Roark

GottaExecute69

Bo can't even keep his players that would supposedly fight Satan alongside him.

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

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

 

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

 

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.

I can't believe that some people are patting Bo on the back for winning 8 games.

 

Does this guy really think that there are not many coaches that are capable of beating Wyoming, Southern Miss, SDSU, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan, and Penn State?

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.

Your arguments are educated but they seem to just make a supposed God out to be a dummy.

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.

 

Gospel of Matthew ~70-110

Gospel of Mark ~70

Gospel of Luke ~60-100

Gospel of John ~85-90

 

Your statement specifically refers to copies, and that's correct, we don't have any original manuscripts in existence today, but the range of scholarly opinions date the authorship to around these dates. I'm not sure which you're actually referring to.

 

The discrepancies between the gospels, which do exist, are easily explained without being problematic, in my opinion. Firstly, they existed as oral tradition long before written accounts. Now, removed 2,000 years from that time and culture, we immediately get hit with a huge dose of skepticism claiming, "You mean these stories were passed down by telling them? Then there's no way they're anywhere remotely close to accurate." But that's being fairly ignorant of the emphasis and importance, the 'sacred' nature so to speak, of oral tradition for the Jews. It was absolutely nothing like 21st century American gossip, but was a devoted and faithful retelling and preservation of stories when the means to record them were really limited.

 

Going along with that, the minute details of the accounts just aren't made as emphasis. A lot of Biblical literature is unique in genre - it's not historical, but it does record history. It's not fiction, but it does have elements of legend. It's not poetry, but it does use illustrations. The gospel accounts were, according to Christian tradition, never meant to be academic or scientific and contain "errors" in details, even quotes that aren't verbatim. That doesn't mean they aren't inerrant or uninspired by the Holy Spirit, it just means that our presupposition towards what they're purposed for is mistaken. It's like saying, "Jesus can't be true or the Son of God because he said mustard seeds are the smallest of seeds and we know there are smaller seeds than that." Well, no, because Jesus isn't a botanist and wasn't teaching biology.

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.

So if Jesus didn't exist I guess the gospels were just a very elaborate hoax. And an expensive hoax too, given that the writers were killed for their efforts.

 

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.

Carrier is self-admittedly on the fringe of biblical scholarship. He knows he's one of the few proponents of the "Jesus Myth" theory, but whether you agree with his conclusions or not, it's gotta be hair raising for Christians either way. Essentially his entire argument burns down to this: we do not have a single, solitary eye witness account of Jesus of Nazareth, including the gospels, which are second hand sources written decades after the fact and are anonymous. The later mentions of Jesus in 'primary' sources (in scare quotes because they, too, are all penned well after Jesus supposedly was executed) are not much help in establishing anything about Christ, and are often only parroting what was common knowledge at the time. In other words, evidence for Jesus is very flimsy.

 

I think there was likely a historical Jesus. Considering how many people were looking for or claiming to be the Messiah around that time, it's not out of the question that some charismatic figure got executed and contradictory legends sprung up around him. It seems more likely than inventing a character whole cloth, but then it's really hard to know anything for absolutely certain. God timed his whole avatar-transformation thing pretty poorly; 2000 years later and Jesus could have gone on CNN, cleared up the whole mess.

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."

I read somrthing about this the other day. He claims this is some kind of Government conspiracy.

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.

There's no good evidence to suggest he didn't, and plenty good evidence to suggest he did.

 

 

Richard Carrier is not much more than the last "shining hope" of mythicists, who are very few and far between.

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.

My answer to both: Yes I think that people will do that . . . unless they're willing to risk the consequences. Some people are quite unwilling to commit crimes.

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.

gun control: a very biased piece and it isn't even FOX NEWS, okay it's ABC

 

http://www.facebook....200262564797027

Stossel is the man.

Total ban on semi-automatics (zero need for these, ever, for any reason)

 

Stricter rules/penalties regarding unregistered and illegal guns

 

But for f#*k's sake, if you have a handgun or a hunting rifle or what have you, that's one of the basic rights of living in our nation. Guns do not cause these incidents, troubled people do. Better education, mental health awareness, community outreach, and firearm education is the better solution. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

 

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...

By the media yes, but there are plenty of people who are focusing on mental health issues instead. I've been on medications for depression and anxiety and experienced first-hand how much they can f#*k you up. We're an overmedicated society and a good portion of the time the pills make things worse. Between that and exposure to violence in the news(TV, video games, music etc.) day after day we wind up with what we've seen in the past 15 years.

Total ban on semi-automatics (zero need for these, ever, for any reason)

 

Stricter rules/penalties regarding unregistered and illegal guns

 

But for f#*k's sake, if you have a handgun or a hunting rifle or what have you, that's one of the basic rights of living in our nation. Guns do not cause these incidents, troubled people do. Better education, mental health awareness, community outreach, and firearm education is the better solution. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

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.

You know what is never discussed? It baffles me because it seems so simple. (I didn't read this whole thread. Maybe someone did mention this.)

 

Making ammunition extremely difficult to buy is doable. There are WAY too many guns to actually rid the landscape of the weapons themselves, but you suddenly make the bullets sparse as sin? Those guns become about as valuable as a brick. Maybe less.

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.

Banning all guns is not the answer. But having a more rigorous and extensive background check on people who own or plan on owning a firearm is a possible solution.

 

I've not seen many people suggest a complete ban on guns. Why everyone wants to immediately suggest otherwise, I don't understand. What I have seen people suggest is that a weapon like a .223 semiautomatic Bushmaster Rifle, with a clip that carries 20 or 50 rounds, should be banned.

 

Banning semi-autos may sound like a simple enough solution, but would be extremely difficult to carry out. Do you propose a door-to-door search of every home in America for these types of weapons, or do you expect everyone to just hand them over?

Also, here's a link for those who seem to think that the "slippery slope paranoia" is silly. Link.

I think that we can expect to see some sort of federal legislation regarding this topic be proposed in the near future. After reading many comments from national news outlets I'm wondering what everyone's reaction is. Does the US need new gun control measures?

Never could understand why these salaries are as high as they are. What makes it a $1MM+ job anyway.

 

 

Greed, selfishness, excess, etc.

All the things that make this country great.

Hear, hear!

You think they'd actually admit it if Bo did interview?