Most common alternate history tropes?

[ATP]

Are Evangelions some kind of newfangled word for Gospels?

Not new.4 Evangelions were known as such from beginning of Chrystianity.Now,we knew complete versions made after 150AD,and fragments after 50AD.
All almost the same like those which we knew.
Unless Koran,which version from Jemen/100 years before canonical,but still 100 years after machomet/ differ in 20%.

 

[stevep]

Yes on that last statement, no on your reading of my comment.

Your statement was (re-arranged for clarity): "When corrupt groups get hold of them and use them to maximize their own power, all the Abrahamic faiths are in practice totalitarian systems."

My correction was: "When corrupt groups get hold of them and use them to maximize their own power, all possible hierarchy systems are in practice totalitarian systems."

My position isn't that totalitarian systems aren't worse. It's that the danger of totalitarianism isn't particularly unique to the Abrahamic faiths, nor even notably more pronounced in their specific context. Rather, it's a result of fundamental human nature, as you noted yourself. Any faith, any organisation, and structure or hierarchy, can be warped towards that totalitarian direction. And given enough time, it will be. Because humans are involved, and humans are often individually pleasant, but not so much collectively.

Your misreading my statement. I didn't say totalitarianism is worse in Abrahamic religions than in other totalitarian systems. Just that as I stated they are fundamentally totalitarian. That's a simple matter of fact. If an ideology says X is the only right option and everything else is wrong/evil then there's no other way of classifying it.

As I've said elsewhere that doesn't mean all people who worship those faiths are totalitarians. There are many good people who follow such faiths because they believe some of the ideas that are suggested in them. For instance there is a hell of a lot of what Jesus says that I support - far more that ATP does for instance. However when you have a power hierarchy which has a totalitarian base its far easier for it to be corrupted and far, far harder to clear out then ones that are non-totalitarian.

That's what makes your 2nd paragraph incorrect. All hierarchical systems are prone to corruption but if there are any checks and balances in them then its more difficult for corruption to prosper and somewhat easier - although still often hard - to bring such people to justice. To take an example the fossil fuel industry has done immense damage and killed many people and will kill many millions [at the very least] more in the coming decades by knowingly lying about the damage their doing to the world's climate. Unfortunately many of the guilty are still free and prospering but at least their lies have been exposed as false even through countering their established power is still a big problem. In autocratic - let alone totalitarian - states/organisations this would be far, far harder.

 

[stevep]

Are Evangelions some kind of newfangled word for Gospels?

I think that's the case. He's referring to the four gospels recognised by the western churches.

 

[stevep]

1.Nope - but she did.And,thanks to her books,we knew,that 4Evangelions are the same which was in 2 or 1th century.
Here,Anna Świderkówna:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwik-_jaubD8AhVyiIsKHTPECpgQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAnna_%25C5%259Awiderk%25C3%25B3wna&usg=AOvVaw3XgFdJPsstsThd6sV6aVJb

2.Nope.If you read New Testament,you would knew,that he never openly named HIMSELF as God - but he gave power of keys to first pope.

3.Poor,naive child.You fight popes,and do not knew what they teached.Certainly not blind submission like muslims - only few dogma which must be used to clarify what NT said.
Becouse if you use only NT,you would end with 100.000 sects,like in USA.
Somebody must clarify problematic fragment - and that somebody is pope.

P.S reactionary - please,stop using soviet speech.

I'm not the one here using 'Soviet speech' and ideas. Your the blind fanatic who clings to doctrine above all information and knowledge.

I know what the papacy has often taught because I've studied history. Lord Acton's famous phase actually came about when the papacy broke with the idea of only god being divine after all. Also unlike you I understand how humanity works. Therefore I know why such systems trend to attract corrupt people attractive to power. I also know from my readings of the New Testament that Jesus would be deeply opposed to the sort of corrupt bureaucracy that the Papacy - along with other large established churches - because that's exactly what he opposed in the bible, repeatedly so.

Assuming some creator god exists why the hell would he be bothered what i's are cross and t's ticked as ooposed to a simple belief in him - and/or what Jesus taught? The reason why such issues are important to the church establishments is because its a way of maintaining power and control.

