Oh, you got me. I stand corrected.

Sorry, just to clarify

PC industry == kind of open

I can't honestly say that things are where I'd like them... we still have patent issues and even the EISA bus had to be licensed... chips are very closed usually... so we are a far cry away from a truly "Open PC".

I'm not suggesting that these companies do anything for any other reason than profit. And I'm not saying that Apple stuff isn't better than PC stuff.

But Apple still stands out as a poster child for proprietary hardware and software, even over M$ and IBM, which is an accomplishment.

:)

Well, you are not "straight" yet. The poster said that in 1986 "most home computers probably still had built in chips" and that talked about "IBM clones that only did text." I corrected him about that (by 1987 you had the Mac II and VGA)

Yes, Macs were closed systems. Are you disputing this? That's nuts. Microchannel? Really? I get that you might be one of these rabid Apple fanbois I've heard about, but that doesn't make me an IBM apologist. What does MCA have to do with this discussion? Ease up. I've owned an Apple II, TI 99/4a, Trash 80, PCs, Mac, a VAX in the basement at one point, and even a Mac Mini... computers are computers, and corporations do what corporations do...

It is true that IBM never intended the PC to be "open" - that was an accident. The MCA was an attempt to go back. At first the VGA may have been MCA-only (way to miss the point) but CGA and EGA were very popular open standards and the VGA standard became the most popular of all. The ISA bus was a mistake as far as IBM was concerned. But by this point in time, the "industry" (the "I" in ISA and EISA) had gotten together to clone all the BIOS and create open standards. Apple did not (and doesn't) have open standards, and I remember leaning towards PCs because of that. Everybody knows this, and many people feel like this hurt Apple in the late 80s and 90s, regardless of their "superior video cards". Some people (me) think that while Apple may have done some very cool things lately, this very old (and common) attitude ("it's just like 1986 again") will hurt them, and even if it doesn't hurt Apple it will hurt consumers and the industry. And so far, we've only been talking about hardware. Don't even get me started on software development.

Oh, and the point?

Open >> Closed

Apple==closed

PC industry==open

PC industry != Microsoft or IBM

Facts, facts, and more facts.

Thanks

Hmm, not sure what you are getting at... the mac II came out in 1987 without on-board video and was a very closed platform (remember those expensive Radius cards?)... at the same time the VGA standard came out. If you were there, his description of the market (and Apple's strategy) back then sounds about right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vga

Chance you "randomly" pick a "5" -> 1/1000
Chance you randomly roll a "5" -> 1/1000
Chance of both events happening together -> 1/1000 * 1/1000


Otherwise correct I guess. I'm not buying any of these calculations, however. 1 in a 1000 chance to observe a certain kind of planet? What does that even mean?

According to intel, asyncronous events at the chip level can be categorized like this:

• Interupts
• Exceptions (Traps, Faults, Aborts)

In this way, all "faults" are hardware faults. Now some "faults" - such as the "Double Fault" - can cause the OS to hang... windows for example will blue screen on a double fault. What is the "cause" of the Double Fault? Well, it's either a software error (kernel bug) or something physically wrong with the machine, such as bad memory. But I think by "fault" you mean something like the "blue screen of death." So are you saying "most blue screens are caused by physical hardware problems" or that "most blue screens are caused by microprocessor faults"? Because "most faults are hardware faults" is at best trivially true, at worst flat-out wrong because ALL faults are hardware faults by definition, i.e. being exceptions, raised by the microprocessor. I would suggest something like "while most kernel failures are caused by hardware faults (by definition), and a correct kernel could theoretically prevent 100% of failures caused by kernel bugs, there will always be kernel failures due to hardware issues that you cannot prevent with formal review." But I guess that's so obvious nobody would bother posting that. On the other hand, nobody will call "bullshit" either.

Find the invisible man and you'll have a power set...

-Me

-You

You don't see the problem here? I can't help you see something I'm not suggesting. You can't get there rationally. Reason can inform your personal theology (you can call it a 'bastardization' if you need to) but I would never suggest that you can get there through any mechanism other than the philosophical equivalent of jumping off a cliff. You sensed at first that I am - somehow - more rational than others perhaps, but in your desire to 'tease' some Spinoza-like proof from me you miss my point completely.

Lex parsimoniae. You would have it 'more likely' that there are whole swaths of missing quotations of Jesus (or perhaps they never even existed) and that legions of followers instead choose to invent and/or believe his Messiah message a generation or two after the fact. This, in spite of little (or zero) empirical evidence to the contrary (e.g. fragments of Mark where Jesus said, 'But hey, I'm not God or anything!', you know... something we could actually discuss). I posit that, if you don't believe any of this already (via irrational faith in something), considering the popularity of the Messiah concept at the time, and the subsequent popularity of the idea later on, a far more 'frugal' explanation with fewer 'entities' involved in the causation would be that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, and he merely lied about it. I have no idea why you want to correct me here about Occam's razor, either in it's actual form, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or in its vulgar form.

But that's the not the point.

Which is the point. In spite of your countless reasons, I say that this, for you, is some kind of a priori analytic knowledge or something. If I wasn't feeling generous I'd simply call it petitio principii. I'm confident that I will not convince you of that. On the other hand, I merely suggest that you could make a solid, inductive argument that "there probably was a man Jesus and he more than likely said the things recorded in these so-called synoptic Gospels." The ultimate truth of such an argument would be debatable, of course. Yet you say it is "unreasonable."

Let's call it then. Impasse.

If you say so. I find my very reasonable opinion has been repeatedly tossed into the ring of Christian apologetics, with no small amount of "straw man" tactics at that. My paraphrasing is my honest view of your argument. Maybe I'm not paying attention after all... after rereading your post, this caught my attention.

I am very sorry I didn't catch that. I could have made my point so much clearer if I had simply said

Apparently, that's a reasonable and logical position after all. That is, unless there is something logical and rational about reincarnation, karma, or Samara that I'm not aware of, and something equally irrational about prophecy (which we are all well aware of). And this was, after all, all that I was originally saying. Do you think rebirth is 'logically' more intriguing than say, the Book of Revelation?

Never. I said it was a fantasy to suggest that a scam - involving a non-existent Jesus or a Jesus that never claimed to be more than a rabbi - could have taken over Israel and later the whole Roman empire, particularity in the face of such persecution. Not impossible, unlikely to the extreme, which is still just an opinion. It's as likely as having the current growth of Scientology yet with L Ron Hubbard in actual fact being a Christian TV preacher, and everyone being tricked into thinking he wrote things OT III when he really didn't, I suppose. I can give you that. And that seems like exactly what you are suggesting to be the case with Jesus. Do people actually believe this idea?

Perhaps you are still just confused about my position. Again, I'm not saying (in this argument) that Christianity is any more true than say, Scientology, Islam or Buddhism. I'm attacking your contention that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. This is absolutely fantastic to me.

• Did Zoroaster teach free will? I say, yes.
• Did Buddha teach the Four Noble Truths. Yes.
• Did Pythagoras say eating beans was bad? Yes.
• Did Muhammad teach "God is One"? Oh yes.
• Did Joseph Smith claim to have found golden plates? I think so.
• Did L. Ron Hubbard write OT III? Of course.
• Did Jesus of Nazareth claim to the be Jewish Messiah?

Not merely no but obviously no?

And if I'm not mistaken here, you are actually maintaining that it is irrational to believe that Jesus said he was the Messiah? Not merely the idea that he was, but also the idea that he said he was. Yet you find the teachings of Buddha intriguing. You can't actually be saying this... help me out here.

So I'm not taking it personally, but if I understand this correctly I cannot follow it. What went before that allows you to admit this premise into the argument? And a few of your other arguments in other places that I can follow seem circular to me (as mind do to you), for example, I say that I think the synoptic Gospels are better sources of fact (not the word of God) than say, John or Mary, because they seem to the 'majority opinion' of what is extant. This - I thought - was what historians and courtrooms have relied upon for years and years. You've said

and

An honestly, I don't see the point in going much further with this. I am very reluctant to discuss philosophy or religion with you at this point, because frankly I think you are biased against your old beliefs and now are looking for confirmation that you've made the right decision to reject your family's traditions. This is by no means a personal comment, merely what you've said earlier about your family telling you that you are going to burn in hell. I wouldn't blame anyone for being annoyed by that. Furthermore I started off as an Atheist and slowly came to believe that Jesus was "Lord of the Jews" and never felt compelled to believe in concepts like hell or original sin.

Uh... let's see... uhmm... yes? Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. See, for you, that's some kind of argument. It's not. It's been my whole freaking point all along. I have taken issue with your idea that Jesus never claimed to have said what he said, which is unsupported nonsense to me. The idea that Jesus said he was Messiah seems to be a major problem for you, completely aside from the question of whether he was or not. It's not for most non-believers, they simply categorize Jesus with Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Mohamed, Buddha, et all and go about their business. You seem reluctant to do this. Rather, surely they made it up later. Jesus could have never said these things.

Occam's Razor, I'm afraid, says that Jesus was a simple liar and that's all there is to it. Why don't you just go with that?

If you continue to maintain that there is no sound historical proof or rational argument that there was a man named Jesus and that he taught his followers that he was the Jewish Messiah, we are at an impasse. With all due respect, this is completely unreasonable. I know you admit that he may have existed, but I say it this way for a reason. The primary reason to believe he might have existed is the account in the Gospels, yet you deny the veracity of the core quotations of the Gospels, those quotations that make the 'news' out to be 'good'. We're not talking about the historicity of say, the virgin birth. No you are questioning something fundamental and prevalent in the vast, overwhelming majority of the extant texts, and nearly universal in Christian thought, transcending most if not all denominational differences and disputes. You deny (apparently) Mark 8:29...

...could even be a factually correct account of the man's words. You are, in fact, saying that this is a lie, that it is 'clear' and 'obvious' that this was not part of the oral tradition among the first Christians, that rather this is an deliberate invention, swallowed whole - without any corroboration by the community - by those who knew they would surely die for this belief. And furthermore that it is irrational to think otherwise. Are you not saying this? If not, I apologize, for clearly that is an absurd position. I don't want to 'straw man' you after just complaining about it myself.

I don't want to completely 'dodge' this. You'll understand though why I'm not going into my personal reasons for believing that Jesus was Messiah, considering your contention that he never even claimed the title. No, that's pointless and it's even a little bit smarmy of you to ask. And no, I'm not offended.

So now... after all that... let me ask, if the man we call Jesus did exist, is it 'reasonable' in an inductive sense to think that he claimed to be the Jewish Messiah? Is it likely that 'enough' of his words and teachings survived intact 'to a sufficient degree' for us to know what his 'message' was, 'enough' to make decisions about it's philosophically intriguing properties, or lack thereof?

If the answer is 'no,' then you will have scored a victory for your position without a single blow, and you will never have to actually consider the 'philosophy' of Jesus again!

Fair enough, but I'm having a hard time because I can't fight these other battles. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I'm getting a distinct message from your posts. Your position seems to be something like:

Or something like that.

It seems to me that you've now made you mind up about a lot of this, and no, you're not discussing how you got there very much.

I mean, Noah? Where did that come from? I have to believe in Noah if I believe in Christ? I understand that 'most' Christians think this way... but this is slashdot... I thought we made fun of what 'most' people think about 'most things anyway. Now I find that my words are getting mixed up with every crazy thing you've heard any Christian say... and your arguments continue to be mixed up with retorts to arguments I never made...

This is something I can address, and have been trying.

Why one and not the other? You believe he existed. I presume you believe he said things like 'blessed are the poor', correct? But NOT things like 'destroy this temple and I'll raise it up again in three days'? Or 'I am the way and the life' or 'I have come to fulfill the law' or any of the gazillion other quotes that clearly show he said that he was much more than a teacher? Why? I know you said you haven't been sharing your 'research methods' with me, perhaps now is the time to do so.

