The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

@ Elfive: But that was a different time, before the Temple was demolished in Jerusalem.

edited 19th Nov '14 6:32:48 AM by Greenmantle

We also have more evidence that Jesus was actually a composite character instead of one man. Never mind that we have records from the Romans about several Messiahs they crucified/executed over the years. There were quite a few.

Also, just a question, am I the only one who finds Christians who wear the cross a little odd. To me it's kinda like a follower of Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. wearing a bullet around their neck.

I'm all about symbols of faith, but Christianity has so many other symbols to use then a murder weapon. Like the fish or sun. After all, everyone dies. Rome lined the roads with crosses. To die on a cross wasn't anything special. But Jesus is supposed to have risen from the dead, so one would think that celebrating his life would be more important.

That's one reason why I didn't like the Passion of the Christ movie. It spent two hours killing the man but only 2 seconds showing that he's alive again.

It's about showing you have overcome an instrument of oppression, by adopting it as your own. "We aren't intimidated." I think wearing a bullet as a memorial to MLK is an awesome idea!

It's a fairly simple-looking execution device that makes for an easy-to-draw symbol. I'm sure if Jesus had been fed to lions or burned they'd have gone with something else.

The historical consensus seems to be the man that would be later known as Jesus Christ did exist, was baptised, debated with the leaders of the Temple in Jerusalem and was crucified under the orders of Pontious Pilate. There also was a Jewish religious revival happening at the same time.

Wearing crosses is extremely easy to see in catholicism.

In my opinion that stems from a bit of history. People need symbols to rally to, and one of the important, most unrecognized things in catholicism would be the Eastern Roman Empire whose use of the symbol of the cross during the Battle of the Milvian Bridge ad his subsequent legalization of christianity as a religion tolerated under his Roman Empire (and his subsequent baptism) had an important effect on the use of the cross.

From then on, specially in the Crusades we can see people rally to that symbol, as they rallied underthe Pope's forces. Protestant branches of christianity though kinda veer away from the Pope, some of them even fight with catholics because supposedly Jesus died on a pole instead of a cross or something (moot point. Who cares? WHERE he died was not important. How he did and that he did is) so maybe it makes less sense for them to wear the cross in that sense?

But still, historically, the symbol of the cross, to me, from that perspective, makes plenty of sense.

That's debatable. I'll agree to leave it at that because eventually it'll devolve into a faith argument and I don't want to disrespect anyone's right to believe or faith.

My grandmother uses to wear the Catherine Wheel on a green ribbon for her Irish pride sense Green is the color of death in Celtic history and Catherine was her patron saint. She stopped when my cousin said it gave her nightmares.

edited 19th Nov '14 7:31:56 AM by Gabrael

And we know that at least some of the New Testament was written close enough to when he was around that people would call the writers out on compositing people together. Whether or not that makes it accurate is another question entirely, but again, some of it was written close enough to the time he was around that Jesus' message probably made it through, at least to a degree. The Sermon on the Mount is certainly different enough from basically every other religious message at the time that it probably wasn't just made up by one of the writers.

I am sorry if my post sounded a bit like "Catholics master race! Protestant scum stealin' muh crosses!" lol I am not religious at all, I simply thought of that question and think the historical perspective of it offers an explanation as to why the cross, though not so symbolically linked to the theological representations of Christianity's tenents, might still be a symbol that considerably represents Christians all over the world.

@ Gabe: Mind you, the existence of any unimportant person in the 1st century Roman Empire is debatable — the records just haven't survived, if they ever existed.

This is something that'll never be proven one way or the other with the current levels of available information in the historical record.

edited 19th Nov '14 7:37:09 AM by Greenmantle

There were probably a ton of Jewish blokes called Yeshua crucified under the Romans. It's not that unusual a name.

edited 19th Nov '14 7:39:32 AM by Elfive

"I'm Spartacus!" "NO! I'm Yeshua!" "NO! I'M SPARTA...wait, what?"

Yeah I think its only English speaking christians who actually place any special importance on jesus' name. Not sure about French, romanian, greek, or italian tho...

but the Spanish see no problem with naming their kid jesus

I'll assume you're being non-flippant, and answer that post-Exile (including Talmudic) construals of the Messiah's nature also took place after the establishment of Christianity. Even in Jesus' time, the idea of a Messiah who wasn't a military/political saviour proved a tough sell in many corners. In the era of the Christian Church, it's not a bit surprising that Jewish Messianic thought should be in explicit tension with Christian interpretations—maybe even, at times, defining the former against the latter.

I am never non-flippant. My flippancy is a universal constant.

As a symbol of remembrance? That's not too far off the mark.

Lioncash.

Admittedly in those cases him coming back with the stigmata would have been a touch more gruesome.

Charred skeleton!Jesus, anyone?

edited 19th Nov '14 8:23:53 AM by Elfive

It will be interesting to see if or what we uncover.

But fundamentally, Zen is right and to me the message on how to live a good life is more important. But people like to be certain and people like validation. So we always need to try and be careful with how we encourage faith.

Too many people focus on the person instead of doing what that person told them to.

I know if I were Jesus the last thing I would want to see is my murder weapon all over the place. But that's just me.

The issue I have with remembering deaths is we (people in general) get too hung up on the person instead of doing what they were told. Sure, it's good to know your roots. But it's better just to do as they said to be better and kind.

edited 19th Nov '14 9:03:22 AM by Gabrael

To me, if you need someone to tell you that you have to be a decent being for you to act like one means you're pretty much an asshole

And anyone saying it, is stating the obvious. "Don't kill each other!" No shit sherlock. How fucking novel. Why don't you write a book about i...wait you actually fucking did!?. Religion is a lot more about social and historical cohesion to me than actually laying down values that...come naturally from social organization.

Well, you have to teach kids those things. It's obvious to us, but not so much for people with no previous knowledge or information. Not that I think children would all develop into murdering assholes, I'm just saying at some point you have to learn those things for them to become obvious, because until that point they might not be.

Of course they can learn it. They will. But from society. From their communities. From their families. Like. You know. The rest of the animals.

Oh, of course. People will teach them that. Religion is only one tool those people could be using to that end. Or, if they already have discernment, they may use that tool on themselves. Or another tool, or maybe no tool at all.

Religion is the final nail in the moral coffin.

But why do we...BECAUSE GOD SAID SO! NOW STOP ASKING AND EAT YOUR VEGETABLES LEST YOU GO TO HELL!!!!

Seriously though, it is because we as humans like that final validation. That assurance. So there is religion. Religion was the first science. So now that it's evolving and the actual sciences are explaining things religion was once used for, it's use as a moral code is questionable.

I like religion. I think it's capable of wonderful and terrible things. I have some bias since it's my field, but I'm not opposed to becoming more of an archaeologist than a cultural expert. That would be nice.

Thing is , back then there was a lot of tension and discrimination between multiply ethnic groups living in th levant . Like the Samaritans . It may seem obvious to us to treat people like people , but that's because of hindsight bias . For all we know the notion of respecting people who were different than u was novel way back then.

Or, people just have to be reminded because like in the story of the Good Samaritan , people who said they would set a good example in the end don't really . Like those Levites. Today , even tho most people know about this story, u still see people pass by homeless people on the street and just ignore them

People back then were as capable of being good to each other as they were to be absolute assholes. Religion, even then, was just anexcuse. Look at the first crusade, that was just the Eastern Roman Empire trying to get a breather from the invasions at the hands of their enemies under the guise of religion.

Gab does have a point though but I would not call it "validity". What religion gives that no amount of science could ever provide, is "purpose", or a sense thereof.