PDA

View Full Version : This world would be better without religion



BRUTALITOPS
08-11-2006, 06:10 PM
This is a disorganized rant but I don't care.

Religion - for the purpose of this thread, is defined as beliefs involving a make-believe world and god.

Without religion . . .

- Everyone would embrace science and its many benefits. We would be able to advance much further in medcine using stem cells, we wouldn't have kids in school being taught about creationism which just distracts from REAL learning. By not believing in god, we would start to uncover the true mysteries of our origination. (Which is far more interesting anyway..) As well as where we will be going into the future. What is the nature of time? Are there multiple universes? Other intelligent lifeforms?

- People wouldn't waste their lives trying to be good for someone that isn't there, and instead enjoy the time they have RIGHT NOW and would make the absolute most of it.

- We wouldn't have to be fearful of crazy islamo-fascist muslim dickheads trying to blow us all up because they live in a shithole country with malnurished goats (their favorite animal)

- We wouldn't have crazy christians trying to ruin our tv shows, movies and music by telling us what is acceptable behavior. Teen pregnancy would go down because kids in school would stop being told that condoms aren't effective and are a waste of time.

Without religion, a large portion of our wars would cease, without religion, everyone would try to make life a better experience. Without religion, we would be happy.

Religion needs to end.

Cypress
08-11-2006, 07:07 PM
Only in rightwing world, is the bible considered to be literal truth, and where science is scoffed at.

There isn't necessarily a split between science, knowledge, and religion. The christian churches I went to as a youth embraced science, and knowledge, including evolution. They taught that the stories in the bible (particulaly old testament) were metaphors - not literal truth.

BRUTALITOPS
08-11-2006, 07:09 PM
I am not saying you can't get good out of religion, I just think that, generally speaking, the bad far outweighs the good.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 07:12 PM
What about Faiths that don't pretend to know about the afterlife?

BRUTALITOPS
08-11-2006, 07:16 PM
again damo. Some religion is fine and non-threatening. But, generally speaking, look at all the problems religion has caused the world over the last 3000 years. We would have been better off without it.

OrnotBitwise
08-13-2006, 12:01 AM
again damo. Some religion is fine and non-threatening. But, generally speaking, look at all the problems religion has caused the world over the last 3000 years. We would have been better off without it.
That's entirely possible. Believe it or not, however, I don't buy it.

What do we mean by "religion" in this context? Is "religion" the belief in forces that aren't rationally describable, or are we talking about the transmission of such beliefs from one generation to the next?

I'll agree that belief in supernatural, mysterious causes for events is intellectually lazy. It also leads one to sweep other inconvenient obserfations under the metaphorical carpet. Belief in the supernatural promotes more laziness, in other words.

Still, I think that the real problem is the fact that such superstitions tend to propagate across generations.

uscitizen
08-14-2006, 04:35 AM
Only 3000 yrs ? W@aht about Valhalla, Mt Olympus, the sun god the moon god, the bear god, etc...

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 06:04 AM
Millions have been killed in the name of atheism too. Atheists are just as radical.


The most important facet of religion is not the supernatural aspect, but the rules for living they provide. How we cooperate determines how successful we are. Cooperation works. That's what morality is all about.

Science is not what will save mankind, morality is.

Cancel7
11-16-2007, 06:25 AM
Millions have been killed in the name of atheism too. Atheists are just as radical.


The most important facet of religion is not the supernatural aspect, but the rules for living they provide. How we cooperate determines how successful we are. Cooperation works. That's what morality is all about.

Science is not what will save mankind, morality is.

I sense a strain of collectivism hidden in your words.

I am going to have to report this post to the chief "Capital L extra foam" Libertarian, RS. He is in the middle of a collectivst cleansing.

OrnotBitwise
11-16-2007, 07:20 AM
I sense a strain of collectivism hidden in your words.

I am going to have to report this post to the chief "Capital L extra foam" Libertarian, RS. He is in the middle of a collectivst cleansing.:eek: That's it, I'm off to work. Pogroms give me gas.

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 07:32 AM
I sense a strain of collectivism hidden in your words.

