I just read through this whole thread, which I have been avoiding as the number of posts suggested it was turning into a theology-slinging match, as indeed it has, sort of.

I thought the Barrett Brown piece was durn funny, and I hope to see more of his writing in the future. It's called political satire, folks. It wouldn't be funny if it didn't ruffle a few feathers. And if everybody thought it was funny, it wouldn't be satire at all. It would be a freakin miracle. (Then I'd have to reassess my belief system, and that would just piss me off.)

Many interesting personal takes have been revealed. Just amazes little old atheist me how many different passions are aroused by putting that JC guy in a different satirical context. I have a hard time figuring that out, particularly the question of how people in the year 2000 know what an Eastern mystic "really meant" two millennia ago. (And why it matters. It doesn't to me; obviously it matters very deeply to some of you, and others don't have a spiritual commitment to the question but think you know what he was about anyway. Not trying to be critical, as such--I just don't get ANY of it.)

A bunch of personal remarks snipped here. Maybe I'll send a couple of personals.

Maybe not...

you never know with
Willie-O