smj
-
Posts
114 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by smj
-
-
Sorry, but I have to give an opinion.
I regard that passage as Jesus setting up Simon (Peter is the Greek translation for rock/stone) as the basis or foundation of his church on which to build upon.
Jesus has just asked "Who do you say the Son of Man is?"
Simon answers " You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God"
Jesus at this point has never told or taught that he is the Son of God. But Simon gets it...the foundation to the Church is being put in place.
My 2 cents.
I agree. I don't want to get into debate with my RC friends because I believe the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. It's a shame the church has been so splintered by men. But I believe it is quite a leap to propose that because Jesus called Peter the foundation He also put in motion events where each generation would vote on a new "foundation" legacy in the form of the papacy. I think if Jesus wanted to set up an organization for the ages He would have done so differently and with more deliberate instructions. Jesus knew He had to trust His followers to build the church but he devoted His teaching to an individual relationship with God through Himself with the help of the Holy Spirit. Each individual must make their own decision (their family or church cannot do it for them) and I emphasize that individual relationship.
SMJ,
To further your point and my understanding of the 25th of December. My understanding is it was centuries later that Christmas was celebrated and it was more in response to pagan rituals that evolved around the winter solstice of +/- December 22nd.
The true Christian celebration is Easter.
It is also my understanding that Jesus was most likely born in the spring. When his birthday is celebrated is not a major factor in the believing's of his teachings. It is of major concern to the retailers of the world.
Thank you. Great points and comment about Easter. Without Easter everything is meaningless which is why I challenge people to honestly consider that it actually takes more faith the believe the resurrection didn't occur as described in the Bible than to simply accept the Biblical account.
-
SMJ, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Matthew 16:17-19.
Sorry I have been away...I don't know what you are wondering about this passage.
I take anything that has been processed by "man" with a grain of salt. I am reasonably certain of two things:
a) Jesus, be he man or son of God, probably did exist around the time that he is believed to have,
b) His message and lessons, whether true and unfiltered or approximate and improved by the writers, are valuable lessons on being a good person.
Now, as for who he was, there are four possibilities:
1) He really was the son of God and expected to be considered as such,
2) He was a bit delusional, being just a man, but thinking he was the son of God,
3) He knew he was not and intentionally misrepresented himself, whether for good or bad reasons,
4) He never said that he was the son of God, but a story grew around a popular and charismatic figure with a powerful message.
Regardless, of which of those is true, (b) still holds above. So, I leave to each person to believe which of (1) - (4) is correct, but as Neo, Drunkard, etc, have said, the message, without the assumption of (1), is still worth a lot.
I agree with the first three but still can't accept #4. The evidence is He said He was the Son of God because He was crucified. All He would have needed to do was deny His divinity and the authorities would not have had a problem with Him. Also, what motivation did the apostles have for creating a story that wasn't fully true? It is not like today where any crackpot may expect fame and maybe fortune. The apostles were persecuted for this "story". It only makes sense they believed it was true. And some did not believe like James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul until they saw him resurrected.
For people who seem to be atheists or agnostics I find it odd that you are concerned with the message of a good person which is a moral judgment. If there is no God, or lawgiver, than who is to say what is good anyway?
Drunkard - I find it illogical that you won't consider anything Chaffey writes because you do not agree with his beliefs on the age of the earth. I don't know if I agree with him on that either but it doesn't mean he is wrong about everything. I am a big Lincoln fan but I don't think he was error free and just because I think he was wrong about a point or two doesn't mean anything else he said was invalid. It seems like you wouldn't consider the gospel no matter what.
What commandment needed to be changed?
There is much misinformation about the life of Jesus being a copy of other ancient figures and stories. For example, there is no record of Horus being born on Dec 25th. The reference of birth is day 31 of Khoiak which roughly corresponds to November. But that is irrelevant anyway because the Bible never says Dec 25th is the date of the birth of Christ - that is just the day it is celebrated. Horus was born to Isis Meri but there is no record tying this to Mary and no reference to a virgin birth. Supposedly there is a reference to three kings visiting Horus but those originating these false connections to Horus didn't read their Bible very carefully because the Bible says Magi, not kings, visited Jesus and does not say how many. It is claimed Horus was a teacher at age 12 and baptized by someone named Anup who lost his head but there is no Egyptian record of these details. While Horus had followers there was no mention of a select group of 12. Horus had titles like Great God and Chief of Powers but nothing like Lamb of God of the Light as claimed. Finally, Horus was not crucified as crucifixion was not invented until a thousand years later and no claim to resurrection. Do you think Christianity would have ever gained traction if a copy of another story was this obvious? I get it. There are people who want so much to disprove the divinity of Christ they will put forth all kinds of these theories but upon examination they just aren't accurate.
-
This is the response to Jefferson that I would expect from most Christians. Since I don't consider myself a Christian though I can easily disagree and I really appreciate Jefferson's method. Jesus can be a great example to follow (similar to Ghandi) even without being divine. His messages of turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and loving your neighbor are something to aspire to whether he was the son of God, just a regular man who was charismatic enough to amass a huge following of people, or if he never actually existed and his story was just made up and copied from all of the other solar messiahs that preceded him by hundreds and sometimes thousands of years (Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, etc. whose stories are all eerily similar being born of a virgin on Dec. 25th, the Star in the East, 12 disciples, being dead for 3 days then rising from the dead and all that stuff).
