After we fix the CO2 crises, then we can take on the other gases. Water vapor alone accounts for about 95% of all (that's right, all) designated gasses attributed to causing the greenhouse effect (hence the name "greenhouse"), but I think maybe we should leave that one alone. However, it shouldn't take long to reduce the remaining trace gasses that have been giving so many ppl here the vapors.. pun intended.

Blimey.... people that think our Planet can't be upset by our existence. Maybe they should remember Castle Bravo and the Bikini islands.

Oh.. The islands have been deemed uninhabitable due to radiation poisoning. Maybe the radiation dosage was a little high.

I mean... a few extra billion tons of CO2 or other chemicals (agent Orange for one) have no effect on us at all...... N' if you believe that then you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.

Artful Dodger: Anytime I think ol' ma earth is actually speaking to me, I know it's probably time to up the dosage.. (I post, therefore I am on lyme)

Artful Dodger: We shouldn't pick on Mom like this. She's had a tough life. Earth is basically just a rock with stuff growing on it, but don't tell Ma earth that.. she's kinda gettin up there in years, and don't always know whats a going on.

Artful Dodger: Well, I post therefore I have nothing better to do. Except to come here and have ppl explain to me that pop rocks aren't really rocks, or that popcorn brain has nothing to do with corn. Did I say corn or.. yeah, I did say corn. (whew!)

Artful Dodger: Look, I'm sorry mother earth is going through global menapause right now, but I have my own problems to deal with.

Tuesday:

> What were the political charges against Jesus?

According to the Gospel of Matthew, when jesus was born, Herod the Great set out to kill every infant in Bethlehem. The Massacre of the Innocents occurred because the Magi announced that a new king of the Jews had been born. Herod wanted to kill the infant so as to protect his throne from an usurper. This is the first attempted killing of Jesus on political accounts, since Herod saw the new king of the Jews as a political threat. It must be noted that biographers of Herod the Great deny the event took place since there are no records of it outside the gospel of Matthew.

When Jesus was captured, the Sanhedrin (Council of the Jews) accuse him, find him guilty and sentence him to death because Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus was sent to Pontius Pilate for trial. Pontius Pilate sends him to Herod Antipas (son of Herod the Great) because Jesus fell under Herod's jurisdiction. Herod Antipas mocks Jesus for not wanting to perform miracles for him, and sends Jesus back to Pilate. Pontius Pilate found Jesus innocent of any crime under Roman Law. However, the mob demands the release of Barabbas (a rioter, revolutionary and criminal) instead of Jesus. Politically, Barabbas opposed the Roman occupation, so to the crowd he would have been a favorite. The killing of Jesus was orchestrated by Caiphas, a Roman-appointed Jewish high priest.

What would be the political reasons for killing Jesus?
1. Pontius Pilate wanted to give the mob what it wanted instead of dealing with a rebellion caused by the incarceration of Barabbas.
2. Herod Antipas (like his father Herod the Great) would execute anyone claiming to be the King of the Jews. Otherwise the people could accept somebody else as king rather than himself.
3. Caiphas would execute anyone claiming to be the son of God because that would mean that there was somebody with a closer relationship to God than Caiphas had in his role as high priest.
4. The mob wanted a known rebel and rioter like Barabbas freed because he was more likely to oppose Roman domination than a pacifist like Jesus.

> Was anyone else crucified for claiming to be who he was?

The Gospels mention false prophets living during the time of Jesus. There were men performing feats of magic and claiming to be the Messiah. The Gospels do not indicate the fate of those men because the focus of the Gospels is on the life of Jesus. In all likelyhood, men like that would be incarcerated or killed for opposing the power of the Herods and the high priests. Jesus would not have been the only one to claim to be the Son of God or the Messiah. Of course, to Christians Jesus is the true Son of God and the Messiah, but to the Jews in Judea of 2000 years ago Jesus would have been one more heretic making grandiose claims.

It must be noted that neither the Massacre of the Innocents, nor the existence of Jesus Christ or Jesus Barabbas, or the practice of freeing prisoners during Passover are mentioned anywhere else outside the New Testament. Historically, none of the events can be proven by corroboration with historical records from that era.

