A question about Mab.

[meany]

[If this has been asked before, please forgive my noobishness.]

Since Amber is the 'God' of Furrae(sp?) and Mab is Amber, does that make Mab Furrae's equivilant of Jesus?

[Darkmoon]

Amber Here:

The Mab of DMFA has long since outgrown her former role as Amber's personal avatar on Furcadia. To the point she is more or less her own character. As such, she has no significance with the comic-version of Amber.  Trust me, she already is her own lil Mary-Sue of hax, she doesn't need the help.

[127.0.0.2]

Not that the range of her powers would be significantly smaller though... 

[WhiteFox]

Not that the range of her powers would be significantly smaller though... 

Smaller? I dunno. Jesus never nuked nobody. Or plane-shift.

[Netrogo]

Smaller? I dunno. Jesus never nuked nobody. Or plane-shift.

That`s what they want you to think. Personally Teh Jebus nuking people and covering it up would probably explain why so many conservatives are obsessed with government cover ups and laying waste to small nations with explosives.

[Ren Gaulen]

Smaller? I dunno. Jesus never nuked nobody. Or plane-shift.

That`s what they want you to think. Personally Teh Jebus nuking people and covering it up would probably explain why so many conservatives are obsessed with government cover ups and laying waste to small nations with explosives.

Nah! Jesus was more of a healer and/or support than a nuker. The one doing the nuking was Judas! He has always been a mean mofo.

[Tapewolf]

Smaller? I dunno. Jesus never nuked nobody. Or plane-shift.

One of the earlier projects I was working on before my DMFA projects pushed it aside involved a church based around a very twisted vision of Christianity.  I had a lot of fun writing the new gospels and in one of these, he actually did cause a thermonuclear explosion (a'la the destruction of Sodom).  The most difficult part was describing the mushroom cloud in a King-James style since there are no references to fungi in the Bible.

Fiction aside, the only extant accounts of Christ's childhood describe him killing a number of people (although to be fair, he also performs a number of resurrections including some of his victims).
http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html

[Fuyudenki]

Personally, I consider those to be non-canon, but then, I'm decidedly not an authority on such things.

Mostly, though, the water->wine stunt is supposed to officially be the first miracle Jesus performed, and he protested at that, as if he wasn't supposed to be performing miracles before he started his preaching.  Resurrections don't happen a whole lot in the Bible.  I don't think the Gospel of Thomas is particularly credible, personally.

(This is, of course, assuming that you think the rest of the Bible's credible at all, and I'm not discussing that.  If you don't believe it now, you won't if God himself slaps you across the face.)

[Jakon]

Smaller? I dunno. Jesus never nuked nobody. Or plane-shift.

That`s what they want you to think. Personally Teh Jebus nuking people and covering it up would probably explain why so many conservatives are obsessed with government cover ups and laying waste to small nations with explosives.

Nah! Jesus was more of a healer and/or support than a nuker. The one doing the nuking was Judas! He has always been a mean mofo.

But only because Peter was such a good tank. Srsly, he saved both of their asses so many times.

[Fuyudenki]

Peter's always been my favorite Apostle.

[TheAuldGrump]

Not that the range of her powers would be significantly smaller though... 

Smaller? I dunno. Jesus never nuked nobody. Or plane-shift.

This last might be argued with, theologically... Bodily Ascension is part of the Catechism. Nuking... not so much (though whipping the moneylenders in the temple does demonstrate a willingness towards violence).

The Auld Grump, rather lapsed Catholic....

[Cogidubnus]

Fiction aside, the only extant accounts of Christ's childhood describe him killing a number of people (although to be fair, he also performs a number of resurrections including some of his victims).
http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html

The gospels of Thomas, Judas, Truth, and various others, are Gnostic texts. Most of them were found at the Nag Hammadi dig site along with 120 other books (if I recall correctly), which were not necessarily gospels, but rather religious texts. They are not Christian, but rather Gnostic in origin, which was an early church heresy which mixed elements of Christianity with platonic philosophy. Although it's been some time, and I've forgotten the exact figures, I know that all the gnostic texts that have ever been found have been dated at or after 200 A.D., while we have texts of the canonized gospels that date eighty years to a century and twenty years earlier, depending on who you ask.
All to say, there's a reason why we don't hold it canon. It's not hidden gospels, it's Gnosticism.

[Caswin]

Smaller? I dunno. Jesus never nuked nobody. Or plane-shift.

That`s what they want you to think. Personally Teh Jebus nuking people and covering it up would probably explain why so many conservatives are obsessed with government cover ups and laying waste to small nations with explosives.

Uh?  I thought it was usually the wackier of the left-wingers that tended to obsess over those.

[AmigaDragon]

(though whipping the moneylenders in the temple does demonstrate a willingness towards violence).

Rather than calling it violence, I'd call it chastisement or correction. More like a mere spanking or slap on the wrist (considering his power).

[Rafe]

First off, I'm really enjoying this discussion.  Lots of knowledgeable people here.

Smaller? I dunno. Jesus never nuked nobody. Or plane-shift.

That`s what they want you to think. Personally Teh Jebus nuking people and covering it up would probably explain why so many conservatives are obsessed with government cover ups and laying waste to small nations with explosives.

Let's see, over the past hundred years, the wars for the U.S. presidential administrations have started like this:

World War I        Woodrow Wilson   -   Liberal

World War II       Franklin Roosevelt   -  Liberal

Korean War         Harry Truman   -   Liberal

Vietnam War      Lyndon Johnson  -   Liberal

Serbia/Kosovo    W.J. Clinton   -   Liberal

Iraq I                  G H W Bush   -   Conservative

Iraq II                 G W Bush   -   Conservative

I'd say the liberals are way ahead in terms of bombing. 

Coverup-wise, I'd say things are more even.  You hear about more from conservatives though, because with liberals, the press helps them cover it up.

[Eibborn]

I'm not sure that I'd consider the World Wars "laying waste to small nations with explosives," personally. Also, wasn't the Gulf War a UN thing? Lead by the States, true, but supported by the UN.
Beyond that, carry on.
Unless someone wants to correct me? I was right around two at the time the most recent of these took place.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

No, actually. The Gulf War was a "The US wants to invade, so let's inveigle the rest of the UN into agreeing" - at least GWv2.0, anyway. The earlier one was UN led, in response to a request for help from Kuwait, after Iraq invaded.

Note that, amongst other things, the US didn't bother waiting for the rest of the UN the second time, and that the Iraqi invasion was performed extremely shortly after they decided to stop taking USD for oil, and take Euros instead.

If everyone in the area did the same, the USD would plummet so fast you'd get whiplash from watching the stockbrokers following it out windows...


*cough*

[Cvstos]

Kosovo was also a NATO/UN thing, and Korea asked for help.  Since they were WWII allies, we helped. 

Vietnam was a mess any way you slice it.  LBJ made the mistake of getting deeply involved (we were already a little involved for some time) and Nixon made the worse mistake of staying involved.  We didn't get out until 1975, under Ford.

Anything pre-WWI and the ideas we have of what defines Democrats and Republicans don't apply.  It can get odd.  Especially when you consider that way back in the day, Democrats were called Republicans.  Literally. 

llearch is also correct about the while oil/Euro thing.

Still, that's getting waaaay off-topic.  But then, this IS the DMFA forums.  One has to expect a little randomness here and there.

[CameronCN]

Vietnam was a mess any way you slice it.  LBJ made the mistake of getting deeply involved (we were already a little involved for some time) and Nixon made the worse mistake of staying involved.  We didn't get out until 1975, under Ford.

Whut?! No, Nixon was the one who got us out, not Ford. Remember "Peace with honor?" Yes, the war ended when Ford was president, but we'd withdrawn years before Saigon fell.

[Cvstos]

Yep, you're right.  I'm only half-right.

Nixon did withdraw but it took him until after his election to a 2nd term.  So he did make the mistake of staying in for several extra years.

My bad.  It's what I get for posting when I'm dead tired.

[Rafe]

As far as Nixon staying in the war, it wasn't a mistake.  During his first term, he drastically stepped up bombing the North, mined the harbor at Haiphong, and took action against supply lines running through Cambodia.  The result was that the North Vietnamese decided to negotiate, and signed the Paris cease-fire, which essentially ended the war.  The U.S. gradually withdrew its troops, but signed an agreement to return if any hostilities started up again. 

When Nixon resigned after the Watergate scandal in 1974 and a large Democrat majority was elected to congress, the North Vietnamese decided to move into the south.  The Democrat congress refused to honor the alliance with the South and seeing that, the communists took over in Vietnam and Cambodia - leading to the "Killing Fields" genocide under Pol Pot there, where something like 2 million civilians were killed.