World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[larry_boy_44]

With so many good names to choose from on the world stage, I agree with Tim's earlier sentiment that one would have to try, I mean really try, to make a bad pick. On my shortlist alone I have a good 50 names right now, all of whom I think would be worthy selections at this point in the draft.

:evil laugh::cues up "Real American":

 

[flysack]

I know someone living in China now. He agrees: everything is less evil when nestled inside the womb of The Great Firewall. Did you know the Dali Lama is a Feudal Overlord and master of lies and the Tibetan people love their undeniable Chinese heritage? True.

I realize that (and I think the person I was talking to does, too, as he's been living in America for like 10 years now)...That being said, we all know good and well that our media isn't always 100% honest either... Is China's more dishonest? Yeah... But that doesn't mean we got the whole story too..."Military brought in to stop rioting in Beijing" sounds a lot less bad than "Military brought in to MASSACRE COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS!!", ya know?

Our media is just as unreliable, yes, but it's also less nefarious. American media skews things for sensationalism, and ultimately, for advertising revenue. Chinese media skews everything for state thought control.Both make me sick, but the American media is the more honest liar.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I know someone living in China now. He agrees: everything is less evil when nestled inside the womb of The Great Firewall. Did you know the Dali Lama is a Feudal Overlord and master of lies and the Tibetan people love their undeniable Chinese heritage? True.

I realize that (and I think the person I was talking to does, too, as he's been living in America for like 10 years now)...That being said, we all know good and well that our media isn't always 100% honest either... Is China's more dishonest? Yeah... But that doesn't mean we got the whole story too..."Military brought in to stop rioting in Beijing" sounds a lot less bad than "Military brought in to MASSACRE COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS!!", ya know?

Our media is just as unreliable, yes, but it's also less nefarious. American media skews things for sensationalism, and ultimately, for advertising revenue. Chinese media skews everything for state thought control.Both make me sick, but the American media is the more honest liar.

I know... and I'm not saying those people deserved to have tanks sent after them...I'm merely saying that it is entirely possible that they are not as innocent and blameless as we make them out to be...Its not like the Chinese government knocked on their homes and dragged them into the streets to run them over with tanks... These people were already there...

 

[flysack]

I know someone living in China now. He agrees: everything is less evil when nestled inside the womb of The Great Firewall. Did you know the Dali Lama is a Feudal Overlord and master of lies and the Tibetan people love their undeniable Chinese heritage? True.

I realize that (and I think the person I was talking to does, too, as he's been living in America for like 10 years now)...That being said, we all know good and well that our media isn't always 100% honest either... Is China's more dishonest? Yeah... But that doesn't mean we got the whole story too..."Military brought in to stop rioting in Beijing" sounds a lot less bad than "Military brought in to MASSACRE COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS!!", ya know?

Our media is just as unreliable, yes, but it's also less nefarious. American media skews things for sensationalism, and ultimately, for advertising revenue. Chinese media skews everything for state thought control.Both make me sick, but the American media is the more honest liar.

I know... and I'm not saying those people deserved to have tanks sent after them...I'm merely saying that it is entirely possible that they are not as innocent and blameless as we make them out to be...Its not like the Chinese government knocked on their homes and dragged them into the streets to run them over with tanks... These people were already there...

Innocent? No, I guess not.But people with signs vs. tanks and trained military.It doesn't take a genius to see through any media perspective and realize who's the just party here. Come on, Larry.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I know someone living in China now. He agrees: everything is less evil when nestled inside the womb of The Great Firewall. Did you know the Dali Lama is a Feudal Overlord and master of lies and the Tibetan people love their undeniable Chinese heritage? True.

I realize that (and I think the person I was talking to does, too, as he's been living in America for like 10 years now)...That being said, we all know good and well that our media isn't always 100% honest either... Is China's more dishonest? Yeah... But that doesn't mean we got the whole story too..."Military brought in to stop rioting in Beijing" sounds a lot less bad than "Military brought in to MASSACRE COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS!!", ya know?

Our media is just as unreliable, yes, but it's also less nefarious. American media skews things for sensationalism, and ultimately, for advertising revenue. Chinese media skews everything for state thought control.Both make me sick, but the American media is the more honest liar.

I know... and I'm not saying those people deserved to have tanks sent after them...I'm merely saying that it is entirely possible that they are not as innocent and blameless as we make them out to be...Its not like the Chinese government knocked on their homes and dragged them into the streets to run them over with tanks... These people were already there...

Innocent? No, I guess not.But people with signs vs. tanks and trained military.It doesn't take a genius to see through any media perspective and realize who's the just party here. Come on, Larry.

looking at what the Chinese government tends to do (read: they don't regularly massacre large amounts of people in ways that the whole world gets to see), I seriously doubt that those people were just standing there with signs...It just, honestly, doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

 

[thatguy]

Okay, so it's been a long, long time now. Where is this guy they call Thorn? Him and his damn false promises.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Okay, so it's been a long, long time now. Where is this guy they call Thorn? Him and his damn false promises.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I know someone living in China now. He agrees: everything is less evil when nestled inside the womb of The Great Firewall.

Did you know the Dali Lama is a Feudal Overlord and master of lies and the Tibetan people love their undeniable Chinese heritage? True.

I realize that (and I think the person I was talking to does, too, as he's been living in America for like 10 years now)...That being said, we all know good and well that our media isn't always 100% honest either... Is China's more dishonest? Yeah... But that doesn't mean we got the whole story too...

