this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
685 points (98.0% liked)

RPGMemes

14180 readers
590 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

I always link 2 Kings 2 to The Apocalypse Players - A Christmas Inheritance. If you enjoy a Call of Cthulu adventure, I highly recommend it.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 37 points 2 days ago

DM: You killed so many people with that donkey bone I think we can stop treating it as an improvised weapon. Here's a proper statblock.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 52 points 2 days ago (2 children)

DM: Not that one, Job: I have a special d20 just for you!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I’ll point out that the “Jesus and the fig tree” story is a parable. It’s made fun of a lot, but it’s a vicious lesson by someone who was very theatrical in their teaching style. The fig tree is Israel, who were expected by their god to always be in season and ready for their messiah. But when Jesus arrived, they were not in season, and so were cursed to never bear fruit again. It wasn’t an agricultural misunderstanding, it was a lesson and everything that surrounds it gives it context.

[–] TeamAssimilation 9 points 1 day ago

Jesus: curses random tree

Followers: Jesus, is there a problem? You can tell us directly.

Jesus: No, everything is fine *sulks*

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Asked one of those "Bible is all literal truth" guys one day, "How did Jesus teach?"

"?"

"He taught in parables, right? Stories that aren't true, meant to illustrate a point."

"Ok."

"Is it possible other Bible stories are parables?"

"?"

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Almost everything in there is a parable. It’s a cultural thing, because stories were only worth preserving as a lesson. The concept of preserving objective reality for its own sake is a very modern and recent ideology. It would have been seen as madness by ancient peoples.

It would've been madness in that region at that time. The Romans were writing entire books on natural history and that's not even getting into something like the lost works on the Etruscan civilization. Recording things in that way fell out of favor with the Jewish people at that time due to centuries of rather brutal occupation requiring a certain level of obfuscation. Though I will say that objectivism wasn't a concept at that point, the Garlic Wars is as much an account as it is propaganda by Caesar.

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sure, but even as a parable it shows jesus expects something that is not possible, and punishes living things for being as he created them to be.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

One of the many things that christians seem to misunderstand is that almost none of the Bible is about them. It’s about the descendants of Israel who are the descendants of Noah who are the descendants of Adam and Eve, who were uniquely created by their god in its image and given a piece of its divine breath… none of which is about all humanity, but especially gentiles who are literally the same as wild animals as far as scripture is concerned.

Remember the story of the woman who begged Jesus and his disciples for help for days because her daughter was “possessed?” Not only did Jesus go out of his way to ignore and avoid her for days, he then compared her to a dog for not being Israelite. Only when she leaned into the insult did Jesus relent.

Israel was that specific fig tree and Israel was supposed to be special and had unique expectations placed on them since they were literally their god’s children, and other people were not.

I’m not disagreeing really. I’m building on your point.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Their god was a local god, which like all the people's gods everywhere had a creation myth for their people. Of course the other people weren't included. If they wanted a creation or a god, they could just come up with their own. Lazy cunts.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they wanted a creation or a god, they could just come up with their own.

I mean, they did. And then Joshua showed up with his horn and his seven day parade march.

Wait I'm not good in Bible is that Greasy Josh or Moses's boy toy?

[–] ICCrawler@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Dude, you completely left out Abraham. Which is wild given that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all referred to as Abrahamic faiths. While Abraham was descended from Adam and Eve, it is far more accurate to say Israelites trace their heritage back to Abraham. This is because it is Abraham that makes the first covenant pact with God.

Abraham gives birth to two sons. At first, Abraham's wife is barren, so to have a kid they all agree Abraham knock up his servant. This gives birth to Ishmael. Fourteen years later, Abraham's wiife finally manages to miraculously conceive, and Isaac is born. And there's this whole deal where god puts Abraham to the test and tells Abraham he has to sacrifice Isaac to him. And both of them go along with it only for God to go, "Nevermind, guys, it was a test. But since you've pleased me by being so faithful, I'll grant you a powerful line through Isaac (Israel)," and God then sends them a ram to sacrifice instead.