As an aside: Coincidentally, Barabbas was actually called Jesus bar-Abbas. Jesus was a common name. The actual Hebrew is יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua), Jesus being the latinized version of the Hellenic transliteration of the name.

Artful Dodger: I'm sorry that one of my messages to uber didn't make it to the board. I already know he doesn't believe in God by the way he talks about it. I wanted to point out that if people speculated over which version of uber really matters or not, or even if it did matter that perhaps he really doesn't exist except in our imaginations, uber would know right away if any of that was true or not. We can't control what people say or believe about us, but we at least know who we really are and if we even exist or not.

Bernice: gidday Bernice.. btw interesting pic you have up there. If a woman looked at me like that it would scare the (something) out of me. lol

Tuesday: Aye.. I thought it very much a hollywooooood excursion. I've also watched "The Life of Brian", "Dogma", "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ", and many other serious and non serious spoofs on Christ and Christianity in film, on TV and in books. I suppose in the UK we tend to laugh more at ourselves and our relationship with religion then you guys in the USA.

Tuesday:

> The Jews didn't reject Jesus? He was beaten beyond looking human, and hung on a cross. It was mostly because they couldn't accept a poor man and one of their own as the Son of God.

That is a blanket statement. First, it was not every Jew that did this. Second, crucifixion was a Roman form of execution. Jews would most likely have practiced stoning to death. Third, from the point of view of the Jews of that era, Jesus was a heretic, someone who did not follow traditional Judaism.

Would the Jews accept Jesus as the Son of God? Some guy walks out of the street and tells you: "I am the true son of God". Would you believe him? You are thinking in terms of how modern Christians see Jesus. To the Jews of that era Jesus would not have been the only man to claim to be the Messiah or the son of God. Many religious zealots made that claim, just as today we have many preachers who claim to talk to God, or who claim to know when the Final Judgement will come, etc. Jesus was lost among all the false prophets and zealots. Of course, what would later become Christianity accepted him as the Son of God. However, people forget that Christianity did not exist when jesus was alive, and Jesus did not think of himself as the originator of a new religion. Jesus was first and foremost a Jew who preached a different message. The Bible says that he was executed wrongfully and cruelly. However, it is obvious that his execution was political. The mob wanted Barrabas released, and the Romans always gave the mob what it wanted in order to avoid strife and dissent within the empire. Jesus was executed not out of rejection of his teachings, but as an execution by an angry mob. He was paraded around to give the mob a spectacle as well as to terrify the mob into submission first to Rome and second to the power of the Pharisees.

Tuesday: No, members of the Jewish priestly hierarchy had Pontius Pilate kill Jesus. The story is they rigged the crowd to make Pilate crucify Christ. As to the crucifixion...... If there was no 'death', there is no 'rising'. I thought Christ knew what was going to happen and let it happen.

Tuesday:

> The Jews rejected his teachings and Peter had a vision telling him to teach the Gentiles as well after Jesus' own ppl rejected him.

We have to remember that Christianity did not exist at the time of Jesus. Jesus never set out to reform or modify Judaism. Neither did the Jews accept or reject his teachings. In reality Jesus belonged to a minority of Jews who was dissatisfied with the way the powerful Pharisees in Jerusalem were running things. People from Galilee saw their greed for wealth and power as opposed to what God had intended for human beings to do on this earth. John the Baptist was also from that same stream of thought.

At the time there were many religious "dissidents", most of them living near the shores of the Dead Sea, away from Roman rule. The Pharisees and Herod had completely surrendered to the Romans. Some people chose armed struggle, others chose a spiritual form of rebellion. Those who sought a spiritual path to liberation started questioning the old ways. This is how baptism arose as a way to clean a person from their sins.

When Jesus had his ministry, he was not the great originator of a new religion as we see him today. He was merely a carpenter's son trying his best to teach people a different way in a world full of greed and violence. Jesus lived and died without immediate impact. His teachings remained only among his apostles and relatively few followers. In that sense Jews neither accepted or rejected him, because for the majority of the population he would have been one more spiritual rebel trying to change the world.

It was St. Paul who worked hard to change things. St. Paul himself had been converted from a Jew and Roman into a follower of Jesus. Prior to his conversion Paul the Apostle persecuted the early Christians, probably along with other dissidents of Pharisee spiritual rule. St. Paul saw the strength of Jesus' message, and set out to spread it along with his apostles. Jesus teachings did not find much resonance among Jews, but they found resonance among Greeks. It is at that point that Christianity accepted Gentiles into the fold, because Paul himself was a gentile Roman. It is also why the New Testament was written predominantly in Greek and not Aramaic.

In reality the distinction between Judaism and Christianity arose slowly over two hundred years after the death of Christ. Christians took many of the old rituals of Judaism and transformed them into symbolic rituals. Circumcision was replaced with baptism. The ritual sacrifice of lambs was replaced with the Eucharist. Many of these conversions had an origin in alternate rituals in old Judaism, but they did not gain their deep spiritual significance until the apostles spread the word of Jesus.

I wouldn't say Jews rejected Jesus. Rather, Jews had no chance to hear his message considering the brutality of Roman rule and the ultimate expelling of Jews from their homeland. Jews survived as a distinct culture and religion by handing onto their old ways as best as they could. The more they were prosecuted, the harder they fought to retain their religion culture and values. It comes as no surprise that they refused conversion to Christianity and Islam in spite of 2000 years of discrimination and prosecution.

Tuesday: I don't think that is a fair assessment. Jesus did not fulfil all of the prophecies that were said to be completed as the Jewish Messiah. I believe that someone else did that (or as near as ) if I remember my history on that matter correctly.

Also, if it wasn't for the Romans the establishment of Christianity would be different. It became a state church, just like when Henry VIII formed the Church of England.. but that was so he could divorce his wife.

Artful Dodger: Per person??

Arthur Brooks made quite a splash a few years ago in his book Who Really Cares. He argued that religious conservatives were far more likely to give than liberals. In fact, if you campare religious conservatives with secular liberals, he is right. Indeed, one third of secularists give nothing to charity. Of the most religious in the country 94% give to charity. And of those who give, the religious give on average at least three times more than those who are not religious. Moreover, the figures bear out that religious conservatives are far more likely to give to non-religious causes than are the non-religious.

Brooks turns out to be far off base, however, in contending that religious conservatives give more often and give more than religious liberals. Basically, he failed to adjust for church attendance. If you adjust for church attendance there is no difference that favors conservatives over liberals. Indeed, religious liberals volunteer more often to help the sick, the needy, and neighborhood and civic groups. For an excellent discussion of this, see chapter 13 of American Grace by Putnam and Campbell.

Tuesday: I heard it was about making God available for the Gentiles without the need to live by 613 commandments as well as things like eye for an eye.

lizrising: Aye.. The words that to me make that 'connection', I don't use except in prayer.

(V): When I learned to read Hebrew I had to remember that a couple words that mean God were pronounced nothing like they looked. Orthodox Jews also do not normally say any of the names of God (Adonai, Eloheynu, etc) unless in prayer. Instead they say Hashem, which translates to "the name." If throwing away something with the name of God printed on it, it has to be specially buried. Even my Reconstructionist Jewish fiancee, who is rather agnostic, is very careful about printing things with God's name, not letting certain books touch the floor, etc.

Tuesday: The old ways.. Define old ways?

Tuesday: Christ would have known Judaism... And that would have reflected in his words.

Tuesday: The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Hei-Yod-Hei (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Hei), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Hei-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").

The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word (or, according to Rambam, a homonym of it) is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God).

God is also known as El Shaddai. This Name is usually translated as "God Almighty," however, the derivation of the word "Shaddai" is not known. According to some views, it is derived from the root meaning "to heap benefits." According a Midrash, it means, "The One who said 'dai'" ("dai" meaning enough or sufficient) and comes from the fact that when God created the universe, it expanded until He said "DAI!" (perhaps the first recorded theory of an expanding universe?). The name Shaddai is the one written on the mezuzah scroll. Some note that Shaddai is an acronym of Shomer Daltot Yisrael, Guardian of the Doors of Israel.

Another significant Name of God is YHVH Tzva'ot. This Name is normally translated as "Lord of Hosts." The word "tzva'ot" means "hosts" in the sense of a military grouping or an organized array. The Name refers to God's leadership and sovereignty. Interestingly, this Name is rarely used in scripture. It never appears in the Torah (i.e., the first five books). It appears primarily in the prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, as well as many times in the Psalms.
Writing the Name of God

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood"). .................

With the Temple destroyed and the prohibition on pronouncing The Name outside of the Temple, pronunciation of the Name fell into disuse. Scholars passed down knowledge of the correct pronunciation of YHVH for many generations, but eventually the correct pronunciation was lost, and we no longer know it with any certainty. We do not know what vowels were used, or even whether the Vav in the Name was a vowel or a consonant. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about the difficulties in pronouncing Hebrew. Some religious scholars suggest that the Name was pronounced "Yahweh," but others do not find this pronunciation particularly persuasive.

Some people render the four-letter Name as "Jehovah," but this pronunciation is particularly unlikely. The word "Jehovah" comes from the fact that ancient Jewish texts used to put the vowels of the Name "Adonai" (the usual substitute for YHVH) under the consonants of YHVH to remind people not to pronounce YHVH as written. A sixteenth century German Christian scribe, while transliterating the Bible into Latin for the Pope, wrote the Name out as it appeared in his texts, with the consonants of YHVH and the vowels of Adonai, and came up with the word JeHoVaH, and the name stuck.

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

It's just a best guess name.

Iamon lyme: gidday :)

Artful Dodger:

> It was a political conflict and the US got involved because of world politics and NOT becasue of any religious belief.

That is exaclty what I am getting at. I see these right wing evangelicals come out and say that the US is a Christian nation.Yet as Christian they gladly put aside some of Christianity's central teachings in order to condone a war. The question then is? How can these people call themselves Christians and condone a war? Others (I can't remember if you yourself did) have posted in the past that the US is a nation founded on Christian principles. You yourself come out and defend Christianity on one hand, and war on the other. Then you say "the other side made us do it" or "Islam is evil". You make political excuses for compromising your faith.

Sarah Palin defends gun posession. Is that the Christian way? Or is she merely compromising her faith for political gain? I have seen too much of that among Christians. Let's say that we believe one thing, and do another. Did you or did you not support the war in Iraq? And if you did, how does that reconcile with your Christian teachings? Or did you compromise your teachings for the sake of politics? Did you protest against the war based on deeply held beliefs in peace and love for other human beings? Or did you say, "geez, they are so evil that war is OK"? How does that compare to Jesus dying on the cross and saying "forgive them father for they know not what they do"?

Radical Moslems are violent because the Koran "says that they should be". At least in their interpretation of it. But the NT says that people should be good to one another, they should avoid violence, they should treat others as they want to be treated themselves. So what excuse do Christians have for condoning war?

Artful Dodger: Christians went out and did the killing. Why didn't they say "No Jesus/God says it's wrong"?

Artful Dodger: As I'm sure you know, logic and reason are always welcomed by people who already agree with you, but not always by people who don't. If uber is laying claim to logic, then maybe it's time for me to confess that I'm actually a beautiful young woman posing as a grumpy old man.. oh, you shush now AD, don't you be spreading any stories now, you hear!!

Tuesday: Well, he actually said he didn't come to abolish (change) the law, but to fulfill it. As children growing up the rules appear to change, but it only appears that way because we begin to change. If it appears there are contradictions between old and new testament it's because we are slowing being brought along, just like a good parent is patient as their child slowly learns how to navigate life. Things changed within the book of Genesis alone, so we can't really say there was only one transistion, the one between OT and NT. Most of us can't see the bigger picture because frankly none of us are here long enough to see it. I don't either, but that's where faith necessarily enters in. I don't know if something that happens every day will happen today, but faith based on experience tells me it probably will.

Tuesday: Considering that the Lord appeared many a time in the OT.... what was his/her name back then?

Seeing as the OT translation of "Lord" is more a case of the "I am" derived From "I am what I am" (he who is).

does anyone really need to ask why?