"Military brought in to stop rioting in Beijing" sounds a lot less bad than "Military brought in to MASSACRE COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS!!", ya know?

Our media is just as unreliable, yes, but it's also less nefarious. American media skews things for sensationalism, and ultimately, for advertising revenue. Chinese media skews everything for state thought control.

Both make me sick, but the American media is the more honest liar.

I know... and I'm not saying those people deserved to have tanks sent after them...I'm merely saying that it is entirely possible that they are not as innocent and blameless as we make them out to be...

Its not like the Chinese government knocked on their homes and dragged them into the streets to run them over with tanks... These people were already there...

My ex-BIL was in the Tienanmen Square protests. Not on June 4 (thankfully), but he was there in late April and most of May. He was a student at Tianjin University, and traveled to Beijing with many of his classmates. Afterwards the whole family got investigated, and he had to sign a confession. He later emigrated to Canada, lives in Ontario now, works an engineer for Ford. The parents are now retired and live in Ann Arbor.My in-laws were both professors in Tianjin. Tiananmen was bad...no one knows exactly what happened, but it's pretty clear that hundreds of unarmed students were murdered. That is nothing compared to what they allowed to happen during the Cultural Revolution.

Both my in-laws were professors in Tianjin in the 50s and early 60s (and again from 1976 on, when they opened the schools and universities back up after closing THE WHOLE ####### EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR TEN YEARS). My ex-FIL had to kneel down on broken glass with a dunce cap on his head, wearing a placard denouncing him as an intellectual, while his neighbors and friends spat on him, berated and insulted (and if they hadn't, the local district chief would have had them arrested). Then they sent him to work on a farm for three years, seperating him from his wife and 3 children.

10 years of destroying their own culture, living under the terror of the Red Guards, being spied on by your neighbors, that was pretty bad. But was it worse than the Great Leap Forward? Not by much. Not if you lived in the rural areas where entire villages starved because the local government officials lied about agricultural production and the entire chain of command perpetuated the lies. Tens of millions of human beings perished because the idiots running the country refused to admit their programs were not working.

Mao brought China kicking and screaming into the modern world?

Bull ####. Mao and the Communists set them back at least 50 years. Where they are today with a quasi-capitalist system is where they should have been 50 years ago.

I hate that S.O.B. as much as I have ever hated any human being.

 

[thatguy]

I know someone living in China now. He agrees: everything is less evil when nestled inside the womb of The Great Firewall.

Did you know the Dali Lama is a Feudal Overlord and master of lies and the Tibetan people love their undeniable Chinese heritage? True.

I realize that (and I think the person I was talking to does, too, as he's been living in America for like 10 years now)...That being said, we all know good and well that our media isn't always 100% honest either... Is China's more dishonest? Yeah... But that doesn't mean we got the whole story too...

"Military brought in to stop rioting in Beijing" sounds a lot less bad than "Military brought in to MASSACRE COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS!!", ya know?

Our media is just as unreliable, yes, but it's also less nefarious. American media skews things for sensationalism, and ultimately, for advertising revenue. Chinese media skews everything for state thought control.

Both make me sick, but the American media is the more honest liar.

I know... and I'm not saying those people deserved to have tanks sent after them...I'm merely saying that it is entirely possible that they are not as innocent and blameless as we make them out to be...

Its not like the Chinese government knocked on their homes and dragged them into the streets to run them over with tanks... These people were already there...

My ex-BIL was in the Tienanmen Square protests. Not on June 4 (thankfully), but he was there in late April and most of May. He was a student at Tianjin University, and traveled to Beijing with many of his classmates. Afterwards the whole family got investigated, and he had to sign a confession. He later emigrated to Canada, lives in Ontario now, works an engineer for Ford. The parents are now retired and live in Ann Arbor.My in-laws were both professors in Tianjin. Tiananmen was bad...no one knows exactly what happened, but it's pretty clear that hundreds of unarmed students were murdered. That is nothing compared to what they allowed to happen during the Cultural Revolution.

Both my in-laws were professors in Tianjin in the 50s and early 60s (and again from 1976 on, when they opened the schools and universities back up after closing THE WHOLE ####### EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR TEN YEARS). My ex-FIL had to kneel down on broken glass with a dunce cap on his head, wearing a placard denouncing him as an intellectual, while his neighbors and friends spat on him, berated and insulted (and if they hadn't, the local district chief would have had them arrested). Then they sent him to work on a farm for three years, seperating him from his wife and 3 children.

10 years of destroying their own culture, living under the terror of the Red Guards, being spied on by your neighbors, that was pretty bad. But was it worse than the Great Leap Forward? Not by much. Not if you lived in the rural areas where entire villages starved because the local government officials lied about agricultural production and the entire chain of command perpetuated the lies. Tens of millions of human beings perished because the idiots running the country refused to admit their programs were not working.

Mao brought China kicking and screaming into the modern world?

Bull ####. Mao and the Communists set them back at least 50 years. Where they are today with a quasi-capitalist system is where they should have been 50 years ago.

I hate that S.O.B. as much as I have ever hated any human being.

and

 

[flysack]

My ex-BIL was in the Tienanmen Square protests. Not on June 4 (thankfully), but he was there in late April and most of May. He was a student at Tianjin University, and traveled to Beijing with many of his classmates. Afterwards the whole family got investigated, and he had to sign a confession. He later emigrated to Canada, lives in Ontario now, works an engineer for Ford. The parents are now retired and live in Ann Arbor.

