Crucified man had prior run-in with authorities

[Mme. Defarge]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/04/12/crucified-man-had-prior-run-in-with-authorities/?utm_term=.c8c1d3864683

The gentleman arrested Thursday and tried before Pontius Pilate had a troubled background.

Born (possibly out of wedlock?) in a stable, this jobless thirty-something of Middle Eastern origin had had previous run-ins with local authorities for disturbing the peace, and had become increasingly associated with the members of a fringe religious group. He spent the majority of his time in the company of sex workers and criminals.

He had had prior run-ins with local authorities — most notably, an incident of vandalism in a community center when he wrecked the tables of several licensed money-lenders and bird-sellers. He had used violent language, too, claiming that he could destroy a gathering place and rebuild it.

At the time of his arrest, he had not held a fixed residence for years. Instead, he led an itinerant lifestyle, staying at the homes of friends and advocating the redistribution of wealth.

He had come to the attention of the authorities more than once for his unauthorized distribution of food, disruptive public behavior, and participation in farcical aquatic ceremonies.

Some say that his brutal punishment at the hands of the state was out of proportion to and unrelated to any of these incidents in his record.

But after all, he was no angel.

[Coventina]

1. BOOM!

Well done.



I hate victim-blaming....

[Nevernose]

2. It's good, but I'd have made changes

Instead of"itenerant lifestyle" I would have gone with "homeless." And instead of money lenders I would have gone with "bankers" or "bank tellers." Replace "redistribution of wealth" with "he was a noted, vocal communist organizer."

[Mme. Defarge]

3. If I decide to fork over

to hire an editor for my manuscript, I'll know who to call! Great suggestions.

[mcar]

4. Brilliant!

[underpants]

5. Very funny

[IronLionZion]

6. He made some illegal wine

and procured fish from unknown sources.

Being a long-haired Jewish peacenik is bad enough for public execution.

Make crucifixion great again

Nailed it!

[Alice11111]

7. Thank you for the post, as Easter nears.

[NBachers]

9. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Could you elaborate, please?

[Hekate]

14. What the hell are you talking about, specifically? And I use the term advisedly.

[Pacifist Patriot]

21. I get it.

Not many stop to examine the morass of speech and action attributed to the character throughout all texts and appreciate the cognitive dissonance required to make some semblance of sense out of it. But humans are designed to be able to do just that, so here we are. Cheers, mate!

[Mme. Defarge]

22. Context, context, context ...

The quotes above in no way instruct followers of Jesus to not love or honor their parents. If one holds that Jesus is in fact the Second Person in the the Holy Trinity - a riddle that attempts to describe the Indescribable - then love of God must be so without limits that it goes far beyond the love for human relationships, while at the same time encompassing them. How mind boggling is that?

Please keep the in mind that in the Decalog honoring one's father and mother assumes 5th place after:

1) Not having other gods,
2) Not creating idols
3) Not taking the Lord's name in vain, and
4). Remembering the Sabbath and keeping it Holy.

According to Jesus, the greatest of the commandments is as follows:

Matthew 22:35-40King James Version (KJV)

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

[Mme. Defarge]

25. Most, if not all, belief systems have their fundamentalists,

even atheism.

[RoadhogRidesAgain]

26. Atheism isn't a belief system. It's a blank state. Get it right.

[Mme. Defarge]

27. Sorry, it's a belief system.

[wasupaloopa]

32. What are some of tenants of the belief system?

Seems to me an atheist is the better person to explain his or her self not someone with an opposing view.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Not according to any definition I'm familiar with.

belief system:

a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code

atheism:

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Please explain how a lack of belief in gods = a belief system.

[7962]

40. Also defined as "disbelief".

Funny how many who are non believers expend so much effort to prove they dont believe something

[beam me up scottie]

41. 'Disbelief' is still is not a belief system. So again that definition is wrong.

Funny how many who are non believers expend so much effort to prove they dont believe something

You think it's funny that non-believers resent being defined by people who misrepresent our position?

Really?

Religious people have been doing the same thing to unbelievers for thousands of years so you'd think by now we would just accept it. Why should we care if we're called Satan worshipers, morally bankrupt Christ haters, accused of being un-American, a danger to society, etc.
We should just roll with it, right?

Is that what you tell other minorities who're misrepresented by the majority or are we different for some reason?

Religioustolerance.org has a very interesting definition of intolerance:

Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected is intolerant.

Why would someone want to spread misinformation about atheists having a belief system when that's demonstrably false?

And why do people object when atheists try to correct that misinformation?

[7962]

51. I find it hilarious. As well as the attempt to equate to minorities

Why expend so much effort, money and time to buy TV ads, billboards, etc just to tell everyone how much you DONT believe in something else? Because they DO believe; they believe there is no "higher power". Actually going out and erecting a billboard stating that "Jesus Christ is a myth", among others, knowing that it insults many in the population. Of course, you cannot PROVE that Jesus is a myth, but you can choose to believe it. I just laugh at the irony that thousands of dollars were likely given to a billboard owner who probably DOES believe.
As for the fringes who love to hurl insults such as "satan worshippers", etc, I find them just as pitiful as those I see here who are always happy to post about the "sky wizard", "fairytale prophets", etc. Insulting.

[beam me up scottie]

54. You mean like how feminists and minority groups spend time and money to promote equality?

Why expend so much effort, money and time to buy TV ads, billboards, etc just to tell everyone how much you DONT believe in something else?

Who says that's what we're doing? You do realize that all liberal advocacy groups promote equality, right?

And we do it for the same reasons they do: because we need to fight back against bigots who constantly try to legislate away our rights.

Atheist groups push back against those who don't believe in the constitutional separation of church and state. We push back against Christians who want to discriminate against women, lgbt people and religious minorities.

It's too bad that this is so offensive to the majority but that's to be expected. Not everyone is able to understand that organizations like the FFRF are fighting for everyone's rights just like not everyone is able to understand that feminists, lgbt rights groups and others who advocate for minorities aren't asking for 'special' rights, we're asking for equality. When you're part of the majority it's easy to feel threatened by uppity minorities. We get that. And still we fight.

Let's have a look at one of those militant atheists who goes out of his way to force his non-belief down the throats of poor unsuspecting Americans:

My dog HOW INSULTING!!!



You may not agree with the methods used by minority rights groups but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to spread misinformation about them or their motives.

I provided dictionary definitions that prove atheism isn't a belief system and I really don't know how to make it any simpler.

Maybe an easy to understand essay will help:

What is Atheism?

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Does that help?


You are offended by billboards because you say atheists "know that it insults many in the population".

So why would you keep trying to redefine atheism when you know it's insulting?

[7962]

55. I didnt say I was offended, I said i laugh at them. But they do offend many others

And reading a definition of a group by the group itself is hardly concrete
If you havent seen the insulting billboards, just google them. If you dont think they're insulting, then you have no room to complain.
Sorry, but atheists DO have a belief; a belief that there is no deity of any type.
Who cares. Still amazing how a group that believes in nothing works so hard to convince people they have no belief system!

[beam me up scottie]

56. Many vocal minority rights groups offend people. Right wingers are notoriously thin skinned.

I haven't heard many liberals complain about the billboards, they seem to understand the reason behind them. The folks who scream bloody murder are almost always right wing nut jobs who claim this is a 'Christian nation' and resent our very existence.

***

And reading a definition of a group by the group itself is hardly concrete

I've provided several definitions and none of them confirm your belief that a lack of belief is a belief system.

Here are the first two:

belief system:

a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code

atheism:

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

What are the principles and tenets of our belief system?

Deities are mythological creatures: Zeus, Thor, Anubis etc are among thousands of other gods no one believes in anymore. Add to that other mythical beings like winged unicorns, giant flying reptiles that breathe fire, leprechauns, fairies etc and you have a long long list of things most people don't believe in.

Is a lack of belief in those creatures a belief system as well?

If so what are the tenets and principles of those belief systems?

***

Who cares. Still amazing how a group that believes in nothing works so hard to convince people they have no belief system!

Well at least you admit it's not a belief system. That's a start.

I don't think it's 'amazing' that marginalized groups resent being redefined by the majority and that we defend ourselves. I think it's normal to push back against disinformation that's used to malign us.

As a feminist I regularly push back against right wing propaganda that misrepresents us.

Muslims resent it when bigots misrepresent them. So do Jews. As do members of Black Lives Matter along with other minority groups. They push back against right wing propaganda that attempts to redefine them and their movements.

So why should atheists allow the religious right to continue to misrepresent us? Especially when it's so easy to prove that their propaganda is false.

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. Pft.

Funny how many who are non believers expend so much effort to prove they dont believe something

[angrychair]

34. You are allowed to believe whatever you want

But atheists, by definition, know there is no god or gods and there is nothing to challenge that fact.

I have always found it amusing that despite having their deity on our nation's money, in oaths to loyalty to our country and being so intertwined with our daily lives that their beliefs are extolled in national publications and that they continue to desire a theocracy in which all are forced to believe as they do but still tell people they have a choice.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Indeed. And when we object we're accused of being militant.

Atheists are a small and mostly powerless minority in this country, I find it odd that the majority still seems to feel threatened by our existence. Like you said - they have to constantly remind us that this is a 'Christian nation' by trying to insert their religion into our public schools, our government, and even in our courthouses.

I disagree about atheists "knowing" there are no gods, most of us are agnostic atheists - we don't claim to know for certain there are no gods - we just don't believe in any because we've seen no evidence that they exist.

[angrychair]

49. I agree

To a certain degree but I shy away from the term "agnostic" even if paired with "atheist" as it is all to often taken to imply your mind can be changed. My mind cannot be changed.
Every culture, throughout the span of human history, believes their god(s) are the only god(s) or subservient to their god(s). Someone is wrong and all of them think it is everyone else but them, never realizing or being willing to admit, that they are all wrong, including themselves.

There is nothing spiritual or holy about the universe or our place in it. We are one planet among trillions in the universe. There are billions of habitable planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone.
We are born. We die. The galaxies so far away the light from it has not reached us yet, they do not care.

We are only as important and only matter in so far as the life we live and the relationships we make and the memories we leave behind to our family and friends and those that knew us.

That is the only afterlife awaiting any of us.

[Moostache]

35. To be equally truculent...

Sorry, you're wrong.

[Mme. Defarge]

47. Thanks!

Being called "truculent" is a first for me, and I'm quite liking it.

Here's an article that far better expresses my thinking on the subject than I could have.

http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system

[beam me up scottie]

50. The author of that article is an anti-atheist bigot who believes humans need the bible to be moral.

So what about atheism? Does the denial of God have any entailments? Yes, it does: take just one example—the concept of human rights. Modern human rights theory is based on the Judeo-Christian idea that human beings are of tremendous value and worth, because they are made in the image of God. Reject God and suddenly you have to start again, explaining why one particular creature, thrown up by the forces of time, chance and natural selection mixing and chopping atoms and chemicals for several billion years possesses inalienable rights, whereas amoeba, aardvarks and eggplants do not. Many philosophers and thinkers recognise the problem and are honest enough to admit if you dismiss God, you lose many other things, too.

He actually thinks atheists cannot be moral because we "deny God". Now where have I heard that before...?

Oh, I remember - Christian moralists and creationists also make that claim:

Well, those “ingrained values” have been present in humans since God created our first parents about 6,000 years ago, but not because morality evolved. On the contrary, God created Adam and Eve in His own image and therefore with both an understanding of what was good and the choice to obey their Creator or to rebel against Him. Humans have not lost that sense of right and wrong, and we usually call that sense a conscience. Romans 2 explains how the moral standards people tend to impose on others proves they have a concept of right and wrong for which they are responsible, and that moral standard comes from the law of God expressed in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and written on every human heart (Romans 2:14–16). But our propensity to ignore our conscience and sin leaves our moral sense—our conscience—marred, sometimes even seared (1 Timothy 4:2). Romans 1:18–28 indicates how the process of sinful rebellion hardens people’s hearts against godly morality.

