First Century Record of Jesus by a non-Christian?

[tabibito]

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/newl...rming-miracle/

An interesting find if it proves genuine: and it would come as no surprise if it is. There have been altogether too many false claims made over the years for me to get excited just yet, but I'll be watching developments with interest.

[JonathanL]

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/newl...rming-miracle/

An interesting find if it proves genuine: and it would come as no surprise if it is. There have been altogether too many false claims made over the years for me to get excited just yet, but I'll be watching developments with interest.

You should have scrolled down to the bottom of the site and read the disclaimer. It's a satirical news site:

Source: World News Daily Report

World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any person, living, dead or undead, is purely a miracle.

© Copyright Original Source

[Starlight]

It's a satirical news site

Same as the bible then?

Sorry, couldn't resist that setup.

[Tassman]

Same as the bible then?

Sorry, couldn't resist that setup.

Naughty!!!

Besides, unlike the OP website, the bible doesn't actually set out to be satirical.

[tabibito]

You should have scrolled down to the bottom of the site and read the disclaimer. It's a satirical news site:

Agreed.

[Sparko]

not satirical. FAKE NEWS. Sites like this need to be shut down. Satirical would have some humor in it. The purpose of stories and sites like this is just to fool Christians and get lots of shares and clicks for advertising.

[One Bad Pig]

not satirical. FAKE NEWS. Sites like this need to be shut down. Satirical would have some humor in it. The purpose of stories and sites like this is just to fool Christians and get lots of shares and clicks for advertising.

It's also (deliberately, I'm sure) similar in name to the rather right-wing World Net Daily.

[Meh Gerbil]

Meh, one source is as good as another.

[Tassman]

not satirical. FAKE NEWS. Sites like this need to be shut down. Satirical would have some humor in it. The purpose of stories and sites like this is just to fool Christians and get lots of shares and clicks for advertising.

The satire lies in the readiness of some Christians to uncritically endorse whatever supports their beliefs, regardless of accuracy. As tabibito has demonstrated! And your censorship instincts are noted.

[KingsGambit]

And your censorship instincts are noted.

Maybe if you think consumer protection laws that ban misleading advertising constitute censorship as well.

[JonathanL]

not satirical. FAKE NEWS. Sites like this need to be shut down. Satirical would have some humor in it. The purpose of stories and sites like this is just to fool Christians and get lots of shares and clicks for advertising.

You do have a point.

[Tassman]

Maybe if you think consumer protection laws that ban misleading advertising constitute censorship as well.

Consumer protection laws are to safeguard the public from exploitation and therefore desirable, whereas censorship is the suppression of speech and public communication and therefore undesirable.

[Starlight]

Consumer protection laws are to safeguard the public from exploitation and therefore desirable, whereas censorship is the suppression of speech and public communication and therefore undesirable.

But is having the freedom to speak lies desirable or undesirable?

A US federal judge ruled a state ban on blatant election campaign lies to be unconstitutional, cos the first amendment and free speech and whatnot. But a company wanting to sell more of its products telling lies to the public in order to do so... isn't free speech?

Personally I think the line that should be drawn is differentiating between speech about the government by the citizens, and citizens speaking about other citizens. Democracy requires citizens to be able to criticize the government and have free political speech about the government, so that needs to be protected. But if one citizen starts saying nasty things to another citizen and thereby harming them (sexual harassment or whatnot), then the government has a duty of care to step in, just as if one citizen had harmed another physically rather than verbally. I think consumer protection laws, sexual harassment laws, libel laws, hate speech laws, all fall into that category - the government protecting citizens from each other as part of a general duty to provide health and safety for all citizens. Whereas citizens need to be able to criticize the government until the cows come home, cos democracy.

[Starlight]

The purpose of stories and sites like this is just to fool Christians and get lots of shares and clicks

Same as the bible then?

Apparently this doesn't get old.

[One Bad Pig]

The satire lies in the readiness of some Christians to uncritically endorse whatever supports their beliefs, regardless of accuracy.

There are people of every category of belief, including yours, who will uncritically endorse whatever supports their beliefs (or impugns the beliefs of others), regardless of accuracy.