“Fox and Friends took its coverage of the so-called “War on Christmas” to the front lines on Thursday morning by inviting Santa Claus to weigh in on America’s changing culture and secularization. Appearing under they chyrons “End The ‘War’ On Christmas: Pro Santa Won’t Say ‘Happy Holidays” and “Ho-Ho-No Way!: Santa Won’t Be Politically Correct,” Santa Claus impersonator and author Sal Lizard spoke out against the “political correctness” of American culture.”* Fox News continues their made-up “War on Christmas” outrage crusade. Which expert did the contact? Santa, obviously, because he has everything to do with Christianity and Jesus. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss the hard-hitting interview. *Read more from Igor Volsky: thinkprogress.org Support The Young Turks by Subscribing bit.ly Support The Young Turks by Shopping bit.ly Like Us on Facebook: www.fb.com Follow Us on Twitter: bit.ly Buy TYT Merch: theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here: www.current.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5
I bet the Pope knows more about Catholicism than both of us, so let’s read his book instead of reading some dumbed down polemic written in an Armstrongist propaganda piece. if the Pope says Christmas is a pagan holiday in his book, you can say I was wrong. but you need to prove he makes that claim, first.
also interesting, that this source “the trumpet” is a publication out of Armstrongism, a cult started by deceased false prophet Herbert W. Armstrong in the 1930′s (he predicted the end of the world in the 80′s). his movement collapsed in the 90′s with several folks attempting to follow his strange doctrines and false date setting, including the infamous Ronald Weinland who again failed to accurately predict the apocalypse last May (and was humiliated with the rest of the 2012 doomsayers).
how about you read what the Pope actually wrote in his book, rather than some (clearly anti-Catholic) blogger thinks about it?
considering how often people have misquoted the Pope before, I would take this one with a generous helping of salt. So show me the in-context quotes from his actual book where he says this. then we can talk about if I’m “denouncing” his opinion on something.
So by your own admission you denounce the word of the Catholic Pope?
thetrumpet . com/article/10102.19.0.0/pope-debunks-christmas-myths
I’m pretty sure the main religious figure of the Christian religion, the head of the Vatican, the Pope would know more about the religion than you.
and what’s really funny is that the 250 or so scholars of the Jesus Seminar, who of course represent a minority within the thousands and thousands of biblical scholars out there, nevertheless agree that Jesus existed, and they’re some of the most liberal folks in the field. if all of these experts, who are no “friends” to the Church agree Jesus existed, then it’s ludicrous to posit that somehow people are just saying he existed to support Christian evangelism or something
I quote him to show an example of a modern scholar who clearly has no bias in favor of Christianity, but nevertheless is convinced by the evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. same thing happens when I quote Ehrman. I’m reminded that he doesn’t believe in God and thinks that the bible has been corrupted in places. well no kidding. point is here’s a scholar with no bias in favor of “the Church” who agrees Jesus was a historical figure and gives the bible a lot more credit than these guys
that’s the funny thing, as that’s happened to me as well. if I quote Michael Grant (a deceased historian who says Jesus was historical), I’m told that as an atheist (and Grant says this explicitly in one of his books on Jesus) that Jesus performed no miracles and didn’t rise from the dead, and so wasn’t god. well, no kidding he believes that. I don’t quote Grant because he somehow proves Christian theology true. (continued)
if I came up with a list of ten scientists who support the theory of evolution and put it next to a list of ten other scientists who reject the theory of evolution and then concluded “the scientific community considers the theory of evolution to be uncertain” that would be misleading. in reality, I would need to show that it’s only a small percentage of scientists in relevant fields who dispute evolution and the majority accept it, only disagreeing over the details of the theory.
sorry, now that I’ve looked over the actual page, that’s not a quote from wikipedia “Historians consider whether he existed or not to be unresolved” at least as the page currently exists. if it did say that, it would be wrong. if that was your impression of the page, whatever, but that’s not correct. it’s not “unresolved” as far as most historians are concerned. what historians disagree on is precisely “what kind of man was Jesus” (personality, primary message, etc) not whether he lived.
this wikipedia reference is incorrect. historians consider him a real person. somebody wrote something that sounded diplomatic and satisfying to folks who want to remain agnostic on the subject, but factually speaking it’s not true. as people in the actual business have stated (like Ehrman), the majority accept Jesus as real, regardless of their religious persuasion (or lack thereof). this idea that there isn’t enough to say either way is mistaken.
