I am running a game with a Christian Cult called The Vineyard, this cult has a number of major belief changes with mainstream Christianity. I wanted some opinions on them to see if they are either:
>Too minor for non-Christians to consider important
>Too stupid to be easily understood
>Too out there to still be seen as Christian
The main crux of the cult is that they are affected by a sort of mental parasite that's entered the collective unconscious and filtering it through Christianity. The mental parasite is essentially a Uralic proto-myth.
The beliefs they have are the following:
>Jesus did not have 4 brothers and 2 sisters and instead had 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
>Mary Magdalene instead endured crucifixion and was dismembered after death
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
>Transubstantiation occurs not in the moment of blessing but as a process of the making of the wine and wafers (this is a big one as the cult makes wine and honey and such things with these practices in mind)
This translates into practices of mutilating young female members of the church ritually to create Stigmata, to separate groups of young people into threes of girls and boys to be paired, to make wine & bread in specific ritualized ways, and ritualized burnings of effigy of the Jesus/
 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
OK.
I have been informed.
Is this a reference to Far Cry 5? I never played the game and didn't really know much more about it beyond that guy apparently setting off a nuke?
Joseph Sneed owns a rural supply store for farmers and ranchers. He also didn't set off the nukes.
Christian cults are boring and overdone.
What if they cut their own balls off and think Jesus is an alien in a space ship hiding behind a comet so they need to time killing themselves just right so that their souls can go to the space ship.
The thing with cults is, it can be literally anything. They're fishing from a large pool while staying small, so they'll always be able to find people who go along with their stuff. To put not too fine a point to it, there are Breatharians out there. People who believe you don't need to eat to stay alive. In my country one of them died of starvation a few years ago.
That's not weird enough. Make them web developers on the side. The castration might be legit, if you consider the Skoptsy a proper branch of Christianity instead of a cult
I wonder why it was so fricking easy to start a cult from the 70s to 90s
Religious cults start up after societal changes. The fall of the hippy movement and the financial crisis of the late 80s were both impetuous of them. The 2008 financial crisis also caused cults to appear.
In all seriousness would you call fourth wave feminism and troonyism 'pseudo cults'. They aren't religious but follow a similar process of grooming demoralized people to revolt against normal behavior like "don't be a crazy moron" and have fanatics who have committed murders in the name of their beliefs.
No, you just need to take your meds.
Collapse of the adult family unit and lack of widespread scrutiny through the internet.
>18 years old kid with a non-fully developed brain get the hell out of the house and get a job
>Hello kid are you confused? Lonely? Looking for answers? In need of work? Well I can offer all four of those.
>Looking up info about us? Well you won’t find anything we’re pretty small
>I know you don’t want to cut your balls off but all your friends got their balls cut off and we can’t let you stay with us unless you’re de-balled
Boomers are the dumbest people in the universe, that's why.
Only if they have vague and boring beliefs. You can do some wild shit by taking the stuff Christians believe and modifying it.
or just taking everything in the Bible literally.
>Christian cults are boring and overdone.
What else can he do? Portraying yids in a bad light is antisemitic, and portraying muslims in a bad light is islamophobic. The other religions are too weird to take seriously, so all that's left is mocking Christianity.
An Islamic cult isn't likely to land with westerners, anyway. Mohammedians have a looser idea of canon, which helps in making cults, but these days your non-Muslim audience - which is going to be virtually all of your audience - don't have any positive thoughts about Islam, anyway. It would be hard to make them uneasy or intrigued.
The African variations have potential but they're too syncretic the further you get into the Dark Continent to be called 'Muslim.' Ghazis and Mujahedeen do come close to being creepy cults in their own right, especially the weird ass shrines (that are also appearing in Europe) to unveiled women that they would give offerings to.
gnosticism is fun to mock.
Most cults in the western world are gonna end up being some form of Christianity heartbreaker, for a whole host of reasons.
>Implying
Usually, most settle with making Catholics evil and calling it a day.
sounds like strange friends, but if they are nice i don't see what's wrong. i'm not christians and christians kinda seem all the same for me, but why are you asking? are you worried that there will be problems with their religion when you run games for them?
More I am bouncing ideas because I'm not Christian either and want to make sure I come off as authentic.
This is cool. Somehow it comes off like a synthesis of Christianity and (something else), and it makes one wonder about the (something else). Does the mental parasite want to burn people? Does it want to be your daddy?
>Does the mental parasite want to burn people? Does it want to be your daddy?
The mental parasite wants to be burned so it can make the transition from son to father, essentially. Though in essence because Son and Father are different it wants to burn someone else so that someone can become it. It's that transition process it cares about and burning/destruction is a facet of that ;process.
Right, that's cool, that creates a dramatic sense of epiphany when they realize where the 'burning' and reproductive elements are coming from. It's simple, but it's good, something that most good urban legends and X-files episodes achieve.
was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
>>Mary Magdalene instead endured crucifixion and was dismembered after death
This is really hard to believe anyone would believe. I'm not sure how or why someone would start thinking this way when the historical record is very clear and the holy book is very clear. Generally, sects of a religion don't disagree with the holy book itself but rather interpretations of the book and opinions downstream of those interpretations. When you have several books in the Bible saying explicitly that he was crucified, let alone history books, it's just hard to imagine. That said, I guess muslims believe he didn't get crucified, so idk. I think the other stuff might be more realistic, but I don't know really anything about his family members.
Counterpoint: the Bible is full of stories of people using camels, even though camels weren't domesticated until more than a thousand years after the Bible was written.
Don't really know anything about that, but the use of camels isn't really important to the religion at all. Jesus' crucifixion is arguably the number one most important thing in the religion, that's why the cross is the main symbol they use.
>Don't really know anything about that, but the use of camels isn't really important to the religion at all. Jesus' crucifixion is arguably the number one most important thing in the religion, that's why the cross is the main symbol they use.
My point is that biblical scholars didn't have a problem with including camels, because they themselves were unaware that camels hadn't been domesticated at the time.
Talking some real shit there
>even though camels weren't domesticated until more than a thousand years after the Bible was written.
Lies.
camels were domesticated for millenia you fricking moron they have cave paintings of humans riding camels in Somalia from the bronze age
>camels weren't domesticated until more than a thousand years after the Bible was written.
>he doesn't know what happened to Crassus's legions
To be fair, there are cults who believe Jesus was a teleporting alien. It depends on how large the cult is.
Clearly the story of his crucifixion and Mary Magdalene's brutal death was scrubbed by the Council of Nicaea so that the Roman Empire would have greater control over Christianity, and the founder of this cult was given a vision by the Holy Spirit telling him the Truth so that he may write his own Bible and spread the True Word of God.
The founder of the cult was a woman who did receive visions, but is now lead by a male successor.
This is literally how Mormonism started, and a bunch of other cults.
>I guess muslims believe he didn't get crucified, so idk
That's actually a great example for OP, a radical spinoff cult.
You could base this cult off of the Gnostics, they already seem a bit closer to what you want to do anyways. You could even fold in their ritual self-immolation as a ritual for attaining Gnosis
Muslims still believe that someone was crucified and that Allah just made it look like Jesus was the one on the cross. Common candidates for the crucified dude in Islamic exegesis include:
>A random roman soldier
>A random israeli passerby
>Judas Iscariot
>The guy who helped Jesus carry the cross up to Golgotha.
Among others
There are a number of Saints who were torn to pieces (St.Hippolytus) or burnt alive (St. Lawrence, Jeanne d'Arc). OP could use that.
St Lawrence is said to have sassed the people who executed him by burning him alive like a grilled fish
>Turn me over on this side, I'm done.
Which is why he's the patron saint of cools and comedians in the Catholic Tradition
Although, it must be said that this account of st Lawrence being cooked over coals in a grid iron was probably derived from a misspelling of a phrase that said "he suffered"(implying torture and ultimately martyrdom) into "he was roasted".
>This is really hard to believe anyone would believe.
lmao
muslims believe that someone else was crucified in Jesus's place
That sounds no different than what modern christians already believe. All they do is cause harm to others. Just put them in as they are.
Extremely low effort. F. Parent's signature required.
Ex Catholic here, sounds about right tbqh
>That sounds no different than what modern christians already believe. All they do is cause harm to others. Just put them in as they are.
What are your thoughts on israelites?
Underrated post.
>Jesus did not have 4 brothers and 2 sisters and instead had 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
Who, why, how and for what purpose?
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
>Mary Magdalene instead endured crucifixion and was dismembered after death
These are radically different, and directly overrule written text in the New Testament.
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
Get some gnostic heresies in your life to inspire this concept. Otherwise, this isn't too far from classic Unitarianism.
>Transubstantiation occurs not in the moment of blessing but as a process of the making of the wine and wafers (this is a big one as the cult makes wine and honey and such things with these practices in mind)
This is cool and not even really that crazy/unbelievable.
>Who, why, how and for what purpose?
Specifically his brother Judas was actually a woman by another name. This is part of a need by the mind parasite to maintain a male/female balance among its family, especially of three boys and three girls.
>These are radically different, and directly overrule written text in the New Testament.
Yes, these are both huge and very different. They were introduced as visions that the cult founder had (the founder is now dead, the cult lead by a successor). It is billed by the cult as an erased history by the enemies of christ.
>Get some gnostic heresies in your life to inspire this concept. Otherwise, this isn't too far from classic Unitarianism.
I'll look more closely at Unitarianism.
>This is cool and not even really that crazy/unbelievable.
Very good.
>Too out there to still be seen as Christian
Pretty much this.
Christianity is heavily entwined with the necessity of redemption through blood sacrifice. The old testament itself literally has instructions on how to sacrifice and bleed animals, for example, and the blood of Jesus himself was used to cleanse the sin of men.
Dismemberment, burning etc are not thematically consistent with Christianity (besides the latter being used as eternal punishment).
>Dismemberment, burning etc are not thematically consistent with Christianity (besides the latter being used as eternal punishment).
But wasn't Jesus taken into hell for the three days after his crucifixion?
Google the Harrowing of Hell.
So yeah, there could be thematic relevance of Jesus being burned and then rising from ashes. It would be his descent into hell and return.
Not OP but a syncretic movement losing this nuance isn't unbelievable, and the burnt offering is a very old tradition in its own right.
Purgatory is literally cleansing flames, anon.
Heretics are not Christian. To call them such is an insult to actual believers.
IDK if non-Christians would consier any of this important
Is there any basis for what are pretty major departures from mainstream belief re: Jesus and Mary?
Idk what your take on trinitarianism is called, because it's not really trinitarianism or monophysism, but there were plenty of big disareements on the issue historically. I think that's really the one that would get most Christians riled up because it goes directly against one God.
Transubstantiation take is somewhat nonsensical from any mainstream position but is easily enough believed by a spinoff cult of trad-larpers.
Arianism thought the son was seperate from the father, jehovah's witnesses don't believe it either
>Too minor for non-Christians to consider important
A religion is typically unimportant to all outsiders, unless they have an interest in building a relationship with the community as a whole, like a politician.
>Too stupid to be easily understood
>This translates into practices of mutilating young female members of the church ritually to create Stigmata
This is the part that's too stupid to be understood. Ritualistic mutilation of people is profoundly anti-Christian and this just seems like meta-commentary designed to appeal to atheists.