 

[Batrix2070]

I also know from my readings of the New Testament

To read is one thing, to understand is another and you clearly didn't understand.(Or you understood what you wanted to understand.) Let me put it this way, there is a whole field dedicated to understanding the Bible for a reason. Being a historian does not entitle you to the ability to understand the Bible.

creator god exists why the hell would he be bothered

I don't know, because he wants to? He is the being who created the world, he can do what he wants to do, if he wants to lead a race directly and is keenly interested in correct statements from higher theology and so on then by all means he will care, then it can do so and you can at most look surprised. Just because you don't give a damn doesn't mean that God has to give a damn too. The fact that you are so limited that you don't understand it is irrelevant to the facts that apparently this has happened, is happening and will continue to happen.

It is not for you to decide what God can and should do and what He should not do.

And what can I say about your definition of totalitarianism and the like. It is very thickly sewn. As well as you can clearly see that it is underpinned by atheistic nihilism, libertarian anarchism and a few other twisted notions. With all due respect, but in this discussion it is Skallgarim and ATP who are closer to reality than you.

 

[ATP]

Your misreading my statement. I didn't say totalitarianism is worse in Abrahamic religions than in other totalitarian systems. Just that as I stated they are fundamentally totalitarian. That's a simple matter of fact. If an ideology says X is the only right option and everything else is wrong/evil then there's no other way of classifying it.

As I've said elsewhere that doesn't mean all people who worship those faiths are totalitarians. There are many good people who follow such faiths because they believe some of the ideas that are suggested in them. For instance there is a hell of a lot of what Jesus says that I support - far more that ATP does for instance. However when you have a power hierarchy which has a totalitarian base its far easier for it to be corrupted and far, far harder to clear out then ones that are non-totalitarian.

That's what makes your 2nd paragraph incorrect. All hierarchical systems are prone to corruption but if there are any checks and balances in them then its more difficult for corruption to prosper and somewhat easier - although still often hard - to bring such people to justice. To take an example the fossil fuel industry has done immense damage and killed many people and will kill many millions [at the very least] more in the coming decades by knowingly lying about the damage their doing to the world's climate. Unfortunately many of the guilty are still free and prospering but at least their lies have been exposed as false even through countering their established power is still a big problem. In autocratic - let alone totalitarian - states/organisations this would be far, far harder.

Good - you just negated both science and any kind of society.Becouse in science you have X as only right option.Of course,you could belive that 2+2=5,not 4,but it is your Faith,not reality.

And,any kind of society is developed on what is right option,and what is not.It is not about morality - but how society works.
You could have society of cannibals,but they need to knew what kind of eating people is right option,too.

I'm not the one here using 'Soviet speech' and ideas. Your the blind fanatic who clings to doctrine above all information and knowledge.

I know what the papacy has often taught because I've studied history. Lord Acton's famous phase actually came about when the papacy broke with the idea of only god being divine after all. Also unlike you I understand how humanity works. Therefore I know why such systems trend to attract corrupt people attractive to power. I also know from my readings of the New Testament that Jesus would be deeply opposed to the sort of corrupt bureaucracy that the Papacy - along with other large established churches - because that's exactly what he opposed in the bible, repeatedly so.

Assuming some creator god exists why the hell would he be bothered what i's are cross and t's ticked as ooposed to a simple belief in him - and/or what Jesus taught? The reason why such issues are important to the church establishments is because its a way of maintaining power and control.

And what Jesus teached,exactly? without people to interpret that,we have 100.000 sects,like in USA.
You do not want church and pope ? they you would get bambillion of mini popes ,and every one of them would belive in his/her version of Jesus.

If God exist,then he decide if HE care,or not.Not You or me.

To read is one thing, to understand is another and you clearly didn't understand.(Or you understood what you wanted to understand.) Let me put it this way, there is a whole field dedicated to understanding the Bible for a reason. Being a historian does not entitle you to the ability to understand the Bible.

I don't know, because he wants to? He is the being who created the world, he can do what he wants to do, if he wants to lead a race directly and is keenly interested in correct statements from higher theology and so on then by all means he will care, then it can do so and you can at most look surprised. Just because you don't give a damn doesn't mean that God has to give a damn too. The fact that you are so limited that you don't understand it is irrelevant to the facts that apparently this has happened, is happening and will continue to happen.

