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.
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unless you buy into inherited guilt and into sacrificing another to absolve yourself from guilt which are both rather outdated concepts in our modern morality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I would argue that’s not necessarily the case - see slavery, caste systems, discrimination etc. In many countries currently and throughout history it’s been perfectly legal to treat the “other” as less than oneself, even up to and including murder and torture.
Also, often laws are created to enforce religious doctrine, which while perhaps morally preferable to those of that religion may be abhorrent to those outside it. (Abortion, burkas/hijab, education restrictions, prison sentencing, drug/alcohol legality, etc)
There’s a lot of law protecting immorality/punishing moral actions as well. Look at how difficult it is for people to get justice through the legal system in so many cases. It can take years fighting corporations lawyers before they’re paid damages.
That’s only if the people writing the law have a moral compass of one sort (religious or not).
If I become ruler and write the law so that helping the poor is criminal, the only solution to a person unable to pay their debt is death, and that only people of a certain demographic are allowed to use front doors to establishments I don’t think you’d say that the law is a closer shot to morality than religious doctrine.
I seem to remember Emma Smith making the same argument with her polygamist religion starter husband, Joseph Smith. If I recall correctly Joseph then had a “revelation” that told him while he could have multiple wives, his wife Emma [mentioned by name], could not have multiple husbands. It made me laugh.
Joseph Smith has all kinds wacky zany stories that provide excellent proof that his claims are all totally 100% legit
I like the one where he "translated" some "ancient texts" but his wife didn't believe him so she threw away the "translations" and told him to do it again, if he was the real deal he'd translate it exactly the same way no problem. But God was upset at this trial so he changed the translation, making poor Joseph Smith redo it with the new and thus slightly different translation.
This of course proves that there was no way at all Joey could've made everything up
Maybe other Emma Smiths did exactly that, which is why we never hear from them. When they stop the insanity before it spreads, there is no story to be told.
There is a big difference to being an atheist in a very secular society. It is nothing special and not a major part of your life or identity.
These type of atheists do not need to seek online spaces as there is noting to discuss or much of a need to vent or find people who think as you do.
I am in this group, am not subscribed here and came across your post in /new. I assume you are as well.
Then there are the people who are atheists in very religious communities or societies. They often have few or no people in their lives they can talik to about the issues they face having to hide their lack of belief for it can be very damaging to them, physical, socially and mentally if they are public about it.
These are the people who are more likely to inhabit atheist online spaces.
They need a place to honestly vent about the hypocrisy they see around them.
They need a place to be honest about their lack of belief.
They need a place to find those that think as they do.
So, basically, no, in my opinion this is not a hate space.
Sad that jerking off to ones own superiority is all that Atheism has to offer.
This is also your first post here, so I see it as you feeling superior to the other posters and talking down to them while you have contributed nothing to the community prior to this.
So, prove me wrong and post something to prove what Atheism has to offer...
I mean technically, if you really read about hell in the bible, it’s only the only place god is not. I mean it’s described as an awful lake of fire and so on, but that’s just because the people who were reading it needed to hear that the people persecuting them were going to get theirs.
But yeah, what you said is what most people believe, I just think it’s funny that the word for Hell when Jesus talks about it is actually Gahanna which is the place outside Jerusalem where they burned all their refuse.
Essentially: “If you’re a trash person, you’ll be thrown out and burned on the trash heap. But if you love me, that proves you’re not a trash person and it’s the only way to prove that.”
More like if you’re a non believer you go to a place that I choose to ignore, but since I’m the best, most magnificent being in all existence you would be making an awful choice. It would be akin to being in a trash heap simply because I’m not there.
Yeah, there’s actually a lot about the faith that is purely metaphysical, but had to be described as something that people who lack abstract thinking could understand. Which is where we got the Lake of Fire from. Remember Dante’s Inferno is a novel, it was written by an edge Lord, it is not official church doctrine even if pop culture movies about hell will draw on it for inspiration.
That’s because the devil is so good at deception. So everyone that isn’t following MY believes is obviously misguided by the devil and acting in the devil’s name!
In God’s case, though, he literally made it all happen on purpose. It’s a “stop hitting yourself” kinda situation, only entirely sincere in the belief that they are hitting themselves
Well, there’s actually “doing your own research” and there’s “get fed a line by alt right media and thinking that counts as research”. Which is a conspiracy in and of itself, to mislead the public along that specific narrative…
Carefully researched conspiracy theory with science method just can’t exist. The basis for conspiracy theory is that there’s truth so well hidden there’s no proof for that, and they can just “see through the lies”.
Conspiracy theories tend to be simpler explanations. The people attracted to them struggle to comprehend complexities, and thus reject reality for the conspiracy.
Yes, but they could / would say exactly the same things about our side. This symmetry of how each side perceives the other, I find it both fascinating, infuriating and frustrating.
Identifying aircraft or atmospheric phenomenon is very complex. You need an understanding of aircraft and various classes of aircraft. Satellites and various classes and orbits. A for phenomenon you need an understanding of physics, fluid dynamics and meteorology. It’s easier to say you saw an alien.
Technology has advanced significantly in the last 200 years. This makes senses in you understand the enlightenment and improved communication technologies (printing press etc). There has been a steady increase in technological development each one making the next feasible. Optics improved reading. Lighting allowed work outside of daylight. Agricultural development allowed more people to get out of a substance living and more people developing technology and culture. Unless we got all those ideas from an alien craft.
Vaccines and how the improve immune response is not trivial. Especially the new vaccines that were developed for covid. Rather than appear ignorant, it easier to reject that they are effective.
The simple explanations are often shrouded in mountains of bullshit to make you think you “did the work”. All fluff and very little substance. Lefty or not Sophie from Mars dids a fantastic essay on conspiracy theories and stigmatized knowledge. Well worth anyone’s time considering how relevant the topic is nowadays
So why did God make light on day 1? Did he need it to see what he was doing? Maybe the light was a head-lamp. If he was so smart wouldn’t he just make the suns first? Seems redundant.
I had to Google and see if people were really pissing on her grave. Sadly it appears it’s heavily guarded behind barriers. One comment astutely observed that this setup also helps keep that “vampiric bitch” in her grave where she belongs.
atheism
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.