I don't know if anyone has heard the news, but there is a claim that the boxes that Jesus and his family were buried in have been found.

"While the Bible tells the story of Jesus and his resurrection, this box could show physical evidence that he existed, was buried and that he had a son, Judah."

While that might upset those that believe in the word for word Bible, it will not interfere with my faith, because, I don't care if it was the human body of Jesus that was resurrected or a hologram type image that one could put their hand through. It is all the same to me.

I guess some group will come out with a new connotation of the word “resurrected” (was that in Greek, Hebrew of Aramaic?), so that the people who need a literal Bible can say, "I told you so", while others will deny any facts that may be shown "as science run a muck".

It is nice to know that until "Global Warming" destroys the Earth (or at least its ability to support human life), there will be something interesting to debate.

I haven't been on any killing-sprees recently, nor has, let's see, , any other Christians I know. Could this, perhaps, just maybe, just slightly, be the type of remark that causes us conservative, fundamentalist Christians to cry "foul"?

How would you feel if I boldly stated something patently false, that it was the liberal, Darwinian, athiests out there that carried out the Holocaust? Or were responsible for the mass-murder of babies in the womb. Oh, wait, that last one wouldn't necessarily be false.

Wait, so people killing in the name of God aren't Christians? If they weren't Christians, why would they be killing in his name? I'm pretty sure it isn't going to be the liberal Christian that believes in a woman's right to choose that blows up an abortion clinic. What do you think? Do you think a liberal Christian that thinks a woman has a right to control her own reproduction would blow up an abortion clinic? Could you please read my ENTIRE remark before trying to make it sound like I said something THAT I DID NOT SAY.

I admitted to deliberately baiting Ron, and only Ron. I have been involved in serious debate with everyone else, and I think you know that. Let's not play "blame the atheist" for all the religious spats on the board, okay? Please, I'd like you to be honest about the crap that Ron has spewed and admit that his comments have played a huge role in the conflict.

I believe that Ron's method of communication can be inflammatory and they are not necessarily the methods that I would employ. I believe it comes from the place he lives and the particular group of people that he has chosen to witness to; it's what he knows. I also believe that there is a core group of people that try to "get his goat."

I am not playing "blame the athiest" in any sense. I am saying that there is a hefty group of anti-Christian (read: anti-conservative-Bible-believing-fundamentalist-Christian) people on this board who say things that, had they been said about homosexuals, blacks, Mexicans, or [insert any group other than Christians here], would have caused a huge uproar.

I'm done. I think anyone can read the past several posts and reach their own conclusions.

Do you think a liberal Christian that thinks a woman has a right to control her own reproduction would blow up an abortion clinic?

Sorry, can't leave this one alone. No, a liberal Christian wouldn't blow up an abortion clinic. But I wouldn't put it past a liberal Christian to blow up a pro-lifer. Of course, that's just my opinion. It's also my opinion that a conservative Christian wouldn't blow up an abortion clinic. The only ones who would blow up abortion clinics are whack-jobs.

NOW I'm done.

I am saying that there is a hefty group of anti-Christian (read: anti-conservative-Bible-believing-fundamentalist-Christian) people on this board who say things that, had they been said about homosexuals, blacks, Mexicans, or [insert any group other than Christians here], would have caused a huge uproar.

Bull. The difference between saying that homosexuals, blacks, Mexicans, what-have-you are more likely to do whatever and saying that conservative, fundamentalists of any religious creed are more likely to be religious terrorists is that it's true that conservative fundamentalists of any religious creed are more likely to become religious terrorists. It's like saying that married black women are more likely to contract HIV than any other demographic. It's TRUE. It's a FACT. Does that mean that all married black women are going to catch HIV and should automatically have a "HIV infected" label slapped on their foreheads? No, and everyone knows that. Being a conservative, fundamentalist Christian is the same. Does it mean that you are going to become a terrorist? No. But a conservative, fundamentalist Christian is more likely to kill in the name of God than a liberal Christian that thinks everyone should be left alone to live their own lives. Do you understand what I am trying to get at?

The only ones who would blow up abortion clinics are whack-jobs.

TYou and I agree that they're wack-jobs. Unfortunately, the majority are also wack-jobs that identified themselves as conservative, fundamentalist Christians.

And yet we still label Muslim terrorists that are killing in the name of Allah as "Muslim extremists" instead of just plain "wack jobs."

All I can say with certainty is that I am not going to go kill a bunch of people in the name of God or Allah. Why would that be? Because I don't believe in God or Allah. The only people that truly kill in the name of a deity (and actually believe the deity would approve) are the people that believe in that deity. I can say with confidence that no atheist is going to become a religious terrorist. Environmental terrorists? Maybe. Religious terrorists? Nope. The bottom line is that there really aren't that many people out there that are likely to become religious terrorists. But people that think that their religion is the only true religion and that everyone else who believes in other religions (or even the more liberal sects of their own religion) is going to Hell (or wherever) and that every single person's lives should be regulated by their holy book are a heck of a lot more likely to become religious terrorists than the folks that just want everyone to like each other and live in harmony.

Wow. Usually it's the liberals that the right-wing fundies and neo-cons accuse of being domestic terrorists. It's interesting to see it flipped the other way.

Just in general, anyone who insists that they have the one true and right path to anything, in any religion or non-religion, are the ones who usually cause the problems, trying to force their "enlightenment" down other people's throats. Whether it's through incessant nagging, on a picket line, at the end of a gun, or holding a bomb and screaming "jihad".

I'm all for people having personal enlightenment and their own Gods and saviors. Just don't expect other people to bow down to the same ones and don't try to legislate your religion and morality on society in general. That's all I ask of this administration.

