Final-Fan said:
ssj12 said:
Final-Fan said:
ssj12 said:
rocketpig said:
ssj12 said:
rocketpig said:
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't crucification reserved for "special" recipients? I seem to remember reading that a certain level had to be given for the effort of being crucified but maybe I'm wrong. |
didnt see anyone asnwer you
you are correct |
Hah. Thought so. Thanks, ssj.
Given that, why would a common rabble-rouser be crucified?
|
same reason as Jesus. Shake the foundations of the rulers beliefs forced upon its people.
Otherwise there is no reason and they are going against the Geneva Conventions. Bascially taking what was supposed to be used against threats against ones beliefs and making it torcher.
|
The only way that post makes sense is if I'm being teased. |
It makes perfect sense if you look at the confines of what it means to do a crucifixion. The only time it was used was when someone did something horrid against the empire or shook the general order of things.
If it is not used in the way it was originally meant to it would fall into basic torcher rather than defending the beliefs of your kingdom.
The crucifixion of Christ was justifiable but if some random joe gets crucified without stirring up a load of crap like Jesus did that it is not justifiable.
|
Unless I'm much mistaken, rocketpig was REFERRING to Jesus when he mentioned "a common rabble-rouser", and the only other one mentioned in this thread is Spartacus. So I thought you were referring to Spartacus instead of a generic person, and that would mean you saw my post which answered his after all.
Also, your reference to the Geneva Conventions which date to 1864.
I also believe that rocketpig was implying with his question that a common rabble-rouser would NOT normally be crucified, which is contrary to what both you and I are now saying. rocketpig, please correct me if this is wrong.
|
No, that's pretty much my point. I love being impish.
