DirtyChai

Even if that was true, why would they want to? First, we have to ask the question if most people at the time were really that familiar with Judaism in the first place? It appears that Jesus was continually at odds with the Jewish leaders of the time. They repeatedly questioned and tried to "trick" him into saying something that would "legally" condemn him. Multiple times he asks people, "haven't you read? Matthew 12:3, Matthew 12:5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 22:31 - Haven't you read, Haven't you read, Haven't you read, Haven't you read? At one point he flat out tells them that they're mistaken because they know neither the scriptures nor the power of God - Matthew 22:2 Many times Jesus's answers "amazed" or "astonished" the people. It got to the point that the sadducees and pharisees were so embarrassed that they stopped asking him questions in public altogether - Matthew 22:46: "No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question." And tho I find Jesus's answers interesting, perhaps even clever and humorous at times, it's not like he was saying anything that radical with respect to Judaism. It was just that the religious leaders at the time perverted Judaism to the point that it was practically unrecognizable. Jesus, Matthew 23:4 - "They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden." The point here is that Jesus was a threat to the power and authority of the religious leaders at the time, which is why they wanted to get rid of him in the first place. And they got the chance when he finally claimed that he was God. While some people state that Jesus never claimed he was God, the Jewish people at the time (as ignorant as they may have seemed) at least knew what Jesus meant when he said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” He also implied that he was God multiple times throughout the NT and stated that "I and the Father are one," which is why they shouted "Blasphemy" and tried to stone Him on the spot. Now concerning his death, it appears that even Jesus's followers were ignorant of Isaiah's prophesy about the crucifixion. They were apparently all giddy thinking that they were going to be rulers of the kingdom and asking Jesus to sit with him on the throne. Even Peter takes Jesus aside and rebukes Him for even talking about his own death, saying “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” Jesus replies, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” So now we have the leader of the religion being mocked, spit on, beaten and brutally killed. Peter denies him, yet eventually finds the strength to carry on his ministry where they (apostles/leaders) are repeatedly beaten and imprisoned for their beliefs. Paul says that "the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (emphasis mine) The idea of a crucified God was ridiculous not only to the Jews but also to the Greeks. And Paul, along with all the other apostles are presumably martyred with the possible exception of John, and Christians continued to be brutally persecuted for hundreds of years until the edict of Milan in 313 C.E So given all that, why would any "literate" person "familiar" with "Judaism" in that time even want to invent Jesus in the first place? Personally it's amazing the religion even survived given the amount of disdain and outright hatred of it. It's amazing that Paul's writings even survived and weren't destroyed along with anything else that influenced 1st century Christianity. Given that, I find this comment of Paul's rather interesting: "when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

