Slashdot Mirror
Jury Acquits Citizens of Illegally Filming Police
sexybomber writes "The Springfield (MA) Republican reports two men accused of illegally filming the process as they bailed friends out of jail that last summer, were acquitted of all charges Tuesday. Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller initially were granted permission to film the bail process, but later were forbidden by jail officials from recording the procedure. When they continued to digitally recording their encounter with jail officials, they were arrested by police. Eyre and Mueller testified that they never attempted to hide the fact that they were recording at the jail. Not only did they ask permission to film the bail-out process — which initially was granted — but their recording devices were 'out in the open,' Eyre said. The Jury found the defendants not guilty of three criminal counts: Each was acquitted of unlawful wiretapping, while Mueller also was acquitted of a charge of resisting arrest."
Oh, now, just because there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus doesn't prove he didn't exist. He was probably just such a lousy carpenter that he had to turn to astrology/storytelling to get enough food to eat. Unfortunately, that annoyed the Romans.
Or, perhaps this. :^)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, There just isn't much or any evidence that he was the son of god or the messiah or anything special and supernatural. All that is a matter of faith.
No, actually, there isnt. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you have 'plenty' of evidence it shouldnt be hard to cite some. It needs to be contemperaneous (which rules out the Old Testament and the Church Fathers, all of whom were at the very least many decades after the time) and we need someone that actually fits that new testament story in whole, not just in parts (Yeshua Ben Pantera for instance is a partial fit but clearly not a full one.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
There are two distinct claims in the Jesus story:
1) There was a guy living around that time who did some preaching and had a following.
2) This guy performed miracles and such.
You're arguing that because #2 is highly unlikely and has no evidence for it that means that #1 is also highly unlikely and has no evidence for it. That's a logical fallacy. You may want to read http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html for a slightly longer discussion of the subject, but the short story is that Occam's razor suggests #1 is probably true, while #2 is probably false.