My in-laws were both professors in Tianjin. Tiananmen was bad...no one knows exactly what happened, but it's pretty clear that hundreds of unarmed students were murdered. That is nothing compared to what they allowed to happen during the Cultural Revolution.

Both my in-laws were professors in Tianjin in the 50s and early 60s (and again from 1976 on, when they opened the schools and universities back up after closing THE WHOLE ####### EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR TEN YEARS). My ex-FIL had to kneel down on broken glass with a dunce cap on his head, wearing a placard denouncing him as an intellectual, while his neighbors and friends spat on him, berated and insulted (and if they hadn't, the local district chief would have had them arrested). Then they sent him to work on a farm for three years, seperating him from his wife and 3 children.

10 years of destroying their own culture, living under the terror of the Red Guards, being spied on by your neighbors, that was pretty bad. But was it worse than the Great Leap Forward? Not by much. Not if you lived in the rural areas where entire villages starved because the local government officials lied about agricultural production and the entire chain of command perpetuated the lies. Tens of millions of human beings perished because the idiots running the country refused to admit their programs were not working.

Mao brought China kicking and screaming into the modern world?

Bull ####. Mao and the Communists set them back at least 50 years. Where they are today with a quasi-capitalist system is where they should have been 50 years ago.

I hate that S.O.B. as much as I have ever hated any human being.

Post of the Year.

 

[thatguy]

My ex-BIL was in the Tienanmen Square protests. Not on June 4 (thankfully), but he was there in late April and most of May. He was a student at Tianjin University, and traveled to Beijing with many of his classmates. Afterwards the whole family got investigated, and he had to sign a confession. He later emigrated to Canada, lives in Ontario now, works an engineer for Ford. The parents are now retired and live in Ann Arbor.

My in-laws were both professors in Tianjin. Tiananmen was bad...no one knows exactly what happened, but it's pretty clear that hundreds of unarmed students were murdered. That is nothing compared to what they allowed to happen during the Cultural Revolution.

Both my in-laws were professors in Tianjin in the 50s and early 60s (and again from 1976 on, when they opened the schools and universities back up after closing THE WHOLE ####### EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR TEN YEARS). My ex-FIL had to kneel down on broken glass with a dunce cap on his head, wearing a placard denouncing him as an intellectual, while his neighbors and friends spat on him, berated and insulted (and if they hadn't, the local district chief would have had them arrested). Then they sent him to work on a farm for three years, seperating him from his wife and 3 children.

10 years of destroying their own culture, living under the terror of the Red Guards, being spied on by your neighbors, that was pretty bad. But was it worse than the Great Leap Forward? Not by much. Not if you lived in the rural areas where entire villages starved because the local government officials lied about agricultural production and the entire chain of command perpetuated the lies. Tens of millions of human beings perished because the idiots running the country refused to admit their programs were not working.

Mao brought China kicking and screaming into the modern world?

Bull ####. Mao and the Communists set them back at least 50 years. Where they are today with a quasi-capitalist system is where they should have been 50 years ago.

I hate that S.O.B. as much as I have ever hated any human being.

Post of the Year.

And this is why I think we'll see Mao end up in the villain category.

 

[larry_boy_44]

weren't we promised a pick a while ago?

 

[timschochet]

Mao brought China kicking and screaming into the modern world?

Bull ####. Mao and the Communists set them back at least 50 years. Where they are today with a quasi-capitalist system is where they should have been 50 years ago.

It's an extraordinary story, BL. And, putting aside your personal feelings, I agree with your basic premise here. We've always heard this lie, that Mao forced modernization on China; therefore, somehow he's a hero despite the horrors of communism. This is nothing new. In the 1950's and 60's, the liberal intelligentisia in this country argued that Josef Stalin brought the Soviet Union into the modern world kicking and screaming. He was presented as an apolitical figure, rather than evil. The message is always that communism is a noble system somehow, and although it's harsh, it produces necessary results. It's crap, and it's always been crap.I was graduating from University of Cal Irvine when this happened, and I had a professor of political science whom I don't mind naming here; his name was Mark Petracca. Very very intelligent guy, but somehow in love with Mao and China. I'll never forget how he tried to turn the Tianamen story on its head, arguing that the government was only protecting itself against "outside agitators" from the United States. And he was one of many professors in this country with that opinion at the time. China could do no wrong for them...

 

[Thorn]

Sorry guys. I probably shouldn't have said a couple hours, that was best case scenario. I think all the things I had to get done took the most time they could have.

Anyhow, after deliberation, I've decided I can't let this guy slide any farther. I think he's the one many have been talking about in their reasons why Jesus Christ might not be such an automatic lock for #1.

2.14 St. Paul of Tarsus, Religious Figure

An apostle, arguably the most important one, certainly one of two. Unlike many from this era, there is agreement that he existed and wrote much of what is attributed to him.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Sorry guys. I probably shouldn't have said a couple hours, that was best case scenario. I think all the things I had to get done took the most time they could have.

Anyhow, after deliberation, I've decided I can't let this guy slide any farther. I think he's the one many have been talking about in their reasons why Jesus Christ might not be such an automatic lock for #1.

