So.... Jesus Is Getting His Own DC Comic

[iron chimp]

swastika the word itself is sanskrit. Sure the pattern might have been used by different sects around the world. But nazi's calling their symbol swastika itself makes it clear that it was appropriated from india.so,the hindu meaning is what counts.

It was during the colonisation by the British. Max muller had a theory called "aryan invasion theory" . Which stated that aryan invaded and beat local dravidians during the end of indus valley civilisation. This in now changed to "aryan migration theory" because lack of evidence . The germans took this theory and ran with it for propaganda .british used it, to weaken the freedom struggle by dividing the indians(into indo aryans and dravidian) and explain the caste system. Aryan is sanskrit word as well. It was not meant as race. It means "one who does noble/great deeds". It had nothing to do with race. India was called "aryavarta", in our texts. Which meant place "where such noble/great people lived".sort of like the Chinese called themselves "the middle kingdom" .

This whole thing is based on existence of similarities between languages like sanskrit and European languages. Which were later categorised as Indo-European languages.

So, i think it came from india and it was appropriated by the nazi's.since the words used for the pattern and the word "aryan" come from sanskrit.

I could be wrong here my history is not great.

You are right. However, there were completely diverse and contradictory and competing belief systems within Nazism - it ran the gamut from Christianity to Occultists to Neo Paganism to mystics, to scientists, anthropologists, archaeologists, linguists etc. What we do know for certain though is that Aryanism and the swastika were and still are not signs of peace in Europe. It will indeed sound very jarring to Hindu ears but at the end of the day a swastika is a symbol of hate in western europe when used by a western europeans . And all of those connotations are not going away any time soon - maybe tomorrow but not today. Charles Manson wasn't carving swastikas into his forehead because he was a peace loving guy.

Obviously the display of things like swastika after the war was legislated against in some places, in others monitored but as time went on, fringe groups would circumvent censure by claiming things like oh no... we are an innocent neo-pagan group and these symbols are only the symbols of our gods (which to be fair they are) and it is just an unfortunate coincidence that they were also used in National Socialism. Just a coincidence....

Personally I could only ever see any complaints about the use of Thor in comics coming from within those circles. And they wouldnt be complaining because it offends their religious sensibilities....

[Ascended]

I didn't know that there was much debate as to whether Christianity is mythology. I thought it was widely accepted to by mythology. I'm interested to hear from those who believe it is different than other mythologies. I guess the main point is that it is currently in the religion state of the cult-religion-myth cycle, but is there more than that? I get the reasons it is treated differently in practice, but theoretically what is the difference?

In practice, I don't believe there's much of a difference, no. Christianity is currently in the "religion" phase of the myth cycle, as you say, and is the biggest faith on earth currently (I think?).....but beyond that I don't think there's much that sets it apart from other belief systems that were, in their day, at the top of the "food chain" as it were. But as I've proven in this thread, I'm not much of one for religion, and aside from a few tidbits I've picked up over the years about various religions, I don't know much.

Of course, I also live in America, which is one of the most religious leading nations in the world and I never knew until a semester or two ago. That was a surprising discovery; I had always assumed that Americans were, by and large, less religious than other nationalities, not more so. >shrug<

Obviously the display of things like swastika after the war was legislated against in some places, in others monitored but as time went on, fringe groups would circumvent censure by claiming things like oh no... we are an innocent neo-pagan group and these symbols are only the symbols of our gods (which to be fair they are) and it is just an unfortunate coincidence that they were also used in National Socialism. Just a coincidence....

Personally I could only ever see any complaints about the use of Thor in comics coming from within those circles. And they wouldnt be complaining because it offends their religious sensibilities....

Yeah, if a follower of the Hindu faith had one of those I wouldn't bat an eye. If anyone else, especially a white person, had one? Words would be exchanged, and none of them pleasant.

