Under Christianity idols are also forbidden. Something about idols being perversions rather than holy. It’s just one of those things out of many Christians seems to ignore…
You know how we tell the story about brutally murdering the Son of God? We want to put that on display, all the time, in His House, so He never ever forgets.
God is love!
Christians with crucifixes are like reporters asking the Irwin siblings about their father’s death in every interview. Why do you want to dwell on the worst thing ever?
I thought it was like the heads-on-pikes thing? Christians are like Klingons right?
Our gods are dead.
We killed them.
They were more trouble than they were worth.metal as fuck
Christianity is the most badass religion.
Do I have that wrong?
In Christianity, the crucifixion is the moment of victory. Christ’s sinless death is what allows mankind to be redeemed, and that was the plan all along. So they see the crucifixion as holy, though it is also mourned. It is used as a reminder of the love God has for his people and as a sort of “try to be better” thing.
Jesus is the original version of The Dark Knight’s “getting captured was the plan all along” trope.
Pretty weak deity which can’t even forgive the sins they created themselves without all the pageantry. This is why I only worship my TI-83 calculator from middle school. It is capable of completely passive forgiveness, and largely unwilling to resort to damnation under any circumstances.
The explanation I’ve been given is actually kinda cool in a, like, fantasy worldbuilding sort of way. By nature God is perfection, and since Adam and Eve fell short of perfection, mankind is tainted by imperfection. That falling short is sin. (There is some debate about whether God “decides” what is sin, or whether it is some sort of objective nature of God, which I also think is sort of fascinating.) Man needed ways to be absolved from sin to be in communion with God. This largely involved sacrificing animals to cover over sin with blood, and this symbolism is all over the old testament.
Christianity posits that Jesus was both God and Man, combining the two natures. He lived a sinless life, but still faced death (which shouldn’t happen to someone without sin). This causes a sort of divide-by-zero error that cancels out the sin of all who are linked to Jesus through the sacraments (especially baptism and communion). This allows humans to be “in communion with God” without continued animal sacrifice. And now that living a perfect life, which is impossible, is not necessary, Christians should do good things in the world to reflect the grace they’ve been given.
Unfortunately, most Christians know fuck all about their own religion and don’t understand it at a fundamental level, and think it’s their job to go around judging people and telling them to repent.
So God created us imperfect then holds us to an impossible standard and is punishing us for not living up to it? Doesn’t sound very loving. If he had to do it this way because of his nature then he is not omnipotent.
Christ’s sinless death is what allows mankind to be redeemed, and that was the plan all along.
A good 'ol death cult.
Yes, victory over our enemies!
It’s also a crock of shit that we use to control people. If you’re luck enough to get out of your small town and away from you family like I was, you can deprogram.
But don’t forget, Jesus is also God. Fully, but also distinct. So we’re reminding Him about how He had himself killed so that He could forgive us because some lady who didn’t know anything didn’t follow His directions
Let’s not forget that he’s the one that invented the rules that allegedly required such a stupid and convoluted plan.
And is also omnipotent and allknowing.
and bland and flavorless and crumbly
That’s what the wine is for
doesn’t change the bland jeez-its. if you’re going to magic something into godflesh, why not breakfast tacos? with egg and cheese and a little bacon (or potato if that’s your thing. or both)? at least give us sourdough or tiger bread
Back in the day, at my little corner bagel shop we’d created
the god bagelBacon Ham Egg Scrapple and cheese on an everything bagel, wrapped tightly in aluminum foil to allow it to squeeze into a jaw-able bite.
I’d worship at this alter.
When you put it that way, it sounds ridicluous.
No wonder Jesus hasn’t come back. We never miss a chance to remind him of what happened last time
This reminds me of a joke:
" Aliens make first contact with humans. They are peaceful and start a dialogue with us. The subject of religion comes up, and Christianity is described to the aliens and they respond by saying ’ oh yeah we know Jesus. He came comes to visit you too?’
‘Well yes, once, over 2000 years ago.’
