• prettybunnys
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 months ago

      There are even Roman records to the fact.

      kiiiiiiiiinda

        • prettybunnys
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          8 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.

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              8 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?

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  8 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.

                  So you admit to being a bigot? That’s what bigotry is, having a bias against people and seeing everything through the lens of that bias to perpetually confirm that bias.

              • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 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.

                • prettybunnys
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  They’re not being historically accurate.

                  They’re being accurate to one take of a mythology which happens to have caste the Jewish people in a bad light for millennia.

                  There is no record of this story happening past word of mouth.

                  I could make up an equally plausible story right now for why the competing religious faith would caste the other predominant faith in a bad light but not want to raise the Ire of the governing authority, “Roman’s didn’t do it, it was the other religion?‽!!”

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  If we do a venn diagram their hatred of the Jewish religion (antisemitism) is completely enclosed within the larger circle of hating all religion. Does drawing a larger circle around the smaller circle fundamentally change the smaller circle?

                  It’s the old “I’m not racist because I hate everyone equally” statement. But somehow I doubt they actually hate all people. Just those that are different from them.

                  In the end it’s splitting hairs. They are promoting the same ideas that are promoted by the antisemitic crowd. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, how much effort should we make debating over whether it’s a duck simply because the duck has more enemies than a normal duck?

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

                    There are a LOT of very good reasons for someone to hate religion as a whole that have absolutely nothing to do with being antisemitic. And I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t hate religion myself, though I can understand why some people do, especially since I’m a member of the lgbt community.

              • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 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.

                • prettybunnys
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  The “it wasn’t the romans it was the Jews” is a long held antisemitic argument.

                  It’s super easy when someone is trying to push that narrative.

                  There are no contemporary records of the event ever occurring. It’s a story. How the precision of “nah it was the Jews who did it” comes out seems weird, don’t you think?

                  The person who is saying it here may not be intending to push the antisemitic narrative but they are just the same pushing the millennia old narrative that casts the Jewish people in a bad light and washes the hands of the “white Roman western authority who otherwise didn’t care”

                  Historically speaking the narrative they are pushing is an antisemitic one, when you couple the absolute lack of contemporary records of the event (but oh trust me bro it’s just these records were burned so take my FAITH that they existed!)

                  Again, it’s adding color to a mythological historical event that has no contemporary records of happening. When you insert specifics like that there is reason.

                  • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    “it wasn’t the Romans it was the Jews” is also a fact of the most mainstream versions of Christian/Catholic beliefs. It’s also a fact of their beliefs that Jesus himself was Jewish, and I was taught both of those things when growing up in a religious school system without ever being taught to blame or hate Jewish people for it because Jewish people were also regularly victims of oppression in the bible being saved whether by Moses or God himself or others. Someone using it as an example of religious infighting doesn’t automatically mean it’s being used as an antisemitic argument. Whether you take issue with how that account of events came to exist historically isn’t the fault of the other commenter, it is still part of the mythos as most people know it, and the conversation was referring specifically to the mythos. Jesus forgiving his own people and telling god “they know not what they do” is kind of an important aspect of his sacrifice and martyrdom.

        • prettybunnys
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          There is no contemporary record of Jesus or his crucifixion.

            • prettybunnys
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 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
      ·
      8 months ago

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