Discussion Main / ArtisticLicenseReligion

I feel that this section/article is too dominated by twisting artistic licence to suit their individual belief, which is totally contradictory to the persona of Tvtropes, let alone against the posting rules.

Uhm, the example for The Good Wife seems to be coming from someone not remembering the facts correctly. Now, I may be wrong but the way I remember it was that it was the NSA looking for any excuse to expand their taps, and Nisa's call ended up being one because of them basically saying "we really thought it was a threat, honest" after her father had contact with someone whose NAME was on a terrorist watchlist, probably not the individual in question but just sharing the name. I don't have the season on hand to check, but it was never implied that there was any validity to their claims of her father leaning one way or the other on any political or social issue.

I'm too lazy for a signature.

Re cut: This page was mistakenly cutlisted due to name confusion with Artistic License – Traditional Christianity. Please don't cut this.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman Hide / Show Replies

I just got to warn people who are overly religous and believe their faith to be the absolute truth, that...

This page may not reflect your opinion on truth.

Like, for example, saying "Taoism and Christianity is muturally exclusive" is a myth.

I think it's impossible to mix two different faiths together like that and still being considered the part of those respective religion (ie, I don't consider people mixing Taoism and Christianity as "true christians").

At least, I don't believe that it's possible to mix Christianity with other religions without me considering their faith to be something else.

The only exception I'm okay with is practising Jewish tradition, but that's only because Christianity is a decendant of Judaism.

Of course, you may believe differently.

DON'T try to debate my beliefs, as I don't want to start debates based upon it. I want to respect other people's beliefs (dispite me thinking, "Christianity is the only one that's true").

Edited by KarjamP Hide / Show Replies

The following has been removed from the Constantine entry because it's incorrect. It wasn't the Spear of Destiny that was controlling people, it was either Satan's son Mammon or his partner in crime Gabriel (or both) exerting their power to make the guy bring the Spear to Los Angeles.

• Not to mention the fact that whoever possesses the Spear ends up instantly hypnotized/possessed by the evil power within it, and begins mindlessly (and superhumanly) heading in the direction of what will be the ritual that will bring "Satan's offspring" into the world. Nevermind that the Spear (or at least, all the relics that have thus far been identified as such) is a HOLY relic, with no "official" powers, the very fact that it bathed in the blood and water that spilled from Christ's body would make it an amazing anti-demonic tool. This is the same reason that the nails and pieces of the Crucifix are considered holy relics, or would be if any could be positively identified.

Edited by Arivne

• In episode 10 of the 5th season of Bones, Daisy repeatedly claims that it was more likely that Jesus was born in March than December in spite of the fact that the Feast of the Annunciation (when the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and related a certain request to her, and upon her acquiescence conceived the "Eternal Word of God" in her womb) is usually held on 25 March; look at Artistic License - Traditional Christianity for more information. SO according to Daisy, Mary had apparently been pregnant with Jesus for about a YEAR!
  • Well, that was supposed to be a miracle... Anyway, the Bible is silent about when Jesus was born. People theorize it was spring due to the shepherds having lambs in their flocks, which are born then. December probably had more to do with capitalizing on existing holidays such as Sol Invictus and Yule that occurred the same month.
  • While it could have been early Christians trying to "capitalize" on existing holidays that occurred in December for reasons that are never clearly explained (seriously people have came up with sooo many "theories" on why they did it, some of which were pretty contradicting), OR It could have also been that they simply added 9 months to the date of the Feast of the Annunciation (a holiday which occur on March 25 that celebrated the conception of Jesus)click on this for more info but you be the judge. also while it is unusual for shepherds to have lambs in their flock at that time of year. it is also unusual for a woman to be pregnant for 12 months, but once again you be the judge.
    • They could have added 9 months to the Annunciation, or alternately counted back from December 25 9 months-either way. Anyway, the fact that the Annunciation is celebrated March 25 doesn't mean it actually happened on that date, nor that Jesus was born on December 25th. The theory on why days such as December 25th were made Christian holidays is simple-the pagans already celebrated around that date, and thus made it less disruptive for conversion. It's probably not coincidence that these days already had multiple pagan holidays celebrated on them-Sol Invictus and Yule on December 25th, Ostara around when Easter became, Beltane on May 1 (May Day), etc.
    • While it is true no one knows the dates of Jesus's birth, it is REALLY unlikely that they counted back from December 25 (by that I mean impossible). While they didn't know when he was born they had an idea when he was conceived. They believed it was during the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (which was March). For more info you can check these sources:[1][2] [3] [4]. To put it simply the date of Christmas may have initially been chosen to correspond with the day exactly nine months after early Christians believed Jesus to have been conceived. And most likely didn't try "capitalize" on existing holidays that occurred in December.
      • It's just a coincidence, then, that the Spring Equinox happens to be around March 25th, and the Winter Solstice around December 25th? In the Biblical verse you cited, all it says is "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth." So, six months into Elizabeth's pregnancy. Fine, but that still doesn't tell us when Elizabeth conceived, thus also not when Jesus was conceived. The Rabbinical theory given in the Artistic License – Traditional Christianity page is really reaching, and gives no source for calculating when Zachariah was on duty as a priest to thus show when his wife Elizabeth conceived, then when Jesus had been conceived. It appears that Jesus' birth date was not considered important anyway, since none of the Gospels places it either on the Jewish or Roman calendars, which would have been those used at the time.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick Hide / Show Replies

