all 80 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

The cult really needs to indoctrinate its members with the idea that a violent abusive authority figure that does nothing but demand tribute and obedience from you while protecting you from nothing is somehow "love." Honestly that's the most offensive thing to me about christians and their imaginary friend. Even if you look past the fact that there is literally more evidence of Spiderman's existence than there is of god's existence, the thing they glorify is literally a violent abusive patriarchy.

  • source
  • [–] 137 points 1 year ago* (19 children)

    Japanese media is full of this, and it's great. All kinds of absurd cross-shaped guns and militant priests with nothing more than vague aesthetic similarities to practiced christianity. A delightful reciprocation to how western media treats japanese culture.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    This comment reminds me of the japanese cult that beliefs Jesus did not die on the cross but it was his japaneae brother instead and Jesus moved to Japan until he died of old age.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The biggest cult in the Philippines, which dabbles in prosperity gospel and owns an entire arena here, believed it was some Filipino man. I don't even remember if they view him as Jesus or some other incarnation. But where I live, they have the most followers. Oh and sometimes, they get people killed, like what happened to my uncle years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I maintain that the ending and plotline of Evangelion is actually closer to actual Christian canon than most people's understandings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The original ending, End of Evangelion, or Rebuild?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Do you have any good examples; that sounds entertaining af.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Soul Eater has a bunch of it, tho it's not a very good anime. Trigun too. Really tho it's all over, it'll crop up even if you aren't looking for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Blue exorcist

    The castlevania series on Netflix (maybe not necessarily anime).

    Those two have heavy Christian references. However a lot of fantasy based anime have a lot of pseudo references to Christianity. Either in the form of clergy (Feiren)/cross based weaponry (Quincy in bleach)/or angels vs demons context (that kinds side steps specific religious affiliation, but heavy Christian elements).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 91 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "We don't drink blood here. That's something Christians do." ~Satanist member

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 68 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    It's very important to note that Catholics believe that Jesus was both fully man and fully god, and in times past would straight up kill you for heresy for saying he was half man and half god.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Normalizing a 2D vector is not part of the scripture, apparently.

    (edit) I fucked up with my math. Normalizing either kind of Jesus would result in a being that is ~0.707 part divine and human. But if we assume that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human, that would make his magnitude sqrt(2), which means that Christian beliefs are based on something that is completely irrational, which I've found to be true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well, in scripture a circle can be 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference, so...

    I guess all that we can conclude is that through god, all things are possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It’s got to have been awful to be neurodivergent in the past. I want to dig into this right now and I grew up Catholic, so I know it doesn’t lead anywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Catholicism is all about meaningless distinctions with no basis in reality which drive them into murderous rage.

    This 200% being, The fact that the bread and wine is 100% blood and flesh, don't ask.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Crucifixion didn’t lead to death by starvation but by suffocation.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    elaborate? (I could Google it, but I prefer human response)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Basically, once your feet/legs get too tired to carry your weight you hang from your arms. This basically means to breathe you have to push up your entire body weight with your chest muscles. After a while you get too exhausted to breathe and suffocate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    interesting, why can you breath? is the position stretching the chest making it harder?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Yes, it makes it harder to both inhale and exhale because it makes it difficult to expand or compress your chest since your whole body weight is keeping it stretched.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    ok.

    however, wasn't he nailed? wouldn't bleeding from those injuries kill you faster?

    isn't there a part where he was also stabbed by a spear?

    they really wanted him dead

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    The stabbing thing happened after he died.

    Romans would brake the legs of crucified victims to check if they were still alive. In Jesus case they instead pocked him with a spear.

    The person that wrote this part of the gospel (as in, very likley, made it up), had to write this in because they needed to keep the story of Jesus in line with old testament prophecies about the Messias, one of which speaks of said Messias beeing "unbroken". So they came up with an alternative to the leg braking.

    It's one of several examples where gospel writers tried to write things into the gospel that made it look like Jesus was the Messias by inventing events about him that made his life line up with existing prophecies about the jewish messiah.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It is believed they nailed through the wrists not the hands.

    You could probably put a nail through your wrist and just leave it and live your life without treating it. You'd have to be unlucky and hit a large vein and your body not clot properly, the nail would help stop the blood.

