" Forgive me, but I've been extremely busy the last couple of weeks. I know my responses have been somewhat sporadic regarding time. I'll begin with taking issue with your very first statement.
Exactly how can the first century CE be so well documented if a great deal of the documents were destroyed by "christians"? Second, why would the "christians" be the people destroying the documents when so many of them would have proven the existence of the historical Jesus. I wish to see your so-called research because so far none of your arguments have made much of an argument except to prove how contradictory you are. Honestly, you state one thing, and then completely backtrack with the very next sentence. I have offered several citations and websites. To date you have offered exactly... ...none. You state that you have researched this particular subject for over 3 years, but as far as the evidence you can provide for such research, it leaves much less to be desired.
Your "motive" is quite apparent in your every attempt to prove one thing while showing no proof as to your own belief other than the lack of it. In fact, the only thing you've managed to prove to me is that you honestly don't know what you believe. " Jesus can't be proven to have existed vs I can pro...- posted 3/16/13 @ 10:07pm
" Your evidence presented actually proves less than nothing Donk. Much of that period was never recorded. It's of no historical or empirical proof that next to nothing was recorded concerning Jesus considering the fact that much of that age was either never recorded or has unfortunately been lost or destroyed since. Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves Jesus' existence. I question your motive though concerning this entire thread. If you asked the question, then surely you believe you have some proof as to your point. I have offered several links and citations regarding what is believed by both historical and scientific communities to be evidence of at least the existence of the "man" Jesus. Thus far you have offered no evidence or suggestions as to the invalidity of the existence of this man, though I have asked for it at least twice. Once again I will ask for the proof of this 3+ years of research you have completed. If you have any I would like to see it. Believe me when I tell you I am a very open-minded person. I would just like to see this research you speak of, if you don't mind sharing. " Jesus can't be proven to have existed vs I can pro...- posted 3/5/13 @ 8:31pm
" Not quite yet. Been a little busy lately. I apologize. So, you appear to be a little smarter than the average bear. You didn't fall for my trick. Good. Still, you haven't provided any evidence of his non-existence. Here's a few links you might be interested in. Let me know what you think.
Though I have found several documents and entries that support the existence of Jesus I have not come across any historical documents or otherwise citations that deny his existence, or for that matter attempt to denounce his existence with anything other than doubtful opinions. If you have any such proof I would appreciate receiving the links so that I might read it or them, as the case may be. Thanks. " Jesus can't be proven to have existed vs I can pro...- posted 3/3/13 @ 9:34pm
" I am afraid you are mistaken. It's okay. After all, you're only human. Below I will include a couple of links showing the document written to the Roman Senate by Herod Antipas begging for clemency concerning his actions before the Empire. You may not be trying to prove Jesus did not exist, but clearly there is documented evidence of his existence, and not just in the printed word of the Bible. Regarding uniqueness, please describe any other religious messiah whose story even comes close to mimicking that of Jesus'.