This needs verification, but I have read that polygamy was not only permitted in the Doctrine and Covenants of Mormonism, but required. Getting into heaven apparently requires you take multiple wives. Further, although permission must be sought by the first wife, if she doesn't give it she'll be forever damned. None of this changes the fact that the LDS Church stopped polygamy in 1890, but it might be added to understand the issue, especially why splinter Mormon groups still practice polygamy-it's in the Doctrine and Covenants, after all.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

The Dark Ages entry confuses me; surely it's not related to matters about religion in any direct way?

In any case, there is limited amount of truth to the concept, though the whole deal was neither as universal or as long-lived as people often assume. This is most notably the case in Britain. When Rome withdrew its legions from the island, they were followed by grand majority of the rich populace, along with skilled artisans and craftsmen. In result, the island experienced one of the worst collapses of civilization in the known history. The clay pots from the period were more poorly made than those of the Stone Age, people stole urns from the graveyeards in the absence of other sources for well crafted goods, and metal tools and weapons that weren't heirlooms dissappeared almost entirely for over a century.

So yes, there was a sort of Dark Age period where infrastructure broke down, and lots of written information was lost. Only the idea that no progress or new ideas happened between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Renaissance (which most people didn't even notice until it was over) is bogus.

Eh. Reading the page, I've always thought "modern offshoots" was a pretty arbitrary shorthand for "Mormonism", considering that's what all its examples are. Now we have Artistic Licence – Traditional Christianity, which without knowing the status and history of this page, there's no reason for it to not just be Artistic Licence Christianity. I think I'm going to continue this on that page's discussion page, but does anyone else think moving the Mormon examples there would at least be worth considering? Perhaps Artistic Licence Christianity could be folderized with every variant, traditional or not. (Though some items are hard to tell whether they're general or Catholic-specific...)

Hide / Show Replies

"This is the reason a lot of athiests don't believe in God, they are frightened of being held accountable."

Seems kind of, "Yeah, not," to me.

Hide / Show Replies

Can we point out, in the Atheism definition, that the way Anti-theist and militant atheist are used in the "new Atheism" and their detractors is blatantly different, in practice, to what "militant atheism" SHOULD mean. Mentioning Albania in the list of countries would be good, he's the only one who wanted atheism for atheism's sake and not because he was a Communist (just a mad dictator.)

At the moment, it looks like someone is trying to do a subtle Take That! at Richard Dawkins. (implying he agrees with Communist oppression, when he's a secularist.) Don't want to edit it myself, not impartial.

Edited by TheOneWhoTropes Keeper of The Celestial Flame Hide / Show Replies

isn't it strange that Atheism would even be mention on a page about misconceptions about religion? seeing how atheism is not a religion.

