5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_KevinSim]

Best to focus on Mankind in the here and now, no?

As Marley said in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, "Mankind is our business." I can get behind that.

[_KevinSim]

Interesting that you refer to it as a Creator/God. Do you have a particular brand of deity that you're attached to?

Yes - the brand that Created the entire universe.

I'm toying with the idea that God may have created the entire universe, that God may have been the spark that set it off, so to speak, but for the record I don't have a whole lot invested in God as a creator. If it were to turn out that there was an explanation for how the universe came into existence that didn't involve a deity causing it, that would not destroy my faith in God. For me God is more important for the future than the past.

[_richardMdBorn]

Doctor CamNC4Me Regardless, even if the gospels were correlated and time stamped, the authors' claims, the miracles, the existential reasons for a blood sacrifice by the Jewish god are as believable as Joseph Smith' s fable. I mean, we're 2,000 years on from the narrative. s*** hasn't changed yo. People are still dicks.

Jersey Girl I don't recall anywhere in Biblical scripture the claim that Christianity would change the inherent nature of human beings.

Doctor Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

I'll interject a personal story. In my senior year at Brown, I took an English history class from David Underdown (a well respected historian). Before one class, i overheard one student talking to another about the remarkable transformation of a third student. He'd been a big time jerk but his conversion to Christianity had transformed his life in a positive way. Obviously, not all conversions are so dramatic. Louis "Louie" Zamperini is an example of a prominent person who changed very positively after his conversion. But humanity as a whole has not been converted and there's no promise in the New Testament that those outside of Christ will have their nature changed.

[_Jersey Girl]

I know that a lot of criticism has been directed your way, but I want you to know that I'm not trying to make you feel down on yourself. I just wanted to try to give you a bit more insight to the children who wear the labels we adults put on them.

And I just wanted to try to give IHAQ a bit more insight to the women who he wanted to wear his labels.

That's a disgraceful attempt at misrepresenting what I actually posted.
The only poster applying labels to women in this thread is you.

I labelled Jersey Girl's posts as 'bitchy', I did not label Jersey Girl a 'bitch'.
Please try and comprehend the difference.

Excuse me, female poster over here! **waves hand**

I don't know why I even look in here some times....Kevin....when I tried to gave you insight to the children on whom we place labels, such as "illegitimate", I was trying to give you insight on behalf of a vulnerable portion of our population who have no personal power to change their situation and who have no voice.

That is why adults like me advocate for them.

Women are quite able to speak for themselves. I've done so on this very thread. Please do not reduce me to the status of child who needs adults to act as advocate, for I have personal power of my own and I definitely have the means with which to convey it.

If you want to talk about women whose lives were damage by abuse, sexual assault or discrimination in the work place, that's fine. But what you're doing here is trying to criticize a male poster for the adjective he used to describe a female posters postings here.

Why didn't you go after the word "irrational" when he used it?
Why didn't you criticize me for characterizing him as a "hyperbolic dick"?

I want some freaking equality around here, people, even when that means criticizing me for doing the same when I responded in kind.

Anyway, bitchy is just like whining or grumpy, or blathering. I often blather myself. You can see it in my posts. ;-)

And so does everyone else on this board.

I don't like hypocrisy. I try hard not to be hypocritical. I appreciate it when people point out to me instances wherein I've been hypocritical.

I hope you do too.

And again, I'm not trying to rag on you. I'm just trying to make you "hear" me, because I'm the woman whose bitchy post IHAQ was directed to and I'm telling you, it doesn't offend me. I found it amusing because I could use it as a take off for responding in kind.

And I did. If there is no opportunity for a bit of humor here, I'm leaving.

I'm prepared to encounter both positive and negative remarks on this board, to handle them as I see fit or not handle them at all if I think they're not worth my time or if I truly thing the other poster is a creeper.

If I weren't, I wouldn't post on boards like this.

[_KevinSim]

So, in sum, I think there is no evidence for either, but one (the "god" hypothesis) has in times past satiated human curiosity about the world's formation and yet gives hope to those who need it that as distinct, integrated conscious entities, they will continue after death--in some kind of easier/rectified existence.

I personally believe that people "will continue after death" in the mentioned existence, but I find it interesting that so many people think faith in God necessitates a belief in the afterlife. I may be wrong in my understanding of Jews, but many of them have a very strong faith in God, and as I understand it Judaism contains no belief in a general afterlife at all.

[_Jersey Girl]

Doctor CamNC4Me Regardless, even if the gospels were correlated and time stamped, the authors' claims, the miracles, the existential reasons for a blood sacrifice by the Jewish god are as believable as Joseph Smith' s fable. I mean, we're 2,000 years on from the narrative. s*** hasn't changed yo. People are still dicks.

Jersey Girl I don't recall anywhere in Biblical scripture the claim that Christianity would change the inherent nature of human beings.

Doctor Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

I'll interject a personal story. In my senior year at Brown, I took an English history class from David Underdown (a well respected historian). Before one class, i overheard one student talking to another about the remarkable transformation of a third student. He'd been a big time jerk but his conversion to Christianity had transformed his life in a positive way. Obviously, not all conversions are so dramatic. Louis "Louie" Zamperini is an example of a prominent person who changed very positively after his conversion. But humanity as a whole has not been converted and there's no promise in the New Testament that those outside of Christ will have their nature changed.

