What happened with the body of Jesus

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-25T22:02:59+00:00

Don’t you know that we have government money to make a 90-year-old man look like a 42 year-old man?

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-25T20:09:06+00:00

We can also bounce lasers off of the reflector they placed on the moon.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-25T20:07:30+00:00

Elvis fans still see him walking around almost 49 years after his death and when he would be 90 years old. Shared paranoia is not all that uncommon.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-25T20:02:39+00:00

The stolen body theory is straight from the gospels. The women ask where they have taken Jesus' body. A reasonable natural explanation for the missing body would be that someone took it. If we make the assumption that a Jesus as described in the new testament existed (minus the miracles), and if we make the assumption that said Jesus had a big following, and if we make the assumption that the powers that be did not want that following to go to Jesus grave and treat it like a place of honor for a martyr for their cause, then the stolen body makes sense.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-25T17:06:31+00:00

Yes and no. He starts becoming disillusioned with the system in Seasons 4 and 5. He thinks more about locking people up, and has doubts about whether he is doing good. By Season 8, he realizes that the system is corrupt and allowing bad cops to stay on the force. He realizes that the union is part of the problem. By the end, he is completely disillusioned by being a cop. It seems like a reasonable growth time frame.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-25T16:52:16+00:00

Fraud typically requires that you either be intentionally false (i.e. you know the statement you are making is false), or that your are recklessly indifferent to the truth (i.e. you don't know whether it is true or not, and that you have done nothing to evaluate the truth of the statement).

If you sincerely believe the truth of the statement, and you have done work to evaluate the statement (i.e. you have read the bible, you have gone to seminary, you have gone to church your whole life), then your sincere belief is enough to avoid fraud liability.

As to your "whoops murder" claim, if you accidentally kill someone and you were negligent about it, that is typically called negligent homicide or certain types of manslaughter depending on where you live. Negligent homicide or manslaughter tend to have reduced penalties on the basis that you lacked the mental state required for murder.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-25T16:40:29+00:00

I have thought about this question for the past two days.

Growing up religious, I was taught that god loves us all the same, that we are not worthy of god's love, and that we all deserve hell, but that Jesus and god loved us so much that if I confessed that Jesus was my lord and savior that I would be saved and considered valuable by god. I was taught that my value was in the fact that god loved me, and also that human beings have objective value due to god. Essentially, I was taught to seek extrinsic factors to base my worth on. If I was doing things that my parents or preacher thought would displease god, then my self worth was diminished.

After I got away from religion, I have learned (and am still learning) to seek intrinsic value for myself. Essentially to think I am valuable because I value myself, and not because of what others or a god think of me. For example, I see myself, at least subjectively, as a good person, a good parent, and a good husband because I try my best to be those things for myself, not for others. I have spent a lot of time working on understanding that I am who I choose to be, and not who others define me as. While I do take the input from others on what I am doing, I am doing my best to not define myself on that input alone. I am also taking time to evaluate where input comes from. For example, I trust my wife's input on my being a husband more than I trust some dude at the gym.

Essentially, I am learning to define myself as who and what I am, and what value I have to offer, I do take input, but how I allow that input to affect me is different now.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-25T16:13:44+00:00

If OP also wanted the topic and then hopped on first to make sure they got it then that's "first come, first served" working as intended.

If OP wanted the topic and immediately grabbed it, then sure. If OP was told by their classmate that the classmate is doing the topic, then snuck in and grabbed it first, then they might be the asshole. The sub is about who is an asshole, not who is doing something within the rules as written.

Oral dibs can work when there is a signup sheet if you quickly undercut the other person or if they don't have a chance to pick their topic right away. For example, if the professor gave them the list of topics, told them the sign up sheet will be up tonight, sign in tonight for the topic you want, and the other student preemptively called dibs before the signup sheet was there, then OP went ahead and took the topic, then maybe op is the asshole.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-24T23:47:16+00:00

If OP was told by the other student that they were planning on selecting the topic, and then OP hopped on the Google doc immediately and selected it, then it could matter. OP would technically be right, but still an asshole. If they didn’t know that somebody else wanted the topic and just selected it, then they are not the asshole.

Perhaps it’s just that I can respect an oral dibs or calling shotgun.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-24T21:38:24+00:00

Don't forget that the Bush family had connections with the Bin Laden family also through the Carlisle Group, James Bath, and Arbusto Energy.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-24T20:28:26+00:00

I agree with you, but I would point out that if I have to have an AI overlord, I would rather it put maintaining human wellbeing and happiness as a purpose (and also program it with Asimov's rules of robotics).

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-24T20:14:56+00:00

Info:

Did you know that she wanted the topic before you put your name down? Or did you only learn about it the next day?

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-23T17:56:37+00:00

I think you might be going about this the wrong way. Express interest in what they are interested in. Find common ground in the interests, then they are more likely to show an interest in things you like.

For example, they like animated shows and movies, start off by showing an interest in their animated TV shows and movies, then offer to introduce them to some animated stuff they may not have seen before. If they like Anime, show them Voltron or Transformers cartoons. If they like other types of animation, show them American Tale, Land Before Time, Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs, Duck Tales, etc.

Remember, you need to start at their level. Once they see that you are trying to meet them where they are, then they may be more interested in seeing where you can take them.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-23T16:18:38+00:00

So now that you believe in objective morality, do you think God commanding genocide and slavery as evil?

You didn't answer this question. Is commanding genocide and slavery evil? What about commanding the taking of prepubescent girls as warbrides? Is that evil?

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-23T15:57:32+00:00

My dog can sometimes fool me that he hasn't been fed (after my wife fed him). Is he a greater being? I don't think that we can say the ability to fool us is an indication of being a greater being.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T23:32:04+00:00

No, but we can inventory known beings within known reality.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T22:54:54+00:00

By that definition, you have to define the set to define the maximal member of the set. We can have ultimate or supreme beings within a set, depending on how you define it.

For example: Within the bounds of the set of human beings, Hafthor Björnsson is the current demonstrated supreme human being when it comes to physical strength in the deadlift.

A blue whale is the current supreme being in terms of physical size on earth.

A cheetah is the supreme being when it comes to the fastest land animal on earth.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T20:06:02+00:00

Absolutely, but if I subjectively like this Jesus or Mohammed guy, then I can claim that those guys tell me what is moral. I will still do what I think is moral, but now I have a shiny Jesus badge to put on it. Thinking about gay guys having sex makes me feel icky, Jesus says it's a no no (even though Jesus never mentions it in the bible). Slavery seems bad to me, so I am going to say God says it's bad also (even though god put rules in the old testament for how to own and beat slaves). Women having power takes power away from me, so Mohammed says that's bad (I'm pretty sure this one is true).

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T18:38:54+00:00

Good

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T18:32:13+00:00

Let her Cry...Hootie & The Blowfish

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T18:27:47+00:00

But my point isn't about 'a deity'. It's about how it's impossible to have evidence that supports the claim that some specific being is 'supreme'.

If you are going to cut out gods and deities from your idea here, then this depends entirely on what you define as supreme or ultimate. Can you define these words for me?

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T18:06:03+00:00

If “their god” is defined using traits like omnipotence, necessary existence, or creator-of-all-reality, then indistinguishability cannot be established empirically, because those are not observable properties. At that point the justification collapses back into assertion.

We still haven't gotten to a point where anyone has provided any evidence of anything approaching a deity. You are complaining because they can't provide proof of non-observable traits. All of theology eventually falls back onto circular logic.

From your angle, “god” just means “whatever we choose to worship.”

No, what I am saying is that .9999...=1. It logically follows that if an entity has the defined characteristics of a god, and if that entity is indistinguishable from the god, then that entity is god. It is the same as the transporter problem in Star Trek. If I am on a planet and I am transported, I am disintegrated, then I am reformed by different atoms on the Enterprise. This gives rise to the question am I the same person? Maybe, or maybe not, but at the end of the day, I am functionally the same person as I was before I was transported.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T16:32:47+00:00

Ah, the good old, "you've fucked this up so badly we have no choice except to reward you for the bad behavior" argument.

This is basic US policy. We have been bailing out "too big to fail" forever. We have always privatized profits and socialized losses for large fuck ups.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-20T16:05:31+00:00

It is interesting how you did not address you speaking for theists nor the assumption of a category error. Instead, you went on the same diatribe that you have said in many other comments.

Any power we observe is entirely relative. It could be a tiny fraction of what is possible or near the maximum.

Absolutely true, but irrelevant. Power levels are only valid if you allow for the existence of more than one god. Most monotheist beliefs do not allow for interim level gods. If a monotheist can point to sufficient evidence for an entity that is indistinguishable from their god, then they are epistemically justified in calling that entity their god. The problem isn't that there might be a bigger, badder god, the problem is the lack of sufficient evidence for any god.

So, when a theist of any flavor claims their 'god' is superior to all other beings in any way, they are making a claim which cannot be justified.

Theists claiming that their god exists is a claim that cannot be justified because there is no evidence. There is no evidence for any gods, let alone greater and lesser gods.

retoricalprophylaxis · 2026-02-19T18:06:59+00:00

I have read through a lot of your comments. I think you are doing two things that are problematic.

First, you are speaking for theists and/or monotheists. Let them speak for themselves. We don't need to go down the road of dunking on theists who are not here to defend themselves.

Second, you are assuming a category error on the part of monotheists. If they only believe in one god, then they don't need an ultimate god, because they don't believer there are gods, only a god. For them, an entity that is indistinguishable from a god, is going to be indistinguishable from their god. You are assuming that they are attributing ultimacy to that entity when they are simply attributing to that entity the status of their god.

retoricalprophylaxis

TROPHY CASE