Edited by fireysoul25 Hide / Show Replies

can someone please explain to me why my xkcd example was delete? was there something wrong with it? i would just like to know

Edited by qwertyman Hide / Show Replies

Some Useful Notes with regards to the Immaculate Conception/Incarnation confusion:

• Timing is the chief culprit here. The IC is celebrated on 8 December, with Mary's birth being attributed to 8 September. Likewise, the Incarnation (which is lumped in with the Annunciation by Gabriel*
  ^{Basically, God asks Mary for permision to insert a divine embryo}
  ) is on 25 March.*
  ^{Say what you will about the Church's "War on Science" back in the day, they at least got the human gestation period down.}
  The problem comes in two parts:

1. Said date of Incarnation, due to how Easter is defined, is always within Lent (the Fasting Season), Tridium, or the Octave of Easter. The latter two (plus the rest of Holy Week immediately prior) trump this Feast, pushing it to the Second Monday of Easter whenever it falls during this period.*
   ^{Which tells us that the Church Fathers weren't big on Dramatic Tension. "Alleluia! He is Risen!" "Update, he'll be born in 9 months!" "Yay!"}
   Basically, people are either anticipating Jesus' death, or celebrating His resurrection, which somehow overshadows the fact that He had to be conceived before He did anything.
2. Conversely, 8 December always happens during Advent, when the general populace thinks the Christmas "Season" is.*
   ^{Advent actually is a Season of preparation; it's just that the "modern" preparations kinda take the fun out of everything.}
   So, since they're not thinking about Christmas in March, but they are in December, we get the Immaculate Misconception. The fact that the readings for the day specifically reference the Incarnation doesn't help matters.
   • In fact, the Old Testament Reading and the Gospel readings are the exact same for both Solemnities!

Ketchum's corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced tactic is indistinguishable from blind luck. Hide / Show Replies

I'm not sure about the etiquette here but I want to discuss a few posts of mine that were deleted.

Deleter said:

• Also, I think the one about the serpent should be deleted- speaking as a Jew, I don't believe that the serpent was Satan, who I don't believe in either, but that's just Alternate Character Interpretation to believe otherwise.

- So since the deleter disagrees it should be removed? I'm justifying why Christians believe it to be true (regardless of the fact that some jews don't agree). If this is the case would it be fair for me as a Christian to say Muslims are wrong about their interpretation of Jesus not being the son of God.

• Actually the New Testament implies the serpent is, in fact, Satan. The apocryphal book of Adam and Eve (which predates the New Testament) directly states the serpent was Satan. Critics of this idea don't realize how far back this idea originated in Abrahamic thought.
• Maybe its a clarification?

Deleter said:

• I'm gonna delete this in part because of the whole "calling real people Straw Feminists"- and they aren't straw anyway since if you read any Medieval book, they did blame everything on Eve.

-In understand why the straw feminist point would be removed but rest of the point is valid. The Bible itself blames Adam first in foremost, therefore I have a point. If this post is deleted than so should others (Lucifer=Satan etc.)

• The Straw Feminist bumper sticker that says "Eve was Framed" could be an example of this trope. It comes from the assumption that the "fall of Man" was Eve's fault for tempting Adam after she was tempted by the Serpent. Most people don't realize that, while Eve isn't blameless, most of the fault is placed on Adam. This is because he received the commandment from God directly. Its possible that if he hadn't ate the fruit the whole situation may not have happened.
  • Eventually we may see bumperstickers that say "Its Eve's Fault!" in response to the benevolent sexism of Eve not being allowed to take responsibility for her own actions.

Hide / Show Replies

In the "Christianity" folder, there is the following: "The origin (i.e., the Hebrew version of the Bible) states that "יִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת", i.e., they took fig leaves and made themselves belts (or aprons). God did give them leather shirts before He kicked them out, but it isn't clear why.

