What is the last thing you cooked? How did it come out?

Phaz

I just cooked 3 kinds of salmon via sous vide. One was a teriyaki, another a soy/brown sugar and the last was a honey/lime/dijon. They were all pretty good but not as good as on the grill on a cedar plank.

Phaz

My grandmother has some awesome recipes she perfected over her 96 years of life. I've had several people ask for them, and have had no problem sharing them.

She was the kind of woman that was always smiling and always cooking for others. She'd never make a batch of soup for just her family for instance, she'd make a little extra and take it to the neighbors or to someone at her church. She'd want me to share them, so that's what I do.

Phaz

If anyone wants a serious answer, this is what I have heard.

I'm sure it's not the case for all Christians, but those I have talked to about this basically say that an Atheist more or less deserves the punishment they receive. It's God who awards that punishment, and you can't really blame him. When people do bad/wrong things, they deserve a punishment for it. The Christians I know would be content in heaven with a loved one who they know won't be there because they know in their heart that everyone is fallen and those people were never saved.

Note, this comes from the Calvinist perspective where we all deserve eternal torment for our sins, and it's just God's Grace that saves some.

They are ok with the punishment loved ones who aren't in heaven will receive because they think they are deserving of it (we all are), so that is how they internally justify it to themselves.

Phaz

Come on. We all know we can take biblical quotes out of context.

Let's be fair. There is plenty to criticize with the bible when you take it in context. Doing this makes us look bad. Any half knowledgeable Christian can easily dismiss the point. It's basically the equivalent to them saying we believe that we came from monkeys and that something can come from nothing.

Phaz

I've found for all the things that sit on your counter Amazon is a good resource. For each thing you could want there is typically a fairly decently priced set that is very highly reviewed. Such as these knives and this slow cooker.

I can't help you much with "healthy" food choices, I like meat :)

Phaz

Has anyone tried grinding their own meat? Does it make the difference people seem to say?

Phaz

I wish I could find duck breasts in my super market. All they ever have is a full frozen duck, if that.

Phaz

Just to clarify. Have the scientists and scholars concluded that there was a man named Jesus who the Jesus in the bible was based off of, or that the Jesus from the bible was a real person and everything he said/did occurred in the way the bible says it does?

The 1st I've already said I agree upon. The 2nd is what I bring into question. I don't think scientists and scholars have concluded the 2nd, but I can see them concluding the first. I'd imagine if they did conclude the 2nd I'd of heard about it by now.

Phaz

Is this from personal experience? What specifically would make it not so? Skill required? Time? Cost?

Phaz

It should cause doubt in your mind because I would hope that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in order for you to believe them.

As I said below, I am willing to concede that a guy named Jesus may have existed (I'm not 100% sold on it but also not 100% ruling it out). What I won't concede is that the Jesus of the bible did. There isn't anywhere near the evidence necessary to support that claim IMO. Whether there was a real guy named Jesus who didn't do all those things really isn't of much importance to me.

We have plenty of first hand source material of people from around that time period in that area. People who were arguably much less important that Jesus.

I don't believe there is even any surviving artwork of Jesus from the time period he was alive. Are you telling me this guy was walking around healing the sick and performing all kinds of miracles with a fairly large following and no one took the time to make a portrait or sculpture of him? (or write down any of the miracles he did) all the people present in the bible when these things occurred just went on about their day afterwords?

Here's another example. Do you believe in Herod's Massacre of the Innocents? The bible says he called for the execution of all male children in Bethlehem. You would think something like that would leave an impact on history. However, we don't really have any evidence of it. Josephus was very critical of Herod and highlighted his ruthlessness and mentions how he would slaughter his family and women and children to protect his power. However, he doesn't mention anything about Herod ordering the killing of every male child in Bethlehem. Doesn't that seem suspicious to you? We know quite a bit about what he did in his lifetime, but no reference to that. We know he made his brother in law a high priest and then later orders him killed. We know about an earthquake that hit during his reign and him switching allegiance from Mark Antony to Octavian. We know he planed to murder his wife and she stopped sleeping with him and he then tried her for adultery. We know an assassination attempt was made. We know he brought in grain from Egypt to combat hunger and disease and reduced taxes by 1/3rd. It goes on and on and on. We know all kinds of things about his life and his reign, but not one of those sources mentions this massacre, which you think would be news. But maybe that's just me...

Phaz

I did listen to the interview. (at least part 1, doing part 2 now)

What I hear is the interviewer asking for the "hardcore" evidence for Jesus and the expert, instead of giving an answer, just hops to comparisons to Caesar and Lincoln. We have IMO "hardcore" evidence of those people. Things that were made during their time documenting their activities. That is pretty strong evidence. Someone writing about someone else after the fact based on something they heard is IMO not evidence.

A lot of people think there was a popular rabbi at the time named Jesus who things are based off of, but all the miracles and everything is embellished and didn't actually happen. I see nothing in this interview that says this 'expert' doesn't share that same opinion. Which as I said, is irrelevant. If there was some guy who shared the name who had a following but was a normal guy (though admittedly one worthy of a following) that doesn't really mean much. What matters is if there was a Jesus who did all the things the bible claims for him to have done.

There doesn't seem to be any (non biblical) evidence of that. Yes, I haven't studied this exclusively for years like 'experts' but I would think that if there was strong, concrete evidence of him existing from the time he was around, it would be very well known because people would bring it up when this question arises and end the debate. Instead, most people site Josephus as "evidence" from a non-biblical source. That evidence is very very weak. If there was something stronger, it would be used. There isn't, which makes me think it doesn't exist. I don't have to be an expert to let that lead me to feel qualified to conclude my position.

The guy even admits that we don't have any ancient records of people who wrote about him while he was alive. He even says "no, absolutely not (we don't have any)" at about 4 minutes in. Basically what I gather from this guy is that he says a lot of people wrote a lot about a guy who lived who was named Jesus. I don't think that evidence is conclusive, but I will admit it says something, and agree with them on that point. He says he's not a believer and not a Christian, which makes me think he believes that he falls into this group and there was a normal guy named Jesus who may of been a good teacher but he didn't do all the things the bible claims.

I'm willing to say there is a chance that people wrote about a guy named Jesus and that guy did exist. I am not willing to say he performed all the miracles the bible said he did, because there isn't any evidence of those other than these writings done after the fact. Me writing about my dad will likely give you a good amount of evidence that he is a real person and tell you a little bit about him. However, if I make any extraordinary claims, such as him being the strongest dad in the world who could beat up any other dad and who once killed a 100 foot long shark with his bare hands, I would hope that you would require a little more evidence of those facts before believing it.

So, if all these 'thousands' of scholars and historians all have concrete solid evidence of Jesus existing, I ask you to show me and clear up my ignorance. Show me something that concretely proves the existence of the Jesus of the Bible.

Phaz

What is the historical evidence that leads to the historical fact of Jesus?

Too me, when compared with Abraham Lincoln and Julius Cesar and other figures, there is a difference. We have things from Abraham Lincoln's and Julius Cesar's time about them existing. The evidence we have for them was made while they were living and doing what they are famous for. That IMO is very strong evidence that they exist.

From what I know and understand (And I'll admit I might be very ignorant on the subject) there isn't anything from the time Jesus was alive that shows he was real. At least nothing conclusive. You would think if there was a guy who was walking around performing miracles of the kinds he was supposedly doing, and rose from the dead, etc. someone would of written something down or made some paintings or something. We have all kinds of information about other people/events/etc from the period. We have stuff from Herod from the time he was alive, as well as Josephus and Pontius Pilate and Caesar Augustus and Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and many more. We even know that Octavian (aka Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus) reformed the roman tax system, developed a courier system and developed roads, was declared by the senate to be a God, and even tried to divorce his wife which he said was never consummated.

Yes, that was a long time ago, and lots of stuff was lost, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But the point remains, we have found a crap ton of information about all kinds of people and events from that time period, that were recorded during that time period. Some of those people were obviously famous (rulers, etc) others are probably more famous now than they were then (i.e. Josephus). However, we have AFAIK no evidence like that about Jesus. The guy who rose from the dead, cured the blind, walked on water, fed huge crowds with bread and wine, brought the dead back to life, and had a fairly large following for doing all this, doesn't have that record.

This is the guy that many people today would say the single most important person to ever walk the Earth, and the most amazing person to ever live. You would expect to find all kinds of evidence outside religious texts documenting this stuff, but we can't.

The best we have to go on is a few writings that were written years after his death, and decrees from churches and artwork made centuries later. Doesn't that cause any doubt in your mind?

There isn't any evidence that a guy named Jesus didn't exist, but there certainly also isn't any convincing, real, evidence that the Jesus did. Frankly, a random person (or persons) named Jesus that some stories may of been based on being real doesn't really mean anything if he does. It's insignificant. What is significant is the debate about the Jesus doing all the things that people believe he does, and in this case I don't think the evidence really supports it.

Phaz

I've heard a lot of the big name chefs talk of searing before and after. Before to kill all the bacteria before you cook it (lower than 130 degrees is a good temp for bacteria to grow and multiply like crazy) since most (all?) the bacteria in steak is found on the exposed sides. You don't need to sear it a lot, just take a torch to it and hit the sides with enough heat to kill everything, then bring the temp down and seal it, then cook, then sear again for that nice look/taste.

Phaz

I"m using one of the Sous Vide Supreme units (link). I've yet to see a bad review of one. The device itself works perfect as advertised, my water temp doesn't drift by more than 0.3f in any direction anywhere inside for the most part.

I just got it this week and have been trying things out almost every night since then. I still have a lot to learn I think, it's not quite as easy and simple as it first sounds. Tonight is scallops and lobster :)

Phaz

I did some sous vide steaks (fillets) last night and was quite disappointed. They were incredibly tender and moist, but not juicy. From what I can gather so far, my mistake was leaving them in too long. Even though people say you can safely leave it in at 131 for a longer period of time, it's not a good idea too.

I'm going to try a ribeye at 125 for about an hour, and another fillet at 125 for 3-4 hours and see how those turn out.

Phaz

Yeah, that is a really great read. From what I can tell the guy is pretty much using the exact same method, but he's covering the pot.

The one thing the guy in the video gets wrong is that the water amount is key. If he did this with more water than he does, they would over cook. Once you get the water amount nailed though this will work great.

Phaz

If you are wondering what it would be like, Dom Jolly has done this a few times on the (awesome) Trigger Happy Tv show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1RD1IUdq6s

Phaz

is it just me or has the search been broken for weeks? Every single time I try I get the message about the servers being over loaded.

Phaz

So submit more stuff you want to see, and downvote stuff you don't, just like any other subreddit.

Phaz

Discriminate against the child and deny them education for who his/her parents are. That's what Jesus would do..... right?

Phaz

Not quite unanimity, but close enough. It only makes sense (to me) that if you are going to have everyone follow something, they should agree to it of their own free will. If it's really worth enforcing to everyone it shouldn't be that hard to convince almost everyone.

I don't want other people making decisions for me when I am perfectly capable of making them myself, thus, it seems only fair and moral that I don't make decisions for other people that they are capable of making themselves. I think 90% of our legislation oversteps this boundary.

I agree with this article by Penn Jillette a whole lot. It seems common sense. I'm shocked more people don't feel that way.

Gridlock would be great. Chances are if almost everyone doesn't agree on something then it's not really that pressing is it?

Phaz

I don't think the system works at all. See my above reply to TerryDactyl.

A "simple majority" means that just over 1/2 the population decides something for the other 1/2. I have a problem with that. If you can't convince me that I should live my life a certain way on merit, why use the law to force me to? Do you like it when people do the same thing to you?

Phaz

I do remember that, and I'm just as upset with them.

The Law is something everyone has to follow. They aren't suggestions, they are rules. I don't think a 51% (or even 60%) "majority" is enough to determine that. If you can't convince almost everyone that something should be law, then you are just forcing your way of life onto the rest of them. I have a problem with that, regardless of which party is behind it. I'm shocked more people don't.

You didn't like it when the Republicans used a small majority to force you to adhere to all your bull shit and making decisions for you, so why would you be ok with doing the same thing to them?

Phaz

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login