According to Kate Hudson that is.

"If for some reason, that's what he has to go do, I just don't want to know. As long as things are good in our house, just please, don't get caught."

Nothing like planting your head in the sand.

link to article

Exactly! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Hey,
if that's your Low Expectation ......then there is Little surprise that it will become a self fulfilling prophesy.

Hollywood! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> Sheeeesh.

Another argument is that monogamy would be "unnatural".
Then not hitting someone when you're angry is unnatural too.
Or not running away when you're nervous.

And I wonder what the WS will think if the BS start applying the same rule. Mostly they suddenly want monogamy - for their partner, that is, hahah.

And how'z this for natural: did you ever see what a lion does when another male approaches his lionesses ?

Hmmm...I always thought that affairs are the result of things NOT being so good at home (at least in the affairee's eyes). If things are good, there is less likely chance of an affair..in not improbable I would wager.

What's gonna happen if things aren't so good and it happens...is she gonna scream bloody murder?

Sounds moronic to me...and totally immature. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

I guess it just shows that it doesn't take alot of common sense to make it at the box office.

committed

You have to consider she married a rock star. Not a group historically known for monogamy. They are free-love hippie types too. I'm kind of a hippy myself, but definitely not in to the "free-love" part.

is that the lass married to Chris Robinson ?

Man I LOVED his old band ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I wonder if Kate would think the same if it happened to her ? I mean most BS change their minds on D-day.

My W's friend - the one she's going 2 OOSP with her 2morrow, and a conference that RM has historically attended after that - told her recently:

"Well, if you're being accused, you might as well do the deed"

I don't think she had the whole story (like the "deed" has already been "done", multiple times over the past 14 years!), but at least my W acknowledged that she made many of the choices she made out of spite (including marrying me 2 spite my mom, apparently), and she no longer feels that's any way 2 live.

Sadly (but far from surprisingly), my W's friend has a tough time being away from her university professor H because she's afraid he might cheat on her with his s2dents. Maybe if she rethought that recommendation she made 2 my W, she could come up with some sort of POJA with her H that would keep her from being so afraid.

Kate Hudson is the daughter of Goldie Hawn, if I remember correctly. And if you remember one of my posts a few months back about an interview with Goldie and her H, Kurt Russell, on 60 minutes, I think you'll see that there's a whole lot of ma2ring that Kate needs 2 go through that she won't get from her mother and step father.

-ol' 2long

Kate Hudson is the daughter of Goldie Hawn, if I remember correctly.
Goldie Hawn and Bill Hudson of "Hudsons Brothers" fame.
And if you remember one of my posts a few months back about an interview with Goldie and her H, Kurt Russell
They are not married.

Chris is right. Kate Hudson's mother is Goldie Hawn, who is in a long-term relationship with (but not married to) Kurt Russell.

Apparently Kurt and Goldie have some sort of open "marriage" agreement -- and from several accounts, so do Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith (who are legally married, I believe.)

What a shame. Appearances are all that count with some folks, whether they're in Hollywood or not.
Mulan

Chris is right. I misspoke with the "H" moniker.

Here's my thoughts from my other thread about that interview on 60 minutes:

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/sho...rue#Post2707943

-ol' 2long

Not that this justifies it but in that type of enviornment you come in contact with a lot more people on a daily basis. Which basically means all the problems or flaws of your mate are magnified because you have so much more to compare against. Now if you are a truly strong and wise person (because truly in love won't do you no good once you start washing his dirty underwear, or hearing her burp and fart repeatedly) you will know that what you have is a great bond that can only be broken if one of you lets go. No matter how much better or different or more attractive these others you meet are your relationship should be deeper than that.

Unfortunately hollywoodians tend to be of the shallow sort so this type of thing is normal. I guess I am talking in circles but I guess what I mean is don't be surpised.

my 2 cents worth...

If I'm not mistaken, Chris Robinson is also a recovering heroin addict, so he's gotten pretty darn good at spinning and weaving tales of deception. It's just sad that someone actually bought into that pile of happy horsesh*t.

But then again...

A Sparrow was too weak to fly south for the winter migration and found himself near frozen on the ground of a field,
The sparrow felt close to death's door and was in despair,
Thinking things couldn't possible get any worse, along came a cow and sure enough, it pooped on the tiny frozen sparrow,
The sparrow closed his eyes and waited for death to come,
To his surprise, the warmth of the fresh manure began to thaw him and make him feel stronger!
The tiny sparrow poked his head out of the pile of manure and sun began to shine,
The sparrow's hopes rose and he began to twitter and chirp,
Then a wolf came by and helped him out of the manure and before the wolf could eat him,
The sparrow spread his wings and flew up to nearby tree and began to sing,
At that moment, a hawk heard the sparrow's song and swooped down and captured the tiny sparrow for it's dinner!

The moral of the story is...not everyone who craps on you is your enemy, not everyone who gets you out of crap is your friend, and if your warm and happy in a pile of crap - keep your mouth shut!!

Sounds like Ms. Hudsen is warm and happy in her pile of crap perhaps she should learn to keep her mouth shut before a hawk comes along and ruins her day.

Kate says, "She added: "I will not disrespect my husband and stray."

And then she says, "If for some reason, that's what he has to go do, I just don't want to know. As long as things are good in our house, just please, don't get caught."

So she thinks it's okay for him to disrespect her as long as she doesn't know about it?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> Yeah until she has kids or he cheats and leaves or she gets an STD from him. Oh brother. Her role models not being m'd really helped didn't it? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

"So she thinks it's okay for him to disrespect her as long as she doesn't know about it? "

Kind of like "I can't see you, so don't pretend 2 be there."

-ol' 2long

They already have a child. Ryder Russell, born earlier this year.

I just don't get it. Divorce is already portrayed as being ok in the media's eyes and such thought has flowed into the minds of most Americans. A quick fix to a problem. Now open marriages will be considered the norm as well?

Kate ought to have a chat with Jennifer Aniston.

JMHO, <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
L.

I think she's right for celebrities. Maybe it IS unrealistic in the promiscuous world of celebs ?

There aren't many famously monogamous celebs. Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks...Paul Newman ? erm ? Divided by the number of celebs in the world I bet theres a low number of monogamous folks.

Bob, I really don't think celebrity can be blamed (or used as a excuse.) Groupies exist at truck stops and corporate offices, too.

And I think you're right about Tom Hanks and Paul Newman, but Mel Gibson is another story entirely.
Mulan

I don't think celebrity status can be blamed either. They are just as accountable as anyone else. Their choices are no tougher nor is their brand of sorrow any different than any of ours.

Celebrity status does however, draw attention to every aspect of their lives and so we see their lives play out at every supermarket checkout stand.

John/Jane Doe down the block is a BS/WS too but they certainly won't make the tabloids.