>Too out there to still be seen as Christian
Anons in the thread have already pointed out that is is a massive departure from scripture, but what needs to be emphasized is that Christians have a long and rich history of arguing and debating each-other over what is and isn't "true" Christianity. Mormons consider themselves Christians, and some people would even go as far as to say that there are NO Christians in America because of all the goofy stuff they get up to over there. No matter what, there would be Christians in your setting that would not consider your cult to be Christian, because that's just how people are. Words, man. We made 'em up.
>Ritualistic mutilation of people is profoundly anti-Christian and this just seems like meta-commentary designed to appeal to atheists.
What are you talking about? There are tons of christian cultural practices of recreating stigmata.
Flagellation and recreation of stigmata are both old christian traditions and even persist to the modern era, just not in America. In the Philippines on Good Friday they do it every year, with a particular guy being nailed to the cross every year. However more simple recreation of stigmata by causing the bleeding of hands and foot are far older traditions.
>just not in America.
Well, not the USA and Canada. Self-flagellation is still alive in Latin America and the Philippines as you mentioned before. The Catholic church technically denounces this practice but they don't seem to do much to stop it.
Flagellation is self-worship mistaken for virtue. It does nothing to absolve you of your sins and simply glorifies historical acts of hate. This goes back to my point about how there's an ages-old debate over what is and isn't "Christian", anyways.
Would you be surprised if I also told you that throwing rocks at gays is also anti-Christian, regardless of whether it's a sin?
>Ritualistic mutilation* of people** is profoundly anti-Christian
>*no actions performed under lawful church authority are to be considered mutilation or non-Christian
>**for a given value of "person" and not to include unbelievers, heathens, heretics, those who have committed especially spicy sins
I could easily see infliction of stigmata being the bastard child of flagellation and baptism, especially in a cult. If anything the nit I would pick is over the men also not being marked; I would suggest that the men be branded or ritually burned so that the men are identified with Jesus in the same way that the women are identified with Mary Magdalene
Ritual mutilations for showing group identity (usually) aren't that severe though. Poking holes in a person's hands or wrists would be quite dangerous and have a good chance of causing permanent functional damage. Reviving the practice of circumcision for both men and women out of schizo "we're the real chosen people" reasons would be a good decision if the broader society hadn't already beaten you to it (albeit for a different reason, see Genesis 17:12-13.) Maybe you could do something with the Crown of Thorns. That could be seen as a pretension but no more than stigmata I guess.
This too.
>Poking holes in a person's hands or wrists would be quite dangerous and have a good chance of causing permanent functional damage.
Sure, but not that much. I'm not suggesting that they should or would drive railroad spikes through wrists willy-nilly; something like a sharpened, sterilized timber spike through the palm delivered by a practiced stigmata-ist would probably leave nothing but a scar. At any rate, the risk incurred is a sign of devotion.
>Maybe you could do something with the Crown of Thorns. That could be seen as a pretension but no more than stigmata I guess.
Sure, but that seems more of a "religious service" thing than an "everyday life" thing. Even setting aside the pain and blood dripping everywhere it would be damn inconvenient and quite obvious and an extraordinary turn-off to any outside observer but a burn or a scar on the hand is easily explained away in any number of ways.
This sucks and seems LARPy, sounds more like a group of Occultists pretending to be Christian more than like a weird sect. I'll go over issues with it point-by-point.
>Jesus did not have 4 brothers and 2 sisters and instead had 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
This one is pointless, debates about this in Christianity related to Mary which you don't touch upon.
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
This just takes away the miraculous disappearance of Christ's body for no gain. There is 0 theological significance here.
>Mary Magdalene instead endured crucifixion and was dismembered after death
You need an apocryphal test for this but this works
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
You need a cycle of constant incarnation for this, so you need the head of the cult to think they are Jesus
>Transubstantiation occurs not in the moment of blessing but as a process of the making of the wine and wafers (this is a big one as the cult makes wine and honey and such things with these practices in mind)
You need more with this. Every single crum is transubstantiated, so how does this work with making the bread? They'd have to lick up the flour salt and oil from the measuring cups.
>This translates into practices of mutilating young female members of the church ritually to create Stigmata
There is no justification in what you wrote for this. Why would you inflict a punishment on them that is explicitly meant to have been unjust?
>separate groups of young people into threes of girls and boys to be paired, to make wine & bread in specific ritualized ways, and ritualized burnings of effigy of the Jesus.
What is the connection between being a sibling of Christ and making the wine and wafers and immolating him?
I reached the character limit so I will continue here. While I can't fix the sibling thing I can fix the rest. Make an apocryphal text and include the following details.
1. Christ spontaneously created the bread and wine. If someone else made the bread and he anointed it, then your version doesn't work, but it he made the bread it does.
2. Mary Magdalene needs to be resurrected as well. She needs to be elevated to the rank of the Apostles and replace Judas, becoming the last Apostle and the head of the Apostles, replacing Peter. The mutilation represents a rebirth through Christ by partaking in his suffering with him. These girls would be held in esteem and possibly be the clergy.
3. Paul is a pretender. Since Mary Magdalene replaced Judas, Paul doesn't replace him. Acts is considered illicit and the other gospels were edited.
I was raised in a Christian cult, so I feel uniquely qualified to answer this question.
>Jesus did not have 4 brothers and 2 sisters and instead had 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
In the group I was in specifically uniformity of belief was considered incredibly important, so if you believed anything that didn't match up other members would try to "correct your thinking," but in wider Christianity you might get some weird looks for this, but nobody would really think too much about it.
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
This would deeply anger most Christians.
>Mary Magdalene instead endured crucifixion and was dismembered after death
People obviously care less about Mary Magdalene than about Jesus, and the deaths of a lot of biblical characters isn't retally explicit, so unless someone really knows their bible lore there's a 50/50 chance they might believe this is true.
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
Not all Christians believe in a trinity, and there is a great deal of debate among those who do how exactly it works. However, what you're describing is a pretty strong deviation from the norm, and would probably be denounced by sects that do believe in the trinity.
>Transubstantiation occurs not in the moment of blessing but as a process of the making of the wine and wafers (this is a big one as the cult makes wine and honey and such things with these practices in mind)
Transubstantiation is an explicitly Catholic belief, but it is permissible only because they believe it doesn't change until after it has been ingested. What you're describing would mean the bread and wine are already flesh and blood when you eat them, which would be cannibalism, and denounced by the church.
Most non-christians would probably have no strong feelings about these changes one way or the other. Most Christians would probably find the changes big enough to disqualify the cult members from christian orthodoxy, even by the much more permissive protestant standards.
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
Trinity stuff is tricky and this kind of sounds like you've collapsed the trinity from three persons of God down to just two. You might want to look into the gnostics, a branch of Christianity considered heretical by modern christians. The gnostics were strongly influenced by Hellenic and more specifically Hermetic thought.
Op, if you don't like your friends' interests you can find new ones. Tell us about the game you're going to run.
Nothing's wrong with aping Christianity for a game. It's basically the only religion you can play with (narratively speaking) without the risk of cancellation these days.
I'm not a Christian so this isn't a personal bias but having being raised around the religion I have to say, why?
You're changing so much for seeming no other reason than to be edgy. Example: If this was a notchina setting and a syncretic religion had spawned claiming that Jesus was a pheonix then the burning thing would have some cool sort of purpose.
But there is no rhyme or reason for your cult. I would honestly just think you were an edgelord trying to impress other edgelords.
Why would this parasite make these changes? Even if the parasite was toxoplasmosis and claimed that transubstantiation meant eating other Christians would make more sense because atleast the parasite would be spreading.
Take off your fedora.
>If this was a notchina setting and a syncretic religion had spawned claiming that Jesus was a pheonix then the burning thing would have some cool sort of purpose.
This is actually what I was going for. The Phoenix connection is linked into the uralic proto-myth mind parasite. The Phoenix is part of the parasites story of its own death and rebirth and because it has a death/rebirth cycle this was attached to Jesus by the founder.
>Why would this parasite make these changes? Even if the parasite was toxoplasmosis and claimed that transubstantiation meant eating other Christians would make more sense because atleast the parasite would be spreading.
The parasite is essentially weaving its own story into that of Christianity. The parasite is a thinking entity with a history.
Mary's death for instance represents on of its wives who was killed and dismembered, the three brothers/sisters are its three sons/daughters, the transubstantiation is related to the passing of flesh it makes use of, and the trinity stuff is related to its understanding of its own ascension and replacement.
They actually do use the cross but have a feminine figure on it representing Mary. The cult is limited to a couple of small communities in rural Missouri so their symbols don't get seen much outside of that.
I should make a not!china setting with Christian monks who invented mystical kungfu after interpreting the phrase "he that liveth by the sword shalt die by the sword also" as a prohibition on weapons but also as a promise that unarmed martial arts would be more powerful than sword-arts or other weapon-arts
why missouri8masj8
>why missouri8masj8
The Mormons believed that the Garden of Eden was in Springfield Missouri.
no they think its in jackson county
also what the hell does that have to do with anything
>Jesus did not have 4 brothers and 2 sisters and instead had 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
Weird, but ok. Cults like their specific, weird deviations.
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
Totally out there, and it also means they would have to use a symbol other than the Cross for their cult.
>Mary Magdalene instead endured crucifixion and was dismembered after death
I don't know the actual story of her death and I doubt most people do, assuming there is one, so not a big deal.
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
Pretty standard for cults pretending to be Christian to deny the Trinity, so this fits.
>Transubstantiation occurs not in the moment of blessing but as a process of the making of the wine and wafers (this is a big one as the cult makes wine and honey and such things with these practices in mind)
Seems incongruent with the crucifixion being replaced by a burning. Shouldn't they drink ashes mixed with water or something?
At any rate, OP, this is about on par with Mormons and Jehovah's WItnesses: a cult with Christian trappings that is nevertheless extremely far removed from Christianity. The major difficulty is the denial of the Crucifixion. It will be hard for them to pass for Christian if they don't use the Cross, and if they do use the Cross, they will need some way to reconcile that with their belief about the burning. Maybe some esoteric reinterpretation of the Cross's symbolism is in order.
>Seems incongruent with the crucifixion being replaced by a burning. Shouldn't they drink ashes mixed with water or something?
You know, if OP wants a fiery equivalent for the communion elements, he could have them toss the bread and the wine into a fire, let the fire burn out, and then cover themselves in the ashes/eat the ashes. The cult could believe that transubstantiation occurs in the fire where the elements first turn to the flesh and blood of Christ before being burnt up in the flames, taking the sins of the cultists along with it.
Why would you play a game with a cult?
Isn't this just Islam?
Joking aside sounds plausible I guess, I just have no idea why they'd ever believe that from a historical perspective. Maybe look into the cathars and the more sinister/insane unsanctioned modern Marian cults for more inspiration. Also, Christ is real and the only hope for escaping this hell.
t. Catholic
>Le normal looking white people are le bad
Booooooooring.
Make it some black charismatic preacher, and that might actually be interesting.
The found was a black woman actually, but the current head is a white man.
As Jesus was crucified and laid in wait, neither living nor dead, for his resurrection within the sepulchre, his second coming lies dreaming in the shadow of the great temple of the Lord, awaiting his return. Speak his true name and hasten his waking!
IA
IA
YES
YES
I WANT TO BE EATEN FIRST
I'm assuming that the joke is that this is a real LDS offshoot or something, Frankly unless they've started doing sex changes they're still less deranged than modern secular society.
>Jesus did not have 4 brothers and 2 sisters and instead had 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
Anon, I think you're already in a cult.
>They're not aware of the deep lore and theological speculation surrounding Jesus' human step-siblings
did not have 4 brothers and 2 sisters and instead had 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
This is the most confusing part of your post.