The Norse thing....again, I don't know much other than hearing that it's making a bit of a comeback in Europe and some white supremacists have started using the religion for their own purposes, which strikes me as being just about as wrong as using things from the Hindu. I do know a couple people who practice some version of Norse myth (there's a lot of different factions now, apparently?) but none of them are racist, so if the Norse gods are seeing a resurgence, however small, its not *just* bigots. And of the few people I know, most of them were some form of pagan (usually Wiccan) except for one daughter of a preacher who probably started down the path just to piss off her father.

I could definitely see some people who follow that faith taking issue with how Marvel often handles Thor and the Asgardians though. The idea that they were aliens would probably piss some folks off, for one thing. Let's see a publisher try to say that Jesus was just an alien, and see how good it would go.

[Kuwagaton]

As someone who grew up without any faith system, I'm sure I'd have been in the audience for this. I think highly of Russell's talent. But at this point, and I've been mulling it over for months as I followed him closely, I'm really put off and disappointed. I thought about writing a letter actually. The idea taints his work for me to the extent that I probably won't buy his work, though oddly I wish him the best he can get. He has every right to his views and I'm sure someone out there will like this comic, but even without the intent to offend I just wish they'd consider this to be in poor taste

I didn't know that there was much debate as to whether Christianity is mythology. I thought it was widely accepted to by mythology. I'm interested to hear from those who believe it is different than other mythologies. I guess the main point is that it is currently in the religion state of the cult-religion-myth cycle, but is there more than that? I get the reasons it is treated differently in practice, but theoretically what is the difference?

I guess the simplest thing I can say is that faith is not by evidence but not without evidence, but to really answer your question as best I personally can, I'd be curious to know what you define as the difference between theory and practice.

[skyvolt2000]

I could definitely see some people who follow that faith taking issue with how Marvel often handles Thor and the Asgardians though. The idea that they were aliens would probably piss some folks off, for one thing. Let's see a publisher try to say that Jesus was just an alien, and see how good it would go.

Didn't somebody do that story? Beside Star Trek 5.

[CaptCleghorn]

Didn't somebody do that story? Beside Star Trek 5.

The idea is fairly common on the Ancient Aliens series. even if Jesus himself may not be specified.

[Vampire Savior]

I have heard there are communities in greece who still worship their gods. Norse, i don't know anything about.

Some people do. Some of the Scandinavian (especially Norway, it seems) Anti-Christian/Satanic bands and some of their followers are against Christianity in part because they would rather follow Wodin (one example would be the band Burzum). Actually, this classic video from the band Bathory is about the spread of Christianity through Norway, which isn't glamorized in the video:

[iron chimp]

Some people do. Some of the Scandinavian (especially Norway, it seems) Anti-Christian/Satanic bands and some of their followers are against Christianity in part because they would rather follow Wodin (one example would be the band Burzum). Actually, this classic video from the band Bathory is about the spread of Christianity through Norway, which isn't glamorized in the video:

And obviously varg vikernes of burzum ended up in prison for what he did.

[Restingvoice]

I didn't know that there was much debate as to whether Christianity is mythology. I thought it was widely accepted to by mythology. I'm interested to hear from those who believe it is different than other mythologies. I guess the main point is that it is currently in the religion state of the cult-religion-myth cycle, but is there more than that? I get the reasons it is treated differently in practice, but theoretically what is the difference?

I was the opposite, I don't know that the big religions are not considered real until... I forgot what it was... probably the internet and seeing what people say from different places and out of the country.

About religion vs myth, aside from what I already said, as far as I know...

The first one is the existence of the bible as proof as opposed to oral tradition of older religion which is also why Islam and Hindu are counted as the real thing, because they have it in writing the testaments of people from the past that's also counted as a history book.

The second is because people view it from the point of view of their faith. Historically the oldest modern religion is Hindu, then Judaism, Christian, and Islam, and anything else in between, but each of the followers of those religion don't think that their religion started at that time. They view their religion started at the beginning of time, the point of creation, because they all have creation story, and this is what is accepted as truth. As such, faith that exist before them historically, or even today, can automatically considered fake and doesn't count if those bibles say so.

