this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
323 points (99.1% liked)

Atheism

6219 readers
84 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 70 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

It's a known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_complex

Though seems to me that persecution narrative must be pushed top-down by a minority, if 96% of the actual people vote "No".

[–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 21 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It’s seems like a psy-op by the wealthy.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 27 points 5 days ago (1 children)

not... well. maybe it is. but not directly.

The messaging is there to keep people from leaving.

they'll be told things like "that person was rude to you becuase you're a Christian!" or "you lost your job because you were a Christian!" or any of a dozen things that have nothing to do with. (sometimes, in point of fact, they push you to do things that will make people angry at you. like knocking on their door at seven AM on a fucking Sunday. this is, for example, the point of the Mormon's mission... or JW's.)

along with all this, they'll get you to burn bridges with your support systems; and to annoy everyone around you.

The whole goal is to keep you from leaving, even though they're incredibly toxic.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Literally everything organized religion does is a psy-op to manipulate people 😅

I think it's an interesting discussion to be had, whether it's done by "the wealthy". We have account that Jesus was kinda against the rich. I mean he flipped some tables and everything. And young Christianity also had something going on with the camel and the needle's hole. And we have more paragraphs than just John and Timothy... But boy did they turn that upside down with what we have as of today. Especially in the USA. I think "they" accomplished their goal. Interesting, though, how the establishment (in modern times) often comes with some urge to claim victimhood. And I don't think it's traditionally part of totalitarianism.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

so... Jesus wasn't actually against the rich nearly as much as people make him seem these days.

The flipping of the tables wasn't that they were doing business or even taking advantage of people. it was that they were doing business inside the temple.

as for all the "go sell your shit and follow me" stuff... well. yeah. Imagine, if you will Jesus with a cheesy sleazey-car-salesman grin and his hand out. Also notice that he really had a thing for hanging out with rich people.

none of the disciples were particularly poor. Mathew was a tax collector. James and John were both heirs to a successful fishing business, two of the others were senior employees in that business. he dined with and partied with the rich all the time, too. Joseph himself would have been well off (as a tekton, he wasn't exactly poor. He was the guy that built everyone's homes and such.) (though Mary probably fled from Joseph when he found out she was preggers. details)

basically, he acted and sounded like every half-baked cult leader you can imagine.

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Jesus was mad at those using the temple for commerce but also said they were robbing people. “Den of robbers” It wasn’t just the location.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

he was angry they were charging a bit extra for a bit of extra service. the money changers were presumably vetted by the Temple so they weren't outright cheating their customers. the whole reason the temple required the tributes to be in silver shekels (or half shekels) from Tyre was that Tyre was known to not debase their currency; and the money changers would easily vetted to avoid the ones clipping or outright forging coins.

As for the livestock merchants, keep in mind there were (are?) stringent requirements for sacrifices that made bringing animals from outside the city difficult to do. These were not the goats being raised to be put into a stewpot. Even just raising them for sacrifice was expensive. Bringing them into the city was another expense. Keeping them in the city, too.

It's very easy to imagine that Jesus was just being like "I can buy goats back home for (whatever a generic goat was worth)! These are ripoffs" and then going full-karen, while being too stupid to understand all that.

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It sounds like you think Jesus was wrong.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes.

And I'm guessing if we were talking about anybody else who did similar, you would too.

First off, lets address the whole "people couldn't worship because it was too expensive thing", the law Jesus supported and said was eternal in Mat 5:17-20 makes it pretty clear if you cannot afford the prescribed sacrifice, you can give a lesser one in it's stead (so like doves or even grain,) If you can't even afford a grain offering, you don't actually need to do that.

So there's already a remedy in place for the destitute, and it's pretty simple. (Side note, does that suggest Jesus and his followers overrode that? yeah. that's a dick move.)

The other thing is that it was absolutely about location. Because evicting the merchants and money changers would not solve the prices it was effectively a captured market. there was a lot of demand for those services and animals. the merchants and money changers had the supply.

So if you make them go , they're still gonna be dicks charging whatever they're charging. and it'll be less convenient, too, and chances are extremely high that your piligrims and worshipers, the people you seem to think Jesus was protecting- would be getting conned and scammed. Which just makes things worse for everyone.

Further more, Jesus didn't just flip tables. He violently assaulted the merchants in a toddler rage. And yes. I would consider that to be wrong, immoral, and perfectly in line with the character of the real Jesus. The Jesus who wasn't divinely born, who wasn't the son of god, and who was running around the nether-regions of the ass-end of the empire conning rubes and yokels out of their stuff.

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh, the poor exploitive business owners. Why doesn’t anyone think of the poor exploitive businesses?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

yeah.

That's not actually what I'm saying.

you're defending a charlatan asshat who thought violence was the proper answer when there was already established a non-violent answer. (If you can't afford the animal, you can just skip that part.)

congratulations. You're defending a violent con artist. who criticized pharisees for not stoning unruly children and faked miracles to steal from people who were already struggling. Jesus is not a hero. Jesus isn't even a decent person.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Their scripture literally tells them that they would be persecuted.

And they were... for the first four hundred years...

Not so much anymore, though. Unfortunately they don't view the bible as a historic document, but as the infallible and timeless word of god...

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Yes. Was 380 when Christianity became state religion in the Roman Empire. I believe that was also when they had all these councils to codify what's in the New Testament etc. I remember some notable exceptions from history class, like the Nazis. Some shenanigans between the Catholics and the Protestants, the French Revolution, Communism... But other than that, they've mostly been at the giving end during the 1646 years after that.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The edict of Milan, legalizing (ending official persecution) was in 313.

Unofficial persecution might have continued in pockets, but also it’s reasonable to believe that persecution was far from universal going into the fourth century.

All Jewish authorities in the first century were far less persecutial than the scriptures claimed - and Rome probably saw the matter as a domestic dispute (“bruh, just don’t start a rebellion and your cool”) until they started spreading out from Judea.

Most of the deaths of disciples are recorded in apocryphal works that are more fantasy than not. (Or just made up wholesale by people like Eusibious)

[–] Stonewyvvern@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Oral history with a bunch of humans who never under any circumstances exaggerate.

Oral history remembered by a bunch of drunks with memory issues.

Oral history remembered by victims.

Oral history remembered by a bunch of angry drunks who never hurt nobody and didn't do nuthin.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

they don't view the bible as a historic document,

It's not even very good at being that. There is a lot of misinformation, events that are provin false by other historical data and self-contradiction within its pages.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 days ago

I meant historic document as in a document written at a moment in history, not necessarily an accurate historical account.

Like, Homer wasn't a historian, but a historian specializing in ancient Greece would certainly read Homer to glean an idea of the beliefs, values, and ideals of the people during Homer's lifetime.

Modern christians don't even view the bible as a collection of documents that were written within specific contexts at specific moments in history, they try to remove it from all context and interpret it in a vacuum as if it was all equally applicable today

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago

Oh boy, I imagine that one has an interesting "talk page" lol