That's not too out there. Anything Pentecostal and further off the deep end from that, like 12 Tribes and Christian Idenitity is weirder and yet more mainstream than you'd expect.
This is totally unrelated to Dogs In The Vineyard, right?
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
While from a spiritual standpoint the message can remain the same. Killed and came back. The actual way Christ died tied into several old israeli prophecies that helped to spread Christianity. In addition, it lines up with roman execution styles and historical records of the time. To deny this is to weaken the foundation of the faith on both a religious and secular level.
In short, pic related.
people are more likely to sympathize with someone who suffered horribly than someone who was crucified in the exact same fashion of hundreds of others.
There is nothing remarkable about jesus death, compared to the ways in which other's at the time were executed.
People might feel that implies he suffered no more than anyone else who suffered the same fate.
tbf, jesus suffering, if likened to a mortal man, is not that great, in comparison to what others have suffered, and he being 'without sin' is not consistent with what one might infer from the accounts of his life.
Man this is an exceptionally stupid take considering crucifiction is a terrible and painful way to die that can last days. Not sure how it matters that others were or how burning people alive is unique.
Nor will I give the transient nature of posters here I guess
Crucifixion is worse than burning alive. It's a slow painful death that can take days while burning alive is much quicker (a matter of minutes.) Not to mention Jesus was whipped mercilessly before that and had to carry the cross they would crucify him on all the way up through town and up the hill as he was mocked and hounded. He was betrayed by one of his disciples then denied by another. His mother had to watch the entire time as he was tortured then nailed to a cross and left to die as an example all while being guilty of no crime.
>several old israeli prophecies
you mean like the one of him coming back on a white horse wielding a flaming sword on judgement day?
no like entering the town on the back of a donkey.
Being rejected by the temple establishment
The 'walk of shame' where he bore his own cross to the hill.
It really depends on where they are. Secular law isn't always the norm in other places around the world. Here, its child abuse. Other places.. well, there are worse things going on.
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
With these changes I do not believe they would be considered to be Christians any more. Not only are crucifixion and bodily resurrection (which cannot be done if there is no body) considered to be major articles of faith, but there's also the historical context: crucifixion was an actual method of execution in use by Romans, whereas I do not believe either the Romans or israelites, so it would be very out there.
Trinitarianism is also a major article of faith and that kind of major divergence from it would probably be enough by itself for them to be considered non-christian by the major sects. Notably, the fact that they're not trinitarian is a major factor in why Mormons are not considered to be Christians.
so your surprised that people who commit atrocities might coincidentally commit other atrocities?
>Lets see
>Jacob Stalinburg?
>Here!
>Burning!
>Ira Hershelbean?
>Here
>Crucifixtion!
Holy shit, Brutus, this is like the fifth guy we burnt alive today! My fricking eyes are starting to get irritated from all the smoke!
yeah, the commander must be pissed!
I heard a slave slept with his wife!
It's part of the legal system, anon. A judge isn't going to randomly sentence you to slave labor at the nearest Ford factory instead of sending you to prison even if the two are morally equivalent.
>you guys
I'm not Christian, just an atheist with some interest in theology.
>I'm not Christian
Then what is wrong with you? The word "Christian" describes someone who worships a Christ, you should be smart enough to recognize that. Particular Christians latch onto particular points of doctrine, and they try to attach that to the core concept of Christianity, because the whole point of this thought-system is to manipulate authority and meaning and blame. If you aren't a Christian then you should be able to see through such manipulations.
As per OP the topic at hand isn't whether they ARE Christians, it's whether they're
>Too out there to still be seen as Christian
>Too out there to still be seen as Christian
Burning Jesus and crucifying Marry Magdalene is no more weird than what Mormons or Catholics or Orthodox Christians believe. There are people who consider it "unchristian", sure, but they're the same people who think that Mormonism and/or orthodoxoy and/or Catholicism is not "real Christian". OP must have surely realized that his story overlapped with an endless purity spiral, but I don't think that that's what he was asking, he was asking "Is this weirder than what real-world Christian believe already?" And the answer is a clear and unambiguous "no".
It's not a question about weirdness, it's a question about divergence. And on that basis they would not be considered to be Christian, textbook definition notwithstanding.
Catholics believe that the Pope is the successor to St Peter and is thus infallible. Protestants don't. This is a much greater divergence that the circumstances of Jesus' death or the number of siblings that he had.
I insist, again, that a Christian is a person who worships a Christ. Christian doctrine does not accept this because Christian doctrine is c**ty and self-important. It's an endless purity spiral, and everyone believes that their extremely-specific interpretation is utterly essential, that's just the nature of the territory.
>Catholics believe that the Pope is the successor to St Peter and is thus infallible. Protestants don't. This is a much greater divergence that the circumstances of Jesus' death or the number of siblings that he had.
Either you're completely fricking moronic or you know less about Christian faith than the average preschooler. The organization of the church is orders of magnitude less important than core tenets of the faith such as crucifixion and trinitarianism.
No it isn't. Your inferences from the way that Christ died may add up to a lot, and your inferences based on the conflicted conclusions of 4th-century priests may add up to a lot, but the dictates of the last 1,000 years of Popes add up to more than that. Christianity is full of self-important purity spirals and that is why Christians keep accusing each other of not being Christian.
It's considered of so little importance that Catholics don't even consider Eastern Orthodox churches to be properly heretical - they're merely schismatic. Read a book sometime, moron.
>It's considered of so little importance that Catholics don't even consider Eastern Orthodox churches to be properly heretical
You idiot, it's not about the ontological importance of the schism, it's about the ontological importance of the schism relative to the political reality of how popular orthodox christianity is. If 220 million people believed that Jesus was burned and Marry Magdalene was crucified, then OP's creed would be considered "not properly heretical". And if only a few towns beleved it, but those towns existed in the modern day, then no one would give a shit (beyond saying "Those guys aren't real Christians!). But if less-than-10,000 Europeans in the 4th-17th century had believed in OPs creed then they would have all been tortured to death. That's how Christianity works.