http://www.bibleprobe.com/antipas.htm " Jesus can't be proven to have existed vs I can pro...- posted 2/21/13 @ 9:56pm
" My "faith" goes a little further in this instance rather than just belief. There is factual and historical references that can be cited. You are aware of this, right? Pontius Pilate, the fifth prefect of the Roman Empire under the rule of Emperor Tiberius was the judge at the court of the proceedings involving Jesus Christ's alleged treasonous acts. He found Jesus guilty of treason and sentenced him to death, hence the crucifixion. If Pilate simply wanted Jesus to disappear and never be entered into any record why did he insist on trying him? Instead he tried him and found him guilty. This is noted in many historical documents written by the Roman courts. It was also recorded as such during the Council of Nicea, and in the Holy Bible as well. Don't you find it strange that his presence was mentioned by three separate proceedings/documentations? I would have expected that someone who had done so much research concerning disproving the existence of a person would have considered also researching the documents that do in fact corroborate his existence. I am afraid I also have to disagree with the "his story is far from unique" comment. What other man claiming to be the son of God have you ever known to have been tried, sentenced, and put to death for the crime of teaching love and tolerance to the masses by the Roman Empire? None come to mind. I would dare to call that somewhat unique. " Jesus can't be proven to have existed vs I can pro...- posted 2/20/13 @ 8:22pm
" The same as any other would define faith; confidence or trust in a person or thing. I have faith in the existence of a deity, just as I have faith in the existence of oxygen. I am unable to see either one, but that does not mean that neither one does not exist. " Jesus can't be proven to have existed vs I can pro...- posted 2/19/13 @ 7:38pm
" I honestly would like to see some of your research. I personally do believe in Jesus. My reasoning is not so much based on evidence of existence, but the only reason I have ever needed. Faith. I am always open to debate, and would like to see what research you have completed to prove otherwise if you don't mind sharing. " Jesus can't be proven to have existed vs I can pro...- posted 2/9/13 @ 11:48am
" I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, because they differ from every source I've read to date. No one making 22,000 a year or less would be forced to pay this (tax) or penalty. Where is your proof of this? Please actually leave a citation. I will certainly leave a couple for you. The fact is that the only Americans who will pay this tax are those who make 4 times the poverty level or approximately $48,000 for an individual and $98,400 for a family of four. That means that this penalty will have no affect on almost 98% of Americans. Please read the following links I have provided for proof of the facts I have discussed. If you have your own I would appreciate seeing them. I am certainly better off than I was four years ago and will gladly vote for Mr. Obama again.
http://news.yahoo.com/six-million-americans-likely-pay-healthcare-tax-2016-205149414.html " OBAMA BIDEN 2012 vs ROMNEY R...- posted 9/26/12 @ 8:44pm
" I'm afraid you are mistaken. This country IS a democracy, whether it may have been conceived as a Republic in the beginning is still very debateable. Regardless, it is now a democracy, and has been for quite some time. Bills become laws by simple majorities in both the House and Senate as long as the President does not veto the bill. Only then does it require a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. Either way it does not and has never protected in any way shape or form the will of the minority. Serving the will of the majority whilst still protecting the minority is the quintessential definition of a Republic. That being said the American government has never worked as a Republic, but rather as the Democracy for which we all know it to be. Your argument that Popular votes would favor only large cities or populations is completely unfounded. If that were true the popular vote would not often mirror the vote of the electoral college excepting a few cases where it did not. For example the election of 2000 where the Electoral votes were rewarded to Bush effectively handing him the Presidency and ignoring the popular vote which showed Gore winning the election by just over 500,000 votes. An Amendment should be drafted soon and enacted into law. It is high time we dispose of this incongruous mechanism in order to serve the true purpose of the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 " Popular Vote vs Electoral Vote- posted 9/14/12 @ 6:38am
" Ryan, how can you honestly say those things with a straight face? Really? Unemployment was on the rise every single month of 2008 even before Obama ever took office. Thanks to Obama we managed to get a hold of it and lower it back down to about 8% from its previous 10.8%. Regardless of what you don't want to believe the fact is that Obama HAS spent less than most Presidents in the last 30 years, and yes I will continue to blame the person responsible for this, and his name is in fact George W. Bush. He started the tax cuts, he started the two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he started the program that allowed hundreds of thousands of more people to be eligible for welfare. You can deny the truth all you want, but it's still the truth. Anyone who actually tries to deny these FACTS are the only ones who need to check into a loony bin. I am extremely glad he started the Health Care Act. It's about time we moved forward on this matter. Am I happy about the individual mandate? No, not particularly, but it's the best step forward at this point. I hope he shuts down Gitmo sooner rather than later, and I do not like the NDAA/AUMF at all, but let's not forget that it was Congress that decided the continuance of the NDAA. Obama simply compromised in order to get the military budget passed. Is Obama perfect? No, but he's certainly the better of the choices, whether you like it or not. " OBAMA BIDEN 2012 vs ROMNEY R...- posted 9/2/12 @ 1:51am
