fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3035 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

AYRT

I'm not sure, as I don't subscribe to either side. I'm trying to explain it as I've heard friends who do subscribe to the anti-theist side explain it.

Would you call someone "Christian" who claims they follow Christ but believes nothing of the Bible and thinks the whole thing is a load of bull? Or would you say following the holy book is a core tenet of being a Christian that can't be ignored?

but the question of "What the Holy Book says and what that means" is by no means something that can be taken as a given!!!

Then what's the point? If your own religion is self-contradictory and requires interpretation to function and nothing can be taken as a given, then why even follow it?

I guess that explains all the schisms and sects, though.

Well, there are a million reasons, I suppose, but I would imagine the most basic is because you think it's true.

All of it? Even the parts that contradict itself?

And people tell me comic books are hard to understand!

Especially the parts that contradict themselves.

The comparison between comic books and religion isn't bad, really

I guess the difference is I don't believe Superman is real and Marvel and DC fans have never waged holy war on each other.

Well, I can't deny there have been times I've wanted to wage holy war because of comics from time to time...

I'd be okay if we just hung Dan Didio and Joe Quesada from a cross.

Finally! A compromise everyone can get behind.

Except Didio and Quesada I guess.

I think it doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a Christian but somehow "isn't really". I don't see what I get out of calling someone fake or whatever. I think it's up to Jesus to decide who is a Christian and who isn't.

To answer your particular example, I actually know people who call themselves Christian but see the whole thing as a metaphor and don't believe a single bit of it is literal truth. I have no problem calling them Christians since they feel that colors their actions and world view enough for them to take on that label.

I think the holy book has to not be mandatory since people couldn't read it for so long. I doubt people before the invention of the printing press and widespread education were hearing every single rule from their local priests or ministers.

But the way I see it is that it comes down to how good a person you are. People who try to follow everything in the Bible often make a really bad impression on me--it seems like they care more about the letter of the rules than the spirit. People who just try to follow general Christian values like mercy and charity often seem a lot nicer to me.

(I have the same attitude towards strict and lax Wiccans, but that's another shitstorm.)

My personal judgment of a person would depend entirely on how good of a person they were regardless of religiosity, I agree.

I don't think "how good a person you are" is in any way related to "how religious a person you are" or "how true of a Christian/Muslim/Wiccan/other" you are, though.

I definitely think that's the more important thing. I keep wondering why people even care if someone fits their definition of a religion they don't follow. But then that's pretty hypocritical of me since I think about all kinds of things that people could say don't really matter.

[ SECRET POST #3035 ]

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Total outsider perspective here . . .

Re: Total outsider perspective here . . .

Re: Total outsider perspective here . . .