To which the aliens reply: ‘That’s weird he visits us every year, stays for about a week for the high feast we throw in his honor. It’s a recreation of what we did for him the first time he appeared. What happened when he came here? Maybe if you recreated whatever that was…’
‘Oh, um, we crucified him.’
‘Oof. Ok. Makes sense now.’
Basically, he has marked us as the bad neighborhood on his map.
Atheism:
White Jesus from the middle east
Portraying people from the middle east as european helps to normalize zionism.
Catholicism lore and practices are actually pretty metal if you think about it.
Carry a figure of the dying tortured son of god in a little chain on your neck. Nailed to a cross, speared through the chest, and with a fucking spine crown.
Spikes and a skull tattoos have NOTHING on Catholic paraphernalia.
Then literally eat his flesh and blood in a ritual to commemorate his death.
literally
Literally tho?
According to Catholics, yes.
OH YEAAAAH…I’ll admit I completely forgot about that.
I was always of the “In remembrance of Me” interpretation.
Ah! Right! I completely forgot about that.
I was always of the “In remembrance of Me” interpretation. Catholicism gets pretty metal sometimes. Lol
This is Known. Goth fashion is basically a very involved parody of what Catholic aristocrats used to wear (this is why you get all the “sexy nun” stuff too)
Also Islam:
Are these actual passages?
Looking at actual translation at the first one, https://quran.com/al-baqarah/191
“Kill them wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers.”
If you read the verse before it, https://quran.com/al-baqarah/190, the Quran talks about it in the context of war.
“Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.”
The passage clearly says about defending, in the context war. And do it only against the aggressors. And also not to exceed the limits, which means proportionate response.
It makes sense to fight back. Akin to the Ukrainian defending against Russian invasion.
The passage clearly says about defending, in the context of war.
Could this be interpreted as in any type of war, and not just a defensive war? It doesn’t seem clear to me via the english translation.
And also not to exceed the limits, which means proportionate response.
Could this not also mean the limits interpreted through other passages elsewhere in the Scripture?
Person from Muslim background here. Let me try to explain. As with all sacred texts, Quran includes many contradicting parts, where other are open to interpretation. Also, Quran was “revealed” as small passages over Muhammad’s life. He claimed to receive messages in the context of the current events. To complicate things even more, standard Quran is not compiled in chronological order.
Passages from early Islam where Muslims were a persecuted minority, the texts are more about peace and harmony. As Muslims increased in numbers and influence, the passages have also turned more aggressive.
For example 2:62 says
Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.
The final ones are indeed about any war, and dominating the space they exist in. Give them ultimatum and then fight until they ask for mercy.
The main message to take here is, by choosing which part to quote, you can make it say anything you want. Sounds familiar?
Could this be interpreted as in any type of war, and not just a defensive war? It doesn’t seem clear to me via the english translation.
2:190 says to fight only against those who wage war against you. So it sounds like defensive war to me.
Could this not also mean the limits interpreted through other passages elsewhere in the Scripture?
So I clicked on the tafsir of this verse by scholars more knowledgeable than me:
"(but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.)
This Ayah means,
Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit." This is also the opinion of IbnAbbas,Umar binAbdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated.…
(Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, “A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet’s battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children. " There are many other Hadiths on this subject”
So my bad, it’s not talking about proportionate response. But it teaches the limits of how to conduct yourself during such war.
Given the context of when it was written, those seem like admirable limits on an army.
Tldr: Quran is interpreted with historic context. You can't apply defensive war verse to offensive war or daily life.
Verses of quran were (according to Islam) told by God to prophet over his life-time on what to do in different events.
For example Quraysh tribe just declared war on muslims? This verse comes out. They agreed a peace deal? Another verse. They continued raiding anyway despite the peace? A new verse, etc.
Historians will publish research on which verse maps to what event and then Imams will use that to chose what to preach and when.
“We got declared war? Do this. We have ceasefire? Do that. They are not followng the ceasefire? Now do these.”
Literally the second commandment:
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
No symbols allowed or no idols allowed?
I mean any likeness of anything anywhere by the looks of it. So I guess that would include both?
any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
So making fish statues are ok, but don’t worship a fish statue as an idol. I don’t see an issue with making a likeness to something as long as you’re not worshipping it
Apologies, I misunderstood your question. I do wonder if you’ve seen how Catholics treat such depictions. I’d say they worship it or at least use it as an idol.
“The only moral idol is my idol.”
No, it clearly says: “You shall not make…”, and then adds the reason at the end. It seems God doesn’t even want you making it for any reason, because you might use it to worship. Banning images eliminates the temptation.
We’re dealing with at least two intervening languages and generations of oral history here. Nitpicking semantics isn’t terribly useful.
I’m not sure that’s the interpretation that Catholics go with, and I don’t think they idolize the statues they make. Either way the qualifier, as I’m reading it, is that they make the thing to worship the thing.
One way you can think of idolatry is by analogy to the concept of map and territory. The map is not the territory, and that can be far more of a rabbit hole than it sounds at first glance. For instance, you do not experience reality directly, full stop. Your entire experience of life is actually a living map of life generated by reality’s interactions with your senses which are then filtered and interpreted by the rest of your bodily and cognitive systems.
And so it is for those who believe in and cultivate a relationship with their deities - a direct experience that will always be impossible to fully achieve, and is nevertheless expected they spend their lives chasing.
“You shall not make for yourself…”
That means it’s ok to just buy it, or you can make them and sell them. So long as you don’t make one and keep it for yourself.
also you can build them out of clay. ain’t nothing about fired images
Baby I think we got ourselves a business model! Take that, creator of the universe!
True, but also the commandments aren’t actually numbered. IIRC, there are 13 “Shalls” and “Shall nots”. So Catholics lump that section in with the first (no other gods, etc.) while the Protestants make room by joining “don’t covet wife/property”. There’s arguments to support both sides when looking at the historical context but on that specific issue I’d lean toward the Catholic interpretation making more sense considering god is telling people to make statues shortly after (Exodus 25:18). Either way it’s silly to be arguing over rules that bronze age people invented.
So no Cat Pictures? This is not a world I want to live in.
My dad used to beat this fact down my throat when I was a kid. No visual depictions of God/Jesus allowed. I wasn’t allowed to watch The Passion or even Veggietales. But Prince of Egypt was okay.
Veggietales? I didn’t grow up watching it but I thought I read somewhere that the creators actively didn’t want to depict God/Jesus in that? Maybe it’s just because Veggietales is part of the “love each other” version of Christianity and that’s bad and woke.
IDK probably. The show was likely too woke for him.
For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Wow what a good entity that is totally deserving of my worship.
Nothing says divinity better than petty human emotions like jealousy, and open threats to my unborn children and grandchildren.
Also jealousy is illegal according to the the Christian Constitution.
The word isn’t jealous though it is qana’ (קנא) which is more recently translated as “impassioned” and “zealous”
Basically, it means don’t be yandere.
That’s actually pretty much in-line with how a lot of gods were portrayed back then. Have you read any Greek mythology? The gods were assholes there, too.
The God of the Bible is literally a Monster.
Anybody that’s read the Bible knows Jesus was a White man from New Jersey.
With blue eyes and blond hair
‘long as he’s white’
Idolatrous iconography is cute, but the real elephant in the room with Abrahamics these days is bibliolatry. Hate to make a Potter reference, but so many of these people think their God is Tom Riddle.
It takes a finger to point at the moon, so look at the moon, not the finger.
Solid point there.
I was wrong, it’s more like a horse in the room. The elephant in the room is their rampant abuse of women and children.
And then there’s korean Jesus.
Religion is given far too much respect in the world when it needs to be treated as a mental disorder.
I’m actually okay with some Gaia religion right now that makes it fundamental to protect the planet and “remove” anyone trying to mess with that, like building data centers.
You don’t need a religion to be an environmentalist.
Oftentimes religious beliefs can change someone’s worldviews, including but not limited to, environmental awareness. And I bring my own anecdotal example: since I became a syncretic Luciferian then a sudden Lilithian, I became quite eco-centric, as I got to understand Homo sapiens as just one among countless species instead of some “god’s exclusive toy” on this Pale Blue Dot. I also started to personally understand LGBTQIA+ values because, thanks to Lilith, I began discovering a part of me I wasn’t aware of, my queer me I’ve since became quite fond of (e.g. polishing my nails and letting them grow as a cisman-presenting person).
Those things would be unlikely to happen if I stayed on christianity (yes, I was christian in the far past and I deeply hate having been one) due to christian brainwashing that makes christians to “fear disobeying god” (now I want “god” to go pound sand).
There are religions and religions, faiths and faiths. You won’t get a coven of Wiccans knocking at your door at Monday (Moon day) 3AM “do you have 5 minutes to hear about our Mother Hekate?”, you won’t hear Luciferians screaming “Agios Lucifer, He’s coming back to reign” inside a bus/subway while you’re commuting, you won’t see a Thelemite lawmaker trying to shove Liber AL Vel Legis inside kindergarten and schools, you won’t see Goetians bringing a Solomon’s Magick Circle inside a hospital room to call upon Stolas to cure the patients with his herbal knowledge… Yet atheists tend to put all religious beliefs into the same box as abrahamic religions which have persecuted both you atheists and us pagans, instead of trying to make some rational distinction between different faiths…
Please don’t… if it is a religion, it involve irrational beliefs that will be armful at some point. To protect the planet we need to know what is good for it, and be abble to find out that some of our knowledges/beliefs are wrong. To find out we were wrong, we need to be rational ; and that require to reject faith.
And that’s how the Church of Infinite Greed keeps winning no matter how rational you are. Their irrationality knows no counter.
I don’t think I understand. Do you mean we need a religion to counter capitalism?
Religions are always serving the ones in power, some times they may set new rulers, but then they serve the new rulers…
And no rulers will be good if it is with a protection that pass all to them and protect them.
So I think rationality and education are more likely to be the solution than any religion (even in those not existing yet).
Do you mean we need a religion to counter capitalism?
That fell into the same trap you described. They had faith that the vanguard state would wither.
Who do you mean by they? And can you develop?
So, what about personal philosophy? Do you count “Humanism”, or “Earthseed” from Parable of the Sower as religions? No magical thinking, but heavily based in ideas of morality which have no objective truth. There is no definition of “Good” that can ever be objective. You need a philosophical basis, like utilitarianism, for example, to work off of.
There are plenty of people (including many adherents, I think) who’d identify those as religions, but I struggle to comprehend how your claim would apply to them.
A philosophy isn’t a religion. You need to think philosophy by yourself, and not just one school of philosophy, since each of them have a point of view that could help you. I also think each of this school can be monstruous and misleading if you follow blindly its principles ; but each may help you to think each situation by yourself more efficiently.
Let’s take utilitarianism, maximizing the good. In many situations it applies smoothly. For the trolley track problem an utilitarian easily sacrify the one lonely to save the 5. Yet if you change the problem as: you are in an hospital and 5 patients need a different organ for transplantation ; an healthy universal donor kid is in a room waiting for a minor broken leg ; do you kill the kid to save the 5? Utilitarian principles should still say yes, but you may feel that in that case applying them would be wrong.
Those who would have faith in the utilitarianism, and apply it as a religion, may not see the problem. Of course, some may have both faith and some doubts. But I think they would think better if they think by themselves, using different philosophical principles, and without an authority to share the responsability of their decisions.
Why is it a mental disorder? Can I have a source?
Shared Psychotic Disorder is where a group of people share a delusion. This delusion can almost “spread,” especially in the case of people who are close to each other. Its very similar to other shared delusions, like supernatural beliefs.
Isn’t actual reason they don’t want anyone worshipping the prophet?
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all tax free! They get tax benefits that no “non-profit” can match.
These are all unfathomably wealthy organizations. Their fundamentalists all despise us (us being not them). Get a job