I have to ask, even though you don't consider yourself a Christian, how can you not consider that His message was not simply about some platitudes. He was not at all like Ghandi because Ghandi did not claim to be God's Messiah. By the way, there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed than almost any other individual from that time. Non-Christian historians mentioned Him. I've heard these comparisons before but they just aren't that similar. Please read In Defense of Easter by Chaffey who touches on those comparisons if you are truly recognize the uniqueness of this claim among world religions as the only faith without works belief system.
-
Excellent 79 thank you for that.
this one struck a cord with me...
1803 April 21. (Jefferson to Benjamin Rush). "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."10
I have heard about the Jefferson Bible as well. But that was the point I was trying to make. You can't take just the portions you like of what Jesus said and did, ignore the rest and call Jesus a good example. What Jefferson was really describing was a type of humanism. We can make it on our own and, over time, humanity will solve its own problems by utilizing wisdom from great thinkers like Jesus. I hope we can see by now that history shows us that will never happen because human nature is as the Bible describes it.
Christ did not intend to leave thinking of Him as a good man as an option. In Matthew 10:34-36 Jesus says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
Jesus is figuratively describing what occurs what happens when someone follows Him as Lord. He knew His message would be divisive. If Christ claimed to be God and was wrong no amount of editing from even Jefferson can change that He led millions and millions of people astray and there is no good in that. I'd rather have people decide Jesus was crazy or a liar than try to theorize He was a good man but not the Son of God. Jesus Christ simply did not leave that as a logical option. The Gospel has to hang together or it is all pointless.
-
smj,
I do enjoy this discussion and, as I have said many times, I do respect and accept your belief as being right for you.
I will close this discussion on my part by asking one simple question ...
... if I am comfortable enough in my faith to acknowledge and accept yours, why can't you have the same courtesy towards me?
Please do not look at the question as a dig against you (I realize that it seems like I am).
You mentioned peace in the Middle East. IMO, if everyone (not just in the Middle East, but everywhere on this planet) would look deep inside and move a bit more towards my stance on faith, then and only then will we have peace around the world, or at least a much better chance at it. When we move to mutual respect and understanding, not only in religion, but in every aspect of life, then we will have real peace.
Salam / Peace,
NS
-----
EDIT TO ADD:
You do not have to answer my question, but I humbly ask that you ponder it.
I will try to answer your question. Let me first say that I really do respect you and value our conversation. I don't consider the question as a dig at all. You have been respectful throughout and I appreciate it. I wish we could get together and watch a Bills or Sabres game some time.
I think I understand what you are asking. It is really not personal in any way toward you and it is even difficult to express. And I am going to put it in a way that is not meant to imply you don't feel as strongly about your beliefs. It is because of my affection for Jesus Christ. I would say love but I think that would be too arrogant because I so often fall short of that goal. But I try to love Him as best I can knowing His love for all of us is perfect and unconditional. I believe He died for me and for you and all of us. Matthew 10:32 says. "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven." A great book I suggest reading is called "The Jesus I Never Knew" by Phillip Yancey. Jesus knew His claims were radical and He did not back down from them to appease opposition even though He loved them.
I hope this begins to explain why I seem stubborn. I am actually pretty wimpy and don't like conflict. But I have to be bold about who Jesus Christ is and it doesn't allow accepting something that makes Him less than God's Son and plan for salvation. John 14:6 says, "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." If that is not true Jesus was not a good man or a prophet. I know some will say Jesus did not really claim this but if he was merely a good man telling parables and doing good works the Jewish leaders of the day would not have demanded His death for blasphemy.
-
smj,
I appreciate your kind words and appreciate your take on things. As I have said, if that works and is right for you then I have no issues at all with it.
One small correction. Islam teaches that both Isaac (PBUH) and Ishmael (PBUH) were blessed as the direct offspring of Ibrahim (Abraham) (PBUH). Muslims view all three as Prophets and Messengers of Allah, along with all the numerous other Prophets ... we (Muslims) do not view any Prophet and / or Messenger above another. One (Isaac) (PBUH) was blessed and was anointed as the for father of the Jewish, therefore Jesus (PBUH), faith and tradition. The other (Ishmael) (PBUH) was anointed the for father of the Islamic, therefore Muhammad (PBUH), faith and tradition.
We (you and me, as well as all Muslims, Jews and Christians, in addition to all other faith communities) have much more in common than differences. I have a calming peace surrounding me with that understanding.
Salam / Peace,
NS
I appreciate the sentiment but I don't believe the answer to all this is experiential. It really doesn't matter what I believe or, as you say, what works for me. There is Truth somewhere and that's what I try to pursue. I don't believe in good intentions.
