This is a very difficult subject to debate properly. Any other subject, let's say some medical science related topic, would require consulting more than one source for your information. If you think about it, would you take a prescription drug that only one book said was good? Or would you need many different sources (journals, studies, etc)? Now think about the airbag in your car. Would you rely on it without knowing that many, many different tests, studies and experiments were done to prove its efficacy? Or the car seat for your children? Or, or, or...
Your statement says, in more words, that jesus is god, the bible tells me so, the bible is the word of god, so it must be true. If you are going to take the bible literally, why don't you have a whole bunch of wives? Maybe sacrifice some animals, too? I think that the bible is worth more as a piece of literature than as a book for leading people in their beliefs. So, to answer the original question, he was just a preacher, fictional or otherwise.

I oppose your statement based solely on the fact that you should indeed be judging. On this site anyway. :)
I regretted adding this debate as soon as I clicked create debate. It is rather stupid, if I say so myself. I was hoping to lure some fundies into another doomed topic... Oh, well.

I don't think that this needs to be an all or nothing proposition; just get rid of the unnecessary/voluntary pollutants.

I'll argue for this side, too. Well, I won't argue, but I'll show you how some on the other side do argue for their god's involvement in government. Check out the video in the link for a word for word recitation of just what Illinois State Rep. Monique Davis has to say about god in her state.

Absolutely. Thomas Jefferson put it quite succinctly:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
What doesn't the other side get? Thomas Jefferson said it and meant it.

It really helps when I am thinking about how to respond; if I can poke holes in my own argument, so can (almost) anyone.

The burden of proof lies on you, not me. You brought it up, you back it up. I would love to rebut your quotes or statistics, but you provided none.
Please read the "Appeal to Authority" entries (and the others as well, there's lots of great stuff there) on the following page to better understand your own argument: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Racing to ban TV. Now you're talking. I put mine away about two months ago and it feels great.
I would like to take this opportunity to quote the Marijuanalogues: "I used to get high on life, but I built up a tolerance."

The article also mentioned fine particulate matter being higher than that of the diesel exhaust, not just CO2. As for the use of cigarettes, it is voluntary (I guess that driving could be considered voluntary as well). If smoking cigarettes isn't necessary and the act is causing harm, why not get rid of it all together? And if you really want to check out the banning of humans, this site should be right up your alley: http://www.vhemt.org/

Embed test for History of Marijuana video