Confederate Memorial Hall deemed offensive

[Firestarter 0]

someone that has long made herself a vocal opponent of mine

Don't flatter yourself.

 

I can recall saying something to an Admin. a grand total of . . . once.  And she deserved more than she got for her comments, likening me to a 9/11 terrorist simply because I stick to my guns on my core beliefs...[she built] an analogy between [me] and a terrorist

You still don't get it. Or you do get it, but you find that pretending you don't and willfully misinterpreting what I said lets you whine more loudly and more shrilly. As I stated then:

SpiderPoet's hypocritical evasions and denials of responsibility [are] morally equivalent to the Moslems who refused to condemn 9/11. "Well, that's just not true Islam." "It says in the Koran that we aren't supposed to kill." "They're just extremists." That is what SET THE STAGE for 9/11; the silence of the so-called "true" Moslems, the ones who don't fly aeroplanes into buildings, that allowed 9/11 to happen. Their refusal to condemn the extremists. That is the SAME as "Well, MY Christianity is different. Jesus buttfucks me every night and I'm here to tell you about it in excruciating detail." "The Inquisition didn't come from the Bible. Well, not MY Bible." "They're just extremists. I'm not like them. It's not MY religion they're practicing. I'm not responsible."

(emphases added)

 

Click here to read the original thread.

 

once my complaint was shot down I let it go with no further comment

(emphasis added)

 

Actually, since your complaint was "shot down" as the hysterical, illiterate, baseless crap it was, you replied 11 more times in that thread. And, let us note, in your first reply after you were rejected, you asked for the thread to be closed so you could cling to whatever ragged shreds of dignity you still possessed. I objected, on the grounds that if you couldn't be a good example, you could at least serve as a horrible warning. Evidently someone agreed, because the thread remained open.

 

it serves now only as a brief encounter that defined just how important the rules of the board really are

Blow your nose and stop sniffling, you disgusting little wretch. Which rule was violated? - by which post? - and how? Explain that before you sink any deeper into your pathetic psychodrama.

[Firestarter 0]

Roman Records do have "Jesus of Nazareth" in there, as they kept records of pretty much everything during their rule

This appears to be entirely false.

 

"In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians 'derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate.' (15.44)

 

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?

Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

 

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

 

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos." Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity."

 

- Historicity of Jesus (emphases added)