They actually do have a few paintings and photos of The Bàb and Baha'u'llah. They are all kept in the archives, and one must travel to the Arc of The Covenant to see them. Photos of the pictures aren't allowed. They don't want people praying directly to The Bàb or Baha'u'llah, so no more pictures or depictions shall be made.
Shared Psychotic Disorder is where a group of people share a delusion. This delusion can almost "spread," especially in the case of people who are close to each other. Its very similar to other shared delusions, like supernatural beliefs.
I'm actually okay with some Gaia religion right now that makes it fundamental to protect the planet and "remove" anyone trying to mess with that, like building data centers.
Please don't... if it is a religion, it involve irrational beliefs that will be armful at some point. To protect the planet we need to know what is good for it, and be abble to find out that some of our knowledges/beliefs are wrong. To find out we were wrong, we need to be rational ; and that require to reject faith.
@MrNobody This! Yes! Religious "beliefs" fill the mind with confused, illogical thoughts not tethered to the world as it is. This fuzzy thinking is not benign.
Idolatrous iconography is cute, but the real elephant in the room with Abrahamics these days is bibliolatry. Hate to make a Potter reference, but so many of these people think their God is Tom Riddle.
It takes a finger to point at the moon, so look at the moon, not the finger.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Wow what a good entity that is totally deserving of my worship.
Nothing says divinity better than petty human emotions like jealousy, and open threats to my unborn children and grandchildren.
That's actually pretty much in-line with how a lot of gods were portrayed back then. Have you read any Greek mythology? The gods were assholes there, too.
True, but also the commandments aren't actually numbered. IIRC, there are 13 "Shalls" and "Shall nots". So Catholics lump that section in with the first (no other gods, etc.) while the Protestants make room by joining "don't covet wife/property". There's arguments to support both sides when looking at the historical context but on that specific issue I'd lean toward the Catholic interpretation making more sense considering god is telling people to make statues shortly after (Exodus 25:18). Either way it's silly to be arguing over rules that bronze age people invented.
any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
So making fish statues are ok, but don't worship a fish statue as an idol. I don't see an issue with making a likeness to something as long as you're not worshipping it
Apologies, I misunderstood your question. I do wonder if you've seen how Catholics treat such depictions. I'd say they worship it or at least use it as an idol.
No, it clearly says: "You shall not make...", and then adds the reason at the end. It seems God doesn't even want you making it for any reason, because you might use it to worship. Banning images eliminates the temptation.
I'm not sure that's the interpretation that Catholics go with, and I don't think they idolize the statues they make. Either way the qualifier, as I'm reading it, is that they make the thing to worship the thing.
One way you can think of idolatry is by analogy to the concept of map and territory. The map is not the territory, and that can be far more of a rabbit hole than it sounds at first glance. For instance, you do not experience reality directly, full stop. Your entire experience of life is actually a living map of life generated by reality's interactions with your senses which are then filtered and interpreted by the rest of your bodily and cognitive systems.
And so it is for those who believe in and cultivate a relationship with their deities - a direct experience that will always be impossible to fully achieve, and is nevertheless expected they spend their lives chasing.
Catholicism lore and practices are actually pretty metal if you think about it.
Carry a figure of the dying tortured son of god in a little chain on your neck. Nailed to a cross, speared through the chest, and with a fucking spine crown.
Spikes and a skull tattoos have NOTHING on Catholic paraphernalia.
This is Known. Goth fashion is basically a very involved parody of what Catholic aristocrats used to wear (this is why you get all the “sexy nun” stuff too)
You know how we tell the story about brutally murdering the Son of God? We want to put that on display, all the time, in His House, so He neverever forgets.
" Aliens make first contact with humans. They are peaceful and start a dialogue with us. The subject of religion comes up, and Christianity is described to the aliens and they respond by saying ' oh yeah we know Jesus. He came comes to visit you too?'
'Well yes, once, over 2000 years ago.'
