The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

To anyone more familiar with Mexican folklore, when did the idea of putting photos on the ofrendas take root, and were portraits in general always put on ofrendas before the advent of cameras and photography, or were they just alters where the living descendants left the favorite foods, toys, etc., of their deceased ancestors and relatives and photos got added later?

Paintings, drawings, or memorabilia of the deceased being remembered were used in lieu of, or prior to, photography. A family might commission and artist for a painting, but that would likely only have been for well-off families, so if they couldn't afford that, a simple drawing would suffice, or one of the deceased's previous belongings might be put there alongside the various religious objects. What matters is that the deceased is remembered.

I have a journey to the west question.

Ahem, the ymmv page mention a "Phoenix-Immortal prefecture" a location that is suffering a drought untill three impossible tasks are completed because of divine Disproportionate Retribution. I wanted to ask for details on what the travelling monks did there and if they solved the drought there or not. And if the latter, what became of the residents.

Link to the page in question?

YMMV.Journey To The West. specially an entry under Values Dissonance (that was being used to contrast a different entry)

This morning I was stopped by an old lady on a bike. At first I thought she wanted to ask for the way to something, but then she told me that Jesus loves me.

I'm not sure what to make of that. I don't think I look like a godless rebel, at least, but now I'm worried I look like I need spiritual help that much.

Its just a weird greeting,don't worry too much about it

The monks are offered silver to help but refuse the reward helping only for merit. The drought has been decreed by the Jade Emperor, a non Buddhist Chinese deity. On seeing the impossibility of his task four officials tell monkey "once a single kind thought moves Heaven the rice and flour will collapse and the padlock will break". The monks convince the Marquise to return to the Buddhist faith and he orders a religious ceremony, repents all of his sins, has suttras recited etc.

When monkey returns to the Jade Emporer the impossible challenges have collapsed and rain returned to the prefecture. The people rejoice and start worshipping the Buddha and Heaven

The moral of the story is impossible tasks can be achieved through good^ deeds. While desecrating the offerings is what triggered the drought it could have been easily ended if the Marquise performed good deeds and good thoughts

I'd say the main dissonance comes from the concept that because the King isn't good the people aren't good either which in the story is a fact, the people don't repent until the Marquise has.

^not sure how good has been translated here I.e. faithful? dutiful? selfless? charitable?

Edited by Gaiazun on May 8th 2024 at 7:00:39 AM

I see. Thank you.

I have a question about the Bible. Specifically it's prose. I want to ask about the characteristics of the narrative as told by the narrator/authors/translators.

For purposes of simplicity. I specifically ask about the infamous King James Version.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on May 8th 2024 at 12:00:31 PM

The KJV engaged in quite a bit of woolseyisms and took a lot of liberties.

Its specific prose is actually intentionally archaic-sounding, even by the standards of when it was written. Indeed, nobody ever quite spoke like a KJV Bible.

Ironically, part of why the KJV is popular is because of the liberties it takes. In essence, it's an important work of English literature.

I figured as much. Any specific examples beyond pronouns?

Edited by MorningStar1337 on May 8th 2024 at 12:39:09 PM

Well, it uses archaic (even for the 17th century) verb forms such as 2nd/3rd person singular -est/-eth, preterite forms such as spake, and much greater use of the subjunctive.

Also, it might not be fair to lay all the translation's "liberties" at the door of King James's men. A remarkable amount of the KJV's text is carried over almost unchanged from William Tyndale's c. 1530 Bible.

perhaps, but I inquire becuase I am considering using the style for a later story and therefore want to know all the differences between the KJV and modern english, not the differences between two nigh-contemporary versions.

How did oak trees become associated with storm gods?

Lightning strikes,but its news to me that they are

I know oak trees were (at least sometimes) used as a symbol of Zeus.

Don't know about any other specific examples.

Also Perkunas from the Baltic religion and Perun from the Slavic

Our favorite Nordic god Thor.

