What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/ArtisticLicenseReligion

SeptimusHeap
topic
12:57:02 AM Jan 5th 2014
Re cut: This page was mistakenly cutlisted due to name confusion with Artistic License - Traditional Christianity. Please don't cut this.
qwertyman
11:22:48 AM Jan 9th 2014
edited by 98.254.218.210
I think they have too. All the other stuff was deleted it wouldn't be fair to keep it. beside the page was becoming too long to read.
SeptimusHeap
08:42:58 AM Jan 10th 2014
This page is still readable and usable, and less nattery. Besides, if it's too long even after a natter cleaning, it can simply be split.
Arivne
topic
06:52:02 PM Dec 23rd 2012
edited by Arivne
The following has been removed from the Constantine entry because it's incorrect. It wasn't the Spear of Destiny that was controlling people, it was either Satan's son Mammon or his partner in crime Gabriel (or both) exerting their power to make the guy bring the Spear to Los Angeles.

  • Not to mention the fact that whoever possesses the Spear ends up instantly hypnotized/possessed by the evil power within it, and begins mindlessly (and superhumanly) heading in the direction of what will be the ritual that will bring "Satan's offspring" into the world. Nevermind that the Spear (or at least, all the relics that have thus far been identified as such) is a HOLY relic, with no "official" powers, the very fact that it bathed in the blood and water that spilled from Christ's body would make it an amazing anti-demonic tool. This is the same reason that the nails and pieces of the Crucifix are considered holy relics, or would be if any could be positively identified.
Fireblood
topic
05:52:44 PM Nov 10th 2012
  • In episode 10 of the 5th season of Bones, Daisy repeatedly claims that it was more likely that Jesus was born in March than December in spite of the fact that the Feast of the Annunciation (when the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and related a certain request to her, and upon her acquiescence conceived the "Eternal Word of God" in her womb) is usually held on 25 March; look at Artistic License - Traditional Christianity for more information. SO according to Daisy, Mary had apparently been pregnant with Jesus for about a YEAR!
    • Well, that was supposed to be a miracle... Anyway, the Bible is silent about when Jesus was born. People theorize it was spring due to the shepherds having lambs in their flocks, which are born then. December probably had more to do with capitalizing on existing holidays such as Sol Invictus and Yule that occurred the same month.
    • While it could have been early Christians trying to "capitalize" on existing holidays that occurred in December for reasons that are never clearly explained (seriously people have came up with sooo many "theories" on why they did it, some of which were pretty contradicting), OR It could have also been that they simply added 9 months to the date of the Feast of the Annunciation (a holiday which occur on March 25 that celebrated the conception of Jesus)click on this for more info but you be the judge. also while it is unusual for shepherds to have lambs in their flock at that time of year. it is also unusual for a woman to be pregnant for 12 months, but once again you be the judge.
      • They could have added 9 months to the Annunciation, or alternately counted back from December 25 9 months-either way. Anyway, the fact that the Annunciation is celebrated March 25 doesn't mean it actually happened on that date, nor that Jesus was born on December 25th. The theory on why days such as December 25th were made Christian holidays is simple-the pagans already celebrated around that date, and thus made it less disruptive for conversion. It's probably not coincidence that these days already had multiple pagan holidays celebrated on them-Sol Invictus and Yule on December 25th, Ostara around when Easter became, Beltane on May 1 (May Day), etc.
      • While it is true no one knows the dates of Jesus's birth, it is REALLY unlikely that they counted back from December 25 (by that I mean impossible). While they didn't know when he was born they had an idea when he was conceived. They believed it was during the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (which was March). For more info you can check these sources:[1][2] [3] [4]. To put it simply the date of Christmas may have initially been chosen to correspond with the day exactly nine months after early Christians believed Jesus to have been conceived. And most likely didn't try "capitalize" on existing holidays that occurred in December.
        • It's just a coincidence, then, that the Spring Equinox happens to be around March 25th, and the Winter Solstice around December 25th? In the Biblical verse you cited, all it says is "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth." So, six months into Elizabeth's pregnancy. Fine, but that still doesn't tell us when Elizabeth conceived, thus also not when Jesus was conceived. The Rabbinical theory given in the Artistic License - Traditional Christianity page is really reaching, and gives no source for calculating when Zachariah was on duty as a priest to thus show when his wife Elizabeth conceived, then when Jesus had been conceived. It appears that Jesus' birth date was not considered important anyway, since none of the Gospels places it either on the Jewish or Roman calendars, which would have been those used at the time.
qwertyman
11:41:28 AM Nov 12th 2012
edited by qwertyman
yeah here the thing they did had an idea when Elizabeth conceived because according to the these sources [1] [2][3] the early Christians believed that John the Baptist(Elizabeth's son) was born June 24 (they even held a feast to celebrate it).So do the math, if John the Baptist was born in June ,then that would mean that six months into Elizabeth s pregnancy would beyou guessed it March. And 9 months from March is December.The dates add ups perfectly. whether It's just a coincidence, that the Spring Equinox happens to be around March 25th, and the Winter Solstice around December 25th is up your interpretation maybe so maybe not,however there is really isn't any hard edividence to suggest that early christians purposely sought out to steals these holidays without any connection to their biblical dates.either way it's sort of irrelevant to my orginal point..sooo yeah I'm going to repost my original post unless you have an objection

