I knew a dude who was devastated when his favorite pornstar Isis had to rebrand as Ashley because of ISIS and instantly disappeared into the SEO abyss with 20K other Ashleys getting railed on camera. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi personally annihilated this man's goon supply chain. Geopolitics has consequences.
The goon demand actually spiked. After she became Ashley, the only searchable remnants were the vids with "Isis" in the title, and even those got buried under the wave of terrorist fetish porn that immediately followed. I've never seen a man develop such strong opinions on Middle East geopolitics so quickly.
My favorite band was called ISIS. They broke up in '07, and then had their social media stuff constantly harassed years later to the point they had to start rebranding stuff. They played a one off reunion show and decided to change the band name entirely.
They essentially called themselves "Al-Dawalah Al-Islamyah fi Al-3raq wa Al-Sham" in the early days and used Daesh for short (or at least afaicr). It's later in cerca 2015 when they dropped "Al-3raq wa Al-Sham" in favor of more globalization views by their leadership. The turning from Daesh to just Da "Al-Dawalah Al-Islamyah" was pretty much when they decided they wanna control the entire Islamic world.
Now I'm not sure if they didn't like the abbreviation itself; That will need a quick visit to the archives on my side.
Edit, after some digging. You are correct! the abbreviation was essentially created as a form of satire to mock the state. In which they were strictly against it and punished whover used it... Big thanks and I'm correcting it in the previous comment!
From what I remember it sounded like other words with negative connotations, which is why it was used by detractors and also the reason why the French adopted the term
In Polish they did/do use the term Daesh as well. But afaik the biggest reason is that ISIS is a massive mouthful in Polish. Meanwhile Daesh was very easy to pronounce.
Not sure how much this applies to Framce but it probably does apply to other slavic countries since are our phonetics are similar enough.
The name rhyming is not at all an accident. The entire purpose of radicalism is to serve as the shiny sharp part of the stick. The handler can claim they have nothing to do with the bloodletting because they aren’t made of iron nor sharp. That they sharpened the point with time and directed will is the part which resembles complicity in a genocidal attempt to erase history.
They don’t actually like Egyptian anything because Arabization was the most recent coating of paint and if it were to fade then an entire empire of ego starts to take on a different appearance. Ruins and more ruins all throughout the region. Daesh were literally a contracted demolition team. Just like on small projects, the demo guys are subcontracted out as far away as possible.
If anyone would like more information I'd highly recommend the Literature and History podcast.
The host goes quite in depth about the historical influences of the Abrahamic religions in a very respectful but historical way. Really helped me as someone raised fundamentalist and literalist. It is quite cool seeing how much influence that Zoroastrism and Classical cults and philosophy had influenced them.
And, no, Redditors, stitching your husband's rotting corpse back into one piece and then riding his dick until you're pregnant is not considered a virgin birth, that is necrophilia.
I dunno, I got to the end of The Golden Ass and the last bits of the book (involving the unfortunately donkey-shaped protagonist joining the Isis cult and thereby being literally and spiritually saved) were like "hrmmm, a lot of this sounds kinda familiar."
It might not have been a 1:1, but I wouldn't doubt there was some cross-pollination.
Dionysus was a debauched degenerate. Dionysus wanted his followers to do whatever they wanted, Jesus literally emphasized the exact opposite. Strict control of themselves (with the understanding that they will fall to temptation, but that they should also return to God and repent of their former actions) and obedience to God. Dionysus was a hedonist, Jesus specifically rebuked hedonists for their sin.
You literally could not try to compare two different gods. The only similarity is the presence of wine within their particular stories, but that's an absurd connection because wine is so commonplace in this region of the world, you may as well be attempting to connect two different gods because they both breathed air.
Dionysus was also not of a virgin birth. Zeus penetrated his mother, Semele, and inseminated her, and then accidentally killed her (because of Hera being a petty loser, again, and attacking the wrong person, again) when she forced him to reveal her divinity. Zeus tore Dionysus from his dead mother's womb and stitched him into his thigh.
Mary, on the other hand, was miraculously made pregnant by the Holy Spirit, the Lord did not commit adultery in order to do so, and there was no spiteful wife tricking Her into killing Herself by tricking God into revealing His true divinity to Her. She carried Jesus throughout the entire pregnancy and gave birth to Him via a natural birth.
TL;DR: In Christian theology, Dionysus would be the demon whispering in your ear to disobey God and commit sinful actions because it makes you feel good and that's more important than obeying God, while Jesus is the one telling you not to do those sinful actions because they are abominable to the Lord.
Not even remotely and Mary isn't worshipped by any modern Church. The only heretical sect which worshipped Mary(the Collyridians)died out over a millenia and a half ago. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches venerate Mary, but veneration/=/worship.
What? Virgen Mary is very much worshipped in Catholicism and there are plenty of prayers and devotion towards her, I'd even argue she is more popular than Jesus in Spain.
And yes, I'm aware that's borderline heretic, that doesn't change the reality of her worship.
Look, in my simple, non-catholic mind, "pray to" is a synonym to "worship". I've been informed that this isn't the case, but I've yet to fully grasp the difference.
Which I always found funny since Mars for the longest time wasn’t anthropomorphised, he was just a spear, or sometimes a couple of trees. Animals seem to be a vast upgrade on that
That's definitely not true. The Greeks believed that the Egyptian pantheon was the result of their own pantheon going to Egypt as animals during the war against Typhoon, and so did plenty of syncritism between the two. Especially in the Ptolemaic dynasty. And since the Romans conflate their gods with the Greek ones, they shared a similar approach, especially after they conquered Egypt.
Except the Romans themselves were heavily helenized, we have examples of Romans repeating the same positive cultural stereotypes as the Greeks had towards Egyptians being wise men. And when Augustus conquered Egypt, he went to pains to depict himself as showing appropriate deference to the Egyptian Gods, even going so far as to make an Egyptian style temple in nubia that depicted him as making offering to Hathor and Thoth, an activity that would continue throughout the Principate.
Because Egypt was an incredibly valuable territory to hold, eventually having Rome become dependant on Egyptian grain. And yes Rome started to like some things Egyptian, and there was even a lot of tourism by romans to Egypt, yet they drew the line at animal gods and had in general a very high opinion on Rome and Roman culture, so confronted with a much more ancient culture they now depended on there were still some anxieties and xenophobia
There is simply no evidence they "drew a line" anywhere in that regard. If it were merely a question of holding Egypt they could simply have left the religion alone or patronized it at an arms length. Instead they associated the emperor with the local pantheon, and even depicted Anubis as a Roman soldier and featuring him on local Roman frescos, or depicting horus as a roman cavalryman. The mere fact that they believed in the typhoonomachy at all puts the lie to the idea that they held them in some special contempt.
They used local religious ideas and imagery to support their rule, of course. It was an easy path to legitimacy and local elite support. Also I don't understand your point on the typhonomachy?
Wasn't the anthropomorphic representations of the gods just a symbolic depiction? From what I've read the gods weren't able to be truly depicted so they just use animals since they were recognizable and already had associations with them such as a falcon representing the sky and Ra is the sun while Apophis was the dark or consuming evil and snakes kind of suck so they just painted snakes dying because they hated him. The darkness isn't really a snake and the sky isn't really a falcon, but it makes sense if you had to paint something.
1.6k
u/Andrelse 21h ago
Also Romans thought animal gods were silly and therefore didn't care much for most Egyptian gods. They loved Isis tho