Our sinful natures and our marred perception of right and wrong make our conscience an imperfect guide to morality. Therefore, we need the Word of God to truly know God’s authoritative standard by which each of our consciences is judged. As our Creator, God alone has that moral authority.

https://answersingenesis.org/morality/where-did-morality-come-from/

Do you really agree with the author? That without Christianity there would be no ethics? Really?

I find it easy to dismiss anti-atheist screeds from Christian moralists because their 'theory' is easy to disprove. Here's an essay that explains why we don't need bronze age belief systems to dictate morality:

Ethics Without Gods

One of the first questions Atheists are asked by true believers and doubters alike is, “If you don’t believe in God, there’s nothing to prevent you from committing crimes, is there? Without the fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like, can’t you?”

Introduction

It is hard to believe that even intelligent and educated people could hold such an opinion, but they do! It seems never to have occurred to them that the Greeks and Romans, whose gods and goddesses were something less than paragons of virtue, nevertheless led lives not obviously worse than those of the Baptists of Alabama! Moreover, pagans such as Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius – although their systems are not suitable for us today – managed to produce ethical treatises of great sophistication, a sophistication rarely if ever equaled by Christian moralists.

The answer to the questions posed above is, of course, “Absolutely not!” The behavior of Atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religionists included. Moreover, despite protestations to the contrary, we may assert as a general rule that when religionists practice ethical behavior, it isn’t really due to their fear of hell-fire and damnation, nor is it due to their hopes of heaven. Ethical behavior – regardless of who the practitioner may be – results always from the same causes and is regulated by the same forces, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of religious belief. The nature of these causes and forces is the subject of this essay.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/

In fact scientists believe our morality is hard wired:

Moral behaviour arose in humans as an extension of the biological systems involved in recognition and care of mates and offspring. These systems are evolutionarily ancient, encoded in our genome and hard-wired into our brains. In humans, the circuits and processes that encode the urge to care for close relatives can be co-opted and extended to induce an urge to care for others in an extended social group. These systems are coupled with the ability of humans to predict future consequences of our actions and make choices to maximise not just short-term but also long-term gain. Moral decision-making is thus informed by the biology of social attachments but is governed by the principles of decision-making more generally. These entail not so much looking for the right choice but for the optimal choice, based on satisfying a wide range of relevant constraints, and assigning different priorities to them.

This does not imply that morals are innate. It implies that the capacity for moral reasoning and the predisposition to moral behaviour are innate. Just as language has to be learned, so do the codes of moral behaviour, and, also like language, moral codes are culture-specific, but constrained by some general underlying principles. We may, as a species, come pre-wired with certain biological imperatives and systems for incorporating them into decisions in social situations, but we are also pre-wired to learn and incorporate the particular contingencies that pertain to each of us in our individual environments, including social and cultural norms.

http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2011/06/where-do-morals-come-from.html?m=1

So again - atheism is not a belief system and human beings do not get our ethics from the bible - in fact the archaic and barbaric 'moral code' in that particular book has been used to persecute and slaughter millions of humans.

I'll take secular morality over religious any day.

[WoonTars]

44. Nope.

Atheism isn't a belief in the same way 'off' on the tv set isn't a channel choice. Theists argue over which channel is best when the television is on, atheists don't even turn it on.

I hope that makes it clearer for you. It's the best analogy i could think of.

[stonecutter357]

10. K&R!

[PdxSean]

11. Was debating $39 for a year of digital access to WP. Decision made.

Love it! For having the courage to run such a piece, I'll be signing up for a year of digital access to the Washington Post. I have keep reminding myself that "papers" need revenue of they are to have even a remote chance of being independent journalists.

[beastie boy]

12. That's the least of it!

His entire family were fugitives from the law, failing to declare gifts from foreigners of dubious origin, crossing borders without obtaining visas, he was impersonating officials of the highest authority, practicing medicine without a license and (gasp!) scoffing at supply-side economics and second amendment remedies!

[whathehell]

13. Boom this: He was an "angel"...It was the authorities who sucked.

[Hekate]

15. Timely essay, Washington Post.

A perennial.

[WoonTars]

16. Nailed it.

...

[ailsagirl]

17. Most brilliant!!

[uponit7771]

18. bout it

[ismnotwasm]

20. Hahahaha!

Good one

[Bucky]

23. Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

Law and Order

[betsuni]

28. K&R

[yourmovemonkey]

29. Nice tip of the hat to Monty Python

"farcical aquatic ceremonies"

[Moostache]

37. One of the greatest satires of the 20th century...

ARTHUR
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify by
Divine Providence ... that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur ...
That is why I am your king!

DENNIS
Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out
swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme
executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from
some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR
Be quiet!

DENNIS
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR
Shut up!

DENNIS
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would
put me away!

ARTHUR
(Grabbing him by the collar)
Shut up, will you. Shut up!

DENNIS
Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR
Shut up!

PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching.

DENNIS
(calling)
Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR
(aware that people are now coming out and watching)
Bloody peasant!
(pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off)

DENNIS
Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away.

ARTHUR
Come on, patsy.

They ride off.

DENNIS
(in the background as we PULL OUT)
did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've
been on about ...


All credit due to Monty Python's Flying Circus!

[dalton99a]

30. "Overrated loser was a disaster. What a dummy! SAD!"

[jpak]

31. Lock me up!!!11

Lock me up!!!11

Lock me up!!!11

Lock me up!!!11

[Nonhlanhla]

36. I love this

And it is actually close to the truth about the historical Jesus: he was crucified by a police state, and not for religious reasons. Crucifixion was an execution exclusively reserved by the Romans for escaped slaves and political troublemakers. The charge that he claimed to be "king of the Jews," when understood against the reality that he was a member of an oppressed group in a colonial situation, is in fact a charge of political insurrection - in other words, he was seen as a political troublemaker. We also know from history that Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea) was in fact one of the worst, cruelest Roman governors who did not hesitate to crucify Jews by their hundreds. By the time the first gospel (Mark) was written in about 70 AD, Pilate's cruelty was significantly downplayed due to the political realities of that time.

When I teach the Gospel of Mark, I find it very important to emphasize both the Jewishness of Jesus (he was essentially a Pharisee of the Hillel school, who was in opposition to both the Shammai Pharisees and the socially powerful Sadducees), and the fact that this is a colonial situation. My concern is to read the gospel story with a post-Holocaust approach, i.e., with a deliberate emphasis on correcting centuries of anti-Semitic readings of the text. My go-to commentary on Mark is Ched Myers' "Binding the Strong Man," a liberation-theology approach to the Gospel of Mark. On Jesus within the Jewish context of the time, I love Amy-Jill Levine's "The Misunderstood Jew.'

Oh, and Jesus was brown-skinned, which had little significance at the time of his own life, but which is highly significant for ours. After all, we all know that the victims of police brutality who are maligned are always people of color.

[raven mad]

38. And I don't have to wonder, on DU, who'll get it.

Intelligence and using it works........... What an incredible post! The farcical aquatic ceremonies had me giggling so hard, I almost forgot to say thank you!

[niyad]

39. excellent

[Aristus]

43. This post wins the Internet.

Well done, Madame...

[Mme. Defarge]

46. Merci, mon brave!

Wish I'd written it myself.

[Aristus]

48. Just having an eye for good writing is an enviable talent.

[Blue_Tires]

52. The really sad part is the people who most need to read this won't

[guillaumeb]

53. Middle Eastern origin?

Blocked from entering the US under Trump's policies.