Roger Stone isn’t religious, he’s a sociopathic piece of shit running cons and jamming up the courts in service of a Repub agenda.
Trump voters can’t tell the difference between those two things
“They’re the same picture.”
I agree, this is still definitely a religious cringe because of the intended audience.
I’m not an atheistic, godless communist. I’m really more of an agnostic, godless social democrat. So perhaps that’s why this doesn’t bother me. However, I can’t quite figure out why anyone would expect an atheistic, godless communist to be bothered by what some cultist spouts.
As someone who was raised Lutheran, I would expect this to be more disturbing to people who actually believe in Jesus.
As someone who was raised Lutheran, I would expect this to be more disturbing to people who actually believe in Jesus
It is, or rather it is to those who understand his actual teachings.
It doesn’t have to actually offend godless communists.
It has to give the purchaser the impression that it will offend anyone to the left of Trump.
Much of their cultic identity is based around hating, punishing and pissing off their opposition, who is inferior and small in number while simultaneously all pervasive and massively powerful and everywhere, due to the lying media hiding all manner of conspiracies.
You know, normal fascist stuff.
I’m sorry, this is supposed to make who angry?
As far as I can tell, it’s supposed to anger Christians. It’s literally blasphemy.
Funny how the “religious” people are busy shilling for as good a representation of the devil on earth as you could find
As a mild, largely non praticant christian, this picture does indeed bother me.
Jesus would flip his shit and punch that guy in the face so hard.
Is this satire, or does his fanbase not see his for the blasphemous sacrilege that it is? Does this actually work on people?
Most conservative “Christians” have raised him up as a savior and Christian God…
He’s literally the antichrist.
Beware false prophets :P
Most Christians don’t read their own book …
Oh no, His fanbase has noticed dog/god always wants exactly what they want.
I never thought they’d get to this point when it all started, I’m not really shocked that Trumps people would push it other than it being a huge gamble if it didn’t work, but it seems to not have tipped anyone against him in meaningful numbers. I shouldn’t be disappointed that it worked, but I grew up as plus know a LOT of Christians back home and I thought putting words in their lords mouth would be a bridge to far for people like my dad, devout parents of friends, or family friends. Guess there is truly no depth that can’t be sunk to with these folks
He gave a lot of shitty, hateful people The Green Light to say what they really think and feel, publicly.
The guy we refer to as Jesus was likely a real person. Probably named something like Yeshua (same root as the name Joshua), who probably was baptized by John the Baptist and probably was crucified. Everything else ranges from contested to myth.
There is zero evidence Jesus, in any name variation, was real.
That is not necessarily true, there are scarce but nonbiblical references to Jesus. Such as the execution of James described in Antiquities references him as “the Brother of Jesus, the one they call Messiah”.
I’m hardcore atheist myself, but you are damn right Jesus The Christ is a fabrication like Santa Claus. I’m just saying there is nuance.
Also interesting note is Rome loved crucifiying people for Sedition.
Turns out walking around saying you’re the King of The Jews isn’t cool with the Roman nobility, and guess what he wasn’t the first it to do it either. They crucified someone around 4BCE for the exact same thing
The last I knew, the best evidence against Jesus the Christ being real was the distinct lack of recording by any contemporary Roman writings. But I may be remembering wrong.
Some hystorians and theologians would agree with you, but they’re in the minority of academics.
Yes, historians that are not connected to the church.
Well, if you have good evidence to disprove the majority of academics and blow the lid off a major conspiracy I would love to read your papers.
Because proving a negative is how things work now? What.
How about you prove he did exist, and not using “evidence” from a church affiliated “historian”.
How about you disprove the evidence we have instead of pulling shit out of your ass? Start with why you think Josephus accounts aren’t trustworthy.
You can’t disprove a negative. You can keep “demanding” me to all you want, but it’s not how things work.
What’s the evidence you have?
All of the notes for Josephus on wikipedia are from people that were either associated with the church or wrote non-fiction books about religious leaders.Take that as you will. I understand Faith is a strong thing, but evidence and science is how the world actually works.