Fireblood
07:09:05 PM Nov 13th 2012
edited by Fireblood
Yes, I know all that. I don't think "steal" is the word-many religions celebrated holidays around the Equinoxes and Solstices. Regardless, I don't know what evidence they had in Bones, if any. I'd just say the only idea we do have from Christian holidays says otherwise, but nobody knows for sure.
qwertyman
03:32:58 AM Nov 14th 2012
edited by qwertyman
In an earlier episode bones herself said the early christain celebrated christmas in march and then change it to december to hide from persecution which was totally bogus.also there is really nothing suggest that jesus was born in march,literally nothing many claim it was march other say august they are all just assumption which raise more questions than they answer and contradict earlier biblical dates. however I'm not saying jesus was born extacly on decmber 25. however ealry christian did believe he was born sometime in late december to early january. Of cource no one when he was actually was born, but ever they should at least Shown Their Work and not make nearly baseless assumptions
Fireblood
06:06:44 PM Nov 14th 2012
I don't know why celebrating it in March wouldn't be okay, versus December. That makes no sense. I'm not sure why anyone would say that over December. I agree they should have some evidence to back it up, and that goes for everything.
qwertyman
05:27:17 AM Nov 15th 2012
edited by qwertyman
I forgot to mention it in my original post that daisy also says the same thing about early Christian celebrating Christmas in march on top Jesus being born in march.so I think I am going to repost my statement but change some things so it would less Arguable.

Fireblood
06:19:06 PM Nov 19th 2012
Yeah, that one I've never heard of either. Please go ahead.
Fireblood
topic
08:51:30 PM Oct 29th 2012
This needs verification, but I have read that polygamy was not only permitted in the Doctrine and Covenants of Mormonism, but required. Getting into heaven apparently requires you take multiple wives. Further, although permission must be sought by the first wife, if she doesn't give it she'll be forever damned. None of this changes the fact that the LDS Church stopped polygamy in 1890, but it might be added to understand the issue, especially why splinter Mormon groups still practice polygamy-it's in the Doctrine and Covenants, after all.
KarjamP
topic
09:08:25 AM Aug 22nd 2012
edited by KarjamP
I just got to warn people who are overly religous and believe their faith to be the absolute truth, that...

This page may not reflect your opinion on truth.

Like, for example, saying "Taoism and Christianity is muturally exclusive" is a myth.

I think it's impossible to mix two different faiths together like that and still being considered the part of those respective religion (ie, I don't consider people mixing Taoism and Christianity as "true christians").

At least, I don't believe that it's possible to mix Christianity with other religions without me considering their faith to be something else.

The only exception I'm okay with is practising Jewish tradition, but that's only because Christianity is a decendant of Judaism.

Of course, you may believe differently.