Ok, I'll bite. The "double down" makes it interesting. . . This "double" construction or absolute infinitive form of the original Hebrew phrase "you shall surely die" is translated literally as "dying you shall die" and appears to be idiomatic in structure. Variants of this particular construction are juridical in tone each time they're used in the OT, emphasizing the certainty of death for the violation of a specific command. The best example for this thread would probably be 1 Kings 2:37 - "For on the day you (Shimei)go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die." As the story goes, Shimei saddles a donkey and sets out for his servant in Gath. He comes back and King Solomon is notified. Solomon summons Shimei (say that 3 times fast) and says, “Did I not make you swear by the Lord and solemnly warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die'?" Subsequently Shimei is sentenced to death. It's doubtful that all of this would've happened in a single day. This idea is further illustrated in Numbers 26:65 - "For the LORD had said of them, "They shall surely die in the wilderness." Those deaths happened over the course of 40 years rather than a single day. So from these examples, we see that the idiom is emphasizing the certainty of death rather than the immediacy of death. "Of all the verbal conjugations in Biblical Hebrew, the Infinitive Absolute is the simplest in form but the most complex in function, demanding the most sensitivity to its context to determine its meaning." https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/infinitive_absolute.html In your original statement earlier in the thread, you quoted "in the day," not "this day." The original Hebrew construction is translated as "in the day" just as it is written in popular English translations from which you quoted. This particular construction is used elsewhere in scripture, such as 1 Kings 2:37 that I mentioned above, where it didn't necessarily mean on the day the offense took place. It's also used in Genesis 2:4 - "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Given that Genesis lists six days of creation we can see that "in the day" is not referring to a single day. Another example is Numbers 7:10 where "on the day" refers to 12 days of sacrifice. I think one of the issues is trying to translate into English a language with a limited vocabulary, making the context all the more important. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom A Variety of Views Based on some of the above, there are a number of views. 1. Some take the literal translation of "dying you shall die" to mean that the dying process started on that day and obviously continued till they inevitably died. However, while that may make sense, some say that that is an improper usage of the juridical idiom, suggesting that it simply refers to the certainty of death as it pertains to breaking a specific law. 2. Regardless if one views "in the day" as ambiguous or not, some believe that "spiritual death" occurred on that day in the form of separation from God. While some argue that the idea of "spiritual death" is not found here in Genesis, it does fit the whole of scripture, especially when one considers NT ideas of spiritual death. 3. Another view maintains that the death penalty was to be carried out on that same day, however, God being God and Judge, it's His perogatvie to show leniency. As Exodus 33:19 states: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." 4. The next view expounds a bit more on the preceding view held in #3 above. This view holds that the animal skins God used to cover Adam and Eve's shame are seen as the first animal sacrifice for a provision to cover one's sin that we see throughout the OT. However, Isaiah 1:11 states: “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats." Furthermore, in Proverbs 21:3 - "To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." However, in Psalms 53:3 - "They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good,not even one." From this it appears that relying on sacrifice and the ability of man to do righteousness and justice is rather futile. This view holds that just as God provided the initial provision to cover the sin of Adam and Eve, It was up to Him to provide a provision for all mankind. Therefore, God leads by example: Philippians 2:5–8: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." In addition, John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." In light of all this, believers should strive to live in obedience. I'll conclude this view by quoting from Genesis 4:6-7: "The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” 5. Another view holds that, strictly speaking, the serpent didn't lie. (Nor did God.) It focuses on illustrating the differences found in the original Hebrew constructions between God, Eve, and the serpent as it pertains to the penalty of death. Basically, it's saying that the serpent, as "wise" and "subtil" was merely taking advantage of Eve's apparent misunderstanding or naiveté of what the penalty for disobedience actually entailed. Personally, I think this view imposes a bit more on the text than one might want to, but the argument is interesting nonetheless, which is why I decided to include it here. Helpful Links/Sources: https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/infinitive_absolute.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2.htm https://biblehub.com/hebrew/beyom_3117.htm https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4191.htm https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h4191 https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2011/12/dying-you-shall-die https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/genesis-2-17-you-shall-surely-die/ No Place for Sovereignty: What's Wrong with Freewill Theism - R. K. McGregor Wright In the Beginning: Commentary on Genesis 1-3 The Sound and the Fury in the Garden of Eden: William Faulkner's the Sound and the Fury and the Garden of Eden Myth - John P. Anderson

I think you might be overstating the idea that these epistles were forged. The main issue with the letters is that of authorship. For example, Hebrews doesn't state an author, so people try to figure out who it was. Many think it was Paul, while others think it may have been Barnabas or someone else in Paul's close circle of church leaders at the time. (And there were many.) Even Martin Luther favored Apollos as the author. So while the authorship is in question, it's not considered a "forgery." Also, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are not necessarily considered forgeries either. It's just believed that there are discrepancies that call into question the authorship, unlike the seven undisputed letters of Paul. I should note that while the authorship is in question, it's held that the letters may have still been written by Paul. The most disputed are the pastoral letters. One discrepancy is that the letters seems to use a somewhat different style and vocabulary, but considering that Paul might have been writing these letters near the end of his life to other leaders in the same profession rather than mere lay people, we might expect some differences. Another discrepancy is that the letters seem to address problems with Gnosticism which was originally believed to have more prevalence in the 2nd century, however, R.Wilson contended that H. J. Holtzmann's supposed parallels were unsupported. Furthermore, arguments designed around the idea of these letters refuting "2nd century" Gnosticism may be outdated given that "recent scholarship into 1st century Gnosticism has suggested an earlier dominance of Gnostic views." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

