jawapunk

Yes I agree with you to some extent. However, we do not have proof that all the gospels were written by the apostles themselves and I'm sorry but if you can remeber thousands of conversations exactly after 30+ then you might be an idiot savante. I am sure events may be hard to forget but timelines, which people said what, what was actually said, and the fact that Christians were actively trying to spread their religion, creating a movement. Creating the divinity of Christ would be an inspiring story. Proof of divine inspiration please?

I'm sure many of you may have read this. Which Forum Archetype are you? http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000436.html I would suggest Kengs is either the Troglodyte or the Deacon. However by me saying that it probably makes me the enfant provacateur. Not sure if it belongs here, but I suppose it can be seen as ones internet morality.

Your right I don't an original copy if the new testament. I also don't have the millions it would cost to buy one, if they were ever up for auction, or if any actually exist now. However, scholarly research has dated when these texts were written and I did provide sources for that. Now if you have contrary information, please provide it. I don't think you have enlightened anyone as you are merely spouting opinion.

Man, you are seriously obnoxious and rude Kengs. Why are you such an a$$? Are you implying that Drea is a whore? That she slept with alot of guys and let one slip past the goalie? What is your problem?

Actually, there are alot of leagues where you can win money for this. Not only that but you can get tons of sponsorship deals. However, you have to be really good. Kind of like Olympic athletes. However, as they are almost exclusively amateur they cannot get sponsorship deals until they are proven winners. That is why it is imperative that governments sponsor athletics. Why is it important if someone can run fast or ski quickly? Really it isn't, either are any of the myriad of professional sports whose athletes get millions. If the government wants to pay athletes $20,000 to win a gold, it really is a pittance when you consider the years of training and the sacrifices to careers they go through.

Wow. That is all I have to say in response to that. I think I just woke up sixty years ago. I suppose that is your point, but really it seems tad sexist. I think women are intelligent enough to understand sacrifice.

Ahhhh, I see what happened. I had edited the post but you commented on it before my edit. Please read what I edited. Not your fault, was mine.

I never said the gospel was written over 100 years after his death. I said his death was conjectured as anywhere between 85 to 120AD. I was saying this would have made him crazy old at his death and unlikely. I then said that the site I got that info from didn't seem of historical value. Please read posts more closely as you have taken my words completely out of context.

That quote only discusses 3 gospels. There are many other gospels and books in the New Testament. Also I don't have exact ages for the apostles but I do know life expectancy was very low and that 65 to 85 was far from the norm. I did look into it and there are only a few whose deaths are known. Regardless of that your quote also shows that the earliest time that one of those three gospels was written was 65 AD. That is about 32 years after the death of Christ if that death occured in 33 AD. Even if the same person wrote these gospels, that is an amazing amount of time to recall actual conversations, things said, events, timelines. It is not suprising then that Jesus's life is fantastical in many regards. http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q6_apostles_die.html One apostles death, that of John, is conjectured to be between 89 and 120 AD. That seems pretty far fetched to me as he would have been an adult by Christs' death. To live nearly 100 years after that is pretty well unheard of. However this is admitted as conjecture and no known date is there. That web site I gave is not very good however and doesn't seem to be of very concrete historical value. If anyone can find this out please post as I am interested in this.

I have no idea why what I said seems ridiculous at all. I am not sure where Dancer gets his dates from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#Gospels So where did the other dates come from? Anyways at 45 A.D. as the first date of any books written, this is over 12 years approximately from the death of Christ, still a ridiculous length of time for oral transcription of such a lengthy text. 140 AD is over a century. The error in so called first hand accounts etc would be enormous. Also, following Christs death, he was used as a political tool by many of his followers and I would also suggest that his biography as it were, in many ways was fabricated to spread the word and gain more following. Again, I see nothing ridiculous in this. The bible is a book. Stating that it is divine making it infallible is totally ridiculous. It is completely open to scholarly debate just as any other man-made text is, and there are countless texts and researches done on it. To simply state that everything is true within its pages and there can be no question, even though there have been contradictions and historical errors brought to light by historians and scholars is basically pulling the blinders down over the eyes. As far as the analogy to Homer's Iliad. Your logic is faulty, I am not talking about COPIES. I am talking about the original time these gospels and books were written. The range of dates is from 45 AD to 140 AD. Then over CENTURIES the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches argued over what books and gospels fit into their views. This was the process of canonization and these "meetings" called synods. Look them up before you spout crap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod Within these they argued about texts, the divinity of Christ, Mary and the apostles,the relationship of the trinity and a plethora of other topics. This is where our modern Christianity comes from and what you ascribe to today is based on centuries of debate and revision.

Umm actually the New Testament was not written within the lifetimes of the apostles. That is why so many people have come to doubt. Not only that over the centuries because of canonization and various translations from one language to another the Bible has changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Authorship It would be impossible for the gospels to have been written by their original apostles in many cases because some were not put to paper until well over a hundred years after Jesus's death. This means that many of the texts were handed down orally which always results in error. Think of the game Chinese whispers which you may have played as a child where you say one sentence to a child and they whisper it in a line from one child to the next until the last child says what he/she thinks was the original statement. The statement is invariably skewed to some degree if not entirely. Now this takes ten minutes, lets take texts that are thousands of statements long and expand the time frame to decades upon decades, even over a century. The error would be enormous. Also, once again you simply refute things I state. I have allowed that you have your OPINION and I have mine. For these kinds of statements where there can be no factual backup, there can never be a wrong answer. You can't simply state I am wrong. However if it is possible to PROVE me wrong with factual backup, sites, citations, sources etc. then by all means utilize these and prove once and for all the universal immorality of homosexuality, as well as the many other contentions you have made. Otherwise you will have to admit these are simply your opinions or beliefs and therefore are not universal. As for my belief that Jesus was a gay man. It is not simply that he was single and had no children etc. Thinking of the timeframe and his occupation/wealth/social status, he would have been aberrant not to have taken a wife. As stated, he was of sound mind, good health, occupied in a trade that could afford him a family and it was part of their culture to marry and procreate. You can't project modern societal standards upon the past. Being single wasn't what it is today. It would be abnormal to go through life without amarriage and producing children, many children. And as Jesus was in his thirties(?) I believe when he was crucified, he would have been middle aged. Perhaps he had a wife and children prior to this or had a wife who died. I don't know, but my contention is that either he was a gay man or was married. I do think that his image within the Bible and what church dogma has created over the centuries paints a very different portrait ofa real man and that he is made to look more pure/saintly and messianic that he probably was when breathing.

Pretty sure I understand what the service sector/industry is, but if you don't believe me or need a refresher yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_sector Front line service sector jobs do require a basic need in communication. However many service industry jobs require no skills at all. These would include almost all restaurant jobs which have expanded incredibly in the last 20 years. I'm glad you told me that I couldn't say if the service sector expanded last year without giving any contrary data. It bascially means you couldn't answer that question yourself. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ40.htm You'll notice from this table that the accommodation and food services aswell as the transportation and warehousing account for a large percent. You'll also notice that the service sector itself accounts for 2/3 of ALL INDUSTRIES. I know you willprobably try to come back at me here and say that there are many jobs here that require skills/degrees and communication and that is correct. This was not my contention however. I am saying that the service industry is expanding and is becoming very important to the total Canadian economy, this includes expansion of many non-skilled and low paying jobs that are well suited for immigrants to our country. This is because many Canadians will not be willing to take lower paying jobs when they have gone through University or trade schools in order to have a higher wage. I guess I was right there then and not talking out of my ass. There are also a ton of other soite discussing the service sectors increasing importance in western societies. I can scan some of my business books for you too if it would help. Anyways. Here's a hint. Read more.

It is fairly useless to discuss this with you. You have no conception of economics and I have not parroted anything back to you, but rather brought other links together to demonstrate major flaws and holes in your arguments. It is sad that you cannot admit when you have clearly argued in error. It is a part of debate, you win some and lose some. If you don't think that 5.04 trillion in public debt and deficit spending that has increased to hundreds of billions per year is irresponsible and unsustainable there is something seriously wrong with both your logic and reasoning. Anyways. I have made my case. If you wish to have the last word that is fine. It is not important nor will it indicate any further substance to this debate. I am fairly confident I have demonstrated what I needed to. If you continue to blindly follow and ignore stated fact that is your delusion not mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_Policy...e_United_States Umm it pretty clearly states here your country is running a deficit every single year. In 2005 alone it was $319 billion. Here is another link stating that the public debt in 2007 stands at $5.04 TRILLION. Also in 2005 the debt accounted for 64.7% of GDP. I am pretty sure you can draw the same conclusions as I have when faced with this evidence. you can take your time apologizing to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt

Ummm..I said I was wrong about GDP. I 'm pretty sure I have proved you completly wrong in that regard. You simply dismiss the formula it is calculated on as irrelevant. You completely miss the point. Could you give me the link to the wikipedia as I cannot find what you are stating.

Here is another nice link for you to read. Check out HISTORICAL TRENDS: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf Hold on I'll find some more

You are just not getting it. Your GDP is growing because of the rdiciulous amounts of money being spent on Iraq. Your $3 trillion federal budget is not in the black, it is in the red. You are BORROWING vast amounts of this amount in order to meet your spending needs. This federal spending that is BORROWED is called DEFICIT SPENDING, as in money that you do not have. Again, the Marshall plan worked for Europe and Japan because those economies had infrastructures in place and modern economies. The money repaired and kick started these economies. In the middle east you are dealing with countries whoe leaders have been pocketing fortunes while the vast majority do without. There is little infrastructure in place, if any and cultures and economies that are not concurrent with modern western ones. This means it will be FAR more expensive and the results may not be what you are looking for. Especially since as I said, many of these countries have leaderships that have historically funnelled money to the elite and done nothing for their people. There is nothing nonsensical about my arguments. I think you are really reaching, don't worry about losing some face here. It is ok to be wrong.