Well, that and don't ask my children to fight wars so the rich neo-cons can line their pockets with oil money. Oh, and stop trying to destroy the middle class, you power-hungry, money-grubbers. Shame on the neo-cons for trying to cloak their personal power-plays in a facade of Christianity. They're the ones giving Christians a bad name. Not the people on this board.

It's why I can't wait to see the neo-cons out of power and anyone with a modicum of common sense, decency and intelligence taking their place in the White House.

It all depends on the definition of terrorist.

Most US citizens define terrorist as someone without a uniform, usually not representing a country, but a group instead, who plants bombs or hijacks airplanes. But that is a limited self-serving definition.

The French resistance would have been classified in the journals of history as terrorists, had the Axis won the war (WWll), but since the Allies won the war, they are regarded as freedom fighters.

If one realizes that "Shock & Awe", the campaign waged on the citizens of Baghdad to start the Iraq war on March 16, 2003, was definitely terrorism (even the name screams it out loud), then anyone who supported the Iraq war is a terrorist supporter. What could be more terrorizing to a civilian than planes, invisible because of the darkness of night and invisible to radar because of their "stealth" design dropping bombs on your city? Why was the campaign conducted at night? For the safety of the pilots? Of course!! What could be more terrorizing that the current program of breaking down doors of private homes at 3am to "root" out insurgents.

I remember when we (my wife and I were visiting my mother-in-law and brother-in-law) when we heard the report that the federal building in Oklahoma City had been blown up. After a while, the TV commentator said, "Well at least in wasn't terrorism" when they found out that it was a white man with blue eyes and a blond crew cut. WHAT? Because he was a white Christian, rather than dark Muslim, the act was not terrorism?

Wow. Usually it's the liberals that the right-wing fundies and neo-cons accuse of being domestic terrorists. It's interesting to see it flipped the other way.

Just in general, anyone who insists that they have the one true and right path to anything, in any religion or non-religion, are the ones who usually cause the problems, trying to force their "enlightenment" down other people's throats. Whether it's through incessant nagging, on a picket line, at the end of a gun, or holding a bomb and screaming "jihad".

I'm all for people having personal enlightenment and their own Gods and saviors. Just don't expect other people to bow down to the same ones and don't try to legislate your religion and morality on society in general. That's all I ask of this administration.

Well, that and don't ask my children to fight wars so the rich neo-cons can line their pockets with oil money. Oh, and stop trying to destroy the middle class, you power-hungry, money-grubbers. Shame on the neo-cons for trying to cloak their personal power-plays in a facade of Christianity. They're the ones giving Christians a bad name. Not the people on this board.

It's why I can't wait to see the neo-cons out of power and anyone with a modicum of common sense, decency and intelligence taking their place in the White House.

The difference with religious terrorists and other types of terrorists, is that (usually), a compromise or bargain can be reached with non-religious terrorists. Religious terrorists can't and don't compromise

Example. Let's say the US decided to solve the Palestinian problem by giving a piece of land in Utah or Arizona, 10 times the size of the disputed land, to the Palestinians and to build villages on the land to suit the Palestinians both as a group and also to individual tastes. By that I mean, they would built towns with modern conveniences for those Palestinians that want a modern life. They would built towns with a traditional appearance for those Palestinians that want a traditional life. And everything would be free at US taxpayer expense. The US would also built homes to suit all the individual tastes of the people being moved to the US and also Mosques and anything else to make the area of Utah or Arizona (or where ever), look as much like where they came from as possible. The Palestinians would say, "NO!!".

They have to have "their land", because it is in their Holy Book that God (Allah) made a covenant with their ancestors (the same people as in the Old Testament) before Judaism and Islam split.

And the Jews would say the same thing to a similar offer. NO!! They have to have their Holy Land as per their Holy Book.

How can the dispute about the area around Jerusalem ever be settled, when religions shrines of Judaism, Islam and Christianity overlap?

There seems to be only two possibilities. Make everyone happy or make everyone unhappy. How?

I guess making Jerusalem an open city with an unbiased international police force might work, if an unbiased international police force could ever be found (which I doubt) or the use of one especially "dirty" nuclear bomb destroying the disputed area and making it uninhabitable for a millennium, might solve the problem. I know that is ridiculous, but there is no compromise because each group points to his Holy Book and says, "this land is my land".

Note: I am not espousing the use of a nuclear bomb to settle the problem; just using it as an example of the intransigence of the people involved.

sophrysyne: That is one of the best things I've ever read at LBT, Rants and Raves.

TOM: I know you like to get people to think and to provoke a dialog between interested parties, but I definitely think they will never understand what you're trying to say. They will accuse you of all kinds of things. That's just how single minded they are.

Laurend and Sophrosyne, brilliant posts!! :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

Laurend and Sophrosyne, brilliant posts!! :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

Yep, I agree! Bravo!

laurend I just re-read your posts, I agree with Alexandra and Green...BRAVO!!!

laurend I just re-read your posts, I agree with Alexandra and Green...BRAVO!!!

Thank you. That is one claim that I won't step down from, because I know with 100% certainty that I am right. A religious terrorist isn't a person that believes that there is more than one path to heaven (or whatever their paradise is called). They aren't people that think everyone should be left alone to believe whatever they want to believe. They aren't people that think there might be more than one right answer out there. They are the people that think that their way is the only right way. They are the people that think everyone but the people that believe EXACTLY like they do are going to burn in hell. They are the ones that think everyone should live by their rules and their holy book. And I think anyone can see that those people are going to be the strict, ultra-conservative, fundamentalists, not the liberal members of a religion. So while neither one is really likely to become a religious terrorist, you can say with certainty which one is more likely.

That statement isn't bashing anyone's beliefs, it's stating a fact. And we shouldn't be barred from stating facts just because other people don't like their implications.