Ten oz

@ MigL, pretend for a moment you owned a store in a mall and every afternoon following the floors being cleaned and wet floor signs being prominently placed but two people on average slip, fall, and hurt themselves. Now, you are not legally liable because you had all the proper warning signs up. However the injuries do effect business as some people are afraid to shop in your store while the ones who do are often inconvenienced by paramedics rushing around. You ask around other store owners in the mall and find you have multiple times more slip and falls as any other store your size. What do you do? Just assume your customers make worse choices or accept that something is wrong with your system? The United States has a problem. The incarceration rate for blacks is world beating. We have more prison inmates than any other country on earth and they are predominantly minorities. Police in the United States shoot and kill at significantly higher rates than any other remotely comparable country. You chalk it all up to individual choice? Nothing wrong with the system? Individual officers simply need to do better jobs severing the community? I see the world very differently. When a problem is as pervasive and widespread as what we are dicussing and the trends far worse than in other places I think the issue is clearly systematic. If I was that store owner in the mall I would change the way I went about cleaning the floor until I found a way to get it done that brought down the number of slip and falls I have. I went with an analogy to change things up. I know that can be tedious as power points. So I thank you for making it through. This is a terrific question. You have hit an angle most of us have been trimming around the hedges on. Unfortunately I will continue to trim for now as I believe a full response would create too many side debates about our (USA's) drug laws, gun control, definition of Jurror of one peers, the definition of justifiable homicide, what should be a felony, what rights felons have, private vs public prisons, and etc, etc, etc. Several of us are currently engage is a specific line of discussion and I don't want to completely derail it.

Mathew and Mark are in the New Testamment and that is where Jude is identified as a brother. As for the Epistle of Jude" The Epistle of Jude, often shortened to Jude, is the penultimate book of the New Testament and is attributed to Jude, the brother of James the Just." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Jude This is clearly New Testament sourced material.

Again this more of the New Testamnet used to prove history."Jude (alternatively Judas or Judah) was one of the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55) according to the New Testament. He is traditionally identified as the author of the Epistle of Jude, a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven general epistles of the New Testament — placed after Paul's epistles and before the Book of Revelation — and considered canonical by Christians.[1][2]" We started this back and forth after I posted that evidence always led back to the bible. You said it wasn't bad as that and all we have done since is debate the New Testament. Where is the non biblical evidence of Jesus? You posted that you had studied this for years. Do you have anything that doesn't come for the New Testament?

When do you believe Luke and Acts to have been written? "Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[20] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[5] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[6]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke What writings? I would be interested in reading. Do you have link? If by errors you are referencing grammar I admittedly can be sloppy. I apologize if it is distracting.

For starters it is Paul who is claimed to have identified Luke, the gospels (Luke/Acts) were not signed. Luke is said to have interviewed eye witness to Jesus. Again, Paul wasn't contemporary to Jesus and never knew Jesus as a man. Luke's account was put into writing something like 80-100yrs after the time Jesus is said to have lived. So at best if we accept the traditional view Luke is a third hand account. This is the trouble I have with using the New Testament to prove history. Luke is suppose to have known eye witness and that fact is somehow proved by Paul who himself wasn't an eye witness? Its circular logic. I have seen the arguement made a numbers times that 2,000yrs on it would be hard to prove someone existed. I think it is a rather weak argument that persists only because so many use it. For example we can prove Julius Caesar existed. Plenty was written about him during his life (not a hundred years after), he wrote things down himself, art contemporary to him, and etc. The rebuttal to that generally claims that Jesus was not as significant during his life as someone like Caesar so the comparison doesn't work. However Jesus was important enough to have disciples, Apostles carry of his story, an entire religion sprang forth from his tradition within something like a hundred years. Jesus was significant enough to have had someone contemporary to him write something, anything, down about him? If Luke was real, interviewed people who knew Jesus, and wrote Luke and Acts himself why did it take a hundred years after the crucifixion for them to be written? It is also worth noting that not only isn't there solid prove Jesus was real but there is solid prove any of his relatives were real. What Happen to his Mother, Stepfather, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, and etc. in the years of when the church was born and Jesus became its God where were those relatives? James was said to be an early leader of the church and was killed other than that rumor and myth surround the other immediate family members. With in a generation any stories of the family are gone. As Jesus grew in importance surely a grandchild or great grandchild of Mary would have come forward? Some attempt to keep a family tree made by the early church?

I think Hope as an explanation is too simple. Humans generally like to believe they are in total concious control of there thoughts. We rationalize our emotions. That isn't necessarily the case. Whether its the music we enjoy or the food we most like often it is purely a matter of familiarity, culture. How a person dresses, the greetings they give, and sort of god they believe in vary all around the world. It is learned behavior. I am a atheist and yet when I hear or see the word God I think of Jesus. I have been conditioned by my culture. When people tell me they believe in Aliens (as having current interaction with earth) I think they are nuts. What someone says they believe in the devil I think they are typical. What is the difference? If there were a Devil wouldn't he/she/it basically be an alien? The Devil was not created on earth. Neither was God or angels. So why do I find belief in Aliens more strange that belief in Devils and Gods? It is all just conditioning.

