-->
@zedvictor4
Should drop the pirates outfit.
I think he is just saying that he is betting on the Buccaneers to win the Super Bowl again.
Go Bucs !
Republican Dan Crenshaw, yells at 10 year old girl .
Posts
Total:
44
-->
@RationalMadman
But Trump's a real good Christian.
I'm not sure trumps faith is relevant to crenshaw.
I will say Trump was raised in a new thought church, with similar belief systems as Neville Goddard.
-->
@thett3
-->@oromagiSo we agree that no hard evidence exists. We can also agree that its rational to suppose that Christ existed. My point is that in the absence of such evidence how can you fault an individual for claiming fiction?Because it's not reasonable to demand "hard evidence" for the existence of a historical person, while excluding historical texts and context. That same standard would exclude many (most?) important historical figures.
And many of those undocumented figures receive some fictional treatment by history and science. Agamemnon was certainly a real King but we can't say if he really entered into Troy in a wooden horse and its reasonable to demand "hard evidence" before insisting that the Gift of the Greeks was non-fiction.
a cursory Google search doesn't reveal messiah claimants BEFORE Jesus. On Josephus:
There were multiple Essene prophets before Christ. The most famous is John the Baptist. Multiple early Christian-like cults worshipped John as the Messiah and lasted through the second century. One small group called the Mandeans continue to worship John as the Messiah today. Josephus does document John's beheading by Herod although he does not specifically identify John as a Messiah claimant or any interactions with a Messiah named Jesus. John's baptism of Jesus is almost certainly a second century artifact written to combine the followers of John and the remaining Essenes into a Christian tradition.
they are pretty clearly referencing the same person and the same events, with some minor differences.
So, for example, Jesus' descriptions of a hermaphroditic god in the Monad or Aeon traditions are are a minor difference from the all-male Father/God of later editors?
There is no strong contender for who the historical Robin Hood would have been or the exact time period where he supposedly operated. The same goes for other characters in the stories such as Little John or the Sheriff of Nottingham, whereas we know (as much as we can "know" anything about ancient history) that Pontius Pilate and the Disciples really existed.
So, very like Jesus we know that there were multiple contemporaneous biographies claiming the same name and role but we have no hard evidence for a single individual biography suggesting preferment. Like Jesus, many contradicting traditions and claims arose in the centuries after. Like Pontius Pilate, we know that some of the Govt officials mentioned in the text were real and contemporary. Like the disciples, contemporary individuals with names like Will Scarlett do appear in church records and census data around Nottingham. Sounds very analogous to me. I guess I'm not surprised that if that this is a question of faith for you that you might weigh the evidence with a different scale than I but I think it is very reasonable to assert these two cases as analogous- and, as I say, the one that doesn't involve faith gets called fiction without much controversy. Personally, I don't find much fault in applying the same perspective to an analogous character in an analogous body of literature.
Because I put a lot of stock in oral tradition I believe that Robin Hood and his merry men existed in at least some capacity, but the evidence for it is soooooo much weaker than for Jesus despite England being notorious for record keeping, and the alleged events being literally 1000+ years closer to today
I disagree but I don't think your opinion is irrational. A good case can be made for the historicity of jesus(es). I think your bias is that particular theory can't be called fiction but I see no evidence proving that the same theory must be treated as non-fiction and would not fault the use of that adjective to describe the Bible.
Which takes us back to the question of religious testing for Congresspersons. The first sentence of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Since Crenshaw is prohibited by the Constitution from promoting Christianity publicly do you think its appropriate for constituents to demand such unconstitutional demonstrations? Do you think its appropriate for Citizens to be teaching 10 year old girls such unconstitutional practices?
Which takes us back to the question of religious testing for Congresspersons. The first sentence of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Since Crenshaw is prohibited by the Constitution from promoting Christianity publicly do you think its appropriate for constituents to demand such unconstitutional demonstrations? Do you think its appropriate for Citizens to be teaching 10 year old girls such unconstitutional practices?
This takes the cake for 'most retarded take on the First Ammendment'. Well done, you beat out a lot of strong contenders.
-->
@Wylted
I will say Trump was raised in a new thought church, with similar belief systems as Neville Goddard.
-->
@Wylted
In regards to crenshaw, he is being faulted for pretending to be a Christian when he thinks Jesus is fake, not for disbelief.
Given that one of any elected politicians main jobs is to represent and synthesize opposite and even mutually cancelling points of view, I don't generally fault politicians for hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is practically in the job description. Lincoln was an utter hypocrite when it came to the important issues of his day but he focused on the preservation of America as an democratic enterprise and experiment and is today remembered as our best president in spite of also being our most hypocritical president.
-->
@RationalMadman
Until you are familiar with how Neville Goddard's teaching are radically different than other variants of Christianity, than you won't be able to criticize his religion I'm a competent way
-->
@oromagi
Given that one of any elected politicians main jobs is to represent and synthesize opposite and even mutually cancelling points of view, I don't generally fault politicians for hypocrisy
You do this by speaking in enough generalities that others can attach their beliefs to you, not by lying LOL. Though the media does usually spin those general statements to have the least charitable interpretation, it's still a good way to do it.
Preferably though, you just argue your ideals well.enough that the majority of people adopt them and elect you.
-->
@oromagi
There were multiple Essene prophets before Christ. The most famous is John the Baptist. Multiple early Christian-like cults worshipped John as the Messiah and lasted through the second century. One small group called the Mandeans continue to worship John as the Messiah today. Josephus does document John's beheading by Herod although he does not specifically identify John as a Messiah claimant or any interactions with a Messiah named Jesus. John's baptism of Jesus is almost certainly a second century artifact written to combine the followers of John and the remaining Essenes into a Christian tradition.
Hold the phone, so John the Baptist is a real person, but "the consensus of global history, anthropology, theology, and science" is that Jesus was not a historical person? The reality is that the consensus is the exact opposite, that's all I'm saying. What you're saying about John the Baptist isn't really true, there is no evidence that John the Baptist was viewed as the Messiah prior to Jesus but it's besides the point really.
So, very like Jesus we know that there were multiple contemporaneous biographies claiming the same name and role but we have no hard evidence for a single individual biography suggesting preferment. Like Jesus, many contradicting traditions and claims arose in the centuries after. Like Pontius Pilate, we know that some of the Govt officials mentioned in the text were real and contemporary. Like the disciples, contemporary individuals with names like Will Scarlett do appear in church records and census data around Nottingham. Sounds very analogous to me. I guess I'm not surprised that if that this is a question of faith for you that you might weigh the evidence with a different scale than I but I think it is very reasonable to assert these two cases as analogous- and, as I say, the one that doesn't involve faith gets called fiction without much controversy. Personally, I don't find much fault in applying the same perspective to an analogous character in an analogous body of literature.
You're right that historians should apply the same methods to both of these stories, but you are completely wrong about the weight of the evidence in each. Robin Hood is a good example of a story that could be entirely made up. No established time period, mentions popping up all over the place in extremely contradictory manners, no other characters in the stories whose existence can be corroborated...compare this to the story of Jesus, where we know the exact time and place, the existence of characters who appear in the stories such as Pontius Pilate and the Disciples can be independently verified, and the behavior of the contemporaneous people indicates that the person surrounding the stories was real. We do NOT know who the "Sherriff of Nottingham" was (that is a generic office, not a person) but we do know that Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea at the time of the crucifixion. It just doesn't make sense that a cult would be started around a person who never existed, with the major storyline (his crucifixion) being something made up that the original population people were trying to convert would have been able to see with their own eyes, and that the Disciples who would knowingly be making this story up would be willing to die rather than recant. On the other hand it DOES make sense for peasants to make up a story about a cool outlaw who makes a fool out of the corrupt local establishment, and keep adding to the legend as the years go on. This is why historians overwhelmingly believe that there was a person named Jesus who was crucified, whereas Robin Hood is pretty much an unknown.
Which takes us back to the question of religious testing for Congresspersons. The first sentence of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Since Crenshaw is prohibited by the Constitution from promoting Christianity publicly do you think its appropriate for constituents to demand such unconstitutional demonstrations? Do you think its appropriate for Citizens to be teaching 10 year old girls such unconstitutional practices?
That has nothing to do with voters, it has to do with the state. A voter can choose not to vote for anyone who isn't a Christian if they want to
The original clip honestly seemed like poor wording more than anything else, but you still don't talk that way (especially if you are a politician). That is just common sense.
-->
@Lemming
Perhaps we should all start wearing an eyepatch.
If they make us look that cool.
Marketing opportunity perhaps.
The Crenshaw eyepatch, visiting and eBay near you soon.
A tricorn hat and a tailcoat would certainly complete the look.
And perhaps a cutlass and a parrot too.
John was a rival Messiah to Jesus. Since the Jesus of the apparitions and the gospels agree that the prophecy of Daniel that the Messiah was here had fulfilled itself they must have thought this Messiah was John.
Josephus has John the Baptist dying about 36 AD. The huge problem with this is that it flatly and completely contradicts the gospels. The gospels have Jesus being crucified about 33 AD. And they say John died before 33 AD. Herod Antipas married the wife of his brother Herod Philip after the death of this brother in 34 AD. The gospels say that John the Baptist condemned Herod Antipas for this marriage so this detail from the gospels backs up the year of John’s death given by Josephus. John did not die before Jesus.
Christians however prefer to say Josephus was the one that was wrong and the gospels were right. They have no evidence for this but they just assume it for they don’t want to admit their religion can be wrong. Josephus should be regarded as more reliable firstly because he was a professional historian and the gospellers didn’t claim to be professional historians. Josephus used records and we know he knew Jewish history well. We can’t say these things about the gospellers.
When the gospels lied that Jesus was alive when John died perhaps they lied about his entire connection to John. John may never have heard of him. They lied either because Jesus never existed and they wanted it to look like he did or because they wanted to take the crown of Messiah ship from the Baptist and give it to Jesus instead. They wanted to fake evidence that John looked up to Jesus and approved his mission. So a reason for the lie could have been the need to make it look like Jesus lived. “This man never lived but we have to make sure it looks as if he did for its over for us if people realise he was a fiction. So we will pin a murder on him for nobody would believe that we would do that to somebody we were making up. We won’t pin it on him too blatantly for we can ‘t make it too obvious.”
