Dude, that's 50 years later than even Bart Ehrman says they're written.

the Gospels of the new Testament were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after the life of Jesus

From The Lost Gospel of Judas

I don't know where you're getting your info, but it sounds like it's some kind of fringe pseudoskepticism. I'd encourage you to read this post from an atheist, and be more careful with your sources.

Mind you, this was a roomful of atheists. Critical, skeptical people, right? Not so! Nearly half of them were willing to be instantly persuaded by a single talk without checking any sources or reading any rebuttals. Many of them were totally unaware of how historical scholarship was even done. I feel like I could have made up a bunch of stuff, claimed that it was held by the majority of historians, and then persuaded half the audience to believe that Jesus was a Persian myth.
[...]
Anyway, this is one of a thousand events that lead me to think atheists are not generally more rational or careful than belivers. Thus, my plea to all people is: Do not be quickly persuaded. Investigate. Challenge. Doubt.

Comes from Jesus, actually. The sermon on the mount, in Matthew 5.

People have a tendency to settle for doing the minimum, and focusing on external things--the things that show up to other people. Looking good by following the minimum rules, rather than actually caring about acting & living & thinking consistently with principles.

So, in this whole section, Jesus ramps up expectations. He goes from the external, down into the heart. For instance, he points to the command, "Don't murder." Well, yeah, someone deserves judgment for committing murder--but the principles behind that also mean you shouldn't accept anger & division in your heart toward your brother. You should be reconciled.

Similarly, he ramps it up this way at the end of the chapter:

43 You have heard that it was said, âYou shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.â(TM) 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

By the way, he's not quoting the Old Testament there--just some kind of folk saying, or something.

So, he does the same thing with adultery.

27 You have heard that it was said, âYou shall not commit adultery.â(TM) 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It's not about seeing naked people--it's about lust.

You probably don't accept that he's right about this principle. But yes, it's from the Bible.

FYI, conservative Christian here.

The reason I don't watch porn has nothing to do with thinking that sex is dirty.

Uhhh...forcing someone to undergo a simulated drowning should NOT be divided on whether or not that would be considered torture. Anyone not drinking the koolaid or with an agenda would be hard pressed to have any kind of rational argument about that particular fact.

Oh, I don't know about that. Is it that hard to imagine that someone would define naturally torture in terms of physical pain, not psychological distress?

Of course, for someone to go that route, they'll have to say that "Chinese water torture" isn't torture, either. And that's such an accepted part of the meaning of torture that it seems unlikely.

But I still don't find it hard to believe that someone would think, "Torture is about physical pain", without "drinking the koolaid" or having an agenda.

Sorry, I forgot to finish my thought at the beginning.

I was going to say, it is true that it's sometimes hard to find the line between science fiction and fantasy.

Fantasy, maybe.

Plenty of science fiction involves no explanation whatsoever of any of the fantastic technology or events. Or none beyond the kind of "he's got a genetic condition" explanation in this movie.

In my awareness, the quality of the science-fiction-as-science-fiction depends more on how well it explores the results of the speculation. Not on how well it comes up with pseudoscientific explanation for what's going on.

Exploring the impact on a romantic relationship like this seems quintessentially science fiction to me.

Maybe--but I'm pointing out that a single point does not a trend make. It might be that he has a higher intercept, but shallower slope.

Or it might be that he evaluates "having a gun visible in the front of his pants, in his home" as a lower response than you do--that's easily possible, and even seems likely. It doesn't mean he'd shoot anyone for less reason than you.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is not science fiction, it was a drama.

Eternal Sunshine was a drama, and it was also science fiction.

We could go back-and-forth like this, but remember that an argument's not just contradiction.

It sounds like your logic is this:

"His response was more escalated than I think was warranted by the situation. Therefore, there are probably no limits to how far he would go in a worse situation."

In nerd language: It's like you have a graph in your mind. The level of response as a function of situation. R(S) would be the function, something like R = mS + b, if it's a straight line. You have your idea of where that line should be--your own slope and intercept. So you see one data point where his response is above your line, and you extrapolate out, as though his entire line is shifted up by that same amount. But maybe he has a shallower slope.

Go ahead and cross off the Time Traveler's Wife from that list, its not really Sci-fi and its been getting low to mid range review scores anyway.

What are you talking about? What makes you say that it's not scifi? The fact that it's a chick flick, too, doesn't make it not science fiction. From what I can tell, it's just as much science fiction as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Of course, some people define "scifi" differently from "science fiction". Something like "space battle/cool technology/futuristic awesomeness". Maybe you meant it that way.

Read this guy's comment. He explained it well.

1) Never go to bed angry. You might go to bed before you solve the problem, but no matter what it is, no matter how bad it is, you can always find a way to hug your wife, kiss her, and tell her that the two of you will be able to work it out. Going to bed angry breeds resentment.

The problem is that you're misunderstanding "don't go to bed angry." The point isn't, "Keep talking about it till you resolve the problem." The point is, stop, take stock, let go of the angry feeling, and commit to working it out together later.

Of course, it'll help resolve the argument if you don't wait for bedtime to do this. Make it part of your approach to every argument, as soon as you realize that you're letting anger get the best of you.

Disclaimer: I've never been married. My apologies if I'm oversimplifying because of that. But this seems like a pretty wise general principle, at least.

but you can boil it all down to "you can be right, or you can be happy."

Try putting it this way. She might agree with it, then.

"You can be proven right, or you can be happy. You can self-justify, or you can be happy."

You should be willing to not be proven right for two reasons: (1) Even if you are right, how important is it that other people realize it? (2) Sometimes you'll turn out to be wrong.

Easier, because most of the worldbuilding is already done for you;

I don't believe authors ought to be involved in what's called "world building". :)

"And since Jesus' bother James, and later his nephew, lead the revolutionary Jewish organization Jesus founded, it is not clear why other family members would have to be hidden away, particularly as other people of nominally royal descent were always available to lead as well."

Don't you mean James along with Peter, John, Barnabas, Paul, etc.? :)

This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)

Hmm... Does broad-brushing "religion" with criticism that should be aimed at "forced religion" count as "thinking for yourself"?

I suppose it does. Sloppy, unreasonable thinking is still thinking, after all. It just doesn't deserve any more respect than what you're (rightly) criticizing.