DON'T try to debate my beliefs, as I don't want to start debates based upon it. I want to respect other people's beliefs (dispite me thinking, "Christianity is the only one that's true").
Saciel
07:16:43 AM Mar 9th 2013
It depends from which religion you are looking at the issue. For example, you can be a Buddhist Catholic or a Daoist Catholic no problem - from the Buddhist/Daoist viewpoint. However you can't be from the Catholic viewpoint because Catholicism has rules that conflict with the Buddhist or Daoist ones.

Also, everyone can be Confucian, but some religion forbid the rituals that are important to Confucianism, while Confucianism not having any real God that could conflict with the other religions deity/deities.

Many polytheist pantheons have no problem with the abrahamitic gods. Chinese popular religion, Hinduism... have no problem going to a church if they think the god may be effective, but vice versa a Christian can't go to practice at any Hindu/Guandi/Guanyin temple without hurting the rules of their own denomination.
Lightice
topic
07:31:28 AM Aug 21st 2012
The Dark Ages entry confuses me; surely it's not related to matters about religion in any direct way?

In any case, there is limited amount of truth to the concept, though the whole deal was neither as universal or as long-lived as people often assume. This is most notably the case in Britain. When Rome withdrew its legions from the island, they were followed by grand majority of the rich populace, along with skilled artisans and craftsmen. In result, the island experienced one of the worst collapses of civilization in the known history. The clay pots from the period were more poorly made than those of the Stone Age, people stole urns from the graveyeards in the absence of other sources for well crafted goods, and metal tools and weapons that weren't heirlooms dissappeared almost entirely for over a century.

So yes, there was a sort of Dark Age period where infrastructure broke down, and lots of written information was lost. Only the idea that no progress or new ideas happened between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Renaissance (which most people didn't even notice until it was over) is bogus.
ArkadyDarell
topic
04:55:23 PM Jul 23rd 2012
"This is the reason a lot of athiests don't believe in God, they are frightened of being held accountable."

Seems kind of, "Yeah, not," to me.
tsstevens
09:44:57 PM Jul 23rd 2012
This isn't at all true. There are many many reasons atheists reject religion. The main one would be because they don't believe in it, but some reject it because of the way they see god and his followers, or believe that atheism really is the answer, science is their religion so they don't take up an abrahamic faith, I have yet to hear of accountability as a reason. I have heard the claim from theists that atheists are afraid of being held responsible, and surely some atheists would admit to being afraid of religion, but that's because of the problems they see in religion, not a fear of how god might see them or whether they would be worthy.
ArkadyDarell
09:49:34 PM Jul 23rd 2012
Yeah, that was my reaction to the entry. Seems more like a theist's mistaken view of atheism than an actual truth. But I didn't feel like stepping into a flame war by removing it.
tsstevens
10:36:33 PM Jul 23rd 2012
It might be confusing the belief that atheists are afraid (of religion, of taking up religion) with atheists claiming they are afraid of religion, or mistaking a fear of religion with a fear of taking responsibility.
swallowfeather
05:00:45 PM Aug 16th 2012
I'll remove it. I'm a Christian, and I think it's BS. I think there are people whose motive is not wanting to be held accountable, but those are people who deep-down do believe in God but are trying not to. A handful of them might call themselves atheists but they aren't—and far more of them won't call themselves anything but will completely avoid the subject, except when they're drunk or high and then they'll either tell you that God hates them or they hate God or something. You don't talk like that about someone you don't believe exists.

Sorry. Too much detail. Anyway...

Real atheists simply don't think there's a God. They just don't. And if any theist thinks that's an inevitably insincere position that theist is just not very experienced at life.

Anyway, that type of line doesn't belong on a TV Tropes page at all. I thought we were all here to talk about works of fiction, not debate... anything.
swallowfeather
05:15:06 PM Aug 16th 2012
I guess someone already removed it... I can't find it.
TheOneWhoTropes
topic
06:48:24 PM Mar 1st 2012
edited by TheOneWhoTropes
Can we point out, in the Atheism definition, that the way Anti-theist and militant atheist are used in the "new Atheism" and their detractors is blatantly different, in practice, to what "militant atheism" SHOULD mean. Mentioning Albania in the list of countries would be good, he's the only one who wanted atheism for atheism's sake and not because he was a Communist (just a mad dictator.)

