Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Ben Kenobi]

If Ben wants American law to be based on theology/religion, I would think he would also advocate for prohibiting straight people who are atheists from getting married.

Hrm? Why? If I believed that marriage between one man and one woman was beneficial - why wouldn't I support it for atheists?

[Kidlicious]

I'm arguing just the opposite. All poor people should get married because getting married is the best ticket out of poverty.

You're at least 100 years behind the times.

[self biased]

you know, watching ben and MTG play grabass all over the thread is fun and all, but **** is getting ridiculous.

[Jon Miller]

Did he? Beyond "some guy named Jesus was born" and "some guy named Jesus pissed off the wrong people and got crucified" there's no agreement outside the gospels (and in some cases, inconsistenty or gaps between them) that Jesus said anything in particular. There's a fairly high degree of confidence that he cause some kind of ruckus at the temple, but then no consensus on when or how.

If you had said that I wouldn't have felt a desire to say anything.

JM

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm arguing just the opposite. All poor people should get married because getting married is the best ticket out of poverty.

Since you think the state should prohibit acts of which you don't approve, why shouldn't the state also mandate acts you find beneficial? Since individual liberty of consenting adults is trumped by the goals of your theocratic state?

[MichaeltheGreat]

If you had said that I wouldn't have felt a desire to say anything.

JM

You have to consider my original target.

[MichaeltheGreat]

you know, watching ben and MTG play grabass all over the thread is fun and all, but **** is getting ridiculous.

Ben likes group action. He was getting all hot with Imran a page or two ago, and with Kid now.

[MrFun]

Hrm? Why? If I believed that marriage between one man and one woman was beneficial - why wouldn't I support it for atheists?

Because atheism goes against your religious belief.

[snoopy369]

I wonder whether in the very near future it will be the case that children of unmarried couples (but, couples who live together) are significantly more well off than children of married couples, when not adjusting for income or other factors. Given that most unmarried couples that raise children are fairly well off and fairly well educated, it wouldn't surprise me at all. (I do specifically mean couples who have and raise their own children, not single mother who finds a boyfriend afterwards.)

[Ben Kenobi]

Since you think the state should prohibit acts of which you don't approve, why shouldn't the state also mandate acts you find beneficial? Since individual liberty of consenting adults is trumped by the goals of your theocratic state?

Since when has the state mandated marriage?

[MichaeltheGreat]

If you're willing to concede this point - you've conceded that the relative unreliability is much less for the Gospels than for everything else. Are you *sure* this is the argument you want take?

More word games and distortion of other's statements.

Is there anything to indicate that the Gospel authors intended their work to be understood as historical fiction?

Is there anything to indicate they intended strict accuracy, rather than promotion of their agenda? Is there further anything to indicate who they even were, or how much editing or massaging was done of the supposed statements and acts? Walk on water, blah blah blah. Pure primitive fantasy and credulity, but fun tall tales.

What it does mean is that the Iliad is a historical source and one of the best ones for that particular period (for which we have the Iliad), and pretty much nothing else.

What it means is that the original author(s), whoever they were, used some commonly known geography of the period as a background for the tale, and nothing more.

Does it suggest to you that he intends to let Jesus go - or that this is a plot to ensure that he gets executed while at the same time currying favour with the Jews? If you could kill two birds with one stone would you? Pilate kills 3.

One, he gets rid of Christ.
Two, he appeases the Jewish High Priests
Three, he manages to evade responsibility for the execution.

It suggests to me that the gospel authors, mindful of their position within the Roman provinces and the Roman response to perceived anti-Roman movements, are very careful to paint a picture of the poor, dutiful Roman governor being bullied into permitting the execution by those evil hook-nosed Christ killing Jew NWO bastards. Something folks from Luther to Hitler and plenty more found useful, when it was time to ditch debts to the Jews or blame them for your internal problems.

As for your trinity, one, he has no reason to give a rat's ass about Christ. Christ isn't a threat to the Roman order in the least, and is of no consequence. Someone Pilate would execute without a second thought. Two, there's no evidence he ever wanted to appease the high priests. You think they're all going to go "yeah, the random brutality, corruption and extortion will be A-ok if you string up this one guy we don't like?" Three, having done it, why would he attempt to disavow it in any way - in fact, if the high priests or other Jewish leaders had gone whining up the road to Vitellius, Pilate had no reason to waffle or disavow.

That's not Pilate's agenda in the least - that's the agenda of some authors who wanted to steer their follower's wrath away from the secular power that could squash them like so many bugs at that stage of the game, before their numbers had really spread far and wide enough to survive the later persecutions.

What better way to **** over the Jews by getting the Jews themselves to execute a popular street preacher with a broad following? If your goal is to cause dissention among the Jews - wouldn't this be the way to do it?

If dissension is your goal, far better to truly "wash your hands of it" and let him keep riling the Jews up. There's nothing to indicate that Pilate gave a **** about Jewish dissent - he was the typical low-level Roman governor, a mere prefect, not a legate, of the equestrian, not senatorial class, limited to command of auxialiary forces in the ******* of the Roman empire. His concern was, like most similarly situated, was in taking enough bribes and extorting enough money to pay for his partying and accumulate enough wealth to advance himself. Given his penchant for pissing off the Jews, there's no reason to assume he would appease them.

What cost is it to have a token appeasement when it costs you nothing.

Maybe for a bootlicker like you, nothing. For an egotist with enormous power who had contempt for his temporary subjects? Pretty tremendous deferral of ego when no appeasement was needed at the time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is there anything to indicate they intended strict accuracy, rather than promotion of their agenda?

Yes. Look at what Luke says happened when Christ was pierced by the spear.

Is there further anything to indicate who they even were, or how much editing or massaging was done of the supposed statements and acts? Walk on water, blah blah blah. Pure primitive fantasy and credulity, but fun tall tales.

You've already made up your mind that it must be false. Is there any evidence for your position besides the fact that it is your opinion?

What it means is that the original author(s), whoever they were, used some commonly known geography of the period as a background for the tale, and nothing more.

Which is why no one cared when they actually dug up Troy... Oh wait. Yes, they did. Because it proved that the Iliad wasn't just a legend that it had a historical basis.

It suggests to me that the gospel authors, mindful of their position within the Roman provinces and the Roman response to perceived anti-Roman movements, are very careful to paint a picture of the poor, dutiful Roman governor being bullied into permitting the execution by those evil hook-nosed Christ killing Jew NWO bastards.

Then why do the Gospels explicitly said that, one, Pilate knew that Christ was innocent and still executed him rather than letting him go, and two, that Pilate was under no coercion to do that whole bit with Barabbas? That was Pilate's initiative.

As for your trinity, one, he has no reason to give a rat's ass about Christ. Christ isn't a threat to the Roman order in the least, and is of no consequence.

Then why didn't Pilate simply let him go?

Two, there's no evidence he ever wanted to appease the high priests.

Again - if you can appease without cost to you - then why not?

Three, having done it, why would he attempt to disavow it in any way - in fact, if the high priests or other Jewish leaders had gone whining up the road to Vitellius, Pilate had no reason to waffle or disavow.

If Pilate sincerely believed this man to be an innocent - he can always go back and say, look, I tried, but those damn Jews just wouldn't let him be saved. Why take responsibility when you can evade it and still get the job done?

some authors who wanted to steer their follower's wrath away from the secular power that could squash them like so many bugs at that stage of the game, before their numbers had really spread far and wide enough to survive the later persecutions.

Which is why those same authors were executed by the Romans. I see. It makes perfect sense that if they are willing to die for their cause, that they would go back and alter scripture to be 'less mean' to the Romans.

If dissension is your goal, far better to truly "wash your hands of it" and let him keep riling the Jews up.

Which comes back to the question - why didn't Pilate let him go?

Given his penchant for pissing off the Jews, there's no reason to assume he would appease them.

If it meant favor in the eyes of the Emperor?

For an egotist with enormous power who had contempt for his temporary subjects? Pretty tremendous deferral of ego when no appeasement was needed at the time.

So let me ask you, MtG. What source are you using that pegs Pilate as an egoist?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes. Look at what Luke says happened when Christ was pierced by the spear.

You want to be a little more specific, rather than thinking I should guess at whatever point you think you're trying to make?

You've already made up your mind that it must be false. Is there any evidence for your position besides the fact that it is your opinion?

Oh, so you're a mindreader now? Not believing that something is 100% true isn't the same as believing it's 100% false. There are thousands of pieces of evidence, and gaps, and many areas where there is no evidence. Not including things like laws of physics, etc. Just take the contradictions in the crucifixion account for a small start. But I know, "divinely inspired" and "miracles" explains all mythology. Including wine from water, walking on water, feeding thousands, blah blah blah.

Which is why no one cared when they actually dug up Troy... Oh wait. Yes, they did. Because it proved that the Iliad wasn't just a legend that it had a historical basis.

It proved nothing of the sort. In fact, Schliemann (as was his wont) ****ed up royally due to lack of discipline and the lack of accurate understanding of stratification, and he destroyed far more of value than he found. All Schliemann proved was that the location the author used corresponded to the location of an actual city. If someone wrote a 35th century CE story about an Aztec empire that dominated the entire hemisphere for a millenia, headquartered in a city just north of a river that happened to fit the description of the Potomac, would you interpret the disovery of the remains of Washington DC as proof of that story?

There were at least ten settlments on the site of Troy, for the very simple reason that it was a strategic location and logical place to build a city. The one Schliemann erroneously believed to by the Homeric Troy is too old and too small. Any ancient find is interesting. King Richard III was almost universally detested, but there was a lot of excitement at finding his remains and positively identifying them.

Then why didn't Pilate simply let him go?

Reality is most likely, given Roman provincial governance, that Pilate probably did not more than stamp an order and spent less than a minute on it. Someone wants to crucify a rabble rouser? Whatever. When does today's orgy start? Unless you contend Jeses asserted Roman citizenship? Otherwise, with a commoner of a provincial people? A prefect wouldn't give a ****. The whole examination and found innocent bit was likely embellishment, if not fabrication, because Roman law did not give rights to people like Jesus. Paul is a different story, because Paul was a Roman citizen and had substantial rights under Roman law.

Again - if you can appease without cost to you - then why not?

Ego for one. Demonstration of dominance for a pragmatic one. If I appease you, am I not demonstrating in fact that I need to listen to or respond to you? Which means you're going to expect me to do so in the future. Stalin could appeased people too, without cost. So for that matter, can Kim Jong Un. Often appeasement of one group is antagonism of another. In short, there are plenty of reasons not to be a bootlicker.

Why take responsibility when you can evade it and still get the job done?

Why evade responsibility for squashing an ant? Or to you think the RCLU was going to petition the Roman courts that Pilate was a meanie for executing an innocent provincial commoner? The Romans made spectacles out of mass killing to maintain social order. Do you really think Pilatus had anything to "evade?"

Which is why those same authors were executed by the Romans. I see. It makes perfect sense that if they are willing to die for their cause, that they would go back and alter scripture to be 'less mean' to the Romans.

Really? Perhaps you can name them and the year, location and manner of execution?

So let me ask you, MtG. What source are you using that pegs Pilate as an egoist?

I'm using the description of his acts by Josephus and Philo. Tacitus has nothing to new or interesting to say on the subject of Pilatus (in fact, he's only referred to minimally) Tacitus might have had more to say, but only about half his works are known, and none in the original versions.

[Aeson]

I think your sample sizes are too low.

You'd do better to claim they are too large, as they are based off a combination of the 3 factors worldwide.

You're always whining about how deaf people have lower expected success (education and financial) in life. So we'll just agree there. Unless you want to start refuting your own claims. That would be fun to watch.

The blatantly obvious difference is the Catholic|atheist one, as the majority of Catholics in the world live in dirt poor nations, whereas the majority of atheists in the world live in developed nations where even the poor are "rich" comparatively speaking. (Being born in a poor area is of course the real "surest way to start out poor" ... aside from the obvious "be born to poor parents".)

Homosexual|Heterosexual is probably a wash.

But of course we don't need statistics when dealing with specific individuals. We can safely say you would be a horrible parent by application of your logic, whereas Asher would be a wonderful parent.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're always whining about how deaf people have lower expected success (education and financial) in life. So we'll just agree there. Unless you want to start refuting your own claims. That would be fun to watch.

I was making a pithy comment about how you're setting up a category of just one member.

See- I don't really gage myself as a deaf person. I look at everyone else in general and my goal is to match up with them. Always has been.

We can safely say you would be a horrible parent by application of your logic

Well, sure. As a single man without many means I would be a bad father. Which is why I'm not a dad.