You’re rejecting evidence you haven’t even read about, so yes. You get the burden of proof for now. You’re making an assumption that every academic who says “there’s enough evidence to suggest this person existed just not exactly how it’s laid out in the bible” is some religious zealot. Show us proof.
What’s the evidence?
The simple fact that Roger Stone is peddling a Bible… (shudder)
It’s impossible to shame a psychopath, morally and/or ethically. They simply don’t have a conscience. They’ve learned to fake it to fool “The Rubes,” but they don’t feel it, and don’t understand it. You see this most commonly when Republican politicians and strategists accuse any altruistic act as an act to curry favor, or for personal gain. Because that’s what they would do. They truly can’t understand compassion or empathy, and think it’s a sign of stupidity. When one of these people shows you who they really are, run.
I mean, it’s not unlikely that there was a dude named jesus christ, two millennia ago. There are a couple of other details in the story that are pretty suspect though, and I really doubt he’s able to be consulted for political opinions either way.
His name would have been Yeshua (short form of Yehoshua), with the name translated first into Greek then into Latin and morphing into a form that became Jesus. Yeshua was also a common name. It’s actually more complex than that, as language and words over time get very mangled.
As for evidence of a singular guy of any name doing this stuff, there isn’t much at all that isn’t connected to the Bible in a circular reasoning. Without Saul/Paul renewing (or creating) a faith about someone long gone in his lifetime, it would have likely ended there. There could have been many iconic figures doing things with followers that didn’t jump the gap of history to become a permanent religion.
Was there an itinerant preacher on which the biblical character of Jesus was loosely based on? Almost certainly. Does that make the stories of Jesus as depicted in the gospels 100% true? Absolutely not.
Was Paul an absolute shit bag? Almost certainly so.
The modern form of Yeshua is Joshua.
Christianity should be called Paulinism, because he saw an opportunity, like any good politician, and took advantage of it.
There is literally zero chance that anyone was named Jesus Christ. The word (not name) “christ” means “king,” and was attached to the name centuries after he supposedly lived.
Also his name would’ve been something more like Yeshua, not Jesus.
I also read somewhere that the real person he may have been based on was named Benjamin. No idea if that source was credible, I just remember it vaguely.
Benus Christ!
Correct, his name was Oily Josh
True, but scholars do have Roman records of a Jesus of Nazareth, that matches the description of Jesus and his followers. This is a man though, but there is relative proof of a guy that did exist.
Also there are lots of early depictions of Jesus with a wand, and if you are interested in a detailed secular history I recommend the book Zealot By Reza Aslan.
There were many rabble rouser Rabbis in Roman occupied Judea. Pick one.
I thought the mindless pedants were supposed to have stayed on reddit?
“mindless pedant” is an oxymoron.
You tell 'em, you mindful pedant!
You can’t spell “oxymoron” without “moron”.
Along with the 14 year olds who just learned about atheism yet here we meet.
I am a godless atheist, however, in fairness, Jesus probably was a real person.
They would have pronounced their name Yehoshua, or Yeshua as a nickname. Yep, thats right, Joshua is a closer English transliteration than Jesus, Jesus is what happens after you go from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English.
Obviously their life was highly exaggerated.
Anyway, yep, this is obviously blasphemy to any non nutcase Christian, problem is, this is aimed at the surprisingly large number of MAGA Christian prophets that believe God literally talks to them, that demon possession is literally real, that they can prophesy and do faith healings, Trump is a kind of new Messiah who is just shy of being as important as Jesus, etc.
That is the target demo.
Hey, if it isn’t a convicted felon supporting another convicted felon.
Keep draining that swamp, boys!
Bros before jail hos!
Why would atheists care? It’s less meaningful than saying the orange shitstain is endorsed by Ronald McDonald
They wouldn’t, but the people that whole thing is targeting need to feel like they’re both winning against “the enemy,” and constantly subjugated.
Well he may have once been a real person, but that was like 2000 fucking years ago. He’s dead now. This is like saying Richard the Lionheart is in favor of loser gun laws.
Last time I checked, Jesus freaked out on people trying to make money on religion
That ain’t true.
Jesus didn’t endorse anything.
I asked.
You think they hired a guy or did someone get their name changed.