Think of the Children! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

I would also add that historians can also be biased by their lack of faith, or perhaps a determination to cast doubt on a religion that they may view as dangerous in one way or another. A biased agnostic/atheist historian may be more determined to expose elements that may have been overlooked by chistian historians, likewise, a biased christian historian may be more determined to delve into the contextual elements and bring to light something that may've been overlooked by an agnostic/athiest historian. Thankfully, we don't have to rely on pro/con bias since biased people are still capable of making objective arguments that speak for themselves. What do you mean, "you people?" Those weren't excuses, just observations of the context illustrating what Paul was actually addressing in his letters. Your only argument is to say that Paul should've been "saying this" and "doing that." As I said before, It's just a very weak argument from silence - and that's being generous given that in several instances I gave you references to where Paul actually did "say this" and "do that." So you can keep calling my answers ludicrous, but at some point you'll have to actually address those answers specifically or it doesn't mean anything - it's something you haven't done yet, either because you can't or because you refuse to. Again, the only ludicrous thing here is you putting Paul in a box and basically saying how dare he write anything about contemporary Christianity apart from the daily activities of Jesus's life. . . Sez the guy who admittedly didn't even read the vast majority of that small collection of epistles. It's reminiscent of creation scientists rambling on against evolution when they don't even find it worthwhile to read the origin of species. It's the least one could do, so please excuse me if I'm more inclined to take seriously those of us that have actually taken the time to read the text we're discussing before even attempting to make "ludicrous" claims. Not to mention those that have spent years earning a Masters/PHd in the subject. I can understand that it may not be as substantial as you'd like it to be, but you stated that Tacitus made no claim about Jesus, but he did. He said that he "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." That is a very specific claim regardless of the subject matter. It also nullifies your claim that the only connection between Pilate and Jesus is through Paul's writings. Are you going to own up to your minor, but careless mistake or not? That's a great point. I was waiting to share a similar sentiment, but I'm glad you beat me to it. For the most part, I think your arguments have been more honest and substanative (dare I say objective?) than others sharing a similar perspective in this thread. Having said that, it's interesting how some of the most skeptical critics here will take as gospel, scholarly opinions that portray a negative image of scripture. For example, some here don't seem to question the "consensus" about which books/letters are considered forgeries. But when it comes to whether or not Jesus was real, they suddenly shout "what consensus!" It all seems a bit disingenuous, if that's even the right word for it. Perhaps "ignorantly biased" is more accurate? I mean, do they even bother to look into the criteria used to deem a book/letter a forgery? Do they look at the weakness of such arguments, or just the strengths? Do they even bother at all? As already demonstrated in this thread, some don't even bother reading the biblical texts they're attacking. The point is that we're not certain. Which is pretty much what you've been arguing the entire time. And as you've already stated, the historicity is of little consequence, especially when considering that the entire religion is based on faith. Christians simple apply to their daily lives certain biblical principles, and it works for them. It provides all the personal evidence needed to sustain their faith. While Christians are still persecuted in a few select countries around the world, the primary source of "maltreatment" against the protected class of Christians in the U.S today (as minimal as it is) is typically limited to a perceived "embarrassment" through "intellectual mockery," if you will. And that's nothing new - take for example Alexandros Graffito. And Christianity has survived much worse, such as the Roman persecution by Nero in 64 C.E to the Edict of Milan in 313 C.E If Christianity has proven anything, it's that it only grows stronger through adversity, both collectively and on an individual level as well, which is why it continues to persist.

And that's great. Such accomplishments should be applauded not derided. That's years of in depth examination of not only biblical text, but the original languages and how it all relates to the historical, cultural and circumstantial context of the time period. It's not like these people are spending hundreds of credit hours playing church. You already alluded to Ehrman's agnosticism, so using him is a bad example of a biased christian historian and counters your own argument anyway. But regardless of whether or not one believes, they can still present objective arguments that speak for themselves without you having to rely on their bias. And these are most likely the same people you rely on when making statements about which books are authentic and which ones are forgeries among other discrepancies people like to parrot. In your OP you mention the "Proper historians." Who are the proper historians? Are they only proper when they appeal to your bias? QED I predicted you'd do this again. We've already discussed this at length 6-7 pages ago, so rather than rehashing it all over again, I'll just link back to the basic summary highlighted in red and blue in the post linked below: It's implied in their writings that he actually existed, so why would they have to make a separate and specific claim that he actually existed? Personally, it would seem very suspicious if they did. It's not like people go around claiming that people actually exist before/after talking about them. That would just be a bit weird. It'd probably go something like this: "May I remind you that Jesus was put to death by our very own! And just in case you were wondering, I do not lie! This Jesus man I speak of actually existed!" It could've very well been common knowledge that he was real, so there was no reason to question it, nor claim it. Tacitus: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus This also counters your earlier statement that "there is evidence Pontius Pilate was a real person but Pilate's only connection to Jesus is through Paul's writings." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#The_passage_and_its_context

We know there are nearly 6000 Greek manuscripts of the new testament not counting the nearly 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. The basic content is believed to have been originally penned from the late 1st to early 2nd century with the earliest preserved manuscripts dating back to the early 2nd century. We know the Gnostic gospel of Mary has 3 manuscripts, one is Coptic and the other two are Greek. The basic content is believed to have been originally penned in the 2nd century with the two preserved Greek manuscripts dating back to the third century, while the larger Coptic manuscript dates back to the late fourth to early 5th century. So while it's a stretch, it's practically an impossible one. The Davinci code sold nearly 80 million copies and was turned into a movie that grossed nearly $758 million at the box office alone, while the passion of the Christ grossed $611 million. That same idea has been illustrated in many documentaries across multiple cable TV stations like Discovery, Nat Geo and The History Channel to name a few. So I find it hard to buy into your idea that writing content bringing christian views into question is "cutting yourself off from a lot of sales," as if it's preventing scholars from being objective.