To which the aliens reply: 'That's weird he visits us every year, stays for about a week for the high feast we throw in his honor. It's a recreation of what we did for him the first time he appeared. What happened when he came here? Maybe if you recreated whatever that was....'
In Christianity, the crucifixion is the moment of victory. Christ’s sinless death is what allows mankind to be redeemed, and that was the plan all along. So they see the crucifixion as holy, though it is also mourned. It is used as a reminder of the love God has for his people and as a sort of “try to be better” thing.
It's also a crock of shit that we use to control people. If you're luck enough to get out of your small town and away from you family like I was, you can deprogram.
But don't forget, Jesus is also God. Fully, but also distinct. So we're reminding Him about how He had himself killed so that He could forgive us because some lady who didn't know anything didn't follow His directions
doesn't change the bland jeez-its. if you're going to magic something into godflesh, why not breakfast tacos? with egg and cheese and a little bacon (or potato if that's your thing. or both)? at least give us sourdough or tiger bread
"Kill them wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers."
"Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors."
The passage clearly says about defending, in the context war. And do it only against the aggressors. And also not to exceed the limits, which means proportionate response.
It makes sense to fight back. Akin to the Ukrainian defending against Russian invasion.
::: spoiler Tldr: Quran is interpreted with historic context. You can't apply defensive war verse to offensive war or daily life.
Verses of quran were (according to Islam) told by God to prophet over his life-time on what to do in different events.
For example Quraysh tribe just declared war on muslims? This verse comes out. They agreed a peace deal? Another verse. They continued raiding anyway despite the peace? A new verse, etc.
Historians will publish research on which verse maps to what event and then Imams will use that to chose what to preach and when.
"We got declared war? Do this. We have ceasefire? Do that. They are not followng the ceasefire? Now do these."
:::
Could this be interpreted as in any type of war, and not just a defensive war? It doesn't seem clear to me via the english translation.
2:190 says to fight only against those who wage war against you. So it sounds like defensive war to me.
Could this not also mean the limits interpreted through other passages elsewhere in the Scripture?
So I clicked on the tafsir of this verse by scholars more knowledgeable than me:
"(but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.)
This Ayah means, Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit." This is also the opinion of Ibn Abbas, Umar bin Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated.
...
(Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children. " There are many other Hadiths on this subject"
So my bad, it's not talking about proportionate response. But it teaches the limits of how to conduct yourself during such war.
Person from Muslim background here. Let me try to explain. As with all sacred texts, Quran includes many contradicting parts, where other are open to interpretation. Also, Quran was "revealed" as small passages over Muhammad's life. He claimed to receive messages in the context of the current events. To complicate things even more, standard Quran is not compiled in chronological order.
Passages from early Islam where Muslims were a persecuted minority, the texts are more about peace and harmony. As Muslims increased in numbers and influence, the passages have also turned more aggressive.
For example 2:62 says
Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.
The final ones are indeed about any war, and dominating the space they exist in. Give them ultimatum and then fight until they ask for mercy.
The main message to take here is, by choosing which part to quote, you can make it say anything you want. Sounds familiar?
I looked up 8:65 because it irked me, and it says: (Link)
O Prophet! Motivate the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast among you, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are one hundred of you, they will overcome one thousand of the disbelievers, for they are a people who do not comprehend.
The others are also similarily reduced - so i'd say these "translations" above are not accurate because they have been shortened as far as possible, but they capture the gist of it.
Edit: 8:60 says for example:
Prepare against them what you ˹believers˺ can of ˹military˺ power and cavalry to deter Allah’s enemies and your enemies as well as other enemies unknown to you but known to Allah. Whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be paid to you in full and you will not be wronged.
9:30 ff:
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺?
They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allah, even though they were commanded to worship none but One God. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. Glorified is He above what they associate ˹with Him˺!
They wish to extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths, but Allah will only allow His light to be perfected, even to the dismay of the disbelievers.
He is the One Who has sent His Messenger with ˹true˺ guidance and the religion of truth, making it prevail over all others, even to the dismay of the polytheists.