So people are either being polite, objective, hostile, or just don't know what to do and would rather get on with their life and their own faith without worrying too much about it

[dancj]

I didn't know that there was much debate as to whether Christianity is mythology. I thought it was widely accepted to by mythology.

I think it's widely accepted to be mythology by non-Christians, but not by Christians - much like every other religion will be widely considered to be a myth by everyone except its followers.

[The Darknight Detective]

I think it's widely accepted to be mythology by non-Christians, but not by Christians - much like every other religion will be widely considered to be a myth by everyone except its followers.

I'm not even sure a vast majority of non-Christians believe Christianity is mythology. Wrong and/or not what they believe, sure, but mythology? The latter is not what I feel about non-Christian religions, at any rate.

[ArsonoptiX]

I didn't know that there was much debate as to whether Christianity is mythology. I thought it was widely accepted to by mythology. I'm interested to hear from those who believe it is different than other mythologies. I guess the main point is that it is currently in the religion state of the cult-religion-myth cycle, but is there more than that? I get the reasons it is treated differently in practice, but theoretically what is the difference?

It can be an issue of debate because for many non believers/atheists the Christian faith is often discussed with a mocking tone. The really interesting thing is that people, places, things have been independently verified by "non involved" (i.e. not Christian) parties via research and archaeological findings. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are two good examples. Archaeologists have used these two books and found the exact things described in it. The first century writer Josephus is another good resource because he documents events the NT touches on. The finding of the Pilate stone validated that Pontius Pilate was a real person, Roman records note that Jesus died and the tomb was empty (and the guards charged with watching the tomb to keep people from stealing the body where punished). What's especially interesting is this place called Micmash. Biblically, Saul and his son Jonathan used it to outmaneuver the Philistines. In WW1 a British officer recalled that passage in the Bible. Using that knowledge a battle plan was formed and the British were able to use the same path Saul and Jonathan did and defeat the Ottomans. In apologetics we learn this acronym: SHARP. It stands for

Same: the Bible hasn't changed...it says the same thing it did when it was first written (Dead Sea Scrolls)
Historically accurate: History verifies the Bible and the Bible verifies history. What happened really happened and there are sources that can back it up (see Josephus, Luke, battle of Michmash
Archaeologically verified : Digging around will bring the discovery of artifacts that verify what's in the Bible (the Pilate stone, Luke, numerous artifacts)
Reliable: we can trust the Bible because of the previous three
Powerful: The Bible has the power to change lives...

So it's a LOT more. I hope I didn't go to deep into it. Theology is a large part of what makes Christianity different (because it does something no other faith does). In every other faith people are essentially trying to "climb the mountain" and be perfect and be worthy of god (sacrifice...works...denial). The Christian faith is the only faith where God came down the mountain because we will never be perfect. And no one worships Greek/Roman/Norse/ Egyptian gods (well I now so people still pray to Odin)...they are essentially dead religions and thus their mythology highlights their falsehood. Over 2,000 years later...the Christian faith is still here and still growing.

[iron chimp]

I'm not even sure a vast majority of non-Christians believe Christianity is mythology. Wrong and/or not what they believe, sure, but mythology? The latter is not what I feel about non-Christian religions, at any rate.

My understanding - rightly or wrongly is that in the case of mohammed there is no debate about his existence as there are enough external contemporary sources to confirm this. In the case of Jesus the first evidence is from generations later. Im happy to be proved wrong here tho.

[Ascended]

I'm not even sure a vast majority of non-Christians believe Christianity is mythology. Wrong and/or not what they believe, sure, but mythology? The latter is not what I feel about non-Christian religions, at any rate.

From what I understand (and I didnt pay as much attention in class as I should've) the cult-religion-myth cycle is about popular acceptance.

When a religion starts, it's only a handful of followers. What they believe probably goes heavily against whatever the popular, accepted faith is at the time, and the cult probably has some pretty unusual, strange, or even blasphemous ideas compared to the "default" religion/s. It's a cult, and I dont think I need to describe that in further detail.

