History Main / ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity

14th Feb '17 12:30:18 PM DoctorCooper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** It is true that stories of Osiris, Baal and Dionysus, are all pre-Christian and deals with the dead-and-resurrected god-figure like many mythologies. However the way these characters die, how they originated, and how they we're "resurrected" are drastically different from each other and from the story of Jesus. In fact those stories don't have too much in common at all. For example some "experts" claim that the story of Jesus is based on the stories of Dionysus. Now there are several versions of the story of Dionysus, some of which even deny him ever having a human mother. But anyway to make a long story short: Zeus came down from mount Olympus, has "whatnots" (repeatedly I might add) with a human woman named Semele, she becomes pregnant, Hera gets jealous and tricks Zeus into killing Semele. Zeus out of remorse takes the fetus that was in her womb and sews it on his thigh[[note]]Or maybe scrotum; "thigh" was a common euphemism for "scrotum" in ancient Mediterranean cultures. It's definitely used in the Bible and some Roman sources, so it's likely the Greeks used it too. And let's be honest: the scrotum makes a lot more sense for that kind of thing than the thigh.[[/note]] until that baby aka Dionysus was born. So similar to the backstory to Jesus? Not really. Based off each other? A bit of a stretch. It would be like saying that ''Anime/DragonBallZ'' is based on the story of Jesus simply because they used the BackFromTheDead trope on their protagonist as well.

to:

*** It is true that stories of Osiris, Baal and Dionysus, are all pre-Christian and deals with the dead-and-resurrected god-figure like many mythologies. However the way these characters die, how they originated, and how they we're "resurrected" are drastically different from each other and from the story of Jesus. In fact those stories don't have too much in common at all. For example some "experts" claim that the story of Jesus is based on the stories of Dionysus. Now there are several versions of the story of Dionysus, some of which even deny him ever having a human mother. But anyway to make a long story short: Zeus came down from mount Olympus, has "whatnots" (repeatedly I might add) "whatnots" with a human woman named Semele, she becomes pregnant, Hera gets jealous and tricks Zeus into killing Semele. Zeus out of remorse takes the fetus that was in her womb and sews it on his thigh[[note]]Or maybe scrotum; "thigh" was a common euphemism for "scrotum" in ancient Mediterranean cultures. It's definitely used in the Bible and some Roman sources, so it's likely the Greeks used it too. And let's be honest: the scrotum makes a lot more sense for that kind of thing than the thigh.[[/note]] until that baby aka Dionysus was born. So similar to the backstory to Jesus? Not really. Based off each other? A bit of a stretch. It would be like saying that ''Anime/DragonBallZ'' is based on the story of Jesus simply because they used the BackFromTheDead trope on their protagonist as well.



** It should also be noted that Christian opposition to evolution is only in part because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis.[[note]]Several Christian commentators, including St. Augustine, held to non-literal views of the creation account long before the true age of Earth and the universe were known.[[/note]] More importantly, they object to a naturalistic explanation because they think it would undermine the role of God in creation in general (i.e. life arising by chance) and the relationship between man and God in particular (i.e. consciousness arising by chance), and apparently think that something can't possibly come from God unless it popped out of nowhere fully-formed, and that God is somehow incapable of setting a gradual process in motion and occasionally poking it in the right direction. I mean, it's not like ''the beauty of nature and the the mechanisms by which it ticks is one of the reasons God created in the first place'' or anything.

to:

** It should also be noted that Christian opposition to evolution is only in part because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis.[[note]]Several Christian commentators, including St. Augustine, held to non-literal views of the creation account long before the true age of Earth and the universe were known.[[/note]] More importantly, they object to a naturalistic explanation because they think it would undermine the role of God in creation in general (i.e. life arising by chance) and the relationship between man and God in particular (i.e. consciousness arising by chance), and apparently think that something can't possibly come from God unless it popped out of nowhere fully-formed, and that God is somehow incapable of setting a gradual process in motion and occasionally poking it in the right direction. I mean, it's It's not like ''the beauty of nature and the the mechanisms by which it ticks is one of the reasons God created in the first place'' or anything.
14th Feb '17 12:16:28 PM DoctorCooper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* It is unclear where the notion that masturbation is a sin came from, since the Bible has no apparent mention of it. A possible source might be Genesis 38, where Onan is told to sleep with his brother's wife, since his brother died before siring an heir. Onan does so, but pulls out and ejaculates on the floor, and is struck dead by God. Now, most people take this to mean that contraception, or any sort of ejaculation other than in a woman is sinful, but Onan (and his other brothers. None of them seemed to learn from their predecessors' examples) wasn't killed because he jizzed on the floor. He was punished for defying the law that if a married man should die before having given birth to a son, his brother-in-law is responsible for producing a son through the widow to become his heir. I presume Onan and his brothers refused to do this because if the wife were to also die and there was no heir, they would inherit their brother's property. So it was greed and defiance of the law that condemned Onan, not some made-up rule against masturbation or contraception.
23rd Jan '17 12:42:31 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Most Christians, quite simply, do not believe in [[CaughtUpInTheRapture The Rapture]]/7 Year Tribulation/One World Conspiracy [[TropeCodifier popularized]] by the ''LeftBehind'' novels/films, and if they live outside America, ''they probably don't even know what it is''. It is a [[NewerThanTheyThink relatively recent theory]] and mostly held by Evangelical Protestants, and generally ignored in other Christian Traditions. Eschatology (Study of Last Things) has been discussed and debated since the very earliest days of the Church and the only things generally agreed upon near universally by Christians are Jesus is coming back, he will judge the world, and Heaven and Earth will be destroyed and remade. To make things even more complicated, there is even debate about what that last part even means, ranging anywhere from a ResetButton on current existence, to some sort of utopian new world, to a merging of Heaven and Earth, to any number of other theories. For instance.

to:

* Most Christians, quite simply, do not believe in [[CaughtUpInTheRapture The Rapture]]/7 Year Tribulation/One World Conspiracy [[TropeCodifier popularized]] by the ''LeftBehind'' ''Literature/LeftBehind'' novels/films, and if they live outside America, ''they probably don't even know what it is''. It is a [[NewerThanTheyThink relatively recent theory]] and mostly held by Evangelical Protestants, and generally ignored in other Christian Traditions. Eschatology (Study of Last Things) has been discussed and debated since the very earliest days of the Church and the only things generally agreed upon near universally by Christians are Jesus is coming back, he will judge the world, and Heaven and Earth will be destroyed and remade. To make things even more complicated, there is even debate about what that last part even means, ranging anywhere from a ResetButton on current existence, to some sort of utopian new world, to a merging of Heaven and Earth, to any number of other theories. For instance.
15th Jan '17 10:11:41 PM MsChibi
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church does ''not'', in modern times, forbid civil divorce. (Although it doesn't exactly like the concept, either, and encourages couples to work out their problems whenever possible.) What it ''does'' forbid is remarriage after a civil divorce, unless a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_nullity church annulment]] was also obtained. A divorced Catholic who wishes to remarry ''without'' this step may do so, but they must do so ''outside'' of the Church, and they are no longer permitted to receive Holy Communion.
14th Dec '16 7:09:18 PM Razanir
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** And even then, it's a different set of connotations with disorder. While modern usage, especially in English, has connotations of mental illness, the Latin connotations, which are also in many translations, are just of misdirection. If one purpose of sex is procreation, a desire for non-procreative sex is inherently misdirected.
5th Dec '16 10:46:17 PM Mhazard
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* When it comes to homosexuality, Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation is treated as a disorder[[note]]but within Christianity as a whole even ''this'' is debated. There are plenty of Christians who don't consider gay marriage any more spiritually unhealthy than straight marriage, and can back it up with interpretation.[[/note]] and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). For the Protestants otherwise, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered as a sin due to their scripture-only principle, and the fact ''Literature/BookOfRomans'' mentioned that same-sex intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction as proposed by God. So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.



* When it comes to homosexuality, Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation is treated as a disorder[[note]]but within Christianity as a whole even ''this'' is debated. There are plenty of Christians who don't consider gay marriage any more spiritually unhealthy than straight marriage, and can back it up with interpretation.[[/note]] and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). For the Protestants, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered as a sin due to their scripture-only principle, and the fact ''LiteratureBookOfRomans'' mentioned that homosexual intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction. So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.
5th Dec '16 10:41:58 PM Mhazard
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* If you genuinely think that mainstream Christianity thinks God is even ''confined to spacetime'' let alone a [[GrandpaGod bearded Homo-sapiens male]] in white robes who sits on a cloud within Earth's atmosphere, then you are ''inexcusably'' ignorant on the topic of Christianity (akin to a creationist who asks "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"), and therefore not qualified to discuss the matter at all. The closest actual depiction of God would be more closer to an EldritchAbomination which [[YouCannonGraspTheTrueForm seeing him would have you disintegrated]].

