• Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        231·
        15 days ago

        Neither did Frodo Baggins, but he wouldn’t want to be associated with America either.

      • DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world
        225·
        15 days ago

        The general scholarly consensus is that he did in fact exist. The only thing really up for debate is what he did or didn’t do, and who he was or was not the son of.

        • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          15 days ago

          I mean, there are probably at least dozens of people named “Jesus Christ” today. The name is only a fraction of the character… what he did or didn’t do is pretty damn important in the context of religious mythology. I don’t think anyone really cares if scholars agree that there was a dude named Jesus Christ in the timeframe / region of interest if he was just an average Joe. …or even a way-above-average Joe: his fame boils down to doing magic. Not tricks, but actual magic. So, what do scholars say about a guy named Jesus Christ who can make fish and bread appear out of thin air, perform alchemy on water to turn it into wine, or press the pause button on water displacement?

          • Jesus_666@lemmy.worldEnglish
            161·
            15 days ago

            Unlikely.

            What is reasonably likely is that there was a person named Yeshwa ben Yosef, born a few years before 0CE, died somewhere around 30CE, who preached and started a Judaism-based cult and who might’ve been a carpenter. He most likely had a reputation for miracles, which is mentioned in non-Christian sources which have no reason to glorify him. (Do note that modern cult leaders and televangelists also often have such reputations.) He was also probably crucified, although probably not for the reasons given in the Bible.

            Things like his conception without sex or him being a fish copying machine have no evidence. It’s not even sure if he claimed to be the son of God or the Messiah; apparently he did probably have an end-times cult and did probably assume that he’d get to run the world after divine rule is instituted globally.

            So yeah, he probably was some dude who started a cult (which wasn’t even that unusual at the time), was good enough at preaching to get a major audience, and was probably executed because sooner important people considered him a political threat. His cult survived him and people started embellishing his life just a tiny little bit.

          • accideath@feddit.orgEnglish
            4·
            15 days ago

            Afaik, scholars say, some dude named Jesus probably lived about 2000 years ago and did do some preaching and possibly was crucified. There is of course no evidence of divine relations or acts of magic. The evidence being him being mentioned briefly in non-christian (roman) writings of the time.

          • alcibiades@sh.itjust.works
            12·
            15 days ago

            The main takeaway from Jesus is his message. It’s important to note that people’s beliefs form their own reality. For example when Jesus did the whole fishes and loaves thing, he probably didn’t multiply all that food. But the people listening to him believed in him and found it in themselves to share their food with the people who didn’t have any. So it seemed like a miracle. When Jesus “healed lepers” it’s because he treated them like people. A lot of the homeless are literally crazy because people ignore them, but if you take the effort to treat them like real people, then they act like normal people.

            However, I agree there isn’t a way to explain the resurrection. But that’s the difference between Christians and non-Christians. You don’t have to believe in the resurrection and that’s a perfectly valid standpoint. But I really think it’s an injustice to treat Jesus as a magic man when he really just wanted everyone to love each other. The people around him believed he was really the son of God and maybe that’s simply because they had never received the unconditional love and respect Jesus would show them.

        • Spice Hoarder@lemmy.zip
          4·
          15 days ago

          The current consensus has a lot of concessions baked in. These don’t exactly make it a purely secular stance. Such as the order of the gospels, the date of the earliest manuscript, and “non canon” manuscripts being dated as “later” just simply because that fits the Christian narrative. And in fact, this consensus is starting to change, or at least being challenged more frequently.

        • BlackDragon@slrpnk.netEnglish
          41·
          15 days ago

          Yeah obviously this extremely important religious leader who was famously executed existed—that’s why we have exactly 0 written record from anyone who ever claimed to have met anyone who ever claimed to have met him. That’s why practically all the documentation of his life and deeds comes from decades after his high profile execution. Because he very definitely existed.

        • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
          41·
          15 days ago

          The general scholarly consensus is that he did in fact exist. The only thing really up for debate is what he did or didn’t do, and who he was or was not the son of.

          To say that a thing existed - oh, except all these other things attributed to the thing are just bullshit, so you can ignore them - really does preclude the actual existence of the thing. Nobody cares if Jesus of Nazareth, the prehistoric huckster but otherwise normal human “existed.” So did Rudy of Nazareth, but he was a used chariot salesman, and he didn’t get lionized into mythology.

        • edible_funk@lemmy.world
          1·
          15 days ago

          It’s a little more complicated. There were a bunch of messianic cults at the time so it’s likely a bunch of stories about multiple leaders were eventually all attributed to Jesus. And while there isn’t any definitive proof the man existed, there’s enough reasonable evidence that a guy called Yeshua from Nazareth existed that led a messianic cult, and more there’s nothing that disputes the evidence of a man existing. But that’s like saying we have evidence a guy called Bob from Newport existed, it was a common name. Anyway it’s more there’s nothing disproving his existence so there’s no reason to think a guy didn’t exist.

      • cynar@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        14 days ago

        The biblical jesus didn’t exist. There’s evidence that a Jesus existed, and was notable enough to piss off the Roman administration.

        A lot of the biblical stories are older than jesus however, so he has a lot of existing “lore” tacked on to him. He was likely a nomadic wise/holy man who built up a bit of a following and was then crucified.

        • ozymandias@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          14 days ago

          there’s one mention of a jesus that fits, in roman records. one time, one person, wrote a name down.
          could that be a real person or maybe a story about a person?
          not just biblical stories predated jesus, but the entire story is exactly the same as Zoroaster.
          from the exact same region, exact same people, “first recorded in the mid-6th century BCE”.
          some people just made a reboot of Zoroastrianism… probably the romans, on purpose, to make their combo-religion to govern all romans (catholicism)
          jesus did not exist at all

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      7·
      15 days ago

      Seriously. Canada’s got some similar shit going on, but it’s not nearly as bad, and it seems unlikely to get that way. Plus, I’m already in a part of that new annexation of theirs.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    48·
    15 days ago

    Everyone should approve this maps because it makes Canada look like a cute dragon puffing out a little fire newfoundland

    • massacre@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      15 days ago

      They can just grab Nevada on their way to Colorado to pick you up. It’s purple and full of sinners anyway. But what do you propose to do with Utah?

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    19·
    15 days ago

    Trust me when I say you don’t want the interiors of any of these states. Eastern Oregon, Southern Illinois, upstate New York, etc.

    • beetus@lemmy.world
      4·
      15 days ago

      Southern Illinois already wants to cede and merge into Indiana today. I don’t think you’d have problems with the others following suit

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      1·
      15 days ago

      Yeah, I only really have experience with upstate NY and out to central PA, maybe Altoona, Harrisburg at most, and even there it sucks. Upstate NY, I’m limited to 81 and it’s surroundings because it’s my route to Montreal, but it also sucks. The finger lakes are nice, saratoga’s all right, but it’s mainly awful.

      I say it often, but NYC and Philadelphia have more in common with the sprawling suburbia that is NJ than they do their rural upstates.

    • downvote_hunter@midwest.socialEnglish
      5·
      14 days ago

      Sadly the part of Illinois South of I80 would prefer to not be included. Source: me. Grew up there, have some relatives that still live there. The number of times I’ve heard them refer to themselves as Forgottentoian is to many.

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        2·
        13 days ago

        I grew up in southern Illinois as well. Can confirm.

        That’s where all of my most racist relatives live.

    • archonet@lemy.lolEnglish
      91·
      15 days ago

      As a Pennsylvanian, I am also ecstatic that we get to join Canada and Ohio doesn’t. God please yes put a solid border between us and Ohio.

      • Thrydwulf@lemmy.today
        6·
        15 days ago

        Ngl my vindictive ass remembers Pennsylvania swinging to Trump 2024 with several voters (mainstream new interviews, so questionable representation) still saying “we’ll wait and see” a week before the election was due.

        If it were up to me, you ARE the Ohio-Canada border; buffer state style. But it ain’t.

        And Penn’s not even the only swing state to swing red, but the one I least expected to stomach attacks to democracy that Jan 6 and Project 20205 represented.

        Super rant-y and spiteful, I just hate orange man and how swing state voting enabled him.

        • archonet@lemy.lolEnglish
          71·
          15 days ago

          I’m no big fan of the idiots in my state that enabled Trump, but Pennsylvania (even accounting for Fetterman, the traitorous fuck) is nowhere near the shithole Ohio is.

      • HuntressHimbo@lemmy.zip
        3·
        15 days ago

        Would never intentionally leave someone to the US, but I do find the Michigan/Ohio rivalry very funny, so you can come but you have to wear a “Sorry I’m from Ohio” hat

        • Denvil@lemmy.ml
          4·
          14 days ago

          I have no loyalties to Ohio, but I do have loyalties to my city on the sole basis of Cincinnati chili and literally nothing else

  • assembly@lemmy.world
    17·
    15 days ago

    The tough part is that Colorado and Nee Mexico would want to be with Canada but are cut off via Nevada and Utah.

      • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        14 days ago

        The monkey’s paw curls as the part of that you left out happens too: they die and do not return, but people with a fundamental misunderstanding of the past and the nature of the message use the name of the movement and its figurehead as a banner to take over the world, colonising entire continents and spreading death and war in the name of the figurehead. The texts of the movement, made up by con-men and the wealthy and powerful, become the most-published texts of all time, and are genuinely read as literal truth by everyone who follows the movement.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      3·
      15 days ago

      They just act like the wrong one, the one that walks around saying “you don’t fuck with the Jesus!”