- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Reverend Al Sharpton makes up religious lie about Jesus being a refugee
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:51 pm to KaiserSoze99
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:51 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
But, I would not consider the bible an accurate historical document, particularly given the Catholic Church's picking and choosing what is and is not relevant.
That's not how the New Testament was compiled. The process was much longer, naturally/popularly sorted, and more complicated than a few guys picking books from a list. Also, while the Gospel accounts were written later and assumed that the reader had prior knowledge of Jesus, the NT epistles were written much earlier, and written by men that knew him or followers of men who knew him.
quote:
f you don't believe in the immaculate conception (I don't) it is possible that Mary decided to take a dip in the chocolate before she tied the knot with Joseph.
That's not what the Immaculate Conception is. The IC is the dogma that Mary was conceived and born without sin.
quote:
We know the depictions of Jesus are ALL inaccurate. He was described as ugly, bald, of brown complexion, likely had severe bodily deformities, and was 3 cubits tall, which is about 4'5".
Though it's completely irrelevant - based upon what?
quote:
That's all assuming the man Jesus of Nazareth even existed.
Even dismissing all of the writings centered on his existence, to believe this you'd have to dismiss the testaments of hundreds or perhaps thousands of people, many of whom died for in his name, that are travelling around the world of antiquity and evangelizing the teachings of Jesus.
1
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:55 pm to Navytiger74
IDPs???
Posted on 1/31/17 at 12:57 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:Legally you weren't. You were an internally displaced person (IDP) by international definitions that we observe.
I was labeled a refugee in 2005 due to a natural disaster. I didn't leave the country. I didn't appreciate that label, either.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:03 pm to JuiceTerry
Good point. In daily life we use the term "refugee" to refer to a broad range of those escaping oppression.
However, the U.S. legal definition for immigration purposes refers to refugees as:
USCIS website
It is only appropriate to use this definition here since Sharpton is comparing Jesus's situation to the Syrian refugee crisis.
Thus, if Sharpton wants to make a truly accurate comparison, he needs to show that Jesus entered into a different country, along with the other elements. I think we all know that he doesn't care though and wants to use this comparison as a way to make it seem like Republican-Christians hate Jesus.
And this all depends on which book of the Bible you're reading and think is accurate
However, the U.S. legal definition for immigration purposes refers to refugees as:
quote:
Under United States law, a refugee is someone who:
Is located outside of the United States
Is of special humanitarian concern to the United States
Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group
Is not firmly resettled in another country
Is admissible to the United States
A refugee does not include anyone who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
For the legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
USCIS website
It is only appropriate to use this definition here since Sharpton is comparing Jesus's situation to the Syrian refugee crisis.
Thus, if Sharpton wants to make a truly accurate comparison, he needs to show that Jesus entered into a different country, along with the other elements. I think we all know that he doesn't care though and wants to use this comparison as a way to make it seem like Republican-Christians hate Jesus.
And this all depends on which book of the Bible you're reading and think is accurate
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:16 pm to Vino24
So basically J-Dawg might have been an IDP (internally displaced person), as poster above, NavyTiger, said. Not pulling up that statutory definition
Might have been a refugee as well. Idk the geography, but I'm also not the one making the refugee assertion - Sharpton is
Might have been a refugee as well. Idk the geography, but I'm also not the one making the refugee assertion - Sharpton is
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:26 pm to south bama tiger
It's definitely a stretch to argue Jesus didn't exist at all. It's possible, but far outside the realm of probable. I'd argue it's just as unlikely that he was fabricated as it is that he really was the son of god and rose from the dead, given the the large amount of data which would be unexplainable if he weren't real.
People who argue he wasn't real are trying way too hard. The most simple explanation was he was a real person whose story was subject to ever increasing legend as the years went on after his death. There's a reason that, if you place the gospels in chronological order, the stories become more miraculous and fantastic. You have the first gospel Mark in which the original text doesn't even include a resurrection account (the women just find the tomb empty) and by the final one some 30-40 years later you have dead men rising from the grave and roaming around Jerusalem while God splits the temple with an earthquake.
People who argue he wasn't real are trying way too hard. The most simple explanation was he was a real person whose story was subject to ever increasing legend as the years went on after his death. There's a reason that, if you place the gospels in chronological order, the stories become more miraculous and fantastic. You have the first gospel Mark in which the original text doesn't even include a resurrection account (the women just find the tomb empty) and by the final one some 30-40 years later you have dead men rising from the grave and roaming around Jerusalem while God splits the temple with an earthquake.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:37 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:The assertion is made in the Bible. The claim is made by someone who had people reading it that would have been able to attest to the truthfulness of it. Whether you want to believe the religious claims, the Bible has a very good track record when it comes to historical claims supported by archaeological evidence, so while not everything it says can be verified, a lot has, which lends credence to other claims made, whether you want to believe them or not.
We don't "know" aliens didn't build the pyramids, but we can assume it didn't from the lack of historical evidence and because it's an absurd claim.
The onus of proof is not on those denying that a fantastic and unlikely event occurred. It is you who is required to provide the evidence, evidence which in this case is COMPLETELY absent.
I have no more logical reason to believe your claim than I do any other unlikely religious event.
