• pyrflie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    They killed him cause he told them to love each other. That’ll get you killed just about anywhere. Humans love to hate.

    That said the air of ‘I’m special’ didn’t help.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      No…they killed him because he represented a risk to the standing power structure.

      They strung him up next to common criminals to lower his status, to make his whole idea seem insignificant.

      No comment on weather he was supernatural.

      • pyrflie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Romans didn’t kill him his own religion did, with special emphasis that he wasn’t their messiah.

        Rome specifically washed their hands of the whole incident since he didn’t break any standing laws. They imprisoned him for the reason you called out and specifically didn’t touch him for the same.

        The two reasons I called out were why he was killed. There are even Roman records to the fact.

            • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              It kinda feels like you’re pushing an anti-Semitic narrative here instead of trying to argue the history.

              The Jewish people were not some minor cult. The story does go that the Jewish authorities did argue for Jesus to be executed, part of it definitely being because of his “king of the Jews” thing. Judaism as a religion and The Jewish people are not 1 and the same in context, Jesus famously was not anti-Roman and argued his teachings were of the mind.

              The Romans were famous for incorporating local government structures and religions as long as you paid and served.

              Yes according to the myth the Jewish Authorities ( again, integrated and part of the Roman governing of the area) pushed for him to be executed for claiming to be the king of the Jews (political) which would upset Roman rule.

              Again, this is of course assuming you believe the myth that actually isn’t written about or recorded at all until a couple generations later.

              There aren’t Roman records of the event until later, after the fact. From people who weren’t there, but heard about it from people who were or heard it from folks who were … etc.

              • pyrflie@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Christianity was a minor Jewish cult at the time, and only really expanded due to Greek Egyptians latching onto it prior to Constantine.

                The Jews in were major figures in the Roman Provence which is why they were able to kill someone who was troubling them.

                I get that this comes off as anti-Jewish but it’s really anti-religion. An ingroup killed an outgroup cause it was politically convenient; religion is just one more ingrouping.

                As to the lack of contemporary sources you can thank both Constantine and Theodosius. This is why I upvoted your first comment.

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  17
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I get that this comes off as anti-Jewish but it’s really anti-religion.

                  This is the problem when your world view is guided by hating a thing. It make you biased and bigoted. Ok so you’re bigoted against all religions, but when you talk about a specific religion your logic perfectly aligns with those that are only bigoted against that particular religion.

                  So does being bigoted towards all religions make you a better person than someone that’s bigoted towards only a single religion? You’re both using identical rationalizations, does does applying bigoted rationalizations more broadly make you more or less of a bigot?

                  • pyrflie@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I simply know my bias. I don’t like religion and make no bones about it. I do see some historical value to various religions but this bias also lets me see the cost.

                  • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    They spoke about a particular religion because that particular religion was the one relevant to the conversation already taking place. You are reaching REALLY hard to try to claim they’re being antisemitic here.

                    A lot of people dislike religion for reasons that are pretty understandable. I’m not anti-religion myself but I can absolutely understand why some people are because like it or not religion has hurt a lot of people because of how often it’s been used to abuse and oppress others including other religious groups.

                  • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    The person you replied to said nothing anti -Semitic or anti religion and I’m not sure why they suggested that they did.

                    I think they were just trying to be historically accurate.

          • pyrflie@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Who killed him, Jews recorded by Romans. Roman records are why we know a minor Jewish sect existed.

              • pyrflie@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                7 months ago

                Either you are too stupid to understand or being facetious; either way the point is made.

                • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Uncivil and wrong. I never said that shit and you tried to put words in my mouth.

                  • pyrflie@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Rhetoric and correct. Either you didn’t understand or you understood. Civility never played a part for either response only mutual contempt.

                • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  … by that logic there is no existing proof that Jesus and his boys rode dinosaurs into battle. Yet you’re out here arguing his raptor had no feathers.

                  Hitchens razor and whatnot but why would logic come into play with your myths?

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah and the Romans were always 100% accurate in their historical accounts, right?

          • pyrflie@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Non personal accounts probably. Roman editorialism was mostly personal, for everything else blame Theodosius the Arsonist.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        air of ‘i’m special’

        risk to the standing power structure

        These two ideas are arguably very similar. Claiming religious or political standing is both claiming an air of uniqueness and a threat to the status quo, and to my understanding this guy was doing both. ☺️

        • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          The argument made is that the Romans saw no threat. The Romans didn’t give a fuck about the religious part. As far as they were concerned he was no threat.

          That’s how the story goes at least, a story rewritten over and over by Romans so why would they make themselves look bad?

            • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I think you’re misunderstanding a bit what I mean.

              The Roman people have every reason to change the narrative to make it the others who killed him.

              • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                No I think I totally agree and understand exactly what you mean. 🙃🙃

                I promise my comment is only saying what it said, face value. No subtext lol :)

                • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  There is a lot of anti-Semitic history in the retelling of this myth so sometimes it’s hard to understand where people are coming from.

                  Judaism was not compatible with the polytheistic religions of the time, it specifically had a militaristic bend to it which is part of why they were persecuted and chased off time and again and also fought hard for their land. It was a seed change in ideas, suddenly your god was a problem because this god said no others.

                  That inherently isn’t bad, human nature and whatnot.

                  The Roman’s didn’t give a fuck beyond enforcing the local peace and getting their due. Their whole system relied on being pragmatic and open to the local religions.

                  Who decided that this mythological person needed to be executed is here-say, whether it even happened is here-say.

                  What is easy to pick out is the push for the narrative to be at the hands of the evil bad guys which is where things get kinda gross.

                  With no records of the event why are we saying one side did it over the other.

                  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    understood! yeah sorry if i gave any impression of the opposing position. that’s not at all the case.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Absolutely not. He was claiming to be the King of the Jews. He was literally claiming political power. He wasn’t just saying “hey I’m a super cool religious figure.”

          • spujb@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            i have amended my statement i guess the way i phrased it made a lot of people upset so i apologize, that was definitely not my intent and still not sure why that happened.

            would love to hear your thoughts on my edited statement if you have them :)

          • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The argument actually is that he was making a religious argument, his kingdom was of the mind.

            There is an effort to make that point: “give to the Roman’s that which is theirs”

            A lot of the argument was about the tacit acceptance that the theology of the day dictated how you ought to live and it had been twisted.

            The power structure that he was upsetting was that of the ruling Jewish political body because it called their theology into question.

            The Roman’s were 100% in charge and didn’t give a fuck he could be the king of the space dolphins as long as they paid their taxes too.

            • AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              There’s a sort of old Twitter esque, “Everything must be challenged and I’ve been having this argument with other people for 4 days straight” energy here, yeah.

              As someone who didn’t use Twitter, I would always get in these weird arguments with my friends that were crazily out of proportion. Then when they would cool down later I would predictably learn they were coming fresh off a Twitter debate where everything everyone says is in bad faith.

              It’s kinda fun getting that experience now tho, I feel like I missed out a bit!

              • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                need to have a new rule that you don’t get to comment unless you’d be willing to give the other person a hug or at least a firm handshake

                hate being shouted down literally because the other person gets a rush of dopamine

            • GBU_28@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              No, you just said something that made no sense and got called on it. That’s not toxic, it’s just clear speech.

                • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  No one is trapping you here.

                  You refuted what others said, and we aren’t obliged to just accept you twisting words and misrepresenting other’s statements. Sorry that comes off as toxic to YOU when others found your comment bad in the first place.

                  People deserve to maintain the character and context of their comments, and you don’t deserve to high horse once you wade in. You chose to mince words, and people disagreed with you. Thats not toxic, that’s adults disagreeing.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.

      – Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

      (Immediately after she realized it, the Earth gets destroyed.)

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’ve re-read it many times, along with re-listening to the radio series, the LPs, re-watching the TV series, I can even appreciate the feature film, despite it being the least of the versions. I dearly love Douglas Adams.

          The only thing I haven’t done in many, many years is play the INFOCOM game. Too devious.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      let’s maybe not push the propagandic idea that humans are inherently bad, humans are in fact inherently extremely friendly (to a fault) and the idea that the opposite is true is part of what’s needed to restrain our inherent need to help others.

      Any time a group of humans is placed in a difficult position they start working together, there’s that famous example of a group of kids accidentally ending up basically recreating Lord of the flies except they just got along and eventually had pretty comfortable lives, because as it turns out working together makes things way easier!

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Humans mostly help each other. Governments do not like challenges to their authority. Jesus was killed because of the challenge he represented to the Pharisees. Ultimately Rome killed him, but at the demand of the Pharisees and an unruly mob that had been whipped into a frenzy.