Too bad crucifixion has been considered to be a major part of the creed since at least 4th century and none of your what-ifs count for shit, fricktard.
That is merely a post-hoc conclusion. The difference between Mormonism and Catholicism is less than the difference between OP's creed and Catholicism. And yes, there are Christians alive today who consider Mormons to be unchristian, which just goes to show that Christianity is a moronic purity spiral.
Even the Mormons wouldn’t agree with you, are you being stupid on purpose?
Yes, they would, you absolute-pseud. Their America-centric post-manifest-destiny conceits carry vastly more ontological importance than the exact circumstances of Jesus's death or the exact genders of his siblings. You're just going out of your way to show how small-minded you are.
You just learned what purity spiral means didn’t you?
Ok you are just being stupid on purpose for (you)s even a single look a Wikipedia could tell you you’re wrong but I get the feeling you just don’t like Christians
Do…do you even know anything about Mormons? Holy shit they’re the furthest thing from base line Christianity possible while still being mildly related
Enjoy your purity spiral, moron.
A Christian is a person who believes in the divinity of a Christ. It's not my fault that Christians can't agree with other Christians.
>It's not my fault that Christians can't agree with other Christians
Oh god you actually think you know better than the theologians too man you find the most conceded morons online
If you wish to maximize your ontological worth then you will post your entire religion-related reaction folder. This would maximize your value in the world that you are trying to participate in.
You keep using that word but I don’t think you know what it means
Mormons have beliefs bizarrely similar to the Gnostics. The idea that humans are imprisoned gods really reminds me of the Cathars and how they saw humans as imprisoned angels.
>The difference between Mormonism and Catholicism is less than the difference between OP's creed and Catholicism.
And since most people don't consider Mormons to be Christians, you've been wrong all along. QED.
>And since most people don't consider Mormons to be Christians
How many human beings are really this deluded? I mean, really, as an actual number?
Ganker conformist Christians are the absolute worst.
Dictionary definitions don't matter
Your headcanon doesn't matter
The only thing that matters is what people agree that a word means
Don't like it, go learn Lojban or something.
>Dictionary definitions don't matter
I genuinely hope this is troll, because it’s really good
Welcome to English language where people can't even agree what irony means despite it being right there in the dictionary and the only official definitions of words are those found in legal dictionaries (and even those only matter until a judge says otherwise, thanks to English common law system where the highest court can literally say "Well, ACTUALLY this law means the opposite of what it says it means").
Anon you realize Christianity and several schisms predates English right?
Not that I’m even sure what that has to do with anything
Take your meds. Then go outside and touch grass. I don't mean "Go outside and socialize", I mean that you should literally touch a literal piece of grass, I believe that the value of this practice is drastically understated.
If you listen to Protestants and Catholics talk it's literally nothing but the Protestants calling the Catholics pagans and idolaters for praying to saints or something, and the Catholics calling the Protestants gnostics for not believing God is good enough.
Imagine how these same people would talk about the LDS, like if you get into ANY of the theology of Christ's origins it's a complete non-starter. And I like the Mormons, I find them charming, but lawdy Jesus.
>>The difference between Mormonism and Catholicism is less than the difference between OP's creed and Catholicism.
>And since most people don't consider Mormons to be Christians, you've been wrong all along. QED.
Not even true, according to your own preconceptions, moron. My Christ you people are silly.
I'm sorry that you just learned you've never been Christian. Don't worry though, by your own definition most people calling themselves Christian aren't Christians either, they just believe in some guy who they call Christ and who just happens to share their own core values despite what it says in the bible.
Here we go, we’er hitting the Scizo rants now baby!
(Oh sorry I guess you didn’t like that response)
Uh grrr no I am Christian! How dare you!!
If you've never read the Bible and have only learned about the Christ through cultural osmosis, then what exactly do you believe in? How do you even know?
Ah making bold inflammatory assumptions now? What do you want a time stamped picture of a bible now? Also completely off topic, why?
We've been completely off-topic since you started trying to argue about what being a Christian actually means instead of about what most people agree being a Christian means.
What was the topic, can you even remember?
>most people
You mean what you think right? I thought the dictionary didn’t matter
Can you prove that most people agree with the dictionary?
Nope, can you prove they don’t?
( here’s my generic response since you’re either a bot or so delusional you can’t respond to anything else)
Grrr I believe in baseline Christianity!!
>despite what it says in the bible.
So, for starters, which Bible? Please be as specific as possible.
>but the dictates of the last 1,000 years of Popes add up to more than that
Lol is it 2010 again? Read a book please.
>The organization of the church is orders of magnitude less important than core tenets of the faith such as crucifixion and trinitarianism.
I mean a few centuries of wars of religion that arguably didn't end until the English Civil War wrapped up with Ireland, Scotland, and England falling under the iron fist of a brutal military dictator disagree with you. Maybe it matters less to folks nowadays, but it was very important for most of the faith's history.
Hell, I know Catholics who - when comment on Pope Francis's antics - will make the occasional this-is-what-comes-of-Jesuits joke. I don't know to what degree they're joking, but it's there.
I mean you can still nail them to a cross, put a crown of thorns on his head, stab him with a spear, the only difference is instead of being left to hang out in the desert till he chokes on a small noose from being unable to hold his head up from exhaustion and thirst, instead of ALL that, they burn him instead.
Its like Jesus says, "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do," and the Roman gaurd turns around and says, "What the frick did you just say about me you little b***h?" and Burns him alive.