I am going to have to report this post to the chief "Capital L extra foam" Libertarian, RS. He is in the middle of a collectivst cleansing.


Humans are naturally a social species, if that's what you're talking about. Statist fascist collectivisim is actually elitism masquerading as something else.

Are you saying morality = communism? That's pretty stupid.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-16-2007, 10:17 AM
Millions have been killed in the name of atheism too. Atheists are just as radical.


The most important facet of religion is not the supernatural aspect, but the rules for living they provide. How we cooperate determines how successful we are. Cooperation works. That's what morality is all about.

Science is not what will save mankind, morality is.

No one has ever been killed "in the name of atheism".

You're confusing atheists killing people with people killing in the name of atheism. Now, Christians kill people, AND they kill in the name of God.

blackascoal
11-16-2007, 11:16 AM
This is a disorganized rant but I don't care.

Religion - for the purpose of this thread, is defined as beliefs involving a make-believe world and god.

Without religion . . .

- Everyone would embrace science and its many benefits. We would be able to advance much further in medcine using stem cells, we wouldn't have kids in school being taught about creationism which just distracts from REAL learning. By not believing in god, we would start to uncover the true mysteries of our origination. (Which is far more interesting anyway..) As well as where we will be going into the future. What is the nature of time? Are there multiple universes? Other intelligent lifeforms?

- People wouldn't waste their lives trying to be good for someone that isn't there, and instead enjoy the time they have RIGHT NOW and would make the absolute most of it.

- We wouldn't have to be fearful of crazy islamo-fascist muslim dickheads trying to blow us all up because they live in a shithole country with malnurished goats (their favorite animal)

- We wouldn't have crazy christians trying to ruin our tv shows, movies and music by telling us what is acceptable behavior. Teen pregnancy would go down because kids in school would stop being told that condoms aren't effective and are a waste of time.

Without religion, a large portion of our wars would cease, without religion, everyone would try to make life a better experience. Without religion, we would be happy.

Religion needs to end.

Amen

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 11:20 AM
No one has ever been killed "in the name of atheism".

You're confusing atheists killing people with people killing in the name of atheism. Now, Christians kill people, AND they kill in the name of God.

Wrong again, Shitfer Q. Brains.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh D'Souza
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. – In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."

Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."


In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.

The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.

The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

Blindly blaming religion for conflict

Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.

Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."

One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Atheist hubris

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-16-2007, 11:23 AM
*Yawn*

FUCK THE POLICE
11-16-2007, 11:24 AM
If the Christians hadn't told 2000 years of lies against the Jews the Holocaust would've never happened.

BUt Asshat would've hated THAT history.

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 11:29 AM
If the Christians hadn't told 2000 years of lies against the Jews the Holocaust would've never happened.

BUt Asshat would've hated THAT history.

The jewish book of hate, The Talmud, a racist document, and observable jewish asshole behavior is what has caused anti-semitism.

uscitizen
11-16-2007, 11:52 AM
The jewish book of hate, The Talmud, a racist document, and observable jewish asshole behavior is what has caused anti-semitism.

pretty much Hitlers line wasn't it ?

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 12:07 PM
pretty much Hitlers line wasn't it ?

That whites were the chosen people? Yes. It's also wrong when jews are racial supremacists.

we just need to reject their bullshit attempts to shame all other cultures. And their attempts to control the world under their precious noahide laws.

Socrtease
11-16-2007, 12:14 PM
So let me get this straight. D'Souza says that BECAUSE Mao and Stalin were athiests they killed? I argue that hitler was not an athiest but a believer in the Romantic visions of Wotan. That being said, none of these three killed for any other reason than they were power hungry and Religions sought to divide the people's loyalties. Stalin and Mao killed to create fear and panic. To subjugate the masses. It had nothing to do with Athiestic opinions held or not by these psychopaths. D'Souza also ignores the fact that relgion, and in the western world, Christianity used it's power to keep the masses uneducated and when presented with proof of such things as the earths movement around the sun and the suns movement through space, sought through torture and violence to supress that knowledge. The Dark ages did not occurr when secular scientific thought became more prominent.

