Terrorism thread

[Travis B.]

The key thing though is that Christians don't worship a zombie-God as such -- when Christ is risen He emphatically is not a zombie -- and even if they did, what in hell does that have to do with genocide? That is on the same level as stating that American imperialism is explained by the fact that very many Americans celebrate Halloween.

[rotting bones]

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?

[Travis B.]

The only case of where I have heard that this has been an issue is actually the Eucharist -- supposedly the Chinese, when Christian missionaries first arrived there, were quite weirded out about the whole "body and blood of Christ" business, and thought of it as cannibalism. But that is just the story I heard, from looking deeper it is likely apocryphal.

Aside from that, you (rotting bones) here seem to be the only person whom I have heard say that the Christian worship of Jesus, in his crucifixion, is at all especially 'sinister' from a comparative religious standpoint. As others here have pointed out, many other religious beliefs involve or have involved dead or dead-and-risen gods. Likewise, the death of Christ is really just another another episode in His life, considering He gets better after three days, as others here have pointed out.

[rotting bones]

The only case of where I have heard that this has been an issue is actually the Eucharist -- supposedly the Chinese, when Christian missionaries first arrived there, were quite weirded out about the whole "body and blood of Christ" business, and thought of it as cannibalism. But that is just the story I heard, from looking deeper it is likely apocryphal.

Aside from that, you (rotting bones) here seem to be the only person whom I have heard say that the Christian worship of Jesus, in his crucifixion, is at all especially 'sinister' from a comparative religious standpoint. As others here have pointed out, many other religious beliefs involve or have involved dead or dead-and-risen gods. Likewise, the death of Christ is really just another another episode in His life, considering He gets better after three days, as others here have pointed out.

I don't understand why other people need to agree with me, but ok, I will provide one of these extremely well known sources: https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/anc ... nibals.asp

It's the confidence with which humans defend insanity that really gets me. It wouldn't be so bad if they felt slightly unsure.

[keenir]

It's the confidence with which humans defend insanity that really gets me. It wouldn't be so bad if they felt slightly unsure.

Given that you don't seem at all unsure about any bits of socialism, why should we feel unsure about another religion? "Oh, you want us to share everything equally? And with all mankind?" Thats a huge ask, whether its from Jesus or Marx.

[keenir]

The key thing though is that Christians don't worship a zombie-God as such -- when Christ is risen He emphatically is not a zombie -- and even if they did, what in hell does that have to do with genocide? That is on the same level as stating that American imperialism is explained by the fact that very many Americans celebrate Halloween.

Oh no no no, we're symbolically paying for all that manifest destinied land through the use of payments in candy.


(sorry)

[zompist]

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?

You've had this question answered by multiple people, without explaining why you don't accept the answers.

This is just a form of the old atheist boggling at "how can people believe this nonsense"? Which in turn borrows from religions boggling at each other. I could show you monotheists boggling at the nonsense polytheists believe, and polytheists boggling at the nonsense Christians believe. (Monotheists absolutely agree with you about 99.999% of gods.)

"Sinister" is a weasel word, slipping in your own subjective reactions as if they were "psychology." Again, I could quote you a Christian from a hundred years ago describing Kali as sinister and evil. Why don't you ask Bengali Hindus if they are aware "how sinister their own imagery can look to outsiders"? I bet that will go well.

Of course, a patient devotee of Kali would note that Kali is surrounded by skulls because she's killing demons. Similarly, Christianity uses a cross because its founder was murdered by the Roman state.

Do people ever worry about their religion's image? Yes, of course, though only what I've called the reformer types, who are precisely the types who deplore whatever crimes their co-religionists have committed. The reactionary type gets incensed by criticism and doubles down on the things that are hard to believe. The vast majority undoubtedly consider publicity problems way above their pay grade.

A sign that a person is taking their own positions seriously rather than holding subjective grudges is consistency. Do you worry about, say, Marxist imagery? Does it ever occur to the people killing peasants that the symbol of their ideology is a peasant's tool?

[Raphael]

(Monotheists absolutely agree with you about 99.999% of gods.)

I've seen atheists use that as an argument in favor of atheism. Kind of makes me think of a story I once heard about a Christian missionary somewhere in pre-Christian Europe who made a point of cutting down a tree sacred to a pagan deity in order that "proof" that said deity had no power. That's a method I can well imagine a modern atheist using!

A sign that a person is taking their own positions seriously rather than holding subjective grudges is consistency. Do you worry about, say, Marxist imagery? Does it ever occur to the people killing peasants that the symbol of their ideology is a peasant's tool?

Not to mention red flags themselves ("The people's flag is deepest red / It shrouded oft our martyred dead")

[Travis B.]

A sign that a person is taking their own positions seriously rather than holding subjective grudges is consistency. Do you worry about, say, Marxist imagery? Does it ever occur to the people killing peasants that the symbol of their ideology is a peasant's tool?