Well, I had some time today to relax, grab a bourbon and reflect on the situation a bit. I was browsing some other political forums, and everything seemed to boil down to the typical liberal this, conservative that garbage. I can't stand it, yet here I was projecting a similar attitude. It just shows how this divisive mindset has saturated American political discourse. Phi, I wholeheartedly agreed with your response about not looking at everything as white vs. black, lib vs. con, etc., but I just ignored it and insisted on rationalizing my own position rather than focusing on the integrity of the forum. I can appreciate your lack of tolerance for such unnecessary comments in order to keep this forum clean, unlike so many others out there. I really don't know why I took such a simple concept so personally and I owe you both an apology.

I'll admit that you coming in here a few days later to stir things up again got under my skin a bit. I felt that iNow and I pretty much resolved the problem on our own. He said his piece and I said mine. I acknowledged the issue and said I'd avoid it in the future. Note how we're now discussing each other rather than the actual topic. That's the inherent problem and ultimate purpose of ad hom - to divert attention away from the real issue by focusing on the poster without having to provide an actual argument of your own.

No, merely looking at a piece of litter and calling it lazy is not the same as actually taking the time to pick it up, and is lazy in itself. And again, I really didn't mean it as an attack on liberals or conservatives, but acknowledged how it could've been viewed like that. CharonY seemed to be able to look past all that and took the time to address the real question with a substantive response without calling someone a "misguided, only accurate by accident, lazy fool!" That's the problem. I didn't insult anyone's character, but stuck to the topic. I even applauded his illustration of unconscious bias. I didn't insult his reading comprehension abilities when he relied on links that only contradicted his claims. And it's not that he didn't acknowledge my response to his objections and accusations in previous posts. I get it. If you're too busy or don't want to talk about it, fine. But then don't peek back in just to offer some lame ass passive aggressive ad hom without any substance whatsoever. As a moderator, I find it surprising that you would support such indolent tactics as if they were something to be thankful for.

Not sure if you guys have seen the video of this weatherman from TWC yet, but it made me think of this thread. Note the people coming into the background at around the 15 second mark. This guy's funny.

First, point taken. I can see how it may be interpreted like that. I'll try to avoid it in the future. Second, I consider myself a moderate, probably left leaning and more liberal than conservative. But considering I'm practically surrounded by respectable conservative influence in practically every aspect of my life, that might not be saying much. Third, I really didn't mean much by it. I was just making a very broad comparison of typical liberal vs. conservative views based on my social media observations. Forth, It makes you look foolish/lazy when you say mitigating implicit bias is easy, then link to an article that contradicts that statement. Fifth, it makes you look foolosh/lazy when you don't address any of my content except the most trivial point of all in an attempt at some type of patronizing semi-quasi ad hom. Should I say thanks?

Then I guess I'm just easy. iNow's comment resonated with me a bit: "Otherwise quite good people... well trained, well raised, and well intentioned... you and me included... too often fall victim to unconscious biases " It helped me understand more how it could increase the disparity a bit. Tho I was always aware of unconscious bias (if that makes sense, lol) I never really thought that it could cause a cop to actually kill another person as explicit racism could. And there are still studies that support that. For example, while police showed bias in reaction times toward blacks, it didn't translate to their ultimate decision to shoot or not shoot. The disagreement is whether or not the disproportionate numbers are more related to racial bias vs demographic and socioeconomic issues. We know both play a role. Ok, I'll bite. Against my better judgement, I'll open myself up a little and offer a bit of my own anecdotal flare since at this point it seems relevant and may provide some insight into my perspective in previous posts. I grew up in a small neighborhood in the middle of Detroit City. (Here's the part of the script where I'm supposed spend time building a rapport with the audience so that subsequent tragedies are more heartfelt, thus securing a 60+ rating on the rotten tomatoes scale.) But anyway, I'll just cut to the chase. When we were in our teens, not only were we also followed around by security guards throughout the store, we were taken to the back room where we were then thoroughly searched before being able to leave. After a high school girls basketball game, we were all drinking in a parking lot several blocks away from the school. When the cops came, we all ran, but my buddy was caught and beaten as the police questioned him for gang information - he wasn't in a gang. In another instance, after a dispute I was handcuffed to a rail. Back then I was a bit of an asshole (still am in some ways) and I mouthed off to a cop about how this is just a bunch of BS and he started to choke me. In another instance during a dispute just outside an L.A pool hall, the cops rolled in and my initial instict was to just run, but after several steps, I thought better and kneeled down with my hands behind my head - then several seconds later, Boom! They tackled me, handcuffed me, then repeatedly beat me in the face while emptying what seemed to be an entire can of pepper spray into my face. It seemed to go on forever. I could do nothing but burrow my face into the gravel as deep as I could. I could feel the cop digging his hand underneath the gravel trying to get the spray directly into my eye as they continued to beat the sides of my face and back of my head. At one point, I couldn't breathe at all, my lungs felt like they just locked up. I honestly felt like I was about to die. My point in all this is that for a long time I felt that living in the city just comes with more risk overall, cops are more suspicious/cautious and everyone is suspect regardless of race. In violent, poverty stricken neighborhoods it's normal for stores to have security guards. It's their job to follow people around, so even though I was followed around, of course blacks are going to be followed around more since these areas tend to have more black people. You don't need some elaborate study to tell you that, just some common sense and mathematics - calculate the odds, it's a numbers game. We know that these negative encounters happens to both whites and blacks. Maybe it's explicit racism, maybe it's bias, maybe the cop is just a dick, maybe he just hates criminals, maybe he just hates the way some people dress regardless of race, maybe he hates rednecks and thugs equally. Even if we are able to eliminate racial bias, we still have to deal with excessive force and police brutality overall - and I still think the numbers would be disproportionate given the current demographics and over policing of black neighborhoods. It's a good thing that people and groups like BLM draw awareness to the issue, because any policy implemented will benefit society as a whole, regardless of race. One has to wonder, if the numbers weren't disproportionate, would anything have been done to address the problem? Liberals only seem to be concerned because it affects blacks disproportionately, while conservatives remain apathetic. They just don't care regardless of race. Their mindset remains consistent - you play with fire, you get burned.

I just think it helps to make a distinction between implicit bias and explicit racism when applicable since there's a difference. When people are calling for the heads of "racist pigs," it implies explicit racism. And if that's clearly the case, then fine. But if it's not, people may be more inclined to talk about the idea of "implicit bias" since it's more relatable and easier to understand. Neither are very helpful. The first just dismisses a sensitive issue in a rather insensitive way, while the second just automatically assumes racism even if it isn't.

And that may have a lot to do with the word "racism" often being used to describe implicit/unconscious bias. Racism is a very strong word and is often associated with things like the KKK, lynchings, etc. Most people can't relate to that. It's also very hard to have a conversation on the issue when people fear being shouted down as a racist for having an opposing viewpoint. They just get turned off and remove themselves from the issue altogether. In other cases, the perception of no bias may be fueled by overstating instances of perceived racial bias. Continually "crying wolf" has the tendency to divert attention away from legitimate issues. "Police brutality" becomes cliched and people stop paying attention. Protesters start being viewed as merely standing ankle deep in water shouting at the tide - and conservatives that may have otherwise taken notice start to become more skeptical and begin viewing it all as some ploy to advance a liberal agenda. Since they feel this issue of disparity doesn't directly affect them (or at least something that can be fixed within their life time) they start to focus more on self preservation of their conservative ideals, especially now given the volatility of the political climate. Ultimately, we really need to start having more honest and inviting conversations on the issue, and I think terms like "implicit bias" are more conducive to that effect. However, I'm not very optimistic. There's always the threat of radical trolls on both sides stirring everyone up and thwarting progress, now more than ever it seems.

Right, but you're missing the point that population itself is not the only determining factor in how police are allocated to a particular city and the neighborhoods in which they're deployed. For example, tho they have similar total populations, Chicago has 11,954 officers and Houston 5,182. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-officers-per-capita-rates-employment-for-city-departments.html Furthermore: "Cities with great economic inequality between racial groups will not strengthen their police force if poverty is minimal because less prosperous groups pose little threat to affluent groups if few live in poverty. Cities with great poverty will not heighten policing if economic inequality between racial groups is negligible because less prosperous groups do not threaten more successful groups if economic disparities are small and poverty is widespread. However, cities with high levels of poverty and great economic inequality between racial groups will enhance their police force because affluent groups are threatened by groups that are worse off when economic disparities are pronounced and many live in poverty. "https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/08/how-race-and-inequality-influence-size-urban-police-forces/6510/ "Our criminal justice system and different aspects of our criminal justice system are racist in application. . .Even if there was no intent in the design for racism, we've gotten to a place where it's the result of our policies." "minority residents of the community are getting policed more intensely than people that live in other neighborhoods that have smaller proportion of minority residents and lower crime rates." https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/police-racism-implicit-bias It does in terms of who's actually being affected. And while the model of Detroit isn't going to fit perfectly with other areas, we do see similar patterns of density and segregation within various cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc. . . True, but are those living sparsely throughout rural areas in the south the ones being largely affected? It still looks like police shootings of blacks in the south are primarily concentrated in and around cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Tampa etc. . . https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/?utm_term=.bf2d32e348c9 And that was really the primary purpose for bringing up crime rates in the first place. It's the perception of danger that fuels bias. Again, using Detroit as an example, there are neighborhoods with high rate rates of crime and those with much lower rates, but in he officer's mind it doesn't really matter much since it all looks and feels the same. Add to that the heightened level of police interaction that increases the odds of being subject to police bias and it's no wonder the the numbers disproportionate. I believe that study was linked in an article that I quoted earlier: "Black people, more often than white people, live in dense urban areas. Dense urban areas are more heavily policed than suburban or rural areas. When people live in close proximity to one another, police can monitor more people more often. In more heavily policed areas, people committing crimes are caught more frequently. This could help explain why, for example, black people and white people smoke marijuana at similar rates, yet black people are 3.7 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession." I apologize in advance for repeating myself, but as I asked earlier of another poster, how do we mitigate that? Studies show that bias exists, however: "we still have a lot to learn about the ways that biases influence people's decisions and behavior in the real world" "Yes, implicit bias can affect us. The more important questions are, which persons are affected, and under what conditions?" "We feel like we have to do something, but sometimes the action we take proves to be merely window dressing," "There are contractors that provide [implicit bias training], but there's zero evidence that what they do has an impact," "We don't know how to lastingly change implicit biases, particularly those as robust and prevalent as race and crime—and not for lack of trying." "In two studies with more than 6,300 participants, all of the interventions reduced implicit prejudice in the short term. But none of those changes lasted more than a couple of days following the intervention—and in some cases, the effects vanished within a few hours" Given that, I wouldn't put my faith in cops effectively policing their own bias. While researchers scramble to find solutions to control that bias, bias even among black police officers, It seems a more practical approach would be to adopt and bring more attention to CDC recommendations and programs aimed at addressing our violent culture and educating our youth that would ultimately provide opportunity for blacks to become more integrated throughout society. And indeed we already have. "cities that do the best job of creating racial economic equality and widespread opportunity may be able to devote fewer resources to keeping the peace. One would think they'd also be less likely to devote extensive resources to "racially discriminatory" police tactics." https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/08/how-race-and-inequality-influence-size-urban-police-forces/6510/

These questions have easy answers that have already been offered. Now we just need the will to act on those answers. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/12/cover-policing.aspx It doesn't seem so clear cut and as easy as you make it out to be. . . From your linked article: "There's evidence of racial disparities at many levels of law enforcement, from traffic stops to drug-related arrests to use of force. But the roots of those disparities aren't always clear. Experts point to systemic problems as well as the implicit (largely unconscious) biases" "It's a nuanced problem but people continue to take a polarized view," "Similar to community participants, officers showed evidence of bias in their reaction times. But those biases evident in their reaction times did not translate to their ultimate decision to shoot or not shoot" "While research points to some patterns in implicit bias, we still have a lot to learn about the ways that biases influence people's decisions and behavior in the real world" "Yes, implicit bias can affect us. The more important questions are, which persons are affected, and under what conditions?" "We feel like we have to do something, but sometimes the action we take proves to be merely window dressing," "There are contractors that provide [implicit bias training], but there's zero evidence that what they do has an impact," "We don't know how to lastingly change implicit biases, particularly those as robust and prevalent as race and crime—and not for lack of trying." "In two studies with more than 6,300 participants, all of the interventions reduced implicit prejudice in the short term. But none of those changes lasted more than a couple of days following the intervention—and in some cases, the effects vanished within a few hours" All these points are more or less reflective of my initial reply above. Here are some additional helpful links: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html "Black people, more often than white people, live in dense urban areas. Dense urban areas are more heavily policed than suburban or rural areas. When people live in close proximity to one another, police can monitor more people more often. In more heavily policed areas, people committing crimes are caught more frequently." https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism "Some of these disparities are explained by socioeconomic factors — such as poverty, unemployment, segregation, and neglect by the police when it comes to serious crimes — that lead to more crime and violence in black communities. As a result, police tend to be more present in black neighborhoods — and therefore may be more likely to take policing actions, from traffic stops to arrests to shootings, in these areas." That graph is showing populations by entire counties. These urban counties aslo include suburban cities. For example, Wayne county is shown as an urban county and includes Detroit, but it also includes about 50 suburbs of Detroit. So it's a bit misleading and irrelevant to context of my position. I understand my statements were rather general, but to understand what I'm trying to say we can't look at this on a state level, or a county level or even on a city level. We have to break these big cities down and look at the individual neighborhoods that are still relatively segregated. We have to look at why it's the densely populated black neighborhoods that are policed more often which leads to the disproportionate number of interactions with police, a disproportionate number of traffic stops, a disproportionate number of arrests, and of course, a disproportionate number of shootings. Yes I understand that, but to be more specific, I'm looking at how crime rates compare within neighboring communities which determines how police are allocated within a city/metropolitan area. As you highlighted, I was talking about Detroit. If you look at the map below, you'll see how the majority of blacks are crammed into a relatively small area compared to whites in the suburbs and beyond. Detroit has a crime rate that is about 10 times higher than the surrounding area which leads to a greater level of police allocation and a disproportionate amount of interaction. Correct, but those cities have lower populations ranging from a whopping 8 people to 22,000. While the crime rate is high, the overall amount of crime is still relatively low so there is no need for a high level of police allocation. Chicago for example is about to allocated 600 more police to high crime neighborhoods. Many of the cities in your link don't even have 600 citizens. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-police-deploy-officers-20180807-story.html# "430 officers have been added to patrols in five of the hardest-hit districts on the West and South sides. Those numbers will increase to 600 by the weekend, he said." If you look at the map above, you'll see that those 600 police are going to be allocated to the blue areas on the west and south sides. Those are poverty stricken black neighborhoods and its only going to increase the amount of police interaction. They aren't sending the police to downtown Chicago that is packed with a bunch of "rich" white people living lavishly in high-rise condos with much lower crime rates. And don't think for a second that I'm trying to insinuate that blacks are somehow inherently more prone to crime than whites. I grew up in the middle of Detroit and am well aware of the socioeconomic problems that unfortunately make it seem that way to certain people. The whole thing is just heartbreaking.

The problem with this is that we really don't know the level of unconscious bias a cop may have, nor the role it plays in determining whether or not they shoot a suspect. How do you measure it? How do you mitigate it's effect? On top of that, it's just an unsatisfying answer. What are we to tell black people, "Yep, that's it, unconscious bias, nothing we can do about it, sorry, I really don't know what else to tell ya bud, just don't make any sudden movements I guess - sucks to be you, eh?" Yep, numbers and majorities indeed. The majority of whites are dispersed throughout the entire country. They typically live in less populated suburban and rural areas where there are fewer police and thus less interactions with law enforcement in general. The majority of blacks however tend to live densely populated within inner cities that have higher populations and more law enforcement officers policing a smaller area, increasing the overall amount of police interactions. Detroit for example has a population that is at least 4 times as dense, with 4 times the number of cops per 1000 people. Add to that the heightened level of police suspicion due to higher crime rates and it's no wonder the numbers are disproportionate. A white man in the inner city would most likely be treated with more suspicion and approached with more caution then he would in the suburbs. A good comparison study would be to look at the number of white men killed in the inner city as apposed to suburban/rural areas. Having said all that, I must admit that a black man in the suburbs would most likely be approached with more suspicion than a white man due to conscious or unconscious bias as you claim. To put it all very simply, shooting white men in the suburbs would be like shooting fish in a lake, whereas shooting black men in the inner city would be like shooting fish in a barrel. We are still a very segregated country, and while I agree that racial bias plays a role in why black men are shot, I still see it more of an issue of demographics and an unbalanced socioeconomic structure built in part upon decades of institutional racism that must be undone.

Unconscious bias Ya, most likely in some cases, but probably not most. I have a bit perspective I'd like to share, but it's getting late and will probably have to wait till tomorrow.

It's interesting that the owner, at 57 is looking to retire from this place. I would think this is something that you would like to retire into, if that make sense? Maybe it's not all cracked up to be what it seems. After all, the guy is practically paying to give it away.

