Ten oz

I know the question wasn't directed at me but it is one I would like to respond to all the same. I am on the top of your proverbial fence. I do not believe there is compelling evidence to either definitively say Jesus (a human man) existed or to say Jesus did not.

Who is due? In your opinion what gives any of them a "good chance". Republicans have only one the popular vote once in the last 6 national elections. We are still 10 months away from the first primary race and already Rand Paul has knocked several possible opponents, a walk out was performed during CPAC against Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie has taken swipes at Scott Walker. No such battling thus far on the Democrat side.

^^^^ Add to that we don't even know who wrote the gospels attributed to John: " The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[20][21] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[22][23] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

I think Jeb could win the primary but I doubt he attracts enough Latino voters to win. While he personally is much better on issues that most likely matter to Latino voters Republicans have spent the last 10yrs branding themselves the opposite. Starting when they blocked Bush/McCain's guest worker push in 04'-05' and straight thru to today where they just tried to block DHS funding. Jeb can not over come where his party is on the issues.

Excellent point. Happiness or contentment in healthy people is most often a choice.

@ danno180, I don't think OP's deserve negative reputation points so I helped even you out there. Then I had to add a neg rep to the Hilter comment directed at the Mod. Is there a question or specific point of discussion you started this thread for? Perhaps it would be best to go a point at a time with what you "see fluidly" in your head.

These mentioned have already been dicussed at length in this thread. Many believe the Josephus writes are forgeries while Tacitus only mentions Jesus as a description of who Christians are. Neither mentions Josephus or Tacitus were contemporary to Jesus' supposed life.

@ Graeme M, I think more to the point consciousness is rooted in our bodies. My brain in a body with less testosterone and more estrogen would function differently. Not only that but our bodies both provide our consciousness it's only means of interacting with the world but defines those interactions. Our identities, concept of self, sense of character, and etc can not exist without a body. Being tall, attractive, a racial minority, female, ugly, fat, skinny, etc, etc, all play a role in shaping our view of the world both unconsciously and consciously. Our bodies also provide us pleasure. The feeling of a tasty meal, warm of sunshine, softness of a lap cat, thrill of sky diving, and so on. I think a bodiless muchless a brainless existence is rather preposterous. We are the entirety of ourselves not merely some unmeasurable, unidentifiable, non human spirit.

The message attributed to Jesus years after his claimed life written down by those who had never him is not evidence. The line of reasoning that Jesus has to have been real because Christianity is so substantial simply isn't a compelling one to me. By that line of reasoning every deity with a substantial following must be real. So IMO Jesus' message is irrelevant to the discussion has it was not written by his hand.

I don't disagree. I just can't picture in my mind how that would be executed. Perhaps I am too accustom to military solutions. What steps would be taken between now and the arrival of peace seeking leaders?

Do nothing and mind our own business is not what I am advocating. Though is does seem to be the approach towards handling the radical Islamic Terror in Africa. Rather we need to understand our limits and failures. Understand that what we consider best may actually be worse in the long run like when we armed and trained Al Qauada and gave the Taliban power in Afghanistan during the 80's. Seemed right at time. Had we done nothing and minded our business Russia and communism may have gotten a permanent hold on part of the region. Who knows? In these matters hindsight does not appear to be 20/20.In the United States it took a few wars to figure out our borders. An independence war, Civil War, Mexican American war, and other conflicts like the Quasi war and Spanish American war. Took lots of death to finalize the country. In the Middle East many of the countries were draw on the map by the British. Perhaps we should consider that mistakes were made. Perhaps some of the countries in the Middle East should not be Countries or that some should be a different size? Maybe the Kurds should have there own country,perhaps tiny little massively wealthy countries like Kuwait and Bahrian should be a larger bringing a better standard of living and capitalism to more people? There are a lot of very hard decisions to be made and thus far all we have done is play wack o' mole in the middle east. Can you name any western intervention into the middle east that had a long term positive effect?

You are right. I conflated the past with the present. My point was more directed toward those who have shared opinions regarding the need for western military action to some how create or foster democracy in the region. As you pointed out my specifics about the past were too linear. Western interests and approaches in the region have changed with time.

You are right. I meant Hosni Mubarak. Morsi can to mind instead. I would edit my post but I general dont think editing posts that have already been responded to is appropriate.Mubarak is considered to have been a corrupt leader taking bribes and using his position to make himself and family incredibly wealthy.

The Narco Terror bombing of Avianca Flight 203 killed 110 innocent people. Narco groups like FARC activity lead guerilla military movements with armed forces numbering many as 10,000 in Columbia, Venezuela, and Ecuador aimed at displacing governments. Then of course you have countless officials who have been assassinated by Cartels. Many as 1.6 million people have been displayed by the Mexican drug war just since 2006. "By the end of Felipe Calderón's administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[77] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[78][79]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War So I think you are wrong in respects to the scope and aims of Narco Terrorism. The war on drugs and The United States need for a policing presence in Central and South America is old hat. It lacks the novelty of being new and a political wedge issue like radical Islamic terror. Politicians don't fall over themselves rushing to microphones to debate the nuances of calling FARC a narco terrorist group, a cartel, or guerrillas the way they get to with labeling Islamic Terror. When and how President Obama used the word Terror following Benghanzi was a key moment during a presidential debate meanwhile Mexico only came up in regards to immigration.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is simply the counter insurgency to the U.S. led Iraq war. When Bush said "bring them on" the them he was unknowingly referencing is what ISIL is today. We (United State and western nation allies) can not successful intervene today if we fail to understand or acknowledge the cost of such intervention previously. No Iraq war, Saddam is still in power, no ISIL. The belief that democracy is superior to the dictatorships that rose after western nations took a ruler to the region following WW1 has only replaced tyranny with terrorism. Are Libya, Egypt, and Iraq better off now that Gaddafi, Morsi, and Saddam are gone? Has Pakistan become a better place since Musharraf was forced out ending his quasi military rule? If the answers to the above questions are no, unclear, or not sure than this far all interventions in the modern era have only made matters worse. That should caution/humble our policies moving forward. Democracy is great but peace is even better.

