Strictly Street

They are still not releasing the name of the rider as of the 11 o'clock news.

Zombies are supposed to be caused by some kind of virus according to the movies I've seen. Which brings up another question. Wouldn't a good hard frost kill them also? Or at least slow them down a bit being cold or no blooded?

You make lite of the of the book I picked up.

<Chuckle> - Didn't say that. I said I don't think we will all agree. Didn't claim to know the mind of God either or for that matter to have authority over anything. Some people know more about scripture than I do, some less. By no means am I a theologian or scholar of antiquities such as Egyptology. It all started when I picked up this book and started to read it...

Good point I stand corrected. Of course then we would have to agree on who that "accepted Christian authority" is. Which I don't think is going to happen.

Your assertion that "I understand not wanting to look into it any further" is clearly wrong as I have done so for the past comment as well as this one. For example the "Virgin Birth" that you cite as proof that the one story was copied from the other doesn't really fit. You can draw parallels but that's about it. Isis sewed together the pieces parts of Osiris which his brother Seth had chopped up and nailed into a coffin. Not crucified, chopped up and nailed into a coffin. Then she had sex with him to conceive Horus. Opps! Almost forgot the part about her turning into a bird and fanning life back into the Frankenstein like corpse. Whom she then had sex with and then he/it promptly died. So you do have a kind of resurrection there, but about that virgin birth part. She had sex with him. Having sex = not a virgin. So it’s sex with a coma patient or necrophilia — not your classic virgin-birth story either way. It seems that you are getting most of this from Gerald Massey, who wrote "Ancient Egypt, The Light of the World" in 1907. Which got about as much credibility from scholars then and now as Dan Brown does with "The Da Vinci Code". Interesting, even captivating in it's intricacy but missing a quite few key points. Of course you might say that the story was changed to fool the stupid bronze age goat herders into believing in the "magical sky fairy". But why? They were Jews who already believed in God. That the Roman Emperor Constantine needed a way control the masses beyond the army that he had. Again why? Either way it starts to be a stretch. In any case I am not having a "crisis of faith" over your comments. I'm more puzzled over why you are so angry about this topic? Why you have to refute every comment made that doesn't agree with yours? Even more importantly, why do you even care? You do say you don't believe in God which is a belief that stands on it's own. This makes your comments seem all the more curious. If you don't believe in God what do you care what anybody else believes? Unless of course you just love to argue. Which might be a possible answer to the question of "Why do you even care"? Perhaps you don't. If so, why are we talking about it?

<crickets> Still waiting for the explanation of how this is saving us all that lovely money too. Sure sounded like a nice idea, but the nuts and bolts of it all seem to be the problem.

The pin plug to RCA cables work well enough if you don't move them around all the time and mess up the jack. What is worth what is up to you but low wi-fi signal strength will drop you from 1080p. Then again most Netflix is 720 anyway and you'll never notice the difference on an older TV. Spend some time on the Roku site reading about multiple boxes on the same account (email address registered). Never tried it so I don't know how well it works.

From the angry atheist pages as a source, sure. Lets try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[7][8] or sometimes by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account (see Osiris) used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus[9] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving). Once Isis knew she was pregnant with Horus, she fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.[10] There Isis bore a divine son, Horus. Not a war Magley just a comment. I can't help but believe at this point you are typing just to hear the sound of the keyboard. Seriously, making such claims when they can be so easily shot down with Wikipedia of all things? I did like the teapot thing though, nice imagery. Have a good day Sir.

Make sure your wi-fi works ok in the basement unless you are going wired. Note the difference in Roku 2 XS vs Roku 2 XD XS: XD Don't get the wrong one. From the front they look very similar. They both have the HDMI and the A/V out. But only one has Ethernet.

All Roku channels http://www.roku.com/channels#!browse/movies-and-tv/by-popular I've been using a Roku for over a year now. I think it's great. I can stream video from my pc using PLEX or use Netflix or the like. Netflix now allows more than one user although I don't take advantage of this feature. They have a lot of free channels, a few pay channels such as Netflix and some sports channels. The News channels really bring what is a news service into focus, they are broken up into the individual shows. Also some like Crackle which is free but has commercials. (crackle.com) They also have some of the standard cable channels but you will be watching last weeks episodes. OTOH, you can download just about anything you want and stream it to the box if you want with PLEX. Seems all the newer ones are wi-fi but they seem to work ok with it. If you want to go with wired ethernet you'll have to dig around fleabay for one of the older boxes or go with the new Roku 3. You can use it with your smartphone although I haven't tried that feature so I couldn't say how well it works. Roku vs. Time Warner, the box paid for itself the first month and after that it's all gravy. I took some adjustment but I don't 'Channel Surf' anymore which saves me a bunch of time.

No real concrete evidence that he didn't either. But the original topic was one man saying he found evidence from antiquity saying it was all a conspiracy. You clearly believe that one man but I have to wonder if it is true, how come this revelation hasn't been heard before? Think of the number of theories about the Kennedy assassination. Tin foil hats out of the wood work! I don't think people can keep a secret long enough to make this guys claim credible. Somebody would have said something about this long ago and it would have become common knowledge long before this.

The # 1 guy investigated guy ever, gets a pass as a guy that was invented. Sounds legit to me. Original topic not #magley64

Still riding

^^^ This

Now your just arguing to argue. Sigh, your factually incorrect. Although I have to admit you have brought up some good questions. To nice of a day to spend it at the keyboard.

It's not an either or concept. You don't seem to have a problem with Jews being Jews even after Jesus. Yet he was born a Jew. Does that mean then that as soon as Christianity appeared there were no more Jews? I'm just not getting your logic here.

And After reading back through a bunch of posts I realized where the dis-connect is and why people are having such a hard time with these concepts. No it's not the "true Scotsman" fallacy, although I now see why you thought that. And I see why there is confusion on what beliefs are what. So simple once I figured out what people were saying, so here goes. Jesus being the Messiah and saying that no one could get to Heaven except through him and dying on the cross for all sins started Christianity. At that time there were Christians, Jews etc. After some amount of time there were other groups for the sake of illustration let's say Roman Catholics. Are they Christian based? Yes. Are they the original Christians? No, they are not. Are there original Christians walking around at this point in history? Yes there are. But they do not call themselves Roman Catholics they are still Christians.. So now we have two groups that may have started with the same thing but now are different. Saying one is the same as the other is factually incorrect. So saying that Catholics and Lutherans are Christians makes it seem that all three groups believe the same thing which is not true. But what about the first group that is in fact Christian? Did they cease to exist because there are now new names for the two new kids on the block? No they did not. Are they still Christians? Yes they still are. That they all use some of the same things does not make them the same. Its the all fords are cars but not all cars are fords generalization trap. So here is where the problems happen. When the groups in question are all assumed to be the same because they have some of the same things involved in their beliefs that started at a common point. Kinda like this. I have a car Oh, you have a model T Um, no But it has wheels right? Yes it does. So it's a model t, right? No. It says Ford on the front right? Yes Then it's model t, right? No. It has an engine, right? Yes. So it's a model t, right? Anyway you see where I'm going with this one. It's Taurus or a Crown Vic. whatever, but not a model t. There are straight up Christians out there right now today. There are straight up Catholics right now today out there too. But they are not the same in their beliefs. Saying that a Roman Catholic is a Christian is just not true. Saying Roman Catholics are Christian based is true. The disconnect I believe is that most people don't know that there are original Christians still walking around today. I hope your following along with this and I'm being clear enough here to get the point across. There are many Christian based religions out there but they are not the original Christianity. Lumping them all together under one name ignores and dis-enfranchises the people who follow the original Christianity.

Interesting, so does that mean that Catholics aren't Christians as they put their church before God? Or are they Christians but just doing it wrong? Not sure what you mean by this.

Do you mean to say that they both consider the other to also be correct? Or that they are the correct ones and the other is not? Your statement could be taken either way. I don't know about the Scotsman fallacy, sounds like you were in debate club in school. I'll have to look that up.

Interesting argument. I see where you're going with this something like all fords are cars but not all cars are fords. But let's take a look at it. Just because someone says something does not make it true. Jeremiah 14:14 Then the Lord said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds. David Koresh said he was a Christian. So did Jim Jones. Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker too. Do you think they really were? I'll give you that they might have even thought they were but were they? An interesting note of sorts, the generic or original Christianity goes something like this: Jesus died for all people to forgive their sins past present and future. Free will allows you to accept or reject this free offer. If you accept you are saved if not you aren't. So the real question is does the religion in question say this? Then the next question is something like this: Why are there so many versions of or as you put it sub sets of the main religion? We have to consider that their message might be different. If so, they might not be the real deal. If they are not, see the quote above. Yea, the quote is out of context but I think it stands on it's own. Not sure about the Suni vs. Shiite Muslim question. I'll have to ask a friend about that one. They may or may not consider themselves branches of the same faith.

My 2cents is for the Arrow low mount.

You are correct hair splitting to be sure, however consider why don't we call all of them Abrhamic and leave it at that? Minor differences have major differences in meaning which in turn effect the results. They can't all be right at the same time, can they? So I do think it does make a difference.