[ SECRET POST #3035 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3035 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 081 secrets from Secret Submission Post #434.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

And I clicked on this because I wanted to know what you thought. :(

Re: Since it's Sunday

[dethtoll]

I'm pretty much an anti-theist at this point. I'm just going to leave it at that.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Anti-theist in the sense of "If there is a god, he is not good"? Or anti-theist in the sense of anti-theism, that is, organized religion is harmful? Or anti-theist in the sense of against theists?

Feel free not to answer if you really want to avoid this shit btw, just wondering for clarification

Re: Since it's Sunday

[dethtoll]

Oh, whatever, I'm being silly, I'm going to get trolled whether I keep quiet or not. So fuck it.

It's the latter two, and I also reject the idea of religion and left-wing politics being compatible (which is the viewpoint that got me in trouble last time...)

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Okay

That's what I kind of remembered

And it's tricky, because I have no interest in trolling you and I think the people who were harassing you were a bunch of shitty dumbasses, so it's tough to really talk about fairly. And I don't want to imply that the harassment was your fault. Because it wasn't. It was ridiculous.

But like... you do understand why your views would piss people off, right? Especially given that (as I recall) you phrased them in a pretty combative way? Like, again, the harassment wasn't justified, but I feel like people were pretty justified in getting pissed at you. Not as pissed as they got, but... like, if your position is or implies that all people who claim to be religious and left-wing are deluded, or idiots, or not really religious, or not really left-wing, how the fuck do you think they're going to respond to that? How are you going to expect people to respond politely when you express a bunch of impolite views in an impolite way?

I don't know. I feel bad for bringing it up. But, like, the fact that the harassers were full of shit doesn't make your views justified either.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[dethtoll]

sigh

You're not even remembering it correctly. Okay, so, yes, I did say that "Christian liberal" is an oxymoron, and I did say that anyone who supports gay marriage (for example) is by definition not Christian, or at the very least not adhering to doctrine, as explained in the Bible itself (Deut. 12:32 and 2 Peter 1:20 were the relevant verses.) Also some stuff about how for Christianity to work in the modern day its believers have to do some serious mental gymnastics to get out of having to follow the entire Bible (which is full of self-contradictions anyway) so they don't get fucking arrested. Is that a bit inflammatory? Sure. I'm not a moron, I know full well my views are a bit extremist. But I did not use insulting, combative language like calling anyone idiots or implying that they were deluded. I said what I believed -- that Christianity and progressivism are antithetical to each other. Who the fuck are you to tell me I'm not justified in my beliefs just because that ruffled a few feathers?

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry if I was actually misremembering it! I seemed to recall it being a lot more... vitriolic. May be confusing it with some other occasion.

That said, I think you're justified in believing whatever you want to believe. But at the same time, I think if your view is that you're going to believe what you want to believe and not give a damn if it ruffles some feathers, you can't really complain that much if people yell at you for ruffling their feathers. Not the harassment obviously, that's beyond the pale, but if you say you don't care about believing something unpopular, you can't really complain about it being unpopular.

I also think you're wrong in principle, in that I think pretty much all religions are hugely flexible in practice and can mean incredibly different things in different contexts so it's really hard for me to give credence to the idea that one group or another is not truly representing the essence of the religion. I tend to read that more as just being disagreement about what the religion is, not about one group understanding True Religion and the other group not. But that's not really central to the point about rudeness and all of that kind of thing. I mean, who the hell really cares if I'm right or you're right.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[dethtoll]

My point was that yes, I knew my view was going to annoy a few people, and yes there was probably going to be an argument in that particular thread.

Because I am not a fucking idiot.

I came in fully prepared for an argument. What I didn't prepare for was NINE FUCKING MONTHS OF HARASSMENT. My reluctance to say anything in this thread was not because I was afraid of an argument, I was afraid of NINE MORE FUCKING MONTHS OF HARASSMENT.

If I sound like I'm a little peeved with you, it's because I am.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, and as I've said, the harassment's clearly wrong and anyone who does it is a shithead.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[sarillia]

I have to say, I've had more atheists tell me I'm not a real Christian than even the most fundamentalist of Christians. I don't really understand it. I don't see why following all the rules is a distinguishing feature. I'm an American no matter how many of the laws of this country I break. And I'm a Christian because I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. You could argue that I'm a bad one but I still am one.

I'm not offended by this, I just really don't understand why people looking in on the outside of religions find every single rule to be such an essential part of the definition. I have Jewish friends who have the same problems with non-Jews getting on their case for not keeping kosher.

Plus I agree that the bible is contradictory. But that makes it impossible to follow all the rules. Wouldn't that mean that no one is a Real Christian if we're going by these rules? I just don't see the point in defining it that way.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Anon from below.