If the cult manages to attract a larger following and gain a degree of acceptance among the population, it becomes a religion. It's no longer the outlier, it's closer to the norm.

Eventually, the spread of the faith slows, and then begins to constrict, being replaced by something else (another religion, or a philosophy, or whatever). As the number of followers declines, it eventually becomes a dead religion and is given the label of "myth."

So to that end, the only difference between a religion and a myth is whether enough people still follow the belief system. Christianity is a religion right now, but in a thousand years when everyone is worshiping the Spaghetti monster or something? People will call it a myth. If it starts to make a resurgence, like the Norse faith apparently is, it'll start back at "cult" status.

For example, when Wicca first became something of an organized faith instead of a collection of traditions pulled from various sources (often Celtic) it was labeled by the UN as a cult. Then, when the faith was able to prove it had met the criteria, it officially became a religion. When I was in boot camp with the Air Force, there were lots of Sunday services for different religions and Wicca was the newest option and had only been an option for a short time. It wasn't offered on base until it had that official label, but once it became a recognized religion the base had to offer it alongside christian services and whatever else. For all I know now, maybe scientology is now offered on bases too, though I don't know if it has met the criteria to be labeled a religion yet.

[Ascended]

My understanding - rightly or wrongly is that in the case of mohammed there is no debate about his existence as there are enough external contemporary sources to confirm this. In the case of Jesus the first evidence is from generations later. Im happy to be proved wrong here tho.

This is always an interesting thing to me.

There's been enough findings to prove within a fair margin for error that certain things from religions did happen. There was indeed a flood at one point, for example, and we're relatively sure that there was a carpenter named Jesus. Of course, none of that proves that those things were divine; floods do happen for less than acts of god and just because a man claims divine right doesn't mean that is true. But it is interesting to see how actual events were perceived and translated and worked into religious teachings. Was the flood summoned by a divine hand, or was it just a flood that was worked into the narrative?

And Im not trying to offend anyone here. Im not saying Jesus *wasnt* divine, merely that him existing doesn't prove he was. After all, I could claim to be the son of god and could perhaps convince others that it's true, but that doesn't make it so. "Proof" in religion is sorta.....doesn't that defeat the purpose of faith?

[ArsonoptiX]

This is always an interesting thing to me.


And Im not trying to offend anyone here. Im not saying Jesus *wasnt* divine, merely that him existing doesn't prove he was. After all, I could claim to be the son of god and could perhaps convince others that it's true, but that doesn't make it so. "Proof" in religion is sorta.....doesn't that defeat the purpose of faith?

One of the main proofs of who and what Jesus was can be displayed in the disciples and their behavior before and after Jesus died. When Jesus was captured and tried...the disciples broke camp. Yet not to long afterwards they were boldly proclaiming Christ rose from the grave. And each (except John who was dropped off a boiling, scalded, and finally exiled to Patmos) died horribly and never recanted their claims. NO ONE would die for a lie...especially if the 12 cooked it up. But outside of those 12...Paul saw Christ and that transformed him from a zealous Jew to the ambassador to the Gentiles. Over 300 people say Jesus and Paul directed readers to go find and talk to them (which of course we can't do now). In the end there were plenty of people around to correct any error/lie. Heck if the Romans/Jews really wanted to shut everyone up...all they had to do was roll the stone away and produce the body of Jesus. But biblical AND extrabiblical sources both tell us the tomb was empty.

We get the word "faith" from a greek word "pistis"...it means intentional engaged trust. It's a trust built on reason, facts, and evidence(proof). The early church believed because they had proof that Jesus was alive...so they could trust. Believers today have that same faith. It's not blind...it's rooted in proof and reason. And you're right...anyone could claim to be the son of God (and people have) but it becomes apparent relatively quick they aren't...because they're crazy. We usually forget those people (unless they do something really heinous)...people haven't forgotten Jesus.