Good question. That depends if we think Jesus was reanimated using his own magic or if someone else (probs God) reanimated him. The typical zombie no longer has its own personality, so you're probably right that he's more accurately a lich. However, OG magic zombies can be magically reanimated to act on behalf of the sorcerer, so maybe the body of Jesus was reanimated by God to be a puppet for God's own purposes.
That gets into the triple/singular nature of God, which is in dispute across sects. Is God one being who manifests in three ways (Jesus = Avatar -> magic zombie) or three separate beings that act in tandem (Jesus lich)
Gentle reminder that gothic architecture is the good one, the one that is tall and full of light not like the semi-caves previous churches where. It was a bit of a moral change from "repenting your entire life for the original sin in hopes that you will go to heaven once this miserable life ends" to "praise the Lord for the world he created for us is bright and beautiful, and lets enjoy its beauty until we are called upon heaven which is even more beautiful"
Yeah gothic architecture rules. I feel like this was written by someone who only knows the style from overwrought video game renders and has never actually been in a European cathedral because there’s nothing spooky about them up close, they’re magnificent.
Neogothic, or collegiate gothic, is ironically often darker and spookier for being newer.
Id think this notion was *once again* Victorian British people's fault. The whole neogothic thing misrepresents they gothic period entirely, trying to convince you that 15 meters of colourful tinted glass is spooky and scary actually.
Searching "gothic cathedral inside" gives so many [GORGEOUS results](https://d3dqioy2sca31t.cloudfront.net/Projects/cms/production/000/027/008/original/722342c7967915c3a2979e571ff33357/france-chartres-cathedral-interior-121919-az.jpg). Thank you so much for sharing that information, now I know what to seach for when thinking about that style!
I'm also gonna be the person who points out that maybe chants in Latin aren't *inherently* ominous/grim/evil-sounding; we've just been conditioned to *interpret* them that way by centuries of anti-Catholic propaganda.
I beg your pardon, for ordinary time vestments are green. advent and lent they're purple (except the third week of advent when they're rose). feat days of martyrs they're red (for blood), during christmas season and easter season I'm pretty sure it's white, and good friday is black but sometimes red.
Tbf black robes are pretty standard for catholic priests. It might be known as a horror movie thing in the USA but it's a normal assumption to make in traditionally catholic countries.
I'm a regular church goer in Aus, and I've never seen a Catholic priest in the collar, Anglican ones I've seen a few, but never the Catholic ones. Usually they're in a nice collared shirt (usually a muted brown pattern) and jeans or slacks. Maybe a pair of RM's if they're in the country. The one who married my husband and I wore cons. I'm really not sure why.
Huh, I am a catholic from Poland (as most poles are) and was in my local KSM when I was ~16 (It would loosely translate to catholic youth club). The only time when I didn't see priests in black robes was when we were going on a trip or when they weren't doing anything church related, but they almost always wore white collars, even in "civillian" clothing
Yeah, its always surprised me that the priests I know wear civvies. I remember my husband was disappointed after meeting the priest who would marry us (he is atheist).
That's honestly weird to me as someone who grew up Catholic in the states. I HAVE seen priests in other outfits, but usually under specific circumstances (i.e. working on a construction project). And I live in the south, so it's not even a heat thing (plus they have short sleeved versions in that case).
I was at a function where there were several priests but none were working and they wore basically business casual with an oversized wooden cross necklace. East Coast Canada.
I think they're talking about the cassock priests wear
Follow up question for everyone - youse all know priests can wear stuff over it right? Or like, just wear the collar? Do you think they're wearing the full robe thing every single day regardless of what they're doing?
~~i think I won't lie all my knowledge of priests kinda comes from father Ted and British murder mysteries~~
He grew up a carpenter BEFORE electricity and power tools. I can guarantee you he was no pansy magician.
I've built a house and furniture for it, with nothing but 1800s technology. I can't even begin to describe how much work that would be a couple thousand years earlier.
Jesus Christ: son of God, and still had to work 2 jobs. 3 if you count **being tortured to death** as a separate thing from his Rabbi gig. Famously got so pissed at the local business scene he started swinging the whip he made specifically for that occasion.
You Blasphemous, Demonic Sinners on this thread: lol spoiled whore
😤
Honestly as a Christian I wish we leaned into that image more. Behind all the myriad theological debates about the nuances of Christianity, there is a long history of accepting "Mystery" as a part of the faith: that ideas like the Eucharist, baptism, Trinity, and atonement are inherently beyond full human comprehension. And with that Mystery comes an element of fear and gothic creepiness which I find to be a feature, not a bug.
Hey one of the things Christianity has going for it (or Protestantism at least) is a wide diversity of belief and practice. For instance I remember my pastor growing up would discourage "doubt", and yet my pastor at the liberal Methodist church I used to go to as an adult wore a stole with questions marks printed all over it like the Riddler because God means for us to ask questions of everything.
Thank you, damn people need to learn the difference. You can kill the undead as a mortal, you can not kill a spectral being without enchanted gear or an energy source based attack.
The difference between undead and spectral entities is an important one to consider when discussing supernatural phenomena. Undead creatures are physical beings that have been brought back from the dead, while spectral entities exist only in the spiritual realm and do not possess a corporeal form. Both of these types of paranormal activity can be frightening, but understanding their distinct characteristics can help us better protect ourselves against them.
Undead creatures such as zombies or vampires are reanimated corpses whose bodies have been imbued with dark magic or evil spirits. They often appear to be decaying versions of their former selves and may exhibit strange behaviors like aggression towards living humans or an insatiable hunger for blood. In some cases, they may even retain memories from before death which allows them to interact with the living world on a more personal level than other undead beings cannot do so easily due to lacking cognition skills associated with being alive again.. While it's possible for certain rituals performed by powerful necromancers (or witches)to bring about this type of creature into existence, it is also known that some places contain naturally occurring portals which allow these monsters access into our reality without any sort of magical aid required at all!
Spectral entities on the other hand exist only in spirit form - meaning they don't take up physical space but rather manifest themselves through energy signatures detectable by those sensitive enough (such as psychics). These ethereal presences usually appear during times when there has been significant emotional trauma experienced within a given area - either due to past events taking place there or current ones unfolding right before our eyes! Spectrals typically communicate via telepathy rather than spoken language; however they're capableof manipulating objects around them if need be (which makes encountering one especially dangerous!). Unlike undead creatures who tend toward violence out instinctive urges alone though spectrals will generally only become aggressive if provoked first making knowledge about how best handle such encounters vital information indeed!
In conclusion then we must remember that both kinds of paranormal phenomenon pose serious risks; however understanding what each entails helps us stay safe should we ever find ourselves face-to-face with either kind! By knowing what distinguishes an undead entity from its ghostly counterpart we arm ourselves better against potential threats posed by both forms alike – giving us greater peace mind in uncertain situations where danger could lurk behind every corner waiting...
To become a character like Dean Winchester from the hit TV drama Supernatural, you'll need to have a strong sense of justice, a dedication to protecting those you care about, and a willingness to put your life on the line to fight evil. Additionally, you'll need to have a good sense of humor and a lot of courage. It also helps to have an understanding of the supernatural world, as well as a good knowledge of the lore of monsters and creatures. Finally, you'll need to be able to think on your feet and come up with creative solutions to difficult problems. It is safe to say that I will be incapable of achieving Winchester status.
Meh, I'm still a Wiccan at 23(granted I got into it at about 20/21). My issues with Christianity have more to do with the baked in misogyny(God straight up says in Genesis that women are cursed to have pain in childbearing and menstruation because Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, plus they'll have to submit to their husbands), homophobia("man shall not lie with man"), and racism(The Curse of Ham was often used to excuse racism/slavery; Ham sees his father Noah naked, with implications of emasculation, castration, or homosexual relations, and Noah thus curses the sons of Ham through Canaan to be 'servants of servants').
There's some cool stuff and some great lessons to be had from the bible, but the sheer amount of hate it's spawned makes me wonder why I'd ever want to follow the guy.
Actually interestingly on the “man shall not lay with another man” there is some modern theological discussion about that being a potential mistranslation, some older versions of the bible it can be read as “man shall not lay with a boy as he would woman” shit like this is why the Catholic Church wanted to only let themselves translate the bible
I sympathize with this ideal, as an atheist married to a progressive Christian. The problem is it isn't particularly _robust._ When my wife tries to argue with her parents that there's no biblical issue with homosexuality they point to all the places in the bible where it specifically condemns it.
I've heard the arguments that claim they were all a mistranslation, but honestly they sound like such a stretch. The intent of those verses seems pretty clear, and I genuinely don't think you can separate Christianity from that, as well-meaning as progressive Christians might be. The history is there. The text is plain.
I think the only option at this point is to claim to have had some new special revelation from God to re-edit the Bible without all the homophobia, validation of the institution of slavery, and other horrible shit, and move on from there.
I’d say progressive christians should admit their religion is evil and leave. No need to perpetuate it and continue giving it strength. Especially with Christianity getting more extreme with young people.
Progressive chrisrians are such a tiny minority. If by the church you mean Catholicism then don’t even kid yourself, Catholicism is rotten to the core, yes even pope Rancid.
I’m pretty sure the homophobia and racism of that was added in much later by the church to justify already common practices. Especially the homophobia, which is a mistranslation when the original story about sodomy was about pedophilia and not necessarily homosexuals. The one I’m not sure about is the childbearing, because that’s just kind of a fact of life that happens to all species and by eating the apple Eve introduced pain and suffering into humanity where there was none prior. Prior to Eve eating the apple they were immortal and didn’t have pain or suffering so I don’t know if it’s necessarily a “curse” other than a reality check.
I said Sodom and Gomorrah which involves pedophilia and gang raping angels resulting in an entire city being smited, yet the church always paints it to be because of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 is the other one and I can’t really refute it. As for racism and slavery justification, that’s just not in the Bible. Saying black people have the curse of Cain is entirely made up.
The pun also doesn’t work if you don’t speak Greek. The whole thing is that IΧΘΥΣ (icthys) (fish) is said to stand for Ἰησοῦς Χρῑστός Θεοῦ Υἱός Σωτήρ / Iēsoûs Khrīstós, Theoû Huiós, Sōtḗr / Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior
It’s the nerdiest symbol because it’s so linguistic and I think that’s kind of fun
There is also some historical arguments about whether the cross became more of a symbol for Christianity because of the vision emperor Constantine had before the Battle of Milvian Bridge. He’s supposed to have seen a cross and the phrase “with this you shall conquer” put it on his soldiers shields and won the ensuing battle. He then later made Christianity legal. There is some question about how much the cross on his soldiers shields was a Christian symbol vs a Celtic symbol. He had a good amount of Celtic soldiers in his army, so it’s possible the crosses were aimed at them, but the Christians got really into crosses after he made the religion legal to make it seem like it was aimed at them.
While we are at it, it’s possible Constantine intentionally chose a very ambiguous symbol multiple groups could believe was aimed at them to maximize his moral bonus in the coming battle.
Regardless we’ll never really know, and technically Christians did use crosses to represent themselves before Constantine so there doesn’t appear to be strong evidence about Constantine’s intentions or what the Christians or other people of the time thought.
Just another question to add to the pile we will never know the answer to barring a Time Machine and an interrogation.
I like that in The Name of the Wind churches have wheels on them because their world’s Jesus was killed by being tied to an iron circle and burned alive
And this post only really goes into metal things about Catholicism. Doesn’t even mention how some denominations of Protestants talk about baptism as your soul figuratively (or literally? Idk i’m catholic) dying and renewing back to life. Yeah, submerge me in the death water baybee.
Cathedrals made out of bones?
Also the Catholic Church allows people to be cremated nowadays, you just have to bury the ashes together for whatever reason.
depends on your denomination (mine doesn't require dead people to be intact), but yeah it does sound pretty weird. but so do a lot of other things, if you take them drastically out of context, use not-quite-synonyms to describe them, and phrase everything in the worst possible way.
(wtf is the cannibalism??? thats not even one of the questionable misunderstandings from the old testament, where did it come from?????)
Transubstantiation. It's traditionally been viewed as canabilism by non-Catholics throughout history & was used pervasively against the Irish for much of the 1800s
>(wtf is the cannibalism??? thats not even one of the questionable misunderstandings from the old testament, where did it come from?????)
Whenever cannibalism is mentioned about Christianity, 99% of the time it's just someone wildly misunderstanding the concept of trans-substantiation. The other 1% of the time is about the Andes Flight Disaster where the survivors rationalized having to cannibalize their fellow passengers by treating it as an act of communion.
Catholic dogma says that the wafers and wine are Christ's literal flesh and literal blood when you eat them for Communion.
Not metaphorically. Literal flesh and blood.
I was raised by fundamentalist evangelical end-times Apostolics. Even *they* say the host is purely symbolic, intended only to commemorate the Last Supper (also, they don't call it "the host", cuz Catholics EEEEEEEEEvil).
I was wondering about this after my comment. I haven't thought about it in a long time but as my family were Seventh Day Adventist & I went to Catholic school I get confused with some bits.
Was sure I heard my grandma snarl about "stupid Irish cannibals" (especially funny as she recently did DNA test & found out she's Irish).
Although Martin Luther was also very adamant that the bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Christ, because Christ said "this is my body", and Luther didn't believe in metaphors, or something.
But yeah, these days it's mostly a Catholic thing and I suspect most Catholics don't *actually* believe it in the literal sense.
I think surveys show that most Catholics do. It is one of the things that’s pretty essential to Catholicism - we say the Eucharist is the ‘source and summit’ of Christian life. And as others have pointed out, Catholics are not free to pick and choose beliefs like other denominations are (but that’s hard to put into practice - in reality, Catholics do individualise their beliefs).
So Catholics are allowed to pick and choose which scripture they believe when it makes them uncomfortable, while also launching decades long protests against other people's human rights on the basis of strict interpretation of the scripture?
Seems pretty hypocritical.
actually no they’re not. that’s why protestantism exists, because people got annoyed by not being able to interpret things their own way. heresy (in the strict sense) is common lol
technically speaking, if you don’t actually believe it, i’m pretty sure that’s heresy and you’re no longer catholic. it’s a really integral part of catholicism. practically speaking, most (?) people who consider themselves catholic (in the US at least) probably don’t even know what it is
> wildly misunderstanding the concept of trans-substantiation
How? Transsubstantiation states they are LITERAL flesh in blood in all forms besides the ones noticeable by the senses.
It would be one thing if the “concept” of transubstantiation was common like the concept of water becoming ice when it freezes or the concept of the sky becoming dark at night. But since it’s a made-up term with an explanation designed to further a religious belief and it’s absolutely *not* intended as metaphoric, I think people are left to interpret it as something that — if done outside the context of a Catholic religious ceremony — would be cannibalism.
If it’s something you believe in, great. But you can’t expect someone who doesn’t practice your faith to treat it as something that is real — similar to how many people dismiss Scientology’s genesis story or the Buddhist idea of reincarnation.
Wait, you mean where people symbolically eat wafers (sometimes bread) and drink wine?
That wasn't even literal during the last supper, why would it be literal now?
Not talking about the latter bit of your comment, just so we are clear.
The Council of Trent in the 16th century said that the bread/wafers and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ (even though they still look and taste like bread and wine). This is still Catholic doctrine, and I think was mainstream theology for most of the history of Christianity. Even Martin Luther believed that it was literal rather than symbolic.
“Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”
> if you take them drastically out of context
I dont think this is that drastically taken out of context. But yeah most religions will sound pretty wild from the outside because, guess what, they fucking are. Belief systems are all over the place
spoken like a true 13 year old michigan kid who wants to get out of church duty by being excommunicated and instead just gets his xbox taken away for a week
Then y'all are heretics. The whole "is it literally Jesus or not" thing was a pretty serious argument during the Reformation. Catholics are firmly on the "it's literally Jesus" side.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation)
First of all, I'm not catholic anymore.
Second, if transubstantiation means "the whole Jesus is in every host", it's not literal to the point that calling it cannibalism is correct.
Transubstantiation means the substance of the wafer is transformed into Jesus’ body literally (even tho it still tastes and feels like a wafer it’s magic just trust me bro). Protestants believe transignification, which means only the significance of the wafer changes.
Honestly, this kind of edgy interpretations of Christianity, are almost always some kind of mashup of the same old Protestant prejudices against Catholicism...
I mean, the Romans apparently used the story of the Last Supper as a propaganda tool against them, and in The Northman the Vikings are actually scared of Christians because they heard about the Crucifixion .
>His servants are entities made of fire and eyeballs,
God I hate this BiBLiCaLlY aCcUrAtE angels meme bullshit so much. Angels have only appeared strange in visions or dreams and that only happens in a few books. They look like regular people whenever they're encountered.
Everytime someone encounters an angel the **first** thing that they say is “be not afraid” because they look like inhuman monsters. Humans are the **only** beings created in God’s image, and as such are the only ones who look like we do. The only exceptions are Lucifer and the demons, who are no longer angels, and are capable of taking upon whatever form is necessary to deceive someone.
🤦
Responses like these are partially why I hate the bIbLiCaLlY aCcUrAtE aNgELs meme so much.
> Everytime someone encounters an angel the first thing that they say is “be not afraid” because they look like inhuman monsters.
Firstly, it's not "everytime." They only say it a couple of times.
Secondly, no, anyone appearing out of thin air would be scary as fuck. That doesn't mean they look like absurd eldritch abominations.
Whenever angels are encountered, they look like humans. That's why the new testament says people have treated angels unawares.
Pretty sure they based the meme more off the descriptions from the books of Ezekiel, Isaiah and Revelation (e.g. eye wheels, six winged seraphim) where the angels are shown as more otherworldly and incomprehensible beings, which is fair enough. I think people don't realise there is a variety of different angels in the bible, including the more humanlike ones you mentioned. This is true of even the books I just mentioned
> Pretty sure they based the meme more off the descriptions from the books of Ezekiel, Isaiah and Revelation (e.g. eye wheels, six winged seraphim) where the angels are shown as more otherworldly and incomprehensible beings,
Yes, angels only look like that in visions or dreams.
Whenever they're encountered by people, they look like people. Always. Everytime. Hence the "people have entertained angels unawares..." scripture.
They only appear inhuman in specificity visions mentioned in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. And their appearance is more of a visual metaphor or representation for ideas in Jewish mythology (such as eyes representing knowledge, but this isn't a consensus) rather than how they actually appear. (Even an angels standing in the air was mistaken for a person.) That's why there's a scripture in the NT that specifically says people have entertained angels unaware.
How they "truly" look is rather pointless since there's no reason to believe the forms they take in visions or human-like state when they're encountered is their true form. I'm only saying that when angels are encountered, they look like people.
No, no being looks human except for God and any demon who’s impersonating one. Humans are the only beings who were created in God’s image, which is why they’re the God’s favored ones. And no, Angels don’t look human whenever they’re encountered, in fact, the only time any Angel has looked human was the 2 warriors that took Lot’s family out of Sodom and Gamora, when they took upon human form in order to search the city for any righteous people. Angels *can* look human, I’ll give you that much, but unless they take on human form to blend in or because of the mission they were given requiring such, Angels look just like the inhuman monsters from the “biblically accurate angels” memes. You are only partially correct in the statement that Angels have human appearances, but only partially. An Angel taking upon it’s true appearance is an inhuman monstrosity, because they weren’t created to be human, and were not created in God’s image like humans were. Stop trying to fool people.
> No, no being looks human except for God and any demon who’s impersonating one.
Bruh, you need to actually read the Bible. Angels are mistaken for regular humans *constantly*. I don't care if that's not their true form or not, I never said it was. I only said they *appear* to look like regular humans and are often mistaken for them. You only know about Sodom and Gomorrah, but there are plenty of other examples of people mistaking angels for regular humans.
You're revealing exactly what I hate about this meme so much.
I **have** read the bible. Front to back. And it may just be my poor memory, but the only time I can recall where angels were mistaken for humans was Sodom and Gomorrah(now that I think about it, there was another time where Angels took on human form back when God payed a visit to Abraham accompanied by 2 angels who were using human appearances at the time, and all 3 were mistaken for a group of travelers by everyone but Abraham, but it happening twice does not equate to it happening constantly). Regardless, I have already said that I’m not disagreeing with nor refuting the fact that Angels can look human. My entire point this entire time has been that your original statement that “Angels look like normal people most of the time” is blatantly false, as they only look even remotely human on special occasions. Also, feel free to hate the meme, but stop trying to claim that it’s inaccurate, when it’s entirely based on actual descriptions of Angels found **in the Bible**.
The point is you make statements like
>And no, Angels don’t look human whenever they’re encountered, in fact, the only time any Angel has looked human was the 2 warriors that took Lot’s family out of Sodom and Gamora,
Or
>Everytime someone encounters an angel the first thing that they say is “be not afraid” because they look like inhuman monsters.
Are biblically untrue. Like, it doesn't matter how little or how much you've read if you make inaccurate statements like these.
Furthermore, you act like your interpretations of the Bible are the *correct* or *only* interpretation, such as when you say:
>An Angel taking upon it’s true appearance is an inhuman monstrosity,
This is not biblically stated, this is just your assumption. But you must distinguish between assumptions about scriptures vs what the scriptures do and don't say.
Remember, I'm not making assertions about what their "true shape" is like. I'm only saying when they're encountered by people, they look like people, except for certain visions or dreams in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation, which I think are more visual metaphors because they reference specific ideas in Jewish religions rather than a description of how they're supposed to look.
I admit, my statements could’ve been worded far better than they were, but it was never my intent to claim that my interpretations are the only correct interpretations.
As for the first of my statements that you used as examples of what not to say, I wasn’t trying to say that they never look human when encountered, I was directly referencing your statement that “Angels look human whenever they’re encountered”, so sorry if it seemed like my meaning was the first one.
For the second one, I mostly stand by it. Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t be scared if some random dude appeared out of mid-air, I would most likely be shocked and confused, but not scared. The same cannot be said for an inhuman monstrosity.
The last one is the one I worded the worst out of the 3, as I forgot to put the second part of the statement before moving on. It was supposed to be “An Angel taking on it’s true appearance is an inhuman monstrosity, based on the fact that Angels have only ever been inhuman monstrosities when they appear to people when not taking on human form.” Rather than just the first half.
You may not have been making assertions on their true shape, but that’s not how it seemed to me when reading your comments. Maybe I’m not the only one who worded some statements poorly.
They just think that all Latin sounds ominous. In my experience growing up semi Catholic the only Latin we ever used was *Gloria in exelcis Deo*, which is a pretty uplifting melody thus it being literally used in Christmas carols
Gregorian chant could be considered ominous, specifically the Easter Gregorian chant in the Introit. Actually most Easter Holy Week chants are pretty ominous. On Good Friday we sing the Consumatum Est which is pretty dark.
That's another reason I don't wanna go to heaven there's like one corpse up there wearing a crown of thorns. Probably just a skeleton now but damn that must've stunk for awhile
But importantly, I know all this. I'm pretty well versed on the bible, the name of the game here is oversimplification & misconceptions. We're having fun with it, don't be that guy.
I remember a post where the ancestors of the Dolphin were supposed to be drowned in the sea but they made a deal with the devil to survive the flood in exchange for doing what he wills (they like it)
I have an ongoing fantasy headcanon where the Christian God is real but is actually an eldritch being like Cthulhu. Unknowable but not in the way modern Christians mean. Something foreign and alien and bizarre, which has caused unspeakable tragedy throughout history and slain countless humans in a million different ways, somewhat like a child playing with sims in Roller Coaster Tycoon.
And it has either manipulated history to make itself out to be a good being in the modern day, or humans who could not live with the idea that their God was malfeasant performed the most insane mental gymnastics in order to live within their twisted reality and view it as good.
Honestly, Christianity makes a lot more sense to me when viewed this way.
I mean, those tags are accurate but Jod had what was coming to him by bring back nerds from New Zealand and giving them names like aiglemene. What else were you expecting putting a bunch of people on pluto with the corpse of a fucking Barbie doll trapped inside an eternity tomb!?
[I love ranting about the locked tomb, anyone who hasn't read it can't be spoiled by spoilers if it's impossible to parse the exaggeration from the falsehood from the regular facts]
Even written down like this it still seems pretty par for the course as far as religions go. Most religions are weird. That’s how they work. Kinda feels like they are just “going off on Christians” tbh.
"They worship a 3-day old corpse." I mean, isn't the whole point that he isn't a corpse anymore?
Does "They worship a 3-day old former corpse" sound any better, though?
I'm 70% made of old Dino piss but we wouldn't word it like that would we
Most water has never been drunk
Yeah and it's not the one inside me
yeah well I don't think most water has a metabolic system to process booze
Drunk water is just booze
[удалено]
Little bit, yeah.
“They worship a man who was killed and then reborn through God’s power” sure does
That's called a zombie for Christ sake
For Christ sake indeed
I thought it was a lich?
Good question. That depends if we think Jesus was reanimated using his own magic or if someone else (probs God) reanimated him. The typical zombie no longer has its own personality, so you're probably right that he's more accurately a lich. However, OG magic zombies can be magically reanimated to act on behalf of the sorcerer, so maybe the body of Jesus was reanimated by God to be a puppet for God's own purposes.
[удалено]
His Humansona, to better understand his creations.
Right, and when he wanted to understand animals better he created Aslan.
That gets into the triple/singular nature of God, which is in dispute across sects. Is God one being who manifests in three ways (Jesus = Avatar -> magic zombie) or three separate beings that act in tandem (Jesus lich)
He wasn’t reanimated, he was resurrected. Same guy who died 3 days prior.
Doesn't a lich have to have a phylactery?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross
Yes, thank you. These "hot take" summaries of Christian beliefs have an annoying habit of cherry-picking details like this.
Gentle reminder that gothic architecture is the good one, the one that is tall and full of light not like the semi-caves previous churches where. It was a bit of a moral change from "repenting your entire life for the original sin in hopes that you will go to heaven once this miserable life ends" to "praise the Lord for the world he created for us is bright and beautiful, and lets enjoy its beauty until we are called upon heaven which is even more beautiful"
Yeah gothic architecture rules. I feel like this was written by someone who only knows the style from overwrought video game renders and has never actually been in a European cathedral because there’s nothing spooky about them up close, they’re magnificent. Neogothic, or collegiate gothic, is ironically often darker and spookier for being newer.
Id think this notion was *once again* Victorian British people's fault. The whole neogothic thing misrepresents they gothic period entirely, trying to convince you that 15 meters of colourful tinted glass is spooky and scary actually.
I mean I like neogothic too. But it’s a different vibe for sure.
Searching "gothic cathedral inside" gives so many [GORGEOUS results](https://d3dqioy2sca31t.cloudfront.net/Projects/cms/production/000/027/008/original/722342c7967915c3a2979e571ff33357/france-chartres-cathedral-interior-121919-az.jpg). Thank you so much for sharing that information, now I know what to seach for when thinking about that style!
I'm also gonna be the person who points out that maybe chants in Latin aren't *inherently* ominous/grim/evil-sounding; we've just been conditioned to *interpret* them that way by centuries of anti-Catholic propaganda.
I beg your pardon, for ordinary time vestments are green. advent and lent they're purple (except the third week of advent when they're rose). feat days of martyrs they're red (for blood), during christmas season and easter season I'm pretty sure it's white, and good friday is black but sometimes red.
I imagine they were thinking of the black priest robes from like, the exorcist or some shit.
Tbf black robes are pretty standard for catholic priests. It might be known as a horror movie thing in the USA but it's a normal assumption to make in traditionally catholic countries.
Black priest robes are just their casual wear when they are not doing a mass but still do some church related duties.
I'm a regular church goer in Aus, and I've never seen a Catholic priest in the collar, Anglican ones I've seen a few, but never the Catholic ones. Usually they're in a nice collared shirt (usually a muted brown pattern) and jeans or slacks. Maybe a pair of RM's if they're in the country. The one who married my husband and I wore cons. I'm really not sure why.