It is not for you to decide what God can and should do and what He should not do.

And what can I say about your definition of totalitarianism and the like. It is very thickly sewn. As well as you can clearly see that it is underpinned by atheistic nihilism, libertarian anarchism and a few other twisted notions. With all due respect, but in this discussion it is Skallgarim and ATP who are closer to reality than you.

Exactly.And...am i closer to reality? HELP! reality is after me! ARRGHHH.....

 

[stevep]

To read is one thing, to understand is another and you clearly didn't understand.(Or you understood what you wanted to understand.) Let me put it this way, there is a whole field dedicated to understanding the Bible for a reason. Being a historian does not entitle you to the ability to understand the Bible.

I don't know, because he wants to? He is the being who created the world, he can do what he wants to do, if he wants to lead a race directly and is keenly interested in correct statements from higher theology and so on then by all means he will care, then it can do so and you can at most look surprised. Just because you don't give a damn doesn't mean that God has to give a damn too. The fact that you are so limited that you don't understand it is irrelevant to the facts that apparently this has happened, is happening and will continue to happen.

It is not for you to decide what God can and should do and what He should not do.

And what can I say about your definition of totalitarianism and the like. It is very thickly sewn. As well as you can clearly see that it is underpinned by atheistic nihilism, libertarian anarchism and a few other twisted notions. With all due respect, but in this discussion it is Skallgarim and ATP who are closer to reality than you.

Well I understand that what Jesus said and did is seriously at odds with the behaviour of most/all church structures. You and ATP don't because those church power structures and their interests are more important to you than what the person you claim speaks for god actually said.

You mean because you want to believe that 'god' is a depraved maniac he will be? So your arguing that while I don't have power over god you do.

The big difference is that I view myself as a human being. As such I have responsibilities myself. That you don't understand because you project your own values onto your perception of god. Hence you don't care if that leads to a total moral vacuum. You don't mind thinking of people as property as you think you own your god.

 

[stevep]

Good - you just negated both science and any kind of society.Becouse in science you have X as only right option.Of course,you could belive that 2+2=5,not 4,but it is your Faith,not reality.

Actually your showing your ignorance of science as well. There is agreement on what is factual depending on the evidence but that can and will change. As opposed to your viewpoint that your beliefs are correct reguardless of the evidence and that when they contradict that your will changes reality to fit your desires.

And,any kind of society is developed on what is right option,and what is not.It is not about morality - but how society works.
You could have society of cannibals,but they need to knew what kind of eating people is right option,too.

No societies work successfully when their accepted by the bulk of their inhabitants. This is fundamentallly a moral issue because people are generally willing to accept things they don't like if they think its necessary. It is those values that interpretate what is conceived as right and wrong not the dictates of those who decide their gods and incapable of error.

And what Jesus teached,exactly? without people to interpret that,we have 100.000 sects,like in USA.
You do not want church and pope ? they you would get bambillion of mini popes ,and every one of them would belive in his/her version of Jesus.

Very simply. People matter and what is important is how you behave towards them. Not what boxes you tick on some list of dogma and obedience to some claimed authority. That's why he clashed so much with the religious authorities of his time, who were more concerned with their position, status and wealth than the needs of the people. And similarly why he would complain about the same level of corruption and abuse in the modern day churches.

It is actually for people to decide what they believe they should do - or what they think god believes they should do. If a god exists then its his position to decide which of them are right or wrong and what to do about it. Rather than some arrogant fools who tell people to believe what their told and abandon any responsibility for their actions.

If God exist,then he decide if HE care,or not.Not You or me.

Which is my point. Your claim to know exactly what such a god exists and also what that god wants us to do is a clear breach of his authority.

Exactly.And...am i closer to reality? HELP! reality is after me! ARRGHHH.....

As your made clear frequently reality terrifies you so you reject it.

 

[Zyobot]

Right, so if Christians and atheists are quite done bashing each others’ skulls in over religion, here’s another common trope I just thought of: ‘Douglas MacArthur As A Military Dictator’.

Not super sure where Hearts of Iron and other AH get that from, exactly, given that he’s spoken favorably of liberal democracy in real life and never attempted to coup Truman — no matter how strongly he protested. That said, I’m certainly aware MacArthur had more of an “authoritarian” bent, and the fact he’s often referred to as “American Caesar” probably leads people to typecast him as such.

 

[ATP]

Well I understand that what Jesus said and did is seriously at odds with the behaviour of most/all church structures. You and ATP don't because those church power structures and their interests are more important to you than what the person you claim speaks for god actually said.

You mean because you want to believe that 'god' is a depraved maniac he will be? So your arguing that while I don't have power over god you do.

The big difference is that I view myself as a human being. As such I have responsibilities myself. That you don't understand because you project your own values onto your perception of god. Hence you don't care if that leads to a total moral vacuum. You don't mind thinking of people as property as you think you own your god.

Look,it is logic.Either Jesus do not made Church - in this case HIS teaching do not matter.
Or,HE made it 2000 years ago - but then it is either catholic,orthodox or some estern Church.Which all have power structures and interests.

Actually your showing your ignorance of science as well. There is agreement on what is factual depending on the evidence but that can and will change. As opposed to your viewpoint that your beliefs are correct reguardless of the evidence and that when they contradict that your will changes reality to fit your desires.



No societies work successfully when their accepted by the bulk of their inhabitants. This is fundamentallly a moral issue because people are generally willing to accept things they don't like if they think its necessary. It is those values that interpretate what is conceived as right and wrong not the dictates of those who decide their gods and incapable of error.



Very simply. People matter and what is important is how you behave towards them. Not what boxes you tick on some list of dogma and obedience to some claimed authority. That's why he clashed so much with the religious authorities of his time, who were more concerned with their position, status and wealth than the needs of the people. And similarly why he would complain about the same level of corruption and abuse in the modern day churches.

It is actually for people to decide what they believe they should do - or what they think god believes they should do. If a god exists then its his position to decide which of them are right or wrong and what to do about it. Rather than some arrogant fools who tell people to believe what their told and abandon any responsibility for their actions.




Which is my point. Your claim to know exactly what such a god exists and also what that god wants us to do is a clear breach of his authority.



As your made clear frequently reality terrifies you so you reject it.

1.You decided to belive,that Evangelions were changed,not me.
2.So you agree,that any society need agreement over what is good.
3.No,God Will matter.Jesus message is about salvation,not well being.
4.Not,if such GOD created Church to teach HIS message.Like Jesus did.
5.Suuuure.Said dude who rejects fact,that 4 Evangelions are the same from at least 2th century.

Right, so if Christians and atheists are quite done bashing each others’ skulls in over religion, here’s another common trope I just thought of: ‘Douglas MacArthur As A Military Dictator’.

Not super sure where Hearts of Iron and other AH get that from, exactly, given that he’s spoken favorably of liberal democracy in real life and never attempted to coup Truman — no matter how strongly he protested. That said, I’m certainly aware MacArthur had more of an “authoritarian” bent, and the fact he’s often referred to as “American Caesar” probably leads people to typecast him as such.

Yes,you need to change his character for that.Or made FDR even more pro-soviet idiot,that somebody MUST made coup to save USA.

 

[Zyobot]

Look,it is logic.Either Jesus do not made Church - in this case HIS teaching do not matter.
Or,HE made it 2000 years ago - but then it is either catholic,orthodox or some estern Church.Which all have power structures and interests.



1.You decided to belive,that Evangelions were changed,not me.
2.So you agree,that any society need agreement over what is good.
3.No,God Will matter.Jesus message is about salvation,not well being.
4.Not,if such GOD created Church to teach HIS message.Like Jesus did.
5.Suuuure.Said dude who rejects fact,that 4 Evangelions are the same from at least 2th century.



Yes,you need to change his character for that.Or made FDR even more pro-soviet idiot,that somebody MUST made coup to save USA.

You didn’t read my first paragraph at all, did you?

Somewhat agree with you on MacArthur, but otherwise, the derail you three have started on is getting rather annoying.

 

[stevep]

Look,it is logic.Either Jesus do not made Church - in this case HIS teaching do not matter.
Or,HE made it 2000 years ago - but then it is either catholic,orthodox or some estern Church.Which all have power structures and interests.

Well he obviously didn't "make the church" as none of those organisations came into existence until long after he was dead. He set forward ideas on how people should live and treat others which pretty much all those organisations have largely ignored.

