[ 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)]

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

[(Anonymous)]

You made a choice to respond to the thread, and you made a choice to respond to the anon asking you for more information. It's ridiculous for you to get peeved at them when instead of staying out of it, you chose to get into it. It would've been very easy for you to just skip the thread altogether, but instead you decided to get involved, and now you're acting like someone else twisted your arm.

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

[sarillia]

Yeah I knew American was a bad analogy but I'm too tired to think of a good one.

Actually I do think a feminist like that is still a feminist. There's a long tradition of racism and transphobia and other nasty things in influential feminist writing and activity. I don't want to associate with them but they are feminists.

I know there's a point where someone just doesn't fit a definition anymore, but before that often comes the No True Scotsman Argument.

I still don't see how I can be called anything other than a Christian when my god is the person that the religion is named for. What do you propose I call myself instead if I'm breaking too many of the rules Paul and the others laid down? I still wonder if there's even such a thing as a Real Christian under this definition when there are so many little rules that only smaller sects follow, like women covering their hair when they pray.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

The problem is that there's so much complexity in the interpretations of the various Books - and so much validity on most sides of the argument - that it's extremely difficult for me to say which interpretations fundamentally are and are not valid, especially as someone outside of the religion. How are you going to say which symbolic readings and which textual variants are and aren't valid?

Certainly, there are probably some people for whom it's true that they don't really care about the tenets. But there's also a lot of justificatory arguments on all sides of most of these questions, and I at least don't see the need to be an arbiter there.

Like, just because someone has to make an argument for a reading or a position, that doesn't mean it's a stretch. I think there's a lot of care and thought in those arguments (at least, when those arguments are at their best) which this line of thought tends to skim over.

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

[sarillia]

I can't speak for people who consider the bible a blueprint or whatever. I don't feel that way. The bible was compiled by humans who were influenced by cultural context and the limits of the human mind. I take what feels true to me and pray on it and that's enough for me.

Someday I would like to really study the bible though. I've read English translations, but I'd love to read what's survived of the original text since there's so much politics in why certain things got translated the way they did.

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

[sarillia]

I think I'm finally starting to understand that while this is what I mean when I say I'm a Christian, other people hear it and primarily understand it as "I'm a follower of the Christian bible". I don't think it makes sense to base it on the bible considering its history and the history of literacy, but at least now it makes sense that people would consider that such an important part of the definition.

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)]

AYRT

It's not just anti-theists anyway. I know this logic is also used by religious people because my family members are like that on the opposite end. To them a true Christian has to follow the Bible which means that to be a true believer you have to think shit like "gay/bi/trans people are unnatural and sinners" and "sex before marriage is a sin and wrong" and "not going to church every single Sunday is a sin and something to guilt over" and if you don't, you're not a True Believer (tm).

While I hate it and completely disagree with their stances, I can respect from a non-moral perspective that they're at least sticking to the book they say they believe in.

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

[(Anonymous)]

I think they insist on a literal interpretation of the holy books because so many self-identified religious people have historically and are currently using literal interpretations of the holy books to target people like them (e.g. gay people). In majority-Muslim countries even more so. So it's a matter of turnabout being fair play, I guess.

These aren't only Christian friends, anyway. I can't really tell you what their thoughts on Paul are.

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

[(Anonymous)]

You're American, right? I can tell you for sure that a whole lot of countries out there like to take the Quran at its word and a whole lot of horrible shit has happened because of it.

I'm not sure how to address this argument because you're arguing from a very narrow Christian perspective against a stance that's anti-theist which is more broad. I'll ask the anti-theist people I know if I remember to.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Same anon.

I'm reasonably confident though that there's a difference between an individual identifying and whole groups or countries identifying. You identifying as a Christian but not following the book to the letter doesn't hurt anyone as far as I know. Usually the people that get this argument tossed at them are the groups already claiming to be the True Whatevers of God and using the letter of the holy book to oppress others while ignoring what they want so it's more retaliatory than aggressive.

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

[otakugal15]

Doesn't mean so asshole anon, like you maybe, won't start harrassing him later.

Piss off you shitstain. Fuck.