Further proof that Christianity is a self-important purity spiral. I mean you guys are just ridiculous. In reality, being Christian means that you worship a Christ, that's the literal meaning. But in the modern context, Christianity is 95% about conformity, about believing exactly and specifically in the answers that the old masters would give to you, because the modern ontological memeplex has too many questions and too few answers for the average person to deal with.
eh... Tradgays are barely Christian as is. It's all aesthetic to them
I'm pretty sure that Christianity was always a fricked-up self-flagellating authority cult. I'm always happy to meet a specific christian whose worldview proves me wrong, and that has certainly happened more than once, but on the whole I'm pretty sure that "tradgays" are historically-typical Christians.
I dont see how you mean as 'self-flagellating' or an authority cult.
Dont get me wrong, any origination can be corrupted or abused, they are made of people, and its just how people are.
But I dont see a particular aspect of the Christian faith thats pro-authority or self-flagellating.
Original sin? israelites have that. Hindus to an extent. Taoists are on some strange shit about mortal life being corrupting. Nothing unique there.
Authority? Yes it says to listen to your elders when they are just or coming from a good place, its not demanding blind submission to an authority. There are plenty of stories where the elders were wrong. Heck, Jesus literally called out the temple authority for being corrupt money grubbing buttholes.
The authority thing i feel your thinking of comes from catholic doctrine where they clain to be the sole authority... despite that they were originally part of the pentarchy of 5 patriarchs. Basically, the roman patriarch got rich and powerful from the successful conversions of france, spain, Briton, and germany that they declared themselves separate from the rest. Creating the Catholic / Orthodox schism.
I should also note that the british / Irish Christians originally did not even tithe to the roman church. They had their own branch often called "insular" which were similar to the orthadox idea of nation churches. In short, Its why there is a patriarch for each independent nation with an Orthodox population. The idea is that the Church if greece should serve the greek people. The Russian one, the russian people. Bulgaria, Bulgarians. That happiness and prosperity begins at home and grows outward.
But in fairness, thats an Ideal I believe in too, so some bias.
Anon, YHVH is a c**t, and you only obey him because he tells you to. Jesus subverted quite a bit of authoritarian doctrine, but he also extended YHVH's authority to include the whole species, and he raised the stakes to the point where you have to choose between eternal torture and obedience.
There is something seriously fricking wrong with you if you cannot, by your own powers of deduction, realize that Christianity is a self-flagellating authority cult.
Holy dunning-kruger
Seethe and cope, sheeple. Also welcome to Ganker.
Eh, YHVW is like the conscious personification of Democracy; the worse Individual to have been trusted Supreme Power, except for all the others that had been tried.
I mean it kinda loses its punch with the roll of centuries, but 'sike, don't sacrifice your kid to me, that's incredibly evil, I'll never ask you to do that' seems a lot less mean-spirited when you know that the Carthaginians literally murdered their children for their god and the Roman commentaries on this practice are less "how evil" and more "how strange."
>according to Rome, these enemies of Rome were weird and this is totally accurate
They found mass burial sites exclusive for children in Carthages ruins recently and the idea that the Roman’s were right has become a mainstream opinion among archaeologists again
There were 3 accounts of the practice, from the Romans, Greeks, and the Hebrews who wrote about their sacrifices to Moloch in the Bible(Canaanites are Phoenicians, and Carthage is a Phoenician colony). The only reason academics attacked it in the first place was to attack the Biblical account, similar to the Yahwehist narrative being popularized despite archeological evidence matching the Biblical account. If you want to see the most egregious one, look into the theory that the Romans were an Anatolian diaspora, how the written records, archeological evidence, genetic evidence, and general historical timeline match up, but it is extremely marginal because it would mean that the Aeneid may have some level of historical truth however miniscule it may be.
That doesn't necessarily point to sacrifice, but I will tentatively retract my objection.
The disconnect between Christian doctrine and israeli tradition is why Gnostic Christianity exists. I remember some scholar online pointing out that Christianity matches more closely with Zoroastrianism’s depiction of God in many cases. Especially when you consider that the israeli messiah was typically thought to come for israelites exclusively before this.
>With these changes I do not believe they would be considered to be Christians any more.
Anon, it's a cult. They can make any number of heretical departures from christian dogma. They're a cult rather than a sect because they've already ejected themselves from mainstream Trinitarian Christianity
This sounds tight as frick, 5/5, would blast to the walls in Delta Green or Call of Cthulhu.
The esoteric parts of Christianity were also very prevalent in the early years of the religion given the era - mystical cults with their synesthetic beliefs make this a very authentic idea in Imperial Rome OR the more contemporary times with all the New Age hippydippy stuff flying around since the 1960s.
As a general rule, almost anything used to be worth quibbling over to the point of, you know, war. Such as whether or not baby baptisms counted. Or whether Saturday or Sunday was the sabbath.
The changes you list are all significant enough that they would very likely not be seen as "real" Christians at all by mainstream denominations. You're more-or-less at the Mormon tier of "not Christian." The practices are buyable enough, remember ritual self-harm is a part of religious practices in some places or cultures, the Filipinos can get pretty rowdy.
>the obligatory pissy teenage atheist has entered the chat
You're just a different flavor of humorless evangelist. I hope you grow out of this phase quickly.
holy shit. you moronic Christians need to shut up and start praying to Allah.
I’m sure you aren’t a real Muslim to him either lmao
>ass up, face down
Holy shit, are they waiting for Muhammad to frick them up the ass?
It’s genuinely exciting to see if he’s finally been stumped or just writing an excessively large reply
Kek maybe the Muslims gottem
Maybe he just went to sleep.
Who knows, the whims of scizos are fleeting
Well either he’s hiding his time and waiting a few hours to try again or he got bored
I saw the Mormon debate here and I wanted to add that Mormons don't believe Christ is eternal, they believe Christ was fully human and ascended to godhood. The best way to explain Mormonism is to think of them as a High Church Free Masonic sect, the appropriate Catholic organization and aesthetics with broadly Free Masonic theology and a new and unique mythology. It is important to remember that the Free Masons are ostensibly Christians, in that they claim to "follow Christ" but one would be hard-pressed to Free Masonry Christian. At best Mormonism and Free Masonry are Christian Gnosticism. Honestly terminology debates are typically pointless but maybe I can teach you some interesting fact by posting this 🙂
The fact that a minority of people from all walks of life decided to risk everything in this world to follow an ancient book that a grand majority of people look at as an "inconsistent and fantastical work of fiction", should really make your head scratch and do some investigative work, especially with the saying of "Don't follow the crowd." On top of that, Jesus, a major main character with divine knowledge, had confirmed that he came into this world to divide (Luke 12:49-56) and stated to his followers that they will be hated (Matthew 10:22), along with making the hard statement of there only being one path to Heaven (Matthew 7:13-14), but yet the Bible has still remained incredibly influential across the world with many devoted supporters is another thing to heavily consider. Lastly, the sheer overwhelming complexity of our world and the universe, from the delicate and precise behaviors of the atom, to the unbelievable workings of human and animal bodies that have cells which are more powerful than our most advanced computers, and the vast unknown cosmos that somehow still manage hold itself together should be enough to make you see that all of this was in no way made by chance. A divine being must've made all of this.
Christianity is based on fulfilled prophecy , all books have some sort of prophecy and Jesus fulfilled them to validate himself , for example in Book of Daniel it gives you day of Jesus death 483 years prior to that foretold. Apostle Peter said you have more sure word of prophecy than miracles he witnessed himself.
>Jesus did not have 4 brothers and 2 sisters and instead had 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
The number of siblings is a trifling distinction, but whether they were full siblings, half-siblings (by Joseph), or cousins is a notable point of contention among denominations.
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive, and rose from the ashes on the hill he was burnt rather than a cave
There's no heresy/cult that would believe this, because the crucifixion is such an essential aspect of Christianity.
>Mary Magdalene instead endured crucifixion and was dismembered after death
Hagiographies are often obscure, and Mary Magdalene isn't an important figure outside of her role in the Passion, so this distinction isn't very meaningful.
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
As others have said, saying that Christ is also the Holy Spirit makes it no longer a Trinity. But debates on the nature of the Trinity are probably the most common form of heresy, so it's believable.
>Transubstantiation occurs not in the moment of blessing but as a process of the making of the wine and wafers (this is a big one as the cult makes wine and honey and such things with these practices in mind)
Most Protestants don't believe in Transubstantiation, so if this takes place in the modern day, it's not very believable for a cult. That said, in the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the bread is blessed during the process of being made -- it just doesn't undergo the full transformation until the church service.
>The main crux of the cult is that they are affected by a sort of mental parasite that's entered the collective unconscious and filtering it through Christianity. The mental parasite is essentially a Uralic proto-myth
"Nature has imprinted on all the idea of God."-Nimoy
>Too out there to still be seen as Christian
Jokes on you anon, heretics can really go stupidly far while calling themselves Christian
OP was posting for a while then vacated the thread. I can understand why,
>3 brothers and 3 sisters.
Well, in the Bible he has 4 brothers, but the number and names of his sisters are unmentioned. Could be 4 and 4 if you want to keep the last part
>Jesus was not crucified and was instead burned alive
This could make fire the purifying force, rather than water. Hell could be seen as transient, not permanent.
>Mary Magdalene instead endured crucifixion and was dismembered after death
Interesting. I can see the stigmata part working here, but the exacts would need to be specified as to what they are.
>Jesus is both Son & Holy Spirit, but is separate from Father, but becomes Father. The nature of the trinity is one of transformation between the state of Son & Father, which is a process that repeats.
OK this ine is WAY out there. It's kinda dualistic, but not really. A transformative religion is definitely very interesting. Could see why they would be hated and seen as Gnostic (yes, no such thing, just a bunch of things lumped together as heresies, and this would definitely be oart of that).
>Transubstantiation occurs not in the moment of blessing but as a process of the making of the wine and wafers
So Catholic heresy? Since Catholicism really want s the only one that has that. Would the transubstantiation be actual or just metaphorical? That could answer a lot of questions about the beliefs.
Overall, I like it. It has some questions as to why these beliefs occurred, but presuming we ignore that, need a bit more details. But so far so good.
The first time I read OP's post I thought he was describing the people that were going to be playing in his game.
In order
>There are weirder historical disagreements. For example the Catholics believe that Jesus didn’t actually have any siblings and those were his cousins. That’s actually believable because of linguistics but that’s too much to get into.
>VERY weird since the crucifixion is such a major point in theology. But Japanese Christians believe that Christ didn’t actually die and it was his brother who was executed while Jesus moved to Japan so, eh.
>Weird AF since there’s no historical and/or scriptural basis for it but for a pseudo Christian cult it’s eh.
>This involves the idea of the trinity which is a VERY complicated subject. A lot of denominations argue infinitely about it and it why some denominations exist in the first place.
>Believable
The weird human sacrifices don’t really fit but if they’re supposed to be a crazy cult then whatever.
why would you play with cultists? seems like they'd make for poor players.
Why did this thread devolve into an slapfight over the meaning of christian? This is completely moronic and Offf-topic. The OP just wanted to workshop the world building for a cult before some autistic anon barged in
>YOUR CULT'S NOT CHRISTIAN YOU DUMB ATHEIST/HERETIC. IT DOESNT EVEN ADHERE TO CHRISTIAN DOGMA
like, no shit Sherlock, it's a fricking cult. At least some anons gave suggestions on how OP could improve the feel and internal logic of the cult's practices and beliefs
Yeah I have no clue why people are shouting about that’s isn’t what Christians believe. No shit, OP said it was a cult caused by an evil brain parasite.