But but but those 'peasants' were Kulaks, if they were real peasants they would have wanted their land to be collectivized!

[Travis B.]

(Monotheists absolutely agree with you about 99.999% of gods.)

I've seen atheists use that as an argument in favor of atheism. Kind of makes me think of a story I once heard about a Christian missionary somewhere in pre-Christian Europe who made a point of cutting down a tree sacred to a pagan deity in order that "proof" that said deity had no power. That's a method I can well imagine a modern atheist using!

And those are the kind of atheists that embarrass non-evangelistic atheists like myself who are okay with religionists believing whatever they want to as long as they don't force their beliefs on anyone else. I am perfectly fine with neo-pagan types worshipping sacred trees if they so desire.

[rotting bones]

You've had this question answered by multiple people, without explaining why you don't accept the answers.

I have explicitly accepted it:

Thanks. That's all I'm asking.

After that, I was defending my right to have asked this question.

"Sinister" is a weasel word, slipping in your own subjective reactions as if they were "psychology."

The association of corpse with sinister is basic literary trope analysis. Not controversial at all.

Again, I could quote you a Christian from a hundred years ago describing Kali as sinister and evil. Why don't you ask Bengali Hindus if they are aware "how sinister their own imagery can look to outsiders"? I bet that will go well.

Of course, a patient devotee of Kali would note that Kali is surrounded by skulls because she's killing demons.

Kali is intended to look sinister. Are you kidding me? She is the feminine aspect of time who devours her children. Worshipping her is a symbol of surrender.

Also, they didn't pass a diktat saying that anything that sounds critical of Shaktism is terrorism. Many Bengalis are very critical of Shaktism, especially the tantric practices surrounding it. They think it's superstitious. I've seen native Bengali kid's movies about it.

Similarly, Christianity uses a cross because its founder was murdered by the Roman state.

There is a lot of weirdness surrounding how being killed can make you God, but I never mentioned any of it because that's not what I'm talking about.

Do people ever worry about their religion's image? Yes, of course, though only what I've called the reformer types, who are precisely the types who deplore whatever crimes their co-religionists have committed. The reactionary type gets incensed by criticism and doubles down on the things that are hard to believe. The vast majority undoubtedly consider publicity problems way above their pay grade.

Protestants were worried that Catholic doctrine really implied that the Eucharist was cannibalism. I don't remember why they opposed the crucifix. Ares Land says it's because of the association with death.

In Islam, I don't think a renovation will happen. The religious Muslims are usually conservative, and most people are more indifferent than not.

A sign that a person is taking their own positions seriously rather than holding subjective grudges is consistency.

I'm against taking symbolism too seriously. That's one of the few things on which I agree with Islamic iconoclasm, although Islam was traditionally too negative about the use of obvious symbols while being inconsistent about using non-obvious symbolism. It's like Muslims were afraid that if you display a statue in public, people will become mesmerized and start offering human sacrifices to it. At the same time, symbolism of words and actions feature heavily in Islamic practices.

Do you worry about, say, Marxist imagery? Does it ever occur to the people killing peasants that the symbol of their ideology is a peasant's tool?

They probably thought they were helping the peasants by fighting the kulaks and creating inefficient right-Bolshevik agricultural communes. I don't support the violation of human rights, but the kulaks were not nice people. I wouldn't have killed them en masse, but I would have supported legislation to reduce their power. They wouldn't have liked that.

I'm a democratic socialist, not a Marxist.

[Travis B.]

"Sinister" is a weasel word, slipping in your own subjective reactions as if they were "psychology."

The association of corpse with sinister is basic literary trope analysis. Not controversial at all.

Is Halloween 'sinister' rather than a family-friendly holiday for all ages? If Christ on the cross is 'sinister', Halloween most definitely is very 'sinister'. And American foreign policy across the world, along with America's treatment of its indigenous population, most certainly has been quite ghoulish, right? What would you expect from a horror-obsessed people who dress up as all kinds of macabre beings and who decorate their lawns with them every year?

[rotting bones]

we have finally discovered the true cause of american racism and warmongering. i guess the jehovah's witnesses were right all along. kissinger really was just a symptom of the inner rot that is trick or treating. what is to be done comrades? nothing less than a candy crackdown will flush enough high fructose corn syrup from american blood to restore the nation to sanity

[keenir]

You've had this question answered by multiple people, without explaining why you don't accept the answers.

I have explicitly accepted it:

Thanks. That's all I'm asking.

After that, I was defending my right to have asked this question.

you asked....several times. once or twice is inquiring. more than that is picking a fight.

Again, I could quote you a Christian from a hundred years ago describing Kali as sinister and evil. Why don't you ask Bengali Hindus if they are aware "how sinister their own imagery can look to outsiders"? I bet that will go well.

Kali is intended to look sinister. Are you kidding me? She is the feminine aspect of time who devours her children. Worshipping her is a symbol of surrender.

. They think it's superstitious. I've seen native Bengali kid's movies about it.

I've seen little kid movies about Jesus; that doesn't remove the gall of your phrasing.

Similarly, Christianity uses a cross because its founder was murdered by the Roman state.

There is a lot of weirdness surrounding how being killed can make you God,

yup, there sure is...just like how its totally weird that Elon Musk is to the left of Stalin.

yes, my statement is false - just like yours.

Do people ever worry about their religion's image? Yes, of course, though only what I've called the reformer types, who are precisely the types who deplore whatever crimes their co-religionists have committed. The reactionary type gets incensed by criticism and doubles down on the things that are hard to believe. The vast majority undoubtedly consider publicity problems way above their pay grade.

Protestants were worried that Catholic doctrine really implied that the Eucharist was cannibalism.

you're thinking of Romans.

I don't remember why they opposed the crucifix.

Protestants have the crucifix in their churches...they don't have the crucifixion in their churches.

Do you worry about, say, Marxist imagery? Does it ever occur to the people killing peasants that the symbol of their ideology is a peasant's tool?

They probably thought they were helping the peasants by fighting the kulaks and creating inefficient right-Bolshevik agricultural communes. I don't support the violation of human rights, but the kulaks were not nice people.

its...odd, that thats your response to being asked about one of the leading icons of the socialist movement.

I'm a democratic socialist, not a Marxist.

you're lumping Moravians in with LDS with Copts (et al)...so its only right that we lump socialists and marxists together. you're all Engels' kids.

[Ketsuban]

Is Halloween 'sinister' rather than a family-friendly holiday for all ages?

Yes, it's an invasive species which is pushing out the native fifth-of-November celebrations. /hj

[Raphael]

you're lumping Moravians in with LDS with Copts (et al)...so its only right that we lump socialists and marxists together. you're all Engels' kids.

Whatever rotting bones may or may not do, I don't lump Moravians in with LDS with Copts (et al), so I'm not sure what justification you'd have for lumping me together with Marxists.

[Travis B.]

Is Halloween 'sinister' rather than a family-friendly holiday for all ages?

Yes, it's an invasive species which is pushing out the native fifth-of-November celebrations. /hj

Whom do you blame more for this, the Americans, or the Scots and Irish whom the Americans originally got the holiday from in the first place?

[rotting bones]

Why do people convert to Christianity? Don't people find the various mysteries as arbitrary as the 12 Imams? Is the BS introduced gradually like in Islam?

[malloc]

Why do people convert to Christianity? Don't people find the various mysteries as arbitrary as the 12 Imams? Is the BS introduced gradually like in Islam?

It really depends on what time period and location. Many people converted under threat of execution or at least made the appearance of having converted to avoid execution. Others saw economic or political advantages, the opportunity to form alliances with Christian kingdoms and so forth. Furthermore all religion is fundamentally rather silly anyway. If you grew up hearing about the earth resting on a giant turtle or gods dancing around on Mount Olympus, would Christianity strike you as especially daft or arbitrary?

[rotting bones]

It really depends on what time period and location. Many people converted under threat of execution or at least made the appearance of having converted to avoid execution. Others saw economic or political advantages, the opportunity to form alliances with Christian kingdoms and so forth.

Converts are willing to die for Jesus in places like China and Pakistan. Meanwhile, leftists find it hard to convince people to fight for their own interests.

Maybe people are inspired by the symbolism or the pageantry. The New Testament doesn't sound particularly beautiful to me, but maybe taste is culturally relative. Or maybe the hardcore believers are reading it in other languages. The Quran does have a hypnotic rhythm in Arabic while sounding moronic in English.

Regarding explanations like this, I have read hymns to Greek gods that move my more than church songs. On the other hand, the mass is similar to ceremonies in other Mediterranean religions. It is possible to come up with esoteric interpretations for it. Theurgists, for example, find a lot of value in the Catholic mass. Maybe people want Hellenic pageantry combined with a nicer god.

Furthermore all religion is fundamentally rather silly anyway. If you grew up hearing about the earth resting on a giant turtle or gods dancing around on Mount Olympus, would Christianity strike you as especially daft or arbitrary?

You have to read difficult philosophers like Proclus to even understand the problem that doctrines like "3 people are 1 God" are meant to solve*. I'm pretty sure most converts understand none of this. They are giving their lives for doctrines accepted on faith, but they won't listen to straightforward common sense.

I'm sure gods living in mountains and a turtle shaking the earth made more sense in the past (was the turtle thing ever a real belief?), but I'm mostly interested in contemporary times.

*Very briefly, Islam says that the soul is made to return to God. Christianity says that the soul is fallen. Returning to God is a Good thing, so this return must be done by a person within God Himself. The soul is saved by grace that comes from faith in this Good person, Jesus. Still weird as hell, but that's the general idea as I understand it. There's also a huge clusterfuck around henads, but let's not go there.