821
submitted 11 months ago by atheist@feddit.de to c/atheism@feddit.de
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

Christianity is a persecution fetish.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

It's a quality it shares with another religion or two.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 35 points 11 months ago

It's a reminder of what he went through to atone for the sins of mankind

The point is that he doesn't like crosses

[-] Wisely@lemm.ee 17 points 11 months ago

That part never made any sense to me either. Why do sins need to be forgiven and how does torturing someone allow forgiveness? Seems like torturing and killing the son of god would be a serious sin by itself.

Couldn't god just realize he created flawed beings and forgive them himself, or not hold a grudge about it? Humans are how he made them according to the religion.

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You ask good questions, but if you're really interested you can look into Christian apologetics re: free will. There are some interesting answers awaiting you. But the gist of it is that God didn't create flawed beings, he created beings with free will that chose to be flawed.

And Christianity has never said free will is a flawed design, because humans having free will is one of the most important aspects of the religion and is very fundamental to what it means to be a human (a concept that is true both in and outside of Christianity, unless you believe in destiny or something). It is not a flaw to have free will, otherwise God himself would be flawed. In a regular context, it's kind of like you're not flawed for existing, but you're flawed if you do negative things with your existence. I would personally have to be convinced that having free will is a flaw/a negative thing

To quickly answer your first couple questions: death is the punishment for sinning and Jesus is supposed to be perfect and sinless and thus should not die. but instead he died in place of other sinners, kind of like taking the blame for them. And yes, torturing and killing the son of God was indeed a sin, the people who did it were sinful. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. The ones who killed Jesus were not his followers or supporters

[-] ThePac@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rifugee@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

He's afraid of crosses, like vampires...wait a minute... Doesn't like crosses. Rose from the dead. Wants people to drink his blood.

[-] swab148@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

Does he also sparkle in sunlight?

[-] loudWaterEnjoyer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago

He is also hunted by Blade

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Ah - so they think if they aren't wearing the cross he'll have forgotten about the whole crucifixion thing?

I mean, to be fair he was only up there for like half a day - so short they allegedly needed to poke him given how unusual dying that quickly was for the execution method (though it was suspiciously shortly after drinking something in two accounts).

So yeah, maybe they have a point and a reminder is warranted.

"Hey you, remember that they nailed you to a cross! Don't forget! The most important thing in your life was that. You said some other stuff that I don't really remember and usually zone out about on Sundays, but for sure the whole getting nailed to wood part was really really important and the ultimate summation of your life's purpose. It was somehow necessary because I like to look at boobs on the Internet. So thanks for that, and again - don't forget about it, because I'm sure it was very forgettable."

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

No no no no, you have it backwards. They're not trying to remind Jesus of the cross, they're trying to remind themselves just how painful of a death that the alleged Redeemer of man had to go through.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SpookyCoffee@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

Well… cuz if u would ever read bible, u would know the cross is a symbol of redemption for mankind. Same goes for Jesus hanging on it, it’s a scene of what Christian’s believe to be the ultimate act of love, sacrificing urslef for another. I think it makes perfect sense to pick cross as a religion symbol.

[-] taladar@feddit.de 39 points 11 months ago

The whole redemption thing itself doesn't even make sense unless you buy into inherited guilt and into sacrificing another to absolve yourself from guilt which are both rather outdated concepts in our modern morality.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

You’re saying my plan for fixing climate change by sacrificing the rich to the fire god is outdated and unlikely to work?

[-] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 15 points 11 months ago

idk it’s still definitely worth trying

[-] DasRubberDuck@feddit.de 7 points 11 months ago

Hehe fire... Fire! FIRE! 🔥🔥

[-] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago

If you sacrifice enough of them it should work.

[-] RIPandTERROR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

WTF I'm suddenly feeling very religious

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] isthingoneventhis@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

That and it was the way Romans dealt with literally anyone deemed... a nuisance? 😂

[-] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago

You described christianity quite well there

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It makes more sense when you know that 2nd temple Judaism had an entire economy built around animal sacrifice for sins, and that the temple central to that is destroyed a few decades after Jesus died as Christianity was starting to take off.

So positioning Jesus's death not as an embarrassing failure to manifest earlier messianic prophecy but as this ultimate sacrifice making the animal sacrifices that could no longer be performed unnecessary was a very convenient belief to attract Jewish converts.

Of course, then Mark 11:16, where Jesus bans anyone from carrying animal sacrifices through the temple in the first place while alive becomes an inconvenient detail, which is probably why it later disappears from Luke and Matthew.

So Christianity probably really was a split from 2nd temple Judaism at the time of Jesus on the point of animal sacrifice, but then following his death the death itself gets reworked back into the paradigm of animal sacrifice by those coming later (i.e. Paul) which then later makes it more attractive to Jews who no longer have a temple after 70 CE when it takes even greater prominence.

The irony of course is that looking at some of the early apocryphal sayings of Jesus on the ridiculousness of sin and salvation as an inherent birthright that shouldn't be given over to another to be lent back out at interest - this development of the crucifixion as an ultimate sacrifice on behalf of humanity was possibly the exact opposite of a historical Jesus's whole point, even if it was favored for survivorship bias given the destruction of the temple.

[-] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago

So the symbol only makes sense if you're deep in the lore

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ah yes, a slow, torturous death makes it all better.

Religion likes suffering. Gotta suffer to make it into elysium. Gotta make sure everyone else suffers, too, even if they don’t believe.

[-] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

types all that

can't type 'because' or 'you'

bruh

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

"Read the Bible" mmmhmm...

Where exactly does it say that the cross is the thing that should be the symbol for the religion?

That doesn't happen until around the 3rd century, 200 years after most of the new treatment was written.

Fun fact: initially the cross was a symbol made on the forehead or with the hand. So if you were looking for Revelation prophecy fulfillment, maybe the buying and selling of salvation under the sign of the cross on forehead and in hand should be the thing people are worried about, and not RFID payments.

Just like how Christians worry about blaspheming the Holy Spirit as a supposedly unforgivable sin while conveniently overlooking Paul's swearing he's telling the truth on the Holy Spirit in Romans 8 (a chapter entirely absent in Marcion's version of the letter).

It's always wild to me when believers act like they actually know anything about the book while clearly not knowing much about it at all, as opposed to at least having the wisdom to know what they don't know.

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You seemed to have wholly misinterpreted the comment you're replying to in your condescending rambling. Kinda crazy that you even mentioned RFID payments somehow in your tangent. You lost the plot big time

No one said "the bible says the cross is a symbol for the religion of Christianity". Not a single verse says that, and no one claimed so. but the cross in the text is important and is symbolic of redemption/love/sacrifice. You don't need the text to say that, it's just a simple literary analysis. That's how symbols work.

Like what are you even saying with your last paragraph there? If you read the Bible, the importance and significance of the event where Jesus died on a cross is kind of hard to miss. It's wild to me that you can make a comment like yours and then pretend you're so wise and intelligent and above other people while you're rambling nonsense about RFID payments. Get a grip, dude.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If you read the Bible, the importance and significance of the event where Jesus died on a cross is kind of hard to miss.

Not really. There's one line in the Synoptics about "unless you carry the cross as I do" and a few mentions of the cross in the Epistles, but it didn't have nearly the significance it later takes on in the religion.

The gospels certainly cover the crucifixion with the passion narrative, but at the time it was more about dealing with the embarrassment of the cross than its glorification - the Messiah was supposed to be a war leader who led the Jews in a final battle of liberation and instead their guy was crucified.

So the narrative is mostly around trying to address how really this embarrassing event was fulfilling prophecy and addressing why he didn't just magic himself off of it (eventually developing the narrative to the point that in John he effectively does just that spiritually, leading to later beliefs like docetism - that he was a phantom without corporeal form and didn't suffer at all on the cross, popular around the time the focus on the cross was starting).

Again, you can see that in the earliest of the Epistles the cross is referred to as "the offense of the cross" (Gal 5:11), and at this early point the significance is clearly still developing as Paul sees the cross as symbolically crucifying the world to him in Gal 6:14 (Paul's undisputed letters have 2-5x the personal reference of the non-Pauline Epistles, much like the writing of vulnerable narcissists).

The Christology around the significance of the cross simply isn't where you think it is when the NT is being composed to support your view of it as symbolically hard to miss. In the text itself, it's actually quite easy to miss, which was why it took two centuries to become a thing.

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

What a well formulated response. You're right about everything you've said in regards to what the text literally says, but you've still missed the point.

I was speaking hyperbole, the bible is massive and definitely lends itself to missing the significance of certain events, especially if you blitz through it. But Jesus dying is still a significant event of the book, without it the whole book itself loses its narrative cohesion and collapses on itself. And handwaving mentions of the cross/Jesus dying on the cross away as "a few mentions of it in the epistles" (which is 21/27 books in the NT btw) is exactly what you're doing, downplaying the significance of the event. The epistles arent random side stories in the bible, they're one of the most applicable and relevant portions of the whole text

Jesus coming and dying is alluded to before it happens, prophesied, then recounted and written about multiple times throughout the whole text. It is indeed a significant event. You don't need the text to focus literally on the cross itself for it to be a symbol of the event that occurred. Which is what I've already said prior. "the cross as a symbol is directly supported in the text" is exactly what I already said is not being discussed. You seem to be arguing points that no one is arguing.

Look, you read the Bible, you study the text, and you realize Jesus death which happened on a cross is a big deal, the cross then is merely a symbol of that event. It's that simple. The cross is not a symbol of itself, which is what your analysis seems to imply. The cross being a symbol is not some conspiracy about gaslighting people on what the bible says about the cross. It's just an easy way to represent what is one of the most significant events of the bible in addition to the direct references to it

[-] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago

No thanks. I'd rather pin my cock n balls to a cross before I read that dumpster fire

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I will wear a necklace in the image of your cock n balls pinned to a cross so that we may remember how you suffered for our cocks n ballses

[-] Kofu@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

The delusion manifest.

[-] leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 11 months ago

They got their Armageddon, they got their Rapture, they salivate for death to live in their paradise, they objectify an instrument of death.

Death Cult.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 14 points 11 months ago

What part of modern Christianity makes you think they give a shit what Jesus thinks?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Early Christians didn't use the cross as a symbol, they used that fish that morons stick on the back of their car.

But they do forget that Jesus is supposed to have a magic wand.

[-] Belgdore@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago

I grew up evangelical, and the way evangelicals use the cross this argument makes sense. But the catholic crucifix as a depiction of the suffering of Christ makes more sense as a symbol to put a believer’s mind and heart in the right place for supplication.

[-] Bunnylux@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Agreed. Catholicism for all its faults has used for its iconography. With evalgelicalism it's just a weird, disembodied torture machine.

[-] MJKee9@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Sam Kinison had a good joke about people wanting Jesus to come back. "Yeah, I'll be back when I can PLAY THE PIANO AGAIN!!!"

[-] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago

Any smokers in the audience?

[-] Technofrood@feddit.uk 4 points 11 months ago

More proof Jesus was the OG Vampire

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Silly Jesus, it’s not about what you like. It’s about symbolism, and using that symbolism to persuade and oppress, and start wars, and justify shitty behavior.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
821 points (96.4% liked)

Atheism

5 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS