Ten oz

The historicity of Muhammad is something that does get debated. I am not educated enough regarding the Qur'an to go in depth with that debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad Was there a flood? I have heard my whole life that while Noah and the Ark may not be literally have happened it is "probably" based on a real event. Same argument for the Ark of the Convenat. That while there was not a chest with magical powers there may have been something carried with symbolic meaning. My point is referencing those 2 examples is to highlight our cultures (western) tendency to error of the side that stories from the bible are probably based on real events. It isn't something we automatcally do for the Qur'an, Shruti, Adi Granth, and etc. While it is true that all stories have inspiration there seems to be an insistance the bibical inspiration almost always is based on real people and real event that have simply been exaggerated. We have all seen or read theories (raw speculation) that perhaps when Moses parted thhe sea what really happened was a low tide created a temporary land bridge. Jesus as a figure is very similar to Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and etc yet it is not argued all were once real people. Seems only Jesus like figures with modern living followers get the "they were real" treatement. There are Hindu historians that argue Krishna was real. Just as Buddhists historians who believe Gautama Buddha was real. Perhaps all are were real. However it cannot be ignored that as a matter of culture, tradition, and indoctrination these figures have millions of biased people who through practice and faith impact the way the history is told and understood. So what does that prove; nothing. I say all that to explain why, for me, all attempts to argue there is a linear logic to the creation of Christianity which is easiest explained by the existence of a Jesus doesn't work. We simply do not know enough to make such assumptions. I do not assume to know Paul's motivations or the full extent of his authorship and influence over other works. Many liberties seem to be taken when weighing the Pauline Epistles and the gospels. For all we know Paul suffered for schizophrenia and 90% of what he wrote was based on delusions extrapolated from things he had seen, heard, and or read. Or perhaps Paul was of sound mind and everything he wrote was accurate as he was able to make it. We simply do not know. Which is why, for me, all that matters is the dating of the work and comparison in narrative against the gospels. Since neither are clear I think saying we do not know is more appropriate than saying "probably".

What are they guilty of specifically? These are not high crimes and misdemeanors but rather office policy infractions. The Network I use at work requires my I.D. to operate. If I walk across the hall to speak to someone, get coffee, use the restroom, or etc and forget my I.D. in the computer I am in violation of policy. That is just one simple example but will say that I see multiple types of violations daily. The issue isn't that both are guilty per se but rather one side is exaggerating the scale of the offense while ignoring their own behavior in hopes of scoring political points.

@Tim88 & Mamammel, one notion that hasn't been explore well as it could be in this discussion is the presumption that the existence of Christians is evidence that there was most likely a Jesus. The argument that the simplest explanation for there being Christians is that there had been a Jesus. I have seen if mentioned and seen it used yet I am not sure such to be consistent with the creation of other religions. We do not assume Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, and etc to have been real people for that reason (?). So which actually makes more sense if we compare the notions against what we know about other major religions origin stories?

You are mix and matching how you felt at the time with how you feel today. You have already stated that you believe, still believe, that Saddam had WMD and scuttled them before we invaded. So you are not using any hindsight to update your current point of view and are currently hiding behind the pretense of what was.

Clinton is too hawish on foriegn policy. That is my main concern with her. However Trump at the Commander in Cheif forum said "when I come up with a plan", 'if I like the general's plan", "I have a plan but won't say", "maybe a combination of my plan plus the general plan", and etc. Trump is simply worse. On a scale of 1-10 perhaps Clinton is a 5 where as Obama has been a 7 but Trump is a zero. He doesn't even register on that scale.

There is also emails showing Sec. Powell used devices that didn't store data when he was at the Stae Dept. so we have no idea how many of his emails are missing. The whole thing is absurd and the media should be ashamed of itself for their coverage. From Clinton we have Tax returns, thousands of emails, hacked then leaked emails, Foundation financials, and now people are demanding medical records. From Trump we have nothing yet the issue of transparency is only directed at Clinton. Clinton's emails have beenthrough a FBI investigation and congressional hearings and it still hasn't been enough. Trump just say no to the release of anything and everythings that is perfectly acceptable.

My post was not a rebuttal to anything you said. Rather I was just casually sharing my point of view which is why I didn't qoute anything specific you said.

@Memammal, one huge barrier that prevents clear discussion on this matter is the prejudiced history of it. There actually hasn't been a lot of independent non-religious scholarly work done. Rather, many historians have conceded various matters to Christian theologians to avoid the hornets nest. Plus at various times throughout history it was illegal, immoral, and etc to even question Jesus, the Bible, Gospels, and so on. So we have a census of scholars who agree Jesus probably existed but in truth the many of them have not researched the matter and are not interested in a debate about about it. Just as many people don't discuss evolution, climate change, political preference, and etc to avoid conflict many people who may be experts on Roman history, antiquities, Aramaic, and etc don't want to fight. And make no mistake it is a fight. To say evidence for Jesus is X, Y, or Z or the challange the gospels will be met with stern rebuke from the devoted. So of course Christians theologians are the primary source for authenticating Christian materials and their judgements are loosely accepted as whats most probably. Just a Pastor's explanation of a bibical verse is accpeted by all those in the congregation. To disagree casts yourself against. It is a fight few want. In my opinion saying "most" scholars agree in reference to anything bibical is akin to saying most jouralist agree is reference to matters of science. There is actually a small pool that has done peer reviewed work on the historicity of Jesus. If we could limit this discussion to focusing on specific work that directly, not loosely, addresses the issue I think it would be helpful. People like Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, Joseph Hoffman, Richard Carrier, and Philip Davies (to name a few) have worked specifically on the issue we are discussing and do not fall into any category of being polite, dismissive, or etc.

Arguing that we'll never know is an acceptable argument when discussing what might have happened if a sports team hadn't traded a specific key player traded. As the justification for invading a country, ousting its that countries government, and killing hundreds of thousands of people the argument is insane.

As does Sec. Rice, Sec. Powell, and Sec. Rumsfeld (to name a few) and they were in the room when the decision was made. The intel was wrong. We know that now. It is undeniable it has already been admitted to and the associated memos and emails release. You are trying to bait me and switch the topic to what a bad person Saddam was or was not and that isn't what this discussion is about. You do not know what Saddam's WMD capability was prior to the invasion, you do not know if sanctions would have been lift vs changed vs left in place, and you do not know what Saddam would or wouldn't have done had he remained in power. Everything you are saying is just pure speculation. You are exaggerate my words by saying "Saddam was pure as the driven snow". Just a bait and switch tactic.

Where did I agrue that? It seem to me you are arguing with yourself.

Famously in Sec Rumsfeld words there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Known knowns are things we know we know. Known unknowns are thing we know we don't know. Unknown unknowns are things we don't know we don't know. You are arguing unknown unknowns.

@Tar, the people who pitched the idea that Saddam had WMDs have since admitted they were wrong. The facts you list, the facts the public is aware, came from the same people who now admit they were wrong.

"The intelligence was as clear as any intelligence I've ever seen and I've been in this business a long time...The problem is, the intelligence wasn't right." - Condoleezza Rice "If we had known the intelligence was wrong, we would not have gone into Iraq. But the intelligence community, all 16 agencies, assured us that it was right," - Colin Powell “I believe that everybody believed that they were there, but there was no hard proof that they were there,” he continued. “And yet it was presented to the American people as if there was." - Donald Rumsfeld So the National Security Advisor, Sec. of State, and the Sec. of Defense who were in office during the lead up to and start of the Iraq war no longer believe Saddam had WMDs but you still do? To a person all the key players concede that the intelligence was wrong yet you still believe?

@Tar, on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, all the top leaders agree Iraq was a mistake both in the choice to invade and the handling of the aftermath. It was a mistake on multiple levels and that is a nonpartisan statement. You are trying to imply we did the right things and it just didn't work out. I disagree.

We did none of that. We forced in a gov't of our choosing and called it democracy and then reward U.S. companies with huge contracts to support projects than either support our militaries logistical needs or were meant to aid Iraqis but ultimatley went unfinished.

People often use WW2 as the gold standard for how to defeat ones enemies. In doing so the aftermath is often ignored. The allies worked to rebuild Germany and Japan, forgave debt, opened trade, and made them allies. They were assisted in developing nuclear power, manufacturer, technology, and etc. In the middle east we just call them dangerous and prevent them from have technology. We are doing the opposite we did post WW2. Doing the opposite of what works.