What you quoted is the traditional Christian church view and not the critical view of scholars: " Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view." "The epistle of Philemon, almost universally accepted as an authentic letter of Paul, merely includes the name "Luke" among other "co-workers" of Paul who are sending greetings to the letter's recipients (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians 4:14, but Colossians is widely believed by New Testament scholars to be not an authentic writing of Paul, but "pseudonymous", i.e., written under a false name.[14] 2 Timothy 4:11 also mentions a "Luke" and refers to him being "with me" but most modern scholars do not accept 2 Timothy as an authentic letter of Paul either.[15]" Authorship of Luke is not clear. Paul's letters are the earliest works scholar agree are authentic and Paul was not contemporary to a living Jesus. There are not any known authentic eye witness sources for Jesus. Paul does claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus post crucifixion but that does not lend itself as evidenc of a living human Jesus less one accept resurrection.

Who wrote Luke?

So it is as I described? Biblical sources are at the base of the evidence we have. As for Luke it was not written contemporary to Jesus, has unknown authorship, was inspired by Mark which was inspired by the Pauline Epistles, and doesn't seperate fantasy from fact.

The non bibical evidence for Jesus that I am aware of:Tacitus Josephus Evidence that Pontius Pilate was real. Tacitus was not contemporary to Jesus. His writting mention Christains and basically defines them as believing in Jesus. Tacitius does not record that a man Jesus' ever necessarily existed. Much more context is needed for Tacitius' brief references to be solid evidence. Josephus' work has been challanged by many as counterfeit. If we accept it as truth what does it really tell us? Josephus wasn't contemporary to Jesus and focus more on Jesus' brother James than Jesus. Josephus' work was written after the Pauline Epistles which make of a huge portion of the New Testament and is understand to have inspired the Gospels. We would need to know Josephus' source of information to really put a value on it. Evidence of Pontius Pilate as evidence of the existence of Jesus is dubious in my opinion. For example Abraham Lincoln was real but that doesn't mean any of the events from "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Killer" are also real. If we had writings from Pontius Pilate saying in first person that he put Jesus to death that would be excellent evidence. That isnt what we have though. Rather we just have evidence that Pontuis Pilate probably existed.

Of course it isn't. I was referencing Dionysus and whether or not his story was inspired by an actual person. I was not implying that any of acts attributed to Zeus may have been real. Back on topic I do not believe that Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead, walked on water, or was the son of God. However I do accept that there is a chance that the story of Jesus is based on some real person who might've lived. I started this thread thinking there was a 50/50 chance that Jesus may have been a real person. I vaguely assumed that because I am not an expert in antiquities or a theologian that there may be compelling evidence I wasn't aware of. Twenty Four pages in and I am starting to think it is more likely that Jesus was entirely made up. The more I researched the more I am surprised by how little evidence there is. The Historisity of Jesus appears to be a house of card where modern historians just base their work of early historians. Go back far enough and the entire story only has biblical sources. Nothing free of magic, propaganda, heavy editing, unknown origin, and etc.

The pendulum does swing but demographics haven't. The GOP only wins one group, white males. That group is a shrinking one. The trend is pulling away from them. It isnt swing back and forth. The GOP can still win Idaho, Utah, Kanas, Wyoming, etc because those states voters are still predominantly white male. Such is not the case in larger States necessary for winning National races.

The argument has been made a few times in this thread that most myths are rooted in some truth. While I don't see that argument as being tangible evidence of anything I accept that it does beg to question; could the myth of "Son of Zeus" started as result of a man or men achieving greatness that people then chose to attribute to Zeus? It isn't an unreasonable possibility.

Government that does nothing does best is just a opposition slogan for when they are out of power. When they have power they do a lot. Reagan spent massive amounts of money and grow the government by record amounts as did Bush. conservatives also love to flex international muscle selling weapons to fuel rebellions or outright invading countries for precieved strategic gain. Having a federalist packed court is critical to conservative policies. 5-4 decisions have decided many key political issues. Even put the last GOP president in office. The longer conservatives are out of the white house the more footing they loose. They aren't the one packing the courts, writting policy for the DOD, DOJ, IRS and influencing foriegn polices. Law and Order, Strong Miliatry, intimidating foriegn policy, and Taxes are the key issues GOP has focused of for the last 40yrs and without the Executive Branch they don't have control of long term influence over those things. The inability to win national office will force a shift in the party. We already see some signs of it. Current frontrunners Jeb Bush and former nominee Mitt Romney both have discussed the for the party to better court minorities and change their immigration stance. While the Libertarian wing get huge applause everywhere they go by championing marijuana legalization. By 2024 after 16yrs out of the White House I believe we will see a Republican party that is almost identical today's Democrats. Remember Bush ran as a "compassionate" conservative. Bush was pro immigration and ran around the country championing low interest rates helping poor people own their first home. He gave trillions to senior citizens for prescription medicine without working out how to pay for it. If not for 9/11 making many conservative foriegn policy, military build up, and civil rights dismantling possible Bush would've been a rather boring moderate.