so to review, we have some positive evidence Jesus existed, no plausible counter-evidence that he didn’t (ie: no evidence in favor of the various proposed myther theories) and the story is logically plausible. the theory that Jesus existed fits all the available evidence better than any competing Myther theory thus proposed (no matter how “plausible”), so that’s what the vast majority of experts have gone with. that’s the best anyone can do for the present.
there’s actually nothing implausible about the story of Jesus (setting aside the miracles of course, which all ancient people believed were possible) as articulated in the New Testament. people can quibble about details, but it’s consistent with other examples of eyewitness testimony and ancient biography that they’re talking about a real person, even if you want to argue about exaggerations or small problems in the text
the evidence Jesus existed is the references to him as a real person in the documents of the New Testament (especially the undisputed letters of Paul and the synoptic Gospels), Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews), Suetonius & Tacitus. he’s also referenced in hostile sources like Celsus, the Talmud & the Toledoth Yeshu showing that even his opponents considered him real, rather than debunking him as a fiction.
I agree, which is why I started linking the actual sources instead of just Wikipedia. His only response to the actual citations was to claim they “contradict” me and continually claim I’m wrong without citing where they supposedly contradict me.
the trouble with wikipedia is that anybody can edit it at any time. while it’s true that it is “policed” by moderators and stuff, there’s no guarantee that these moderators are qualified experts in what they’re monitoring. the entire system favors people who have lots of spare time to edit web pages, which means most professional experts will be excluded, so it relies upon amateurs. doesn’t mean it’s useless, just use it as a starting point rather than an “authority”
it’s fine to use wikipedia for research, but it shouldn’t be considered the end-all, be-all. what it is good for is leading you to actual scholarly or expert sources (which is why if you’re reading an article on a factual subject you should check the “references” at the end, to see if they’re accurate citations from reliable sources). no honest researcher would use the encyclopedia britannica as the end all be all of research either.
I apologize. I presumed you already knew that the vast majority of modern historical scholars, archeologists and biblical scholars considered Jesus of Nazareth to be a historical figure, rather than a mythical or fictional invented character. most mythers are aware that the experts aren’t on their side, hence why they come up with excuses like the conspiracy theory. I thought you were one of those folks. my mistake.
thus anybody who says of Jesus “…IF he existed..” as if that’s a good point is either showing that they are a looney conspiracy theorist, or that they’re woefully ignorant on the subject. doesn’t mean that they’re a bad person, just means that they aren’t thinking logically, or need to brush up on their research (and not just listen to kooks online)
for instance, some creationists argue this way… they say that the world’s scientists got together, because they are sinners who hate god and atheists, etc. and decided to hide the truth and promote evolution instead of what they knew was the truth (young earth creationism). that’s a vast conspiracy proposition to explain why their position is the fringe minority. I’m saying mythers would have to assume the same to support their position, making it ludicrous.
so you’re admitting then, that before we had this conversation, you really, honestly thought that most historians, biblical scholars, archeologists, etc. believed Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical figure, a fiction? well I’ll tell you, that’s not the case. so now knowing that you were mistaken there, admit you were wrong, or else you’re giving the impression you believe there’s a vast conspiracy that has lead all these experts to lie and hide the truth
then you’re apparently unlearned in this area, and thus UNAWARE that the majority of experts in relevant fields consider Jesus a historical figure (even those with no allegiance to the Church). this is akin to a creationist being shocked to hear that most scientists don’t support his position and demanding proof that they don’t agree with him.
“Educate yourself”
Translation: I don’t have any evidence so I’m getting out of this. I’m in over my head.
Tacit admission of defeat accepted. Now tuck tail.
Because YOU are the one who made the claim, dumbass. He who asserts must prove. You made an assertion, it’s YOUR responsibility to prove it. It’s not my job to find evidence to support YOUR argument FOR your.
Any sceptic worth his or her salt should know this. It’s the basic rule of rational argument/debate. It’s why I did the legwork earlier to find evidence to support the argument I made. Now you’re arguing I should do the legwork to support both my AND your arguments? Are you on drugs?
Educate yourself, fuckhead.
I’ve already wasted enough time arguing with a delusional moron that believes in a fairy tale.
Why do I have to do legwork to disprove your lies?