to:

* If you genuinely think that mainstream Christianity thinks God is even ''confined to spacetime'' let alone a [[GrandpaGod bearded Homo-sapiens male]] in white robes who sits on a cloud within Earth's atmosphere, then you are ''inexcusably'' ignorant on the topic of Christianity (akin to a creationist who asks "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"), and therefore not qualified to discuss the matter at all. The closest actual depiction of God would be more closer to an EldritchAbomination which [[YouCannonGraspTheTrueForm [[YouCannotGraspTheTrueForm seeing him would have you disintegrated]].
5th Dec '16 10:41:01 PM Mhazard
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* When it comes to homosexuality, Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation is treated as a disorder[[note]]but within Christianity as a whole even ''this'' is debated. There are plenty of Christians who don't consider gay marriage any more spiritually unhealthy than straight marriage, and can back it up with interpretation.[[/note]] and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.

to:

* When it comes to homosexuality, Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation is treated as a disorder[[note]]but within Christianity as a whole even ''this'' is debated. There are plenty of Christians who don't consider gay marriage any more spiritually unhealthy than straight marriage, and can back it up with interpretation.[[/note]] and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). For the Protestants, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered as a sin due to their scripture-only principle, and the fact ''LiteratureBookOfRomans'' mentioned that homosexual intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction. So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.



* The classic appearance of Satan as a red-skinned, goat-hooved, barb-tailed, goatee-wearing, and horned man does not come from Scripture. It emerged around the 19th century representing [[Myth/ClassicalMythology the faun Pan]] as a symbol of pagan decadence, becoming associated with sin and then with Satan. As for the Bible, the closest it gets to describing Satan's appearance is in 2 Corinthians 11:14, which warns that: "[[LightIsNotGood even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light]]." Satan was originally created as an angel just as sinless as the others [hence his actual name ("Satan" is simply a title, akin to "destroyer of worlds") "Lucifer" which translates to "bringer of light"], so that is what his true form would look like.[[note]]Except, of course, for the fact that they are spirits, and as such their true "form" is not even a physical entity.[[/note]] In fact, Satan would likely hardly ever even take on this stereotypical form. If he needed to pretend to be an unfallen angel, he'd be in his true form (or whatever you thought angels looked like). If he was trying to tempt you, he'd appear as something you'd readily accept the temptation from (such as your favorite pornographer). If for whatever reason he needed something ''actually'' "demonic," he'd probably take on a form somewhere between an EldritchAbomination and a LivingShadow with GlowingEyesOfDoom.

to:

* The classic appearance of Satan as a red-skinned, goat-hooved, barb-tailed, goatee-wearing, and horned man does not come from Scripture. It emerged around the 19th century representing [[Myth/ClassicalMythology the faun Pan]] as a symbol of pagan decadence, becoming associated with sin and then with Satan. As for the Bible, the closest it gets to describing Satan's appearance is in 2 Corinthians 11:14, which warns that: "[[LightIsNotGood even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light]]." Satan was originally created as an angel just as sinless as the others [hence his actual name ("Satan" is simply a title, akin to "destroyer of worlds") "Lucifer" which translates to "bringer of light"], so that is what his true form would look like.[[note]]Except, of course, for the fact that they are spirits, and as such their true "form" is not even a physical entity.[[/note]] In fact, Satan would likely hardly ever even take on this stereotypical form. If he needed to pretend to be an unfallen angel, he'd be in his true form (or whatever you thought angels looked like). If he was trying to tempt you, he'd appear as something you'd readily accept the temptation from (such as your favorite pornographer). If for whatever reason he needed something ''actually'' "demonic," he'd probably take on a form somewhere between an EldritchAbomination EldritchAbomination[[note]]such as a [[OurDragonsAreDifferent seven headed red dragon with ten horns]] as mentioned in ''Literature/BookOfRevelation'', whether it is literal or not[[/note]] and a LivingShadow with GlowingEyesOfDoom.