I should also add that Americans in general had to make huge sacrifices economically during WW2. The public bought war bonds and also had widespread rationing on almost all food and goods. This is not the case now which is why the government is forced to borrow so much money

Did you even open the link I posted? The formula for how GDP is calculated is right there. It is pretty clear cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP It is pretty clear cut. Government spending is there which, At the moment much of the United States government spending is deficit spending, not harmful necessarily except when it is as massive as during the Bush administration. There is simply no fiscal responsibility whatsoever. Finally (exports-imports) will give you either a trade surplus or a trade deficit. In the case of a trade deficit, this will amount to a negative number and therefore TAKE AWAY from GDP. There fiscal and motary policy actually have a large impact on GDP. The US did have large deficits during WW2, and followed it with massive investments in Europe for rebuilding those economies, which paid off. You are atempting to do the same in the Middle East, however the money spent is not the same as after WW2. The Marshall plan simply gave money to European nations who used this to rebuild their infrastructures and economies. I would contend that this is not what is happening in the middle east. I woud also contend that Europe had infrastructure in place which merely needed repairs/upgrades, whereas in many middle eastern countries you are forced to build these from the ground up which is far more expensive if it works at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product Sorry, but it's true. My bad on stating there is no growth. I retract, but I will not retract that there are some serious fiscal issues which are hurting your currency and honestly slowing your growth. As I stated before GDP is an equation that includes government spending and also your trade surplus/deficit. If America was more fiscally responsible and did not carry such a massive deficit the GDP would be much larger. Also, as government spending is an part of the equation, you will ALMOST ALWAYS see positive GDPs during war time. It is a little difficult to prove the economics for us both as we have both been able to find sources showing both our arguments.

I don't believe having a positive immigration policy means we are increasing the world's population. I'm pretty sure immigration and emigration imply moving people around. I can agree that we should move to an economy that doesn't require population increases, but at this moment there is a huge labour shortage in many western countries because our birth rates ARE negative, in the sense that more and more people do not have children or are having less than 2. I gues we'll just have to agree to disagree and see what the future holds. Currently the government is seeing things my way. Perhaps the negative results you envision will come to fruition. I just don't see it that way.

I don't believe I have once stated that the American economy is in demise. I said "turmoil" and "over-spending" and "trade-deficit". GDP is one marker for determining an economy. It however is not an overly convincing argument as it merely shows how large an economy is. I don't think I ever argued that the American economy was shrinking or that it wasn't massive. You stated earlier that exports were growing and the economy was growing. I came back showing that America has an overwhelming trade deficit which does over the long term very much hurt an economy. GDP also includes government spending. So even though the government is spending billions upon billions, and is creating a positive GDP, this is money that is actually debt(if it is deficit spending) and in the long run will be harmful to the economy. GDP also includes trade surplus/deficit, so carrying a enormous trade deficit as the U.S. does actually lowers the GDP. Another aspect to consider is the amount of American debt that foreign countries buy up. Recently, the Chinese and Japanese who have been doing this for years are beginning to sell this off because of your ever weakening dollar. If no one continues to buy your trillions in debt you will find yourself living in a house of cards. I don't necessarily believe there is an imminent threat, but I do believe that by further increasing your debt through deficit spending and irresponsible fiscal policy, you are compounding the problem.

Thanks for completely disregarding the rest of my post River. However, I do understand what you are talking about and I disagree. Economies do and will contract and expand. It is obviously impossible to have neverending growth. However, this country is massive and we have and enormous amount of land for people to live in. I do not see any problem with allowing more immigrants in as I believe it will only benefit our economy and cultural mosaic. I also know that we are associated with being an open-minded and welcoming people around the world. I do not see any reason to change this. Again, I am not saying I would agree to unrestrcited immigration or that some rules and regulations do not need to be in place. But I feel that we are a country built on a positive immigration policy and will continue to grow as such.

Please provide sources/citations that prove that you economy is not in turmoil and that you do not have a ridiculous trade deficit. Ummm. If you knew how to read, you'll see I didn't actually make any negative statement about your character other than that guns were a part of it. This is not negative. I say I understand it is part of your national character so it is not something I can comment on. Is that better? I am also quite aware there are guns up here. Not sure why you blew up at that statement. Don't get so sensitive when a Canadian has an opinion about American politics, remember you are on a Canadian forum and we are bound to have our own views.

Actually I meant cultural imperialism and it really has nothing to do with Karl Marx. I will not call you an idiot and I'll ask you to give me the same courtesy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism