PDA

View Full Version : Was Jesus a real person?



EvilDylan
09-04-2009, 10:09 PM
Or was he a hand-me-down version of the Egyptian prophet Horus?

Very interesting video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1543831119879192379&ei=OWqhSuquEYSSrAKV_tj-BA&q=zeitgeist%20religion&hl=en#

TheDon74
09-04-2009, 10:31 PM
I don't think many people deny Jesus lived, its whether or not he rose is where the debate comes in. It's a factual and historical definite that he lived here in the flesh.

But then again everyone has the right to their own opinion

Tetragrammaton
09-04-2009, 11:41 PM
There is far too much historical documentation of his existence for it to be some sort of conspiracy. However, many of the other major Biblical figures have too little historical evidence to prove their existence (Moses in particular).

SoJoMike
09-05-2009, 06:52 AM
There is far too much historical documentation of his existence for it to be some sort of conspiracy. However, many of the other major Biblical figures have too little historical evidence to prove their existence (Moses in particular).

So Jesus existed, but were certain characteristics of his existence embellished?

EvilDylan
09-05-2009, 08:37 AM
Well did you see the entire video? It showed that no well known historians actually documented Jesus' existence. There were 4 historians who documented his existence, 3 of them were 2 lines of text in their entire literary works, and the fourth was proven to be a lie.

So besides the bible, where is the historical documentation?

Is Jesus not just a new testament version of Joseph? Joseph in the old testament, was born on Dec 25th, of a miracle birth, performed miracles himself, had 12 brothers and the parallels continue.

EvilDylan
09-05-2009, 08:40 AM
PS I'm not trying to be rude or aggressive at all in my comments, forgive them if they seem brash.


Also, if one could, please provide some of the abundances of historical documentation of Jesus. Other than the Bible please.

Dolphan7
09-05-2009, 02:08 PM
Or was he a hand-me-down version of the Egyptian prophet Horus?

Very interesting video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1543831119879192379&ei=OWqhSuquEYSSrAKV_tj-BA&q=zeitgeist%20religion&hl=en#

Here is the rebuttal to the Christianity portion of Zietgiest. It's producer is simply making stuff up, and based on that discredits anything of value and truth he may have alluded to later on in the film.


http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=107


As far as historical evidence outside the bible, you already have them.

But why discard the bible as a valid historical document?

GoonBoss
09-05-2009, 04:00 PM
Well did you see the entire video? It showed that no well known historians actually documented Jesus' existence. There were 4 historians who documented his existence, 3 of them were 2 lines of text in their entire literary works, and the fourth was proven to be a lie.

So besides the bible, where is the historical documentation?

Is Jesus not just a new testament version of Joseph? Joseph in the old testament, was born on Dec 25th, of a miracle birth, performed miracles himself, had 12 brothers and the parallels continue.

Joseph was a miraculous birth? I did not know that.

TheDon74
09-05-2009, 04:03 PM
So Jesus existed, but were certain characteristics of his existence embellished?

Anyone that pretends to know the answer to that is full of sh*t

TheDon74
09-05-2009, 04:12 PM
PS I'm not trying to be rude or aggressive at all in my comments, forgive them if they seem brash.


Also, if one could, please provide some of the abundances of historical documentation of Jesus. Other than the Bible please.

There are literary thousands of accounts of his being here on earth. Many being from people that opposed him at the time and of those that questioned his claims of being the son of God. I'm not gonna do the leg work for you. If your curious do the research and look for your own answers. I have my beliefs and they are just that, mine and I don't preach them to others. As long as your trying to do right by others your doing something right is about as close as I'll come.

EvilDylan
09-05-2009, 06:21 PM
Joseph was a miraculous birth? I did not know that.

According to The Old Testament it was.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen043.html

EvilDylan
09-05-2009, 06:36 PM
Here is the rebuttal to the Christianity portion of Zietgiest. It's producer is simply making stuff up, and based on that discredits anything of value and truth he may have alluded to later on in the film.


http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=107


As far as historical evidence outside the bible, you already have them.

But why discard the bible as a valid historical document?


I discard the Bible because most of it's writings have been altered, changed and was passed down by word of mouth for years. There are also numerous contradictions and blatant errors.

Dolphan7
09-05-2009, 10:37 PM
I discard the Bible because most of it's writings have been altered, changed and was passed down by word of mouth for years. There are also numerous contradictions and blatant errors.Oh Really? So you have studied this yourself? Or are you simply repeating what you have been told, or what you have heard?

The reason I ask this is because biblical scholars, who are way more trained than you or I, don't come to those same conclusions.


Yes...yes ....yes there are many skeptics, most of which aren't interested in any answers, but only interested in making more accusations. And there are many web sites dedicated to the destruction of biblical credibility.....which you can post from ad infinitum if you like....it really doesn't change anything. The guys that are trained in such things conclude that the bible is historically accurate and credible as a source for the existence of Jesus.


This really isn't about answers or sources though.....it is about what you believe. If you choose to believe that the bible is as you say...then that is what you will believe and you will find many to support your belief. The question is - who are you going to believe? Someone who has an agenda to discredit God Jesus and the bible, as most skeptics are....or the guys that actually look at the data on a daily basis and conclude it's authenticity?

Hey if I want to know more about rocket science....I ain't going to ask an astronaut......I am going to ask a rocket scientist.

Dolphan7
09-05-2009, 10:53 PM
According to The Old Testament it was.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen043.htmlWait a minute - hold the phone......


You discard the bible because: most of it's writings have been altered, changed and was passed down by word of mouth for years. There are also numerous contradictions and blatant errors.

Yet....you post a link that quotes the bible to prove your point?

Hmmmmmm.....interesting.:ponder:

EvilDylan
09-05-2009, 11:04 PM
Wait a minute - hold the phone......


You discard the bible because: most of it's writings have been altered, changed and was passed down by word of mouth for years. There are also numerous contradictions and blatant errors.

Yet....you post a link that quotes the bible to prove your point?

Hmmmmmm.....interesting.:ponder:

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

I discard the bible as a factual entity in itself. The quotes to which you are referring are merely a comparison of the stories within the bible itself. The content of the stories, in the context that I was referring to, has nothing to do with truth or not only a direct comparison to Joseph and Jesus.

See the difference?

EvilDylan
09-05-2009, 11:18 PM
Oh Really? So you have studied this yourself? Or are you simply repeating what you have been told, or what you have heard?

The reason I ask this is because biblical scholars, who are way more trained than you or I, don't come to those same conclusions.


Yes...yes ....yes there are many skeptics, most of which aren't interested in any answers, but only interested in making more accusations. And there are many web sites dedicated to the destruction of biblical credibility.....which you can post from ad infinitum if you like....it really doesn't change anything. The guys that are trained in such things conclude that the bible is historically accurate and credible as a source for the existence of Jesus.


This really isn't about answers or sources though.....it is about what you believe. If you choose to believe that the bible is as you say...then that is what you will believe and you will find many to support your belief. The question is - who are you going to believe? Someone who has an agenda to discredit God Jesus and the bible, as most skeptics are....or the guys that actually look at the data on a daily basis and conclude it's authenticity?

Hey if I want to know more about rocket science....I ain't going to ask an astronaut......I am going to ask a rocket scientist.


There are agendas on both sides of the fence here. There is the agenda to prove that the bible is not entirely accurate and there are those whose agenda is to prove that the bible is entirely accurate. Both types of people have their own agenda already. One is proving, and one is disproving, so the scholars have their agenda, the scholars on the other side of the fence have another agenda. The question isn't about anyone's agenda, it's about factual evidence that will shed light on the TRUTH of the matter.

Biblical scholars do not take the bible word for word, they interpret the bible as they see fit. If the bible tells me that Pi is 3 should I believe that Pi is 3 because it says so? OR should I believe that Pi is 3.14... through mathematical research?

Biblical scholars will tell you that the bible never says that Pi isn't exactly 3, but it doesn't tell you that it ISN'T exactly 3 either.

Your arguments are a double edged sword that can be speculated for eternity, but fact is fact. Fact is a single edged sword, and fact cannot be argued. FACT is what I've been proposing from the beginning.

Rocket science is not a science based on theory (hypotheses maybe, but they aren't used in the pursuit of fact) and the laws of physics are not subject to loose interpretation, rocket science is an EXACT undertaking, and any sort of interpretation (for example if used on the mission to the moon) would lead to disastrous results. That's not to say that a loose interpretation of the bible would not lead to disastrous results (hell) but there is still no evidence of the existence of hell whatsoever except in religious writings.

What I'm saying in a roundabout way is that non-religious and religious promoters have an agenda no matter what.

Dolphan7
09-05-2009, 11:33 PM
You're comparing apples to oranges here.

I discard the bible as a factual entity in itself. The quotes to which you are referring are merely a comparison of the stories within the bible itself. The content of the stories, in the context that I was referring to, has nothing to do with truth or not only a direct comparison to Joseph and Jesus.

See the difference?I understand the position you are trying to take, but the bottom line is if you discard the bible for the reasons you state, how do you know if what you are reading as actually true, whether or not it is a comparison or simply a single meaning of a verse?

According to you the Joseph and Jesus comparison is valid, but how do you know that these particular verses were altered, changed or errors in order to make the comparison look the way it is?

See the delimna you are in?

EvilDylan
09-05-2009, 11:39 PM
I understand the position you are trying to take, but the bottom line is if you discard the bible for the reasons you state, how do you know if what you are reading as actually true, whether or not it is a comparison or simply a single meaning of a verse?

According to you the Joseph and Jesus comparison is valid, but how do you know that these particular verses were altered, changed or errors in order to make the comparison look the way it is?

See the delimna you are in?

By that argument why is The Bible even considered as truth at all?

I guess the dilemma is that there are questions that will never be answered, unless someone was there. We will believe what we want to believe and I think that is inherent to human nature.

Dolphan7
09-05-2009, 11:53 PM
There are agendas on both sides of the fence here. There is the agenda to prove that the bible is not entirely accurate and there are those whose agenda is to prove that the bible is entirely accurate. Both types of people have their own agenda already. One is proving, and one is disproving, so the scholars have their agenda, the scholars on the other side of the fence have another agenda. The question isn't about anyone's agenda, it's about factual evidence that will shed light on the TRUTH of the matter.

Biblical scholars do not take the bible word for word, they interpret the bible as they see fit. If the bible tells me that Pi is 3 should I believe that Pi is 3 because it says so? OR should I believe that Pi is 3.14... through mathematical research?

Biblical scholars will tell you that the bible never says that Pi isn't exactly 3, but it doesn't tell you that it ISN'T exactly 3 either.

Your arguments are a double edged sword that can be speculated for eternity, but fact is fact. Fact is a single edged sword, and fact cannot be argued. FACT is what I've been proposing from the beginning.

Rocket science is not a science based on theory (hypotheses maybe, but they aren't used in the pursuit of fact) and the laws of physics are not subject to loose interpretation, rocket science is an EXACT undertaking, and any sort of interpretation (for example if used on the mission to the moon) would lead to disastrous results. That's not to say that a loose interpretation of the bible would not lead to disastrous results (hell) but there is still no evidence of the existence of hell whatsoever except in religious writings.

What I'm saying in a roundabout way is that non-religious and religious promoters have an agenda no matter what.That is why there can only be one truth, not two ...not many. The bible is either true, or it isn't. It can't be anything in between. It isn't subject to multiple interpretations. The original author only had one intended meaning, not several. That is what highly trained scholars seek to do, determine the authors original intent and meaning. And they are very skilled at what they do, and it is somewhat of an exact science. Biblical scholars most certainly do go word for word. That is exactly what they do. They are not at liberty to change anything. It isn't up to what they want it to say - it is more like what does it say. There isn't any room for guess work or personal bias or making it say what you want it to say to support your point of view. Not so say that some false teachers and religions haven't done that - they most certainly have. The Watchtower Organization comes to mind. But mainstream biblical exegesis is sound.

There are agenda no doubt, mostly to disprove the bible. As of now that agenda has not been accomplished. After 2000 plus years you would think if there was anything to find it would have been found....yet.....nothing. I don't think any new information is forthcoming, so the typical tactic is to use the same old arguments (not you personally) that have been debunked and answered many times. The agenda really isn't about seeking answers, but more so promoting the agenda at all costs. Believe me I have taken many to task regarding "so called" biblical errors and contradictions...provided answers, documentation, links, etc.......and it didn't matter. The answers were never going to be good enough. Why? Because of a presupposition that people have that the bible isn't valid. So are you one of those individuals who is actually seeking answers? Or are you not even interested.

Dolphan7
09-05-2009, 11:57 PM
By that argument why is The Bible even considered as truth at all?

I guess the dilemma is that there are questions that will never be answered, unless someone was there. We will believe what we want to believe and I think that is inherent to human nature.Well......that is fine of you want to believe that. The bottom line is this - If god exists then that is true, and if it is true, then we can find the answers to that truth and find that truth.

If God doesn't exist - then we get to believe whatever we want, there is no truth and therefore no one will ever find something that doesn't exist.

If you are interested in the reality of the existence of God, let me know.

SoJoMike
09-06-2009, 09:44 AM
Here is the rebuttal to the Christianity portion of Zietgiest. It's producer is simply making stuff up, and based on that discredits anything of value and truth he may have alluded to later on in the film.


http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=107


As far as historical evidence outside the bible, you already have them.

But why discard the bible as a valid historical document?

Thanks for the link. I haven't gotten a chance to read through this whole thing yet, but I am disturbed by your statement. Do you really think this is an honest way to analyze what someone else has presented, i.e. discarding truth in light of a mistake in presentation. Are you willing to take each point in isolation? Information is information regardless of the how and who of presentation. If this guy presented something in a dishonest way, and then based on that you throw away truths presented later based on an earlier mistake, you aren't really interested in the truth - it would seem you are more interested in relieving yourself of having to confront an uncomfortable conflict within your own mind.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 10:22 AM
Thanks for the link. I haven't gotten a chance to read through this whole thing yet, but I am disturbed by your statement. Do you really think this is an honest way to analyze what someone else has presented, i.e. discarding truth in light of a mistake in presentation. Are you willing to take each point in isolation? Information is information regardless of the how and who of presentation. If this guy presented something in a dishonest way, and then based on that you throw away truths presented later based on an earlier mistake, you aren't really interested in the truth - it would seem you are more interested in relieving yourself of having to confront an uncomfortable conflict within your own mind.If a guy purposely lies to me in the first 30 minutes of a conversation, continually, why would I think that he won't continue lying to me? First impressions are so important. Secondly if his entire premise is based on control through religion to feed into his main plot, and that gets debunked, it destroys his entire argument. Third - there may some truths later on in the film, but how do I know which has been fabricated and which has not? His entire credibility is shot.

Can you tell me specifically which parts of the film are true? Can anyone?

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 10:49 AM
Can you tell me specifically which parts of the film are true? Can anyone?

Pretty much everything he said about most of the other gods, with one example being Mithra dying and rising three days later, and Attis being crucified.

However I think that this film, just like the bible, is subject to the watchers (or readers) interpretation.

Just because the quotes from the link you provided say that certain aspects of the film aren't true it is up to you to actually do the research and find out if they are also, in fact, telling you the truth to debunk the film. The information is out there. Egyptian, Persian, and Greek mythology are a very well documented part of history. Watch the clip, read the debunkers claims and then do the research yourself. You will find that both sides claim things that are both inaccurate and accurate.

aesop
09-06-2009, 12:49 PM
There are agenda no doubt, mostly to disprove the bible. As of now that agenda has not been accomplished. After 2000 plus years you would think if there was anything to find it would have been found....yet.....nothing. I don't think any new information is forthcoming, so the typical tactic is to use the same old arguments (not you personally) that have been debunked and answered many times. The agenda really isn't about seeking answers, but more so promoting the agenda at all costs. Believe me I have taken many to task regarding "so called" biblical errors and contradictions...provided answers, documentation, links, etc.......and it didn't matter. The answers were never going to be good enough. Why? Because of a presupposition that people have that the bible isn't valid. So are you one of those individuals who is actually seeking answers? Or are you not even interested.Agendas mostly to disprove the bible? Do you realize how much of a cash cow religion is? Where do you think these guys get hundreds of millions of dollars to pay off child molestation charges? How are these people building football stadium sized churches? Why are they coming out with DVDs of their services? There's hardly the same amount of money at stake for people trying to disprove or get answers to obvious contradictions and undeniable changes that have been made to the book. Highest selling book of all time? You guessed it..

As for you 'taking many to task' by providing your links or whatever other stuff you've passed off as evidence, that is laughable. Answers and documentation presented to you is met with the same skepticism. You continually ignore certain posts and the same claims you make against facts presented by people questioning the bible, you make the same type of arguments using questionable websites and other obviously biased material. You can cry all you want about people 'not wanting to hear answers', yet you are guilty of the same if not more-so people looking for answers regarding a very questionable book of 'facts' that really has nothing to go on besides it's own word.

You end your post with "so are you actually seeking answers or are you not even interested" like you have any answers at all. Present your opinions as what they are... opinions. Not answers. You haven't answered a damn thing.

aesop
09-06-2009, 12:57 PM
Well......that is fine of you want to believe that. The bottom line is this - If god exists then that is true, and if it is true, then we can find the answers to that truth and find that truth.

If God doesn't exist - then we get to believe whatever we want, there is no truth and therefore no one will ever find something that doesn't exist.

If you are interested in the reality of the existence of God, let me know.It really isn't as simple as having a bottom line. No doubt, Jesus existed. But that doesn't, in turn, make everything said about him to be true. I have a problem saying God instead of 'a' God. I don't doubt that there could be a God or higher power of some sort, I just doubt that primitive people with so much to gain by claiming this story would hold the answers to all of life. I won't even get into the obvious short comings scientifically that the bible presents, as you've chosen to ignore most of my posts claiming "I don't want to hear 'answers'."

SoJoMike
09-06-2009, 02:34 PM
If a guy purposely lies to me in the first 30 minutes of a conversation, continually, why would I think that he won't continue lying to me? First impressions are so important. Secondly if his entire premise is based on control through religion to feed into his main plot, and that gets debunked, it destroys his entire argument. Third - there may some truths later on in the film, but how do I know which has been fabricated and which has not? His entire credibility is shot.

Can you tell me specifically which parts of the film are true? Can anyone?

IMO your mental approach in this case is no good. Your reasoning for discrediting "anything of value and truth" is an ad hominem. So you willingly discredit value and truth because the guy makes mistakes in his presentation (keeping in mind that you need to trust the guy telling you that the original assertion is false). How do you discredit truth? Truth is.....well, true, whether you like the guy telling you or not.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 04:25 PM
IMO your mental approach in this case is no good. Your reasoning for discrediting "anything of value and truth" is an ad hominem. So you willingly discredit value and truth because the guy makes mistakes in his presentation (keeping in mind that you need to trust the guy telling you that the original assertion is false). How do you discredit truth? Truth is.....well, true, whether you like the guy telling you or not.Do you believe Zietgeist is true?

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 04:29 PM
Agendas mostly to disprove the bible? Do you realize how much of a cash cow religion is? Where do you think these guys get hundreds of millions of dollars to pay off child molestation charges? How are these people building football stadium sized churches? Why are they coming out with DVDs of their services? There's hardly the same amount of money at stake for people trying to disprove or get answers to obvious contradictions and undeniable changes that have been made to the book. Highest selling book of all time? You guessed it..

As for you 'taking many to task' by providing your links or whatever other stuff you've passed off as evidence, that is laughable. Answers and documentation presented to you is met with the same skepticism. You continually ignore certain posts and the same claims you make against facts presented by people questioning the bible, you make the same type of arguments using questionable websites and other obviously biased material. You can cry all you want about people 'not wanting to hear answers', yet you are guilty of the same if not more-so people looking for answers regarding a very questionable book of 'facts' that really has nothing to go on besides it's own word.

You end your post with "so are you actually seeking answers or are you not even interested" like you have any answers at all. Present your opinions as what they are... opinions. Not answers. You haven't answered a damn thing.I have answered...... many times, and continue to provide info that supports God. You just don't like the answers. Nothing I can do about that.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 04:32 PM
Pretty much everything he said about most of the other gods, with one example being Mithra dying and rising three days later, and Attis being crucified.

However I think that this film, just like the bible, is subject to the watchers (or readers) interpretation.

Just because the quotes from the link you provided say that certain aspects of the film aren't true it is up to you to actually do the research and find out if they are also, in fact, telling you the truth to debunk the film. The information is out there. Egyptian, Persian, and Greek mythology are a very well documented part of history. Watch the clip, read the debunkers claims and then do the research yourself. You will find that both sides claim things that are both inaccurate and accurate.I am not questioning the historocity of Egyptian myths and gods. His claims that Christianity is false based on borrowing or copying from other cultures and religions is what has been challenged. That is false. If that is false, why would I believe anything this guy says?

SoJoMike
09-06-2009, 05:47 PM
Do you believe Zietgeist is true?


I'd like to research it more (as if I have time, ha!). This thread is the first time I've ever heard of it and based on the video and the link you posted, I listened to portions of some of the interviews by Peter Joseph, hoping to hear PJ's answers to the mass rebuttals. I am intrigued because I think it is a worthwhile investigation, but I am of course interested in the truth, whatever that may be.

poornate
09-06-2009, 06:18 PM
I discard the Bible because most of it's writings have been altered, changed and was passed down by word of mouth for years. There are also numerous contradictions and blatant errors.

As someone whom approaches the bible as a historical text, and as someone who counts myself as fairly well educated in these things... i don't see how you can discard the bible as a valuable historical text? It exists as it is... one of the most complete and valuable resources we have in text form of that time period... It is not a matter of whether or not you believe the miracles, etc... but look at the facts in it... Do we throw out Gilgamesh because it is fanciful? Or discount all Egyptian texts because of their references to gods and the supernatural? If we subscribed to this type of practice we would have scant textual evidence of anything before the moder era...

HansMojo
09-07-2009, 12:33 AM
As someone whom approaches the bible as a historical text, and as someone who counts myself as fairly well educated in these things... i don't see how you can discard the bible as a valuable historical text? It exists as it is... one of the most complete and valuable resources we have in text form of that time period... It is not a matter of whether or not you believe the miracles, etc... but look at the facts in it... Do we throw out Gilgamesh because it is fanciful? Or discount all Egyptian texts because of their references to gods and the supernatural? If we subscribed to this type of practice we would have scant textual evidence of anything before the moder era...
:up:

SoJoMike
09-07-2009, 09:29 AM
As someone whom approaches the bible as a historical text, and as someone who counts myself as fairly well educated in these things... i don't see how you can discard the bible as a valuable historical text? It exists as it is... one of the most complete and valuable resources we have in text form of that time period... It is not a matter of whether or not you believe the miracles, etc... but look at the facts in it... Do we throw out Gilgamesh because it is fanciful? Or discount all Egyptian texts because of their references to gods and the supernatural? If we subscribed to this type of practice we would have scant textual evidence of anything before the moder era...

I would trust the bible more if it included a change history...you know, version control is an important part of historical research.

The problem with all of this is that the parts of the bible that are unprovable are also the most controversial. Because of that, some people are quick to throw the whole thing out. That's not an honest approach.

On the other hand, because the controversial things must be taken on faith, it can't be a one size fits all kind of deal. If you can trust a God that is willing to let you suffer for all eternity because you are not "strong" enough to overcome temptations that God passively puts before you, in an unequal distribution.... if that sort of thing resonates with you, then your faith is assured. The fact that that does not resonate with everyone (me included) makes it a moral necessity to investigate the truth as much as we are able. Some people are more active on this than others, and I for one, thank them.

poornate
09-08-2009, 07:36 PM
I am a teacher, student, and would style myself as an historian... It is fine to question the myth sections of the biblical canon... but don't discount the valuable history the book contains... how many sources of textual evidence do we now posses that mention Jesus outside of the canonical bible? plenty... there are many historians from the first and second century that refer to him and his crucifixion in their works... The numerous other people mentioned in the bible (Pontius Pilot, David, Solomon, Abraham, Herod, Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) are all aqccounted for in other texts as well... and for that matter... if you question the accumulation of the bible ionto a single work... i encourage that. take the bible as the multi-authored, multi-purposed collection it is... How many letters, such as that from Paul to the Corinthians, mention Jesus? How many sources individually from history does the book, broken down, provide for the historical truth of Jesus as a living person?

Dolphan7
09-10-2009, 07:12 PM
I would trust the bible more if it included a change history...you know, version control is an important part of historical research.

The problem with all of this is that the parts of the bible that are unprovable are also the most controversial. Because of that, some people are quick to throw the whole thing out. That's not an honest approach.

On the other hand, because the controversial things must be taken on faith, it can't be a one size fits all kind of deal. If you can trust a God that is willing to let you suffer for all eternity because you are not "strong" enough to overcome temptations that God passively puts before you, in an unequal distribution.... if that sort of thing resonates with you, then your faith is assured. The fact that that does not resonate with everyone (me included) makes it a moral necessity to investigate the truth as much as we are able. Some people are more active on this than others, and I for one, thank them.You can look at the Dead Sea Scrolls as a form of change history if you want. We find almost no error in the thousands or so years between these texts and the next oldest.

The bible should be taken only one of two ways. It is either completely true and accurate, or it is garbage. It cannot be the document of inspired and divine authorship if it is false, or if we can't know and understand which is false and which is true. We take it on faith that it is indeed true, but that faith isn't blind or without some solid evidence to support it. Faith simply means I trust God for all the unknown, because of the evidence of the known - for instance the person and deity of Jesus Christ. Without Jesus and the whole New Testament - the bible would be much harder to prove.

The bible records many things of historical significance and there is evidence to support it. So far the bible has been supported by many forms of this evidence....from geology to archeology to anthropology etc...

Based on this supporting data that verifies biblical historical events and peoples, and the multiple and massive amounts of evidence for Jesus, I take it on faith that the rest of the bible is also true. So far there hasn't been one bit of evidence that disproves the bible. None. Plenty of questions and controversy for sure...but nothing that completely discredits it. That is something to take note of because it is extroardinary!

It is the most unique work of all time. Bar none hands down. And if it is not true and of God then it is the result of one of the biggest and most intricate conspiracies of all time. Bar none. Hands down.

I do want to question you on your comment:

If you can trust a God that is willing to let you suffer for all eternity because you are not "strong" enough to overcome temptations that God passively puts before you, in an unequal distribution.... if that sort of thing resonates with you, then your faith is assured.

Why do you think that it is God that is placing these temptations in front of you?

SoJoMike
09-11-2009, 09:24 PM
You can look at the Dead Sea Scrolls as a form of change history if you want. We find almost no error in the thousands or so years between these texts and the next oldest.

The bible should be taken only one of two ways. It is either completely true and accurate, or it is garbage. It cannot be the document of inspired and divine authorship if it is false, or if we can't know and understand which is false and which is true. We take it on faith that it is indeed true, but that faith isn't blind or without some solid evidence to support it. Faith simply means I trust God for all the unknown, because of the evidence of the known - for instance the person and deity of Jesus Christ. Without Jesus and the whole New Testament - the bible would be much harder to prove.

The bible records many things of historical significance and there is evidence to support it. So far the bible has been supported by many forms of this evidence....from geology to archeology to anthropology etc...

Based on this supporting data that verifies biblical historical events and peoples, and the multiple and massive amounts of evidence for Jesus, I take it on faith that the rest of the bible is also true. So far there hasn't been one bit of evidence that disproves the bible. None. Plenty of questions and controversy for sure...but nothing that completely discredits it. That is something to take note of because it is extroardinary!

It is the most unique work of all time. Bar none hands down. And if it is not true and of God then it is the result of one of the biggest and most intricate conspiracies of all time. Bar none. Hands down.

I do want to question you on your comment:

If you can trust a God that is willing to let you suffer for all eternity because you are not "strong" enough to overcome temptations that God passively puts before you, in an unequal distribution.... if that sort of thing resonates with you, then your faith is assured.

Why do you think that it is God that is placing these temptations in front of you?

Because the Christian God creates the implement of evil and passively allows it to continue. God is responsible. The buck stops with God. The Christian God is evil by proxy. I don't know how else to put it. How about this: put in the framework of our existence on earth, what the Christian God does is akin to a system of justice knowing that evil people are doing evil things, possessing the power to stop it, but letting it happen anyway because that is what the evil people are choosing by their own free will.

I just can't get behind that. An all powerful, loving God F'ing with everyone like that? It makes no sense. How can you trust a God like that? Doesn't something like this motivate you to find a better solution than that put forth by Christianity?

poornate
09-11-2009, 11:26 PM
Rather than debate the whole God part... why not address the existing historical record regarding the Jesus as a real historical figure issue... God is a tiring debate, and unwinnable... but Jesus? I absolutely believe he existed.

Dolphan7
09-12-2009, 12:54 AM
Because the Christian God creates the implement of evil and passively allows it to continue. God is responsible. The buck stops with God. The Christian God is evil by proxy. I don't know how else to put it. How about this: put in the framework of our existence on earth, what the Christian God does is akin to a system of justice knowing that evil people are doing evil things, possessing the power to stop it, but letting it happen anyway because that is what the evil people are choosing by their own free will.

I just can't get behind that. An all powerful, loving God F'ing with everyone like that? It makes no sense. How can you trust a God like that? Doesn't something like this motivate you to find a better solution than that put forth by Christianity?Well, you obviously haven't spent the time to know and understand what the bible says about God. God is not evil. Far from it. In order to understand why bad things happen in this world you need to understand how it all started. It wasn't God's fault. God intended to have fellowship with mankind without sin and evil things. Satan ruined that and brought about the fall of man. We chose to disobey God and choose sin over God. And the consequences of that sin set in motion events that lead up to God sending a savior to help cleanse us of that sin and remove that consequence once and for all. That is what Jesus is all about. He took the heat for our mistake, our sin, and only through Him can we find salvation. Not an evil God, but a loving God would send his only son to die for all of us. Why can't God just make it all go away then? Because God cannot lie. God said do not eat from this tree or you will surely die. We did and now we die. Not only that but we are separated from God because God cannot stand to be around sin - so pure that he is. He can't undo the consequences of that sin. So we all must die. But because of the blood of Jesus - we die, but get to live for eternity in heaven with God. How cool is that. Sure beats the alternative.

Another question. What makes you think God is allowing people to get away with it? Ultimately these people will pay for their sins. It may not be in this lifetime, but we can be sure they will be judged by none other than the ultimate judge - God Himself.

And it isn't about finding a better solution. It isn't about finding a religion or belief system that "fits" your personality, feelings, emotions, morals and values.

I am a Christian because it is true, not because it makes me feel good inside.

HansMojo
09-12-2009, 02:46 AM
Because the Christian God creates the implement of evil and passively allows it to continue. God is responsible. The buck stops with God.

The Christian God is evil by proxy. I don't know how else to put it. How about this: put in the framework of our existence on earth, what the Christian God does is akin to a system of justice knowing that evil people are doing evil things, possessing the power to stop it, but letting it happen anyway because that is what the evil people are choosing by their own free will.

I just can't get behind that. An all powerful, loving God F'ing with everyone like that? It makes no sense. How can you trust a God like that? Doesn't something like this motivate you to find a better solution than that put forth by Christianity?

I completely agree with you that the buck stops with the Christian God. According to my religion, God created Lucifer and even let Him live after he rebelled. Also according to my religion, God created us and lets us live even though we choose to sin (in this case, I'm talking about sin that is related to doing things that bring suffering upon ourselves and to others). And IMHO, like any good parent, God has taken full responsibility for the mess that has been created by His children. He took responsibility for this mess when the Creator of all things, the most powerful being in the universe, the Almighty God, humbled Himself to the point of dying a humiliating death on a cross. And why did He do this? Was someone forcing Him to do it? According to my religion, God did this because He loves us and wants to save us from ourselves. He did this to reconcile us back to Himself so that He could give us everlasting life. So yeah, I agree, the buck stops with God. He has taken full responsibility for what has taken place in His universe, but I don't blame Him for anything that has gone wrong. I blame those, including myself, who exercise the gift of free will to sin.

However, I definitely don't agree or even understand your statement that God is f'ing with everyone. What exactly would you have God do? Would you have him stop us from sinning in all forms (the only way to stop all suffering as I see it)? And if so, how would He do that other than to remove our freedom of choice? Would you prefer that we were all mindless automotons who could not sin?

Is God supposed to swoop down and remove the Big Mac from your hand before you take a bite...so that you don't someday get fat or get heart disease? Is He supposed to cause men to have temporary erectile dysfunction every time they get ready to cheat on their loved ones or commit a sexual crime or sleep with someone who has a disease? Is He supposed to cover our mouths before we say a hurtful thing to someone else? Is He supposed to uglify all the women so that men don't get jealous and commit crimes of passion? Is He supposed to destroy all the barley so that we can't make beer and drive drunk and accidently kill people. I could go on, but the point is, what exactly would you have Him do? Sin and suffering exists because people choose to do things that are are sinful and bring suffering. As I said in a previous post, we suffer because of our own sins. We suffer because of the sins of others. We suffer because of generations of sin. We might get cancer from the chemicals that were put on the ground before we was even born. We suffer because of the ever presence (in this life) of bad decisions, of mistakes, of accidents, of purposeful acts of evil...of sin. We are reaping the whirlwind created by those that came before us just us future generations will be affected by our mistakes.

But rather than blaming God for all the suffering we all see and experience, I choose to blame myself and all the rest of the sinners that have ever lived. But God has and does take full responsibility for all the bad that has ever happened and for that, I love and praise and worship Him. Peace.

SoJoMike
09-12-2009, 10:56 AM
Well, you obviously haven't spent the time to know and understand what the bible says about God. God is not evil.......Satan ruined that and brought about the fall of man. .......

If this is what the Bible says, then I am not off base. I have simply come to a conclusion that, of course, the authors/translators/etc... of the Bible were not willing to include. That is God is ultimate responsible for everything since God design and implemented everything, including evil. Satan ruined it, but God created Lucifer and allowed him to continue with his behavior. And really, let us realize that there is no way to prove these parts of the Bible. This is my problem with it. They make no sense, and by your logic, we should not question it because some parts of the Bible are a trustworthy source of history.

And I know that, according to the Bible, God will punish those who sin. But in the meantime, God has the power to stop the sin and is letting it continue and people suffer. Evil by proxy.

I think the problem discussing any of this with you is that I am willing to think outside of the boundaries set by the Bible. You always present the Bible as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I willing to question what is supposed and point out conclusions that can be drawn by what is provided, but not fully addressed.

SoJoMike
09-12-2009, 11:05 AM
However, I definitely don't agree or even understand your statement that God is f'ing with everyone. What exactly would you have God do? Would you have him stop us from sinning in all forms (the only way to stop all suffering as I see it)? And if so, how would He do that other than to remove our freedom of choice? Would you prefer that we were all mindless automotons who could not sin?

Is God supposed to swoop down and remove the Big Mac from your hand before you take a bite...so that you don't someday get fat or get heart disease? Is He supposed to cause men to have temporary erectile dysfunction every time they get ready to cheat on their loved ones or commit a sexual crime or sleep with someone who has a disease? Is He supposed to cover our mouths before we say a hurtful thing to someone else? Is He supposed to uglify all the women so that men don't get jealous and commit crimes of passion? Is He supposed to destroy all the barley so that we can't make beer and drive drunk and accidently kill people. I could go on, but the point is, what exactly would you have Him do? Sin and suffering exists because people choose to do things that are are sinful and bring suffering. As I said in a previous post, we suffer because of our own sins. We suffer because of the sins of others. We suffer because of generations of sin. We might get cancer from the chemicals that were put on the ground before we was even born. We suffer because of the ever presence (in this life) of bad decisions, of mistakes, of accidents, of purposeful acts of evil...of sin. We are reaping the whirlwind created by those that came before us just us future generations will be affected by our mistakes.

But rather than blaming God for all the suffering we all see and experience, I choose to blame myself and all the rest of the sinners that have ever lived. But God has and does take full responsibility for all the bad that has ever happened and for that, I love and praise and worship Him. Peace.

Hey I respect all of that. Believe it or not, this is a little closer to what I believe than Christianity. And I'd have to disagree with referring to God as "Him" since I don't believe God has testicles. :d-day:

aesop
09-12-2009, 11:06 AM
I think the problem discussing any of this with you is that I am willing to think outside of the boundaries set by the Bible. You always present the Bible as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I willing to question what is supposed and point out conclusions that can be drawn by what is provided, but not fully addressed.You put it perfectly.

Dolphan7
09-12-2009, 01:48 PM
If this is what the Bible says, then I am not off base. I have simply come to a conclusion that, of course, the authors/translators/etc... of the Bible were not willing to include. That is God is ultimate responsible for everything since God design and implemented everything, including evil. Satan ruined it, but God created Lucifer and allowed him to continue with his behavior. And really, let us realize that there is no way to prove these parts of the Bible. This is my problem with it. They make no sense, and by your logic, we should not question it because some parts of the Bible are a trustworthy source of history.

And I know that, according to the Bible, God will punish those who sin. But in the meantime, God has the power to stop the sin and is letting it continue and people suffer. Evil by proxy.

I think the problem discussing any of this with you is that I am willing to think outside of the boundaries set by the Bible. You always present the Bible as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I willing to question what is supposed and point out conclusions that can be drawn by what is provided, but not fully addressed.Well......I know some of my colleagues believe that God is responsible for sin in the world, which by default makes God sinful...which I am not ready to go there - the bible doesn't go there either. But....people can believe what they want. I think people really need to know and understand the entire concept behind "Free Will". If my son screws up and breaks the rules, he is responsible for the consequences. Now I may be responsible to instruct him and raise him up with the morals and values he needs to make good decisions, but ultimately it is his choice to obey or not. I am not responsible for his actions or his consequences. Same with God and us. Plain and simple.

I used to be an atheist - and questioned everything about God and religion in general. I looked inside the box, outside the box, under the box etc....It took me a while to find that Christianity is true. I believe it because it is true. So I have already been down that road before my friend - why do you wish me to go down it again? I would encourage you to think outside the boundaries you have set for yourself, which is - not wanting to believe in a God that in your mind is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world.

It isn't about "this world". It is about eternity. God gives us eternal life if we "choose" to believe in Him. It is of eternal significance. God can give you the tools to make the choice, but ultimately you will have to make that choice yourself, and you will have to accept the consequences of that choice. Just like in life. Only this is for all the marbles man.....eternity....is an awful long time to be wrong. You can't go up to God in the end and tell Him - Hey I thought you were this, or that, or you are responsibly for my sins. God gives us His Word in the bible, and unless He speaks to you directly and audibly, it is the only way he communicates with us. God lays it all out there for us...it really is pretty simple.

SoJoMike
09-12-2009, 02:41 PM
Rather than debate the whole God part... why not address the existing historical record regarding the Jesus as a real historical figure issue... God is a tiring debate, and unwinnable... but Jesus? I absolutely believe he existed.

Because Jesus' existence is simple. That isn't really the issue. The issue is whether Jesus was God incarnate.

SoJoMike
09-12-2009, 03:02 PM
I used to be an atheist - and questioned everything about God and religion in general. I looked inside the box, outside the box, under the box etc....It took me a while to find that Christianity is true. I believe it because it is true. So I have already been down that road before my friend - why do you wish me to go down it again? I would encourage you to think outside the boundaries you have set for yourself, which is - not wanting to believe in a God that in your mind is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world.


FYI, I do believe God is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world, and all the great and wonderful things in the world. And that is OK with me, because I don't think of God consciously doing things on purpose. Of course I have to have some boundaries and they have to be based on my own sense of what is true, which is different for everyone.

poornate
09-12-2009, 03:23 PM
Because Jesus' existence is simple. That isn't really the issue. The issue is whether Jesus was God incarnate.

...but that is the thread... was Jesus a real person...

Dolphan7
09-12-2009, 03:39 PM
FYI, I do believe God is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world, and all the great and wonderful things in the world. And that is OK with me, because I don't think of God consciously doing things on purpose. Of course I have to have some boundaries and they have to be based on my own sense of what is true, which is different for everyone.I agree that people will know God in different ways. What may convince me, may not convince someone else....and visa versa. But....people accepting the reality of God in their own way does not mean that each can view God's attributes and character differently. They can't change who God is and what he stands for in order to "accept" Him. God is who he is, and will always but just that, no matter what we think he is or want Him to be.

SoJoMike
09-12-2009, 03:43 PM
...but that is the thread... was Jesus a real person...

Agreed

HansMojo
09-12-2009, 04:02 PM
Well......I know some of my colleagues believe that God is responsible for sin in the world, which by default makes God sinful...which I am not ready to go there - the bible doesn't go there either. But....people can believe what they want. I think people really need to know and understand the entire concept behind "Free Will". If my son screws up and breaks the rules, he is responsible for the consequences. Now I may be responsible to instruct him and raise him up with the morals and values he needs to make good decisions, but ultimately it is his choice to obey or not. I am not responsible for his actions or his consequences. Same with God and us. Plain and simple.


If you are referring to me, please re-read my post as you are completely misunderstanding me. I said God *took* responsibility for our actions when He died on the cross. I never blamed Him for sin, in fact I said that I blamed sinners for sin (including myself).

IMHO, God is not sinful, nor would I ever suggest that He was. He created free will, not sin. Free will can be used for evil or for good, IMHO. But the buck does stop with God. He took responsibility for all sins and suffered the penalty for all sins, when the Father laid ALL sins upon the Lamb that was slain, which is Jesus. He died for ALL of our sins. He took our place, thus He took responsibility for all of our sins. Is that not Biblical?

HansMojo
09-12-2009, 04:11 PM
Hey I respect all of that. Believe it or not, this is a little closer to what I believe than Christianity. And I'd have to disagree with referring to God as "Him" since I don't believe God has testicles. :d-day:
Actually, what I said is representative of what Christianity believes, so you might be closer to us than you think. Of course that is not to say that the gap between us isn't still mind bogglingly ginormous! :lol:

Dolphan7
09-12-2009, 04:12 PM
If you are referring to me, please re-read my post as you are completely misunderstanding me. I said God *took* responsibility for our actions when He died on the cross. I never blamed Him for sin, in fact I said that I blamed sinners for sin (including myself).

IMHO, God is not sinful, nor would I ever suggest that He was. He created free will, not sin. Free will can be used for evil or for good, IMHO. But the buck does stop with God. He took responsibility for all sins and suffered the penalty for all sins, when the Father laid ALL sins upon the Lamb that was slain, which is Jesus. He died for ALL of our sins. He took our place, thus He took responsibility for all of our sins. Is that not Biblical?I guess that is an interesting way to look at it. Jesus did indeed take the hit for the sins of the world, a total sacrifice. He didn't have to, and he didn't deserve it... being perfect. He did it because he loves us. He did it to give us a path to salvation, so we can reconnect with him. But I really have a hard time saying he took the responsibility for our sins. I know what you are trying to say here, I just can't go there with you.

Taking responsibility for the consequences of sin is one thing. We owed a debt we could never pay. Jesus paid that debt for us, taking the responsibility of that debt on himself. Taking responsibility for the actual sin is another thing entirely. I think you are referring to the former correct?

Dolphan7
09-12-2009, 04:14 PM
...but that is the thread... was Jesus a real person...
Come on Nate. You know that any religious or political debate rarely stays on topic these days. LOL

HansMojo
09-12-2009, 04:31 PM
I guess that is an interesting way to look at it. Jesus did indeed take the hit for the sins of the world, a total sacrifice. He didn't have to, and he didn't deserve it... being perfect. He did it because he loves us. He did it to give us a path to salvation, so we can reconnect with him. But I really have a hard time saying he took the responsibility for our sins. I know what you are trying to say here, I just can't go there with you.
Well, maybe it's just symantecs, but for my entire life I've heard preachers both within and outside of my church express it exactly as I have just done. We don't blame God for our sins, but we can thank Jesus for being willing to take the responsibility for the mess we have made and for carrying the burden we cannot carry, and for paying the price that we cannot pay. He died for sins He did not commit, thus He took responsibility for them even though He was not responsible for them.

Dolphan7
09-12-2009, 04:39 PM
Well, maybe it's just symantecs, but for my entire life I've heard preachers both within and outside of my church express it exactly as I have just done. We don't blame God for our sins, but we can thank Jesus for being willing to take the responsibility for the mess we have made and for carrying the burden we cannot carry, and for paying the price that we cannot pay. He died for sins He did not commit, thus He took responsibility for them even though He was not responsible for them.
I added on to my post above. Did you read it? What do you think?

HansMojo
09-12-2009, 11:07 PM
I added on to my post above. Did you read it? What do you think?

This is what I'm assuming you added but please correct me if I'm wrong:


Taking responsibility for the consequences of sin is one thing. We owed a debt we could never pay. Jesus paid that debt for us, taking the responsibility of that debt on himself. Taking responsibility for the actual sin is another thing entirely. I think you are referring to the former correct?
So my answer is sort of. To me, it is clear that He took responsibility for the *consequences* of our sin by dying on the cross and yes that is what I was focusing on. But the differentiation between His *taking* responsibility for the "actual" sin vs. the "consequences" is primarily semantics to me to be perfectly honest with you since either way you say it, He remains completely and perfectly innocent of those sins in my mind. He suffered and died because of our sins, not His. If to you, to say He took on the responsibility for the actual sins means to say that He must now be guilty of those sins in some way, then by all means, don't think or say it that way because it is definitely not Biblical to think of Jesus as having any sin or guilt for sin. That thought process and wording does not have that kind of connotation to me though. Not at all.

But I am willing to state/acknowledge that God could put an end to sin right now just as He could have put an end to it thousands of years ago. And since I believe He is Omniscient, I believe He would have known what was going to happen and therefore could have elected to not create Lucifer in the first place or to create Steve and Jennifer instead of Adam and Eve. But He did what He did and I don't believe it was a mistake. I have my theories as to why He did, but that is all they are and I'm happy to accept and believe that God has a bigger picture in mind than we currently comprehend and His allowing sin to continue for now is very purposeful and for the greater good. I am also perfectly happy to accept that one day, God will put an end to sin and when He does, it will be the right time for Him to do so.

To some people, the thought that God is omnipotent, and therefore could put an immediate end to sin if He chose to do so leads them to then blame God for all the bad they see in the world. I can understand their thought process, but I totally and completely disagree with them because IMHO, we are to blame, our sinful forefathers are to blame, and fallen angels are to blame for exercising our free will to do evil. Free will is not a bad thing, but it does have consequences when sentient beings use it to do wrong. Apparently (and I agree), free will is worth the price we are paying for our sins and the price that God was willing to pay to redeem us from them. JMHO. Peace.

Dolphan7
09-13-2009, 12:32 AM
This is what I'm assuming you added but please correct me if I'm wrong:
So my answer is sort of. To me, it is clear that He took responsibility for the *consequences* of our sin by dying on the cross and yes that is what I was focusing on. But the differentiation between His *taking* responsibility for the "actual" sin vs. the "consequences" is primarily semantics to me to be perfectly honest with you since either way you say it, He remains completely and perfectly innocent of those sins in my mind. He suffered and died because of our sins, not His. If to you, to say He took on the responsibility for the actual sins means to say that He must now be guilty of those sins in some way, then by all means, don't think or say it that way because it is definitely not Biblical to think of Jesus as having any sin or guilt for sin. That thought process and wording does not have that kind of connotation to me though. Not at all.

But I am willing to state/acknowledge that God could put an end to sin right now just as He could have put an end to it thousands of years ago. And since I believe He is Omniscient, I believe He would have known what was going to happen and therefore could have elected to not create Lucifer in the first place or to create Steve and Jennifer instead of Adam and Eve. But He did what He did and I don't believe it was a mistake. I have my theories as to why He did, but that is all they are and I'm happy to accept and believe that God has a bigger picture in mind than we currently comprehend and His allowing sin to continue for now is very purposeful and for the greater good. I am also perfectly happy to accept that one day, God will put an end to sin and when He does, it will be the right time for Him to do so.

To some people, the thought that God is omnipotent, and therefore could put an immediate end to sin if He chose to do so leads them to then blame God for all the bad they see in the world. I can understand their thought process, but I totally and completely disagree with them because IMHO, we are to blame, our sinful forefathers are to blame, and fallen angels are to blame for exercising our free will to do evil. Free will is not a bad thing, but it does have consequences when sentient beings use it to do wrong. Apparently (and I agree), free will is worth the price we are paying for our sins and the price that God was willing to pay to redeem us from them. JMHO. Peace.
Very good then. I thought that is what you were saying. It isn't semantics to me personally though. If my son screws up and owes a lot of money to the court, and has no way to pay it and no way to ever pay it off....and I step in to pay that for him being a loving father with infinite money in the bank....that is one thing...I am simply paying his debt, without accepting responsibility for the actions that led to the debt being incurred. That is still on him. This is the way it is with God and us. This is totally different than accepting responsibility for the actions themselves. That is just the way I see it. Glad we agree in principle.