2.14 St. Paul of Tarsus, Religious Figure

An apostle, arguably the most important one, certainly one of two. Unlike many from this era, there is agreement that he existed and wrote much of what is attributed to him.

THANK YOU!if he would have still been around at my pick in round 2 I'd have had to take him...

and I have no clue where I'd put the two of them... (both qualify for martyr, religious figure, and philosopher at minimum)

 

[Thorn]

Sorry guys. I probably shouldn't have said a couple hours, that was best case scenario. I think all the things I had to get done took the most time they could have.

Anyhow, after deliberation, I've decided I can't let this guy slide any farther. I think he's the one many have been talking about in their reasons why Jesus Christ might not be such an automatic lock for #1.

2.14 St. Paul of Tarsus, Religious Figure

An apostle, arguably the most important one, certainly one of two. Unlike many from this era, there is agreement that he existed and wrote much of what is attributed to him.

THANK YOU!if he would have still been around at my pick in round 2 I'd have had to take him...

and I have no clue where I'd put the two of them... (both qualify for martyr, religious figure, and philosopher at minimum)

I was under the impression that Paul was not martyred. I'm very pleased with the value here."Christianity is said to owe as much to Paul as to Jesus."

ETA: PM sent to Acer

 

[timschochet]

Now I can fully expose the argument I hinted at earlier.

In his book, The 100 most Influential People in History, Thomas Hart has these people as his top 4:

1. Muhammad

2. Isaac Newton

3. Jesus

With Paul a little later on.

Why Muhammad over Jesus? Because Jesus and Paul share responsibility for the establishment of the Christian religion, whereas Muhammad doesn't have a "Paul" figure for Islam; he stands alone.

Personally, I find this logic to be compelling; although I myself would have Newton as my #1. I have no idea how NC Commish will eventually judge the religious figures, but if it were up to me to judge them, it would be:

1. Muhammad

2. Jesus

3. Buddha

4. XXXXX

5. Paul

Despite Yankee's earlier statement that Jesus HAS to be the first religious figure taken, I think that Hart is right and Muhammad belongs in that spot.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Now I can fully expose the argument I hinted at earlier.

In his book, The 100 most Influential People in History, Thomas Hart has these people as his top 4:

1. Muhammad

2. Isaac Newton

3. Jesus

With Paul a little later on.

Why Muhammad over Jesus? Because Jesus and Paul share responsibility for the establishment of the Christian religion, whereas Muhammad doesn't have a "Paul" figure for Islam; he stands alone.

Personally, I find this logic to be compelling; although I myself would have Newton as my #1. I have no idea how NC Commish will eventually judge the religious figures, but if it were up to me to judge them, it would be:

1. Muhammad

2. Jesus

3. Buddha

4. XXXXX

5. Paul

Despite Yankee's earlier statement that Jesus HAS to be the first religious figure taken, I think that Hart is right and Muhammad belongs in that spot.

the thing you (and Hart) I think aren't realizing is Jesus is pretty influential to Islam as well as Christianity...It isn't just about the religion based upon them, but everything else... Plus Christianity is WAY more influential in the history of the world than Islam is...

 

[Thorn]

Now I can fully expose the argument I hinted at earlier.

In his book, The 100 most Influential People in History, Thomas Hart has these people as his top 4:

1. Muhammad

2. Isaac Newton

3. Jesus

With Paul a little later on.

Why Muhammad over Jesus? Because Jesus and Paul share responsibility for the establishment of the Christian religion, whereas Muhammad doesn't have a "Paul" figure for Islam; he stands alone.

Personally, I find this logic to be compelling; although I myself would have Newton as my #1. I have no idea how NC Commish will eventually judge the religious figures, but if it were up to me to judge them, it would be:

1. Muhammad

2. Jesus

3. Buddha

4. XXXXX

5. Paul

Despite Yankee's earlier statement that Jesus HAS to be the first religious figure taken, I think that Hart is right and Muhammad belongs in that spot.

I can see the Muhammed first argument, but Budda? I guess I don't know enough about him, but Buddism has about 375 million followers whereas Christianity has over 2 billion and Islam about a billion and a half. I realize that's not the only measure, but...

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Now I can fully expose the argument I hinted at earlier.

In his book, The 100 most Influential People in History, Thomas Hart has these people as his top 4:

1. Muhammad

2. Isaac Newton

3. Jesus

With Paul a little later on.

Why Muhammad over Jesus? Because Jesus and Paul share responsibility for the establishment of the Christian religion, whereas Muhammad doesn't have a "Paul" figure for Islam; he stands alone.

Personally, I find this logic to be compelling; although I myself would have Newton as my #1. I have no idea how NC Commish will eventually judge the religious figures, but if it were up to me to judge them, it would be:

1. Muhammad

2. Jesus

3. Buddha

4. XXXXX

5. Paul

Despite Yankee's earlier statement that Jesus HAS to be the first religious figure taken, I think that Hart is right and Muhammad belongs in that spot.

Not if you want to win the playoffs in this thing. I don't care what kind of facts are backing up that statement, the team that has Jesus will get a much bigger boost than the one with Muhammad.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Paul, I wanted to ask a question to Larry and the other Christians here. The following appears in the Wikipedia entry:

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. Scholarly consensus is virtually united in agreement that seven of these are genuinely by Paul. Opinions differ about the remaining six, with some regarding all to be by other hands, some taking all to be genuine, and most scholars accepting some but not others. In addition, the Letter to the Hebrews was thought by some in antiquity to be by Paul, though it does not identify itself as such.

What's your take on this? Do most Christians generally believe all of this was written by Paul? Is it something still disputed?

 

[timschochet]

Now I can fully expose the argument I hinted at earlier.

In his book, The 100 most Influential People in History, Thomas Hart has these people as his top 4:

1. Muhammad

2. Isaac Newton

3. Jesus

With Paul a little later on.

Why Muhammad over Jesus? Because Jesus and Paul share responsibility for the establishment of the Christian religion, whereas Muhammad doesn't have a "Paul" figure for Islam; he stands alone.

Personally, I find this logic to be compelling; although I myself would have Newton as my #1. I have no idea how NC Commish will eventually judge the religious figures, but if it were up to me to judge them, it would be:

1. Muhammad

2. Jesus

3. Buddha

4. XXXXX

5. Paul

Despite Yankee's earlier statement that Jesus HAS to be the first religious figure taken, I think that Hart is right and Muhammad belongs in that spot.

Not if you want to win the playoffs in this thing. I don't care what kind of facts are backing up that statement, the team that has Jesus will get a much bigger boost than the one with Muhammad.

This could be true. It has no effect on my argument, but I see your point.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Regarding Paul, I wanted to ask a question to Larry and the other Christians here. The following appears in the Wikipedia entry:

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. Scholarly consensus is virtually united in agreement that seven of these are genuinely by Paul. Opinions differ about the remaining six, with some regarding all to be by other hands, some taking all to be genuine, and most scholars accepting some but not others. In addition, the Letter to the Hebrews was thought by some in antiquity to be by Paul, though it does not identify itself as such.

What's your take on this? Do most Christians generally believe all of this was written by Paul? Is it something still disputed?

scholarly people pretty much agree with exactly what you say...pure laymen pretty much take them all to be genuine...



its an education thing...

 

[Thorn]

Regarding Paul, I wanted to ask a question to Larry and the other Christians here. The following appears in the Wikipedia entry:

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. Scholarly consensus is virtually united in agreement that seven of these are genuinely by Paul. Opinions differ about the remaining six, with some regarding all to be by other hands, some taking all to be genuine, and most scholars accepting some but not others. In addition, the Letter to the Hebrews was thought by some in antiquity to be by Paul, though it does not identify itself as such.

What's your take on this? Do most Christians generally believe all of this was written by Paul? Is it something still disputed?

As a Catholic I have no idea. I'm only half kidding when I say that the Bible is for priests and Protestants. Growing up we spent very little time actually studying the Bible. Nor am I sure that it really matters (outside of the context of this draft, of course).I'm sure somewhere Crosseyed's head is exploding.

 

[timschochet]

the thing you (and Hart) I think aren't realizing is Jesus is pretty influential to Islam as well as Christianity...It isn't just about the religion based upon them, but everything else... Plus Christianity is WAY more influential in the history of the world than Islam is...

For Hart to be wrong based upon this reasoning, Christianity would have to be twice as influential as Islam. Do you believe this is so?

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Paul, I wanted to ask a question to Larry and the other Christians here. The following appears in the Wikipedia entry:

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. Scholarly consensus is virtually united in agreement that seven of these are genuinely by Paul. Opinions differ about the remaining six, with some regarding all to be by other hands, some taking all to be genuine, and most scholars accepting some but not others. In addition, the Letter to the Hebrews was thought by some in antiquity to be by Paul, though it does not identify itself as such.

What's your take on this? Do most Christians generally believe all of this was written by Paul? Is it something still disputed?

As a Catholic I have no idea. I'm only half kidding when I say that the Bible is for priests and Protestants. Growing up we spent very little time actually studying the Bible. Nor am I sure that it really matters (outside of the context of this draft, of course).I'm sure somewhere Crosseyed's head is exploding.

You're saying Catholics don't study the Bible in Sunday School? What do you study?

 

[GTBilly]

Are you guys saying M is more important than JC because he didn't have a sidekick/second in command/someone else to push their view hard???

 

[larry_boy_44]

the thing you (and Hart) I think aren't realizing is Jesus is pretty influential to Islam as well as Christianity...It isn't just about the religion based upon them, but everything else... Plus Christianity is WAY more influential in the history of the world than Islam is...

For Hart to be wrong based upon this reasoning, Christianity would have to be twice as influential as Islam. Do you believe this is so?

the real question is do you really think "1 is less than 2" is a valid or even remotely defensible argument of your position???Really?because things are not that simple...btw, though, yes, Christianity is WAY more than twice as influential as Islam is...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Regarding Paul, I wanted to ask a question to Larry and the other Christians here. The following appears in the Wikipedia entry:

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. Scholarly consensus is virtually united in agreement that seven of these are genuinely by Paul. Opinions differ about the remaining six, with some regarding all to be by other hands, some taking all to be genuine, and most scholars accepting some but not others. In addition, the Letter to the Hebrews was thought by some in antiquity to be by Paul, though it does not identify itself as such.

What's your take on this? Do most Christians generally believe all of this was written by Paul? Is it something still disputed?

As a Catholic I have no idea. I'm only half kidding when I say that the Bible is for priests and Protestants. Growing up we spent very little time actually studying the Bible. Nor am I sure that it really matters (outside of the context of this draft, of course).I'm sure somewhere Crosseyed's head is exploding.

You're saying Catholics don't study the Bible in Sunday School? What do you study?

at certain places in history (and in some places now), laymen don't read the Bible in catholicism...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Are you guys saying M is more important than JC because he didn't have a sidekick/second in command/someone else to push their view hard???

yeah, that's what he's saying...

 

[dparker713]

Regarding Paul, I wanted to ask a question to Larry and the other Christians here. The following appears in the Wikipedia entry:

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. Scholarly consensus is virtually united in agreement that seven of these are genuinely by Paul. Opinions differ about the remaining six, with some regarding all to be by other hands, some taking all to be genuine, and most scholars accepting some but not others. In addition, the Letter to the Hebrews was thought by some in antiquity to be by Paul, though it does not identify itself as such.

What's your take on this? Do most Christians generally believe all of this was written by Paul? Is it something still disputed?

As a Catholic I have no idea. I'm only half kidding when I say that the Bible is for priests and Protestants. Growing up we spent very little time actually studying the Bible. Nor am I sure that it really matters (outside of the context of this draft, of course).I'm sure somewhere Crosseyed's head is exploding.

You're saying Catholics don't study the Bible in Sunday School? What do you study?

First off, we got maybe 20 hours of study a year total until you're confirmed. Which for me I think was 8th grade. So, 200 or so total hours. You spend very little time reading the Bible outright, and really none when you're really young. I only really got exposure to the actual scripture during mass.

 

[timschochet]

Are you guys saying M is more important than JC because he didn't have a sidekick/second in command/someone else to push their view hard???

yeah, that's what he's saying...

This is essentially Hart's argument, which I've come to find convincing. From Wikipedia:What mainly surprised readers was the first person on Hart's list. Hart decided to choose Muhammad over Jesus despite the fact that Islam was not the largest religion at the time of writing. Hart attributes this to the fact that Muhammad was successful in both the religious and political realms. He also writes that Muhammad's role in the development of Islam is far more influential than Jesus's collaboration in the development of Christianity. He attributes the development of Christianity to St. Paul, who played a pivotal role in the dissemination of Christianity.

 

[timschochet]

First off, we got maybe 20 hours of study a year total until you're confirmed. Which for me I think was 8th grade. So, 200 or so total hours. You spend very little time reading the Bible outright, and really none when you're really young. I only really got exposure to the actual scripture during mass.

I had no idea this was the case. I do know that religious Jewish children spend more time studying the Talmud than they do the Torah. But I thought all Christians studied the New Testament. My wife, who is a Lutheran, tells me she spent all of her time prior to Confirmation studying the "Good News Bible" which is essentially the New Testament.

 

[Thorn]

First off, we got maybe 20 hours of study a year total until you're confirmed. Which for me I think was 8th grade. So, 200 or so total hours. You spend very little time reading the Bible outright, and really none when you're really young. I only really got exposure to the actual scripture during mass.

I had no idea this was the case. I do know that religious Jewish children spend more time studying the Talmud than they do the Torah. But I thought all Christians studied the New Testament. My wife, who is a Lutheran, tells me she spent all of her time prior to Confirmation studying the "Good News Bible" which is essentially the New Testament.

We spend a lot more time on the mass, why we do the things we do during its different parts. It's a long time ago now but I seem to remember spending a lot of time memorizing the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Beatitudes, stories of the saints, stories of the Bible in formats appropriate to our ages. But very little time actually reading and dissecting scripture.Oh and FYI it's not even Sunday school. We had Catholic Catechism aka CCD class every Monday after school.

 

[dparker713]

First off, we got maybe 20 hours of study a year total until you're confirmed. Which for me I think was 8th grade. So, 200 or so total hours. You spend very little time reading the Bible outright, and really none when you're really young. I only really got exposure to the actual scripture during mass.

I had no idea this was the case. I do know that religious Jewish children spend more time studying the Talmud than they do the Torah. But I thought all Christians studied the New Testament. My wife, who is a Lutheran, tells me she spent all of her time prior to Confirmation studying the "Good News Bible" which is essentially the New Testament.

Oh, you study it some, but its really not in depth or time consuming. We'd have class for 1 hour a week most weeks during the school year. And really, there was next to no studying of the OT for me.

 

[AcerFC]

OK, I have no idea how this is going to be received but I wanted to go with a strong military guy here and it was between 2 guys (a third slightly behind-new tier). I am sure that many will say it was too early but I have no clue about ADPs as I said earlier.

I chose this guy for two key reasons

1. He conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history

2. He is most remembered for devising the battle plan that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces almost a thousand miles apart.

Like I said, I could think of one or two other guys who I could have chosen here if I were to stick with military leader but I chose

2.16 Subutai, Military Leader

Subutai (Subetei, Subetai, Mongolian: Сүбээдэй, Sübeedei; Classic Mongolian: Sübügätäi or Sübü'ätäi; 1176–1248) was the primary military strategist and general of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan. He directed more than 20 campaigns during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history. He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were more than 500 km away from each other. He is most remembered for devising the battle plan that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces almost a thousand miles apart.

Subutai is regarded in history as one of Genghis Khan's and the Mongol Empire's most prominent generals in terms of ability and tactics helping with the military campaigns in Asia and Eastern Europe. He commanded many successful attacks and invasions during his time and was rarely defeated.

I think I remember reading a quote by Schwarzkopf calling him a 20th century general in 13th century clothes. Am I supposed to PM the next guy? Sorry it took a while, I was trying to get my daughter to bed

 

[timschochet]

First guy taken that I admit I know nothing about. Wow. If Subutai is that important, does this take away from Genghis himself? I can't really say this is a good or bad pick because I just don't know this guy.

 

[FUBAR]

Sorry guys. I probably shouldn't have said a couple hours, that was best case scenario. I think all the things I had to get done took the most time they could have.

Anyhow, after deliberation, I've decided I can't let this guy slide any farther. I think he's the one many have been talking about in their reasons why Jesus Christ might not be such an automatic lock for #1.

2.14 St. Paul of Tarsus, Religious Figure

An apostle, arguably the most important one, certainly one of two. Unlike many from this era, there is agreement that he existed and wrote much of what is attributed to him.

THANK YOU!if he would have still been around at my pick in round 2 I'd have had to take him...

and I have no clue where I'd put the two of them... (both qualify for martyr, religious figure, and philosopher at minimum)

Strongly considered getting the #1 and 4 religious figures with my first two picks. Keep Muhammad as leader and still score well on religion. Saul of Tarsus or St. Paul is a great pick and I'm his namesake

 

[timschochet]

Actually, if your goal is to win the draft with the FFA public, then it was correct for Larry to take Jesus when he did, and Subutai is a bad pick, as well. Grab the big names while they're out there. Grab as many big names as you can. Truthfully, this is the best way to win.

 

[larry_boy_44]

where's FUBAR and AoD?

 

[FUBAR]

where's FUBAR and AoD?

I'm here, flipping a coin - do I go with the pick I just like but will probably get flamed?Yeah, I do.write up coming.

 

[flysack]

Mao brought China kicking and screaming into the modern world?

Bull ####. Mao and the Communists set them back at least 50 years. Where they are today with a quasi-capitalist system is where they should have been 50 years ago.

It's an extraordinary story, BL. And, putting aside your personal feelings, I agree with your basic premise here. We've always heard this lie, that Mao forced modernization on China; therefore, somehow he's a hero despite the horrors of communism. This is nothing new. In the 1950's and 60's, the liberal intelligentisia in this country argued that Josef Stalin brought the Soviet Union into the modern world kicking and screaming. He was presented as an apolitical figure, rather than evil. The message is always that communism is a noble system somehow, and although it's harsh, it produces necessary results. It's crap, and it's always been crap.I was graduating from University of Cal Irvine when this happened, and I had a professor of political science whom I don't mind naming here; his name was Mark Petracca. Very very intelligent guy, but somehow in love with Mao and China. I'll never forget how he tried to turn the Tianamen story on its head, arguing that the government was only protecting itself against "outside agitators" from the United States. And he was one of many professors in this country with that opinion at the time. China could do no wrong for them...

Then, to be frank, Professor Petracca was a second-rate hack. The avant-garde French intellectuals known as the Tel Quel group famously visited China in 1974 (many of them quite famous now, such as Julia Kristeva, Derrida, Roland Barthes, etc.). Even though they were unabashed Maoist supporters, and were given a two week state tour, they came back bitterly disillusioned. It took awhile for it to sink in, but by the late 70s they were publicly admitting that they'd made a gross mistake in supporting Mao. The country was so messed up that even a state-arranged tour couldn't hide the fact that Mao was really the second coming of Stalin.

I can't believe your Cal Irvine prof denounced Tienanmen Square in 1989. It's both sad and rather backward.

 

[timschochet]

Categories with no picks so far:

Athlete

Celebrity

Rebel

Wildcard

Remember that all categories have equal merit, as do each of your wildcard picks...

 

[FUBAR]

I'm really not sure about this pick, but (1) I think he's in the top 40 all-time, and (2) he's a big reason i just lost in the GAD playoffs.

Benjamin Franklin Intellectual (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705] – April 17, 1790) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure in the Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. He invented the lightning rod, bifocals, the Franklin stove, a carriage odometer, and the glass 'armonica'. He formed both the first public lending library in America and first fire department in Pennsylvania. He was an early proponent of colonial unity, and as a political writer and activist he supported the idea of an American nation.[1] As a diplomat during the American Revolution he secured the French alliance that helped to make independence of the United States possible.

Franklin is credited as being foundational to the roots of American values and character, a marriage of the practical and democratic Puritan values of thrift, hard work, education, community spirit, self-governing institutions, and opposition to authoritarianism both political and religious, with the scientific and tolerant values of the Enlightenment. In the words of Henry Steele Commager, "In Franklin could be merged the virtues of Puritanism without its defects, the illumination of the Enlightenment without its heat."[2] To Walter Isaacson, this makes Franklin, "the most accomplished American of his age and the most influential in inventing the type of society America would become."[3]

Franklin became a newspaper editor, printer, and merchant in Philadelphia, becoming very wealthy, writing and publishing Poor Richard's Almanack and the Pennsylvania Gazette. Franklin was interested in science and technology, and gained international renown for his famous experiments. He played a major role in establishing the University of Pennsylvania and Franklin & Marshall College and was elected the first president of the American Philosophical Society. Franklin became a national hero in America when he spearheaded the effort to have Parliament repeal the unpopular Stamp Act. An accomplished diplomat, he was widely admired among the French as American minister to Paris and was a major figure in the development of positive Franco-American relations. From 1775 to 1776, Franklin was Postmaster General under the Continental Congress and from 1785 to 1788 was President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania. Toward the end of his life, he became one of the most prominent abolitionists.

His colorful life and legacy of scientific and political achievement, and status as one of America's most influential Founding Fathers, has seen Franklin honored on coinage and money; warships; the names of many towns, counties, educational institutions, namesakes, and companies; and more than two centuries after his death, countless cultural references.

Flame away, I'm a Euro-centric American with no sense of history.

 

[Thorn]

Actually, if your goal is to win the draft with the FFA public, then it was correct for Larry to take Jesus when he did, and Subutai is a bad pick, as well. Grab the big names while they're out there. Grab as many big names as you can. Truthfully, this is the best way to win.

I won't lie. I also hope to gain the judges' praise.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Now I can fully expose the argument I hinted at earlier.

In his book, The 100 most Influential People in History, Thomas Hart has these people as his top 4:

1. Muhammad

2. Isaac Newton

3. Jesus

With Paul a little later on.

Why Muhammad over Jesus? Because Jesus and Paul share responsibility for the establishment of the Christian religion, whereas Muhammad doesn't have a "Paul" figure for Islam; he stands alone.

Personally, I find this logic to be compelling; although I myself would have Newton as my #1. I have no idea how NC Commish will eventually judge the religious figures, but if it were up to me to judge them, it would be:

1. Muhammad

2. Jesus

3. Buddha

4. XXXXX

5. Paul

Despite Yankee's earlier statement that Jesus HAS to be the first religious figure taken, I think that Hart is right and Muhammad belongs in that spot.

the thing you (and Hart) I think aren't realizing is Jesus is pretty influential to Islam as well as Christianity...It isn't just about the religion based upon them, but everything else... Plus Christianity is WAY more influential in the history of the world than Islam is...

The last point here is salient. You can't equate the influence of Islam with that of Christianity when you are talking a global sphere. Simple numbers of followers can't begin to take into account the influence on the development of virtually every continent compared to Islam's influence primarily in the Near East, Middle East, Arabian Peninsula, and Northern Africa. Also, Paul was certainly an important figure in the spread of Christianity, perhaps second only to Christ. However, he was just that, a messenger and apostle. Jesus didn't conquer the Middle East the way Muhammad did the Arab Peninsula, nor was followed by Caliphates who continued the military expansion of his realm. The ideas of Jesus, however, effectively conquered the World. He should get the full credit, while Paul (who has a place in this draft), is among those who followed in his footsteps just like others followed Muhammad and enhanced his legacy.

 

[timschochet]

Mao brought China kicking and screaming into the modern world?

Bull ####. Mao and the Communists set them back at least 50 years. Where they are today with a quasi-capitalist system is where they should have been 50 years ago.

It's an extraordinary story, BL. And, putting aside your personal feelings, I agree with your basic premise here. We've always heard this lie, that Mao forced modernization on China; therefore, somehow he's a hero despite the horrors of communism. This is nothing new. In the 1950's and 60's, the liberal intelligentisia in this country argued that Josef Stalin brought the Soviet Union into the modern world kicking and screaming. He was presented as an apolitical figure, rather than evil. The message is always that communism is a noble system somehow, and although it's harsh, it produces necessary results. It's crap, and it's always been crap.I was graduating from University of Cal Irvine when this happened, and I had a professor of political science whom I don't mind naming here; his name was Mark Petracca. Very very intelligent guy, but somehow in love with Mao and China. I'll never forget how he tried to turn the Tianamen story on its head, arguing that the government was only protecting itself against "outside agitators" from the United States. And he was one of many professors in this country with that opinion at the time. China could do no wrong for them...

Then, to be frank, Professor Petracca was a second-rate hack. The avant-garde French intellectuals known as the Tel Quel group famously visited China in 1974 (many of them quite famous now, such as Julia Kristeva, Derrida, Roland Barthes, etc.). Even though they were unabashed Maoist supporters, and were given a two week state tour, they came back bitterly disillusioned. It took awhile for it to sink in, but by the late 70s they were publicly admitting that they'd made a gross mistake in supporting Mao. The country was so messed up that even a state-arranged tour couldn't hide the fact that Mao was really the second coming of Stalin.

I can't believe your Cal Irvine prof denounced Tienanmen Square in 1989. It's both sad and rather backward.

Oh it happened, all right. And it wasn't even treated as controversial at the time. This same professor wrote a letter to the OC Register stating there was no difference between the Bush Administration (George Sr.) and a Fascist regime. I don't know if he's still around or what happened to him.

 

[Thorn]

Categories with no picks so far:AthleteCelebrityRebelWildcardRemember that all categories have equal merit, as do each of your wildcard picks...

For seeding, but not for the FFA.

 

[flysack]

Categories with no picks so far:AthleteCelebrityRebelWildcardRemember that all categories have equal merit, as do each of your wildcard picks...

I expect Ghandi to move to Rebel for the clear #1 slot. As a Leader he's second tier, as a Rebel, he's unmatched. Just my opinion.

 

[FUBAR]

Categories with no picks so far:

Athlete

Celebrity

Rebel

Wildcard

Remember that all categories have equal merit, as do each of your wildcard picks...

I expect Ghandi to move to Rebel for the clear #1 slot. As a Leader he's second tier, as a Rebel, he's unmatched. Just my opinion.

I hear he threw a mean fastball too. Athlete