able to bring down powerhouses like Iowa and Minnesota.

I remember throwing his name out there a couple of years ago and getting blasted for it... With that being said, Tressel would be a great hire. He's a proven winner (title games, not vs Sun Belt opponents), and some other team is bound to pick him up in the next couple of years if Nebraska doesn't. Dropping Bo, even after a 9 win season, doesn't bother me- the man's mediocre coaching ability is painfully obvious. He simply can't (or won't) do what is necessary to produce a championship caliber team. Keeping him around until the schedule requires him to play at least 7 teams with a pulse is going to be agonizing.

I'm not usually one to brag, but I totally called this after watching his HS tape.

I think what Husker_x is saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if we are to believe that the Christian god is both omnipitent and just, then he should have chosen a more credible means to spread his word than the fallible word of man. If God is omnipotent, then he would have known that the doubts cast by these texts. If he is just, then how can he sentence those to Hell for not believing? Instead of appearing on CNN, I would have suggested that God send giant indestructible stones recording the true events of Jesus' life and death. If such monuments existed, and were clearly of supernatural origin, then countless Christian lives would have been saved along with a great many more souls. This shouldn't have been a problem for God, who was clearly willing and able to defy natural law (ie: by raising the dead) to prove his existence.

First, in regard to the video you posted, I think that Carrier, while looking woefully unprepared for debate, makes a number of excellent points, which aren't addressed by Craig. Craig's argument hinges on the belief that the Gospels are individual accounts of Jesus, when in actuality, it's likely that the writers were well aware of this story through a common source. Craig makes a huge assumption when he states that this source is first hand knowledge. Also, I find it odd that Craig so easily dismisses Carrier's evidence of literary devices in scripture. In fact, the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabus, which is believed to have been written ~70-130 specifically mentions the comparison of Jesus to that of the temple scape goat. This, at least, shows that early Christians were certainly aware of this idea. Which leads me to the core question of their debate: how do we know which stories to believe? Should we accept all other oral traditions and ancient writings as mostly true? Even within Jewish oral tradition there exist stories which are obvious works of fiction. To me, all credibility is lost if historical inaccuracies exist in a text that is used as evidence to support a historical event. The fact that fabrications and forgeries are quite common in early Christian writings also causes alarm and raises questions about the 'sacred nature' of traditions in the early church.

Since we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels, it's rather hard to say they were killed for writing them, isn't it? Well, if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul didn't write them, I'll bet they were pissed at whoever did. Because most of them got killed for it. (John didn't.) edit: I guess the new Testament books by Peter and Paul are not gospels. But you get the point. The early leaders of Christianity may very well have been killed for their beliefs. However, this would not authenticate any of the books accredited to them. Some of the Gospels are authored anonymously and the others were written based on second-hand information. I may be mistaken, but I think most historians agree that the earliest copies of the Gospels that have been found are from the 2nd century. There are also discrepancies between Gospels, which show that at least one contains fabricated or misinterpreted information.

It's entirely possible that the stories of Jesus could be loosely based on a political/religious leader who lived in the early 1st century. To me, the most surprising thing isn't the evidence supporting the hypothesis that Jesus was entirely a celestial being, manifested though revelation. The analysis of biblical texts and 'historical' evidence supporting the life and deeds of Jesus are really what intrigued me. I think that most Christians are oblivious to these arguments. They believe that Jesus was a well documented individual during his time, and that the writings about him are comprised of first-hand accounts, which have been carefully preserved. This is simply not the case, regardless if you believe that Jesus was a real person or not. ETA: So I basically reiterated exactly what you said. I should have just replied with "I agree."

That's a claim by Joseph Atwill. It's a different (and a far more outlandish) argument than the one presented by Carrier. To me it doesn't seem logical that the Romans would create Christianity to pacify Jews, only to have Christians executed half a century later. You would think that if this hypothesis were true, the Romans would want more Christian converts, as the Jews and Romans were engaged in various conflicts throughout the 2nd century.

Which evidence are you referring to? I am genuinely curious.

I have recently read some interesting articles questioning the historicity of Jesus. Growing up as a Christian, I had always assumed that Jesus was a confirmed historical person. However, some argue that the man portrayed in the New Testament may not have existed at all. The argument is based on the idea that early biblical texts only refer to Jesus as appearing in revelation. This theory also asserts that the known secular historical accounts of Jesus are suspicious, and even the Bible has conflicting information about the man. Here is some interesting background info from one of the theory's main proponents, Dr. Richard Carrier. http://www.strangenotions.com/questioning-the-historicity-of-jesus/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbTbEvFSSF8 Why say you all? Does this information legitimately call into question the historicity of a human Jesus?

1) You are making a huge assumption if you say that Assad used chemical weapons "against his own people." There is not enough evidence to make that call, yet. 2) Firing a missile at a country without provocation is an act of war. 3) Kerry's proposal that Syria surrender its chemical weapons within a week was an obvious gaffe, taken advantage by the Russians to keep the US from attacking.

In my opinion, the majority of those who own "assualt" or military rifles, and even many handgun owners would probably not register them. The reason is that they fear new legislation that would alter their future ownership of such weapons.. Again, just my opinion from speaking with a number of firearms owners. And to address my previous "straw man" argument, such new regulations would be extremely expensive to implement and enforce. Maintaining such a massive national database, along with dealing with those who refuse to comply would require hurculean effort and a great many resources.

Stossel is the man.

So The Feds are going to confiscate all 38 million semi-automatic firearms currently in the US? I'd be surprised if most Americans willingly hand over their weapons. I assume you'll be ready to fund the building of many new prisons, as the ones we currently have are already near capacity with non-violent offenders. I volunteer Roark to ring the doorbell and request that people give up their guns. If he isn't available, then I elect that Hadley guy. Hilarious. I'm really not into stealing people's property. But one thing's for sure, if someone's going to go around collecting everyone's weapons, I hope to God it's not you...

So The Feds are going to confiscate all 38 million semi-automatic firearms currently in the US? I'd be surprised if most Americans willingly hand over their weapons. I assume you'll be ready to fund the building of many new prisons, as the ones we currently have are already near capacity with non-violent offenders.

Doable? Probably. Easily doable? Not at all. I'd wager that most Americans, while wanting some kind of "sensible" gun control measures (aka the feel-good ones than ban "scary looking weapons" but do nothing to curb atrocities like the one in Sandy Hook), but would see laws to prevent ammunition sales as a move to effectively disarm the population. The gun lobby would be all over any legislature that tried to do so and such legislation, if passed, would likely get repealed or expire ala the AWB of 1994.