" I am only replying to your comment Ryan because I chose to remain neutral on the matter. While it may be demeaning to some, and I can understand why it would be for those who don't use drugs, that is not my main issue with this discussion. My issue is specifically the burden of cost to taxpayers on this matter. It has already proven to be a colossal failure in the state of Florida before it was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge and looks as if the same is soon to happen in Kentucky and several other states that have since implemented it as well. Although I have no problem with the concept itself, it is the implementation that bothers me. It has thus far been proven highly ineffective and quite costly to those it was supposed to protect... ...the taxpayer. " Unfair and Demeaning to Those in Need vs Require R...- posted 8/23/12 @ 3:48pm
" Oh, by the way Ryan, I meant to address this earlier but did not have the time. In your first comment you stated that Obama had not passed a budget in over 3 years. While that may be correct it is certainly not his fault, and you know why. Because he doesn't pass the law. He can help write a budget and even sign it into law, but passing it is the job of Congress. With a democratic controlled Senate and a Republican controlled House is it really surprising that no budget has been passed? Worst of all it is an election year. A budget will not be introduced or passed until after January of next year. Let's not pretend like we don't all know why. " Paul Ryan Is Great VP Choice vs Mitt Could Have Do...- posted 8/14/12 @ 4:28pm
" Sorry Ryan, but I'm afraid you're mistaken on both accounts. One, presidential polls immediately after both candidates have chosen VP's rarely change outside of the current -/+ margin of polling with less than three months to go. Two, and most importantly, Social Security is not a ponzi shceme. This is real money spent by both employers and employees for retirement funds. The only fault of Social Security is that the government feels they can borrow against it. An action which should be far more regulated than it currently is. To privatize or restructure is not necessary, and put simply, would be detrimental to those who depend upon it. " Paul Ryan Is Great VP Choice vs Mitt Could Have Do...- posted 8/13/12 @ 8:03pm
" I don't know what Romney is thinking at this point. I'd say he's just not thinking at all. Of all the great prospects he had to choose from within his party he chose the most vanilla. It will neither help or hurt his campaign for several reasons. Ryan's budget plans are exactly what Romney is looking for. It would further gouge the middle-class economy and strengthen the upper-class. The same "trickle-down" type of plan that never worked before and never will. It would gut and replace the Social Security Administration beyond all repair. I think I just heard 30 million elderly decide to vote for Obama? Did you hear that? Those who are too resolute in their belief of religion and tiny government will continue to hail Romney/Ryan as the Dream Team. It makes no difference. The polarization of this country simply solidified with this choice. If he had chosen someone like Rubio or Santorum he would have had a much better chance to win. Despite their ideological differences at least he would have stood a chance at winning. This decision changes absolutely nothing except for the slight possibility of chasing away the few that might have had his vote before his VP pick. I predict an Obama win in the Electoral College of 304 to 234 at this point. Obama has gained steadily in Ohio and has a nice margin in Florida, but with his new VP pick this will most assuredly land Florida in Obama's court despite all of Governor Rick Scott's attempts at voter registration laws.
Sorry, meant to add this before completing the comment. Just copy and paste it. " Paul Ryan Is Great VP Choice vs Mitt Could Have Do...- posted 8/13/12 @ 1:51pm
" Gonzo, I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but I do believe he has the right to believe and say it. Personally, I just don't care what the CEO of a fast food chain has to say anymore about traditional marriage. I believe he's wrong, but at the same time I believe he's right in being able to express his feelings on the matter. I take it you're a serviceman, and I want to thank you for your service. I served my country too, and because I did I realize just what it means to defend the rights we all believe in. While I totally disagree with Mr. Cathy's position I wouldn't have him censored for anything. He has that right. That to me, is truly what it means to be an American. " I'll eat there again. vs Boycott. No more Chick-fi...- posted 8/8/12 @ 11:06am
" Thanks Sarah. You know there have been times when I didn't necessarily agree with your position, but because you've made such a great argument I still voted your comments up. That's just how I operate. I really appreciate your input whether I agree with it or not. " Require User to Take a Side First vs Leave it as i...- posted 8/8/12 @ 10:51am
" I wholeheartedly agree DollyFan. With all of your comments, and I'm especially in agreement with your first statements. It's very nice to see such involvement from the owners and developers of this website. You can see that Ryan really cares about it and those who participate. " Require User to Take a Side First vs Leave it as i...- posted 8/8/12 @ 10:48am
" I agree with everything you said. As far as Harry Reid is concerned did you read my previous statement? I already took issue with Sen. Reid's comments and allegations. I think he's being a real a$$ about it. What he has said is completely unprofessional and in my opinion really disrespectful. As Romney's camp put it "put up or shut up". If he actually had any evidence then show it, if not he just needs to keep his unfounded opinions to himself.