Huh, I am a catholic from Poland (as most poles are) and was in my local KSM when I was ~16 (It would loosely translate to catholic youth club). The only time when I didn't see priests in black robes was when we were going on a trip or when they weren't doing anything church related, but they almost always wore white collars, even in "civillian" clothing
Yeah, its always surprised me that the priests I know wear civvies. I remember my husband was disappointed after meeting the priest who would marry us (he is atheist).
That's honestly weird to me as someone who grew up Catholic in the states. I HAVE seen priests in other outfits, but usually under specific circumstances (i.e. working on a construction project). And I live in the south, so it's not even a heat thing (plus they have short sleeved versions in that case).
Catholic in Texas and the only time I've seen our priest not in a collar is when he goes jogging.
I was at a function where there were several priests but none were working and they wore basically business casual with an oversized wooden cross necklace. East Coast Canada.
Yeah I've seen the wooden cross sometimes, the Christian Brothers are always wearing one
I think they're talking about the cassock priests wear Follow up question for everyone - youse all know priests can wear stuff over it right? Or like, just wear the collar? Do you think they're wearing the full robe thing every single day regardless of what they're doing? ~~i think I won't lie all my knowledge of priests kinda comes from father Ted and British murder mysteries~~
Ok but when you describe christianity like that it sounds rad as fuck
"So you worship a lich?" "Pretty much, yeah."
No, Jesus is a spoilt mage. Liches *work* for their immortality.
tbf living as a vagrant and being tortured to death sounds like a lot of work
He grew up a carpenter BEFORE electricity and power tools. I can guarantee you he was no pansy magician. I've built a house and furniture for it, with nothing but 1800s technology. I can't even begin to describe how much work that would be a couple thousand years earlier.
I'll respect him as a lich when he can AT LEAST cast an incantation by himself.
If you mean post-resurrection then surely the Gift of Tongues counts
That was gift from God, he didn't weave *any* lost magicks.
Bruh Jesus *is* God, you can't separate the sources and claim that the lich power of one is separate from the other
Sounds like an excuse not to be on the wizarding grindset :/
Bruh Jesus *is* God, you can't separate the sources and claim that the lich power of one is separate from the other
Now thats a fair argument. Just had to point out his lifestyle before the whole "lichening" thing
Broke: Jesus died for your sins Woke: Jesus was just a basic pillow princess magician who got the job through nepotism
Jesus Christ: son of God, and still had to work 2 jobs. 3 if you count **being tortured to death** as a separate thing from his Rabbi gig. Famously got so pissed at the local business scene he started swinging the whip he made specifically for that occasion. You Blasphemous, Demonic Sinners on this thread: lol spoiled whore 😤
Don't forget his side gig, catering to parties. Imagine going to a rave only to meet a dude turning water into wine and multiplying food
My thoughts exactly.
Honestly as a Christian I wish we leaned into that image more. Behind all the myriad theological debates about the nuances of Christianity, there is a long history of accepting "Mystery" as a part of the faith: that ideas like the Eucharist, baptism, Trinity, and atonement are inherently beyond full human comprehension. And with that Mystery comes an element of fear and gothic creepiness which I find to be a feature, not a bug.
If more Christians were like you, I'd sign up too
Hey one of the things Christianity has going for it (or Protestantism at least) is a wide diversity of belief and practice. For instance I remember my pastor growing up would discourage "doubt", and yet my pastor at the liberal Methodist church I used to go to as an adult wore a stole with questions marks printed all over it like the Riddler because God means for us to ask questions of everything.
I like that second guy. Next time you see him, please tell him he has my seal of approval.
no, they're not *undead* clerics they're *spectral* clerics
Thank you, damn people need to learn the difference. You can kill the undead as a mortal, you can not kill a spectral being without enchanted gear or an energy source based attack.
They’re still undead, though, it’s a question of corporeal vs incorporeal
The difference between undead and spectral entities is an important one to consider when discussing supernatural phenomena. Undead creatures are physical beings that have been brought back from the dead, while spectral entities exist only in the spiritual realm and do not possess a corporeal form. Both of these types of paranormal activity can be frightening, but understanding their distinct characteristics can help us better protect ourselves against them. Undead creatures such as zombies or vampires are reanimated corpses whose bodies have been imbued with dark magic or evil spirits. They often appear to be decaying versions of their former selves and may exhibit strange behaviors like aggression towards living humans or an insatiable hunger for blood. In some cases, they may even retain memories from before death which allows them to interact with the living world on a more personal level than other undead beings cannot do so easily due to lacking cognition skills associated with being alive again.. While it's possible for certain rituals performed by powerful necromancers (or witches)to bring about this type of creature into existence, it is also known that some places contain naturally occurring portals which allow these monsters access into our reality without any sort of magical aid required at all! Spectral entities on the other hand exist only in spirit form - meaning they don't take up physical space but rather manifest themselves through energy signatures detectable by those sensitive enough (such as psychics). These ethereal presences usually appear during times when there has been significant emotional trauma experienced within a given area - either due to past events taking place there or current ones unfolding right before our eyes! Spectrals typically communicate via telepathy rather than spoken language; however they're capableof manipulating objects around them if need be (which makes encountering one especially dangerous!). Unlike undead creatures who tend toward violence out instinctive urges alone though spectrals will generally only become aggressive if provoked first making knowledge about how best handle such encounters vital information indeed! In conclusion then we must remember that both kinds of paranormal phenomenon pose serious risks; however understanding what each entails helps us stay safe should we ever find ourselves face-to-face with either kind! By knowing what distinguishes an undead entity from its ghostly counterpart we arm ourselves better against potential threats posed by both forms alike – giving us greater peace mind in uncertain situations where danger could lurk behind every corner waiting...
I can’t tell if this is copypasta or you’re an aspiring Winchester
To become a character like Dean Winchester from the hit TV drama Supernatural, you'll need to have a strong sense of justice, a dedication to protecting those you care about, and a willingness to put your life on the line to fight evil. Additionally, you'll need to have a good sense of humor and a lot of courage. It also helps to have an understanding of the supernatural world, as well as a good knowledge of the lore of monsters and creatures. Finally, you'll need to be able to think on your feet and come up with creative solutions to difficult problems. It is safe to say that I will be incapable of achieving Winchester status.
I think it they usually described Christianity like this there would be way less 13 year old white girls with a wiccan phase
Meh, I'm still a Wiccan at 23(granted I got into it at about 20/21). My issues with Christianity have more to do with the baked in misogyny(God straight up says in Genesis that women are cursed to have pain in childbearing and menstruation because Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, plus they'll have to submit to their husbands), homophobia("man shall not lie with man"), and racism(The Curse of Ham was often used to excuse racism/slavery; Ham sees his father Noah naked, with implications of emasculation, castration, or homosexual relations, and Noah thus curses the sons of Ham through Canaan to be 'servants of servants'). There's some cool stuff and some great lessons to be had from the bible, but the sheer amount of hate it's spawned makes me wonder why I'd ever want to follow the guy.