Isaac gives birth to two sons, Esau and Jacob, twins, but Esau was born first. Technically, God's blessing is his by birthright. Isaac favors Esau, Isaac's wife favors Jacob. Jacob gains the birthright twice over. Once because Esau returns to camp, hungry as hell one day and just casually trades his birthright to Jacob in return for some lentil stew. Second, when Isaac is pretty much on his death bed, and blind, Isaac's wife and Jacob trick Isaac into blessing Jacob instead of Esau. Initially, Esau is pissed and Jacob flees. But he eventually comes back and reconciles with his brother and wrestles God (I'm not kidding.) Then his name gets changed from Jacob to Israel. Dude marries two wives, one of which is his sister, and gives birth to twelve sons, which become the twelve tribes of Israel. There's also a daughter, but this is a patriarchal religion so women don't matter. This is basically where the Jew as Jews start.

Now, rewinding back a bit, remember that Ishmael guy, born of the servant Abraham knocked up? Yeah, so he and the servant got sent away. But God also promises this servant and Ishmael that Ishmael too, will give birth to a great nation, and that he will have 12 sons himself that will become princes. And it is Islam, specifically, the prophet Muhammed, who traces their roots back to Ishmael. That's how fucking old the whole Jew/Muslim conflict is.

And then there's Christianity, which is when some Jew named Jesus was born the son of Virgin Mary and went on to preach love and kindness and got himself sacrificed in a story which really illustrates, once you remove the falsehoods of heaven, hell, and God, that humanity is so crooked they'll basically kill a man for being too good while praising and pardoning a criminal (Barabbas. He and Christ both get the chance to be pardoned by the people, but they can only choose one. Barabbas is chosen, and Christ gets crucified.) But also yes, as you said, Jesus totally favored the Jews, and did the whole thing with comparing the woman to a dog versus the childeren he was meant to lead (Israelites.)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

humanity is so crooked they’ll basically kill a man for being too good while praising and pardoning a criminal

That's also something of an allegory, in so far as Jesus's great offense involved claiming to be "King of Kings" in defiance of the secular laws (which the Pharisees and Romans had co-mingled with the regional religious faith). This was all taking place during a historic armed and militant uprising of Jews against Roman occupation - one that failed shortly after the crucifixion.

So then you have Peter and Paul effectively reconciling with the Roman government and creating a kind-of religious third-way for the Jewish state. One in which you could be both a good Jew and a loyal Roman citizen, because you just tell yourself things look like shit now but when you die everything gets reversed.

Eventually, the cult of Christianity becomes so pervasive that even Romans start believing in the post-death reversal of fortune. And this climaxes in the Roman Civil War in which a general paints all his shields with the crucifix to prove how he's God's Favorite Underdog and wins. And then Constantine says "Why wait until you're dead? What if Christianity gets its heyday on Earth starting now?" Kicks off the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. And effectively forms the bedrock of modern Catholicism as a globe-spanning 1700 year old organized church.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Makes sense, especially when you consider that John the Baptist was an Apocalyptic Jew who played a foundational role in The Christ's contemporary education.

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

well, first of all...

Not saying you're wrong in a practical sense, but carrying practical sense into an allegorical story from a culture and time not your own is, if not folly, at least ill-advised.

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And if christians were willing to treat the bible as just a product of the culture and time that would be great. Unfortunately it is held up as an everlasting, ever correct guide to moral character. Thatsbwhy pointing out the issues with it is important, lest we get stuck with (at best) a 2000 year outdated moral framework.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's sort of the while point of pointing out the silliness of the fig tree story though. We poke fun at it for being ridiculous because, well, it is ridiculous, and religious people are in turn ridiculous for following a supposed holy text with such ridiculous parables in it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 76 points 2 days ago (5 children)

One nitpick- Solomon using demonic assistance to build his Temple is extrabiblical lore. I believe that Solomon's command over demons might be mentioned in the Talmud, but not in the Bible itself.

[–] Live_your_lives@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The story of Elisha and the boys deserves to be "nitpicked" as well. I haven't checked for myself, but from what I understand most secular and non-secular scholars agree that the Hebrew term includes babies all the way to "boys" who are in their twenties. This makes better sense of how the term is used in other passages and of why Elisha would encounter 42 of them (which only counts those who were mauled) just hanging out in the countryside.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

While we're at it, myrrh was a fragrant resin used in all sorts of applications, not just for embalming.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago

I guess I'll keep it going. Moses means "to pull out from the water," so he wouldn't have been "Moses" while placing him in the basket.

Also, why would the daughter of the dude supposedly killing all of the slave babies be like, "I'm gonna name this baby using the slaves' language."

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago

He was being chased by a gang of young men, not just being made fun of by some random children.

Translation is a scholarly art, and English translations - and the masses understanding of them - are like the restoration of the Ecce Homo fresco.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Here's a biblical scholar talking about it. The bible specifies small boys, so definitely not in their 20s. Not that having bears eat adults for making fun of your bald head is any better.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My favourite is the one with Moses coming down with the Big Book of Rules, direct from God. Then getting his pals to kill thousands of his followers for not following the Rules, which presumably they've never seen.

Levites: But doesn't it say in the Rules...

Moses: KILL THEM ALL.

Exodus 32, verse 27

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Also, at least two of the rules are basically just "my god is better than your god"

Getting genocided and wondering who the fuck Yahweh is

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The first rule is "Stop worshiping fake gods, you're making the real god angry" and the second is "Stop just making up new gods from scratch. We're monotheists. Fucking act like it." The third, incidentally, is often interpreted to mean "Stop saying my name as a swear word" but is more traditionally understood to mean "Stop claiming you're me or that you're speaking in my name"... which is fucking wild considering everything in the books that follow.

Getting genocided and wondering who the fuck Yahweh is

It's not like they didn't know who Yahweh was. They were Jews fleeing Egypt precisely because they held a faith that contradicted the Egyptian high priesthood. You have to go back to the context of the story and recognize Moses only goes up the mountain because he's completely losing control of the refugees he's leading. They're hungry, they're lost, they have no direction or purpose anymore, and the cohesion of the society is falling apart.

So Moses goes up a hill and says "Okay, God, you got us this far. Now what?" And God sets down commandments. Then Moses returns down the hill and announces "I've got new instructions" and a bunch of the refugees say "Fuck no, we hate Yahweh now. We're going to worship this big bronze bull and steal and rape and murder one another and you can't stop us".

And then there's basically a mini-civil war in the refugee camp that ends (like so many civil wars do) in a genocide of the losing side.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's less to stop worshipping fake gods, or asserting they're monotheistic, it's a directive to stop saying any God is "better" than Yahweh. At the start, it was a religion based on worship of Yahweh as the foremost diety, and eventually that started to include taking attributes from the other deity's in the pantheon, and eventually saying they weren't really gods, but spirits, demons or angels. Lesser devine entities strictly below Yahweh. Add in a couple centuries of linguistic drift and religious practice and you've got yahwehs name being replaced with "the LORD" in many places to avoid invoking the special power of names, and his name becoming your word for deity, making translation an absolute mess.
It's not linguistic trickery to cast the "no other gods before me" as being a polytheistic belief. At the time it was and they only thought one god was worthy of worship.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

At the start, it was a religion based on worship of Yahweh as the foremost diety

Apparently the real old school Jews believes that Yahweh had a wife, who was a kind of fertility goddess. And subsequent iterations of the religion simply removed her from cannon.

eventually saying they weren’t really gods, but spirits, demons or angels

That's more New Age retconning of the Old Testament. Old Israeli Yahweh existed for a population that had no idea how big the world was. They literally just new this slice of the Mediterranean and the neighboring tribes. Even into the Roman era, knowledge of the outside world was third and forth hand, often translated through multiple tongues. It isn't that Israelis thought foreign gods were demons, its that they don't recognize these religions as "legitimate". At its heart, Yahweh really was the One True God in the sense that no other gods existed.

It's like the old joke about Atheists only believing in one less God than everyone else.

Prohibitions on idols and putting other gods ahead of Yahweh were meta-textual arguments against breaking the law by claiming "Well, my own personal Yahweh+ said disrespecting my parents and coveting my neighbors slaves is cool, aktuly". We've got one god. It's Yahweh. These are his rules. You can't claim there's a bigger better god with a different set of rules and use that as an excuse to break the existing code.

It’s not linguistic trickery to cast the “no other gods before me” as being a polytheistic belief.

It's removing the social construct of religion from the text. The point of the rule is to preempt anyone from introducing "Ten Commands: 2 - Bigger God's Better Rules". Sort of the equivalent of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

Because so much of what all this was about was governing human behavior, with the expectation that properly behaved people resulted in elimination of human suffering.

Incidentally, its why Jesus's New Covenant was so hotly contested by existing Jewish faithful. This new messiah wasn't the first one to try to overturn the old rule. At the same time, the old laws having grown so stagnant and the institutions so corrupted by Roman occupation, there was an understanding that the old codex needed to be refreshed and rewritten. "The Messiah" was, in function, a godly ordained designate who could rewrite the laws. And everyone was supposed to wait around for his arrival, because his new rules would fix the bugs in the old ones.

