Ten oz

@ Tomgwyther, to add on to your comment Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of herione and military operations there to combact terrorism has only grown that industry there. Not meaning to be a conspiracy advocate but the argument could be made that western governments are not interested in combating herione.

@ the OP, I believe the war on drugs is nothing more than a tool used to influence and control communities. The last 3 Presidents of the United States all admittedly have used drugs. Yet in the united states people are drug tested for various jobs, program egibility and drugs are used to justify any number of police interactions. In modern society where it is no longer tolerated disenfranchising people based of race, sex, age, community, and etc drugs has become the new way to disqualify people and tilting the scales. Walk through any large college campus in the united states and you'll smell marijuana in the air. No police raids or future ruining prosecutions. At the same time in other communities federal, states, and local departments spend time & money running undercover operations looking to prosecute people to the max. For some doing a little ecstasy or weed at a summer festival while watching their favorite band is just part of being young. A right of passage. For others it becomes the reason they aren't allowed to vote, hold a govt job, and struggle for respect in society. I believe a lot of people do not feel drug laws should apply to themselves but are happy that they apply to others.

From the same Wikipedia source you have referenced. "The sources for the historicity of Jesus are mainly Christian sources, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[30]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus The page also references that there are scholars who do not believe in Jesus. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory Coverup and exaggerations are your words. As I have already pointed out many major religions are often based on inspirations sent to authors by god. Normally written as first hand accounts. Most all Gods have back stories as well. Nothing different about Jesus. We could just as easily be debating whether or not Noah and Moses were real. Their stories are part of a religion's foundation and aslo treated as actual history. Why must Jesus be anymore real then they may or may not be? Christ myth theory doesn't seek to explain the motives of the New Testement's authors. Krishna has a story and history as elaborate if not more so than Jesus'. Do you have any trouble with the idea that Krishna may not have been real? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna I think you are over looking the fact that history can often be bias. Most scholars of antiquity believe Jesus was real just as many native Indologist believe Lord Krishna was real. The Historical view about Jesus has been written primarily by culturally Christian people. It is not a coincidence that as western society has become more secular and less christian things like the historocisy of Jesus and other biblical histories are being more closely scrutinized. Of course a hundred years ago and back the majority of western historians believed Jesus was a real man. The majority of them also prayed to him as well. Or at the very least pretended to pray to him so not to be outcasts. Which is partly why Jewish references like the Talmud have been dismissed. It challanges dates and stories in the New Testament which for better or worse has been part of western history for over a thousand years. Cultures prefer their own interpretations of history over that of other cultures. Which is why growing going through school we studying Greek mythology, Roman history, the "new world" discovery, and etc. On my own, essentially an adult, I finally bothered to wonder what had happened in the rest of the world throughout history. In my opinion some of the most honest reviews of history are being done now. We (the world) are becoming more secular, less racist, and more interconnected which is allowing for less bias and honestly about what we believe and why. Dogma of the past should not be ignored merely because it is the think of old anymore than its persistence and pervasiveness lend it extra consideration.

My apologies for the Eisenhower thing. That was my tablet's attempt to spell for me and not intentional. I should review my posts more closely before submitting.

@ Eisenhower, you are still insisting that historians believe Jesus was real and treating doubt as though it were some fringe theory. You have been provided ith ethe names of scholars who do not believe Jesus was real, whole organizations of scholar who do not believe, yet you continue to state as fact that historians believe. It seems to be the only argument you are using successfully. That we are all not historians and as such should not second guess their conclusions. However it is not the conclusion of all historians and there is a lot of work out there showing that there may not have ever been a Jesus. Truly the only description of Jesus comes from the New Testment. Josephus and Tacitus do not describe Jesus' life. While you may accept the New Testment as a reliable source I do not. How do you decide which parts are fiction and which parts are fact? You say that you do not believe in resurrection, walking on water, and so on but then proceed to insist that accurate historical information can be found in writings that contain such obvious fictions that are stated as first hand accounts. You say that Paul's hallucination aren't to be believed, please tell me what in the Pauline epistles is to be believed? As for comparing the Pauline existles to Luke, Matthew, Acts, Mark and etc I don't think it is worth doing. The Pauline epistles are the most solid works everthing else is far less clear. Did Luke and Acts have the same author? What was John's association with Peter? What was Jude's association to Peter? Who was James? Without known authorship or if the writings are in there interiority or properly translated before addition the New Testament is not a reliable source hallucinations, magic, and so on aside.

