[ SECRET POST #2444 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2444 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 021 secrets from Secret Submission Post #349.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's no more or less ridiculous than any other religion.

Not trying to start wank, but it really irritates me when people are irrationally selective about which beliefs they consider mockable.

[(Anonymous)]

da

Doesn't that technically make paganism "no more or less ridiculous" than godspouses, which godspouses consider a religion?

[(Anonymous)]

Is this whole "godspouses" business a religion, as far as the people who believe in it are concerned?

Even then, there are some actual organized religions out there with millions of adherents, that have some profoundly wacky beliefs. So I'm not sure that believing you're married to Snape Loki on the astral plane is that much weirder than certain organized religions that I could name (but won't, because I genuinely don't want to start wank).

[(Anonymous)]

I think they do consider it a religion if they believe the spouse is a god. I mean the whole god thing is a given...

[(Anonymous)]

Don't Catholic priests take the church as their wives? Really don't know.

[(Anonymous)]

And the church is religious, isn't it?

The point is, if you're going to say every single religion is no more or less ridiculous than any other, you can't disallow something from being a religion because it's too ridiculous for you.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, my first thought was the whole "Bride of Christ" thing with nuns. HOMG GODSPOUSES

[(Anonymous)]

I so so want to see someone call them lazy nuns now.

[(Anonymous)]

Older Than You Think (TM), haha.

[feotakahari]

This is against my better judgment, but I'm kind of in a bad mood today, and what better to do with a bad mood than to start a fight?

I don't know about the first poster, but I reserve a special level of mockery for anyone who invents something new, then tries to pretend it's something old. I mean no disrespect to pagans who've actually done the research and are following what's left of the old ways, but a lot of the traditions were permanently lost thanks to the Christians, and many of the attempts to "fill in the gaps" seem awfully convenient, like the gaps are being filled with exactly what the fillers want to go into them so as to justify their behavior. (In some ways, it actually reminds me of the Conservative Bible Project, just on the other end of the political spectrum.)

[(Anonymous)]

Nothing wrong with constructing a new religion around what you feel relevant, just ask Gerald Gardener. Or Joshua bin Joshua al-Nazareth.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

A lot of neopagans are fully aware that they're essentially constructing a new religion loosely based on ancient beliefs, and don't think they're actually practicing the same rituals and devotions that members of ancient civilizations did. Wicca and most other neopagan religions are new religions, not old ones, and the practitioners who understand and acknowledge that are not, imo, deserving of mockery. Every religion was "new" at one point. Unless you want to mock all religions, which is a different discussion.

[(Anonymous)]

Why does something being old make it more legitimate? Why is an old religion more believable than a new one?

Is it the fact that more people believe/have believed in it the deciding factor? Because something believed by many != truth. Every religion started somewhere. They were all new at some point in history. So why do some deserve mockery, and not others?

[(Anonymous)]

da--I'm an agnostic or atheist depending on my mood/level of pessimism etc, but for me it's not the people making up new religions, based on old traditions or not, who are annoying. Their beliefs might be obnoxious but not more so because they're new. The people who bug me are the ones claiming that they 'follow the old ways' or that they've discovered some ancient religion and are going to revive its practice or whatever. Short of acquiring a time machine, there's no way to know how accurate their conjectures are. I figure it's like a Renaissance fair--some people do tons of research and try and be as period accurate as possible and some people show up in polyester wench outfits. But no matter how much research anyone does, they don't know for certain what life was like then. Same goes for religion.

[(Anonymous)]

You Are Sheldon Cooper and I Claim My $5.

[arcadiaego]

then tries to pretend it's something old.

No serious pagans think this, not in the simplistic way you're putting it anyway. Why would anyone worship something that only existed in the past anyway?

and many of the attempts to "fill in the gaps" seem awfully convenient, like the gaps are being filled with exactly what the fillers want to go into them

And this is different to people chucking out bits of the Bible they didn't like 1000 years ago how exactly?