I've never had an issue with Mitt's wealth, but I do find it a little contradictory that people like him go to such extraordinary lengths to take advantage of loopholes that deliberately benefit the wealthy, and then turn around and create additional loopholes for tax laws that only help the top earners. What about the rest of us who don't make over $250,000 a year?Despite whatever party you belong to, I just don't find it fair. " Release 10 years of Tax Returns vs Stick to his gu...- posted 8/4/12 @ 4:04pm
" Despite the stance by Chick-fil-A's President Dan Cathy, I prefer Zaxby's. Their chicken just has a much better flavor and call me weird, but the dipping sauce is awesome. I even like the salad with the diced chicken strips. Although I do like the waffle fries and Chick's I think the crinkle cut fries Zaxby's makes are ten times better. I never boycotted Chick-fil-A on purpose. I just never liked their food as much as other places. " Zaxby's vs Chik-fil-a- posted 8/2/12 @ 8:27pm
" I understand both what you mean and how you feel about the subject. I just think this is the wrong way to go about it. There has to be a better and safer way to deal with this issue than sterilizing women by force. " Forced Sterilization is a Great Idea vs Too Much G...- posted 8/1/12 @ 6:21pm
" That's a good point Crystal, but you have to take certain situations into consideration. Deciding to accept government assistance is voluntary. Having to take a drug test for such assistance is nothing more than a regulation, and is not that invasive. It's just like getting your blood drawn. Being forced to submit to a surgery like tubal ligation may not be a major surgery, but the ramifications can be long standing, and in some cases irreversible. Let's say a drug addict is forced to get a tubal ligation. She does so. Five years later she has been clean and sober for over three years and can legally get a tubal reversal. She sees a fertility specialist, but is unfortunately informed that not only can the reversal not work, but that serious health risks could be involved. Oh, and by the way, it will only cost you several thousand dollars too. It's just not the right solution to the problem. Aside from the risks involved one also has to consider the legality as well. The government should not have the right to make this type of very personal decision for one of its own citizens.
I would hope any woman/mother would have enough respect for themselves and the life of their child not to take drugs during their pregnancy, but we don't have the right to make that decision for them. " Forced Sterilization is a Great Idea vs Too Much G...- posted 7/31/12 @ 9:05pm
" LOL. You enable video and I might require a control tower in the front yard for flight clearance.
As for Chuck's ad the people he spoke to could likely have been paid actors or party participants who instructed him to nod as though he were listening intently. The fact is just as you stated, none of them are actors. Like I commented before on the video of him working at McDonalds he seemed more relaxed because they were real situations, and not choreographed pieces of advertisement. I just don't put much stock into political ads like these.
I've always gestured with my hands while I talk. Read the page I provided below. It's pretty interesting.
http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/09/the-secret-code-of-learning/ " Performance in Ads is Irrelevant vs Unconvincing A...- posted 7/31/12 @ 5:16pm
" Hey, that's not fair. Some people just naturally use hand movements and gestures when they talk. It's more habit than it is anything. I do it quite a bit. I watched the video and can honestly say that I saw nothing that seemed unnatural about his gesturing, posturing, or otherwise. Don't you think you're being a little harsh? I personally wouldn't vote for him for several reasons, but we all know the number one reason. LOL. I watched the McDonald's video. He did seem more relaxed in that one, and more conversational, but ads are just not a whole determination for me when deciding on a candidate. I read about their policies, their previous voting records, their personal platforms and beliefs. Most ads are just partisan negativity wrapped in an American flag anyway. " Performance in Ads is Irrelevant vs Unconvincing A...- posted 7/31/12 @ 4:00pm
" Oh, no Ryan. I'm not questioning whether it is the courthouse, just noting the similar architecture between the two. Were both designed by the same architect? I have no doubt they're different, but I just noticed some similarities. There are no similarities between Henderson and Kaufman here. I'll show you.
Scroll down the Kaufman Co. website. The old courthouse burnt down and was replaced by some ugly piece of crap.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/capitolshotsp... " No Sample Ballot on Website is Absurd vs Shouldn't...- posted 7/30/12 @ 6:23pm
" That is a little ridiculous. Question? Does the Monroe County Courthouse really look that similar to the Sevier County Courthouse? I was just curious.
The real shame of this is that I can't believe some would need this information so late in order to decide who to vote for. I'm assuming of course that tomorrow is your county's run-off elections. Ours is tomorrow. I'm working at my precinct tomorrow. Go Paul Sadler!!!!! " No Sample Ballot on Website is Absurd vs Shouldn't...- posted 7/30/12 @ 5:55pm
" I did some research and found out, get this, the sign pictured above was placed in public view in the Willow Bend, TX location and several others. Although they claim corporate offices never directed them to do so Chick-Fil-A spokeswoman Tiffany Greenway said that the company had decided to recall the Muppet toys nationwide "for the protection of their customers", despite the fact that the toys had passed all safety tests required. " I'll eat there again. vs Boycott. No more Chick-fi...- posted 7/29/12 @ 12:03pm
" LOL. Then we will just agree to disagree. You are right. I could point out many times the GOP has done the same thing to liberal/democratic supporters. Although I look at it more from a standpoint of factchecking than investigating I guess. " Deliberately taken out of context vs Deliberately ...- posted 7/28/12 @ 12:25pm
" I also found it very humorous that several of the Romney ads show a particular businessman who is complaining about the Obama statements "you didn't build that", and goes on to state that he personally built his company from the ground up. Which he did, and kudos to him, but it was also revealed later through investigations that he had built his company from the ground up with over $700,000 in government subsidized loans. Although he should be very proud of his company and his success I find it very contradictory of him to act as though he received no help whatsoever in his endeavor. Although we don't need or want government hands in every thing we do, sometimes it does help rather than hinder. I believe that was the point President Obama was really trying to make during his speech. " Deliberately taken out of context vs Deliberately ...- posted 7/28/12 @ 11:59am
" Well, because I know he's a liberal and I am too I have the same views he does, but I do want to point out though that I don't believe that's what this particular speech was about. It simply mentions that in some part government does play a role in the success of a business, but not entirely. You don't owe everything to the government. He knows that. I know that. That's just not the point here. The point is that everybody gets a little help from somewhere in order to make a business successful whether they realize it or not. " Deliberately taken out of context vs Deliberately ...- posted 7/28/12 @ 11:42am
" I agree that Obama has used this situation before, but when he did it he used it to show a different perspective on how he believes. He didn't just chop and edit a speech to try to make it sound as though he meant one thing when clearly he meant another. That's exactly what is being done here with Obama's speech. It has been deliberately edited to appear to people as though it means something terribly bad when in contrast it actually doesn't. I just find it humorous that so many of these edits do NOT show the entire speech, especially where it states what his "point" actually is instead of the point they're trying so desperately to make. " Deliberately taken out of context vs Deliberately ...- posted 7/28/12 @ 11:28am
" I don't like it. You're right. They've both done it. I just find this particular out of context hilarious because so many of the conservative pundits jumped on the bandwagon when they knew very well what he had actually said. I expect both to play this game, but journalists should know better. " Deliberately taken out of context vs Deliberately ...- posted 7/28/12 @ 12:34am
" Not only that Sarah, but it would produce taxes, employment, etc. I read an article anyway that stated it really won't matter if people boycott anyway, because most of known about Cathy's position for years and chances are those who are boycotting were already doing so long before now. " Absurd for Cities to Shun Chic-Fil-A vs Great Stat...- posted 7/27/12 @ 11:20am
" That is the ONLY reason I agree Ryan. We just cannot afford another costly war. That being said, what Assad and his regime are guilty of is despicable. He is a tyrant and dictator. I don't care what official title he holds (President), this man rules this country with an iron fist. When a President of a country has the right to amend their Constitution without any checks and balances like a unicameral or bicameral legislation's approval that is all I need to know to call this man a tyrant. The atrocities being reported out of the city of Aleppo and others are horrific. Some are so awful I just won't even mention them.
I will call SHAME on President Putin of the Russian Federation for his flagrant approval of this regime by sending attack helicopters and other military weapons in order to combat the FSA. Honestly, if the United States economy were more stable I would have no problem switching sides. This man needs to be removed from office and tried for crimes against humanity!! " Prepare for Military Intervention vs Continue Sanc...- posted 7/26/12 @ 9:43pm
" Awesome. Actually I'm glad to know that. After typing so fast I often make mistakes and go back to edit. I hate typos. LOL. Like my previous "Bill or Rights". Can't believe I left that in there, but I copied it to Works and spellchecked it. Stupid spellcheck. " View the comment- posted 7/26/12 @ 7:11pm
" You have no idea whether this law will be effective or not. Neither do I, but I am at least willing to give it a chance. Who knows... ...maybe once the rebates are issued and plans are re-evaluated the two you mentioned might be able to afford better insurance. I don't know. My name is not Nostradamus, and neither is yours. Isn't it at least worth the consideration? I think so. " New Health Care Law is Treason Scum vs Health Care...- posted 7/26/12 @ 6:53pm
" Big Ben, that's the whole point. No one can tell for certain just yet. Instead of playing the part of Negative Nancy why don't we see if it works before we tear it down? What is the point of removing all of the great features of this law when it will help so many that couldn't get or afford it before? I would rather have this law in effect and not work to be repealed and new legislation considered than to have none at all. Besides, what other choice is there? The only thing that the Republican party had come up with is almost exactly this same law minus the individual mandate, except in Massachussets (where it is currently working). If they had produced a viable alternative then why didn't they try harder to get it passed? I blame both Democrats and Republicans for that, by the way. If both would quit bickering over partisan issues and constantly trying to add earmarks to bills legislation would be passed far more easily and with better resolve. " New Health Care Law is Treason Scum vs Health Care...- posted 7/26/12 @ 6:49pm
" Well, while we might agree on the above I have to disagree to a point on this matter. Although a militia was something different then, it is not now. The Militia Act of 1792 was only the first of many that allowed our very own founding fathers to establish what they considered to be a true militia and the regulations that they would follow as law. This didn't just happen recently. Our forefathers did so only 5 years after signing the Constitution. The Militia Act of 1903 adopted the state militias into the organization as we now know it to be the National Guard. It became governmental by state and federal funding soon after. I know you may not consider that a "true" militia, but it is what is. I assume you know what I'm referring to as well. We will just have to agree to disagree. " "A well regulated militia" vs "the right to keep a...- posted 7/26/12 @ 6:31pm
" That's not confusing in the least. You are correct. That's exactly what I was saying. What I'm also saying is that though there were many factors in the tragedy, one of which was gun related, that we seriously need to as a society and nation discuss what has become a very serious problem. Even if we agree or disagree, it should be discussed. " "A well regulated militia" vs "the right to keep a...- posted 7/26/12 @ 6:25pm
" You're absolutely right Big Ben, in as much as no one can make you see the truth of the matter. I can show you several websites and studies that show a complete contradiction to everything you just stated in your first couple of paragraphs. However, that would be as useful as trying to explain the quantum mechanics of a black hole to a third grader. It's just not going to happen.
Those that oppose and those that approve of the ACA are practically split 50/50 among American citizens, so there would be no point in arguing that matter either. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Responsible Americans should purchase insurance. What really makes more sense? A family who purchases insurance and uses it to pay for the majority of their medical care and pays the rest out of their own pocket, or a family who doesn't purchase insurance and leaves the rest of us who did purchase insurance to foot the entirety of their medical care through increased premiums?
Just a little common sense is all that is required sometimes. Otherwise, it is simply right-wing propaganda used to scare Americans into opposition. Why fan the flames of ignorance when you can put the fire out? That's all I ask. " New Health Care Law is Treason Scum vs Health Care...- posted 7/25/12 @ 11:27pm