So, recently there had been a bill passed in the U.S House of Representatives supposedly to combat anti-semitism, which had gotten some criticism, some reasonable and some…put forth by the “Jewish Space Lasers” lady, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and “Man I Can’t Believe Is Not In Jail Yet”, Matt Gaetz.

Particularly, that it would ban reading the Gospel as it supposedly places the responsibility for Jesus’s death at the hands of “the Jews”, which the bill calls “anti-semitism”.

Look, I know the claim is bullshit if it came from either of these chuckleheads, much less both, but I’d like to know HOW bullshit it is, the specifics as to what makes it bullshit as I am but a simple Muslim boy who has opened many a book in his life but never a Bible. My info on the subject is mostly from pop culture and certain history books.

The most I can say is that, from what I’ve heard, wasn’t it the Romans, the chief civil authority at the time, that arrested, tried, gave the death penalty, and executed Jesus himself? The closest this claim could be to right is somehow blaming “the Jews” for choosing to let Barnabas, a thief, be let off instead of Jesus but…

Not only would that ignore the much more massive culpability that the actual people who tried and executed him have in his death but wasn’t his death ultimately a part of God’s plan or desires? Didn’t God send down (in Christian thought) His son to take on humanity’s sins and grant them a second chance to be let into heaven?

Also, wasn’t Jesus Jewish himself?

Edited by fredhot16 on May 10th 2024 at 7:52:31 AM

I do find "Jew" as a term a little weird to see at times, but that's more because I'm more used to Hebrew.

Yeah, those chapters actually do have quite a bit of blame shifting. They are all like "Oh no, we have to execute this guy who totally did not deserve it. We don't want to and are actively looking for excuses not to go through with it, but those pesky Jews are really riled up and we now we must do it to keep the peace".

Keep in mind that it was the Romans that would adopt Christianity as their state religion and primary claim to legitimacy.

The tendency to shift the blame from Romans to Jews is especially apparent if you read the gospels in their order of composition (i.e. Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John). Since Christianity spread mostly among the Roman gentile, it's much more palatable if the blame for Jesus' crucifixion falls on the Jews instead.

Edited by nightwyrm_zero on May 10th 2024 at 10:08:32 AM

If I remember correctly, it was the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council of Elders in Jerusalem, that brought the charges against Jesus before the Romans. Also, I seem to recall a scene in which Pontius Pilot asks the (Jewish) crowd if they want him to execute Jesus or a murderer, and the crowd picks Jesus. I can't remember which of the Gospels that scene appears in, though.

I would say that directly racial antisemitism (as in, hatred of the Jews as an ancestral clade) is clearly incompatible with Christianity without quite a bit of Insane Troll Logic. Aside from the times The Bible speaks out against racism generally, The Bible stars many heroically-portrayed Jewish figures, has probably several few antisemitic villains, and was written largely by Jews.

Indeed, particularly cray-cray antisemites tend to either have schizo and heretical views like "my favorite ethnicity are the real Israelites and the Jews today rewrote historical records", or are openly anti-Christian.

Of course, it certainly needs to be stated that Christianity has been used to justify antisemitism. Also not all antisemitism is directly racial in nature. For example a lot of Christian groups historically hated the Jewish religion.

In particular, the claim that The Jews as a people are categorically responsible for Jesus's execution has been used to justify crimes against The Jews by Christians. The Catholic Church held the position that the Jews are categorically responsible for Jesus's execution until something like the 1940's or so.

I will say that I don't think that this is a view that's clearly visible in the gospels themselves, particularly not to the extent that it would make the gospels antisemitic. Especially since it, frankly, requires one to thoroughly miss the point of most of Jesus's moral teachings.

of course missing the point is what fundies do best (rather ironically at that, considering that the moral teachings would be among the fundamentals of the religion's ethos)

Edited by MorningStar1337 on May 10th 2024 at 2:54:00 AM