It's not about being a good one or a bad one, it's more about picking and choosing. American is not a good analogy because it's a legal status and not something one has to opt into being. Would you call a feminist who claims to be for gender equality but opts to think trans people are mentally ill or ignore black women or rage against random men "a true feminist, just a bad one"? She's still for gender equality, though!

At some point, you have to say "you don't fit any more," and following the respective Book is one of the core tenets of lots of theist religions.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[dethtoll]

I kind of do feel that way, yeah. It's impossible to be a Christian as described in the Bible, but if the Bible is supposed to be the blueprint for Christianity, the guidebook, or any other of the zillion platitudes I've heard used to describe it, then why is it essentially impossible to follow on a legal, moral and logical level? And of course, you could argue that it's up for interpretation but the Bible itself says it's not up for interpretation -- but interpretation is the only way to make it work. Let alone deciding whether some or all of it is up for interpretation, or even which parts.

I was a Christian for years and went to Catholic school and even then I wondered why after 2000+ years nobody's successfully straightened this mess out.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[diet_poison]

And I'm a Christian because I'm a follower of Jesus Christ.

^^^^^^^^^

Jesus =/= the Bible, the Bible was compiled long after Jesus' time on Earth and hearing people who are religious claim that you have to follow the whole Bible to fit the definition of "Christian" is annoying enough.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I don't even find this view particularly extreme. I know several people who hold it, and it's not a matter of religious people being evil so much as thinking most religious people are not actually following the book they claim to follow.

The argument would say that to be a Christian, you have to follow the actual Bible. To be a Muslim, you have to follow the actual Quran. And so on. If you do not do these things, you aren't actually following the religion you claim to be following. Unfortunately the books themselves have some awful outdated ridiculous bullshit in them, but you can't pick and choose which parts to follow and which parts not to follow while at the same time saying you follow the book and calling yourself the relevant religious label for it. If you "interpret" the book any which way you please while ignoring whatever you want to ignore, the religion and the religious label ceases to have any meaning, kind of like the term hipster.

TL;DR: people who claim to be theists aren't horrible, they're just not actually the theists they claim to be. if they were the theists they claim to be who followed the rules of the religion they claim to follow, they would be horrible because the books contain horrible things

Re: Since it's Sunday

[dethtoll]

Yes, this, exactly. Nail meet hammer.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

There's literally no good reason to insist on a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible. And even if you did want to insist on it, you can still make pretty legitimate arguments in favor or against most of the moral positions you want to talk about (particularly if you want to start arguing for the New Testament as superseding the Old, and if you want to start throwing shade on Paul). They're complicated, old books that were composed in a variety of languages and times and circumstances. You can't just assert that you have to take everything at precise face value. That's one specific interpretative method, not intrinsically more valid than any other.

The problem that I have with this argument is that it's almost like insisting that all theists act like idiots. I see no reason to do so.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[sarillia]

I never even considered that people were taking living by the book as the defining characteristic of being of a particular religion. That seems weird to me considering how recent the advent of mass-produced books is and how many religions in world history have never had books like the bible or the quran.

To me, if you believe in the god(s) that are central to the religion, then you are of that religion. Or if it's a religion/belief system with no gods, then it's based on the central tenants and not the smaller details that have led to arguments and schisms throughout history.

What about different translations of the bible? Two people end up taking different instructions from the same text. Which one is the Real Christian? I'm guessing in this view, they're both Christians since they're both trying to follow the rules? But then what about other kinds of different interpretations that look at the text metaphorically or take context into account in a way that other people don't? Does that still count as following the rules? Because that's what a lot of the people who are accused of picking and choosing are doing. I'm assuming some of them are Real Christians and some of them are not.

I've made peace with people thinking I'm not a Real Christian and I readily admit to picking and choosing (I care most about the things that are attributed to Jesus directly), but I really would like to understand the atheists who insist on telling me I'm not a Christian.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[otakugal15]

Hear hear!! And that anon should not have pressed you for info cause now you WILL be dogpiled and harrassed and they should feel ashamed.

When aomeone doesn’t wanna elaborate, anon, FUCK. OFF. TAKE THE GODDAMN HINT.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

I know, right? Why, just look at all the posts in this subthread! I'm sure there must be some pretty brutal shit up there that you're reacting to

*scrolls up*

*a million posts of civil discussion about religion and / or joking around about comic books*

hey wai-

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

"I also reject the idea of religion and left-wing politics being compatible"

(da)

the quakers tho

Re: Since it's Sunday

[diet_poison]

I love you for bringing up the Quakers <3

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Lots of things really. He's like a lot of people in that he thinks Christianity = All Religion.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[dethtoll]

I don't.

You're welcome.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

but like

even if you did

the quakers are christian

so how does that even make sense

???

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

But you think all religion is compatible with left-wing views, even though not every religion is, and your argument is "because the Bible says these things."