Two words: Roman Road.

[_KevinSim]

And I just wanted to try to give IHAQ a bit more insight to the women who he wanted to wear his labels.

That's a disgraceful attempt at misrepresenting what I actually posted.
The only poster applying labels to women in this thread is you.

This just keeps getting more and more bizarre. IHAQ, when did I ever apply a label to women?

I labelled Jersey Girl's posts as 'bitchy', I did not label Jersey Girl a 'bitch'.
Please try and comprehend the difference.

The two terms are connected; did you even read the dictionary definition I posted? Here it is again, at "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bitchy?s=t":

bitchy
adjective, bitchier, bitchiest. Slang.
1. characteristic of a bitch; spiteful; malicious.

By calling Jersey Girl's posts "bitchy" you were calling her a bitch.

Or do you perhaps think that if person A tells person B that the latter has the characteristics of an idiot, person A is not in effect calling person B an idiot?

[_Jersey Girl]

By calling Jersey Girl's posts "bitchy" you were calling her a bitch.

Excuse me again. I'm the woman to whom the remark was directed. I didn't take it that way at all and if he outright called me a bitch, I'd take it in context, consider the poster from whom it was coming, and decide what I wanted to do about it (or not do) myself.


If I couldn't handle it, I wouldn't be here to start with. As it stands, I've been on theses kinds of boards for 15 years, yes, I know that's pathetic. I have a strong sense of self, I know who is around me, I know who I can joke with and who I cannot, I know who is trying to disparage me, and I know who is describing me as a "bitch" in an appreciative sort of way as Rockslider sometimes does.

You're offending the hell out of me, buddy.

I'm in this kitchen because I can take the heat if I see it as such. There's not much anyone here can do to offend me personally. How many female posters are on this thread going one for one with the guys?

Hint: It's just me.

As it stands, I used IHAQ's remark to get a laugh out of it. I laughed and I'm pretty sure that he got a laughed too. I know that your heart is in the right place, but it offends the hell out of me when a guy here tries to take up for me when it looks like some other guy is giving me a hard time.

I think most of them are pretty much aware of that.

Give us women a little more credit, Kevin. We can hold our own, speak for ourselves and if we cannot, then we shouldn't be here.

^^ If anyone here thinks that's an open invitation to call me a bitch, go ahead and try it and see where that gets you.

[Guest]

Excuse me, female poster over here! **waves hand**

I don't know why I even look in here some times....Kevin....when I tried to gave you insight to the children on whom we place labels, such as "illegitimate", I was trying to give you insight on behalf of a vulnerable portion of our population who have no personal power to change their situation and who have no voice.

That is why adults like me advocate for them.

Women are quite able to speak for themselves. I've done so on this very thread. Please do not reduce me to the status of child who needs adults to act as advocate, for I have personal power of my own and I definitely have the means with which to convey it.

Jersey Girl, I didn't realize I was reducing you to the status of such a child, nor did I think I needed to speak for you. I would have been more than happy for the chorus of our voices to be joined together, if that makes sense. I'm just in the habit of crying foul when I see someone doing something in very bad taste, and that's what I did.

If you want to talk about women whose lives were damage by abuse, sexual assault or discrimination in the work place, that's fine. But what you're doing here is trying to criticize a male poster for the adjective he used to describe a female posters postings here.

Why didn't you go after the word "irrational" when he used it?

Don't remember. Do you want me to go all the way back to that distant post and see if anything rings a bell?

Why didn't you criticize me for characterizing him as a "hyperbolic dick"?

I already answered this. I believe my answer was that IHAQ could hardly complain about you using that term to describe him when he had used bitchy to describe you. And I still feel that way.

I want some freaking equality around here, people, even when that means criticizing me for doing the same when I responded in kind.

Anyway, bitchy is just like whining or grumpy, or blathering. I often blather myself. You can see it in my posts. ;-)

Okay; I stand corrected; I retract my criticism of IHAQ's choice of words.

But just answer me this question, Jersey Girl, do you agree with IHAQ that I owed him an apology because I called him on the carpet for using the word bitchy, and do you agree with him that I still owe the people on this forum an apology? If you do, and if you can explain to me why I owe those two entities an apology, I will most certainly give them one. (Well, I'll give the MDB an apology anyhow; IHAQ has informed me that it's too late to give him one. Thanks for defending me on that issue, by the way.)

[_Jersey Girl]

But just answer me this question, Jersey Girl, do you agree with IHAQ that I owed him an apology because I called him on the carpet for using the word bitchy, and do you agree with him that I still owe the people on this forum an apology? If you do, and if you can explain to me why I owe those two entities an apology, I will most certainly give them one. (Well, I'll give the MDB an apology anyhow; IHAQ has informed me that it's too late to give him one. Thanks for defending me on that issue, by the way.)

I don't think you owe anyone an apology. I see that as a calculated move on his part to try to marginalize and humiliate you.

He said it was too late to give you an apology because he was being bitchy to you.

I have to go get my work done now. House work. It's what we women do!