@Tar, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey border Syria. As the war continues people are crossing borders all over the region inculding into Iran. We have already invaded Iraq, conducted combat operations in Lebanon and Syria. Hundreds of thousands dead. I understand Iran doesn't see eye to eye with us (USA) on Israel and would like us out of the region but that is why we must sit down with them. Currently the region is a bunch of independent nations with no unity. We have intentionally worked to create that enviroment out of fear that any strength through partnership may hurt our (USA) long term goals in the region. However after 13yrs of war and terror attacks around the globe it is obvious that our interests are be hurt by the instability. Of course Iran wants us out of the region. We have support over throughs of their gov't. If any country did that to us we'd want them out of our hemisphere (think Monroe Doctrine). It isn't gov't officials who are putting suicide vests it is individual extremists. Regardless of policy odds we have with Jardan, Qatar, Iran, etc we can at least work diplomatically with them. That is where we must start. We cannot pretend that this is a USA issue specifically and we are the only ones with any real skin in the game. That attitude is foolish and arrogant.

The U.S. exports more energy than it imports.

@Tar, where did I post let Iran take the region over? You are completely exaggerating what is posted in respionse to you. In turn it is impossible to address the question you ask but they are rebuttals to things no one has posted.

@Tar, not wanting to commit 2003 levels of troops into a ground war in Syria is not equal to being pacifist. What blood and treasure am I willing to give? I would give it all if I believed it would save lives. You say the question is "how bad" do we want to stop it. I say the question is what is the best way to stop it. My passions, "how bad", doesn't take priority over the the on the ground realities. What is my plan, what would I like to say happen? I would like to see us (USA) sitting down in Iran with with the wealthy opec nations. I would like us to let it be known that we will provide support (training and money) to countries in the reigon to resolve the conflict rather than how countries from outside the reigon like USA and Russia being directly involved. I would like to see us (USA) pushing via financial support and trade agreements the wealthy opec nations to take Syrian refugees. Most jobs in those nations go to foriegn workers anyway. Those nations could actually employ refugees very easily. We need to empower the reigon to take the lead which means resolving our less important squabbles with Iran.

@Tar, I think it is safe for me to speak for the whole forum and say none of us like suicide bombers killing people, ISIS (any extremists) beheading people, and etc. We all have that in common. The only disagreement is what is the best way to end that behavior. You keep falling back to listing the terrible behavior and stating that you are against it as if this were an either or situation; we tolerate murders or murder murderers. If this was that simple, black and white, it would have already been resolved.

@Tar, we already "coexist" with Islam. The issue is how to do it better than we are. Ideology cannot be killed away via military force. We have already tried. You referenced that ISIS has funding and we should take that funding away and kill those who provide it. That would mean killing impportant business and govt leaders Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and etc. Basically destablizing what few regions aren't already in total chaos. That would only create more enemies. I understand that force is often needed like against the Nazis but that we defensive. If nothing was done millions more would have died. Germany was not a potential threat they were an active threat. Our actions in the middle east since 9/11 have primarily been about potential risks. We are attempting to proactively use force defensively. It doesn't work. Education is what defeats ignorance. Knowledge is what changes opinions. Rather than trying to predict who the radicals are and kill them we should invest in education. Try to practively prevent people from become radicalized through education rather than the working end of a gun.

Right, historians pick and choose which things Paul wrote to take seriously. That was my point. Paul "interest" was and took for "granted"? That clearly references internal motivation and world view. You are basically saying you know what Paul was or was not interested in and why. Those are things that can't been known. If the conclusion was that we simply don't know I wouldn't be debating. I don't claim to know if there was or wasn't not a Jesus. My issue is with the automatic erroring on the side of there was a Jesus. As if until proven otherwise there must have been. To me that is looking at things backward. Until proven otherwise it should be maybe, maybe not.

The Klan espouse an ideology. An opinion or thought cannot be beaten by force. In order for the Klan to grown people must embrace the ideology. Martin Luther King was against violence and probably did more damage to the Klan that anyone in its history. "Criminal drug gangs" get their power from money. They are billion dollar organizations. That money comes from people willfully choosing to buy and use drugs. If we battle all current drug dealers to death other would pop up because there is a demand for drugs and as such there will always be people willing to supply it for profit. The way to beat criminal drug gangs is to do a better job managing drug use within our society. Do you remember the playing cards with different terrorist leaders. Every week we killed someone said to be a jacck, queen, King, or Ace. Top level leader aftertop level leader dead and yet we are still fighting. Situation still not improved. Imagine if we had invested the trillions we have spent in technology to help communities dealing with draught in Northern Iraq and Syria rather than spent it destorying the enemy?