Remove ads

Controversial Historical Opinions You Have

It's more like the trend of rival powers being either land or sea focused in terms of military development.
Like for instance, Rome being land focused with armies and legions, while Carthage was one of the biggest naval powers of the ancient Mediterranean.
 
ExistentialBread said:
It's more like the trend of rival powers being either land or sea focused in terms of military development.
Like for instance, Rome being land focused with armies and legions, while Carthage was one of the biggest naval powers of the ancient Mediterranean.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To some extent, "land-focused" versus "sea-focused" can be a retroactive description, a way of drawing the bullseye around the shots that hit so as to make them look better aimed in hindsight.

For instance, the Spanish colonial empire of the 1500s- "land-focused" or "sea-focused?" An enormous amount of naval power was built up for that empire, with very large fleets of warships and vast colonial possessions on other continents. But we tend to retroactively ignore that because during their decline the Spanish overseas possessions became something of a punching bag, and they spent a lot of money on clashes with continental rivals. But saying "they were land-focused" as opposed to "they had dynastic ties and a need to treat the Mediterranean theater and influence over the papacy as critical strategic priorities" doesn't really work, in my opinion.

Was imperial Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm II "land-focused" or "sea-focused?" We'd tend to say land-focused, but for a while there, they had the second-biggest navy in the world, didn't they? They were entirely competitive in design quality and technology, too... it's just that their army did more for their reputation than their navy did.

The only states we can really characterize as "sea-focused" are a relative handful of empires, nearly all of which enjoyed the great advantage of having no immediate strong rivals who could hit them overland. Britain, Venice, Carthage, Majapahit... Athens is the only exception I can think of that relied mainly on its navy for influence despite being susceptible to overland attacks by prominent rival Sparta.
 
ExistentialBread said:
It's more like the trend of rival powers being either land or sea focused in terms of military development.
Like for instance, Rome being land focused with armies and legions, while Carthage was one of the biggest naval powers of the ancient Mediterranean.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is only true for the 1st Punic war. The 2nd one had Rome as the uncontested naval power throughout the entire war iirc.
 
One but people being shocked and appalled by the Mesoamerican practice of human sacrifice while people in Europe and the Middle East where killing each other for worshipping the same god in a slightly different way.

I think that a "average" Jewish Progam killed more people then a decade of rituals in the Aztec Empire.

It's worth noting most sacrifices where of enemy soldiers or captured nobles and not civilians.
 
Pogroms are mass murder, not a religious rite. If you want a contemporary European tradition to Aztec ritual sacrifice, they were burning people alive for the glory of g-d at the same time.

Which I've stated here before to loud condemnation of nu-uh.
 
It's the fact that it was ritualized was the problem. People can understand murder, but not so much ripping out hearts to make the sun shine or burning people alive because you think they're witches.
 
I believe that it was also discussed in this thread or over on "What's the most Cringeworthy take on Actual History/Archeology you've ever read?" how the roots of Abrahamic / Western opposition to human sacrifice goes back to long before the start of the Columbian Exchange. I would be interested in further discussing this topic if anyone is interested.
 
Last edited:
Astrid Fornhoff said:
Pogroms are mass murder, not a religious rite. If you want a contemporary European tradition to Aztec ritual sacrifice, they were burning people alive for the glory of g-d at the same time.

Which I've stated here before to loud condemnation of nu-uh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Frankly it's closer to Christian thought than most want to admit. '
Huītzilōpōchtli gave his life for the sun to shine, it is virtuous to follow his example'. Compare Paul (or was it Peter, can never remember) preaching that sacrificing martyring yourself against the Romans 'like Jesus did' was holy.
 
Staff Notice - Rule 2 - Don’t Be Hateful
Astrid Fornhoff said:
Pogroms are mass murder, not a religious rite. If you want a contemporary European tradition to Aztec ritual sacrifice, they were burning people alive for the glory of g-d at the same time.

Which I've stated here before to loud condemnation of nu-uh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why where Jews persecuted?

Because of the Jews killed Christ myth. Even do it was the Roman. and latter Blood libel
 
Last edited:
Shane_357 said:
Frankly it's closer to Christian thought than most want to admit. '
Huītzilōpōchtli gave his life for the sun to shine, it is virtuous to follow his example'. Compare Paul (or was it Peter, can never remember) preaching that sacrificing martyring yourself against the Romans 'like Jesus did' was holy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I can agree with the idea that there is a relatively strong theme of human suffering and sacrifice being a form of sacrament in Christian thought. The medieval flagellants come to mind as the most striking example but I believe that the mortification of flesh and the idea that you can reach heaven by dying in service of the faith were both extremely common themes throughout much of Christian history.

I believe that the key ideological distinction is the issue of Christianity having it as a voluntary (or "voluntary" in many cases when it was de facto required) sacrifice. This seems like a sound distinction even if the subject (human suffering and dying for the good of others) is the same. There is a profound difference between an individual deciding to suffer and die for the good of others vs others deciding to torture or murder someone for their benefit.

I would emphasize that this is somewhat a question of perspective here as I am aware that many of the human sacrifice practices of non-Christian cultures included voluntary elements and that much of the "voluntary" sacrifice found in Christian society was that in name only.
 
Last edited:
Rule 2: Don’t Be Hateful
Astrid Fornhoff said:
We did not, the Romans did.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
57 Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. 58 And Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council[h] were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"[i] 63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death." 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, 68 saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?"

Jesus Before Pilate

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so." 12 But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" 14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

The Crowd Chooses Barabbas

15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. 16 And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. 17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. 19 Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream." 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." 22 Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let him be crucified!" 23 And he said, "Why? What evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!"

Konradleijon said:
Why where Jews persecuted?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
More pertinent to classical times, the jews also kept rebelling against the romans and usually massacred romans/gentiles/non-jews when these uprisings happened
 
Last edited:
BalerionTheDrake said:
57 Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. 58 And Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council[h] were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"[i] 63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death." 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, 68 saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?"

Jesus Before Pilate

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so." 12 But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" 14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

The Crowd Chooses Barabbas

15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. 16 And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. 17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. 19 Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream." 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." 22 Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let him be crucified!" 23 And he said, "Why? What evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I should have said myth. That's even worse the Jew didn't even kill Christ.

But yeah the myth that the Jews killed Christ.

Which led to murder of the Jews.

Also also Jesus was Jewish so was many of his followers.
 
Last edited:
"the Jews killed Oily Josh" is part and parcel of the efforts to turn the fringe Jewish sect that was the original Oily Josh fanclub into something which could appeal to non Jews.
 
I don't remember the actual numbers enough to cite this, but I do remember reading somewhere that when you take into account the ways that Mesoamerican warfare and criminal justice changed to reflect human sacrifice, the death rate wasn't that much different then in Europe. It's just you'd die in France because you were stabbed by an Englishman or hanged by your lord, and in Mexico you got your heart torn out.
 
Konradleijon said:
One but people being shocked and appalled by the Mesoamerican practice of human sacrifice while people in Europe and the Middle East where killing each other for worshipping the same god in a slightly different way.

I think that a "average" Jewish Progam killed more people then a decade of rituals in the Aztec Empire.

It's worth noting most sacrifices where of enemy soldiers or captured nobles and not civilians.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why do you keep coming back to Mesoamerican blood sacrifice, and the hypocrisy of denouncing it while also conducting wars of religion?

Yes, both are bad. Yes, it is a point worthy of being taught.

But you come back to it once a month, at least! Every single time, you get the same result- people more or less agreeing with you! Nothing has changed since the last time you made an extremely similar post, saying more or less the same thing; and when you made that post, nothing had changed since the time before that either!
 
Last edited:
BalerionTheDrake said:
57 Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. 58 And Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council[h] were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"[i] 63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death." 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, 68 saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?"

Jesus Before Pilate

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so." 12 But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" 14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

The Crowd Chooses Barabbas

15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. 16 And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. 17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. 19 Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream." 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." 22 Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let him be crucified!" 23 And he said, "Why? What evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's what the Gospels say, but it doesn't match with Jewish Law as recorded in the Talmud. For example, the trial of Jesus is supposedly on Pessach, but courts are forbidden to meet on holidays. Jesus was convicted of blasphemy, which is specifically defined as uttering the name of the Lord, which no one claims he ever did, even at the trial, etc. He could have been convicted of heresy - what you quoted in Matthew is certainly wildly heretical - but heresy isn't a capital crime under Jewish Law.
But the most damning piece of evidence is that the Jewish courts simply didn't have the right to sentence people to death under Roman rule. Instead, the courts would sentence one to flogging, or excommunication and exile. In fact, death by crucifixion is a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one.
Therefore Jesus must have been sentenced and put to death by the Roman authorities, not by the Sanhedrin as the Gospels claim, albeit likely under some pressure by Jews. Still Pontius Pilate was known to be brutal and bloodthirsty, sentencing a troublemaker to death is perfectly in character.
 
Last edited:
Rule 5: Don’t Make it Harder For Us to Do Our Jobs
My own controversial historical opinion is that Christian antisemitism is a pathetic cope.

Yeah. We killed your god, you little bitches, and there's nothing you can do about it. Oppress us. Blood libel us. Genocide us. Everyone can see you're just butthurt and malding over it. There's a certain level of pwnage that you cannot ever recover from, and "getting your god killed" is well past that threshold.

Stay mad, losers. Stay mad.
 
Last edited:
Leila Hann said:
My own contraversial historical opinion is that Christian antisemitism is a pathetic cope.

Yeah. We killed your god, you little bitches, and there's nothing you can do about it. Oppress us. Genocide us. Blood libel us. Everyone can see you're just butthurt and malding over it. There's a certain level of pwnage that you cannot ever recover from, and "getting your god killed" is well past that threshold.

Stay mad, losers. Stay mad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To bring back the mesoanerican angle most other cultures have their gods die in amazingly metal ways. Let's see Jesus set himself on fire to become the sun.
 
Leila Hann said:
My own contraversial historical opinion is that Christian antisemitism is a pathetic cope.

Yeah. We killed your god, you little bitches, and there's nothing you can do about it. Oppress us. Genocide us. Blood libel us. Everyone can see you're just butthurt and malding over it. There's a certain level of pwnage that you cannot ever recover from, and "getting your god killed" is well past that threshold.

Stay mad, losers. Stay mad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Jesus dying was all part of the plan, blaming the killer is missing the point anyway :V
 
Gears said:
To bring back the mesoanerican angle most other cultures have their gods die in amazingly metal ways. Let's see Jesus set himself on fire to become the sun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because of the double standard in culture when talking about Mesoamerican cultures which continue to this day among the uninformed which affects how people discuss Indigenous people.

People still call the Mexica Savages and believe racist Spainish propaganda.

The amount of white mans burden propaganda I see about indigenous cultures is infuriating when people in Europe where massacring each other for worshipping the same G-D in a slightly different way.
Pempelune said:
But the most damning piece of evidence is that the Jewish courts simply didn't have the right to sentence people to death under Roman rule. Instead, the courts would sentence one to flogging, or excommunication and exile. In fact, death by crucifixion is a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one.
Therefore Jesus must have been sentenced and put to death by the Roman authorities, not by the Sanhedrin as the Gospels claim, albeit likely under some pressure by Jews. Still Pontius Pilate was known to be brutal and bloodthirsty, sentencing a troublemaker to death is perfectly in character.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's so funny reading the Bible and see Roman culture trying to defend itself from its obvious murder of Jesus by retconning it to blame the Jews.

Or it would be if it didn't lead to thousands of years of persecution of Jewish people.

It's like that in a hundred years people start worshiping the Lakota rebel Crazy Horse and twist history to where the US government was forced to murder him because of the Lakota.
 
Konradleijon said:
It's like that in a hundred years people start worshiping the Lakota rebel Crazy Horse and twist history to where the US government was forced to murder him because of the Lakota.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wouldn't Mormonism be a better metaphor? Given that John Smith was lynched in prison by an angry mob of Americans while the modern American security state is infamously full of Mormons?
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top