You must log in or register to comment.
A draft law introduced on Wednesday seeks to protect the country’s “cultural roots” by promoting “traditional” Christmas and Easter celebrations.
Shouldn’t they go back to worshipping the Roman gods in that case?
Fascism isn’t about logic or argument though; it’s about constantly defining and redefining the characteristics of the in-group so you can blame, persecute and kill those you exclude from it.
And trying to go back to a time of glory that never really existed in the first place
By Totis!
The Roman empire had at least 7 fictional dying-and-rising gods, Jesus was only one of them. How about a display to Osiris, he was the god of multiple stuff including agriculture. Aren’t crops more important than just about anything else? I demand an Osiris nativity scene!
Gotta show off that fictional rape baby. OR ELSE! It’s just a highly religiously influenced state fighting against the people not giving a shit about bad religious fiction.
“Don’t you take that rape baby display down! My fictional god raped that child to make that fictional baby, and you’re going to look at it every single year of your life!”
deleted by creator
Doesn’t really matter cuz the Jesus they care about is the fictional Jesus in the story.
As far as I know (please correct me if I’m wrong), apart from religious texts and later references to the religion, his existence is only recorded by one historian (josephus), but it is under dispute whether that text is authentic.
deleted by creator
Jesus being fictional isn’t exactly a mainstream view at the moment, but there isn’t much evidence for his existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
A google of “historicity of Jesus” will turn up some results. The wiki link is one of at least three very similar wiki articles on the topic.
tl/dr - it’s generally accepted that Jesus was a historical person but all that can be confirmed from written accounts is 1) he was baptized and 2) he was crucified.
Of course people can and do question the independent contemporary Jewish (Josephus) or Roman (Tacitus and Pliny) sources, but they seem to be in the minority. Even the less shady version of Josephus’s passage suggests that he was talking about a person who existed.
I don’t have anything to add since I’m not Christian - merely surrounded by Christians. I’ve done a fair bit of reading trying to figure out what’s going on with all that.
Your point being?
deleted by creator
Given the actual Jesus has as much in common with the legend as King Arthur does with whichever Brit king he’s based on, that’s just being pedantic
deleted by creator
So was Toby, no reason to rape his wife and blame it on a ghost.
deleted by creator
I’m just curious, is it a rape baby because Mary was underage?
Edit: Apparently the only reasons I’ve seen people mention are that:
-
She was raped because she was underage.
-
She was raped because she agreed to be impregnated by God, which has a power imbalance.
You all can judge for yourselves, but I just figured I’d save you the time of sifting through this fairly-useless comment chain.
I imagine they’re referring to Mary never really saying “yeah it’s fine if you impregnate me” before she gets impregnated.
That doesn’t really make sense.
In the two narratives (that contradict each other because the authors were liars) she didn’t consent to getting pregnant.
What does that mean? She consented to sex but not pregnancy? Essentially, “just pull out bro”?
How are you mystified by this concept? Sex should involve both parties agreeing that they are okay with what is going on. This also includes fertilization without sex. I, and no other male who has ever lived or will ever live, doesn’t have the right to just make a woman have my child without her agreeing. Mary did not consent to any of this in the story. It is rape.
Good thing not a single aspect of the story occurred. Every nativity scene you have seen in your life depicts the fictional story of a woman raped. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word woman given her age and should have said girl instead given her age.
Because it’s a very weird distinction to be taught in a religion? “Yes, Mary agreed to having sex but she did not agree to getting pregnant.” This just doesn’t make sense at a time when women were treated worse than a man’s property.
Mary did not consent to any of this in the story.
So like, did she say no? Were guards sent to capture her? I’m genuinely curious about the story being told, but all you’ve people done was tell me “she didn’t consent.” Is that it? Is that what the Bible says?
The fact that you people are so averse to sharing this simple information with me makes me dubious of its existence.
I’m willing to be proven wrong though!
Ffs you could have just read the biblical account by now. First chapter of Luke and Matthew. I am done spoon-feeding and enabling your laziness
I read those and it doesn’t say she was raped.
I also did an internet search because you seem pretty useless, “was Mary raped in the Bible” and the only explanations I am seeing for that is that she was underage. This is what I asked about in the beginning of this comment chain.
I feel like if it was so clear and obvious Mary was raped in the Bible, it would be easier to find information on it!
But that’s okay. It’s already clear you’re lying and that’s why you keep trying to send me on a wild goose chase. I’ve seen it many times, and it happens pretty much without fail when pressing people like you for evidence to support their claims.
Here’s a little Reddit thread that’s very similar: https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/xqzsoh/was_mary_raped_by_god/
Looks like everyone who says she was raped say it’s only because she was underage. You’re afraid to admit that’s the only reason why because you are arguing in bad-faith (heh.)
-
Fascist clowns 🤮
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Italy’s far-right government is seeking to crack down on schools that scrap Christian nativity scenes in order to reflect greater religious diversity.
A draft law introduced on Wednesday seeks to protect the country’s “cultural roots” by promoting “traditional” Christmas and Easter celebrations.
“For some years now we have witnessed unacceptable and embarrassing decisions by some schools that ban nativity scenes or modify the deep essence of Christmas by transforming it into improbable winter festivities so as not to offend believers of other religions,” said Lavinia Mennuni, a senator for the ruling Brothers of Italy party, who introduced the bill.
“Allowing the transformation of the Sacred Christian holidays into another anonymous type of celebration would constitute discrimination against the students and their families practicing the majority religion as well as an attack on the values and the deepest tradition of our people,” the draft text reads.
Riccardo Magi, secretary of the left-wing More Europe party, wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that the Brothers of Italy’s proposal “should offend all believers, as well as being unconstitutional because it contradicts freedom of worship”.
“Instead of governing the country, a duty they [the Brothers of Italy] don’t know how to manage, they continue to use ‘weapons of distraction’ like this law against principals who agree to the removal of the nativity scene at school,” said Luana Zanella from the Green Europe party.
The original article contains 399 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 43%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Was gonna leave a comment here, but everything I could have said has been. Its heart warming to see so many people using their brains and backbone to speak out against this kind of bullshit. Although it probably won’t stop it being passed.
Unless you could pass a law to stop old people from voting as they have less skin in the game then a child does.
Government demands fictional story of rape be presented on school grounds.