San Diego county is building a desalinisation plant. That is an interesting start. I think changing the our source of supply is necessary. As for a tax; I don't think it would go far enough to change habits. Regulation is required. Building contractors should not be allowed to build homes and facilities with landscapes that require daily watering for example. Perhaps water pressure should be lowered so sinks, showers, and facets in general push out less water per minute.

I do not believe in resurrection,walking on water, virgin birth, and etc. In my opinion science can disprove such things. The New Testement is full of fiction. That makes it an unreliable historical source. There is no way to tell fact from fiction. If the Federalist papers included passages about Washington transforming into a Dragon and flying around the countryside breathing fire on the British It too would be considered an unreliable historical source. This is a science forum. I don't think I need citation to affirmatively say a man can not turn water into wine through extra sensory powers. Why do I need a working theory for what motivatived Paul to say he saw a vision us a resurrected man? Simply understanding that resurrection in not a real thing should suffice as proof the story is not real. Being inspired by god to write religious text is not an orginal thing. Muhammad was inspired by angels, Joseph Smith shown tablets, Moses a burning Bush, and Peter a vision of a resurrected man. It is typical for the authors of religious documents to base there work on visions or hallucinations. If Josephus and Tacitus actually wrote about Jesus' life with the intention of documenting him as a real person I would consider that compelling evidence. Rather they only mention Jesus so to describe other people they were writting about as Christian. it is not the samething. As for the New Testement it is not possible to tell which parts are total works of fiction and if any parts are real. Which means there is no reliable source that actually chronicles the life of Jesus. Again, Josephus and Tacitus do not chronicle Jesus' life.

The historical figures you have mentioned as examples all have multi-sourced biographies. They also have works that are attributed to them by multiple sources. Some of those sources are contemporary while others are not. Jesus only has one biography, the New Testement. Neither Josephus or Tacitus chronicle Jesus' life. Both just simply say the name while chronicling other events. There is a difference in my opinion between several historians writing detailed biographies about a specific historical figure and two historians simple making mention of Jesus to discribe others as Christians. I am not holding Jesus to a higher standard. If several historians like Josephus and Tacitus wrote purposeful text chronicling the life of Jesus and if there were writings or other works attributed to Jesus I would believe it more or less proved Jesus had been real. Rather, the only thing that actually chronicles Jesus life in the New Testement which describes Jesus as God in human form, capable of walking on water, and rising from the dead. Do I have a theory for where Jesus' story comes from? Where do any religious stories come from. Where did Joseph Smith's golden tablets come from or Moses' burning bush? All religions have a history and most of those histories are pure fiction in my opinion. The story of Jesus does not strike me as any less fallacious. Feel free to disregard my response if I have misunderstood your question.

The New Testament is not a creditable source as it is impossible to seperate truth from fiction assuming there is any truth in there at all. How can I pick and choose which parts to believe? I don't believe the first hand account of resurrection but I am suppose to believe the second hand account about people who were said to have known Jesus? I just don't see how that works. As for the two known Religouis text references Josephus and Tacitus they are both inconclusive: Tacitus quote is not about Jesus. It is about Nero blaming Christians for a fire. Tacitus references Jesus as a description of Christians and not necessarily as an account of Jesus' life. Tacitus was not contemporary to Jesus and lived during a time when Christians already existed as a group. Josephus similarly uses Jesus to describe a person. Calling James the brother of Jesus. In various contexts brother is often a religious reference as members of faith often refer to each other as brothers and sisters. It is unclear if Josephus was simply calling James a Christian or literally saying that James was blood realitive of Jesus. Plus many debate the authenticity of the Josephus reference. Either way both Josephus and Tacitus make passing reference to Jesus. Neither, in context, actually chronicle Jesus' life. Thales, unlike Jesus, was chronicled in some detail be many. Herodotus, Diognes, Douris, Aristotle, and Xenophanes all wrote about Thales. Also there are mathematical equations that are said to have come from Thales. Tangible and testable equations that clearly are not works of fiction that must have originated somewhere. Walking on water or being resurrected are not a tangible things that clearly happened. As for Heraclitus there are fragments that are credited to him. If you would like to start a topic analyzing the historical record of Geek philosophers feel free. Whether or not Thales or any other person who was not Jesus are considered real is an off topic conversation. Intinially useful as examples but distractions if you proceed to insist on citation. You can google the above references but I am not going to follow you down a rabbit whole of debating historical figure after historical figure. This thread is about one historical figure, Jesus.

