Dan Crenshaw yells at a 10 year old girl, for reading him his own quote, where he calls Jesus a fictional character. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ9dwh6b0iE
This is honestly your typical moderate, of any party.
Republican Dan Crenshaw, yells at 10 year old girl .
Posts
Total:
44
After yelling at the girl to not question his faith, he then questions her faith, saying quoting him "is not very christian"
-->
@Wylted
Not really "yelling", but he did seem a bit peeved at getting exposed by a 14 year old lol.
Mentioning Jesus and Superman and directly juxtaposing that with "real" ones like 'Rosa Parks'
-->
@bmdrocks21
He got caught being a fake christian and tried to intimidate a little girl to cover up for it. low class shit. Dude is a Democrat.
Dan Crenshaw is a fraud
-->
@Wylted
Dude is a Democrat.
Probably a shapeshifting lizard, too. I’ve seen how he votes!
I hate this scumbag. McCain 2.0
-->
@oromagi
Where are you to defend this piece of shit, like you are when I call out democrats?
-->
@bmdrocks21
I’ve seen how he votes!
Do you have some examples of how he has voted against your wishes and those of the Republican Party?
-->
@cristo71
To help out a bit. He is conveniently missing in a lot of very important close republican votes. So if Republicans have a heavy margin of victory or are guaranteed to lose on a bill, Crenshaw will always vote, but when it is very slim, he abstains. Repu license have lost by one vote on multiple things, because Crenshaw conveniently took the day off.
-->
@Wylted
Where are you to defend this piece of shit, like you are when I call out democrats?
- Let's remember that when Dan Crenshaw says that Jesus is a fictional character he is reflecting the consensus of global history, anthropology, theology, and science: No hard evidence exists proving Jesus Christ's existence as a man on Earth in history. So, let's take a deep breath and remind ourselves that Crenshaw is the only one speaking the well-established American wisdom to that girl and all the haters are mad because Crenshaw didn't assert a non-fact as a fact to a young child in the audience.
- I say American wisdom because Crenshaw is the only American in the room who remembers that we Americans traditionally, conservatively value that absence of religious tests to our political choices, however real such prejudices remain.
- I agree that an Ivy League Navy Seal Commander who lost an eye for his country is not exactly the Republican "type" anymore , much more John McCain 2.0 than Orange Man Bad. It's at the point where you can't be loyal and Republican both.
- Let's note that this is really about Crenshaw's disgust and dismay at the many Republican treasons of Jan 6th, 2021 is at the heart of this criticism. Again, Crenshaw tells another truth that the Republican Party is no longer capable of hearing.
- Fuck Dan Crenshaw. Pirate-looking fascist fucktard. Any assholes who supported Trump lies regarding the election right up to Jan 6th can lose their jobs for lying to their people, however improved their character by the knowledge that they risked their careers to call Trump's treason treachery when they saw it right before their eyes.
-->
@oromagi
Thanks, was that so much to ask.
-->
@Wylted
Thanks, was that so much to ask.
That's pretty bad.
When you can't get support from DC bootlickers as a RINO, you KNOW you dun fkd up. Bad.
-->
@Wylted
Should drop the pirates outfit.
Just makes him look a dickhead.
-->
@bmdrocks21
he did seem a bit peeved at getting exposed by a 14 year old lol.
As do all Christian when caught on the back foot.
-->
@Stephen
He said Jesus was a fictional character, I'm not sure he qualifies as a Christian. Probably just identifies as one, because it's impossible to win as a republican, if you are an atheist.
LMAO he got owned by that pushy evangelical girl. That’s an archetype I’ve almost completely forgotten about…reminds me of growing up in Texas in the 2000s
-->
@oromagi
- Let's remember that when Dan Crenshaw says that Jesus is a fictional character he is reflecting the consensus of global history, anthropology, theology, and science: No hard evidence exists proving Jesus Christ's existence as a man on Earth in history. So, let's take a deep breath and remind ourselves that Crenshaw is the only one speaking the well-established American wisdom to that girl and all the haters are mad because Crenshaw didn't assert a non-fact as a fact to a young child in the audience.
This isn’t true at all, historians *overwhelmingly* believe that Jesus was a real person. There are some who believe that the entire persona was a myth but that is very much a minority position.
Since both Muslims and Christians, together making up around 60% of the world population, believe in Jesus I don’t think the consensus of theology is that Jesus never existed. Science doesn’t have anything to do with it at all
-->
@cristo71
Do you have some examples of how he has voted against your wishes and those of the Republican Party?
That comment was more for humor.
He’s historically been very pro-war and wants to increase immigration just to name two.
But Congress doesn’t usually vote specifically on these issues, so it’ll take a lil sifting through his voting record
-->
@thett3
Agree that no hard evidence exists proving Christ's existence. What hard evidence are you claiming?
-->
@oromagi
What hard evidence would you expect from someone who died over 2000 years ago? A body? The location of Alexander the Greats body is unknown but there’s no doubt among historians that he existed. I would encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on this subject, which is very even handed but makes it clear that the historical consensus is that there was a real person named Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
It doesn’t make sense to believe that Jesus was a purely ahistorical figure like Odysseus because the early Christian church did not start as a cult around oral traditions thousands of years old, but rather began immediately upon his reported death and began evangelizing among people who would’ve been eyewitnesses to his life and crucifixion. If you’re going to completely make something up you aren’t going to include fake events that the population you’re trying to convert would have been there to see had they happened.