Disagree with the Biblical claim all you want but at this point it offers a historical record that we don't find anywhere else (a lot of things happened in history that we have no record of). You, however, made claims that are not accurate. You said we "know" that the Biblical census event did not take place and that we "know" that Herod did not have every maale child in the city killed. Your evidence for how we "know"? We would have some other record of it. I would say that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You may not have enough evidence of those events to persuade you that they happened, but to claim that we know (as if we have undeniable proof that they didn't) that they never happened as an evidence that the Bible is wrong and that Jesus isn't who the Bible claims He is is inaccurate.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:41 pm to Vino24
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph WERE refugees to Egypt fleeing King Herod when he murdered the boys 2 and under around Bethlehem.
There is nothing controversial about this. It is established and accepted by Christians. It is what the Bible says happened. What are you complaining about?
There is nothing controversial about this. It is established and accepted by Christians. It is what the Bible says happened. What are you complaining about?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:42 pm to AlaTiger
quote:
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph WERE refugees to Egypt fleeing King Herod when he murdered the boys 2 and under around Bethlehem.
There is nothing controversial about this. It is established and accepted by Christians. It is what the Bible says happened. What are you complaining about?
I guess you should read the thread and don't drive-by post lol
It's more about the definition of refugee and how Jesus and his parents fleeing Herod in the Bible can be adequately compared to the Syrian refugee crisis.
And also if Sharpton should be religious shaming people who disagree with his political stance on immigration
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:44 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Yep but that alone doesn't make Jesus a refugee.
Refugee - noun:
quote:
a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
Pretty sure it's the literal definition of the word.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:44 pm to Vino24
I read the OP and responded to the OP. I don't have time to read every comment in every thread.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:45 pm to skrayper
quote:
a person who has been forced to leave their country
This, along with the USCIS definition of refugee has yet to be addressed.
Comparing Herod to the ruler of a country enforcing immigration policies is inadequate.
I don't know the answer of the geographical realm at the time but I assume it was all in the Roman Empire, with Herod being sort of a governor subject to the authority of larger rulers. I would hope someone making the assertion that Jesus was traveling between countries would address it.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:47 pm to Vino24
Maybe the Syrians should flee to Egypt like Jesus did
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:48 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
They did not, however, permanently resettle in Egypt. Ideally, resettlement of refugees should be temporary until they can safely return home.
True.
Not that you or anyone else can claim that any refugee doesn't want to do that either. That's a pretty bold assumption that people would rather live in a country surrounded by others who don't speak their language and have no assurance of work or anything else.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:48 pm to biglego
Or any other country closer to their home! Why isn't Italy, the home of the Catholic Church, accepting these refugees? What the hell is going on!
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:49 pm to skrayper
The issue I have is that Rev. Al is comparing the situation of Jesus to the situation of the Syrian (and other countries') refugees as if we have an obligation to take in every person who is fleeing terrible circumstances and if we don't, Jesus would be sad.
The situation with Jesus was nothing like what we have today, and even if it were, we are not turning away all refugees from all parts of the world. We help tens of thousands of people every year and the "ban" is temporary while we figure out how to keep our own people safe. Jesus is called the good shepherd and a shepherd keeps the wolves away from the flock. That's what we're trying to do as a nation. It's intellectually dishonest to think so one-dimensionally about the situation and I would be shocked that Al was thinking in such terms if I didn't know who he was and what his theology consists of.
The situation with Jesus was nothing like what we have today, and even if it were, we are not turning away all refugees from all parts of the world. We help tens of thousands of people every year and the "ban" is temporary while we figure out how to keep our own people safe. Jesus is called the good shepherd and a shepherd keeps the wolves away from the flock. That's what we're trying to do as a nation. It's intellectually dishonest to think so one-dimensionally about the situation and I would be shocked that Al was thinking in such terms if I didn't know who he was and what his theology consists of.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:56 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Jesus was never suspected of wearing a suicide bombing vest, or to harm others.
Well, Jesus was a baby when it happened.
Do you think babies are walking into daycare with bombs strapped to their chests?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:57 pm to Vino24
quote:
I don't know what all locations encompassed the Empire.
All of Israel
Only the Nile River basin of Egypt.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 1:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The assertion is made in the Koran/Vedas/Book of Mormon/Book of the Dead/Tao Te Ching/etc. The claim is made by someone who had people reading it that would have been able to attest to the truthfulness of it. Whether you want to believe the religious claims, the Koran/Vedas/Book of Mormon/Book of the Dead/Tao Te Ching/etc. has a very good track record when it comes to historical claims supported by archaeological evidence, so while not everything it says can be verified, a lot has, which lends credence to other claims made, whether you want to believe them or not.
Fixed
quote:
a lot of things happened in history that we have no record of
How do you know?
quote:
You said we "know" that the Biblical census event did not take place and that we "know" that Herod did not have every maale child in the city killed.
In as much as we can know anything for which there is no record of and existing records make unlikely.
quote:
I would say that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
An absence of evidence isn't in and of itself the issue, it's that certain events would be expected to appear in history had they occurred given their scope. We aren't talking about Joseph spraining his ankle here, we're talking about an event which would have required the uprooting of literally hundreds of thousands of people across millions of square miles. An unprecedented event of that time period. We have records of Roman censuses occurring, just none as the Bible describes.
The whole picture is evidence against the claim
The only claim we can categorically 100% reject with evidence is the great flood because it's impossible for a host of reasons and every field of natural science rejects it with mountains of data. Even factoring in divine intervention we can STILL know it didn't happen because of how our world looks vs how it would look.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 2:00 pm to Vino24
quote:
Why isn't Italy, the home of the Catholic Church
The Vatican is home to the Catholic Church, not Italy. It is a sovereign nation on its own.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News