But if you don't like the new guy's rules, you say he's a fake. You blame him for the public's suffering. And you politely ask your Roman friends in Jerusalem to have him executed.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

It's really not new age reconning, the old testament literally has angels and other quasi devine entities in it. It's not that they thought the foreign gods were demons, it's that they had stories from their own religion that involved other gods.
Previously, it was common for nations and tribes to have their own God that they worshipped.
A segment of the Israelites believed that their national diety was best God, but not only God, because that would be silly. Everyone know El, Ashera, Yahweh and Marduk all exist, but Yahweh is first amongst the pantheon, or that Yahweh was actually the same as the other god but just used a different name for reasons.
When political strife broke out with Babylon that sect gained prominence and shifted towards monotheism as a rejection and denunciation of the Babylonian gods, both as a middle finger to Babylon and as a bolstering of national identity: preserve the culture by saying it's not just that this is your God, or that's it's the best God, but that it's the only God.
The difficult part is the thousand years of stories and belief making it extremely clear that there are other deities. So those stories warped and recontextualized those gods as evil gods or lesser good gods, errr... Demons and angels. A perfect, all powerful, all knowing god who created everything has special helpers to do things for him and has an adversary who is somehow able to resist him, but is also a companion, or a betrayal. Baal. Or is is baelzebub? Samael? Satan? It's so tricky to keep track of which came from early Judaism and which is a syncretism from a neighboring religion.

You slightly underestimate how broad the world of the Israelites was. They lived in tribes, but those tribes had a diety different from a neighbor tribe that they still recognized as "them". Different households would have their own God, and the nation as a whole had a patron God. They lived in areas with enough traffic and people that other gods wasn't a weird notion. Their interactions with Babylon are a significant recognized historical occurrence, and Babylon had a population of more than 200,000 by modern estimates during the relevant time period.

It's confusing to say that it's ignoring the social control aspect of religion to recognize that they weren't monotheistic at the time the ten commandments became part of the religious canon. It took a thousand years for them to switch from a subset of the Canaanite religion to a distinct monotheistic one.
The purpose wasn't to stop people from making their own gods, it was to stop people from saying any of them were better than Yahweh. It is not a subtle set of rules.

It's a coherent argument built on the flawed premise that the interpretation of the text as applied to modern Judaism is the same as it was applied to the proto-judaism of 3500 years ago. We have ample evidence that it would not have, and that time has changed the interpretation and, in some cases, the actual words, like the written form of Yahweh that would be pronounceable in their language being changed to an honorific and subsequently lost to time.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

My friend, they weren't monotheists at that point. There were all sorts of gods and Yahweh was just one of them.

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (2 children)

There is a convenience store I stop at which has a self help / religious book rack. On it, there is a copy of "The Action Bible", and, given it's cover, I assume this is the DMG for OPs campaign.

Jesus was a STR main

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's also a Manga Bible, which is a pretty rad artistic interpretation as well. :D

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I mean, I feel like making Jesus a samurai is as authentic to history as making him a blond white dude.

Also, wandering the countryside, helping out the peasants and tweaking the nose of the establishment, gathering a crew of like-minded friends/followers, and culminating in an act of self-sacrifice which results in the protagonist's willing death? I can easily see how someone could imagine, "what if Jesus, but ronin?".

Shit. Im gonna end up buying one or both of these at some point...

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I love how there's a random cute girl in the top left, no idea who the hell she's supposed to be, but 👍🏻.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MarcomachtKuchen@feddit.org 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How is each an every one of them a hit. Great consistency, 10/10 post

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

The Daniel in the Lions' Den one could have had Daniel rolling a nat 20 animal handling check right as the DM warns him it's not a good idea, that would have been even better.

[–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 22 points 2 days ago

Lol funny, but also, they were money changers, not money lenders. Exchanging foreign currencies.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 47 points 2 days ago (1 children)

LOT: Look I know we didn't get the hint very quickly but I think sending angels to literally handhold us out of the city might be too much railroading for me.

GM: Alright, I'm sorry, I just... I spent all afternoon planning stuff in Zoara.

EDITH: Hey, I know they said not to look back, but I want to look back. They'll never notice.

GM: You sure about that?

EDITH: Let me enjoy seeing Steve get divinely smote at least

GM: Alright, roll a Con save

EDITH: Con save? To look without the angels noticing?

GM: It's not about the angels

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 19 points 2 days ago

I thank thee. Hopefully the GM's not too salty about Edith wandering off the main storyline again

load more comments
view more: next ›