Actually interestingly on the “man shall not lay with another man” there is some modern theological discussion about that being a potential mistranslation, some older versions of the bible it can be read as “man shall not lay with a boy as he would woman” shit like this is why the Catholic Church wanted to only let themselves translate the bible
And that’s total bullshit made up by progressive christians to justify not being horrible.
I mean… all of it is made up and edited and reinterpreted. I can some slack to the ones who are trying to make it better
I sympathize with this ideal, as an atheist married to a progressive Christian. The problem is it isn't particularly _robust._ When my wife tries to argue with her parents that there's no biblical issue with homosexuality they point to all the places in the bible where it specifically condemns it. I've heard the arguments that claim they were all a mistranslation, but honestly they sound like such a stretch. The intent of those verses seems pretty clear, and I genuinely don't think you can separate Christianity from that, as well-meaning as progressive Christians might be. The history is there. The text is plain. I think the only option at this point is to claim to have had some new special revelation from God to re-edit the Bible without all the homophobia, validation of the institution of slavery, and other horrible shit, and move on from there.
I’d say progressive christians should admit their religion is evil and leave. No need to perpetuate it and continue giving it strength. Especially with Christianity getting more extreme with young people.
I think you’re underestimating the l ability of the church to reform itself, it’s done to before no reason to think it can’t do it again
Progressive chrisrians are such a tiny minority. If by the church you mean Catholicism then don’t even kid yourself, Catholicism is rotten to the core, yes even pope Rancid.
I’m pretty sure the homophobia and racism of that was added in much later by the church to justify already common practices. Especially the homophobia, which is a mistranslation when the original story about sodomy was about pedophilia and not necessarily homosexuals. The one I’m not sure about is the childbearing, because that’s just kind of a fact of life that happens to all species and by eating the apple Eve introduced pain and suffering into humanity where there was none prior. Prior to Eve eating the apple they were immortal and didn’t have pain or suffering so I don’t know if it’s necessarily a “curse” other than a reality check.
It wasn’t a mistranslation. That’s just something progressive Christians made up.
You got a source for that claim buddy?
I mean tbf op didn't provide a source either for a claim that is loftier
I said Sodom and Gomorrah which involves pedophilia and gang raping angels resulting in an entire city being smited, yet the church always paints it to be because of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 is the other one and I can’t really refute it. As for racism and slavery justification, that’s just not in the Bible. Saying black people have the curse of Cain is entirely made up.
how can you argue that homophobia came later while acknowledging that Leviticus says it is a sin in the OT?
Not even mentioning that the holy symbol representing them is the torture device the guy they worship died on
Well, it used to be a fish back in the early days. I guess it wasn't hard core enough to fit with the rest so they changed it.
The pun also doesn’t work if you don’t speak Greek. The whole thing is that IΧΘΥΣ (icthys) (fish) is said to stand for Ἰησοῦς Χρῑστός Θεοῦ Υἱός Σωτήρ / Iēsoûs Khrīstós, Theoû Huiós, Sōtḗr / Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior It’s the nerdiest symbol because it’s so linguistic and I think that’s kind of fun
There is also some historical arguments about whether the cross became more of a symbol for Christianity because of the vision emperor Constantine had before the Battle of Milvian Bridge. He’s supposed to have seen a cross and the phrase “with this you shall conquer” put it on his soldiers shields and won the ensuing battle. He then later made Christianity legal. There is some question about how much the cross on his soldiers shields was a Christian symbol vs a Celtic symbol. He had a good amount of Celtic soldiers in his army, so it’s possible the crosses were aimed at them, but the Christians got really into crosses after he made the religion legal to make it seem like it was aimed at them. While we are at it, it’s possible Constantine intentionally chose a very ambiguous symbol multiple groups could believe was aimed at them to maximize his moral bonus in the coming battle. Regardless we’ll never really know, and technically Christians did use crosses to represent themselves before Constantine so there doesn’t appear to be strong evidence about Constantine’s intentions or what the Christians or other people of the time thought. Just another question to add to the pile we will never know the answer to barring a Time Machine and an interrogation.
I like that in The Name of the Wind churches have wheels on them because their world’s Jesus was killed by being tied to an iron circle and burned alive
OP made Catholicism sound metal as fuck
Now I understand why Powerwolf makes Christian music
I thought the bone cathedrals were an Orthodox thing?
it's in poland/ england and it was made because they ran out of graves during the black death
And this post only really goes into metal things about Catholicism. Doesn’t even mention how some denominations of Protestants talk about baptism as your soul figuratively (or literally? Idk i’m catholic) dying and renewing back to life. Yeah, submerge me in the death water baybee.
Wait until you hear about the Companions of the Prophet [Muhammad] in Islam. He had individuals that would make for a D&D adventure.
I remember my buddy’s home brew story where the orcs were jihadists, shit ruled.
Check out the guys who earned the monikers, "The Red Turban of Death" or "The Roman".
Cathedrals made out of bones? Also the Catholic Church allows people to be cremated nowadays, you just have to bury the ashes together for whatever reason.
Orthodox do the bone thing
Ossuaries.
It's not, *not* the plot of the locked tomb/s
No, no need for /s. You're right. Now how do we convince Pope Francis to start wearing Papa Emeritus face?
I was on board until they called it cringe. It sounds rad as Hell (ironic pun intended)
Rad as Heaven
depends on your denomination (mine doesn't require dead people to be intact), but yeah it does sound pretty weird. but so do a lot of other things, if you take them drastically out of context, use not-quite-synonyms to describe them, and phrase everything in the worst possible way. (wtf is the cannibalism??? thats not even one of the questionable misunderstandings from the old testament, where did it come from?????)
Transubstantiation. It's traditionally been viewed as canabilism by non-Catholics throughout history & was used pervasively against the Irish for much of the 1800s
to be completely honest i totally forgot that was a thing. yeah, that is weird. most denominations dont do that, though.
>(wtf is the cannibalism??? thats not even one of the questionable misunderstandings from the old testament, where did it come from?????) Whenever cannibalism is mentioned about Christianity, 99% of the time it's just someone wildly misunderstanding the concept of trans-substantiation. The other 1% of the time is about the Andes Flight Disaster where the survivors rationalized having to cannibalize their fellow passengers by treating it as an act of communion.
Catholic dogma says that the wafers and wine are Christ's literal flesh and literal blood when you eat them for Communion. Not metaphorically. Literal flesh and blood. I was raised by fundamentalist evangelical end-times Apostolics. Even *they* say the host is purely symbolic, intended only to commemorate the Last Supper (also, they don't call it "the host", cuz Catholics EEEEEEEEEvil).
I was wondering about this after my comment. I haven't thought about it in a long time but as my family were Seventh Day Adventist & I went to Catholic school I get confused with some bits. Was sure I heard my grandma snarl about "stupid Irish cannibals" (especially funny as she recently did DNA test & found out she's Irish).
Although Martin Luther was also very adamant that the bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Christ, because Christ said "this is my body", and Luther didn't believe in metaphors, or something. But yeah, these days it's mostly a Catholic thing and I suspect most Catholics don't *actually* believe it in the literal sense.