When multiple people with the same job make the same mistake it becomes clear there is a bigger problem.

@ Waitforufo, while there are 3 branches of government the Conservatives need the Executive Branch the most. That is how they pack the courts, get military contract deals, and influence forgien affairs. The motto of anti government and the best government is the one that does the least isnt one that best lends itself to the senate. Nationally the demographics are against the GOP. They are on their last leg. Winning mid term years alone won't cut it. They will have to evolve n many key issues to have a shot at winning major national elections. They have lost yhe popular vote 5 of the last 6 presidential elections and are polling for another lashing in 2016. They may hang on to Congress but that alone doesn't keep them whole.

The way it plays out practically is through government. We acknowledge that current policies and standards don't work and change them. We recognize that the system has errors. We don't just put it off on individual choices made by individual police officers.

@ iNow, your post was well written and clearly done with effort to view bothsides. However you still imply there is responsibility both ways. That somehow if everyone just made better choices all would be fine. If a Black person in Ferguson or anywhere else commits a crime they are rightfully arrested. The man who endangered protesters around him and almost killed two cops has been caught and will be prosecuted. As individuals blacks pay for their behavior. Pay for making bad choices. On the otherside of this nuanced debate prosecuting those Officers who get caught beating or killing people on camera doesn't address the problem. The problem is institutional. The problem is in how laws are written and enforced. There are proceedures that need to be changed. The personal behavior of police is not the reason why the United States leads the worlds incareration rate. Personal behavior is not why police in the United States shoot at and kill at a significantly higher rate. I agree it is fair to treat Blacks civilians as individuals. That is what they are. I disagree Police should be viewed as individuals. They are part of an organization. This is not a double standard. If a Black person were part of a gang/club that had an ongoning history of specific behavior I would feel the same way about all members collectively. I would view the collective as something to be dealt with and not focus on each members individual behavior.

They shared legal liability because there is an understanding that police represent more than themselves individually. That is the point I was looking to make. No one is arguing that there is not a system but the argument is being made that individuality in this debate is more relevant than group organizational uniformed representation. An argument I read as forget about the system; people are people and make mistakes.So while the system is not being denied it is sort of being ignored. What's been implied is that Police are no more representative of their group than blacks are of their group. Police are sworn officers of specific organizations while blacks have nothing else to do with each other than race. Individually blacks have behavior but collectively they do not. I posted "unorganized" civilian population. I did not say that civilians were unable to organize or that they never have. In the context of this conversation in Ferguson or more broadly throughout the country all Black people not organization. Some Blacks are part of various organizations but the two are the same.

You are right I posted Administrative branch when I meant Executive Branch good catch. Thank you.

Rodney King was awarded 3.8 million dollars by the city of Los Angeles because the officers that beat him were representing themselves? The point of uniformidy and officer codes and conduct is to limit "vastly different actions" from officer to officer. There is a difference between arguing that the system isnt perfect vs there is not a system at all. Police do represent more than themselves individually. Some do a better job than others but that doesn't make them equivalent to the completely unorganized civilian population they serve.

How populated is all that red vs the blue? The demographics are strongly against the GOP. @ Overtone, Roberts will be on the bench a long time but Scalia and Thomas won't. Once federalist judges lose their 5-4 advantage lots will change.

Police make oaths and uniformly follow the same directives and policies. They do not operate as "individuals". Each is representative of a larger group. That is why following abuse or other rights violations departments, cities, and counties often end up with lawsuits. As individuals blacks do not represent anything beyond themselves. You can not take a specific community of blacks to court. Communities of blacks do not all make oaths or answer to the same superiors.

There is a history of and modern examples of Police Departments having policy that specifically target/treat blacks differently. From Jim Crow laws just less 60 years ago to St Louis County having to disband departments because of racism. Thos are examples of organized groups of police acting collectively against the black community. There is not an equivalent to that in the black community acting against those Police. Not every Black person in Ferguson organizes and protests. Every Police officer in Ferguson does work for the same department and answer to the same bosses. There is a clear distinction.

I believe Conservatism as a major political influence in on its last leg. Voting Demographics have been trending against conservatism for 30yrs. W. Bush squeezed in just in time without the popular vote and 9/11 allowed for climate where Bush was able to push a lot of things through (DHS, Patriot Act, two wars, Roberts and Alito, etc). Today the GOP has little chance of winning back the administrative branch. They only win one voting demographic and seemingly every major city/economic driver in the country (Seattle, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, LA, Boston, Philadelphia, etc, etc) votes Democrat. Once the Federalist Judges on the Supreme Court no longer have the majority I believe Conservativism will become a fringe portions of the GOP are be interiorly banished to a third party all together. 5 - 4 decisions like citizens united and all the various assaults on the voting rights act will be repaired. That will essentially be like pulling the life support plug on the GOP. The problem is slowly fixing itself. These days are the death throes. Scalia and Thomas can only out live maybe 1 - 2 more administrations. The GOP has gone too far to turn the corner with Black and Latino voters. Society is becoming more educated, less religious, more diverse, and less afraid of other countries.