Socrates, Heraclitus, and Shakespeare all had contemporary text written about them and they themselves contributed to works. If the same could be said about Jesus I would most certainly believe Jesus had been a real person. Pauline epistle are religious texts in the New Testament written by Paul the Apostle. You say they were written 20yrs after Jesus but they are not contemporary accounts of Jesus' life. In them Paul claims to have had a vision of a "resurrected" Jesus, not knowing or meeting the living man Jesus. So to believe the Pauline epistles are accurate I have to accept resurrection, which I don't. Religious text are normally written that way. Moses was inspired by the voice of god, Muhammad had visions of angels, Joseph Smith was shown text by angels, and Paul the apostle had a vision of Jesus.

@ StringJunky, I agree. As stated in the OP I grew up believing that Jesus had been real and that there was historical evidence to support as much. I think for a long time many historians took for guaranteed that Jesus was real as well. Both as a matter of culture and not being interested in entering a fight where they might be labelled as anti religion during times in history when that may have hurt a career. From what I have been able to read there really is not much in the way of evidence either way. There have been groups such as the "Jesus Seminar" comprised of over a hundred scholars who examine the historicity of Jesus. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar Historians and theologians types like Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and Richard Carrier who are have written many books and essays on the issue of Christ's historicity. You seem to be dismissive of there work as anti religious while insisting on a consensous scholarly view that does not exist. The link you provided http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus from Wikipedia does say that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was real. However it's not shared view of all cited and peer reviewed sites; "The increasingly common view of Jesus among New Testament scholars as of 2007 is that "historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament".[2] Some scholars have gone as far as to say there were several possible "Jesuses" candidates with no indication of which (if any) is "the" historical Jesus.[3][4] Ironically, based on some of the definitions provided, [5][6][7] these could be said to qualify as Christ Myth Theory positions" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ I do not know if there was a single real person the story of Jesus is based on. The best argument I have seen for a historical Jesus actually came from Richard Carrier who argued that unless their is a compelling reason not to accept commonly held historical views it should be a matter of best practices to do so. Of course he then went on to say he believed there was compelling evidence against a historical Jesus. His first point remains. The best evidence I have seen is for the Jesus is that so many believe in his historicity. As for the evidence, there is none. Neither Josephus or Tacitus were contemporary and neither of their quotes were actually about Jesus in context. Josephus was writing about James and referenced him as a brother of Jesus while Tacitus was writing Nero blaming fires on Christians and referenced Jesus as the whom Christians believed.

@ Eise, I am not of the view that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was a real person. I have posted links in this thread that speak to the "evidence" of Christ's historicity you have posted well as illustrate the ongoing debate amongst scholars. The link in the OP is a good place to start if you are interested in the debate.

Many texts are in the form of carvings in stone and in some cases copper. While others have been transcribed over time to preserve their information. Cuneiform, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Indus script, and so on are much older than 2,000yrs and texts have survived. As have art, evidence of construction, tools, jewelry, and etc. All that information can be assemble to aint pretty clear pictures of how many people live and who many of them were. How that relates to Christ; a tool with a carving indicating it had belong to Jesus which could be dated to the time frame he is believed to have lived would be compelling evidence of his existence.

I believe in things that have either been proven to be true or where there is compelling evidence. I have never seen compelling evidence for God or any type of afterlife. Sheer popularity of or desire for a specific concept does not qualify as compelling evidence in my opinion.

There is a historical record. We know about the existence of many historical figures based on contemporary written accounts, first person writings, contemporary art work, and etc. Your implication that at 2,000yrs "who knows" is not accurate.