Mulan I am not saying celebrity is a excuse for infidelity, just that it seems to come with the territory.

It would seem that when the "rules" are made by humans, rather than by God, that there is no "universal" rule of right and wrong, only changing societal "norms" and "mores," and each person can "make up" the rules for themselves as they go along.

Relativistic morality and humanistic reason prevail.

Are we really surprised by Hudson, or Hollywood, or the Media in general?

I don't think monogomy is unrealistic ~ I think that it is unrealistic for people to enter into a monogamous agreement, "hoping" that they won't cheat on their partner. How many movies have we seen where the soon-to-be-groom is asked by his single friends, "How can you think about being with just one woman for the rest of your life?"

I think to some extent, it comes down to the fact that here in America, at least, many see M as the end of something, rather than the beginning of something spectacular. Does the spectacular part take work and energy and focus? Heck yeah!!! But what worthwhile in this world doesn't?

Coming from the generation with the highest D rate, is it any wonder most of us don't know what the heck it takes to create a healthy M? My H and I didn't do what it took to open the doors of education (books) and assistance (MC) until our M blew up in our faces from infidelity.

Did we have whisperings from "life" that our M was not strong? We sure did, in hindsight. Did we act on those whispers? Nope. We waited until "life" shouted at us, make it or break it time, before we put out the effort.

Just my 2 cents.

Spidey

I think they are a bad example for marriages! Just more excuses for people to cheat. Uggghhhhhh! Makes me want to gag!

Oh, for Rice Cake, FH! Not this nonsense again, please.

In the scheme of human his2ry (some 3 million years of it), these universal rules made by God are a pretty recent human development/discovery (last few thousand years).

Not meant 2 be an insult, just a point of perspective.

-ol' 2long

2Long, your "distain" for anything related to God is wearing thin, even if you try to hide it in the guise of a "disclaimer," as in the quotation.

YOU accept the Evolutionary theory and I accept the Creation theory. YOU suppport a wacko who tries to explain everything by his imagining of "punctuated equilibrium" (with NO proof other than his own conjecture and refusal to even consider Creation as a viable cause of 'what we actually see'). But we'll not get back into that discussion, at least not at this time or in this thread.

ONE last time.....the "issue" that needs to be addressed before you drop back into your choice for evolution is very simple....IS Jesus Christ who he says he is?"

If not, "have at" any theory you want. If he is, then it establishes "TRUTH," whether you or I or anyone else likes it.

So if you want to take "objection" to God's Commandments and substitute using ever changing "humanistic mores and morals" to define "right and wrong" and "acceptable" behavior, then have at it.

You HAVE the free will (God-given or "Ape evolved"-given...your choice) to choose any set of Standards that you wish. However, what you don't have the right to do as just "another fellow human" is to mandate your chosen set of Standards (whatever they may be) to me, your wife, or anyone else. You CAN object to someone "selecting" God's commandments as their "standards," but it would seem only fair to ask you WHAT substitute you'd suggest and WHY it would be "superior" to God's commandments.

When you "kick out" the "refererent," the "constant," you eliminate "right and wrong" as applicable to anyone else's choices and constrain it to only apply to yourself, since if YOU have the right to choose your own "standards," then so does everyone else even if you don't agree with them.

So, are you arguing that monogamy is NOT the desired form of marriage? Evolutionistically speaking, you seem to be arguing in a similar vein to the Fundamental Mormons who will "kick out" and "excommunicate" even their own sons in order to keep the ratio of males lower than the available "wives." Impregnate as many females as a male can in order to up the chances of "survival of the fittest" for his particular genetic line.

Or...as so many in Hollywood want it these days...an "open marriage" and a "don't get caught" attitude.

NOT very conducive to Marriage Building, wouldn't you agree?

um...

HUH???????

Since I can find nothing in your post that has anything 2 do with what I was alluding 2 or what I believe 2 be true or releveant 2 this discussion, I shall not respond.

End of discussion, such as it wasn't.

-ol' 2long

2-long -

I am busy arguing on another thread, so can't really give this one its due. As you know, I am a Christian, and believe in the Bible. But forget that for now.

Let's assume that the Bible is just written by men and has no truth. Are you with me? Then, is there any reason to think that monogamy is unrealistic?

From time to time, I am home from work and check out the talk shows. On one show there is usually a woman looking for the father of her child. She swears up and down that one of the three "candidates" is the dad. Sadly, after the DNA testing, none of them are the father. So she moves on to the next 3 possibilites.

I'm not kidding you when I say that one woman had 17 men tested, and still hasn't found "dad".

I know you are a scientist. But by looking at it as a scientist, can you see the case for monogamy? Sheesh, when I had my two boys, I knew there was no doubt who the father was. So glad for that.

believer:

I'm not quite sure I follow you, but taking your assumption statement at face value, I do not think that monogamy is unrealistic at all, given those assumptions.

As for what I believe. I believe that the Bible was written by men (it certainly has been translated, edited and reprinted by men) but contains Great Truths. And yet that doesn't change my "conclusion" about monogamy at all.

But it isn't a scientific matter - it's about feelings and spiri2ality.

I can't even imagine being in that woman's postion of not knowing who the father of her child is - after testing *17* candidates? That's not just promiscuity, that's NUTS!

-ol' 2long

But 2-long -

If you are not a believer, then it has to be a scientific matter. It certainly cannot be about feelings and spirituality.

Let's look at the survival of the fittest theory. Since females and their young need protection, it makes sense for a female to hook-up with, and be monogamous with a male. After all, he hopefully won't eat his young, although I know that does happen in nature.

Of course, the male needs some perks too. He has regular sex (yay!!!!!!!), and knows that his young are his.

Translating this over to humans - animals and humans are much different. You can argue that we all came from the same pond, but somewhere along the way, humans evolved. Otherwise you wouldn't see men laying their life down for another. Genetically that doesn't make sense.

"If you are not a believer, then it has to be a scientific matter. It certainly cannot be about feelings and spirituality."

Perhaps it seems it must be so, must be "either/or".

But that isn't me. Never has been.

"After all, he hopefully won't eat his young, although I know that does happen in nature."

Perhaps "not eating one's kids" is on the list of potential ENs that didn't quite make it 2 the Harley's "top ten" list? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As for laying one's life down for others... Ever hear of dolphins helping shipwrecked sailors 2 shore? What genetic benefit 2 the dolphin is there in doing that? Evolution isn't just of physical forms, it involves intelligence. I think that compassion is a good example of evolution of the mind (and this example isn't even a human one, but one that many scientists these days believe is "on par" with that of Chimpanzees [check my data, though. I've not followed the subject since Junior College, when I was interested in it for a couple years).

-ol' 2long

I bet God ( and darwin probably) winces everytime theres one of these debates on this board full of people in pain and hope.

I commit hereof to never contribute to one again.

2-long - SNORT - as Melody says. I think we have come to an agreement. The Harley's need to add "not eating one's kids to the EN list!

And for Bob, they should add "a disinclination for making God and/or Darwin wince by debating evolution/creation/science/religion on Marriage-Building 4ums! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

That okay, bobbers? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

Bob - As a fellow believer, I don't think God winces at these debates. If you are truly a believer, you need to know that. God calls us to walk along with HIM. If you don't trust in HIM, how can you walk with HIM?

Now, back to 2-long. I will read more about the dolphins. My first thought is that they were trained, or got some kind of pleasure from assisting.

I am a big animal lover, but haven't seen animals acting like humans. I know that a mother will protect her own. But as far as animals being heroic, I don't think so. For every thousand humans that have sacrificed their lives for a cause, there might be one animal. And that is very doubtful to me.

"My first thought is that they were trained, or got some kind of pleasure from assisting."

They weren't trained. These are accounts, going from modern time back 2 greek and roman times, of dolphins in the wild saving people from drowning by pushing them to shore (sometimes pretty long distances).

This isn't the same thing as risking their lives 2 save people, though.

I'm not a dog person, but don't dogs sometimes risk their lives for their owners?

-ol' 2long

Ah, 2-long, you are such an idealist. I love dogs, but no, sadly, a dog isn't going to risk his life for his owner. He may bark and wake up the owner, or may snuggle up with the owner in a snowstorm. But risking their lives? Nope.

Risking lives is a human trait.

I know that there are stories of dolphins rescuing people, just like there are stories of mermaids rescuing sailors. But haven't observed it or seen it checked out scientfically.

Dolphins have a instinct to push their newly born young up to the surface of the water so the youngsters can breathe. It's believed that if/when dolphins assist struggling and sinking human swimmers, it's because this instinct has been triggered.
Mulan

Mulan -

Thankfully, someone agrees with me. I am certainly not an expert, but I think most heroic animals are doing it from a natural instinct. And that is good.

On the other hand, humans give up their lives for other humans all of the time. In the Bible it says something like "No greater love hath a man than he give up his life for his brother."

So, still looking to hear from 2-long about how scientists think about these matters.

Believer:

I checked out articles and websites on the internet, and it seems you're right: The stories of dolphins rescuing people are mostly myths. In fact, there have been observations of dolphins "rescuing" dead sharks or floating debris. And of dolphins harrassing people.

They sure are cute, though.

-ol' 2long

2-long -

Yep, they are cute. But I think you already knew that. In fact, I don't think you had to go to the internet to figure it out.

So let's get back to the original subject. Stay with me. From a scientific view, is there a reaon for monogamy?

b:

Okay.

But the only "sciences" that would deal with subjects like monogamy are social sciences (anthropology, psychology), not "hard sciences" like geology.

I'm a lousy anthropologist, but if you'd like my opinion on monogamy in rocks, I'd be happy 2 take a whack at that. (won't take long!).

As a "spri2al atheologist" (I don't consider myself an atheist really, though I'm not religious), I've got an opinion about morality, marriage, and monogamy, based on my own experiences (so far). But they're probably not all that different from yours.

-ol' 2long

I think the difference between humans and animals is mainly our ability to think in abstracts. We can give our life for our country, but "country" is too abstract a concept for an animal. Yet they will die trying to protect their family (or you) from an intruder. Their "country" is a bit smaller, but they'll defend you. Even my meek, gentle Bernese Mountain dog was ready to attack a big man when she thought he was going to do me harm <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

So what's the difference? I don't think we have evolved that far from our animal/instinctive side. Animals sacrifice themselves to save their young. So might we.

We are simply able to THINK about it.
Another observation to rattle our chains:
- By not giving into our instincts and having sex with some OP - are we not really answering to another instinct = protecting and being faithful to our "flock/herd" ????

B.

I have witnessed many discussions between evangelical humanists and evangelical religious people in my time. The internet is a medium where words have no nuance or gesture to support them. Just words. Assumed facts.

So we OUR throw facts at each other. Humanists/Rationlists throw scientific facts at us then full the huge holes and inconsistencies in knowledge with a faith in theory and 'as yet undiscovered' scientific fact.

Religious people throw scripture and witness right back and mortar the huge hole and inconsistencies with accusations of faithessness.

I have neve seen any outcome but further polarisation from these debates. That's what makes God wince IMO.


All existential hypotheses require faith to fill in the gaps. Science, particularly theoretical physics is the latest religion IMO. There is actually now a concept of fundamentalist humanism which shows attributes indistinguishable from fundamentalist religions i.e. bigotry against other beliefs, ridicule of partly understood beliefs of others etc, almost cartoon certainty regarding personal beliefs and an agressive apologia for glaring omissions.

Humanists ridicule scriptural complexities in many religious texts and religions ridicule sciences utter inability to explain such anti-Darwinian attributes of existence such as love, spirituality, and innate morality.

In truth, fights or point scoring between adherents to whatever 'faith' is akin in my opinion to fleas arguing over ownership of the dog. We are sat on this blue earth in our own skin, trying to make sense of what we see or experience.

I say be gentle on people's belief systems. Hurling facts isn't evangelising.

Is not our discussion with those who do not (apparently) believe like we do how we test and re-test what we know? I love these discussions. It helps each of us test our theories, and work out the problems in them.

i heard a story on NPR Sunday morning - in the segment "On the Media" - about "echo chambers", "incestuous amplification", and "cyber cascade". All terms to describe the effect of like-minded people discussing their great ideas. Incestuous amplification is apparently a military word. One that does not describe a good situation.

These threads are great, especially when Bob and 2Long and Believer get going. It keeps us from continuing the incestuous amplification.

And I think, Bob, that they are even good for the hurting souls - for a couple of reasons. First - we all question God and His reasons for allowing us to suffer like you and I and 2Long and.... have, and these threads might help some souls see some light. And B. It takes some of us out of our sh$t worlds for a few moments, and that feels good, and is good.

Just my humble opinion from down here.

Keep it up, folks! Thanks!

far

Bob:

Was that supposed 2 be some sort of "last word" on the "subject"?

Gadzooks. We're doomed.

-ol' 2long

Just MY last word mate <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'm sure this one will run and run <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Bob:

Well, alrighty then!

Just a 2ple counterpoints, then:

"The internet is a medium where words have no nuance or gesture to support them. Just words. Assumed facts."

But everyone is welcome 2 check those facts. For instance, my realization that the stories about dolphins was only myth was based on web searches for newer information than I had prior (30+ years ago). I found some professional publications on the subject, among others, that hold more weight than the "popular" litera2re I had believed all these years. I suppose if I'd been a marine biologist instead of a geologist, I might have learned these things 30 years ago, but I'm not.

"Humanists/Rationlists throw scientific facts at us then full the huge holes and inconsistencies in knowledge with a faith in theory and 'as yet undiscovered' scientific fact."

I find it amusing when people make flamboyant (it burns and floats) statements like this. Stated in this manner, of COURSE it's ridiculous.

"Religious people throw scripture and witness right back and mortar the huge hole and inconsistencies with accusations of faithessness."

"Faith" in the context of scientific endeavors, is simply the belief that something is possible. I have faith that Mars may have once had abundant surface water, and I conduct my investigations based on that. So far, the evidence continues 2 mount that it did. But I could still be proven wrong. If I am, I'll do something else.

"All existential hypotheses require faith to fill in the gaps. Science, particularly theoretical physics is the latest religion IMO."

This statement is telling. It "works" for religious people because they believe the word "faith" indicates a belief in God. It doesn't work for scientists, because they know that faith doesn't mean religion at all in a science context.

"There is actually now a concept of fundamentalist humanism which shows attributes indistinguishable from fundamentalist religions i.e. bigotry against other beliefs, ridicule of partly understood beliefs of others etc, almost cartoon certainty regarding personal beliefs and an agressive apologia for glaring omissions."

First time I've ever heard of it. I suspect it's nothing more than a label.

"Humanists ridicule scriptural complexities in many religious texts and religions ridicule sciences utter inability to explain such anti-Darwinian attributes of existence such as love, spirituality, and innate morality."

Anti-Darwinian? More like "different subject entirely." No contest, and thus no malice.

"We are sat on this blue earth in our own skin, trying to make sense of what we see or experience."

And you and I agree 100% on this statement!

"I say be gentle on people's belief systems. Hurling facts isn't evangelising."

But hurling scrip2ral quotes is? (it is, by the way. Of 6 definitions of the word "evangelical" on dictionary.com, only the 6th is non-religious)

-ol' 2long

2Long, you are far too intelligent of a man to post such drivel or feign such ignorance. You stated the following in response to my advocacy of "God-given" Standards of behavior....


I responded and you follow up with this nonsense.



"Rice Cakes" back at 'cha!

I agree, though, about not discussing the periphery with you. This issue, for Christians anyway, quite simply begins with who Jesus Christ is. Since Jesus Christ was a real, live, person, who's claims, and the eyewitness testimony about him, can be examined, He is, therefore, NOT an "excercise" in the unknowable (as in origins of the universe). He is concete and solid. So the issue regarding all the other "positions" begins and ends with accepting or rejecting the one who claimed to be God.



So why not apply your "sciences" to an examination of Jesus Christ and "prove" or "disprove" him?

One last time, IF there is NO "religious basis" (i.e., God commanded) for monogamy (as established in the Garden of Eden), then WHY should anyone care if anyone is monogamous or not?

An INDIVIDUAL can choose for themselves to be celebate, monogamous, polygamous, "faithful" or "unfaithful," etc., but they can't (given humanistic reasoning of the individual being the ultimate authority for themselves) impose THEIR choice or choices on anyone else or even establish THEIR choice as THE choice or standard.

So, Kate Hudson would be perfectly free to choose any sort of "marriage" that she thinks suits her, and no one else would be in a position to "judge" her choice as being "right or wrong," or any spouse's choice either. Marriage, in effect, becomes "not worth paper it's written on."

That IS the thrust these days, to reduce "marriage" to just "any old sort of relationship." Hence the big push for such things as "gay marriage." Not "Adam and Eve," but "Adam and Steve" and "Evita and Eve." It seeks to eliminate "absolutes" and devolve everything to simply being "relative" to any given societal whim or whimsy.

"I responded and you follow up with this nonsense.



"Rice Cakes" back at 'cha!"

Indeed, and I apologize for being flippant. But I still can't find anything in that post 2 respond 2. You continually label me with your either/or judgments, and since I don't believe I fit them, I can't think of anything 2 say without starting another unproductive argument.

"This issue, for Christians anyway, quite simply begins with who Jesus Christ is."

I agree. It is the issue for Christians.

"He is, therefore, NOT an "excercise" in the unknowable (as in origins of the universe)."

I don't believe that the origins of the universe are unknowable either, though we may not know them yet.

"So the issue regarding all the other "positions" begins and ends with accepting or rejecting the one who claimed to be God."

This doesn't follow, in my view.

"
So why not apply your "sciences" to an examination of Jesus Christ and "prove" or "disprove" him?"

Same reason. This is a subject for studies in world religions, not physics and certainly not geology.

"One last time, IF there is NO "religious basis" (i.e., God commanded) for monogamy (as established in the Garden of Eden), then WHY should anyone care if anyone is monogamous or not?"

Let's think about this a moment. Let's assume that I don't believe there's any religious basis for monogamy (I think there is, by the way, but I also think there's a basis for it that doesn't necessarily have anything 2 do with religion and may be hundreds of thousands of years old). I would not be at all surprised if some Cromagnon guy (the first "modern" Homo Sapiens), say 275,325 years, 7 months, 15 days, and 2 hours before this post, decided that it was better for him and his children if he didn't follow his base urges and seek a 2nd mate, but focus his affections on their mother - that he felt better about himself, and that others treated him more 2 his liking when he behaved in this manner... ...implausible because the Bible hadn't been written at that time?

"An INDIVIDUAL can choose for themselves to be celebate, monogamous, polygamous, "faithful" or "unfaithful," etc., but they can't (given humanistic reasoning of the individual being the ultimate authority for themselves) impose THEIR choice or choices on anyone else or even establish THEIR choice as THE choice or standard."

I don't disagree. This holds true of Christians as well. Even given the "ultimate authority" in the form of Jesus' teachings and other biblical writings, they still have Free Will, and a responsibility 2 make the choice 2 adhere 2 this authority or not, same as everyone else. Sadly, many choose not 2 choose, just like everyone else, hence we're here on an infidelity forum.

"So, Kate Hudson would be perfectly free to choose any sort of "marriage" that she thinks suits her, and no one else would be in a position to "judge" her choice as being "right or wrong," or any spouse's choice either. Marriage, in effect, becomes "not worth paper it's written on."

I don't agree entirely. My M seemed 2 be not worth the paper once my W had an A and I felt unable 2 get us 2 agree on focusing on rebuilding. But we're starting 2 do that now. My W even has said things like "I think I understand what commitment in marriage means now." If Kate Hudson were a family member, I would hope that she's intelligent enough 2 "self-correct" that "do your own thing" thinking about marriage. Sadly, though her mother and her mother's "life partner (Kurt Russell) are reasonably intelligent people, I think their focus is 2 much on their "truck with society" and not enough on commitment - they believe that commitment requires putting one of them in a cage, so it doesn't matter whether the cage door is open or not. It's a trap that needs 2 be escaped from. Extremely sad.

-ol' 2long

2Long - of couse it "doesn't follow" for you. Why would it? It "doesn't follow for anyone who rejects God and Jesus Christ.

But you link things in what appears to be a "weird way" for someone with a "scientific methodology" sort of mindset. For example;

I said: [color:"blue"]"So why not apply your "sciences" to an examination of Jesus Christ and "prove" or "disprove" him?"[/color]

And you responded with: [color:"blue"]"Same reason. This is a subject for studies in world religions, not physics and certainly not geology."[/color]

The scientific methodology applies to both "hard" and "soft" sciences. Hiding behind "hard science" is merely a way to avoid an examination of a subject and the potential truth that might be "proved," especially if it might mean a problem for one's chosen "belief set" that denies God and/or an Intelligent Creator who is "superior" to human beings.

Here is the "problem" in a nutshell. Jesus of Nazareth existed in history. He was a real person. There were many claims made about him and by him, and they were of sufficient import as to "require" an honest and thorough examination of those claims because, as a real live person, he was either;

1) A Liar
2) A Lunatic (crazy, but believed it himself even though not true.
3) A Legend (didn't really exist, just a figment of some writer(s) imagination)
4) LORD God, God the Son, the WORD, the 2nd person of the Triune God, Creator of all that is, our Savior from eternal separation from God.

Now, your choice to reject him, to not even examine the evidence, IS your right to choose. But it hardly seems true to "scientific investigation no matter where it leads."

However, if one does choose to reject God and Creation and accept the ONLY other viable possibility of how things "got here" (Evolution), then we are back to the premise of the thread, or at least the implied question, monogamy is unrealistic for "mere animals" such as "mankind."



Plausible or implausible is irrelevant. You are arguing from the evolutionary vantagepoint of "survival of the fittest." I would submit that "even if" such a CroMagnon made such a choice, it was a PERSONAL choice that would have little or no impact on anyone else. He MIGHT be able to convince his little CroMagnon sons to "follow in Daddy's footsteps," but with teenage peer pressure being probably similar to what it is today (grin), the "monogamy thing" would likely die of "old age" and disappear when Daddy CroMagnon died.

Darwinian "survival of the fittest" would put the pressure on to impregnate as many females as possible, especially as dear old CroMagnon man developed greater thinking and rational thinking skills. To put it another way, Henry the 8th thinking.....get a new wife to produce the sons he wanted...as many wives as it takes. Today, if someone were to marry a woman who could not have children, the husband would be "justified" in impregnating as many other women as he could to produce the desired offspring.

BUT, we DO put a "premium" upon Monogamy in marriage. Why is that? I would submit that it is grounded in religion, not in evolution or humanistic reasoning. But if "religion" is false, then so would be tenets based upon that religion.

Ergo, relativistic humanistic rationale. NEVER fixed, always changing and "binding" upon ONLY the individual who embraces it for themselves. This IS what the United States of America is headed for in it's quest to remove all traces of religion from our society. It is to be kept, at best, in a dark corner of society, reserved for the "kooks" who are hopelessly dependent upon "fantasy" instead of reality. It is NOT to be regarded as true, much less "inspired and revealed TRUTH" by our divine Creator.

To admit to HIM would be to "give up" our ability to choose and to whatever WE want or desire....with no "absolutes" or even any valid and sustainable "right and wrong." ALL of what we would do, given our humanistic tendancies, would be "relative" to any given time or situation.

This is, indeed, the "slippery slope" that our society and much of the world is dancing on. Each dance step raises the incline until such point as "gravity" takes over and we can't stop the downhill slide. That, as much as anything, is what has "done in" most of the "great civilizations" of the world, and our meager 200+ years is nothing (other than proving that we can lose our way of life faster than some others, like the Roman Empire).

In a very short time we have done much to reject God and "pin our hopes" on humanity. If this world were likened to Las Vegas, we would be the "bettors" and Satan would have the "house edge," depending upon which game WE chose to play. But in the end, the "house" usually wins.

Oh well....it would still be our "free will choice," even though we warned that "playing Satan's games is hazardous, perhaps fatal, to our health." The "gaming commission" will allow the play and will not intervene in our free choice to exercise "stupidity of mind" while thinking we are smart enough to "beat the odds."

So....CroMagnon man nothwithstanding, [color:"blue"]WHAT[/color] are the "univeral rules," [color:"blue"]WHERE[/color] did the rules come from, and [color:"blue"]WHY[/color] should they apply to anyone other than self, IF religion is tossed out of the equation?

And, just for "jollies," as hard science continues "improve" and do things that were once thought of as "impossible," what will happen when a woman's womb is no longer needed for gestation? What will be the "incentive" to unite in a monogamous union, or any union for that matter? What would stop someone from "donating" sperm to as many eggs as possible, or vice versa?

The "family unit" will distintegrate and the foundation of "marraige and family" will have NO basis outside of the "myth" of religion. But since religion (or at least Christianity) is only a "fantasy" for the weak-minded, let's not cry about "infidelity" in marriage as fidelity is only an illusion....or at least only a choice ONE individual can make for themselves alone, but cannot "impose" upon their spouse or upon anyone else.

Food for thought?

"2Long - of couse it "doesn't follow" for you. Why would it? It "doesn't follow for anyone who rejects God and Jesus Christ."

Ah, the either/or horsepucky again! MISSED!

"I said: [color:"blue"]"So why not apply your "sciences" to an examination of Jesus Christ and "prove" or "disprove" him?"[/color]

And you responded with: [color:"blue"]"Same reason. This is a subject for studies in world religions, not physics and certainly not geology."[/color]

The scientific methodology applies to both "hard" and "soft" sciences."

Yes it does. And since I'm a hard scientist that doesn't do much of the soft stuff, I prefer 2 defer (that rhymes!) that 2 the soft sciences.

"Hiding behind "hard science" is merely a way to avoid an examination of a subject and the potential truth that might be "proved," especially if it might mean a problem for one's chosen "belief set" that denies God and/or an Intelligent Creator who is "superior" to human beings."

I don't think it's "hiding" at all. And I'm certainly not afraid that some evidence could come along and threaten my belief set. In fact, in my field, I welcome that. It keeps me humble! A lot of my hypotheses are being supported by new discoveries, but a lot are not. The process of investigating them is EXCITING. I feel like a kid in a candy store.

"Here is the "problem" in a nutshell. Jesus of Nazareth existed in history. He was a real person."

Knowing full well that you'll immediately accuse me of "denying God", let me point out 2 you that the only source of "proof" of the existence of Jesus is the Bible itself. There is only one mention of Jesus elsewhere in the written record from some decades after the crucifiction, and even it is suspected of having been inserted at a later date (after the author's death).

Now, that neither denies nor proves the existence of the man Jesus. But an examination of the historic record for independent corroboration of the existence of Jesus (not just from the Bible) *IS* what could be considered a "hard science" approach 2 "the problem" such as there is one.

"There were many claims made about him and by him, and they were of sufficient import as to "require" an honest and thorough examination of those claims because, as a real live person, he was either;

1) A Liar"

In what sense? Were the parables "lies"? They weren't ac2al events, but metaphors. Are myths lies? Or do they contain profound truths (their original intent, after all)? And frankly, why "must he" be a liar or no?

"2) A Lunatic (crazy, but believed it himself even though not true."

Believed what?

"3) A Legend (didn't really exist, just a figment of some writer(s) imagination)"

Possibly, but not necessarily. What's important here, though. The existence of a person 2000 years ago, or the teachings attributed 2 him?

"4) LORD God, God the Son, the WORD, the 2nd person of the Triune God, Creator of all that is, our Savior from eternal separation from God."

There may be other possibilities, including variants of #4 (as there are variants of Christianity).

"Now, your choice to reject him, to not even examine the evidence, IS your right to choose. But it hardly seems true to "scientific investigation no matter where it leads."

I have made no such choice, except in your mind's eye. As for scientific investigations, it's not my area of expertise (history, anthropology, that sort of thing). If my studies of Mars inexorably lead me 2 investigate the existence of Jesus and/or God, I'll be sure and let you know, though.

"I would submit that "even if" such a CroMagnon made such a choice, it was a PERSONAL choice that would have little or no impact on anyone else."

Perhaps, but numerous individuals making similar choices over enough time...

"He MIGHT be able to convince his little CroMagnon sons to "follow in Daddy's footsteps," but with teenage peer pressure being probably similar to what it is today (grin), the "monogamy thing" would likely die of "old age" and disappear when Daddy CroMagnon died."

Think about this in context of where we are, your own experiences, and the gamut of religions represented on this forum... OBVIOUSLY, monogamy as a "rule of behavior" or morality must be reinvented or rediscovered by each individual, every single time, even for very religious people. If that isn't the case, there would be nothing but secular humanists here dealing with infidelity.

"To put it another way, Henry the 8th thinking.....get a new wife to produce the sons he wanted...as many wives as it takes. Today, if someone were to marry a woman who could not have children, the husband would be "justified" in impregnating as many other women as he could to produce the desired offspring."

And I'm sure you know that there are people who feel justified 2 behave that way. Hence this forum (and others like it).

"BUT, we DO put a "premium" upon Monogamy in marriage. Why is that? I would submit that it is grounded in religion, not in evolution or humanistic reasoning."

I accept that you believe that 2 be the case. I submit that the concept, like morality, like the Golden Rule, predates religion, and that religion is based, in part, on these earlier concepts.

"But if "religion" is false, then so would be tenets based upon that religion."

Unless they were derived from elsewhere.

"Ergo, relativistic humanistic rationale. NEVER fixed, always changing and "binding" upon ONLY the individual who embraces it for themselves."

This is also true of religious individuals. If it weren't, simply accepting God's laws would keep them out of trouble.

Please don't think I'm being mean here, either. I think these kinds of "individual judgements" of right and wrong are healthy - for humanists and religious people alike.

"This IS what the United States of America is headed for in it's quest to remove all traces of religion from our society. It is to be kept, at best, in a dark corner of society, reserved for the "kooks" who are hopelessly dependent upon "fantasy" instead of reality. It is NOT to be regarded as true, much less "inspired and revealed TRUTH" by our divine Creator."

Don't get so defensive. You're misinterpreting the separation of church and state and calling it malicious. Can you imagine what freedom in the US would be like if we were a Theocracy? Even if it were a Christian one?

To admit to HIM would be to "give up" our ability to choose and to whatever WE want or desire....with no "absolutes" or even any valid and sustainable "right and wrong." ALL of what we would do, given our humanistic tendancies, would be "relative" to any given time or situation.

It IS, and always has been. Right and wrong may indeed be absolute, but it is the responsibilty of the individual 2 PROVE that for themselves, rather than blindly follow rules, IMHO.

"So....CroMagnon man nothwithstanding, [color:"blue"]WHAT[/color] are the "univeral rules," [color:"blue"]WHERE[/color] did the rules come from, and [color:"blue"]WHY[/color] should they apply to anyone other than self, IF religion is tossed out of the equation?"

Regardless of the answers 2 those questions, it is still the responsibility of each and every one of us 2 make our own choices - make them true for US by knowing why they're true and what they mean, rather than doing what we're told.

"What would stop someone from "donating" sperm to as many eggs as possible, or vice versa?"

There's "no fun in it". That's what would stop it. If my W couldn't have had our kids, we would probably have adopted. Frankly, I've lost count of the times I've seen interviews on TV where once-infertile couples praised God after being artificially inseminated, or after winning a custody battle with a surrogate mother... ...I'm sure you've seen them, 2. When should the "hard scientists" stop helping them get the kids they believe God wants them 2 bring in2 the world and simply tell them "why not adopt?" or "why not accept that it's God's will you're sterile?" When is enough 2 much?

"The "family unit" will distintegrate and the foundation of "marraige and family" will have NO basis outside of the "myth" of religion. But since religion (or at least Christianity) is only a "fantasy" for the weak-minded, let's not cry about "infidelity" in marriage as fidelity is only an illusion....or at least only a choice ONE individual can make for themselves alone, but cannot "impose" upon their spouse or upon anyone else."

Peggy Vaughan wrote "The Monogamy Myth". I don't think it so much means that she believes it's unatainable as she means that more often than not the promise is broken.

I'm not even sure that the "problem" of infidelity is getting better or worse, compared 2 historic or even prehistoric behaviors or moralities.

-ol' 2long

To me, it is interesting that even folks that are having/ or have had an affair, still list monogamy as being very important.

Many times, the WS refuses to have SF with the spouse. The WS wants to have monogamy with their lover. My husband was like that. He wanted to be "faithful" to his lover.

Figure that one out.

RM once allegedly said 2 my W, when he was getting in2 a new R while his DV was just getting underway "I feel like I'm cheating on YOU when I date".

What a doofus!

-ol' 2long

Can't be explained except by the feeling of wanting to be monogamous. So what if they are cheating? They want to be faithful to the other infidel.

2Long, now don't you consider this statement a tad "risky" for someone who "prefers to defer" and who won't investigate for himself? Would you consider that I have looked at the "Historicity" of Christ and can tell you that there is far more corrobrative evidence, including statements from sources extra-biblical, for the existance of Jesus? If one applies the methods used for all other persons of history, there is vastly more data available for Jesus than for any other person who is "accepted" as being real.

Suffice it to say, that your words have the "sound" of a learned mind behind them, but the arguments you present have gaping holes in them and the outright refusal to investigate the issue for yourself is interesting.

You continue to posit that monogamy "predates" religion, but your "proof" is simply your opinion with no corroborative evidence or support. You "distain" the Scripture, but there is no reason to discount the Scripture if you don't accept the God of the Bible as real. Without God, the Bible is nothing more than the writings of several people, who were deluded into thinking that there really was a God who created everything, that heaven and hel l really do exist, that sin and evil do exist as opposites of holiness and good.


Oh come on, 2Long. Of course you've made a choice. You have chosen to ignore the issue. The "why" you've made that choice is something that only you know for certain, but I'd venture that it entails not wanting to have Jesus Christ possibly upset your "apple cart" of choices.

MOST people reject Christ simply because to accept him would "mess up" their chosen lifestyle.

But you are a man of science. You "should" be interested in the truth, even if the discovery proved to "disprove" a theory you had previously thought was true.

Regardless, the evidence that "Demands a Verdict" is voluminous. But at the end, just like Lucifer, one can accept the truth, but choose to reject it nonetheless. That is why Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is so great....it is truth, but God "forces no one to accept" the truth. All God does is to stand at the door to your heart and knock. Whether or not anyone opens the door and let's Him come in is a choice each individual must make on their own.

Groan...


"2Long, now don't you consider this statement a tad "risky" for someone who "prefers to defer" and who won't investigate for himself?"

No.

"Would you consider that I have looked at the "Historicity" of Christ and can tell you that there is far more corrobrative evidence, including statements from sources extra-biblical, for the existance of Jesus?"

Certainly I would consider it, but I know different, because I have looked in depth for a long time as well, and there simply isn't any. ANY.

"Suffice it to say, that your words have the "sound" of a learned mind behind them, but the arguments you present have gaping holes in them and the outright refusal to investigate the issue for yourself is interesting."

Been there, done that. Got other things 2 do now that I find much more interesting.

"You "distain" the Scripture,"

I do not, and the word is "disdain."

"Without God, the Bible is nothing more than the writings of several people,"

WITH God, it's STILL the writings of several people, even if he dictated directly 2 them in their language of choice.

"2Long, you know as well as I do, or you are far less intelligent than I believe you to be, that Jesus Christ claimed to BE God."

Well, I prefer 2 think of myself as far MORE intelligent than you could even imagine me 2 be, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that I've NEVER unders2d the "Religious Wrong's" interpretation of the things attributed 2 Jesus as him saying that he was God. He denied it, even. But once again, I know what's coming, and I'm getting sick and tired of this "fight." You want 2 win? Good. You win. Feel better? (notice I didn't say you were right. You're not.)

"Are you arguing that he lied or that he spoke the truth....or trying to "straddle the fence" ala those who claim to be Agnostic?"

None of the above. I'm arguing that you have misinterpreted what he is alleged 2 have said.

"Hands down, the most important is Jesus' existance."

This reveals a great deal. I know of no fundamentalists who's beliefs in how the world works would survive if Jesus didn't exist - no matter how marvelous the teachings attributed 2 him in the Bible. I would argue the opposite: Hands down, the most important thing 2 learn from the Biblical accounts of Jesus are the things he taught.

"It is His existance that lends authority and truth to the teachings, not the other way around."

I believe that Jesus himself believed that his message was more important than his humanity (his physical appearance in biblical times), was even the REASON for his appearance before humanity. Boy, we don't think at all alike, it seems.

"2Long, it was for this very reason that Jesus told Thomas to touch him, to feel the nail prints, so that he (and all the rest of us) would know that Jesus was real, was alive, was risen from the dead, and that all that Jesus had said was TRUE."

Thomas was my favorite disciple. He taught that we should question authority. That it is right 2 doubt, test those doubts, and verify for one's self the "truth" presented before us - not just blindly follow rules.

"That Jesus was the Messiah and the ONLY way to salvation for mankind was proven in His flesh and in His resurrection. So, yes, the "existance" of Jesus IS the "most important" of all the "important things."

Here is the central issue for me: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" clearly does NOT mean that his body, or his person, is that Way, but that he TAUGHT the Way.

"No, 2Long, there are NO other possibilities that remain consistant with true Christianity."

Whatever.

"An example would be the Jehovah's Witnesses. They claim Jesus is a created being, the brother of Lucifer, and became a "god" just as other humans can. That is decidedly NOT biblical Christianity."

There may be Jehovah's Witnesses on here, you know. I'll let them speak for themselves, though. Not my field <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


"It IS a "human construct," and if you want to argue that all religion is "untrue," so it doesn't matter what anyone believes, then you CAN select any other "possibilities" that might tickle your fancy."

I shall. Because they ARE ALL human constructs. Even if they're absolutely right on the mark.

"But that begs the question about Jesus Christ, and you already know that."

I haven't got a clue what that means.

"Now, your choice to reject him,"

I haven't.

"to not even examine the evidence,"

I have.

"But it hardly seems true to "scientific investigation no matter where it leads.""

Scientists have jobs. They have work 2 do on those jobs that often requires that they focus on their area of expertise. I'm not a historian, nor a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor an archaeologist (and even if I were, I'd have 2 be a biblical archaeologist to have the time to devote more than a casual interest in this issue). I'm a geologist. And still, I've read around. We had a subscription 2 Biblical Archaeology for a few years (though not recently). But my offer still stands: If Jesus walks by when one of our Mars rovers is taking images, I'll be sure 2 investigate, no matter where his footprints lead (even if we have 2 2rn back the way we came).

"Oh come on, 2Long. Of course you've made a choice."

Oh come on, FH. I have not.

"You have chosen to ignore the issue."

Nonsense. I haven't even made the choice 2 ignore YOU (though many have advised me 2 do so).

"The "why" you've made that choice is something that only you know for certain, but I'd venture that it entails not wanting to have Jesus Christ possibly upset your "apple cart" of choices."

And even though I haven't made that choice as you alledge, I invite Jesus Christ 2 upset whatever apple carts of choices I might be pushing at the moment. If he elects not 2 do so, I won't be insulted. If he upsets my carts, I still won't be insulted. I'd LOVE 2 talk 2 him, in fact. He seemed like a neat guy (assuming he isn't a metaphor).

"MOST people reject Christ simply because to accept him would "mess up" their chosen lifestyle."

Simply stated 2 the point of being misleading, and certainly misinterpretable, but I agree, so far as I understand what you're saying and so far as you're willing 2 meet my interpretation of what you've said half way.

"But you are a man of science. You "should" be interested in the truth, even if the discovery proved to "disprove" a theory you had previously thought was true."

Indeed I am. Being proven wrong is a big part of scientific investigations. It's also a BLAST. But it's only fun if you don't take the failures personally. I used 2, but that was a long time ago. Work is much more fun these days.

"Regardless, the evidence that "Demands a Verdict" is voluminous. But at the end, just like Lucifer, one can accept the truth, but choose to reject it nonetheless."

Oh crud. I don't believe Lucifer exists.

"That is why Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is so great....it is truth,"

I agree. It IS truth, even if it didn't ac2ally happen. Now I KNOW that will get you all fired up, FH! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

"but God "forces no one to accept" the truth. All God does is to stand at the door to your heart and knock. Whether or not anyone opens the door and let's Him come in is a choice each individual must make on their own."

Is this a real guy standing at a real door and audibly knocking on it? Where is this door, how big is it, what's it made of, and will I have a heart attack if I open it? Or was that a metaphor? See, FH? Even you can speak metaphorically sometimes. I knew you could.

best,
-ol' 2long

Sigh. 2Long, I have little patience for this nonsense, so I’ll simply cite a few things and then recommend that if you truly ARE interested in truth (without having to “make a career of it”) that you might want to pick up a copy of Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell. You might, at least, find it an interesting read.

Now, back to your specious claim that I know different, because I have looked in depth for a long time as well, and there simply isn't any. ANY.

Let me just quote a few things from McDowell’s’ book by way of addressing your claim.


1A. JESUS IS A MAN OF HISTORY

In a debate sponsored by the Associate Students of a Midwestern university, my opponent, a congressional candidate for the Progressive Labor Party (Marxist) in New York, said in her opening remarks: “Historians today have fairly well dismissed Jesus as being historical. …” I couldn’t believe my ears (but I was thankful she said it, because the 2,500 students were soon aware that historical homework was missing in her preparation). It just so happened that I had the following notes and documentation with me to use in my rebuttal. It is certainly not the historians (maybe a few economists) who propagate a Christ-myth theory of Jesus.

As F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has rightly said:

“Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth,’ but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.”

Otto Betz concludes that “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.

1B. Christian Sources for the Historicity of Jesus

1C. TWENTY-SEVEN DIFFERENT NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS

John Montgomery asks:

“What, then, does a historian know about Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give and accurate portrait of Him. And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presuppositionalism, or literary maneuvering.”

2C. CHURCH FATHERS

Polycarp, Eusebius, Iranaeus, Ignatius, Origen, etc.

2B. Non-biblical Sources for Historicity of Jesus (I’ll just list them and you can read the details when you get the book).

Cornelius Tacitus (born A.D. 52-54)
Lucian of Samosata
Flavius Josephus (born A.D. 37)
Suetonius (A.D. 120)
Plinius Secundus, Pliny the Younger
Tertullian
Thallus, The Samaritan-Born Historian
Phlegon, A First Century Historian
Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion
Justin Martyr
The Jewish TALMUDS

And lastly,
Encyclopaedia Britannica

The latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte.

Concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, it records:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

(Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell, pp 81-87)

__________________________________________________

2Long, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you would defer to other scientists who are “experts” in their fields and accept there analysis and beliefs as being correct….let’s say Physics or Astronomy or Biology, etc..

How is it that you fight so strenuously against the Historicity of Jesus? I suspect that there might even be a “fear” of the man. It is much easier to debate abstract theories and to NOT require that one particular religion is “true”. That way, any “religion” or “no religion” would be on “equal footing” and “equally as irrelevant” to “truth.” TRUTH in such a fog-like state of denial is all relative, relative to the personal wants and desires of the individual and NOT dependent on any external measure of “truthfulness” or “correctness.”



Of that, I have no doubt.



2Long, you twist and misapply with the best of them, I have to give you that. The “message” was, and is, extremely important. But it took God himself to actually provide the fulfillment of that message so that salvation could be possible for those who believe. You CANNOT separate the “person of Jesus Christ” from the message. They are essentially one and the same.

Jesus answered, [color:"red"] “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”[/color] (John 6:29 NIV)

Then Jesus declared, [color:"red"] “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father give me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”[/color] (John 6:35-40 NIV)

2Long, the “bottom line” is that Jesus is “more important” than the message because the message IS repentance, forgiveness of sin, and reconciliation with God, and that God provided the means for that forgiveness of sin by the sacrifice of blood, of the perfect Lamb of God, of Jesus Christ. Without the shedding of his blood there would be no remission of sins, no “sacrifice once for all.” Without His bodily resurrection from the dead as the “firstfruit”, the message of resurrection and eternal life with God would have no meaning and no basis in “fact” of one who has “gone before.”



Interesting how you chide me for and “either/or” stance and here you go twisting the message in just such a way. The statement “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes unto the Father but by me” is BOTH about Jesus Christ the “Messiah” promised by God AND about the message of salvation and eternity with God. Without who he is and what he did on our behalf, the “message” would have no meaning.



I know you “shall.” But Christianity “rises and falls” on the person of Jesus Christ. If Christ is NOT resurrected from the dead, the “message” of Christianity is false and cannot be “true,” let alone “absolutely right on the mark.” But I will grant you that ALL other religions (with the exception of the Jews) ARE ALL human constructs and not given by “divine inspiration” from God.

And lastly, for a few chuckles and frivolity;



Aren’t typos, slips and outright childlike distortions instead of pristine, absolute grammatical and spelling correctness maddening? One might be tempted to “think less of” someone guilty of butchering the “King’s English.” But then that would be “judging” someone and that would imply a tacit understanding of some standard that defined “right and wrong.”

Scientists have jobs. They have work 2 (the word is “to”) do on those jobs that often requires that they focus on their area of expertise. I'm not a historian, nor a theologian, nor an anthropologist, nor an archaeologist (and even if I were, I'd have 2 (the word is “to”) be a biblical archaeologist to have the time to devote more than a casual interest in this issue). I'm a geologist. And still, I've read around. We had a subscription 2 (the word is “to”) Biblical Archaeology for a few years (though not recently). But my offer still stands: If Jesus walks by when one of our Mars rovers is taking images, I'll be sure 2 (the word is “to”) investigate, no matter where his footprints lead (even if we have 2 (the word is “to”) 2rn (the word is “turn”) back the way we came).

Is this where “Rice Cakes” came in earlier? (I really have no idea what the phrase “rice cakes” means, but it sounds nice!)

Play nice you two.

The "Rice Cake" citation is from an Alfred Hitchcock movie starring Bruce Dern (can't remember the name of the movie), who, instead of using Jesus' name in vain (i.e., by saying "Oh, for Christ's Sake!"), prefered 2 say "Oh for Rice Cake!" at several points in the movie story.

The rest of the stuff can go on forever, Forever.

I'm tired. Me and Jesus continue 2 do fine.

-ol' 2long