Plus your missing my key point. As you say they have power structures and interests. The issue is that those interests are the ones of the people in charge of the relevant organisations. Chiefly on maintaining and expanding the power of that organisation and their own personal position. Which often has not matched with the ideas Jesus is reported as proposing in the bible.

1.You decided to belive,that Evangelions were changed,not me.
2.So you agree,that any society need agreement over what is good.
3.No,God Will matter.Jesus message is about salvation,not well being.
4.Not,if such GOD created Church to teach HIS message.Like Jesus did.
5.Suuuure.Said dude who rejects fact,that 4 Evangelions are the same from at least 2th century.

1 & 5 I follow the evidence.

2 - actually it needs ideas on what is good. That can change over time for various reasons. For instance finding genocidal war, slavery, serfdom, sexual and other bigot no longer acceptable. However the decision on what's good needs to be decided by reasoned debate not dictate from on high related to power politics.

3 - Jesus's message is about how to live. It did not include complex dogma and unquestioning obedience to people who set themselves up as demi-gods to dictate how others should behave. He objected to that in 1st century Palestine and would I suspect similarly object to assorted bureaucracies in the established churches today. Assuming god exists and wishes to control his creations that greatly its for him to decide what is the correct path [or paths] to salvation not a group of self appointed functionaries who's main interest is in power. You yourself have admitted the higher levels of the Catholic church have been corrupted in at least two cases after all.

4 - That is your opinion and the case stated by the very establishments which parallel those Jesus opposed in his own time. All religious establishments have claimed to be divinely inspired throughout history. Nothing new there just as nothing new in them becoming corrupt and often parasitical.

Plus its odd that you say equate Jesus with god and that he/they created the church when you yourself argued he never claimed to be the son of god?

 

[Zyobot]

Well he obviously didn't "make the church" as none of those organisations came into existence until long after he was dead. He set forward ideas on how people should live and treat others which pretty much all those organisations have largely ignored.

Plus your missing my key point. As you say they have power structures and interests. The issue is that those interests are the ones of the people in charge of the relevant organisations. Chiefly on maintaining and expanding the power of that organisation and their own personal position. Which often has not matched with the ideas Jesus is reported as proposing in the bible.



1 & 5 I follow the evidence.

2 - actually it needs ideas on what is good. That can change over time for various reasons. For instance finding genocidal war, slavery, serfdom, sexual and other bigot no longer acceptable. However the decision on what's good needs to be decided by reasoned debate not dictate from on high related to power politics.

3 - Jesus's message is about how to live. It did not include complex dogma and unquestioning obedience to people who set themselves up as demi-gods to dictate how others should behave. He objected to that in 1st century Palestine and would I suspect similarly object to assorted bureaucracies in the established churches today. Assuming god exists and wishes to control his creations that greatly its for him to decide what is the correct path [or paths] to salvation not a group of self appointed functionaries who's main interest is in power. You yourself have admitted the higher levels of the Catholic church have been corrupted in at least two cases after all.

4 - That is your opinion and the case stated by the very establishments which parallel those Jesus opposed in his own time. All religious establishments have claimed to be divinely inspired throughout history. Nothing new there just as nothing new in them becoming corrupt and often parasitical.

Plus its odd that you say equate Jesus with god and that he/they created the church when you yourself argued he never claimed to be the son of god?

*Sighs and rolls eyes.*

I guess me pointing out how tiring the derail you and @ATP are on is has gone unnoticed. Probably should’ve quoted or tagged you to start with, but really, you’re just wasting space in the wrong thread at this point.

 

[stevep]

*Sighs and rolls eyes.*

I guess me pointing out how tiring the derail you and @ATP are on is has gone unnoticed. Probably should’ve quoted or tagged you to start with, but really, you’re just wasting space in the wrong thread at this point.

I'm sorry you think that way but I've very much a believer in the old idea that "for evil to triumph it's necessary only that the good do nothing". APT is presenting a view that people are just property with no rights or interests of their own and that's something I must oppose. Most of us live in a fairly civilised society where freedom of speech and tolerance of others are largely accepted and I would wish to keep it that way.

 

[Zyobot]

I'm sorry you think that way but I've very much a believer in the old idea that "for evil to triumph it's necessary only that the good do nothing". APT is presenting a view that people are just property with no rights or interests of their own and that's something I must oppose. Most of us live in a fairly civilised society where freedom of speech and tolerance of others are largely accepted and I would wish to keep it that way.

Look, there’s a time and a place for everything. Heck, I even lean more towards your side than I do Christianity or religion in general, since — while I wouldn’t rule out beings or a form of existence beyond what we can currently perceive — I’m not one to spend time dwelling on it at the expense of the here and now, either.

That said, this is literally a “Common AH Tropes” thread, not an “Atheism Vs. Christianity: Debate!” thread. So, all you guys are doing is derailing in the wrong place, and while I can’t stop you from doing so, I can tell you it’s mucking it up and may annoy other people who want to participate in the thread in the spirit in which @WolfBear created it. I, for one, happen to be one of those people — and if you ask me, watching an out-of-left-field religious debate with no end in sight does get a bit tiring.

 

[Skallagrim]

Look, there’s a time and a place for everything. Heck, I even lean more towards your side than I do Christianity or religion in general, since — while I wouldn’t rule out beings or a form of existence beyond what we can currently perceive — I’m not one to spend time dwelling on it at the expense of the here and now, either.

That said, this is literally a “Common AH Tropes” thread, not an “Atheism Vs. Christianity: Debate!” thread. So, all you guys are doing is derailing in the wrong place, and while I can’t stop you from doing so, I can tell you it’s mucking it up and may annoy other people who want to participate in the thread in the spirit in which @WolfBear created it. I, for one, happen to be one of those people — and if you ask me, watching an out-of-left-field religious debate with no end in sight does get a bit tiring.

To be fair, though, "Hurr durr if there's no religion, we'll have a much better world!" is a common AH trope. (Among high-schoolers, neckbeards and lefties, at least.)

 

[Zyobot]

To be fair, though, "Hurr durr if there's no religion, we'll have a much better world!" is a common AH trope. (Among high-schoolers, neckbeards and lefties, at least.)

Eh, true enough.

Concerning AH clichés again, though: ‘Julius Caesar Avoids Assassination’. Seriously, while the consequences certainly have potential, I still can’t get over how overused the POD itself is.

 

[Batrix2070]

I still can’t get over how overused the POD itself is.

What's so strange about that? Julius Caesar is one of the most famous historical figures and how he died everyone knows. This is one of the so-called starting PODs for anyone who wants an alternative history to start in antiquity.

 

[Zyobot]

What's so strange about that? Julius Caesar is one of the most famous historical figures and how he died everyone knows. This is one of the so-called starting PODs for anyone who wants an alternative history to start in antiquity.

Not denying that, but it’s still not super original.

In retrospect, I suppose I may have been inadvertently harsh to AH newbies for whom it’s a useful starting point, so I’ll concede that you have a case there.

 

[ATP]

I'm sorry you think that way but I've very much a believer in the old idea that "for evil to triumph it's necessary only that the good do nothing". APT is presenting a view that people are just property with no rights or interests of their own and that's something I must oppose. Most of us live in a fairly civilised society where freedom of speech and tolerance of others are largely accepted and I would wish to keep it that way.

????????
Thanks for making me laugh.Tell me,when exactly i said that people are property?
Our Western cyvilization,as only cyvilization see all people as persons - becouse was created by Catholic Church.
If you choose to belive in fairy tales about Evul Christians,do that.

But not here.From that point,you could crying about bad popes and worst @ATP ,and i would ignore you.

Considering @Skallagrim - we could have societies without religion,only not very advanced.Piranha indians in Amazonia do not belive in God - but also are unable to count for more then 10,and think about future.
Advanced cyvilization without religion - all who tried/Budda,Marx/ created their own religions.

It seems,that religion is part of every advanced society.

@Zyobot - i think,that MacArthur could take power,if FDR died,and Wallace or somebody like him become president.
I remember some alternate story,when it happened after germans somehow win in Bulge battle,FDR died from shock,and Wallace take power.

Cezar - interesting,but it would change nothing.Rome get imperators after his death,what living Cezar could change?

Unless.... He turned Rome into dual Rome-Egypt Kingdom,with Cezarion as next ruler?