Since I'm new here, I'll tell you from the onset that I'm not a rabid gun control advocate. I believe the most effective and efficient way to reduce gun crime in this country is to address our violent culture through programs that educate adolescents. The fact is that gun crime in this country overall has been on a steady decline for the last 20-30 years despite a steady increase of guns over the same period. So above all, I believe that we our a society consisting of responsible adults capable of owning dangerous tools. I'm hopeful that through ongoing CDC research and their recommendations that this decline in crime will continue. I believe in self defense, however, after viewing video of a shooting at a convenience store in Clearwater, Fl. I believe the problems with stand your ground laws needs to be addressed immediately. Do you have any thoughts on why that may be? Because most people aren't murderous arseholes looking for an excuse to kill their neighbor, nor do they live in areas where it's easy to mistake where it is they actually live. Even if they did, the odds are that they wouldn't have a gun anyway. It would then be extremely suspicious to buy your first gun and shoot your neighbor shortly thereafter, especially if there was a documented history or witnesses of a negative relationship between the two. Furthermore, you couldn't really use this defense to "accidentally" walk into the wrong apartment miles away from your own and shoot the occupant, especially if you had a previous relationship with this person and thus a possible motive to shoot them in the first place.

I would love something like that. I wish there were more pictures. It looks like they sell lattes, so I would like to have a nice coffee bar, perhaps with a liquor license so I could sell Irish Cream, wine and Dirty Drunken Chia, of course. I would like room for a nice comfortable atmosphere where people would feel invited to stay awhile and read whatever they wanted. Maybe even incorporate a digital pdf licensing system where people can access any ebook with the purchase of a drink or two.

Science isn't needed to validate biblical principles found elsewhere in scripture that when applied to one's life produce all the personal evidence needed to sustain their faith. Your point has nothing to do with the issue being addressed which is how the process of scribal transmission mitigated copying errors over a 1000+ year period. The Dead Sea Scrolls, namely 1QIsa, is strong evidence that speaks to the reliability of that process. If you bothered to read the content in the links provided, you would've seen that they're not only objective, but provided everything you needed for a counter argument. But it's clear you're not interested in a discussion on the issue.

Just to be pedantic, an average sentence has about 15 words (source). This means that there are a total of 150 words in the set you've defined (10 sentences x 15 words). The average bible has 807,370 words across an average of 1,200 pages (source) making an average of 673 words per page. Thus if there are 10 sentences such as you claim, that would represent only 0.22 pages, barely one quarter of one page, not 1.75 pages as claimed. Right, I started with the 1.5 pages of the creation story plus the 10 sentences from the wiki link for a total of about 1.75 pages. In all honesty, I was just trying to use a bit of subtle humor in phrasing it that way. It made me chuckle. The whole point of this was to illustrate how the Bible wasn't really written to explain the universe around us as beecee claimed.

That link lists about 10 different sentences from various parts of the bible, so that brings us up to about 1.75 pages. Citation please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribe#Judaism https://scottmanning.com/content/process-of-copying-the-old-testament-by-jewish-scribes/ https://bible.org/seriespage/5-transmission Citation please http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222016000400037 "The Dead Sea Scrolls indeed are holding up to their reputation after more than 65 years of research, and we will have to see whether this can be said of the latest discovery in the Judaean desert. This study demonstrated that some scrolls correspond to a large extent with the MT - 1QIsaa is an appropriate example." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Biblical_significance "This was a significant discovery for Old Testament scholars who anticipated that the Dead Sea Scrolls would either affirm or repudiate the reliability of textual transmission from the original texts to the oldest Masoretic texts at hand. The discovery demonstrated the unusual accuracy of transmission over a thousand-year period, rendering it reasonable to believe that current Old Testament texts are reliable copies of the original works." http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah "The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery. "Through the activity of generations of sages (known as "Masoretes"), who faithfully preserved and transmitted the sacred words across centuries, an authoritative or Masoretic version of the Hebrew Bible gradually evolved, containing its definitive correct text, proper vocalization, and accentuation marks. The Aleppo Codex, transcribed by the scribe Solomon son of Buya'a and annotated by the scholar Aaron ben Asher in the 10th century CE in the Galilean city of Tiberias, is considered the finest extant example of this version." http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bible_isaiahscroll.html The major difference between the Aleppo Codex and the Dead Sea Scrolls is the addition of the vowel pointings (called nikkudot in Hebrew) in the Aleppo Codex to the Hebrew words. These pointings provide the vowel sounds that are not present in the Hebrew language and were probably inserted into the text to standardize the pronunciation of the Hebrew words in the text. The name ישראל (Israel) in a Dead Sea Scroll (left) and the Aleppo Codex (right) Archer, Gleason. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985. "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text." Here, you can sort them by date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#Papyrus_1–50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#Papyrus_51–100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#Papyrus_101– Wouldn't subsequent text depend only on the idea that God created, rather than how he created it? Furthermore, one could say that the core and foundation is Jesus Christ. One doesn't even need to read the OT to become a Christian, nor do they need an understanding of the universe to apply christian principles to their lives. It was simply an answer to a question.