Not exactly "perverts", that is not what this says, and this specific passage also does not mention fighting. But it's also not exactly a nice view of others, and other parts are very vocal about what to do with disbelievers.
for example at 22:16 - 22:21
Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians, Christians, Magi, and the polytheists—Allah will judge between them ˹all˺ on Judgment Day. Surely Allah is a Witness over all things.
Do you not see that to Allah bow down ˹in submission˺ all those in the heavens and all those on the earth, as well as the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, and ˹all˺ living beings, as well as many humans, while many are deserving of punishment. And whoever Allah disgraces, none can honour. Surely Allah does what He wills.
These are two opposing groups that disagree about their Lord: as for the disbelievers, garments of Fire will be cut out for them and boiling water will be poured over their heads,
melting whatever is in their bellies, along with their skin.
It's for sure interpretable that way. That is the problem with all of this ancient scripture - we do not have enough context to really know what they meant.
I was discussing this - of all places - under a Jućika comic a few weeks back. We don't even have enough common era knowledge to 100% make sure to understand comic strips from Hungary in the 60's after the Tankies arrived, how could we ever interpret something thousands of years old with a high degree of confidence?
79 replies
The iconoclasts were on the same page
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all tax free! They get tax benefits that no "non-profit" can match.
These are all unfathomably wealthy organizations. Their fundamentalists all despise us (us being not them). Get a job
Then there's the Baha'is.
They actually do have a few paintings and photos of The Bàb and Baha'u'llah. They are all kept in the archives, and one must travel to the Arc of The Covenant to see them. Photos of the pictures aren't allowed. They don't want people praying directly to The Bàb or Baha'u'llah, so no more pictures or depictions shall be made.
Religion is given far too much respect in the world when it needs to be treated as a mental disorder.
Why is it a mental disorder? Can I have a source?
Shared Psychotic Disorder is where a group of people share a delusion. This delusion can almost "spread," especially in the case of people who are close to each other. Its very similar to other shared delusions, like supernatural beliefs.
I'm actually okay with some Gaia religion right now that makes it fundamental to protect the planet and "remove" anyone trying to mess with that, like building data centers.
Please don't... if it is a religion, it involve irrational beliefs that will be armful at some point. To protect the planet we need to know what is good for it, and be abble to find out that some of our knowledges/beliefs are wrong. To find out we were wrong, we need to be rational ; and that require to reject faith.
And that's how the Church of Infinite Greed keeps winning no matter how rational you are. Their irrationality knows no counter.
You don’t need a religion to be an environmentalist.
@MrNobody This! Yes! Religious "beliefs" fill the mind with confused, illogical thoughts not tethered to the world as it is. This fuzzy thinking is not benign.
What is "the world as it is"? Can you give me an example of a "confused, illogical thought"?
Top part was like a 7 second duckduckgo search...
And then there's korean Jesus.
Idolatrous iconography is cute, but the real elephant in the room with Abrahamics these days is bibliolatry. Hate to make a Potter reference, but so many of these people think their God is Tom Riddle.
It takes a finger to point at the moon, so look at the moon, not the finger.
Solid point there.
Literally the second commandment:
You shall not bow down or serve them****
That means it's ok to just buy it, or you can make them and sell them. So long as you don't make one and keep it for yourself.
also you can build them out of clay. ain't nothing about fired images
Wow what a good entity that is totally deserving of my worship.
Nothing says divinity better than petty human emotions like jealousy, and open threats to my unborn children and grandchildren.
That's actually pretty much in-line with how a lot of gods were portrayed back then. Have you read any Greek mythology? The gods were assholes there, too.
The God of the Bible is literally a Monster.
Also jealousy is illegal according to the the Christian Constitution.
The word isn't jealous though it is qana' (קנא) which is more recently translated as "impassioned" and "zealous"
True, but also the commandments aren't actually numbered. IIRC, there are 13 "Shalls" and "Shall nots". So Catholics lump that section in with the first (no other gods, etc.) while the Protestants make room by joining "don't covet wife/property". There's arguments to support both sides when looking at the historical context but on that specific issue I'd lean toward the Catholic interpretation making more sense considering god is telling people to make statues shortly after (Exodus 25:18). Either way it's silly to be arguing over rules that bronze age people invented.