It doesn’t make sense to believe that Jesus was a purely ahistorical figure like Odysseus
I personally believe there was a historical Odysseus and that the events of the Trojan War did happen although not as described but that’s besides the point. The accuracy of oral traditions is an extremely interesting subject, but when it comes to Jesus we have written sources
Historians have dismissed oral traditions out of hand for the last few centuries because written sources are obviously much better. But there’s a shocking degree of stability in certain narratives that report ancient events that we know happened. Irish oral traditions that were finally written down in the 18th century reported on astronomical events we now know happened over a thousand years in the past, and made some historical claims that were proven later such as there being a large (for the time) road through a certain region that was later unearthed in a bog. The Australian Aboriginal oral traditions included references to a land bridge between Australia and Papua New Guinea that flooded thousands of years ago, as well as memories of megafauna that went extinct in the distant past.
-->
@thett3
What hard evidence would you expect from someone who died over 2000 years ago?
So we agree that no hard evidence exists. We can also agree that its rational to suppose that Christ existed. My point is that in the absence of such evidence how can you fault an individual for claiming fiction?
Josephus, the best historian closest to events, documents some fifty Jesus like figures claiming prophetic status in the decades contemporaneous with Christ's hypothesized lifetime and reading the Gnostic gospels pretty clearly demonstrates that more than one biography was recorded as Gospel by scattered and diverse Christian communities in the first century and slowly edited down to a single biography by the fourth century. While it is very reasonable to suppose that at least one Jesus-like figure claimed Messiah in the first century, the biography laid out in the bible seems to be a restless and inconsistent amalgamation. We know that there were multiple real biographies that claimed to be Robin Hood during John I's reign but we also know that Sir Walter Scott condensed and wove those stories into the popular re-telling we have no problem calling fiction today. I see no reason why the same standard should not apply to the Bible, where multiple biographies were interwoven, condensed and popularized into a single, more consistent work 300 years later.
-->
@oromagi
So we agree that no hard evidence exists. We can also agree that its rational to suppose that Christ existed. My point is that in the absence of such evidence how can you fault an individual for claiming fiction?
Because it's not reasonable to demand "hard evidence" for the existence of a historical person, while excluding historical texts and context. That same standard would exclude many (most?) important historical figures. The consensus is overwhelming for a reason, and is in fact the exact opposite of what you claimed
Josephus, the best historian closest to events, documents some fifty Jesus like figures claiming prophetic status in the decades contemporaneous with Christ's hypothesized lifetime
This is not an argument that Jesus wasn't a historical person, its an argument against his divinity. But this is the first I'm hearing of this, a cursory Google search doesn't reveal messiah claimants BEFORE Jesus. On Josephus:
"Several military leaders lived in the 1st century, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas, Simon of Peraea, and Athronges, all of whom are only documented by Josephus in surviving accounts. None of them were explicitly stated to have been thought of as a Messiah, but some scholars make this as an inference" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_messiah_claimants
and reading the Gnostic gospels pretty clearly demonstrates that more than one biography was recorded as Gospel by scattered and diverse Christian communities in the first century and slowly edited down to a single biography by the fourth century. While it is very reasonable to suppose that at least one Jesus-like figure claimed Messiah in the first century, the biography laid out in the bible seems to be a restless and inconsistent amalgamation.
Not really. I am not at all an expert on the Gospels but they are pretty clearly referencing the same person and the same events, with some minor differences.
We know that there were multiple real biographies that claimed to be Robin Hood during John I's reign but we also know that Sir Walter Scott condensed and wove those stories into the popular re-telling we have no problem calling fiction today.
Source? Robin Hood was a fascination of mine a few years ago, and my research revealed the EXACT OPPOSITE. There is no strong contender for who the historical Robin Hood would have been or the exact time period where he supposedly operated. The same goes for other characters in the stories such as Little John or the Sheriff of Nottingham, whereas we know (as much as we can "know" anything about ancient history) that Pontius Pilate and the Disciples really existed. Because I put a lot of stock in oral tradition I believe that Robin Hood and his merry men existed in at least some capacity, but the evidence for it is soooooo much weaker than for Jesus despite England being notorious for record keeping, and the alleged events being literally 1000+ years closer to today
-->
@oromagi
So we agree that no hard evidence exists. We can also agree that its rational to suppose that Christ existed. My point is that in the absence of such evidence how can you fault an individual for claiming fiction?
In regards to crenshaw, he is being faulted for pretending to be a Christian when he thinks Jesus is fake, not for disbelief.
-->
@zedvictor4
I think the eyepatch looks awesome on him,
If I knew nothing about him and another candidate, and 'had to vote on 'looks,
He'd likely have my vote.
@NoOneInParticular
Eh, people 'infer he said Jesus was imaginary,
One 'could argue it was just a case of poor sentence structure,
Though he'd have been better off kindly explaining such 'if it was the case, than his actual response to the girl.
It was a slip I. The sense he structured his sentence wrong. He was overly relaxed and just said what he felt, forgetting he was on a stage. To lie about your religious beliefs to get votes is disgusting. It shows he cares more about winning electio. Than actually serving the public
-->
@Wylted
In regards to crenshaw, he is being faulted for pretending to be a Christian when he thinks Jesus is fake, not for disbelief.
But Trump's a real good Christian.