BRUTALITOPS
11-16-2007, 12:18 PM
lol... malnourished goats .... I forgot how awesome I was. (for those that pay attention this thread was originally created by me over a year ago)

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 12:21 PM
So let me get this straight. D'Souza says that BECAUSE Mao and Stalin were athiests they killed? I argue that hitler was not an athiest but a believer in the Romantic visions of Wotan. That being said, none of these three killed for any other reason than they were power hungry and Religions sought to divide the people's loyalties. Stalin and Mao killed to create fear and panic. To subjugate the masses. It had nothing to do with Athiestic opinions held or not by these psychopaths. D'Souza also ignores the fact that relgion, and in the western world, Christianity used it's power to keep the masses uneducated and when presented with proof of such things as the earths movement around the sun and the suns movement through space, sought through torture and violence to supress that knowledge. The Dark ages did not occurr when secular scientific thought became more prominent.


So christianity SHOULD be smeared for things christians did for power, but atheism SHOULD NOT be smeared for things atheists did for power. Your mind is a morass of baffling inconsistencies.

gonzojournals
11-16-2007, 12:58 PM
It's also wrong when jews are racial supremacists.


I wish more people understood that.

Chosen People of God sounds a lot like Master Race in my book.

Socrtease
11-16-2007, 12:59 PM
I'm not smearing them. I just agree, the world would be better off without all these belief systems that profess to know the mind of god and then force us all to live by them. If people JUST lived by their own beliefs and left other people alone to live by their beliefs we would all get along fine. But the fundamentalists in ALL faiths think that it is their job and the job of the state to save my soul. Morals are NOT dependent on religious belief. IT would still be wrong to murder people EVEN if there was no religious belief at all.

gonzojournals
11-16-2007, 01:01 PM
I'm not smearing them. I just agree, the world would be better off without all these belief systems that profess to know the mind of god and then force us all to live by them. If people JUST lived by their own beliefs and left other people alone to live by their beliefs we would all get along fine. But the fundamentalists in ALL faiths think that it is their job and the job of the state to save my soul. Morals are NOT dependent on religious belief. IT would still be wrong to murder people EVEN if there was no religious belief at all.

I'm afraid you are wrong, but I cannot fault you for it. It would certainly be nice to live in a world where tolerance reigned supreme and it is easy to point to religion as a culprit, but it is humanity that is at fault.

If religion were not the driving belief system behind human aggression, another belief would replace it. Beliefs in the hands of humanity are dangerous things, and it doesn't matter what they are.

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 01:11 PM
I wish more people understood that.

Chosen People of God sounds a lot like Master Race in my book.

Finally, another person who see something as it is, without the blinders of guilt which have been used to intimidate people for the last half century.

Judeofascism is very real. Just as real as "Islamonazi terror" as neocon michael medved puts it.

gonzojournals
11-16-2007, 01:13 PM
Finally, another person who see something as it is, without the blinders of guilt which have been used to intimidate people for the last half century.

Judeofascism is very real. Just as real as "Islamonazi terror" as neocon michael medved puts it.

I'm just glad to find someone else (in America, at least) that doesn't support Israel like some blind tard boy. Israel is just as much a terrorist state as any other country, and a lot of international hate towards us would go away if we just stopped backing their terrible decisions and let them get some of what is coming to them.

OrnotBitwise
11-16-2007, 01:13 PM
Finally, another person who see something as it is, without the blinders of guilt which have been used to intimidate people for the last half century.

Judeofascism is very real. Just as real as "Islamonazi terror" as neocon michael medved puts it.
I'll bet there's a phylactery and yarmulke in one of your grandparents' closets. How else to explain such wanton, irrational hate?

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 01:15 PM
I'll bet there's a phylactery and yarmulke in one of your grandparents' closets. How else to explain such wanton, irrational hate?


It's not hate to point out the racial supremacism of others. Was it hate to call nazis racial supremacists? No. It's just an accurate description. Get a clue, noahide ninny.

