John Maddens Lunchbox
Footballguy
Andy and Fubar are up to date now, just LARRYThese are all the pending skips?
18.19 - Larry Boy 44: SKIP,
19.2 - Larry Boy: SKIP,
Andy and Fubar are up to date now, just LARRYThese are all the pending skips?
18.19 - Larry Boy 44: SKIP,
19.2 - Larry Boy: SKIP,
Curious as to your thoughts because not many people make mentions of my picks. I think it is a good team but I drafted it.Yankee23Fan said:Mario has a very interesting team.......
$50 is still a lot for a meal.You can keep the $500 a plate place where you have to act better then everyone else or you don't get to eat. I'll be fine with Tennessee bourbon and a thick steak for a tenth of the price.
If the likes of Tolstoy and Joyce are the $500 per plate meals, someone like Twain is probably $50 per plate. Where does that put Abatha? Maybe $15 per plate?Wrong.He is up to date with his picksI like this one. His story is incredible.Was I skipped? Can I pick?Arsenal of Doom said:and
![]()
I'm still catching up... lolI'll pick when I get caught up....Sorry, you cannot partake in any discussion until you make up two picks. Against the rules.I don't consider swimming on level with the other sports... I just don't...I also don't think we'd think Phelps were as impressive if there weren't 25 medals in swimming so that swimmers could get 8 medals in one Olympics...There are athletes who won a smaller number of medals in Olympic events that i am much more impressed by than Michael Phelps...Orange Crush said:It doesn't measure up in what way Larry? What is the commonality of the four guys you listed that Phelps doesn't have?larry_boy_44 said:honestly, what Phelps did really doesn't impress me that much...I still have to do a write-up on Phelps, whom I personally consider in the top 5-10 based on his time records, medal accomplishments, and pure dominance on the international scene. He's the Babe Ruth or Gretzky of his sport, and he's doing it against the entire globe. Plus he pulls a mean binger.I've been incredibly busy though, and have little time. Maybe tonight I'll get to it. I will say I was shocked to see him slip down this far when Athletes have been drafted steadily for awhile now.not that its un-impressive, just compared to guys like Pele, Gretzky, Ruth, & Jordan, it just doesn't measure up and i don't see any way he could do something that would measure up...
yes, i'm getting there... catching up in thread, then deciding... lolLarry -- don't you owe two picks?
This a badass painting. I want it.
Brief write up:Way back at 1.01, when MK drafted Sun Tzu, I mentioned another whose influence at least arguably exceeds his. Clauswitz is that person.18th Round: Carl Von Clausewitz Intellectual. Move Ben Franklin to Wildcard
Agree or disagree with his influence being greater than Sun Tzu, he is a preeminent military theorist AND made it to Major-General, served as director of the Kriegsakademie and chief-of-staff.Despite his death just prior to completing On War, Clausewitz' ideas have been widely influential in military theory. Later Prussian and German generals such as Helmuth Graf von Moltke were clearly influenced by Clausewitz: Moltke's famous statement that "No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy" is a classic reflection of Clausewitz's insistence on the roles of chance, friction, "fog," and uncertainty in war. The idea that actual war includes "friction" which deranges, to a greater or lesser degree, all prior arrangements, has become common currency in other fields as well (e.g., business strategy, sports).
Some claim that nuclear proliferation makes Clausewitzian concepts obsolescent after a period—i.e., the 20th century—in which they dominated the world.[3] John E. Sheppard, Jr., argues that, by developing nuclear weapons, state-based conventional armies simultaneously both perfected their original purpose (to destroy a mirror image of themselves) and made themselves obsolete. No two nuclear powers have ever used their nuclear weapons against each other, instead using conventional means or proxy wars to settle disputes. If, hypothetically, such a conflict did in fact occur, presumably both combatants would be effectively annihilated. Therefore, the beginning of the 21st century has found many instances of state armies attempting to suppress terrorism, bloody feuds, raids and other intra/supra-state conflict while using conventional weaponry.
Others, however, argue that the essentials of Clausewitz's theoretical approach remain valid, but that our thinking must adjust to changed realities. Knowing that "war is an expression of politics" does us no good unless we have a valid definition of "politics" and an understanding of how it is reflected in a specific situation. The latter may well turn on religious passions, private interests and armies, etc. While many commentators are quick to dismiss Clausewitz's political context as obsolete, it seems worthwhile to note that the states of the twentieth century were very different from Clausewitz's Prussia, and yet the World Wars are generally seen as "Clausewitzian warfare"; similarly, North and South Vietnam, and the United States as well, were quite unlike 18th century European states, yet it was the war in Indochina that brought the importance of Clausewitzian theory forcefully home to American thinkers. The idea that states cannot suppress rebellions or terrorism in a nuclear-armed world does not bear up well in the light of experience: Just as some rebellions and revolutions succeeded and some failed before 1945, some rebellions and revolutions have succeeded and some have failed in the years since. Insurgencies were successfully suppressed in the Philippines, Yemen, and Malaysia—just a few of many examples. Successful revolutions may destroy some states, but the revolutionaries simply establish new and stronger states—e.g., China, Vietnam, Iran—which seem to be quite capable of handling threats of renewed insurgency.
The real problem in determining Clausewitz's continuing relevance lies not with his own theoretical approach, which has stood up well over nearly two centuries of intense military and political change. Rather, the problem lies in the way that thinkers with more immediate concerns have adapted Clausewitzian theory to their own narrowly defined eras. When times change, people familiar only with Clausewitz's most recent interpreters, rather than with the original works, assume that the passing of cavalry, or Communism, or the USSR's Strategic Rocket Forces, means that Clausewitz is passé. Yet we always seem to be comfortable describing the age of warfare just past as "Clausewitzian"—even though Clausewitz never saw a machinegun, a tank, a Viet Cong, or a nuclear weapon.
The phrase fog of war derives from Clausewitz's stress on how confused warfare can seem while one is immersed within it.[4] The term center of gravity, used in a specifically military context, derives from Clausewitz's usage (which he took from Newtonian Mechanics). In the simplified and often confused form in which it appears in official US military doctrine, "Center of Gravity" refers to the basis of an opponent's power (at either the operational, strategic, or political level).
Yankee>if you have a pick ready you can post it, Larry was timed out. I have mine ready behind it.yes, i'm getting there... catching up in thread, then deciding... lolLarry -- don't you owe two picks?

pick, i'm working on my picks...Yankee>if you have a pick ready you can post it, Larry was timed out. I have mine ready behind it.yes, i'm getting there... catching up in thread, then deciding... lolLarry -- don't you owe two picks?![]()
I think we need more of the mind altering going on in the mix tape draft.World's Crankiest Draft.
What makes you say this?World's Crankiest Draft.
I'll take Twain over Joyce each and every time offered.$50 is still a lot for a meal.You can keep the $500 a plate place where you have to act better then everyone else or you don't get to eat. I'll be fine with Tennessee bourbon and a thick steak for a tenth of the price.If the likes of Tolstoy and Joyce are the $500 per plate meals, someone like Twain is probably $50 per plate. Where does that put Abatha? Maybe $15 per plate?
I suspect most people would. He's still in the $500 per meal category though.I'll take Twain over Joyce each and every time offered.$50 is still a lot for a meal.You can keep the $500 a plate place where you have to act better then everyone else or you don't get to eat. I'll be fine with Tennessee bourbon and a thick steak for a tenth of the price.If the likes of Tolstoy and Joyce are the $500 per plate meals, someone like Twain is probably $50 per plate. Where does that put Abatha? Maybe $15 per plate?
I've read the thread.What makes you say this?World's Crankiest Draft.
I think the truth lies somewhere in between yours and Tim's positions. She's not McDonalds, but she doesn't belong in this draft, either, IMO.I've seen this point and without making this mean, it's a point that is comedic and worthless. Your opinion about genre is childish - with all due respect.Again, Agatha Christie is not Susan Evanovich who writes the same 120 page "romance" "crime story" stories over and over again and has huge sales numbers because women eat that crap up. That is McDonalds. There is substance to Christie. So much so that she is still a titan in the industry today. Her stories have stood the test of time and have been made into movies, plays, television shows, and on and on and on. They are so respected that they have been remade over and over. Right down to the fact that the New York Times mourned the death of Poirot. It may genre (god forbid) but it stands well above the level you put it on.Popularity goes a long way with a lot of these "entertainment" categories. And it should. You guys that want to attack it with this McDonalds argument are making a case I will never understand. Joe Smith guitar player in Alabama might be the greatest jazz guitar player to ever grace this planet - God Himself may have cast the guys hands from the lake of musical genius to create the talent. But if not a single person ever heard the guy play then he won't be drafted here. If only 10 people heard him play, he isn't getting drafted here. At some point popularity must make it's ugly head known. Sorry. It's just the fact of the matter. And when you have people that obliterate others on the popularity chart, notice should be taken. It's the same in all the categories. Great Leaders are made great by what they do which naturally leads to a form of popular recognition. Same with Scientists. Same with every category here. The worst person on the planet - truly the most evil incarnation of humanity ever to curse this planet - may be tim's gardener. He isn't going to be drafted here. A necessary level of fame and recognition matters in every category, yet when we get to the "lifestyle" categories where you can be a snob and look down at others' opinions all of the sudden popularity has no place. Please.The only writing that surpases her is the bible. The freakin bible. The snobbery needed to justify your post is amazing in that respect. But I don't even need to go there given her stubstance, her greatness in plays and other formats - she wrote the most successful play in history - it's still running - decades after it opened - it's still relevent. And not for nothing, but for all the talk about the great fancy restaurant that gets 5 stars in Zagat's and has a waiting list 5 years long with a chef that can't be bothered using any bread not hand made by a virgin in Sicily - I'd rather enjoy myself then have to deal with the misplaced useless arrogance. You can keep the $500 a plate place where you have to act better then everyone else or you don't get to eat. I'll be fine with Tennessee bourbon and a thick steak for a tenth of the price.Ok, I'm done with Christie. Time to move on......Yankee, here's the best analogy I can think of to make my point about Christie and other genre writers. Let's say we were drafting the greatest restaurants ever. Most of the people select the finest dining experiences, the best French, Italian, and steakhouses the world has to offer, and you draft McDonald's. Your argument is that this is the most popular restaurant in the world. You also argue that it created it's own genre, the fast food restaurant. Furthermore, you can even argue that it's got good food. I like McDonald's hamburgers and fries from time to time; most people do. But how do we compare it to the fine dining? We can't. And that's the problem.
And?I've read the thread.What makes you say this?World's Crankiest Draft.
And this is the crankiest draft thread I've seen. And it's not even close.And?I've read the thread.What makes you say this?World's Crankiest Draft.
Otis? Wait, Christo?And this is the crankiest draft thread I've seen. And it's not even close.And?I've read the thread.What makes you say this?World's Crankiest Draft.
Cranky how? Because people are defending their picks and tearing down other picks? I think it comes with the territory.And this is the crankiest draft thread I've seen. And it's not even close.And?I've read the thread.What makes you say this?World's Crankiest Draft.
There's been some pretty heated debate, but at the end of the day people are still genial toward one another.Oh, bite me. I know you've been out to get me since that Polk pick, what like 2 months ago. I mean, get over it already and get laid or something.Cranky how? Because people are defending their picks and tearing down other picks? I think it comes with the territory.There's been some pretty heated debate, but at the end of the day people are still genial toward one another.
Oh, bite me. I know you've been out to get me since that Polk pick, what like 2 months ago. I mean, get over it already and get laid or something.Cranky how? Because people are defending their picks and tearing down other picks? I think it comes with the territory.There's been some pretty heated debate, but at the end of the day people are still genial toward one another.
I'm trying pal. I really am.I would put him in the author category, but I'm pretty sure he'd get ripped as his most famous works (Narnia) are largely considered Children's books...But I'm picking him for more than that...his work as a scholar:Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as Jack, was a northern Irish novelist, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist. He is also known for his fiction, especially The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy.Lewis was a close friend of J. R. R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings. Both authors were leading figures in the English faculty at Oxford University and in the informal Oxford literary group known as the "Inklings". According to his memoir Surprised by Joy, Lewis had been baptised in the Church of Ireland at birth, but fell away from his faith during his adolescence. Owing to the influence of Tolkien and other friends, at about the age of 30, Lewis returned to Christianity, becoming "a very ordinary layman of the Church of England" [1]. His conversion had a profound effect on his work, and his wartime radio broadcasts on the subject of Christianity brought him wide acclaim.In 1956, he married the American writer Joy Gresham (17 years his junior), who died four years later after a long battle against cancer. She was only 45 years old.Lewis himself died three years later following a heart attack, one week before what would have been his 65th birthday. Media coverage of his death was minimal, as he died on 22 November 1963 - the same day that President Kennedy of the United States of America was assassinated.Lewis's works have been translated into more than 30 languages and have sold millions of copies over the years. The books that comprise The Chronicles of Narnia have sold the most and have been popularised on stage, in TV, in radio, and in cinema.
Then there is his fiction:- The Pilgrim's Regress- The Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength)- The Chronicles of Narnia- The Great Divorce- The Screwtape Lettersamong many other workshis work as a Christian Apologist:Lewis began his brilliant academic career as an undergraduate student at Oxford, where he won a triple first, the highest honors in three areas of study. [14] Lewis then taught as a fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, for nearly thirty years, from 1925 to 1954, and later was the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. Using this position, he argued that there was no such thing as an English Renaissance. Much of his scholarly work concentrated on the later Middle Ages, especially its use of allegory. His The Allegory of Love (1936) helped reinvigorate the serious study of late medieval narratives like the Roman de la Rose. Lewis wrote several prefaces to old works of literature and poetry, like Layamon's Brut. His book "A Preface to Paradise Lost" is still one of the most valuable criticisms of that work. His last academic work, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (1964), is a summary of the medieval world view, the "discarded image" of the cosmos in his title.
one of my favorite things he wrote/spoke about is referred to as the "trilemma". A quote from Lewis from Mere Christianity on this topic:In addition to his career as an English professor and an author of fiction, Lewis is regarded by many as one of the most influential Christian apologists of his time; Mere Christianity was voted best book of the twentieth century by Christianity Today in 2000. Due to Lewis's approach to religious belief as a skeptic, and his following conversion, he has been called "The Apostle to the Skeptics."Lewis was very much interested in presenting a reasonable case for the truth of Christianity. Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, and Miracles were all concerned, to one degree or another, with refuting popular objections to Christianity, such as "How could a good God allow pain to exist in the world?". He also became known as a popular lecturer and broadcaster, and some of his writing (including much of Mere Christianity) originated as scripts for radio talks or lectures.According to xxxxxxxxxxxx, a 1948 loss in a debate with xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx led to his reevaluating his role as an apologist and his future works concentrated on devotional literature and children's books. xxxxxxx had a different recollection of the debate's emotional effect on Lewis.[17] xxxxxxxxxxxx also disputes xxxxxx, listing some of Lewis post-1948 apologetic publications, including the second and revised edition of his Miracles in 1960.Lewis also wrote an autobiography titled Surprised by Joy, which places special emphasis on his own conversion. (It was written before he met his wife, Joy Gresham; the title of the book came from the first line of a poem by William Wordsworth.) His essays and public speeches on Christian belief, many of which were collected in God in the Dock and The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, remain popular today.His most famous works, the Chronicles of Narnia, contain many strong Christian messages and are often considered allegory. Lewis, an expert on the subject of allegory, maintained that the books were not allegory, and preferred to call the Christian aspects of them "suppositional". As Lewis wrote in a letter to a Mrs. Hook in December 1958: If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in The Pilgrim's Progress] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all. (Martindale & Root 1990)
Basically he is arguing that there are only 3 logical opinions that one can have of Jesus if we take what He is claimed to have said in the Bible as what He actually said:1. he is insane2. he is evil3. he is everything he claims to beand that Christ intended it to be that way in order to force us to choose.plus, on top of all of this, Lewis wrote numerous non-fiction works, his essays, his poems, and lectures that are still read today. His fiction is great, and they are a large part of why i picked him, but there is also his theology and his non-fiction writings that are important and noteworthy...I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (Lewis 1952, p. 43)
Obviously I disagree. Wanna fight about it?Cranky how? Because people are defending their picks and tearing down other picks? I think it comes with the territory.And this is the crankiest draft thread I've seen. And it's not even close.And?I've read the thread.What makes you say this?There's been some pretty heated debate, but at the end of the day people are still genial toward one another.
Sir William Blackstone (originally pronounced Blexstun) (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) was an English jurist and professor who produced the historical and analytic treatise on the common law called Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in four volumes over 1765–1769. It had an extraordinary success, reportedly bringing the author £14,000, and still remains an important source on classical views of the common law and its principles.
In his 1941 book The Mysterious Science of the Law, (redacted) wrote that no other book except the Bible played a greater role in the history of American institutions. The Founders of the country found their philosophy in John Locke and their passion in (redacted), but they found the blueprint for a new nation in Blackstone. To be sure, they did not construct the government as Blackstone would have designed it; they added and subtracted from it as they went along but the foundation was built on Blackstone.
The first volume of his ’Commentaries on the Laws of England’ appeared in 1765, being the enlarged substance of his lectures, the fourth and final volume came in 1769, and edition after edition followed down to the middle of the nineteenth century. It was the first time that English Law had been made readable and intelligible to the lay mind. The book was quoted in the Courts and treated almost as an authority. The rising tide of the appeal to 'Natural Rights' as against precedent, which foreshadowed and accompanied the French Revolution, led the new school of jurists, headed by Bentham and Austen, to discredit the work as having in it no 'original philosophy of Law' - a property which its author might well have asked his critics to define. Blackstone was not, indeed, a great Civilian and did not pretend to be. He was only the most lucid and harmonious expositor of the English Systems that ever lived. It has been said in more recent times that the Commentaries “summed up and passed on the Common Law, as developed mainly by the work of the legal profession, before it was remodelled by direct legislation”.
I think he's a good wildcard pick.This pick is probably going to be ripped.... but here goes anyways:18.19 CS Lewis, FLEX
no it doesn't, because Jesus is great and influential because of how many people believe He is the Son of God as Jesus claimed to be...That quote is a direct refutation of those who were trying to claim Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not God...Larry, that quote kind of hurts your Jesus pick.
You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
Fair point.no it doesn't, because Jesus is great and influential because of how many people believe He is the Son of God as Jesus claimed to be...That quote is a direct refutation of those who were trying to claim Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not God...Larry, that quote kind of hurts your Jesus pick.
Now we're getting cranky.Obviously I disagree. Wanna fight about it?
No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
We can't use "He is divine" as the basis for our argument for His greatness... But that is mostly because if He actually is God, whoever had Him would win outright...But that doesn't mean He is declared as not divine... It just means we can't use His divinity as our argument for His greatness, rather we can only use the fact that people believe Him to be divine as the reason for His greatness...No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
Yeah, I agree with you for the most part on this.We can't use "He is divine" as the basis for our argument for His greatness... But that is mostly because if He actually is God, whoever had Him would win outright...But that doesn't mean He is declared as not divine... It just means we can't use His divinity as our argument for His greatness, rather we can only use the fact that people believe Him to be divine as the reason for His greatness...No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
Wrong.He is up to date with his picksI like this one. His story is incredible.Was I skipped? Can I pick?Arsenal of Doom said:and
![]()
My bad.What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
And......... we're done with this debate.What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
I think he was trying to see if I'd make an insane, non-sensical rant in response...or a decently thought out, semi-intelligent reason why he's wrong...I don't think he was being entirely serious in what he said, rather he wanted to see what my reaction to it would be...What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
It has nothing to do with the fact that they're on the same team. I never made that claim - that was your interpretation. In any case, Larry cleared it up nicely and I'm ready to move on. For the purposes of this draft, let's just say, according to Lewis, Jesus was either insane or evil, but nonetheless probably the most influential figure in world history.What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
Once again, you're assuming the worst here Larry. I wasn't enticing you. I just found it interesting that you chose to highlight that quote by Lewis.I think he was trying to see if I'd make an insane, non-sensical rant in response...or a decently thought out, semi-intelligent reason why he's wrong...I don't think he was being entirely serious in what he said, rather he wanted to see what my reaction to it would be...What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
That is not even close to what Lewis was saying...You can't frame Lewis' theory on Jesus in terms of this draft...There is no rule that people drafted can't work to prove Jesus was God, only that I can't use "Jesus is God" as a reason to say Jesus was an influential person...What you are doing would be like someone framing John Wesley's sermons the same way (removing all mentions of Jesus as divine from them), only if you did that you'd have very little (if anything) left...It has nothing to do with the fact that they're on the same team. I never made that claim - that was your interpretation. In any case, Larry cleared it up nicely and I'm ready to move on. For the purposes of this draft, let's just say, according to Lewis, Jesus was either insane or evil, but nonetheless probably the most influential figure in world history.What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.
I guess that would work if Lewis were drafting in this thread and agreed not to consider Jesus' divinity, but he didn't. Anyhow, I'm happy to move on. How about me getting the founder of UNICEF and the guy who formed the foundation of modern law as we know it? Pretty sweet, huh?It has nothing to do with the fact that they're on the same team. I never made that claim - that was your interpretation. In any case, Larry cleared it up nicely and I'm ready to move on. For the purposes of this draft, let's just say, according to Lewis, Jesus was either insane or evil, but nonetheless probably the most influential figure in world history.What? Lewis' commentary is about how one views Jesus Christ. How can that possibly affect the strength of Jesus as a pick? I don't get it. If I had Marx and Adam Smith on the same team, would one be somehow weakened by the presence of the other?No, I'm saying that, if Lewis' opinion is a popular one, then for the purposes of this draft, since he can't be divine, he is evil or he is crazy.You're not suggesting that the picks we make have to be in harmony with each other are you?You're basically saying that for the purposes of this draft, Jesus is nothing more than an evil human being or a lunatic.