    It's like the myth with a bullet. First thing is not to pull it out because it will make things worse. You can live with a bullet in you.

    The stabbing of the spear, to my knowledge, was for mercy so he'd not suffer as long.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Crucifixion strikes me as the kind of punishment where they would endeavour to ensure the person would survive up there for a decent while — to prolong their suffering, and the display of said suffering. It's a grim method of execution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It was pretty common to put a small board a little bit above the butt, placed so that you can't really sit on it without hurting your feet, but preventing that you die too soon.

    I read up the current wikipedia article for this, and apparently suffocation isn't thought of as cause of death anymore since 2023! @BorgDrone@feddit.nl @IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world @Sludgeyy@lemmy.world

    In 2023, an analysis of medical literature concluded that asphyxiation is discredited as the primary cause of death from crucifixion. There is scholarly support for several possible non-asphyxiation causes of death: heart failure or arrhythmia, hypovolemic shock, acidosis, dehydration, and pulmonary embolism. Death could result from any combination of those factors, or from other causes, including sepsis following infection due to the wounds caused by the nails or by the scourging that often preceded crucifixion, or from stabbing by the guards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Oh there are worse methods which is the crazy part

    Crucifixion is more "show" when compared to other torture/execution methods. It is horrible don't get me wrong. But its intention is not to inflict maximum pain or torture but to show maximum pain or torture to those witnessing it

    Like let's just say Christians wouldn't be wearing a bull around their necks if it happened that way. And that's even a milder one.

    Crucifixion is death with some torture

    There are torture, torture, torture, ..., death methods

    You can always add an "And then"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Klingons did it best.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The Wicker Man (1973) has entered the chat

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    "Happy Easter..."

    • slams book shut

    • guitar sting

  • source
  • "I've read some more of this book. Apparently, if your neighbors show up at your house wanting to rape your guests, you should send out your daughters to be raped instead."

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nah, emotional support dieties. Useful for pushing responsibility away from one's self.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I recently read The World Until Yesterday which compares the way of life between tribal cultures and western cultures. The section about religion has a clumsy preamble that was obviously trying to cushion the blow for religious people reading the book who thought their religion was any different to tribal religions.

    The author then goes on to treat them all the same.

    It was quite funny to read. I was imagining how it must feel to see your religion laid out side by side with a dozen other equally stupid myths and think "Yep this is the right one. I was super lucky to be born to parents who picked the correct religion!"

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    For me, a historical fiction that put norse and chriatianity on similar footing was the push that got me from "ugh this religious stuff is annoying" to "oh, it's probably bullshit, too". In hindsight, it's pretty telling that christianity puts the most emphasis on having faith no matter what evidence or lack thereof is presented, to the point where that alone determines whether one is punished, ignored, or rewarded in a way that is completely unverifiable to anyone living.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    a dozen other equally stupid myths

    I think there is some missing context here that makes this an unfair comparison. In general, tribal cultures didn't treat their creation myths as literal fact. It was more of a poetic way to explain to the children of the tribe where their people had come from and give the tribe a sense of identity. Since they didn't have Science to actually explain how they got there, this seems as reasonable as anything honestly.

    If someone from a different nation were to come visit and relate their account of creation, they wouldn't argue with the person and insist that their creation myth was the 'correct' one and that the visitor was wrong. They were a different people so it makes sense they were 'created' in a different way. Since neither was attempting to explain things in a literal way, the two different stories weren't incompatible with each other.

    It's likely that the creation myths of the ancient Hebrew people were looked at in a similar way at first, they were a tribal people after all. At some point (likely to do with the Agricultural Revolution, but that's a whole different topic) they started conquering and subjugating the neighboring tribes and insisting those people adopt their spiritual practice, that's when the whole deal of insisting it was the literal truth came about.

    In the bible Yahweh and the Hebrews spend a lot of time worrying about what 'gods' the other tribes worshiped. Much more so than would be rational if you considered Yahweh to be the one, true, only and actual God. The reason that so much time was spent on it was because Yahweh was just a story, just like all the other Gods and you had to go out of your way to get people to follow along with the narrative that that one story was 'true', otherwise who would believe it?