I have never "died" or been near death. I have had surgery though (achilles repair) and been made chemically unconscious. I went into it assuming it would be akin to sleeping. It was not. I was given gas, told to start counting backwards, and instantenously I was in the recovery room with my wife and a nurse. I did not expireince even one second of time passage. In a time frame that literally felt shorter than even closing my eyes I had gone through a 4 hour long surgery. I was told to start counting backwards from ten and before I got to eight I was looking my wife in the eyes. I don't even recall opening eyes. One second, 4hours, or eternity was no difference. Had I expired during surgery I instantaneously never would have known or cared.

I have seen this article before. It is punditry and not a scientific study. It is just the authors opinion supported by non peer reviewed research performed by parties not related to the article. So again, Kenyans are not on average "tall" in comparison to Jamaicans. As for a theoretical Kenyan born transplant to the united states how does that address secular trend?

I supplied a link showing average heights around the world. Kenyans, Ethiopian, and other people in Eastern Africa are not taller on average than Jamaicians. As far Kenyans conceived, born, and raised in the United States what is your data? Thus far you have only mentioned something you once read. You have not provided any real information. Familiarizing yourself with "secular trends" and there environmental drives may be useful to this conversation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/503084

The Infant mortality in Jamaica is 14 per 1,000 http://www.indexmundi.com/jamaica/infant_mortality_rate.html The Infant mortality rate in Ethiopia is 55 per 1,000 http://www.indexmundi.com/ethiopia/infant_mortality_rate.html The average caloric intake per day in Jamaica is 2,850 compared to Ethiopia's 1,950 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake Comparing Eastern African countries to Jamaica in the context of athletics is not an apples to apples comparison. Many environmental factors are different. All those differences impact birth weight, growth and development, opportunity, general health, and etc, etc, etc. It is not surprising that the average person born in a poorer country with higher infant mortality rates and a lower daily caloric intake would be "gangly". Not hard to understand why those people wouldn't excell at sports requiring lots of immediate quick twitch muscles and burst of power and energy. As for the taller part I am not sure that is true. What info I can find is on women and the average Jamaican woman is taller than the average women in either Ethiopia or Kenya. Normally male height follows. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Average_height_around_the_world

Environment matters. If you took a group from the Carribeans and moved them to Eastern Africa with in a couple generations they would be leaner and all that too. East Africans generally live at high altitude and get less fat and protien in their diets. The differences between various groups of people at not absolutes. Environment and culture play the biggest role as we all basically have the same DNA. I provided an environmental example above here is a cultural one; The United States fails to produce a top Soccer/Futball team while countries of different races like Holland and Brazil repeatedly are able too. Does this mean people in those countries have a genetic predisposition for Soccer/Futball? Of course not. It just means those countries care more about it culturally and more of their people are inclined to commit themselves to it. Jamacia could produce a top long distance running team within a couple generations if culturally the Island became as galvanized around that as they are sprinting.

What ISIS is doing is terrible but we shouldn't over react. Narco terrorism in Central and South America kills more people. Globally dirty drinking water and starvation kills more people. ISIS craves attention. The only reason why people outside Iraq and Syria even know who ISIS are muchless travel to join them is because we provide provide them the attention they seek. Western media can't shut about them. Yes ISIS are a threat but the average person living in my country (USA) is over a thousand times more likely to die in a car crash than at the hands of ISIS. People can not best moved to peace through war. Radicalism in the Middle East is fostered by a multitude of conditions. Simple killing the current resident radicals does not remove those conditions. Worker rights issues in the affluent nations, Opium harvests, collateral lives lost during Russian and American wars, and many other issues must be addressed. We can't just kill away ISIS and expect democracy to flourish. We tried that with Al Quada and the Taliban already and it got us no place.

ISIS doesn't post their beheadings online because they don't want western retaliation. Where is the line here between appeasement and a strong response?

We are all able to have this conversation online thanks to an accumulation of scientific knowledge. What tangible benefit has religion ever provided?

Knowledge of a specific thing vs overall intelligence; an auto mechanic doesn't have to be smarter than a medical Doctor to fool that Doctor into repairs that he/she doesn't need on his/her car.

@ overtone, I think on many levels the reason why people can't leave their pasts behind is because society is built on so many false pretenses that are protected by Privacy, Secrecy, and Lies. How many people do you suspect sit in prison today for crimes that their arresting officer, prosecutor, and Judge are are also guilty of? Things like drug use, reckless driving, driving under the influence (phrama, alcohol, illicit drugs), domestic violence, child abuse, and etc are far more common that we generally admit. Rather than acknowledging that most people make these poor decisions at various points along the way society plays holier than thou. For example in a truly honest society should anyone be in prison for drugs? @ MigL, terrific scenario. In an honest society I think people would acknowledge the human propensity to follow cultural trends. Especially miltary personal. Following orders without hesitation is seen as a valuable trait amongst service members. As it relate to culture broadly following the emancipation act the government did not seek to prosecute former slave owners for civil rights violation. No one ever atoned for killing natives Americans. Rather society progresses best, IMHO, when mistakes are openly acknowledged and people are able to move on. If retribution, justice, or whatever its called is truly a necessity to move beyond wrong doings than the whole planet must be burned to a cinder because there isn't a group of people on earth today who haven't benefited from or participated in some crime against someone else.