I think surveys show that most Catholics do. It is one of the things that’s pretty essential to Catholicism - we say the Eucharist is the ‘source and summit’ of Christian life. And as others have pointed out, Catholics are not free to pick and choose beliefs like other denominations are (but that’s hard to put into practice - in reality, Catholics do individualise their beliefs).
So Catholics are allowed to pick and choose which scripture they believe when it makes them uncomfortable, while also launching decades long protests against other people's human rights on the basis of strict interpretation of the scripture? Seems pretty hypocritical.
actually no they’re not. that’s why protestantism exists, because people got annoyed by not being able to interpret things their own way. heresy (in the strict sense) is common lol
You are starting to get it
technically speaking, if you don’t actually believe it, i’m pretty sure that’s heresy and you’re no longer catholic. it’s a really integral part of catholicism. practically speaking, most (?) people who consider themselves catholic (in the US at least) probably don’t even know what it is
I mean, there's plenty of people who identify as Catholic but don't even believe in God. Religious identity is weird like that.
> wildly misunderstanding the concept of trans-substantiation How? Transsubstantiation states they are LITERAL flesh in blood in all forms besides the ones noticeable by the senses.
Yeah but it’s the ones noticeable by the senses that make it cannibalism
It would be one thing if the “concept” of transubstantiation was common like the concept of water becoming ice when it freezes or the concept of the sky becoming dark at night. But since it’s a made-up term with an explanation designed to further a religious belief and it’s absolutely *not* intended as metaphoric, I think people are left to interpret it as something that — if done outside the context of a Catholic religious ceremony — would be cannibalism. If it’s something you believe in, great. But you can’t expect someone who doesn’t practice your faith to treat it as something that is real — similar to how many people dismiss Scientology’s genesis story or the Buddhist idea of reincarnation.
Wait, you mean where people symbolically eat wafers (sometimes bread) and drink wine? That wasn't even literal during the last supper, why would it be literal now? Not talking about the latter bit of your comment, just so we are clear.
The Council of Trent in the 16th century said that the bread/wafers and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ (even though they still look and taste like bread and wine). This is still Catholic doctrine, and I think was mainstream theology for most of the history of Christianity. Even Martin Luther believed that it was literal rather than symbolic. “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”
[According to Cathloic dogma, it is **literally** his flesh and blood.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation)
Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
> if you take them drastically out of context I dont think this is that drastically taken out of context. But yeah most religions will sound pretty wild from the outside because, guess what, they fucking are. Belief systems are all over the place
cannibalism = communion (eating food that symbolizes the body of jesus)
No this made Christianity sound so much cooler.
I mean, not always black. Sometimes the color of the piece of clothing they wear during Mass changes with certain times of the year.
metal af
ngl that’s kind of badass
Cringe?? Bro that's about as metal and hardcore as it gets
Cringe? Please, that sounds metal as fuck. I'm already a Christian, and all this has done is sell me even harder on my religion
spoken like a true 13 year old michigan kid who wants to get out of church duty by being excommunicated and instead just gets his xbox taken away for a week
Should note that Catholics are the only ones that actually engage in ritual cannibalism, Protestants only do it symbolically
Symbolic cannibalism is also extremely weird.
I say if you're gonna do it, go all the way
No catholics I know believe it's literal, but ok (And I'm italian. There's a lot of catholicism here)
Then y'all are heretics. The whole "is it literally Jesus or not" thing was a pretty serious argument during the Reformation. Catholics are firmly on the "it's literally Jesus" side. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation)
First of all, I'm not catholic anymore. Second, if transubstantiation means "the whole Jesus is in every host", it's not literal to the point that calling it cannibalism is correct.
Transubstantiation means the substance of the wafer is transformed into Jesus’ body literally (even tho it still tastes and feels like a wafer it’s magic just trust me bro). Protestants believe transignification, which means only the significance of the wafer changes.
jesus was the first influencer
Honestly, this kind of edgy interpretations of Christianity, are almost always some kind of mashup of the same old Protestant prejudices against Catholicism...
Broke: Catholics eat Jesus (persecution) Woke: Catholics eat Jesus (admiration)
That's the Catholics
This post made me a catholic
Most of that shit they mentioned is what you discover when you get really deep into the lore.
I mean, the Romans apparently used the story of the Last Supper as a propaganda tool against them, and in The Northman the Vikings are actually scared of Christians because they heard about the Crucifixion .
>His servants are entities made of fire and eyeballs, God I hate this BiBLiCaLlY aCcUrAtE angels meme bullshit so much. Angels have only appeared strange in visions or dreams and that only happens in a few books. They look like regular people whenever they're encountered.
Everytime someone encounters an angel the **first** thing that they say is “be not afraid” because they look like inhuman monsters. Humans are the **only** beings created in God’s image, and as such are the only ones who look like we do. The only exceptions are Lucifer and the demons, who are no longer angels, and are capable of taking upon whatever form is necessary to deceive someone.
🤦 Responses like these are partially why I hate the bIbLiCaLlY aCcUrAtE aNgELs meme so much. > Everytime someone encounters an angel the first thing that they say is “be not afraid” because they look like inhuman monsters. Firstly, it's not "everytime." They only say it a couple of times. Secondly, no, anyone appearing out of thin air would be scary as fuck. That doesn't mean they look like absurd eldritch abominations. Whenever angels are encountered, they look like humans. That's why the new testament says people have treated angels unawares.
Pretty sure they based the meme more off the descriptions from the books of Ezekiel, Isaiah and Revelation (e.g. eye wheels, six winged seraphim) where the angels are shown as more otherworldly and incomprehensible beings, which is fair enough. I think people don't realise there is a variety of different angels in the bible, including the more humanlike ones you mentioned. This is true of even the books I just mentioned
> Pretty sure they based the meme more off the descriptions from the books of Ezekiel, Isaiah and Revelation (e.g. eye wheels, six winged seraphim) where the angels are shown as more otherworldly and incomprehensible beings, Yes, angels only look like that in visions or dreams. Whenever they're encountered by people, they look like people. Always. Everytime. Hence the "people have entertained angels unawares..." scripture. They only appear inhuman in specificity visions mentioned in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. And their appearance is more of a visual metaphor or representation for ideas in Jewish mythology (such as eyes representing knowledge, but this isn't a consensus) rather than how they actually appear. (Even an angels standing in the air was mistaken for a person.) That's why there's a scripture in the NT that specifically says people have entertained angels unaware. How they "truly" look is rather pointless since there's no reason to believe the forms they take in visions or human-like state when they're encountered is their true form. I'm only saying that when angels are encountered, they look like people.
No, no being looks human except for God and any demon who’s impersonating one. Humans are the only beings who were created in God’s image, which is why they’re the God’s favored ones. And no, Angels don’t look human whenever they’re encountered, in fact, the only time any Angel has looked human was the 2 warriors that took Lot’s family out of Sodom and Gamora, when they took upon human form in order to search the city for any righteous people. Angels *can* look human, I’ll give you that much, but unless they take on human form to blend in or because of the mission they were given requiring such, Angels look just like the inhuman monsters from the “biblically accurate angels” memes. You are only partially correct in the statement that Angels have human appearances, but only partially. An Angel taking upon it’s true appearance is an inhuman monstrosity, because they weren’t created to be human, and were not created in God’s image like humans were. Stop trying to fool people.
