Terrorism thread

[zompist]

All I'm asking is, don't any Christians think it looks sinister they they have committed so many genocides while having a totem that looks like a corpse, at least until you study the religion in more detail?

This seems like a weird concatenation to insist on. Would you feel better about the genocides if the Christian symbol was a cute puppy?

Most people who commit genocides don't think of them as genocides, or if they do, they have reasons that they were a good thing. And you can say that those are horrible people. But they're horrible because they approve of genocide; you don't need another reason on top of that to disapprove.

Do some Christians feel bad about genocides committed by some of the three or four billion people in history who happen to be Christian? Yes, definitely, though recall that huge numbers of Christians thought that huge other numbers of Christians were heretics or going to hell anyway.

Do atheists feel bad about genocides committed by atheists? Same story-- some don't, some do, some think it was those other atheists they are not responsible for.

[keenir]

Ok. In that case, Jesus has to be dead in the images of Mary cradling Christ's crucified body, right?

"We thought you were dead."
"I was. I'm better now."
-random alien, Captain Sheridan; Babylon Five.

Jesus was dead just like how The Prophet (pbuh) flew to Jerusalem: a short-term event that didn't take up all the rest of his existance.

Besides, since the world is only redeemed by Christ's death according to Christianity, doesn't that imply Christians worship a killed man?

Nope, because thats the point of the Ressurection: that Jesus returned as something other than a zombie.

Also, gods die all over. Baldr dies, Osiris dies, Inanna dies, Ba'al dies, Persephone dies. Buddha is depicted and venerated at the moment of parinirvana (i.e. death), every incarnation of Vishnu has to die. The Norse gods all die, succeeded by their children.

Do you know if any of these religions worship a corpse totem?

no religion worships a corpse totem.

um...if we're going by outsider views...Osiris (er, i mean ;sir the neteru) is green. the green is not regrowth, as it is life, but outsiders wouldn't de facto know that.

1. Does Osiris look dead to you?

the ruler of the afterlife? yes, thats part and parcel of the job.

[keenir]

There are depictions of dead Christ, of course, but I agree with zompist that the traditional depiction of Christ on the cross is probably in agony but not dead.

Traditional depictions of Jesus are a few scenes repeating over and over.

a few? I accept that there are places in any country - even mine - where there are no churches...but good lords, you have the internet at your fingertips, and you think there are only a handful of depictions of any part of the New Testament's Christ's life?

In at least one of them, Jesus is dead. In the most common one, he looks dead. I'm not making a deep theological point. All I'm asking is, don't any Christians think it looks sinister they they have committed so many genocides while having a totem that looks like a corpse, at least until you study the religion in more detail?

are you asking if Christians think it looks sinister until they study their religion?

or are you asking if Christians are doing genocides because you think their godhead looks like a corpse?

[Travis B.]

I don't think rotting bones really gets Christianity theology or imagery here; e.g. he completely ignores the significance of that Jesus conquered death through His resurrection, i.e. what Easter, which is probably the biggest holiday in Christianity theologically, is about.

[malloc]

I don't think rotting bones really gets Christianity theology or imagery here; e.g. he completely ignores the significance of that Jesus conquered death through His resurrection, i.e. what Easter, which is probably the biggest holiday in Christianity theologically, is about.

Way off topic, but personally I have always found it odd how Christmas gets the lion's share of cultural focus when Easter is more important from a theological standpoint. Perhaps it's simply easier to commercialize Christmas...

[rotting bones]

But of course Christians don't feel Christian imagery is 'sinister', or if they do, it's some other denomination they denounce.

Thanks. That's all I'm asking. My understanding is that Christian imagery is intended to move people to tears as a spiritual experience.

(Protestants have objected to Catholicism on those grounds, but of course Catholics will disagree.)

I didn't realize those were the grounds of their criticism. I thought they accused Catholics of being superstitious or something.

This seems like a weird concatenation to insist on. Would you feel better about the genocides if the Christian symbol was a cute puppy?

This is a question about mass psychology. Christians have accused Muslims of worshipping a mood god or whatever. Who is worshipping what is not my focus. All I want to know is, doesn't it ever occur to the people feeling sinister forces at work all over the place how sinister their own imagery can look to outsiders?

Do atheists feel bad about genocides committed by atheists? Same story-- some don't, some do, some think it was those other atheists they are not responsible for.

Atheists insist they are not members of one church or one community.

a few? I accept that there are places in any country - even mine - where there are no churches...but good lords, you have the internet at your fingertips, and you think there are only a handful of depictions of any part of the New Testament's Christ's life?

I have taken courses on the subject for fun, so it's not going to be easy to budge me from this position.

I don't think rotting bones really gets Christianity theology or imagery here; e.g. he completely ignores the significance of that Jesus conquered death through His resurrection, i.e. what Easter, which is probably the biggest holiday in Christianity theologically, is about.

I'm deliberately ignoring it because a part of understanding the world involves restricting your scope of analysis to relevant angles. I have studied Christian theology. My question is about the psychology of the faithful.

[Ares Land]

One point I left out is that it's likely you could find a significant number of Christians who'd prefer the fish, as used by the early Christians. But there's the whole weight of history to consider: you can't leave out two millenia of tradition and religious art aside, either.

[Lērisama]

Atheists insist they are not members of one church or one community.

I see you are not familiar with the humanist movement.

[rotting bones]

I see you are not familiar with the humanist movement.

This might be a rare example of a real formal fallacy out in the wild. Namely, you are confusing the specific with the general.

It's like the argument: Objectivism is atheism. Objectivism is a cult. Therefore, atheism is a cult.

For this conclusion to follow, the statement would have to be "Atheism is Objectivism", not "Objectivism is atheism". All atheism is obviously not Objectivism.

Similarly: Atheism is disbelief in God. Humanism adds other values on top of that, making it easier to argue that those guilty of genocide weren't humanists.

I'm excited. Almost no incorrect arguments are actual logical fallacies.

Regarding atheism with values, there are apparently atheist Platonist philosophers. IIRC, this was one of them: https://youtu.be/dQrNFMExwso

[Lērisama]

I see you are not familiar with the humanist movement.

This might be a rare example of a real formal fallacy out in the wild. Namely, you are confusing the specific with the general.

I assumed you were making a statement about atheists in general, and so gave an example of a group I think make a significant enough proportion of atheists¹ to invalidate that. If I misread your statement, or overestimated the number of humanists, then I apologise.

¹ At least in the UK. I don't believe it has a significant presence elsewhere, but I don't have enough experience to comment.

[rotting bones]

I assumed you were making a statement about atheists in general, and so gave an example of a group I think make a significant enough proportion of atheists¹ to invalidate that. If I misread your statement, or overestimated the number of humanists, then I apologise.

¹ At least in the UK. I don't believe it has a significant presence elsewhere, but I don't have enough experience to comment.

Aren't Marxists the largest atheist group anymore?

I have met real Marxists. I have never encountered a card-carrying member of Humanism.

[Lērisama]

I assumed you were making a statement about atheists in general, and so gave an example of a group I think make a significant enough proportion of atheists¹ to invalidate that. If I misread your statement, or overestimated the number of humanists, then I apologise.

¹ At least in the UK. I don't believe it has a significant presence elsewhere, but I don't have enough experience to comment.

Aren't Marxists the largest atheist group anymore?

I have met real Marxists. I have never encountered a card-carrying member of Humanism.

Again, I'm not sure how strong it is outside the UK, in which I don't believe you live, and even here it's difficult to count (it's not counted on the census and we tend to be relatively unwilling to discuss religion¹). I believe my statement stands in the UK, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it falls down worldwide².

¹ Or the lack of it
² But again, I don't know, as I admitted earlier. I don't know what I can do except assure you it is very much but niche in the UK

Edit: aren't Marxists themselves a refutation of your statement?

[rotting bones]

I believe my statement stands in the UK, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it falls down worldwide².

I wonder if Socialism with Chinese Characteristics counts as Marxism. That has got to have a large number of members.

aren't Marxists themselves a refutation of your statement?

How so?

[keenir]

I don't think rotting bones really gets Christianity theology or imagery here; e.g. he completely ignores the significance of that Jesus conquered death through His resurrection, i.e. what Easter, which is probably the biggest holiday in Christianity theologically, is about.

Way off topic, but personally I have always found it odd how Christmas gets the lion's share of cultural focus when Easter is more important from a theological standpoint. Perhaps it's simply easier to commercialize Christmas...

that and everybody loves birthdays.

[keenir]

I believe my statement stands in the UK, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it falls down worldwide².

I wonder if Socialism with Chinese Characteristics counts as Marxism. That has got to have a large number of members.

that feels like you're trying out No True Scotsman.

(Protestants have objected to Catholicism on those grounds, but of course Catholics will disagree.)

I didn't realize those were the grounds of their criticism. I thought they accused Catholics of being superstitious or something.

Protestants love objecting to every so many things.

This seems like a weird concatenation to insist on. Would you feel better about the genocides if the Christian symbol was a cute puppy?

This is a question about mass psychology. Christians have accused Muslims of worshipping a mood god or whatever. Who is worshipping what is not my focus. All I want to know is, doesn't it ever occur to the people feeling sinister forces at work all over the place how sinister their own imagery can look to outsiders?

do you think that about your own belief system as well? if not, thats why.

Do atheists feel bad about genocides committed by atheists? Same story-- some don't, some do, some think it was those other atheists they are not responsible for.

Atheists insist they are not members of one church or one community.

"The lady doth protest much."

really really, if you're going to tar every Christian on Earth and throughout history, as a corpse-worshipper delighting in genocide, why can't we lump all atheists together?

a few? I accept that there are places in any country - even mine - where there are no churches...but good lords, you have the internet at your fingertips, and you think there are only a handful of depictions of any part of the New Testament's Christ's life?

I have taken courses on the subject for fun, so it's not going to be easy to budge me from this position.

now I'm wondering if you've ever budged from a position.

I don't think rotting bones really gets Christianity theology or imagery here; e.g. he completely ignores the significance of that Jesus conquered death through His resurrection, i.e. what Easter, which is probably the biggest holiday in Christianity theologically, is about.

I'm deliberately ignoring it because a part of understanding the world involves restricting your scope of analysis to relevant angles. I have studied Christian theology. My question is about the psychology of the faithful.

wait, so you're genuinely asking if people who genuinely and honestly believe in Jesus, go "oooh we're the scary zombie-worshippers, we need to slaughter huge numbers of people to hide His Corpse!" ??

[malloc]

Then again, I never quite understood how an egg-laying rabbit became the mascot of Easter. (Well yes, I realize that it probably originated with Pagan symbols of fertility and springtime but still, you must admit it's an odd choice.)

[Raphael]

I don't think rotting bones really gets Christianity theology or imagery here; e.g. he completely ignores the significance of that Jesus conquered death through His resurrection, i.e. what Easter, which is probably the biggest holiday in Christianity theologically, is about.

Way off topic, but personally I have always found it odd how Christmas gets the lion's share of cultural focus when Easter is more important from a theological standpoint. Perhaps it's simply easier to commercialize Christmas...

Perhaps it's because in much of pre-Christian Europe, the pre-Christian holidays which later got turned into Christmas were a bigger deal than the pre-Christian holidays which later got turned into Easter?

Which, in turn, might have been because in the colder parts of Europe, psychologically making it through the long cold dark winters in times long before central heating or electric lights required some kind of big celebration in midwinter.

[Travis B.]

Does rotting bones want to be seen as trolling? Because he sure seems to be trying to put on an impression that he is.

[Ketsuban]

Perhaps it's because in much of pre-Christian Europe, the pre-Christian holidays which later got turned into Christmas were a bigger deal than the pre-Christian holidays which later got turned into Easter?

Which, in turn, might have been because in the colder parts of Europe, psychologically making it through the long cold dark winters in times long before central heating or electric lights required some kind of big celebration in midwinter.

We can probably narrow it from "pre-Christian Europe" to the Anglo-Saxons for whom Christianity came late so it moved to accommodate them rather than them moving to accommodate it. There is more continuity between a British Christmas and pre-Christian Yuletide than there are between a French Noël and Saturnalia.

[Torco]

the terrorism thread, now featuring dead gods.

trying to make sense of mythology through the lens of rationality is like trying to dance about agriculture [misquote intended]. you could just as well say christians do not worship a killed man cause jesus never died: since he came back from the dead, he wasn't really dead: at least not in the way actual people actually die, he just "died" the way goku dies in DBZ. but that would be missing me point.

these are stories. if the story says dying consists on being asleep for three days -even though you can wake up whenever you want cause you're literally god but also not god but also god- then that's the story. if in the story dying consists on going to sleep and we all die every evening, then that's the story and that's that (at most we can sa something like boo, poor story). if in the story human sacrifice isn't human sacrifice, then i guess it isn't. otherwise you might as well be objecting to the latin in Harry Potter. only theologians, interested as they are in the fiction that they can retroactively make the story evidence-based, atheists who are engaged in the opposite endeavour, and detractors, interested in making a particular religion look bad, care about the inconsistencies. I can understand the endeavour of antireligious propaganda, it's fairly likely the world would be better if fewer people were religious, or if more people were less so, but i'm not sure this is the arena.

then again, is it true that the death of god is more central to the christian story than to many others. sure, every religion has its martyrs (okay, most, maybe not all), but it's one thing to say "isn't it praiseworthy to die for justice and peace and whatever other good things" and it's a different thing entirely to say that "the central moral event in the history of the world is that god became and man and got himself killed for our sake". in this way, the christian's relationship with god death is more than just featuring gods dying.