492
Trump reveals executive order requiring Pam Bondi to prosecute ‘anti-Christian bias'
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
492 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19885 readers
3253 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We don't really have evidence of Jesus' historicity. I mean absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but, all in all, there's pretty much zero direct evidence of his existence. Almost nothing that would point to historicity in the gospels is corroborated by archeology... like was Pilot a person who existed? Yes, very likely he was. Is there biographies of him? Yes, there are contemporaneous sources showing him to be real. Is there anything, outside of the gospels, recount him meeting Jesus in any capacity let alone a whole trial and execution? No, there's nothing like that. The whole scenario of Jesus' life as chronicled by the gospels doesn't hold up to scrutiny... sure, some of the people and many of the places do exist, but just because New York exists it doesn't mean Spiderman is real.
As for the early church, even Paul doesn't claim to have known a historic Jesus but rather only recounts experiences of visions of Jesus and angels.
We have multiple written testimonials, period artwork, and documentation of the resulting mass movement.
You could play the same game with Socrates. Dismiss the fragmented reproductions of - periodically contradictory and occasionally fantastical - accounts of the pupils of his pupils and he doesn't exist either. Indeed, there Socratic problem tackles the root challenge of reconstructing the veracity of a 2000 year old figure's existence. To complicate things, some of the earliest writings on Socrates known to exist are Gnostic Gospels (which contains fragments of a transcribed copy of Plato's Republic).
You disabuse yourself of historical Christian accounts at the peril of ignoring the accumulated history of the ancient world.
We have real life video accounts of people in costumes identical to that of the cartoon character climbing buildings. What's the line here? Are we saying nobody's ever gained superpowers from a radioactive spider? Or that nobody's ever dressed up in a costume like that to chase after petty criminals? Or that nobody's ever climbed a building in that iconic outfit?
If, two-thousand years from now, we discovered a written account of one of these performers along with a handful of comic book fragments discovered in a book case buried in a cave in the deserted island of Manhattan... what kind of conversation would you have?
If we then somehow managed to resurrect a snippet of footage what would be concluding, then?
You can dispute Magical Jesus with the same cavalier attitude as Spiderman. But this is more akin to disputing the existence of Eliot Ness by pointing to a stack of Dick Tracey cartoons and saying "Unbelievable!"