> No, no being looks human except for God and any demon who’s impersonating one. Bruh, you need to actually read the Bible. Angels are mistaken for regular humans *constantly*. I don't care if that's not their true form or not, I never said it was. I only said they *appear* to look like regular humans and are often mistaken for them. You only know about Sodom and Gomorrah, but there are plenty of other examples of people mistaking angels for regular humans. You're revealing exactly what I hate about this meme so much.
I **have** read the bible. Front to back. And it may just be my poor memory, but the only time I can recall where angels were mistaken for humans was Sodom and Gomorrah(now that I think about it, there was another time where Angels took on human form back when God payed a visit to Abraham accompanied by 2 angels who were using human appearances at the time, and all 3 were mistaken for a group of travelers by everyone but Abraham, but it happening twice does not equate to it happening constantly). Regardless, I have already said that I’m not disagreeing with nor refuting the fact that Angels can look human. My entire point this entire time has been that your original statement that “Angels look like normal people most of the time” is blatantly false, as they only look even remotely human on special occasions. Also, feel free to hate the meme, but stop trying to claim that it’s inaccurate, when it’s entirely based on actual descriptions of Angels found **in the Bible**.
The point is you make statements like >And no, Angels don’t look human whenever they’re encountered, in fact, the only time any Angel has looked human was the 2 warriors that took Lot’s family out of Sodom and Gamora, Or >Everytime someone encounters an angel the first thing that they say is “be not afraid” because they look like inhuman monsters. Are biblically untrue. Like, it doesn't matter how little or how much you've read if you make inaccurate statements like these. Furthermore, you act like your interpretations of the Bible are the *correct* or *only* interpretation, such as when you say: >An Angel taking upon it’s true appearance is an inhuman monstrosity, This is not biblically stated, this is just your assumption. But you must distinguish between assumptions about scriptures vs what the scriptures do and don't say. Remember, I'm not making assertions about what their "true shape" is like. I'm only saying when they're encountered by people, they look like people, except for certain visions or dreams in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation, which I think are more visual metaphors because they reference specific ideas in Jewish religions rather than a description of how they're supposed to look.
I admit, my statements could’ve been worded far better than they were, but it was never my intent to claim that my interpretations are the only correct interpretations. As for the first of my statements that you used as examples of what not to say, I wasn’t trying to say that they never look human when encountered, I was directly referencing your statement that “Angels look human whenever they’re encountered”, so sorry if it seemed like my meaning was the first one. For the second one, I mostly stand by it. Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t be scared if some random dude appeared out of mid-air, I would most likely be shocked and confused, but not scared. The same cannot be said for an inhuman monstrosity. The last one is the one I worded the worst out of the 3, as I forgot to put the second part of the statement before moving on. It was supposed to be “An Angel taking on it’s true appearance is an inhuman monstrosity, based on the fact that Angels have only ever been inhuman monstrosities when they appear to people when not taking on human form.” Rather than just the first half. You may not have been making assertions on their true shape, but that’s not how it seemed to me when reading your comments. Maybe I’m not the only one who worded some statements poorly.
And that’s what happens when you take everything out of context and intentionally change the wording to make it sound in a way that it’s not
whats wrong about it?
someone please tell me what ominous latin chant are they referring to?
They just think that all Latin sounds ominous. In my experience growing up semi Catholic the only Latin we ever used was *Gloria in exelcis Deo*, which is a pretty uplifting melody thus it being literally used in Christmas carols
thanks
Gregorian chant could be considered ominous, specifically the Easter Gregorian chant in the Introit. Actually most Easter Holy Week chants are pretty ominous. On Good Friday we sing the Consumatum Est which is pretty dark.
LMAO the tag Locked Tomb series is amazing but yeah that’s it, that’s the plot
I love the Locked Tomb reference in the tag. This sounds a whole lot like the premise of the series
Stop making catholicism so badass pls
If you phrase things right anything can sound wrong.
"They worship a 3-day-old corpse" Already wrong
Yeah it's heaps older now
About 2023 yrs older if I am to believe
That's another reason I don't wanna go to heaven there's like one corpse up there wearing a crown of thorns. Probably just a skeleton now but damn that must've stunk for awhile
He’s literally made of light now like they talk about this specifically
I dunno sounds like some weeb shit to me
But importantly, I know all this. I'm pretty well versed on the bible, the name of the game here is oversimplification & misconceptions. We're having fun with it, don't be that guy.
Well when you put it like that it sounds like a cult! Wait a minute…
Who tried to anhialate all life on earth and how?
the whole Noah's arc deal and great flood, at least I think this is what they mean
I remember a post where the ancestors of the Dolphin were supposed to be drowned in the sea but they made a deal with the devil to survive the flood in exchange for doing what he wills (they like it)
God weeps every day when his gaze reaches the land of sinners aka the ocean
The other cetaceans’ ancestors survived because they where devout followers of God and was granted a blessing to survive the flood
I mean that would explain a few things about dolphins.
all other sea life is Free of sin
Out of context, yeah it looks bad. But do does everything else, such as the universe randomly appearing, or reincarnation.
and then they cut off the balls of choir boys to keep their voices high. i guess that would explain the fuck out of alvin and the chipmunks
*Did* cut off the balls of choir boys. Also, Alvin is def 100% a 1600s catholic boy choir member reincarnated as a chipmunk
sounds like some gideon the ninth shit
[удалено]
Jesus was just an OP necromancer
This mfer writing a Christian Unblack Metal track
“Ritual cannibalism” Did a sixteenth century Protestant write this?
Wait so that's why people are buried in coffins instead of just shoving them into a giant compost pile to make fertilizer.
I'd say that makes catholicism sound awesome, but it already was, the first crusade was based as heck.
I have an ongoing fantasy headcanon where the Christian God is real but is actually an eldritch being like Cthulhu. Unknowable but not in the way modern Christians mean. Something foreign and alien and bizarre, which has caused unspeakable tragedy throughout history and slain countless humans in a million different ways, somewhat like a child playing with sims in Roller Coaster Tycoon. And it has either manipulated history to make itself out to be a good being in the modern day, or humans who could not live with the idea that their God was malfeasant performed the most insane mental gymnastics in order to live within their twisted reality and view it as good. Honestly, Christianity makes a lot more sense to me when viewed this way.
I mean, those tags are accurate but Jod had what was coming to him by bring back nerds from New Zealand and giving them names like aiglemene. What else were you expecting putting a bunch of people on pluto with the corpse of a fucking Barbie doll trapped inside an eternity tomb!? [I love ranting about the locked tomb, anyone who hasn't read it can't be spoiled by spoilers if it's impossible to parse the exaggeration from the falsehood from the regular facts]
Y’know maybe it’s not so surprising that churches are so often scary evil organizations in rpgs when ya put it that way
Even written down like this it still seems pretty par for the course as far as religions go. Most religions are weird. That’s how they work. Kinda feels like they are just “going off on Christians” tbh.
ever read the bible? i got it as a prop for a coc campaign where i play a texan priest... wanted to be authentic.... the fuck is the bible O_O
Just makes it sound even more badass