Also, you say you think both were blessed but I don't think that is the consensus of Islam. Another part of the conflict is that there can only be one who was to be sacrificed by Abraham: Isaac or Ishmeal. And Jews believe Rebekah was the legitimate wife of Abraham picked by God but Muslims believe Hagar was given to Abraham as a wife by Allah (and not because of a lack of faith by Abraham who believed Rebekah was barren and could not bear children in spite of God's promise). Most Muslims believe (from my research) the Bible was corrupted by men thus Muslims would be the Chosen People instead of the Jewish nation. I am sure Jews cannot accept the Old Testament as corrupted. If these types of conflicts were not at the core of these religions and were not important to them there would be peace in the Middle East.
Here is another problem. You recognize Jesus as a prophet only but there are logically only a few options for who Jesus can be. Jesus clearly claimed to be God. John 10:30 says, "I and the Father are one." Even if you try to say this is an example of man corrupting the Bible the evidence disputes it because the Jews did ask for Jesus to be crucified and Islam agrees that the Jews rejected Jesus. They never would have done so if they merely recognized Jesus as a good man. They reacted by saying, "For a good work we stone thee not but for blasphemy and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33). In John 8:58 Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" and, again, in response the Jews took up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus for claiming to be God.
In reality you can only allow Jesus to play 3 roles. He was either crazy thinking He was honestly God but mistaken; a deceiver knowing He was not God but claiming to be or exactly who He said He was. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15:14-19 that if Christ wasn't who He said He was and resurrected then all faith in Him is futile. So I would ask everyone to make a decision about Jesus Christ. He is either the Messiah, a deceiver or crazy but being a good man or even prophet is not one of the options.
A good resource for asking questions is: www.gotquestions.org. If you type in: Where does the old testament predict the coming of Jesus Christ? you will find the passages referenced written long before Jesus was born that He fulfilled. You can also type in any other question.
-
smj,
I do enjoy this discussion.
I will take you at your word, as my faith says I am supposed to, but more than that I have no personal reason not to believe you when you say that you meant no disrespect for what you said in your previous post. You must know and understand my position though, as most times it is disrespectful, as a Muslim, to hear that said.
I do study other faith traditions in an effort to gain understanding and knowledge.
I am different than many Muslims and many people of other faiths that believe that there way is the right and only way. I truly believe, as it states in the Qur'an, that what you and anyone else believes is right and the way for them, as my faith is right and the way for me.
May Allah / God bless you with tranquility and peace in your life.
Salam / Peace.
Sabres Fan in NS,
I appreciate your very gracious discussion. I enjoy talking about politics and religion, especially when it is civil even though it means you have to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. We can be passionate about our point of view without being emotional. I can tell you are an intelligent and kind person from the way you write.
I will say I can't agree with the many roads lead to the same place theology I have bolded above which I have heard expressed many times in different ways. Some have said religions are like different rivers that all lead to the same place. I just cannot logically agree with that argument and do not think it is true. Religions seem the same peripherally in many ways - we may pray and worship in like ways but when you drill down theologically they contradict one another. I'd rather be open to the possibility I am wrong than try to believe it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe in something. If I ever got to that point I would throw up my hands and be an agnostic. For example, in the Bible Isaac was blessed while under Islam Ishmael was blessed. I know who was actually blessed is quite controversial but both cannot be true. It is an either/or scenario and as long as one nation appears to be blessed over another that version would appear to be correct at the expense of the other. The closer to the core one gets the more fanatical members of each nation/religion get because the proof of their beliefs are tied into the fortunes of the opposite scenario.
I know it is politically correct to say both answers can be correct but I can't be honest intellectually with myself and say that. The best analogy I've heard is that when I cross the street it is either the bus or me - but not both. That's why I view the concept of Jesus Christ as redeemer through 100% grace as unique among all religions. Many forms of Christianity have been confusing on that issue which is unfortunate. That's why I quoted Ephesians 2:8-9 above.
-
The biggest problem with smj's post is that he accepts the view of many Christians (primarily born again Christians) that the Jewish leadership killed Jesus (PBUH). The *we* in that ayat smj cited does not refer to the Jewish leadership. It is generally viewed to mean the Romans.
Another major issue that I have is that some people think, as smj pointed out, that there was a substitute person on the cross that was made to look like Jesus (PBUH). Many believe that this is not the case, as God does not use deceit. This is what I believe, as when the ayat states that *it was made to look like Jesus was crucified* it does not mean what smj thinks. God can do anything in anyway. It is accepted by many (including myself) that God made it look like someone was on the cross (Jesus (PBUH)), but in fact it was all fake ... an image created by God for all to witness, but it was not real. In fact, many believe that the crucifixion did not happen at all, which takes the God does not use deceit view even further. Based on the ayat cited I have some issues with this, as well.
Now many Muslims do believe that there was a volunteer who was substituted on the cross that was made by God to look like Jesus. This seems the view of a majority of Islamic Scholars, but I have a problem with this, as outlined above. Others believe that Jesus was, indeed, crucified, but did not die on the cross since he was not on the cross long enough to die, but it was made to appear as if he did by God. Again, I have issues with this opinion.
I don't really like posting links to Wikipedia, but the account below is pretty accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death
The biggest issue that I have with smj's post is that he opens with saying he intends to be respectful. The main part of his post dies not bother me, as it is his belief. I take no issue with that.
Near the end he talks about when *the Qur'an was written in the 7th Century AD*. That is the most disrespectful thing anyone can say to a Muslim (the bold and underlining are mine).
First off, did not intend to be disrespectful with the term written. Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God and when others suggest it was merely written by men I assume it is a similar thing that you are finding offensive. At some point both were put into language so no harm intended.
Another issue is what is to account for the empty tomb that was guarded by romans. Regardless of who was crucified for the moment the explanations of what happened to the body are harder to believe than the resurrection predicted in the OT written long before the events and predicted by Jesus. What of all the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection to both non-believers and believers alike? All of those were hallucinations or visions? What did the apostles and James and Paul get for their newfound preaching boldness? Not fame and fortune like today but lifetimes of persecution and martyrdom.
I believe some Muslims believe God would never allow Christ to die because that would mean men could destroy the divine Word but that is not understanding that we needed Christ to die as reconciliation for our sins and it was God's plan which makes born-again Christianity unique to all other religions that require people to "earn" standing before God. I think that uniqueness is key. Ephesians 2:8-9 explain, "for by grace you have been saved through faith; and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not the result of works so that no one may boast.
Also, If I am not mistaken most Muslims do believe the original interpretation I shared above which does call into question those original issues.
Finally, I must say the political correctness of all of this is kind of amusing. We have to try and disagree without being offensive in any way or changing anyone else's mind. I have read and considered opposing points of view. Again, if you are interested please read In Defense of Easter by Chaffey. Logically, it takes more faith to believe the alternative views that to simply believe Jesus was who He said He was, he was killed on a cross, resurrected as predicted well before His birth and by Him and as observed by hundreds of people whom early Christians could have checked with and saw taken up into Heaven at the Ascension.
-
We live in a crazy culture...no, a crazy world because the perversion of sex is not just a U.S. thing. But here we are in the U.S. in the 21st century trying to create a politically correct society but one where everything goes, sex is used to sell and draw attention to everything, porn is all over the internet and God forbid we restrict any of these freedoms to help people who are weak and/or tempted in these areas. Sicknfla's story really got to me. There were many victims in that story including the family member with so much guilt and baggage that she committed suicide.
Our society has no idea where to draw the line or help people consumed by these urges or victims of them. In fact, it isn't even politically correct to call them bad urges as that might be judgmental. I think since we have stopped calling evil "EVIL" and sin "SIN" we are bound to struggle increasingly with these issues as a society. And people who are willing to take advantage of this situation by lying about things that don't actually happen make it all the worse. And who is really to know what happens in most of these circumstances?
-
We believe that the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God, as in it God said that He would safe guard it form the adjustments (for lack of a better term) made by men to the Christian and Jewish revelations.
In the Qur'an God states clearly that He did not have Jesus die on the cross, but He made it appear so.
Just to clarify the distinction and challenge this claim (as respectfully as possible) I believe a passage like Qur'an 4:157-158 explains this as it says...That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah" but they killed him not, nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not - nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
In other words, the Qur'an teaches that Jesus did not die on the cross but Jesus was taken up to heaven around the time of his arrest and someone like Judas, or one of the other disciples, took his place and was transformed to look just like Jesus. There are several problems with this.
First, the writer refers to Jews who rejected and claimed to have crucified Christ Jesus. This is a major error because they would never use the term Christ. Christ was not part of Jesus' name but means Messiah in Greek. The Jews would have never called Him Messiah. If the Jews had recognized Jesus as their Messiah they never would have crucified Him.
Second, the Jews never would have used the term, "Messenger of Allah" because Allah does not have the same meaning as Yahweh which is the God of the Bible. Furthermore the Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messenger of Allah - they crucified Jesus because they believed He was not Yahweh's messenger.
Finally, this presents a huge theological problem. It shows Allah as a deceiver who tricked people into thinking they had crucified Jesus. If Allah is a deceiver how can the Qur'an be trusted as being true? Why would Allah want people to think Jesus died and was resurrected?
Additionally, this denies that Jesus died by crucifixion but this is one of the minimal facts about His life that is accepted by the vast majority of scholars and also documented by non-Christian historians well before the Qur'an was written in the 7th century AD.
If you are interested in the topic please read In Defense of Easter by Tim Chaffey.
-
At this point if they don't make the playoffs or come very, very close it will mean Murray missed on some important decisions like Lehner and ROR and the young players need a lot more time to develop. While it would be nice to have one more shot at the lottery and a real high pick if we finish poorly enough to have a real chance at an early pick I think it means too many things have gone wrong this year to root for that in any way. Why would having high expectations be a bad thing? That's what every good team lives with every year.
-
One thing we are all forgetting is that there are only a certain number of players a team can have signed. Mediocrity is the enemy of excellence. These draft picks (most likely yielding marginal players) and marginal players should be used to upgrade to solid/excellent players. Kane, ROR and Lehner may not turn out to be excellent but they are a lot closer than any of these "assets" people aren't happy we traded away. I am happy the tank is over. These players may or may not be the answer but at least we won't be waiting another five years to find out which is what happens if you try to turn these assets into players through the draft.
-
I love how everyone else is kissing up to Florida and their fans and Murray just growls 4 words. I love the way he said it. Just Jack Eichel would have been awesome.
-
Prospects are always overrated because everyone tends to focus on their strengths and ceilings forgetting that very few players reach their ceilings and most get stuck near their floors based on the sheer number of players competing. Samsonov, if he even makes it, likely has a career similar to the goalies we've had through Buffalo this year and were frustrated because they were not elite. Lehner is already NHL good and might be great. Plus you don't have to wait three years. You take that trade every time.
-
The best thing about these trades is that it signals the rebuild is over! There are a lot of risky moves here but we don't have to suffer through another couple years waiting for draft picks and prospects to develop. The most overrated asset in hockey is a young player unless they are a slam dunk like Eichel. I'd trade a prospect for a solid player any day. Most of these guys don't develop into great players or even good players. And it appears Murray is getting rid of any player whose effort is questionable like Zabs and Gringo.
Now the question is how good of a talent evaluator is Murray? ROR, Bogs, Kane and Lehner. Those are the keys and those young players have to hit their potential or we will end up an average team like the Sabres of the last decade.
-
It was fun going through and trying to figure this list out. I learned a lot and have a better understanding of the first round of this draft. There are going to be several trades I think but hopefully the mocks around here give people some ideas on what to expect. Oh and I heard that Jack Eichel kid is a little bit okay.
21) Buffalo – Evgeny Svechnikov LW
A Russian winger? Sure we could use one of those. In Mother Russia Evgeny scores goals with an impressive shot. This past season he brought the act to the Q where he had 32g in 55 games. Very clever and creative in the offensive zone the big power winger can force defenders into turn overs and then whip a pass across ice for a teammate. He really is quite the dangerous offensive weapon. So why is he sliding? Well his defensive game is wonky. It isn’t some Russian stereotype that he won’t play defense. He does play defense and tries really hard but he needs a bunch of coaching to figure this part of his game. With a young group of Russian players already in the locker room or about to be, adding a very talented sniper like Evgeny seems like a smart choice for Buffalo. I wonder about Murray adding a Russian though.
22) Washington – Thomas Chabot D
Do the caps ever draft defense? Idk, maybe. This guy is a puck moving defender with good offensive instincts. A lot of people have questions about his defensive game. His skating is really good but sometimes he misreads the play and ends up out of position. Of course the Caps are an offensive minded team and Chabot is looking like a potential PP QB. This one is a small gamble. He could be your top pairing guy or end up as your bottom pairing guy. Good ceiling but bad floor.
23) Vancouver – Jansen Harkins C
They need to restock the center and some other places. Harkins is a very good player for them. In some ways he is under the radar but he plays north of Vancouver so they will be very familiar with him. Good skating with a strong puck protection game he is a playmaker at heart. He plays a solid 200ft game and has worked on faceoffs this year. This pick will be interesting for Vancouver because they could go a lot of ways but Harkins will be there and gives them a lot of things they lack. He should be a 2nd line center someday but could go higher. He had 79pts in 70 games last year so his upcoming junior year will be fun to keep an eye on. With how smart he is given credit for, could be a great pick at #23.
24) Toronto – Brandon Carlo D
Big strong defender. That is the best description of Carlo I could give. The Leafs are in rebuild mode and what better to help the rebuild than a project defender who is Zadorov’s height. He is solid in the defensive zone but only this year started to really develop his offensive game. He is physical and will battle. His skating is good. I don’t like him because I think he really lacks a wow factor. I think the leafs will like him because of his size and ceiling. He could be a minute eating defender down the road. With him I would say another year in juniors and then 2 years in the AHL before even a thought of NHL. He has a ton of raw tools but needs time to grow into his frame.
25) Winnipeg – Oliver Kylington D
Still there and they could use a slick puck mover. I hate Kylington, there I said it. But let’s discuss his good qualities. Kylington is an excellent skater with great speed, quickness, agility. Offensively he can be very savvy with slick passing and a decent shot. Now defensively he is soft. He gets pushed off the puck and he gets overwhelmed by physical or bigger forwards. This is why I dislike him. In today’s NHL you need to be physically able to survive that 6’2” 220lb forward who is trying to put you through the end of the rink. He just is missing something and I he reminds me of Marc Andre Gragani with better skater. He don’t pass that there EYE test! That said he could pan out into a player like Erik Karlsson with really solid offensive play. Note I am not saying he will be Erik Karlsson but I meant a true offensive defender.
26) Montreal – Filip Chlapik C
A Plekanec like center at #26, sigh Montreal up. The good parts of his game involve controlling the play in the offensive zone. He battles for pucks and his strong on his skates. Montreal should love him because he really does look like Plekanec at times. Seems to understand the defensive sides of things as well. What really hurts him though is skating. I feel like the Achilles heel of a lot of guys is their skating. In today’s NHL I think it is vital but I also recognize it can be taught. Personally this is the type of player Montreal needs and he is ranked right around this spot. It’s a match made in heaven.
27) Anaheim – Jordan Greenway LW
You know what makes Anaheim happy? Big strong wingers for Getzlaf. He’s 6’5” and had has good skating. Physically he likes to battle and is quite good at protecting the puck and cycling it around. Anaheim would love someone like him to be brewing in their prospect pool because he also is defensively responsible. This means he actually can play defense and does. The biggest question mark is why he scores goals so infrequently. Some believe he passes to often and some think his shot selection is terrible. Either way with the size he brings and ability to protect the puck and play defense, without the scoring he could probably plug into a 3rd line role. He’s probably 4 years away from seeing NHL ice.
28) Tampa Bay – Daniel Sprong RW
Close but no cigar. After coming up short in the Finals I expect this pick to be traded at the draft. That said if Sprong is still here any team would be lucky to have him. He is a pure sniper with an excellent wrist shot. Go watch his highlights you will see it. His IQ and skating are very good and help him get into position. His problem is he lacks strength for prolonged board battles down low. The real issue with him is he doesn’t always play defense. He likes looking for that long lead pass and can miss assignments in his own end. He has a ton of upside though.
29) Philadelphia – Anthony Beauvillier C/LW
Slick skating C/LW should help us win that cup, or at least that is what Philly hopes. He has the hockey IQ and passing skills to play center. He has the shot skills and battle to play wing. I think he probably ends up at center. He’s very smart and can be creative. No matter the zone this kid is battling and gritty. He really doesn’t like to lose. People will question his size at just barely 5’11” but it hasn’t stopped him yet. With such good skating and stickhandling he should become a top 6 forward in time. By time I mean 4 years. Ideally you want him in juniors for 2 years and then the AHL for 2 years. He just turned 18 last week so he’s very young and there is no need to rush.
30) Arizona – Brock Boeser C
Hard work in the perfect package. I really want him to be a Sabre but it didn’t work out that way. This kid is also a sniper although I think Beauvillier has a few more tools to choose from. He is 6’1” and is a good skater with good puckhandling skills. Also Boeser is not known for ever taking a night off. Hard to knock off the puck and very gritty, Boeser will battle in all 3 zones. So why is he here? Well he has great intentions but sometimes in the defensive zone he loses his coverage and reads things wrong. Now in Las Vegas’ I mean Phoenix, I mean Arizona’s case they can let him sit and work on his game for the next 4 years and not worry about it. Their rebuild will probably be that long. In the end they may end up with a really solid top 6 forward.
31) Buffalo - Jacob Larsson D
Hey look a left handed defender from a foreign country, something Buffalo never has. He is 6’2” 190lbs already and has spent some time playing against men in the SHL. Now his skating is very very good. He is fast, has agility, with excellence balance. Smart in his own zone he plays a gritty game with solid positioning. He has an excellent first pass out of the zone and can even be a good trailer with his hard low shot. Sounds like a dream right? Well the issue is his offensive zone stuff. He isn’t bad but he doesn’t have that offensive skill scouts like to see. He can pass and shoot fairly well but he sometimes elects to make the easier play in the o-zone instead of being creative. Now for me I don’t care if he never QB’s the pp. With a little seasoning he might develop it some. Larsson is 3 years away and will probably play at least another full season before coming to Rochester. This is the guy that you want waiting in the wings though during that cup run in 4 years. He’s just solid.
Thank you for all these write-ups. They are excellent and will help me enjoy the draft that much more!
-
Sorry that I was not clear enough.
No, we do not believe he was crucified is the general view, with some minor variations depending on interpretation of the revelation in the Qur'an concerning this matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death
I know that wikipedia is not always 100% accurate, but this account is pretty much accurate.
Now, I want to be very clear that I am not discounting anyone's belief system here. If you are living a good life and are generally a good person in part because you believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead I have absolutely no problem with that.
The problem is I don't believe it is about being "good". I believe you would agree the definition of God is that He is perfect and I am glad you believe in that concept. My fear/belief is "good" won't get me into heaven. I am sinful. As we all do I wage a spiritual battle within myself and I sometimes made a good choice and sometimes do not. The apostle Paul put it I do not understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right but I can't. I sometimes do what I hate. There is a sin nature inside me that is stronger than I am. That realistically describes human nature, does it not?
This isn't like baseball where if you hit over.400 you'll be acceptable and if I hit .200 I won't be. Where Christ is different is that He says no one can bat 1,000 and if we don't we are separated from God. The creation can't bridge the gap because we made it. God allowed Christ to be the ultimate propitiation (sacrifice) on the cross for our sins. His perfection covers our imperfection and builds the bridge to God. Ephesians says For by Grace you have been saved by faith in Christ and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
When you look at all religions of the world they all require "goodness" and works in an attempt to solve the problem of a perfect God and imperfect mankind. Christianity (born-again Christianity - not to be confused with the religion Christianity that sometimes believes in works) is the only message that says we cannot meet God's standard through our own accord. We have to swallow our pride and accept the gift of the messiah, Jesus Christ. By the way, I think the explanations about Jesus not dying on the cross are much more difficult to believe than he did die on the cross and was raised from the dead because the old testament predicted this and was written long before Christ was born.
-
Why do you feel the need to equate religion with morality to begin with though? This isn't meant to be snarky, I feel they are legitimate questions trying to make a point.
I am not talking about religion. If there is not a higher being than where does morality come from? There's no reasonable explanation for evolution to develop a new species saddled with moral dilemmas - it does not pass the logical test. Why are we born with a moral compass if there is no creator? And if there is a creator there must be a definitive truth about the creator - a higher being can't meet many different definitions.
Do you consider yourself to be a good person? No and it besides the point. While I may have some capacity to make good choices like everyone it does not matter because I am not perfect. I believe Romans 3:23. For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. I also believe John 3:16 For God so loved the world he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Are you only acting that way because you either fear God's wrath or to try to be Christ like? I act that way because it is the only explanation I can buy for when things are like they are in this world.
If you discovered tomorrow definitive proof that there was no God, would you suddenly decide to become evil and sin to your hearts content?
if I knew it was not true what reason would I have to be anything other than self-absorbed and act in my own self-interest? If there is right and wrong who defines it? What right does anyone have to define it for anyone else? And you can see where that leads.
Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. The are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras.
You don't need believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribble down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to be even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another. We are created in God's image which is why we have a moral compass. Otherwise there is no difference between humans and animals. Do you believe we have a soul? That soul comes from somewhere and wouldn't evolve from nothing.
-
Good post. I was raised by parents that never practiced a religion but THEY taught me right from wrong and also taught me to respect others. My morality was given to me by good parents. I respect no man like I respect my father. Same goes with my mother. Some aren't so lucky in terms of the parenting they receive. A fear of god isn't what keeps me on the straight path. I believe you don't need god to be a good person but if you are one of those that does need god to be a good person then by all means, turn to god. Whatever works for you.
A fear of God isn't what I'm describing. So I guess you are arguing there is no God.
However, if there is no God than what I've never been able to understand is where do morals originate from? What creates absolute truth if there is no lawgiver? If there isn't absolute truth and relativism carries the day as many people believe, then who determines morality? If truth is relative than how can anyone declare their viewpoint as valid over another? If no viewpoint carries more weight than another by definition than doesn't chaos become the eventual outcome with no absolute standard to tie things together? It seems that we want enough of God to prevent chaos but not enough of God to lose our independence. In other words, if there is no God why is anyone interested in playing fair? How can anyone define a "good" person?
-
1st para: equating what happened in Russia over the course of the 20th century (and especially Stalin) and the official lack of religion is in my mind questionable. I honestly don't believe that religion or a lack thereof played a part in Stalin's plan other than to be a convenient excuse to get rid of political undesirables (in his eyes, of course). Stalin was plenty of psychopath that he'd have found a reason to execute those people while paying lip-service to being a Christain if required (like most other dictators).
I'm not going to call it Utopia, but as an example polling in Sweden reports that 17% of people believe in god (although 45% believe theres a spirit-force of some description) and 34% are atheist. Only 2% in Sweden regularily attend religious services. Norway has similar numbers. Those two countries aren't exactly spiralling into death camps and debauchery. I think saying that people can't rule themselves without religion severly underestimates people.
MattPie - that's a good point regarding Stalin. Hitler essentially allowed the church to exist in Germany as long as it wouldn't interfere with his plans. I would argue that essentially removed God from Germany as well. A really interesting person to read is Dietrich Bonhoeffer who tried to live out his faith during that period in Germany and actually became part of a plot to kill Hitler and ended up dying in prison. A man who lived is convictions.
I am not saying that people can't rule themselves without religion - I agree with you. The US with its separation of church and state is basically ruling itself without religion. I am arguing with the logic that if humans keep trying harder and we eliminate all these things that divide us like religion we will end up with a peaceful, utopian world. I am saying I believe that there is a God, humans are sinful beings and the Bible is the only book that explains who we are as psychological, emotional and spiritual beings and reconciliation to a perfect God is found through Christ on an individual basis.
-
I hear ya. I found it ironic that he cites Russia considering Russia's long history of diverse religious observance. As if communist Russia is the only Russia the world has ever known.
I am sorry I was not more specific. Yes, I was referring to the period in Russia's history when, unfortunately, their government removed God from the country.
-
Secondly, to try to cherry pick Russia as some sort of proof that you need God/Religion is flat out intellectually dishonest. This thread has remained pretty civil but I can name a half dozen examples of countries that did horrible things and used their religion to justify it. Just look at the way women and homosexuals get treated in many of the Muslim countries even to this day, look at the Crusades and Inquisition that went through Europe hundreds of years ago and look at the way religion was used to justify treatment of the Indians and the way they used it to justify slavery here in the United States as well less than 200 years ago. There are examples on both sides of good and bad so to attempt to cherry pick in order to make a wide sweeping generalization like that is just cheap.
I hope the further explanation has helped because I was not trying to cherry pick Russia to prove you need God/Religion. I don't believe in Religion myself. You are exactly correct, all sorts of groups have done terrible things throughout history.
To me that's one of the proofs that God exists. If there is no God then is there really morality anyway? I mean if we are just higher evolved animals why wouldn't we live 100% according to our own self-interest under whatever banner that might be? If there is no God how can I make a dishonest argument or make a "cheap" generalization? Not trying to argue so please don't get upset but human nature itself is one of the reasons for my faith even though by definition I can't prove I am right.
-
I will try to expand on SMJ's Russian comment in a direction that maybe he was headed for.
If it weren't for the removal of religion and several other historical and cultural believes and traditions by Stalin and his predecessors to form the perfect state, that Russia today could be a more open and diverse country.
But the butchering of 10's of millions of people, some authors I have read where reporting in the 60 million range, for religious or political believes has lead to a country that is still in fear of being open and friendly to religion in fear of death or torture.
If my memory serves me correct Christians, Jews, and Muslims were a dominate political force pre-communist Russia. They where systematically eliminated in much the same form as the German SS death camps operated.
The Russian people are trapped by the fear of returning to the church that some day they may be off to Siberia for doing it. Maybe the point being, the absence of religion and reliance solely on the state to achieve moral good of society has shown to have been a complete failure in Russia.
Thank you...yes this is the history I was referring to. I was not trying to disparage a whole nation and was not referring to today's Russia. I was trying to stay away from the C word (Communism). When Russia tried to eliminate God from the equation the results were not good and I was responding to someone that stated once we remove religion from the equation we will be able to move forward. I just don't think that is true. Similar to North Korea. I am not a humanist. I don't believe there is evidence that people, even well-intentioned, can create utopia on earth or anything close to it.
I am also trying to make a distinction between true Christianity and religion. The evil done under the banner of religion is in direct contrast to the message of Christ. To me, an even clearer indication of why we need Christ - humans are flawed and always will be present company included.
Thank you all for your comments. I am not trying to get anyone's blood boiling - I am just trying to share why I believe in Christ (distinct from religion in my view). I understand not everyone shares that view.
Are we declaring ourselves morally superior to Russians?
No - this was a response to a statement that removing gods and saviors out of the equation will only help the core message. I was referring to a period in history when a country (Russia was not the only one) stated the intention to remove belief in God from the country and what the results were.
-
As we evolve and our knowledge of the universe expands people will no longer need religion to fill in gaps. IMO, the "mystical primary force" is organized religion's weakest selling point. As you said religion will need to adapt. For religion to do so they have to come to the realization that many of their stories need to be treated as fables and taught as such. Jonah and the Whale, David and Goliath, Noah and the Ark, Jesus walking across water need to be presented differently. I am not against spirituality but I believe when you cut through all BS, for lack of a better word, there are very valuable thoughts and ideas at the core of Christianity and other religions. Removing the gods, saviors and saints will only help the core messages at the root of every religion actually grow.
Perhaps people need to come to the realization they aren't fables just because they might not be easy to believe. Some may be parables like the Rich Man and Lazarus story but I believe all the miracles of Jesus' ministry were true. The problem is without the fabric of the Bible that ties the Gospel together there is no philosophy that holds water. What you are suggesting is that humanism can result in society creating a utopia where people act selflessly for the greater good. I agree it sounds awesome but it is not religion that makes this impossible. It is human nature and I propose history has adequately taught us that people, while capable of doing good, cannot overcome their basic nature to BE good (or good enough). Removing God from the equation only makes things worse as evidenced by many countries like Russia that have largely been able to do just that.
OT: The Theology Thread
in The Aud Club
Posted
Drunkard,
I apologize if I have come off as arrogant or seem to ignore Jesus' message. I'm not sure exactly what I've written to do so but I suppose that is the nature of discussions like these. You are obviously intelligent and I don't want to turn you off in any way to further openness to Christ or His message.
I actually view my faith as humble because believing in a all-powerful creator means I need to submit my will to God and be dependent upon His plan for my salvation. It is really very difficult to even try and conform my will to His. And obviously I cannot prove my faith because I wasn't there at the cross and after. But I believe there are evidences and logic that can support faith which is what I have tried to share.
It seems you are a big believer in science which I understand completely. I just know science changes and I don't trust it to not change and I don't think it has disproven my faith either. For example, it wasn't long ago when we were building things out of asbestos and were using radium in paint (or lead for that matter).
I think you would identify real well with the apostle Thomas. When Jesus appeared to Jesus when he was not there he basically said he would not believe Jesus was alive until he saw the nail marks in his hands and touched where the nails were. When Jesus appeared to Thomas He had Thomas touch His wounds and then said "Because you have seen me you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Of course I suspect you don't believe that story but I often doubt myself because I cannot see and touch. It is then I review the logic and evidence, some of which I have presented, and recall this verse.
What I find fascinating is that people throughout history and all over the world have even had a need to invent belief systems and gods. The only explanation I can find that makes sense is that the Bible is accurate when it says God created us with the intention that we would know Him but would have the free will to come to Him or not. That explains to me why so many people need to believe in something. And I also wonder why many atheists are so bothered by others being duped into believing in God. If they don't believe in God why do they care. I guess I don't share your belief that because there are religious stories of old that are false that it means Christianity is false.
As for Chaffey, I agree with you and don't believe the Bible is written to be a science or history book even though it contains science and history. There are plenty of allegories and parables, etc. If there is a Heaven I'll have lots of questions to ask when I get there. I don't think it is important if the world was created in 7 "days" or not.
Finally, I know you didn't agree that moral judgments require belief in some higher power. But who sets the standards if there is no authority? You say the concept of right is known by everyone but then what explains the world we live in? I see very little agreement in what is right and wrong in this world and much conflict. My point is that without a foundation and believe in live after death I don't understand why anyone would make choices that would not be completely self-centered and pragmatic. What point would there be in living any other way?