    So while it's easy for us to look back on the beliefs of tribal cultures and dismiss them as stupid, we are misunderstanding the purpose and intent of these stories. It's only 'stupid' if you take it literally. In context it was a lot less dumb and probably somewhat necessary to a harmonious life.

    We have the benefit of pretty much knowing exactly how humans and the world got here, so we were never in a situation of having one of our children come up to us and ask how we got here and only being able to answer with "I have no idea." That would have been the situation that tribal societies would have been in if you were expecting them to give a scientific answer to the question. So it's really not the case that their creation myths were "Stupid", but more it was the best system they could possibly have had at the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I see what you're getting at, and I personally think that's probably how a lot of the myths/religions start, but I don't think you can outright say that tribes only thought of them as children's stories.

    In the book I was referencing, the author noted the "cost" of a religion, in that the tribes were usually required to spend a significant amount of their time worshiping, and/or discarded resources in the name of sacrifice. One of the tribes studied spent 1 out of every 3 days worshiping. A very large commitment for people who have a very real risk of starvation if their hunts go badly. He then goes on to argue that there must be an evolutionary benefit to religion or an atheist tribe would have out-competed all of these tribes (but that's another tangent). I bring this up because it implies that they do actually believe their "stories", otherwise why risk starvation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    That's a good point, I worded it poorly. I didn't mean to imply that the adults didn't 'believe' it and just told that to their children. I think that it was more the case that they believed in the spiritual truths behind the stories and not necessarily that they were literal, although I can't say for certain that was the case in all instances. Maybe some of them did believe it literally or didn't really make a distinction between spiritually true and literally true. It's not like they had the scientific knowledge to know what the alternative was.

    I think it's natural to try and explain the world around you, and if you don't have the tools to know what is really going on- then yeah you will probably make some crazy guesses. And then if you tell it to your children as if it were fact, then they might not question it seeing as how you are a trusted elder.

    I think my point though was that it really isn't what I would call 'stupid' to do something like create a silly myth and pass it on. For me where it becomes stupid is when you insist it's the literal truth and that other people believe it, or when you refuse to update your worldview in the case where better evidence comes along because you are a zealot about your mythology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    No Gods, No Masters.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I'm just here because I love seeing comments that read "deleted by creator" in all the threads about Jesus.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Fun fact: the actual death from crucifiction was suffocation. Once the victim loses the strength to hold themselves up, the slouch puts some sort of stress on their lungs. There was an instance of the Romans not breaking someone's legs (which suggests that maybe that was part of the practice) so they would suffer longer. I don't remember where that info came from, but I've been reading lots of books about the first 200 years of christianity for about 20 months.

    I'm an atheist, of course, just also a history nerd.

    One other side note: around 1999, I wanted to make a "student" film (I was barely a student) about the life and times of christ. He'd fuck up and raise Lazarus as a zombie in one of the scenes. Never made it.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Your film idea makes me think you'd enjoy the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a book in the apocrypha starring Mary teaching baby Jesus not to kill his classmates for being dumb kids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    ...what? Is this a response to the Olympics thing? Am I in the wrong thread?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Nah, that's what Lot did when he was hosting a couple of angels for God, who had sent them there to Lot (the only good man in Sodom) to see if he or anyone in Sodom was worth saving. Then an angry mob shows up to Lot's house and demands that Lot let than rape the angels, cause they were hot. Lot instead offers up his two daughters (who were fucking each other anyway, so whatevs) to be raped by the crowd. God thinks that that's cool, so he promises Lot and his wife safe passage out of Sodom as he destroys it, but them must swear to not look back upon it's destruction. While they are leaving town, Lot's wife looks back at the city being destroyed and is turned into a pillar of salt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    who were fucking each other anyway, so whatevs

    Where are you getting that from? The only thing the bible says about Lot's daughters when the mob shows up was that they were virgins.

    After God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (and Lot's wife) and they were living in a cave in the hills, the daughters get Lot drunk and take turns having sex with him, but this was more a way to explain the origin of the Ammonites and the Moabites in an unflattering way than anything else. The bible almost exclusively portrays women in a terrible way, so the fact that they seemingly raped their dad likely wasn't the point of the story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    "Their cultists still decorate themselves with replicas of the murder weapon to This Day!!!"

  • source