OrnotBitwise
11-16-2007, 01:18 PM
It's not hate to point out the racial supremacism of others. Was it hate to call nazis racial supremacists? No. It's just an accurate description. Get a clue, noahide ninny.Was it hate to point out the insidious, grasping infection of the Jews in the body of the Fatherland? Was it hate to point out the expansionist tendencies of the Blosheviks? Was it hate to really despise the French and desire to liberate them from their government?

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 01:20 PM
Was it hate to point out the insidious, grasping infection of the Jews in the body of the Fatherland? Was it hate to point out the expansionist tendencies of the Blosheviks? Was it hate to really despise the French and desire to liberate them from their government?

It Depends on how accurate the descriptions were. If jews were insisting on control of germany like they insist on control of the u.s. then it just might have been accurate. His solution, however, was immoral. I do not advocate that.

OrnotBitwise
11-16-2007, 01:23 PM
It Depends on how accurate the descriptions were. If jews were insisting on control of germany like they insist on control of the u.s. then it just might have been accurate. His solution, however, was immoral. I do not advocate that.
No, Ass, it does not. The really sad thing is that you don't see even that.

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 01:23 PM
No, Ass, it does not. The really sad thing is that you don't see even that.


Yes. It does. The really sad thing is you're a brainwashed noahide idiot.

Battleborne
11-16-2007, 01:27 PM
You are a prime example of how a bad circumcision can effect ones philosophy...it's a shame your circumcision made you go so far astray...
Not to worry ya can celebrate Christmas...in lieu of Hannaka...just fewer gifts on one day...thats all...and the Easter Bunny loves you too!:rolleyes:

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 02:03 PM
You are a prime example of how a bad circumcision can effect ones philosophy...it's a shame your circumcision made you go so far astray...
Not to worry ya can celebrate Christmas...in lieu of Hannaka...just fewer gifts on one day...thats all...and the Easter Bunny loves you too!:rolleyes:

Judaism is a racial supremacist doctrine. Sorry, It is.

uscitizen
11-16-2007, 02:05 PM
Have you ever figured out that Jesus was a Joo too ?

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 02:19 PM
Have you ever figured out that Jesus was a Joo too ?

He was more accurately, the first christian, and thought the pharisees of his day were a bunch of elitist racist assholes. Some things never change.

uscitizen
11-16-2007, 02:21 PM
How can he bbe a Christian when christian means to be a follower or or to be like Christ.
He followed himself ?
He was trained by the priests in the temple, he was a jew.

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 02:23 PM
How can he bbe a Christian when christian means to be a follower or or to be like Christ.
He followed himself ?
He was trained by the priests in the temple, he was a jew.

He believes himself to be the son of god. He is christ. ergo, he is a christian. Yes. He followed himself. His ideas of reform for judaism were not embraced, therefore what judaism is today is not what christ believed. Buddha was born a hindu. Stop being a moron.

uscitizen
11-16-2007, 02:24 PM
HAVE FUN ASSHAT.

Hermes Thoth
11-16-2007, 02:26 PM
HAVE FUN ASSHAT.

Thanks, I will.:cool:

Minister of Truth
11-16-2007, 06:43 PM
He was more accurately, the first christian, and thought the pharisees of his day were a bunch of elitist racist assholes. Some things never change.

Dude, the Apostles and Disciples did not even consider themselves Christians until a couple of decades after Christ's death. BTW - from what language do we get the word "Christ?"

FUCK THE POLICE
11-16-2007, 07:21 PM
Dude, the Apostles and Disciples did not even consider themselves Christians until a couple of decades after Christ's death. BTW - from what language do we get the word "Christ?"

Latin.

gonzojournals
11-16-2007, 09:20 PM
Try Greek, Watermark.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-16-2007, 09:33 PM
Try Greek, Watermark.

I have a feeling we don't get along to well. What's with the tension, man?

gonzojournals
11-16-2007, 10:15 PM
I have no problem with you, other than that you keep calling me an idiot. When that stops, so will the animosity.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-16-2007, 10:17 PM
I have no problem with you, other than that you keep calling me an idiot. When that stops, so will the animosity.

You're an intelligent young man. :clink:

Hermes Thoth
11-17-2007, 08:30 AM
Dude, the Apostles and Disciples did not even consider themselves Christians until a couple of decades after Christ's death. BTW - from what language do we get the word "Christ?"

DUde, it does matter what they consider themselves. Maybe they thought they were reforming judaism. As it turns out, the power structure of judaism rejected these reforms, hence, voila, a new religion. Hindsight is 20/20.

theMAJORITY
11-17-2007, 09:18 PM
I pray for you--for you are broken my child. You don't believe my faith, so you are broken and need help. If you don't accept this help--we will destroy you.

That is a problem.

OrnotBitwise
11-18-2007, 12:07 PM
DUde, it does matter what they consider themselves. Maybe they thought they were reforming judaism. As it turns out, the power structure of judaism rejected these reforms, hence, voila, a new religion. Hindsight is 20/20.A new religion which, if anything, is even more elitist and repressive than its progenitor. It took Mohamed some six centuries later to make a real reformation of the tradition, though even that was severely flawed.

Minister of Truth
11-19-2007, 07:52 PM
DUde, it does matter what they consider themselves. Maybe they thought they were reforming judaism. As it turns out, the power structure of judaism rejected these reforms, hence, voila, a new religion. Hindsight is 20/20.

For your information, "Christ" comes from the Greek word "Christos," meaning annointed one. The meaning is not the same as Messiah from the Aramaic. The presence of the Greek language is important, because other words "Catholicos" (Universal) also have prominence in Christianity.

What happened was St. Paul began preaching the faith to the gentiles. Romans and Greeks, who were pagan and couldn't relate to the monotheistic God, could nonetheless relate to classical Greek philosophy. That is the reason why St. John's Gospel begins with "In the beginning there was the Word..." - it harkens back to the Greek logos, which we take to mean logic, but translates simply as "word."

It is the Greeco-Pagan innovations preached by Paul and authorized by Peter that form the beginnings of Christianity. That is to say, the faith became Westernized. The original believers called themselves the "People of God" (later adopted by English reformers until they adopted the derisive term of their Anglican detractors - "Puritans."). The first symbol of the People of God was the Icthus (that funny fish symbol which in very recent history has become popular in Evangelical circles, and has been parodied by evolutionists with their own version). Naturally, "Icthus" is Greek, and the phrase, "Jesus Christ, King and Savior" appeared for the first time. Eventually the term "Christ" was adopted and later on the Crucifix replaced the Icthus.

History lesson over - class dismissed.

Hermes Thoth
11-20-2007, 11:35 AM
For your information, "Christ" comes from the Greek word "Christos," meaning annointed one. The meaning is not the same as Messiah from the Aramaic. The presence of the Greek language is important, because other words "Catholicos" (Universal) also have prominence in Christianity.

What happened was St. Paul began preaching the faith to the gentiles. Romans and Greeks, who were pagan and couldn't relate to the monotheistic God, could nonetheless relate to classical Greek philosophy. That is the reason why St. John's Gospel begins with "In the beginning there was the Word..." - it harkens back to the Greek logos, which we take to mean logic, but translates simply as "word."

It is the Greeco-Pagan innovations preached by Paul and authorized by Peter that form the beginnings of Christianity. That is to say, the faith became Westernized. The original believers called themselves the "People of God" (later adopted by English reformers until they adopted the derisive term of their Anglican detractors - "Puritans."). The first symbol of the People of God was the Icthus (that funny fish symbol which in very recent history has become popular in Evangelical circles, and has been parodied by evolutionists with their own version). Naturally, "Icthus" is Greek, and the phrase, "Jesus Christ, King and Savior" appeared for the first time. Eventually the term "Christ" was adopted and later on the Crucifix replaced the Icthus.

History lesson over - class dismissed.

Oh for sure, it's hightly pagano-hellenized, but the main narrative deals with a character from the roman occupied judean world, a rebel jesus, critic of a corrupt pharisaic priesthood, and possible threat to roman authority, if he were to pursue judean separatist/nationalist goals. etc.