smj

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.

I am probably doing a poor job or explaining myself - yes, I agree with your well-written second paragraph!

Just to clarify, True Christianity is not about living lives free of sin out of fear of not being allowed into heaven. It is the only religion that states people are unable to rectify their standing before God and must rely upon Christ as the redeemer for all their sins. It is a free gift. I agree, many people make this mistake and identify with Christianity as an attempt to live a "good" life which sadly will do them no good at all. When a true Christian accepts Christ they only try to live a moral lifestyle to reflect Christ and share this good news with others. This is clearly stated in Ephesians and John : “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. —John 3:16-17 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. —Ephesians 2:8-9

Yes, I am sure Jesus was not the only person the Jews executed for blasphemy. However I do believe the sentence would be death by stoning as the out of control mob stoned Stephen the first martyr. Would it help to point you to the over 300 prophecies in the old testament that were fulfilled in Christ (I am sure you may debate those but 300?). For example, Isaiah, where many of the prophecies about Christ's death and resurrection are found was written 500+ years before Christ. I don't think there are any scholars that try to debate that Isaiah and the other old testament books were written well before Christ was born. Back to the crucifixion, I find it interesting that roughly 50 years earlier the crucifixion would not have happened because Rome would not have yet garnered enough control where the Jews were not allowed to execute anyone which was why Pilate ended up passing the sentence and Christ would have been stoned (negating Isaiah's prophecies) and roughly 50 years later the crucifixion would not have happened because Jerusalem had fallen and Rome would not have cared about Jews who wanted a blasphemer crucified. Actually there was a pretty narrow time in history where Christ could have been crucified in the manner which it occurred.

Well, obviously there is a whole lot left out in the Bible, however, if you are going to believe Christ was not at all who He claimed to be I suppose those things could be true. I don't happen to believe they only left out the bad parts because if Jesus was just some delusional, hypocritical teacher than I don't think the Jewish leaders would bother the have Him killed. No one would be interested in what he was saying if he was flawed and a fraud.

As far as interest in the Bible as an historical document goes I'd recommend reading Can We Trust the Gospels by Mark Roberts. It is accessible even though it is scholarly (and only 200 pages). He looks at if we can trust the Gospels to provide reliable historical information about Jesus and also looks at other texts of the period. Of course, when it comes to the question of if the Gospels offer a trustworthy basis for faith in Jesus that is where faith comes in. For someone actually open to learning about the basis for the Gospels as reliable historical documents it is a good source.

I'm fairly new to the site because I lost interest in the Sabres brand of hockey for about 5 years. I was drawn back in because of the tank and the upcoming lottery. It's a great site and I appreciate much of the humor. Many posters are quite clever and creative. The photo and video on page 2 of this thread made my day for example. The only thing that is too bad is when posters take their opinions too seriously and are not respectful of one another. It's not even fun to follow those threads. I come here to get away from stress. If I want an argument I'll talk to my wife! There's no need to be critical if someone wants to discuss a trade that will never happen or thinks the GM is horrible. I don't think it matters if you are a new poster or a veteran I don't think anyone likes to be called an idiot just because they have a different opinion or aren't as informed as someone else. I think it's best when no one takes each other too seriously.

Mattpie - I took a little liberty for the sake of brevity. The disciples ran and hid fearing for their lives during the crucifixion. Mary and other women found the tomb empty (it was way too heavy for them to move - Mark 16:1-8). At first the disciples did not believe the women that the tomb was empty. They were clueless as to what happened seemingly forgetting Christ had told them he would be raised after 3 days. Later Christ appeared to the disciples (without Thomas) while they were eating and, later the famous doubting Thomas incident occurred where Thomas would not believe Jesus was really resurrected until Thomas felt the wounds in his His hands and side (John 20:24-29). As for heresy, that is when you would believe the person who claimed someone told them they saw Jesus resurrected. Paul says in I Corinthians 15:6 that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time. He also said most of them were alive when he wrote that message meaning there were plenty of first-person eyewitnesses someone could talk to if they did not want to rely on hearsay (although Paul also says he saw Jesus resurrected). Jesus appeared to 12 different groups of people after the resurrection. Of course, some will say they don't believe the Biblical account but there are good books out there that explain why it is the most reliable historical book available (no one seems to question roman written history yet it is far less historically sound as far as the dating of the texts we rely upon, etc. You can say all the disciples got together and made everything up but for what purpose? Someone asked if I had stats to back it up and said they weren't buying it. That was pretty funny. Of course, it is a matter of faith but you don't have to turn your brain off to examine the evidence. You sound sincerely interested in the topic so I suggest reading Mere Christianity by CS Lewis or listen to Chip Ingram's podcast Why I Believe which can be found for free in the archives of livingontheedge.org. I agree that is a very good book, especially for putting everything into historical context. And it leaves the reader to come to their own conclusion at the end.

That's a very cynical view. You are talking about a few con-artists and evil people - the vast, vast majority of Christians are not getting wealthy from their church. The majority of Christians are giving their resources to help other less fortunate in an attempt to follow Christ's teaching (and, yes, all Christians are hypocrites because they are trying to follow a perfect example). To me the question of God begins with Christ as He claimed to be God (which is why the Jewish leaders at that time killed him for blasphemy) and claimed to be raised from the dead. That sounds ridiculous and I have tried not to believe it 100 times. Mostly because while becoming a Christian is the easiest thing to do the paradox is it is also the hardest as you try to follow Christ. To me, it takes more faith to not believe in the resurrection. Rome and the Jewish leaders wanted to eliminate Christianity and all they had to do was come up with the body. They knew He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead so the tomb was guarded and the penalty for roman soldiers falling asleep at their post was death. The disciples who had abandoned Christ and ran away suddenly were convinced they saw him alive. So many people saw him alive that those who questioned if it were true would be told to go talk to the ones who saw him alive. It isn't like today where the disciples would receive fame and fortune for starting the early church - every single one of them suffered and all were martyred but one. I always wondered why that had to be but I think it was because it presents one of strongest arguments for the resurrection. At any rate, as hard as the resurrection may be to believe, all the other theories require more faith such as the body was stolen or the disciples imagined everything. If you accept the resurrection then you understand God as revealed through the Son and the Holy Spirit. The God of the Bible, or any realistic view of a Creator, is so superior to me I would approach so humbly that I'll leave the answer of creation up to Him/Her/It. I do think it is ridiculous to think this complex world evolved from nothing without a creator. Why are people so consumed with the question of a creator if the question wasn't put there by something? Does any animal evolve a need to understand what happens to them after they die? Do you really think in a million years our dogs will be sitting next to us mulling over these questions? The Bible does explain why these things are so and also explains why other answers are posed to keep us from reconciliation through Christ. Please don't flame away. Just wanted to clearly articulate the position which is unique among world religions.

I am very interested in the talks with Irbe and hope he stays. I'll feel a lot better about our future if we sign him for a few years. It's like when a baseball pitching staff suddenly plays great and you realize they got a new pitching coach. The goalie might be the second most important coach on the team because it is such a different position. Like Leo Mazzone who was the pitching coach for the Atlanta Braves all those years. He routinely took pitchers and made them much better - and when they left they regressed again. I think Irbe may be that type of coach but it is very early in his career to know for sure. He certainly did wonders with many different guys last year.

For high expectations I am looking more toward 2016-2017. That's when I believe we will put it all together. We have endured a lot of pain. Let's not rush into mediocrity. Some of the younger players like this years early picks will need seasoning. Remember, the goal is to build a team capable of winning the cup. I expect, and would not mind, if we struggle the first half of the year learning a new system, etc. I hope we come on a bit in the second half but if we finish 25th or so and have a shot in the lottery for one more early first rounder I wouldn't mind at all. What I want to see next year is some work forward on the foundation, not to finish last again and not go a whole month without winning again. I don't need huge free-agent signings or trades for veterans yet that will reduce our time at the top. My only expectation for 2015-2016 is to stay the course on building a long-term contender and see most of the young players progress and determine what we REALLY need to fill in the gaps. It is a little early for that. But in 2016-2017 I want to be the surprise of the league and compete among the best teams through 2025 or so. I do think one more year of patience is required. I don't want to go back to sniffing the playoffs with no real chance to go much further and get stuck there several seasons.

That's encouraging. I'd love to hear more from players who have played under Bylsma to get excited about him. It will be interesting to see how quickly they do make a decision.

My theory most often is take a coach that did not do horrible in his first top job in the top league and give them a second chance. Often they learn so much during their first head job or two at the expense of those teams that they will take to their next job IF they are smart enough to learn from mistakes. That's the first question I would ask, what did you learn from your last position that would apply to this job? Some people have very little to say which indicates a stubbornness and lack of ingenuity. Some people learn a great deal and are able to be very, very successful. Although I think Bylsma has a big ego I think he is the type that learned a lot from his time in Pittsburgh and also did a lot of things well.

I have missed that...what players have commented on Nolan?

Exactly, correct crazy talk and misperception as soon as you can!

Does anyone else think the Rangers-Lightning series has been fantastic? That's the way hockey should be played. Fast and exciting with many players showing great skill. There might be a lot of goals scored but each goalie has made great saves because there are so many great opportunities. Wide-open and high scoring is so much more fun to watch! If every game were played like this series hockey would be so much more popular. It's almost like the 80's again.

Does anyone else think the Rangers-Lightning series has been fantastic? That's the way hockey should be played. Fast and exciting with many players showing great skill. There might be a lot of goals scored but each goalie has made great saves because there are so many great opportunities. Wide-open and high scoring is so much more fun to watch! If every game were played like this series hockey would be so much more popular. It's almost like the 80's again.

I think Murray has been great so far. Not afraid to sacrifice the short-term for the long-term so far and doesn't want to just build an average team to make himself look good but to attempt to build a great team which requires a few years of great drafts, development and then free-agents to fill in the gaps. I like that he is passionate and also willing to be pretty frank. Can't believe people criticize him for not getting McDavid and Babcock. First, tanking was never about guaranteeing McDavid because the worst record only had a 20% chance - the tank was about getting McDavid OR Eichel which he did so he was 100% successful (How would you like to be Arizona?). Second, it's not his fault Babcock wanted to coach in Canada which he clearly did and his comments on the issue today were very wise even though when talks go that far I'm sure everyone begins to feel like a deal is imminent. Murray was smart enough to know you don't go all the way with Nolan and we did need to upgrade coaching which he will do. We'll be fine...stay the course.

I agree. It's unethical to handle things a certain way. He left a lot of teams dangling. I'd be pissed if I was Detroit too. Burning bridges usually bites you in the end.

I think there is a major difference between coaching a largely veteran team and taking very young players and developing them. I'd like to know which coaches out there have a reputation for bringing along young players successfully. That's who we need right now. And I don't think Babcock was that guy anyway.

I don't think Babcock played the Sabres for fools and I don't think it is the Sabres fault. I think Babcock revealed his true nature - egotistical, indecisive and, in the end, wanted to coach in Canada. I'm glad we didn't get him. I think what he did was unethical - it is one thing to shop your services but it is another to mislead people. If I was Detroit I'd be even more pissed off! Coaches are always over and under-rated based upon the players they have and how things happen to click together. At this point does he really have the interest in patiently developing young players? I'm not convinced he was the best fit so I'm fine with how things worked out. Now let's get a coach that is willing and able to develop very young talent in the NHL which is quite different than working with a veteran team. I could have coached Detroit to almost as many wins this year!

I have really mixed feelings about this. Courting him so strongly might imply when he gets here he can do whatever he wants and is untouchable. If you don't find it easy to leave a position you should stay and he seems to be too conflicted. He's likely using this great situation for leverage to get as much as he can from Detroit. I just have a feeling he is staying. I wish I knew who the next best candidate is. Whoever it is will be much less expensive and might be a better fit at this point. Who do we think would be a great coach to bring along a young team other than Babcock which requires a lot different skillset than managing a veteran team?

You don't think they ever distort Belicheck quotes? I like that Murray says what he thinks. It's interesting. It's not hurting anything. I hope it does tick Eichel off a little and when he gets here he works to show the world he should have been number 1. I agree. I could care less what he says in interviews. He's competitive and passionate and not content with mediocrity. The exact opposite of Regier! If we have gone nowhere in three years come back and complain. I have a hunch we will be finally competitive again.

I agree. There's not so much room to maneuver in the NHL. Plus you have to be sturdy. I just don't think McDavid will ever be that strong. Anyway, we knew it all alone. A Buffalo sports team will never get lucky.

I'm fine with that. I'd rather not see these young superstars play before they are ready. If they are ready fine but if they aren't I don't want to make them doubt their exceptional talents.