At the moment, it looks like someone is trying to do a subtle Take That at Richard Dawkins. (implying he agrees with Communist oppression, when he's a secularist.) Don't want to edit it myself, not impartial.
tsstevens
08:28:19 PM Aug 3rd 2012
I'll do it. Remove how Dawkins supports communism? He'd be in support of anti theism if anything but that's neither here nor there.
MorganWick
topic
03:04:44 PM Feb 18th 2012
Eh. Reading the page, I've always thought "modern offshoots" was a pretty arbitrary shorthand for "Mormonism", considering that's what all its examples are. Now we have Artistic Licence Traditional Christianity, which without knowing the status and history of this page, there's no reason for it to not just be Artistic Licence Christianity. I think I'm going to continue this on that page's discussion page, but does anyone else think moving the Mormon examples there would at least be worth considering? Perhaps Artistic Licence Christianity could be folderized with every variant, traditional or not. (Though some items are hard to tell whether they're general or Catholic-specific...)
MorganWick
03:06:37 PM Feb 18th 2012
And now I see it's folderized by theme. All in favor of making "Modern Offshoots" a folder on that page and renaming it Artistic License Christianity?
swallowfeather
05:21:47 PM Aug 16th 2012
Personally, I think Artistic License Traditional Christianity ought to get streamlined and brought back onto this page. It was taken to its own page by a now-banned troper who wrote long-winded agenda-pushing entries, and they are probably going to get deleted bit by bit now. (S/he seems to be the one who was pushing Christianity is Catholic, too.)

As for the categories, maybe we should go with "Catholicism", "Protestantism" and "Latter-Day Saints". That way each folder doesn't get overly long, either. Us Protestants can handle getting lumped together even if we have different denominations, no problem, and if the Jehovah's Witnesses ever turn up they can have their own (under their preferred name, if Jehovah's Witnesses isn't it), and we'll stop there.
qwertyman
topic
01:55:34 PM Feb 2nd 2012
edited by qwertyman
can someone please explain to me why my xkcd example was delete? was there something wrong with it? i would just like to know
MrDeath
07:56:32 AM Feb 3rd 2012
Read the edit reason, the person who deleted it was quite clear on why.
qwertyman
10:12:12 AM Feb 3rd 2012
sorry i can't find it. can you plz paraphase it?
MrDeath
10:35:14 AM Feb 3rd 2012
It's right here. At the top of any TV Tropes page, there is a button at the top that says 'History" and it brings you to the recent changes.
qwertyman
01:02:47 PM Feb 3rd 2012
edited by qwertyman
I see thank you very much. i'll have to talk to the editor cause those reasons he gave seem to be pretty arbitrary
Tuckerscreator
06:01:02 PM Mar 16th 2012
edited by Tuckerscreator
I've re-removed this example for more clear reasons (I'm not the original remover, by the way.) While it is true that Abel never had children, the XKCD comic never claims this, it just has him having sex (with his mom). In fact, reading Genesis you have to wonder if the chances of getting pregnant were lower back then, since most of the patriarchs of the time didn't have children until well through their first century (unless the patriarchs were just that chaste.). So it's perfectly possible (though highly unlikely) that Abel could have indeed have had sex but not had children.
qwertyman
11:17:18 AM Mar 19th 2012
edited by qwertyman
First not only is it highly unlikely but it raises the question.... why? According to the book of genesis there were other people in the world!(That how Cain found his wife)so we are supposed to believe Abel is banging his mom for lols in spite of the fact there are other women in the world.. Second the only two patriarchs in the entire book of genesis that didn't have children until well through their first century was Abraham and Isaac and perhaps Noah Im not to sure, But I digress. The idea of the lower rate of pregnancy for people back then is really just an assumption base off Abraham and Isaac. And finally if what your saiding about the comic is truth THEN WHAT WAS THE JOKE the xkcd comic was trying to make?!(please enlightened me) however i don't really care about that post too much ( I'm just tired of defending it). so feel free to delete it. I'm just happy that this time there is an actually reason for delete it that seem somewhat reasonable.(Other than grammar, which the last time I check isn't a legitimate reason to delete a post,) but I digress if you feel the need to delete it go for it.

Tuckerscreator
03:08:25 PM May 4th 2012
The joke was indeed just Abel banging his mom for lulz. It's not a very funny joke, but the comic never claims Abel had kids, which was the reason claimed behind posting the comic as an example of this trope page.
deofmovestofca
topic
05:21:21 AM Jan 1st 2012
In the "Christianity" folder, there is the following: "The origin (i.e., the Hebrew version of the Bible) states that "יִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת", i.e., they took fig leaves and made themselves belts (or aprons). God did give them leather shirts before He kicked them out, but it isn't clear why.

God is a Jewish Mother and it was cold outside the Garden. You want they should freeze their little punims off without a warm jacket? " I think a better explanation is that leather, unlike fig leaves, would require the killing of a "soulish" animal (or "nephesh") instead of a plant and thus underscore that death (and bloodshed) entered the world through Adam and Eve's sin. Also, as a physical covering for the effects of sin, it foreshadowed the sacrificial system, which was meant to be a spiritual covering for sin. The best way I can thin of editing this would be "Another possibility is that leather, unlike fig leaves, would require...." but would be interested in other suggestions.
fireysoul25
topic
01:11:35 PM Oct 7th 2011
edited by fireysoul25
isn't it strange that Atheism would even be mention on a page about misconceptions about religion? seeing how atheism is not a religion.
Achaemenid
09:17:20 AM Jan 31st 2012
edited by Achaemenid
The first entry points out that atheism is not a religion. However, it would be inefficient to either make a new page for atheism or to change the page to "Artistic License: Belief Systems." Besides, the paradox is explained very well in the "atheism" entry. Catholicism = Xort and a Religion. Atheism = Xort but not a religion.
swallowfeather
10:02:47 PM Jun 10th 2012
Labeling the atheism section "None" seems a pretty good way of making it clear right away that it's not a religion while still giving it a place on the page. Works for me.
Peteman
topic
11:45:50 PM Jun 5th 2011
Would You Kindly provide an explanation for those who don't know?
    Anime 
DonaldthePotholer
topic
08:16:10 AM Mar 26th 2011
Some Useful Notes with regards to the Immaculate Conception/Incarnation confusion:

  • Timing is the chief culprit here. The IC is celebrated on 8 December, with Mary's birth being attributed to 8 September. Likewise, the Incarnation (which is lumped in with the Annunciation by Gabriel* ) is on 25 March.* The problem comes in two parts:
  1. Said date of Incarnation, due to how Easter is defined, is always within Lent (the Fasting Season), Tridium, or the Octave of Easter. The latter two (plus the rest of Holy Week immediately prior) trump this Feast, pushing it to the Second Monday of Easter whenever it falls during this period.* Basically, people are either anticipating Jesus' death, or celebrating His resurrection, which somehow overshadows the fact that He had to be conceived before He did anything.
  2. Conversely, 8 December always happens during Advent, when the general populace thinks the Christmas "Season" is.* So, since they're not thinking about Christmas in March, but they are in December, we get the Immaculate Misconception. The fact that the readings for the day specifically reference the Incarnation doesn't help matters.
    • In fact, the Old Testament Reading and the Gospel readings are the exact same for both Solemnities!
MorganWick
02:39:10 PM Feb 18th 2012
"Basically, people are either anticipating Jesus' death, or celebrating His resurrection, which somehow overshadows the fact that He had to be conceived before He did anything."

It's because Christianity is, in general, a lot more about Jesus' death than his birth; after all, everyone is born and everyone dies, but not very many people are seen walking around after they're killed. The entire message of Christianity is "Jesus died for your sins, then he got up and walked around again", which is why the date of his death is called Good Friday. Remember that a lot of Christian authorities didn't like Christmas for a long time. Probably a bigger reason for the confusion is that "Immaculate Conception" sounds fancier and more fun to say, and more people are more familiar with Jesus' conception than Mary's.
son
topic
03:49:01 PM Nov 10th 2010
I'm not sure about the etiquette here but I want to discuss a few posts of mine that were deleted.

Deleter said:

  • Also, I think the one about the serpent should be deleted- speaking as a Jew, I don't believe that the serpent was Satan, who I don't believe in either, but that's just Alternate Character Interpretation to believe otherwise.

- So since the deleter disagrees it should be removed? I'm justifying why Christians believe it to be true (regardless of the fact that some jews don't agree). If this is the case would it be fair for me as a Christian to say Muslims are wrong about their interpretation of Jesus not being the son of God.

  • Actually the New Testament implies the serpent is, in fact, Satan. The apocryphal book of Adam and Eve (which predates the New Testament) directly states the serpent was Satan. Critics of this idea don't realize how far back this idea originated in Abrahamic thought.
  • Maybe its a clarification?

Deleter said:

  • I'm gonna delete this in part because of the whole "calling real people Straw Feminists"- and they aren't straw anyway since if you read any Medieval book, they did blame everything on Eve.

-In understand why the straw feminist point would be removed but rest of the point is valid. The Bible itself blames Adam first in foremost, therefore I have a point. If this post is deleted than so should others (Lucifer=Satan etc.)

  • The Straw Feminist bumper sticker that says "Eve was Framed" could be an example of this trope. It comes from the assumption that the "fall of Man" was Eve's fault for tempting Adam after she was tempted by the Serpent. Most people don't realize that, while Eve isn't blameless, most of the fault is placed on Adam. This is because he received the commandment from God directly. Its possible that if he hadn't ate the fruit the whole situation may not have happened.
Jordan
03:56:33 PM Nov 10th 2010
I'm sorry. I probably shouldn't have deleted the whole thing. I was kind of put off by the phrasing, but I guess they are fair points.

I just kind of think that this whole General section has a big problem with distinguishing "Failing Religious Studies" from "people who have different religious beliefs than I do".
cathstuart
05:30:07 PM Mar 26th 2011
Maybe a positive feminist bumper sticker, about 'owning' responsibility for ones actions, could read :

"Eve bit first!"?
MorganWick
02:32:42 PM Feb 18th 2012
Or maybe, if you want to put a positive spin on the apple itself: "Eve knew first!"
BritBllt
topic
06:40:30 AM Jul 5th 2010
I'll go on a natter spree later, but for now, just removing...

  • Anytime Christian Heaven is mentioned as being everlasting, or unending, counts. The correct word should be "eternal", meaning "not bound to time." Most Christian religions teach that the good/faithful will eventually be resurrected and live on a new Earth. It is mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
    • So yes, any time an author uses it that way, he Fails Eternity Forever.
    • However, this is not the same as the Rapture as it is told in American Evangelical circles. That version is a very different, very American interpretation of Christ's second coming as opposed to the more traditional views of it.
    • This troper (incidentally an American Evangelist, if that colors her comments at all) has always been taught that Heaven is "everlasting" AND "eternal," the terms being interchangeable. She's never heard anything to imply otherwise before.
      • It's a really subtle difference, and they aren't mutually exclusive. If I understand correctly, it's the difference between "there will not be a time when it will end" and "time doesn't really exist there in the same sense that it does here."

Yes, it s a really subtle difference. At most, you might say that Heaven is "eternal" from an atemporal perspective, and "everlasting" from the perspective of someone bound to linear time. And that is way too subtle and mutually inclusive a distinction to really call You Fail Religious Studies Forever (besides, both words have been used since antiquity anyway).

  • Also with Christians: every time the Bible is referring to love as being eternal or all-powerful, it is referring to God's love, or at least charitable love, not romantic love. In fact, the English word "charity" comes from "caritas", which the early Church used to refer to the "good love", as opposed to "amor", or romance.

Is that really a widespread problem? Besides, the Bible certainly has lots to say on the topic of romantic love. The Song of Solomon comes to mind in a big way. Both of the above come across more as individual It Just Bugs Me! issues than genuine pop-cultural research failure.
DonaldthePotholer
06:56:24 AM Mar 26th 2011
edited by DonaldthePotholer
Actually, the first seems more like a case of You Keep Using That Word. (EDIT: i.e. a Semantic Goof)
joeyjojo
topic
07:19:33 PM May 17th 2010
okay people lets take step back with buffy.

One time Willow joins a Wiccan coven in college, who behave like a real world coven would. They were portrayed as clueless morons who want to have bake sales and relegate spells to fairy tales, of course. In reality, Willow would be considered the pagan equivalent of a teenybopper, and expected to grow out of it. Those who practice Wicca for more than a year and a day consider it a lifestyle, and the notion that magic is a cure-all for life's problems would be set straight at best, and mocked mercilessly at worst. Sometimes both: Set the person straight nicely, and then set the razor-sharp humor on them.

Someone got on high horse here. they did treat it as lifestyle and did look down on willow's towards attitude to magic. what makes anyone think they were portrayed idiots? this goes past pointing out factual errors and broaders on soapboxing.
MajinGojira
08:43:24 PM May 17th 2010
And thus, I changed it, throwing in the Willow's comments after being dismissed by the group.

Wicca1: We come together, daughters of Gaia, sisters to the moon we walk with the darkness the wolf at our side through the waterfall of power to the blackest heart of eternity. I think we should have a bake sale.

Wicca2: I don't know

Wicca1: you guys like a bake sale right? I mean we need money for the dance recital and You know I do an empowering lemon bundt

Wicca2: The most important thing is the Gaian newsletter we need to get the message of blessing out to the sisters. Also who left their scented candles dripping all over my women power shrine?

WILLOW: Well, this is good. I mean, this is all fun ya know, but there's also other stuff that we might show an interest in, as a wicca group.

Wicca1: (hesistantly) like what?

WILLOW: Well, There's the wacky notion of spells, you know conjuring, transmutation

wicca2: Oh yeah, then we could all get on our broomsticks and fly around on our broomsticks

(giggling)

wicca1: (patronizing) You know certain stereotypes are not very empowering.

TARA: I think that...

wicca2: One person's energy can suck the power from an entire circle. No offense.

TARA: (hesitant) Well, maybe we could uh...

wicca2: Yeah, Tara. Guys.. quiet. (to Tara) Do you have a suggestion?

(Tara just shakes her head and looks shyly down, but then she looks at Willow.)

Wicca2: Ok, let's talk about the theme for the bacchanal.
BritBllt
topic
07:54:48 PM May 12th 2010
edited by BritBllt
Removing this...

Anime & Manga
  • Regarding Christianity, far far far far far too many examples to ever possibly list, ever. Suffice to say almost any time the Japanese approach Christianity with the intent to put it into any form of entertainment media, they fail to do the research and rape the material so hard that it can approach literally physically painful levels for anyone who actually knows anything about the religion.
    • Neon Genesis Evangelion could be taken as a partial subversion; it does reference a lot to Biblical and Jewish lore, having each of the angels not just named after actual angels from theological lists, but also having them shaped as would fit their functions (Gaghiel, for instance, is named after the angel of fish), not to mention actually having monstruous looking angels rather than winged people. Otherwise, the rest is simply too confusing for the viewer to understand the context.

...which was previously the entire Anime & Manga folder. Come on, if it's that prevalent, then it can't be too hard to think up some specific shows to list there. Having "every anime ever" as the example just discourages newcomers from listing more specific and useful entries.
kingbossman
03:55:27 AM Apr 13th 2011
edited by kingbossman
well lets get started. in anime they usually depict angels as cutesy girl with wings some example includes: "tenshi ni narumon"(the mian character wants to become an angel and somehow successed) "Bokusatsu Tenshi Dokuro-chan"(apparently if an angel were to loose there halo they would get violent diarrhea)

also there is failure to understand the practices of christianity example:D. Gray-Man a priest was going to marry a nun? rurouni kenshin:apparently christian are capable of using black magic to proform miracles

and for those who like irony,in the manga series "jesus" by Yasuhiko Yoshikazu ,supposely a fictional biograhpy of jesus was extremely biblical inaccurate!
back to Main/ArtisticLicenseReligion

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy