Santorum - Thoughts?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

OrangeAggie

Assistant to the Moderater
A/V Subscriber
Feb 6, 2004
19,967
14,810
1,743
Edmond
Maybe we should rejoin this in about 20 years when you don't feel the need to be personal about it.
Are you taking this personally? You shouldn't, but if you are really as logical and reasonable as you continuously claim, then you know that none of those sources stand up as legit evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazarath.

For someone who supposedly had such an enormous impact on the region, the fact that there are no documents originating from the temple in Jerusalem is the most puzzling thing to me if Jesus was in fact the character the Bible claims he was.
 

panhandler62

Territorial Marshal
Mar 26, 2008
7,646
868
743
Martinsburg, WV
Are you taking this personally? You shouldn't, but if you are really as logical and reasonable as you continuously claim, then you know that none of those sources stand up as legit evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazarath.

For someone who supposedly had such an enormous impact on the region, the fact that there are no documents originating from the temple in Jerusalem is the most puzzling thing to me if Jesus was in fact the character the Bible claims he was.
I take it personally when you talk about me instead of about the discussion.

You said there were no extra-biblical sources. I rattled off a list. That you consider them non-convincing doesn't mean they aren't sources. Also; you have vacillated on the point of the existence of the man, several times allowing as to his likely existence and several times denying such. Can I request that you take a stand or at least admit not having a stand on that issue?

I would consider the argument of historical evidence of divinity to be distinct from the argument for the actual existence of the man, Yeshua. On the issue of divinity; there is no measurable evidence; there is only faith.

I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the man did live. Clearly; he got "greek-a-fied" in the Pauline churches, "romanized" by Constantine and then anglicized a few centuries after that, but it does appear that sufficient Biblical, extra-biblical, "heretical" and secular references exist to conclude that the legend was not drawn out of thin air.
 

PokesPeak

scentless apprentice
Aug 21, 2009
17,263
21,867
743
OKC
You generally begin with a personal attack/straw man, and beat around the bush regarding your own opinions. The majority of your posts are contrarian to what someone else has said, but generally don't address what you think is an alternative, they are just further attacks on what another poster thinks. That is why I have a tendency to get agitated with you quickly.
this for eternity :thumbup:
 

OrangeAggie

Assistant to the Moderater
A/V Subscriber
Feb 6, 2004
19,967
14,810
1,743
Edmond
I take it personally when you talk about me instead of about the discussion.

You said there were no extra-biblical sources. I rattled off a list. That you consider them non-convincing doesn't mean they aren't sources. Also; you have vacillated on the point of the existence of the man, several times allowing as to his likely existence and several times denying such. Can I request that you take a stand or at least admit not having a stand on that issue?

I would consider the argument of historical evidence of divinity to be distinct from the argument for the actual existence of the man, Yeshua. On the issue of divinity; there is no measurable evidence; there is only faith.

I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the man did live. Clearly; he got "greek-a-fied" in the Pauline churches, "romanized" by Constantine and then anglicized a few centuries after that, but it does appear that sufficient Biblical, extra-biblical, "heretical" and secular references exist to conclude that the legend was not drawn out of thin air.
I never said there weren't extra Biblical sources, that was someone else. There are certainly sources, but they prove nothing except that Christians were around in 100 ace. As to whether I believe that Jesus existed as a man, I think it's possible, but I also think because of the lack of evidence that he could just a easily be a myth.
 
Aug 19, 2006
1,497
255
1,713
Springfield, MO
You were the first to bring up religion in this thread.
I was answering a question honestly about Rick Santorum and what makes him unpalatable for so many voters. His carrying of his religious views on his sleeve is well documented and his positions on social issues are points of contention among many people, even those within his own political party.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,087
17,701
1,743
I was answering a question honestly about Rick Santorum and what makes him unpalatable for so many voters. His carrying of his religious views on his sleeve is well documented and his positions on social issues are points of contention among many people, even those within his own political party.
Why bring up religion and not the issue's that bother you? Specifically what issues?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,087
17,701
1,743
Theocratic fascism bothers me.
I'm not understanding why you think that. What is it he has done or said to make you think that? I understand there have been a lot of these attacks and statements regarding Santorum from the left, which is what I was pointing out earlier regarding who uses religion in a political sense, but really what has Santorum done or said to make you think that.

I don't know if he has or not? Honestly though it's like me calling Obama a statist but not giving any specific reasons that lead me to believe that other than he's a liberal or some such nonesense.
 

OSUndefeated

Federal Marshal
Apr 25, 2011
11,951
3,058
243
Disprove it. Prove to me that any other religious political advance outreaches that of these groups.
When you present a point, you have the burden of proof. Nobody else. I have seen other people in this thread making a point and then asking people to "disprove it". That really isn't how it works. I don't have a side in this argument but I just wanted to point that out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aug 19, 2006
1,497
255
1,713
Springfield, MO
I'm not understanding why you think that. What is it he has done or said to make you think that? I understand there have been a lot of these attacks and statements regarding Santorum from the left, which is what I was pointing out earlier regarding who uses religion in a political sense, but really what has Santorum done or said to make you think that.

I don't know if he has or not? Honestly though it's like me calling Obama a statist but not giving any specific reasons that lead me to believe that other than he's a liberal or some such nonesense.
Watch this video at about the 2:10 mark. Zappa (a conservative) gets it right with his description of a "government that prefers a certain moral code derived by a certain religion, and that moral code turns into legislation to suit one certain religious point of view, and if that code happens to be very, very right wing..." The response is that he is an anarchist--unsurprisingly. I believe he couldn't have been more on-point.

Overall, the ridiculous notion that government has to ban things to protect families applies equally well to gay rights as it does to explicit lyrics. The film's issue is dated to the time of its capture, but the overall sentiment remains unchanged and it is championed by the likes of the so-called 'Moral Majority'--a group from which Santorum gladly receives support.

I will state it again. Theocratic fascism bothers me.
 
Aug 19, 2006
1,497
255
1,713
Springfield, MO
When you present a point, you have the burden of proof. Nobody else. I have seen other people in this thread making a point and then asking people to "disprove it". That really isn't how it works. I don't have a side in this argument but I just wanted to point that out.
Nope. This is an opinion forum, not a court of law. No such rules apply. I can believe and state what I want to, of course at the discretion of the board mods. Besides, it's not like I didn't supply a link in the counter-challenge that included a laundry list of religious right political organizations in the US. I did.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,087
17,701
1,743
Watch this video at about the 2:10 mark. Zappa (a conservative) gets it right with his description of a "government that prefers a certain moral code derived by a certain religion, and that moral code turns into legislation to suit one certain religious point of view, and if that code happens to be very, very right wing..." The response is that he is an anarchist--unsurprisingly. I believe he couldn't have been more on-point.

Overall, the ridiculous notion that government has to ban things to protect families applies equally well to gay rights as it does to explicit lyrics. The film's issue is dated to the time of its capture, but the overall sentiment remains unchanged and it is championed by the likes of the so-called 'Moral Majority'--a group from which Santorum gladly receives support.

I will state it again. Theocratic fascism bothers me.
Personally I think that guy is a nut.

But anyway, what legislation are you concerned about? Exactly what rights do you think Santorum wants to take away from you that you have now?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,087
17,701
1,743
Nope. This is an opinion forum, not a court of law. No such rules apply. I can believe and state what I want to, of course at the discretion of the board mods. Besides, it's not like I didn't supply a link in the counter-challenge that included a laundry list of religious right political organizations in the US. I did.
He didn't say you had too, only that the burden of proof is on you and not the other person.
 
Aug 19, 2006
1,497
255
1,713
Springfield, MO
Personally I think that guy is a nut.

But anyway, what legislation are you concerned about? Exactly what rights do you think Santorum wants to take away from you that you have now?
Of course you do. I would never expect you to understand a creative genius like Frank Zappa. His musical and personal legacy is moot (tongue firmly in cheek).

Anyway, my problem lies more in the general direction of political religion than with specific rights that might or might not be taken away from me. Things like 'protection of marriage' amendments, infiltration of education (revised history and teaching of intelligent design), erosion of the separation of church and state, and persistent warmongering on behalf of the notion of a 'greater Israel' that is included in a lot of evangelicals' perceptions of prophecy.
 
Aug 19, 2006
1,497
255
1,713
Springfield, MO
He didn't say you had to, only that the burden of proof is on you and not the other person.
Follow the link and counter it with larger, more religiously tied political groups (that aren't described as 'religious right'). The persistence of the so-called 'moral majority' proves my point for me. No other group has been as visible or reaching as they have--at least not in recent decades.