God is a Jewish Mother and it was cold outside the Garden. You want they should freeze their little punims off without a warm jacket? " I think a better explanation is that leather, unlike fig leaves, would require the killing of a "soulish" animal (or "nephesh") instead of a plant and thus underscore that death (and bloodshed) entered the world through Adam and Eve's sin. Also, as a physical covering for the effects of sin, it foreshadowed the sacrificial system, which was meant to be a spiritual covering for sin. The best way I can thin of editing this would be "Another possibility is that leather, unlike fig leaves, would require...." but would be interested in other suggestions.

Would You Kindly provide an explanation for those who don't know?

Removing this...

Anime & Manga

• Regarding Christianity, far far far far far too many examples to ever possibly list, ever. Suffice to say almost any time the Japanese approach Christianity with the intent to put it into any form of entertainment media, they fail to do the research and rape the material so hard that it can approach literally physically painful levels for anyone who actually knows anything about the religion.
  • Neon Genesis Evangelion could be taken as a partial subversion; it does reference a lot to Biblical and Jewish lore, having each of the angels not just named after actual angels from theological lists, but also having them shaped as would fit their functions (Gaghiel, for instance, is named after the angel of fish), not to mention actually having monstruous looking angels rather than winged people. Otherwise, the rest is simply too confusing for the viewer to understand the context.

...which was previously the entire Anime & Manga folder. Come on, if it's that prevalent, then it can't be too hard to think up some specific shows to list there. Having "every anime ever" as the example just discourages newcomers from listing more specific and useful entries.

Edited by BritBllt "And for the first time in weeks, I felt the boredom go away!" Hide / Show Replies

I'll go on a natter spree later, but for now, just removing...

• Anytime Christian Heaven is mentioned as being everlasting, or unending, counts. The correct word should be "eternal", meaning "not bound to time." Most Christian religions teach that the good/faithful will eventually be resurrected and live on a new Earth. It is mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
  • So yes, any time an author uses it that way, he Fails Eternity Forever.
  • However, this is not the same as the Rapture as it is told in American Evangelical circles. That version is a very different, very American interpretation of Christ's second coming as opposed to the more traditional views of it.
  • This troper (incidentally an American Evangelist, if that colors her comments at all) has always been taught that Heaven is "everlasting" AND "eternal," the terms being interchangeable. She's never heard anything to imply otherwise before.
    • It's a really subtle difference, and they aren't mutually exclusive. If I understand correctly, it's the difference between "there will not be a time when it will end" and "time doesn't really exist there in the same sense that it does here."

Yes, it s a really subtle difference. At most, you might say that Heaven is "eternal" from an atemporal perspective, and "everlasting" from the perspective of someone bound to linear time. And that is way too subtle and mutually inclusive a distinction to really call You Fail Religious Studies Forever (besides, both words have been used since antiquity anyway).

• Also with Christians: every time the Bible is referring to love as being eternal or all-powerful, it is referring to God's love, or at least charitable love, not romantic love. In fact, the English word "charity" comes from "caritas", which the early Church used to refer to the "good love", as opposed to "amor", or romance.

Is that really a widespread problem? Besides, the Bible certainly has lots to say on the topic of romantic love. The Song of Solomon comes to mind in a big way. Both of the above come across more as individual It Just Bugs Me! issues than genuine pop-cultural research failure.

"And for the first time in weeks, I felt the boredom go away!" Hide / Show Replies

okay people lets take step back with buffy.

One time Willow joins a Wiccan coven in college, who behave like a real world coven would. They were portrayed as clueless morons who want to have bake sales and relegate spells to fairy tales, of course. In reality, Willow would be considered the pagan equivalent of a teenybopper, and expected to grow out of it. Those who practice Wicca for more than a year and a day consider it a lifestyle, and the notion that magic is a cure-all for life's problems would be set straight at best, and mocked mercilessly at worst. Sometimes both: Set the person straight nicely, and then set the razor-sharp humor on them.

Someone got on high horse here. they did treat it as lifestyle and did look down on willow's towards attitude to magic. what makes anyone think they were portrayed idiots? this goes past pointing out factual errors and broaders on soapboxing.

hashtagsarestupid Hide / Show Replies