No symbols allowed or no idols allowed?
I mean any likeness of anything anywhere by the looks of it. So I guess that would include both?
So making fish statues are ok, but don't worship a fish statue as an idol. I don't see an issue with making a likeness to something as long as you're not worshipping it
Apologies, I misunderstood your question. I do wonder if you've seen how Catholics treat such depictions. I'd say they worship it or at least use it as an idol.
"The only moral idol is my idol."
No, it clearly says: "You shall not make...", and then adds the reason at the end. It seems God doesn't even want you making it for any reason, because you might use it to worship. Banning images eliminates the temptation.
I'm not sure that's the interpretation that Catholics go with, and I don't think they idolize the statues they make. Either way the qualifier, as I'm reading it, is that they make the thing to worship the thing.
One way you can think of idolatry is by analogy to the concept of map and territory. The map is not the territory, and that can be far more of a rabbit hole than it sounds at first glance. For instance, you do not experience reality directly, full stop. Your entire experience of life is actually a living map of life generated by reality's interactions with your senses which are then filtered and interpreted by the rest of your bodily and cognitive systems.
And so it is for those who believe in and cultivate a relationship with their deities - a direct experience that will always be impossible to fully achieve, and is nevertheless expected they spend their lives chasing.
So no Cat Pictures? This is not a world I want to live in.
Catholicism lore and practices are actually pretty metal if you think about it.
Carry a figure of the dying tortured son of god in a little chain on your neck. Nailed to a cross, speared through the chest, and with a fucking spine crown.
Spikes and a skull tattoos have NOTHING on Catholic paraphernalia.
This is Known. Goth fashion is basically a very involved parody of what Catholic aristocrats used to wear (this is why you get all the “sexy nun” stuff too)
Then literally eat his flesh and blood in a ritual to commemorate his death.
Literally tho?
According to Catholics, yes.
Literally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
You know how we tell the story about brutally murdering the Son of God? We want to put that on display, all the time, in His House, so He never ever forgets.
God is love!
No wonder Jesus hasn't come back. We never miss a chance to remind him of what happened last time
This reminds me of a joke:
" Aliens make first contact with humans. They are peaceful and start a dialogue with us. The subject of religion comes up, and Christianity is described to the aliens and they respond by saying ' oh yeah we know Jesus. He came comes to visit you too?'
'Well yes, once, over 2000 years ago.'
To which the aliens reply: 'That's weird he visits us every year, stays for about a week for the high feast we throw in his honor. It's a recreation of what we did for him the first time he appeared. What happened when he came here? Maybe if you recreated whatever that was....'
'Oh, um, we crucified him.'
'Oof. Ok. Makes sense now.'
Basically, he has marked us as the bad neighborhood on his map.
In Christianity, the crucifixion is the moment of victory. Christ’s sinless death is what allows mankind to be redeemed, and that was the plan all along. So they see the crucifixion as holy, though it is also mourned. It is used as a reminder of the love God has for his people and as a sort of “try to be better” thing.
It's also a crock of shit that we use to control people. If you're luck enough to get out of your small town and away from you family like I was, you can deprogram.
A good 'ol death cult.
But don't forget, Jesus is also God. Fully, but also distinct. So we're reminding Him about how He had himself killed so that He could forgive us because some lady who didn't know anything didn't follow His directions
When you put it that way, it sounds ridicluous.
Let's not forget that he's the one that invented the rules that allegedly required such a stupid and convoluted plan.
And is also omnipotent and allknowing.
and bland and flavorless and crumbly
That’s what the wine is for
doesn't change the bland jeez-its. if you're going to magic something into godflesh, why not breakfast tacos? with egg and cheese and a little bacon (or potato if that's your thing. or both)? at least give us sourdough or tiger bread
Back in the day, at my little corner bagel shop we’d created
the god bagelBacon Ham Egg Scrapple and cheese on an everything bagel, wrapped tightly in aluminum foil to allow it to squeeze into a jaw-able bite.
I’d worship at this alter.
White Jesus from the middle east
Portraying people from the middle east as european helps to normalize zionism.
Anybody that's read the Bible knows Jesus was a White man from New Jersey.
One pedophile argues with another:
My pedophiles are better than your pedophiles! Why? It says so right here in my holy book!
Too real for some folks here, obviously.
‘long as he’s white’
Also Islam:
Are these actual passages?
Looking at actual translation at the first one, https://quran.com/al-baqarah/191
"Kill them wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers."
If you read the verse before it, https://quran.com/al-baqarah/190, the Quran talks about it in the context of war.
"Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors."
The passage clearly says about defending, in the context war. And do it only against the aggressors. And also not to exceed the limits, which means proportionate response.
It makes sense to fight back. Akin to the Ukrainian defending against Russian invasion.
Could this be interpreted as in any type of war, and not just a defensive war? It doesn't seem clear to me via the english translation.
Could this not also mean the limits interpreted through other passages elsewhere in the Scripture?
::: spoiler Tldr: Quran is interpreted with historic context. You can't apply defensive war verse to offensive war or daily life.
Verses of quran were (according to Islam) told by God to prophet over his life-time on what to do in different events.
For example Quraysh tribe just declared war on muslims? This verse comes out. They agreed a peace deal? Another verse. They continued raiding anyway despite the peace? A new verse, etc.
Historians will publish research on which verse maps to what event and then Imams will use that to chose what to preach and when.
"We got declared war? Do this. We have ceasefire? Do that. They are not followng the ceasefire? Now do these." :::
2:190 says to fight only against those who wage war against you. So it sounds like defensive war to me.
So I clicked on the tafsir of this verse by scholars more knowledgeable than me:
"(but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.)
This Ayah means,
Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit." This is also the opinion of IbnAbbas,Umar binAbdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated....
(Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children. " There are many other Hadiths on this subject"
So my bad, it's not talking about proportionate response. But it teaches the limits of how to conduct yourself during such war.
Given the context of when it was written, those seem like admirable limits on an army.
Person from Muslim background here. Let me try to explain. As with all sacred texts, Quran includes many contradicting parts, where other are open to interpretation. Also, Quran was "revealed" as small passages over Muhammad's life. He claimed to receive messages in the context of the current events. To complicate things even more, standard Quran is not compiled in chronological order.
Passages from early Islam where Muslims were a persecuted minority, the texts are more about peace and harmony. As Muslims increased in numbers and influence, the passages have also turned more aggressive.
For example 2:62 says
The final ones are indeed about any war, and dominating the space they exist in. Give them ultimatum and then fight until they ask for mercy.
The main message to take here is, by choosing which part to quote, you can make it say anything you want. Sounds familiar?
I looked up 8:65 because it irked me, and it says: (Link)
The others are also similarily reduced - so i'd say these "translations" above are not accurate because they have been shortened as far as possible, but they capture the gist of it.
Edit: 8:60 says for example:
9:30 ff:
Not exactly "perverts", that is not what this says, and this specific passage also does not mention fighting. But it's also not exactly a nice view of others, and other parts are very vocal about what to do with disbelievers.
for example at 22:16 - 22:21
That last bit sounds like the lake of fire in the Bible: a threat of posthumous torture rather than instructions for the living.
It's for sure interpretable that way. That is the problem with all of this ancient scripture - we do not have enough context to really know what they meant.
I was discussing this - of all places - under a Jućika comic a few weeks back. We don't even have enough common era knowledge to 100% make sure to understand comic strips from Hungary in the 60's after the Tankies arrived, how could we ever interpret something thousands of years old with a high degree of confidence?
Err on the side of not beheading people!
You are correct. It's a long text with many parts, so you can make it say anything by conveniently picking your quotes.