I mentioned Caesar because 'we' believe a lot of things about him too, and I don't think the historical evidence for these ideas is really all that different than for our ideas about Christ. That might be hard to accept, but that is how I see it. You say Jesus existed, not everyone does. I find it harder to believe that a small personality cult - effectively a scam perpetuated by a fisherman and tax collector - could take over the whole empire in one or two generations. That really seems like fantasy.

Did Caesar think he was a God? Descended from Venus? Caesar's actions shaped (at least) 500 years of Roman life. I absolutely think Caesar thought he was a God. I do not think he was a God. I absolutely do think Jesus said he was the 'Son of God'. I believe this to be true, as well, as you know. But let's continue to focus on the question of if Jesus said these things or not. If I, for some reason, maintained that Venus was real and that Caesar was a descendant of Venus, you would just call me nuts, not go so far out of your way to show me that he never even thought that. I'm not offended, but it's one thing to say 'You believe a myth' and 'You believe a lie.' You need more evidence to support the latter allegation. Do you have it?

You keep suggesting that Jesus never said many things he is supposed to have said. Why? Is this a habit? Do you say, 'Well, Caesar never really thought he was descended from Venus, that's just propaganda from the Julio-Claudian haters.' or 'I think the Buddha was a good teacher, but he never even claimed to have reached nirvana?'

I don't think you do. Clearly you don't worship Caesar or meditate, but it's equally clear that you are biased against the source texts such as Mark. Why is this, again? You apparently think there was a massive conspiracy to invent false quotations and attribute them to Jesus... what proof do you have of this? Or do you dismiss every 'particular set of stories' that no one can 'objectively judge' like Buddhist Sutras or Roman historians?

I have no reason to consider Suetonius a less reliable source than, say, Mark. Suetonius wrote during the time of Hadrian, almost 150 years after Caesar. Mark was written perhaps in 70 AD, less than 40 years after the death of Jesus. If you believe Jesus was a real man, then you should see that more people saw Jesus face to face, heard his words, really knew him, than did Caesar. Caesar did not walk around Israel breaking bread and blessing fishes for two years. Caesar went off to Gaul, hung out in the Senate, the palace, you know. Jesus spent two years preaching in person to crowds all over Judea: to deny that the Jewish people did not know who he was or what he said until some 'Christians' made it up 300 years later simply defies logic.

Is it not accepted that the first Christians were Jews, and gave their life for their beliefs, killed by the Sanhedrin as heretics well before Rome got in on the action? Or is the story of Stephen a conspiracy as well? Or do you think Stephen was stoned for saying 'Hai guys, Jesus was a good teacher?' I don't see the rationale or the evidence for all these conspiracies and lies. There are 5,000 extant Greek manuscript fragments of the New Testament, 10,000 in Latin. If there was some conspiracy to fabricate these teachings of Jesus, when did it happen? 90 AD? Are you kidding? So where are these real Gospels? What did Jesus really say? Because I'd like to know.

The earliest fragment of of the new Testament are from 150 AD, 200 AD. For Mark it is Papyrus 45, dated 250 AD. If you cannot give me something other than your 'hunch' that Jesus never said these things... I'm not sure where we go from here with this part of our discussion. I have to go with the extant manuscripts, the preponderance of the evidence, weighing each one as we go. And no, 'The Gospel of Mary' is not more reliable than Mark. And yes, clearly this man Jesus said 'I am the way and the truth and the life' and furthermore it is supremely logical to believe that he did say that.

Now, as far as the other thing goes, that is another conversation. I can explain my world view in detail, and how I got there. I believe that the Bible was written by men. I suspect that there was a 'Noah' and and a flood of some sort. Stories of a great deluge abound in many ancient cultures... see Atrahasis or Gilgamesh. No, I cannot believe that light refracted differently before this flood. No, I cannot accept that our hero saved two of each species. Yes, I accept that God in his endlessness could have done any of theses things.

I also accept that Moses (if you take him as the author) might have merely included current and popular Semitic myths into the Torah in addition to the more 'historical' accounts, e.g. the things he was recording about his own life.

There is a saying...

Don't forget that this is a conditional, not a biconditional, that is, an implication.

That means that the following could still be true as well:

Which I think should clearly explain how I can believe in the Exodus but not necessarily in Noah's rainbow. You only need to believe in both if you are raised in some kind of cult where they tell you what to believe about every single thing you can think of to ponder.

:)

No, I'm totally for LOGO. If you use something modern like "microworlds" (see link below) then you get some OOP and audio/visual feedback as well. Think Lisp with 2D sprites and other cool stuff. My nephew was writing Lisp routines for his 2D scroller at 10 years old. Now he designs Quake levels. I'm trying to get him to push right on to C, C++ or (maybe) Java. Maybe I'll try Quake C. I want him into pointers and recursion as soon as possible. :)

It's all about graphics and games with the 'kids today', unfortunately. I had to content myself with writing a cheesy database (OPEN FOR INPUT) and sad 'games' (CALL CHAR) on my TI/994A.

One nice thing about microworlds (hate to plug something that costs $150) but it also interfaces with the LEGO NXT robot thing. You can definately engage a kid with writing LOGO for a LEGO turtle.

There are, of course, plenty of FOSS versions that do the same thing, or work with the cricket.

http://www.microworlds.com/solutions/mwex.html

http://www.microworlds.com/solutions/mwexrobotics.html

Titus -> Tiberius

oops

Putting the sidebar in another post.

(Taking these together.)

I certainly take no offense at anything you've said; you've been very polite and your arguments are clear. However, and no offense meant from my side either, but you seem very well prepared for a fight that I'm not picking. I don't have your background... so excuse me if I do not factor the 'dangers' of Christian prophecy (historical texts you mean?) when I read them and find application (if any) for my life. It sounds very much to me like you are 'going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be' FALSE.

This is what I'm talking about. Perhaps I wasn't clear. 'Paul's letters do not CLAIM to be the word of God, therefore I feel no compulsion to regard them as so.' THAT'S the 'THINKING' part, and I share that with you. 'I follow Christ as Lord and Savior. I believe certain people who CLAIM to have seen visions or prophecies regarding Jesus to have actually done so, and that they are true.' THAT's the 'FAITH' part, and I have no 'good' reason for it. You and I DO NOT share that aspect.

Can I be any clearer than that?

Let's pretend that I'm not a Christian Software Consultant. Instead, let's say I'm a Physicist by day, Buddhist by night. I'm a professor at MIT and I've won the Nobel Prize, all that, you get it. I'm clearly 'rational' and 'scientific', by anyone's standard, no? Let's say I like to meditate. Let's say I do believe in reincarnation. Also, let's say I freely admit that I have a mystical side and that my belief in reincarnation has NO foundation in empirical data or proof. It's just... a belief.

Would you actually bother to point out to me that Siddhartha Gautama surely never even claimed to have been 'enlightened' in the first place, but it's more likely that some monks that came later made all that up? That he was just a 'smart dude' and 'had a lot of good ideas' but probably never thought he was going to reach Parinirvana... some monks just made all that up later to spread their phony religion?

If so, I hope you have more proof of THAT than you've shown me about what Christ is supposed to have said. It's one thing to say Siddhartha wasn't enlightened in any 'special' way... and how irrational it is to believe such a thing. BUT it's quite another to say 'there probably never really was a Siddhartha, and if there was, he probably never really said all these things.'

I mean, do you believe ANY historical or religious text? Do you believe ANYTHING we know say, about the early Etruscans? Did Moses even exist for you? What about Hammurabi? What about Amenhotep I, given that the priests did EVERYTHING they could to wipe out his memory?

Do you believe that Jesus said 'Today you will be with me in paradise!' while hanging on the cross? Do you think Caeser said 'Ista quidem vis est!' right before he was assassinated? Why one and not the other? There is plenty of evidence that Roman historians such as Suetonius gossiped, lied, had an axe or two to grind... do you ignore them as well? Or do you just disregard the texts that are 'religious' or even just, 'Christian?'

Are you really asking that? Or just trying to point out my 'obvious' confirmation bias? Don't forget, I've already told you that I was Atheist until my twenties. You were the one raised Baptist. This comment would make more sense if I was raised that way.

Sidebar, yes. Pointless, well, I'm trying my best to stick to one. I have no idea what the 'mark of the beast' means. Really. John seems to be talking about universal (global) government regulation restricting commerce to members of a personality cult of some sort. My point was that the Apocalypse of John was merely interesting and not obvious nonsense because it's talks about things that had no historical precedent at the time, no contemporary analog, and were quite fantastical, and 2000 years later do not seem to be so far out of the realm of possibility. I mentioned several things, for example, a 200 million man army coming out of the East, which I think would have been insane to contemplate 2000 years ago, but certainly isn't now. I also mentioned the rise of Hitler (and implicitly the Holocaust), the results of which I think are unprecedented in history, yet clearly echo John's vision.

I think you have a point that with folks like Nero around, these things didn't seem that far out, but I still maintain that the specifics of the Revelation are outside the normal course of human history. I stand by that. You mentioned Nero as the target of the text, who was a real man, so I ask 'did this real man fit a real, literal interpretation'? And I think the answer is close, but not completely. Hitler didn't either.

Yes, I do happen to believe that John saw a vision that actually was inspired by God, but no matter how hard you try, I will never give you a good reason to believe in them, other than simple faith. I'm not trying to prove that the prophecies are, in fact, true, or even n% likely to occur. I'm certainly not asking 'OMG why do you believe!?! It's in the BIBLE!'.

But neither do they "clearly" refer to the current events of 90 AD or that they are "obviously" ridiculous claptrap that anyone with a mind can see through. I find quite the opposite.

Let's be clear. Yes, Nero was a great persecutor of the Christians. Titus was no friend of the Jews (what with the temple and all). But no Roman emperor I know of matches the full description of the 'the' Antichrist in John. According to John, 'The' Antichrist is on some sort of explicit, satanically inspired mission to destroy Jews and Christians both, in addition to other clear points, such as controlling the global economy (not just all of Europe and Gaul, the top of Africa and the Middle East), setting up a world cult with himself as Messiah, uniting the world's religions, and so forth. Before Hitler, in my opinion, this would seem like pure fantasy. After Hitler, and Mao, and Stalin, a rational personal should say, "wow, something like this could actually happen." Should you believe these are true prophecies? I've said nothing that would convince a normal, rational person of this. Should you stop dismissing Daniel and John so completely? Well, obviously I think so.

It will be very hard for me to refute nameless 'historians' who are 'convinced' that something 'clearly refers' to something. Sorry. One of my points was that the 'Antichrist' of John (if taken literally) has attributes that are a superset of the historical Nero. For example, I know of nothing Nero did that would compare to "causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads." If the argument is: "this is not a prophecy proper... it refers to current events... fulfilled clearly by Nero... but let's not take it too literally..."

Then I can't follow that reasoning. But I understand that this is a common theory.

We will have the same issue here. I do not do biblical research professionally (software consultant) but while I've seen both sides of the dating of Daniel, I am not personally convinced. Perhaps it's confirmation bias, perhaps not. This would take longer than it takes to post to slashdot to resolve. I would suggest that confirmation bias can operate both ways (skeptics and true believers alike), as I've been in many conversations where the debate gets shut down because some 'result' is 'well-known' by 'researchers' or something or another. Perhaps, but I have to make up my own mind in the matter... and there is no substitute for rolling up your sleeves and getting into it.

I've read a lot about Daniel (not everything obviously, probably not even most) and I'm not convinced about any date at this point. Most people (and this is correct) would apply Occam's razor at this point and say "well of course these prophecies were written after the fact." Which was my point.

However, if we can agree that Daniel stabilized a generation or two before Jesus... then there is the fact that Daniel speaks of the Jewish Messiah arriving in the early first century AD (dated from the end of the Babylonian exile) and being rejected and killed, the temple being destroyed "by the people of the ruler who will come" yet also speaks of the temple existing in the "last days." This is VERY interesting to me (and I do not consider myself a fool) because not only did Daniel 'predict' that the Jewish Messiah would be killed (which is shocking, in fact), he predicts the destruction of the second temple as well. The second temple didn't even exist in Daniel's time. If you go with the later date then this is not interesting, yet he still predicts the destruction of the second temple after the Messiah is killed (70 AD) and that is interesting. If the earlier date could be proven, then it's amazing. And Daniel also predicts the creation of a third temple (which we've not seen). While the temple business might have been a good guess (what temple stands forever?), and the Jesus thing a "self-fulfilling" prophecy, and the third temple perhaps a not so big deal either, you can hardly blame someone who, 2000 years later, notices that (even if it's a coincidence) when the Jews returned to that part of the world and created the modern state of Israel, suddenly some 'impossible' prophecies became 'likely' to come true. And if there ever is a third temple it would be built on the Dome of Rock, and that sounds like a big conflict waiting to happen, which is 'foretold' in other prophecies.

It's not hard to create a compelling narrative from these scriptures. Yes, just like 'Star Wars.' However, taking Daniel again, these temples DID exist, a Jewish 'Messiah' WAS killed, and these Jews (which certainly still exist) HAVE rebuilt their nation after 2000 years, the existence of which none of these prophecies we're talking about would make much sense in 2008.

On the other hand, my original Luke Skywalker Kenner action figure is in a plastic bag somewhere. Lucas was clearly mining ALL kinds of myths when he created Star Wars (including Judeo-Christian myths). Though I'm not sure what that proves.

And neither are these coincidences in Daniel proof of anything. On the other hand, they make me pay attention. I think they should make anyone pay attention.

In my original post I said that "most people have problems with rational thinking, particularly bible thumpers."

I would like to think that 99% of EVERYBODY considers me a 'heretic.'

:)

No. Yet this actually makes sense to me as well, even though I'm a heretic. I would have done the same. As a matter of fact, I do. Many non-canonical books still survive. I read them. And I rank them lower than the "synoptic" gospels. I do this on my own, not because of what some dudes in pointy hats said in 400 AD. I was just reading the Book of Jubilees last night... but I don't think it informs my theology very much. So you'll say that there may have been many, many more gospels that the church destroyed? Perhaps. I'm not so sure about that, yet what am I to do? I have to form my theology (or lack of it) on what is extant.

And you'll have to decide if you are talking to me... or to 99% of mainline christians... or 99% of slashdot readers... or 99% of star wars fans... and so on. There are irrational atheists... and rational Christians as well.

That is exactly right, and though I can't say I 'ignore' any part, I certainly put weights on everything I read before forming opinions.

I do believe that the synoptic Gospels (which to me represent the 'mainstream' oral traditional around the time following Christ) could and probably are very accurate (no, not 100%). Accurate enough for me to draw some conclusions about who Jesus said he was.

Well, obviously, I do.

Well, and it shouldn't surprise you by now, but Paul doesn't inform my theology very much. Why should he? Oh, right, because the "bible is ALL true" of course. Oh wait, I don't believe that.

On the other hand, you don't need Paul to get the idea that Jesus was "the Son of God" whatever that means. I honestly don't know what that means. However, Jesus forgave people, said he was unique entity in the relationship between men and God, said he would be killed and rise from the dead (like Obi Wan), would be coming back, and was the 'like the Father' in many ways. Jesus said these things about himself, if you believe the synoptic gospels are accurate accounts.

Yes, I call it 'thinking.' On the other hand, I definitely am searching for more truth than we can currently nail down with science and physics. So I'm open to metaphysics, faith. I don't 'know' anything about God. And I'm open and honest about it, and (otherwise I suppose) a fully rational human being (or try to be).

And I have an 'apparent' reason or two. When I see the fragility of man, the intractability of his problems, how he the cause of so many of his problems, and the ultimate emptiness of a few (80 or so) short years of fighting diseases and keeping food in your stomach... and I think - and hope - for more.

When I hear what Christ was saying... it 'resonates' with me. I was an atheist myself until I became a Christian... so there's not much confirmation bias here. I... just... changed my mind about things.

Again, no proof - just hope. I can't say it enough... if you want proof, or a sign, there is none.