That comparison is a little off in my opinion since we know for fact that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is fiction which merely utilized a known historical figure. In the case of Jesus and the New Testement it is not known if the events are 100% fiction or if Jesus was ever a real person. Its more akin to King Arthur and Excalibur than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Like Jesus it is not clear if the events in the story of Excalibur is based on a single King, loosely based on several Kings, or just a total work of fiction not meant to reflect any specific King. Merlin, Arthur, Lancelot, etc characters may or may not have been based on real people.

So the "house" should censor itself to ensure first time religious visitors feel welcome?

That last statement was meant to reflect that I wasn't being combative. : ) While nothing can 100% prove Jesus was not a man there is actually a number of this that could prove he was. Contemporary writings about him, a tomb (empty or not), evidence of something he made or wrote, and etc would be proof of his life. Disproving seems like the tougher task. Richard Carrier make a really good argument against real life Jesus in the link I put in the OP.

The books that make up the New Testment were written over a period of time spanning around 100yrs and known of them were written during the supposed life of Jesus. The Quran was written a few hundred years after that. As for the Torah, it speaks of the messiah prophecy for which Christians belief believe Jesus was but not of Jesus himself. Jewish people do not believe the messiah has come yet. They do not believe in Jesus. So known of the three religious books mentioned are contemporary accounts of Jesus. One, the Torah, actually doesn't mention Jesus at all. That doesn't prove or disprove Jesus was real person.

While few car owners own horses,

I suppose they are competing ideas much as cars and horses are competing forms of transportation. People in the market for a car won't consider a horse instead.

Excellent point. Going a step further I wish this is how society looked at law in general. In my opinion laws should be about organization and prevention. We should put people in prison to either protect society from a potentially dangerous person or as a deterrent to others. I don't think laws should be viewed or used as revenge.

I think there is a big difference between being disagreed with and outright censored. This forum has allowed you to post your thoughts. This thread has not been locked or deleted. The censorship I see comes in the form of keeping posters on topic and preventing language that may turn people away from the site. Sometimes when a poster makes statements of fact that are inaccurate a moderator with point it out or perhaps censor the comment. Simply adding the words "in my opinion" to a comment will prevent that in a lot of cases. From what I have seen this forum allows all posts so long as they are on topic, supported by facts, or stated as personal opinions. For example a moderator might give me a warning if I post "it is a fact that the flood happened and Noah's was real". However if I say "I believe in the flood and the story of Noah" no warning would follow.

Allow me to first just say that I don't believe it would be there is a third world war coming. China needs us (USA) to purchase goods and Europe needs Russia for energy. All the players here are actually partner. This discussion is all just a bit of nonsensical fun. I think in a fictional situation like a third world war controlling all the land to the north outright would be more ideal than having to work with a Canada for permission. The area would be far to important and as a matter of national security the U.S. would not always feel like telling the Canadians what they plan to do or say please. During previous world wars Oceans separated the United States from the bulk of the the fighting. Our enemies had planes but not the endurence to fly them to the States. The northern passage opening up changes that. It is a much shorter trip for an enemies Navy and both Russia and China have aircraft carriers. Not only would huge military operations happen but the infacture would become perminant. The United States would place large bases, ports, railways, roads, and etc in northern Canada that they'd won't to keep there for good without compromise. As for I think that friendships would survive. The United States could annex Canada without any shots fired. Besides in a situation like a Third World War would NATO, an organization created in part to box in Russia/communism, side with the Russia and China because the U.S. annexed Canada?

God as a cause solves nothing. The next immediate question becomes what caused God. If that answer reflects a God that is beyond cause than why can't that be applied to the universe? In any event starting with God and working forward goes against the scientific process. We should not merely assume their is a God and then proceed to accept it as truth until proven otherwise. All things we know to be true about the universe were proven to be true before gaining acceptance. God should be no different. When god is proven I will accept him/her/it. Until then God remains a wildly speculative concept IMO. .....btw, no sciences laws or codes of conduct prevents anyone from finding evidence of God. Religion has had a huge impact on the science community and all of society in general. It effects the way people think about history and the world as a whole today. Ignoring its psychological, sociological, and historical footprint on humanity wouldn't true to science. Think of all the great scientific minds we lost to religious fanatics. All the potential discoveries that went up in smoke as scientists were burned alive while being order to repent. Today scientist are more free to speak & write but religion is still used as a weapon against them. Religion in part aids the beliefs behind climate denial and evolution denial. In my opinion it should have a place in a science forum.