* If you genuinely think that mainstream Christianity thinks God is even ''confined to spacetime'' let alone a bearded Homo sapiens male in white robes who sits on a cloud within Earth's atmosphere, then you are ''inexcusably'' ignorant on the topic of Christianity (akin to a creationist who asks "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"), and therefore not qualified to discuss the matter at all.

to:

* If you genuinely think that mainstream Christianity thinks God is even ''confined to spacetime'' let alone a [[GrandpaGod bearded Homo sapiens male Homo-sapiens male]] in white robes who sits on a cloud within Earth's atmosphere, then you are ''inexcusably'' ignorant on the topic of Christianity (akin to a creationist who asks "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"), and therefore not qualified to discuss the matter at all.all. The closest actual depiction of God would be more closer to an EldritchAbomination which [[YouCannonGraspTheTrueForm seeing him would have you disintegrated]].
* Angels are no exception, whenever they take a [[AngelUnaware humanlike form]], they don't appear as WingedHumanoid depicted in various painting, but instead, they're wingless, which is why the mobs in Sodom surrounding Lot didn't know they're angels in the first place. While there are winged [[OurAngelsAreDifferent Cherubium and Seraphim]], they both are more close to EldritchAbomination rather than WingedHumanoid.
27th Nov '16 10:59:21 AM dannybeans
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Although Christians may sometimes fall into the NoTrueScotsman fallacy as a defense, what looks like the fallacy may not always be: when Christians specifically break commands they have accepted as part of Christianity (for instance the commandment against murder), they are in fact No True Christian. People who fail to follow the tenants of Christianity are not Christians, no matter ''what'' they say. Just like how someone who lives in and who's entire ancestry comes from Russia is not a Scotsman, no matter what they say.

to:

* Although Christians may sometimes fall into the NoTrueScotsman fallacy as a defense, what looks like the fallacy may not always be: when Christians specifically break commands they have accepted as part of Christianity (for instance the commandment against murder), they are in fact No True Christian. People who fail to follow the tenants tenets of Christianity are not Christians, no matter ''what'' they say. Just like how someone who lives in and who's entire ancestry comes from Russia is not a Scotsman, no matter what they say.
20th Nov '16 1:57:57 AM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The classic appearance of Satan as a red-skinned, goat-hooved, barb-tailed, goatee-wearing, and horned man does not come from Scripture. It emerged around the 19th century representing [[Myth/ClassicalMythology the faun Pan]] as a symbol of pagan decadence, becoming associated with sin and then with Satan. As for the Bible, the closest it gets to describing Satan's appearance is in 2 Corinthians 11:14, which warns that: "[[LightIsNotGood even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light]]." Satan was originally created as an angel just as sinless as the others [hence his actual name ("Satan" is simply a title, akin to "destroyer of worlds") "Lucifer" which translates to "bringer of light"], so that is what his true form would look like.[[note]]Except, of course, for the fact that they are spirits, and as such their true "form" is not even a physical entity.[[/note]] In fact, Satan would likely hardly ever even take on this stereotypical form. If he needed to pretend to be an unfallen angel, he'd be in his true form (or whatever you thought angels looked like). If he was trying to tempt you, he'd appear as something you'd readily accept the temptation from (such as your favorite pornographer). If for whatever reason he needed something ''actually'' "demonic," he'd probably take on a form somewhere between "Eldritch abomination" and "living shadow with glowing eyes of doom".

to:

* The classic appearance of Satan as a red-skinned, goat-hooved, barb-tailed, goatee-wearing, and horned man does not come from Scripture. It emerged around the 19th century representing [[Myth/ClassicalMythology the faun Pan]] as a symbol of pagan decadence, becoming associated with sin and then with Satan. As for the Bible, the closest it gets to describing Satan's appearance is in 2 Corinthians 11:14, which warns that: "[[LightIsNotGood even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light]]." Satan was originally created as an angel just as sinless as the others [hence his actual name ("Satan" is simply a title, akin to "destroyer of worlds") "Lucifer" which translates to "bringer of light"], so that is what his true form would look like.[[note]]Except, of course, for the fact that they are spirits, and as such their true "form" is not even a physical entity.[[/note]] In fact, Satan would likely hardly ever even take on this stereotypical form. If he needed to pretend to be an unfallen angel, he'd be in his true form (or whatever you thought angels looked like). If he was trying to tempt you, he'd appear as something you'd readily accept the temptation from (such as your favorite pornographer). If for whatever reason he needed something ''actually'' "demonic," he'd probably take on a form somewhere between "Eldritch abomination" an EldritchAbomination and "living shadow a LivingShadow with glowing eyes of doom".
GlowingEyesOfDoom.
This list shows the last 10 events of 428. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity