#i am not christian and my opinions are not influenced by christian morality

[pommedepersephone]

You Say Potato, I Say Excellent! Or blocking, dialogue and legacy of morality tales in ‘The Resurrectionists’ minisode PART I

Alternate title: how Aziraphale’s naivety in this episode was supposed to make you a bit outraged

I have to shout out to @bowtiepastabitch for their AMAZING historical analysis of this minisode - it prompted me to finish this long ramble that has been drifting in my notes. Anyway, I have a major obsession with the ways blocking and dialogue interplay in Good Omens - you can check out my analysis of the blocking in the flashbacks in S1. But The Resurrectionists is really something special. This got so long I am splitting it into two parts. See Part II here!

I should start with three important caveats that brought me to this analysis -

If we accept that S1 is narrated by God, then I propose that S2 is being told from the viewpoint of our Ineffable Man Shaped Beings - and they are NOT reliable narrators.

All three minisodes share a feeling of being… stories. They feel like a slightly exaggerated version they might be told between two old friends sitting in the back room of a bookshop, soused off wine and whisky. Like a journal entry that you don’t actually expect outsiders to see.

All three minisodes have some relation, in style and structure, to film and literature. I'm focusing on the lit aspect here. A Companion to Owls is very illustrated bible. Nazi Zombies from Hell is a pulp fiction master class. So what is The Resurrectionists? A morality tale.

My first thought when we opened on the romantic graveyard date in Edinburgh was “OH it’s like a penny dreadful!” but it didn’t take me long to reassess. Morality tales are a genre of children’s literature that was extremely popular in the early 1800s where the minisode is taking place. But THIS morality tale itself is a more nuanced version of these stories, more along the lines of what an author important in the Good Omens universe would pen. So, first, a little bit of history behind morality tales and a very important author to know, then we get to the blocking and dialogue!

Morality Tales for Children

There had long been differing views in European circles of thought about the nature of children - were they born innately tainted by Original Sin, or were they born as blank slates? In the late 1700s to early 1800s, the view of the blank slate was winning with the help of highly influential educators like Friedrich Froebel (who coined the term kindergarten and emphasized the importance of play in learning.) 

At this same time, there was a rise in literature produced specifically for children. One of the most popular children’s genres? The morality tale. These stories showed Good triumphing over Evil and the importance of leading a respectable, Christian life. The stories were extremely binary, black and white in their presentation of morality, something which deeply influenced many authors who were raised reading them. Authors like G.K. Chesterton.

G.K. Chesterton 

Over his career, Chesterton wrote several plays, 80 books, 200 short stories, 4,000 essays, and several hundred poems. He’s an interesting guy, but suffice to say for our purposes - he was deeply Christian, and his work contains a lot of religious themes and symbolism which he used to write serious commentary on politics, economics and philosophy. If you haven’t read the book, you should know that it the dedication reads thus: 

The authors would like to join the demon Crowley in dedicating this book to the memory of G.K. Chesterton. 

In fact, Crowley says in the book that Chesterton was “The only poet in the twentieth century to even come close to the Truth." So it is probably relevant that Chesterton had opinions about children’s morality tales. He once wrote -

Many people have wondered why it is that children's stories are so full of moralizing. The reason is perfectly simple: it is that children like moralizing more than anything else, and eat it up as if it were so much jam. The reason why we, who are grown up, dislike moralizing is equally clear: it is that we have discovered how much perversion and hypocrisy can be mixed with it; we have grown to dislike morality not because morality is moral, but because morality is so often immoral. But the child has never seen the virtues twisted into vices; the child does not know that men are not only bad from good motives, but also often good from bad motives. The child does not know that whereas the Jesuit may do evil that good may come, the man of the world often does good that evil may come.

In summary, we know that children’s morality tales were supposed to teach important lessons about Good and Evil. We also know that later authors like G.K. Chesterton were aware of this genre and it influenced their writing (which in turn informs the Good Omens universe). So why pick this framework for this minisode? Because it is FRUSTRATING to watch, on purpose. We are meant to be annoyed with how Good has so little relation to right, to see how complicated doing real good can be, and it lays out a strong case for the complete inadequacy of black and white world views - and not just religious ones.

So (grabs gloves and a knife) let’s dissect the blocking and dialogue, shall we?

Part II: Blocking and Dialogue

#good omens #good omens meta #the resurrectionists #just theatre kid things #history is my jam #look the blocking has me feeling things #shades of gray

[the-crow-binary]

Im quite curious about your opinion on the portrayal of the french revolution; I know it was a super complicated political moment with multiple fronts from the commoners wanting better life conditions, the bourgeoisie wanting to get the nobility out of the way (which it's part as to why it cant be directly translated into 21'st century american capitalism analogy 🙄), how multiple nobles supported the revolution for moral values despite going against their families interests (bc social class influences but doesnt instantly determines your morals) and that many revolutionary groups supported the independence of Haití (heck, many members of my countries independence participated and almost got beheaded in the resulting mess. And ad hundred and something years later France would try to invade us lol). What im trying to say behind my ramble here (sorry for that lol) its that im sure nfcv made it a slavery bad black ppl vs white ppl american dilemma without getting into the complexity of it and i say this as a foreigner with basic history knowledge, so i do wanna see your take on it

Which portrayal of the French Revolution? 🙃

I swear this very important Historical event that affected not just France but all of continental Europe and is considered as one of the world's biggest events was just used as background for the characters to fight and be racist. The characters keep throwing around the word "revolution" from all sides, but we don't see shit. Maria gives context in the first episode (there's a revolution, they overthrown the monarchy and declared a republic, they arrested the king...), talking to a group of revolutionaries, and from then on the story could've literally taken place in an imaginary country with imaginary politics it would've been the same.

Oh, what am I saying, there IS one thing. Our motto. 🙃"Liberty, equality, fraternity" 🙃 Yeah it has been thrown here and there... Except that it wasn't our official motto yet. We had the notion of liberty and equality, sometimes fraternity, and it was in the middle of other words such as "friendship", "sincerity", "charity" and "union". There is some people and even some books who used this motto but it was abandoned then taken back later... Just this is a mess lmao but the point is. I cringed everytime the characters screamed "Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!". And while we're on the subject, Richter, at some point, meets three girls during a festival (I suspect one of the girls to be Marianne, who wasn't a real person but the symbol of Liberty) talking about dressing up as Liberty and Equality and Fraternity. And Richter, thinking he is so smart, say that you need to be a man to dress up as Fraternity, because it means "brotherhood" (and the girls go "sisternity then" and don't correct him). Oh, and the writers clearly thought it was very clever too, since later on Annette's teacher (and even the Messiah I think??) will ALSO talk about the motto, saying "liberty, equality, brotherhood". IT DOESN'T MEAN "BROTHERHOOD". I MEAN IT CAN. BUT IN THIS CASE IT MEANS "FRATERNITY". IT'S A TERM TO TALK ABOUT A BOND EXISTING BETWEEN PEOPLE CONSIDERED AS MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. AKA IT CONCERNS EVERYONE. YOU ARE NOT CLEVER, AMERICAN WRITERS.

Also I thought a fucking festival at a time like that where people dress up at the concepts of our not-exactly-official-motto-yet was stupid, and it is. There was no such festival, however, we did have the "cult of the reason". To put it simply: it was a serie of events and civic holidays wich were organized by a group of atheists. In it there WAS an event called "Fete of the Reason"... Where one ACTOR dressed up as Liberty. It was NOT multiple people representing liberty, equality or fraternity.

The fun fact is, the French Revolution was a pretty good occasion for NFCV to promote it's CHURCH BAD mentality. We were taking away the church's power, more people became atheists, anti-christian vandalism and blasphemy was actually encouraged, it was a mess. Paris even ordered to shut down churches at some point, wich did not happen in the end. So yeah, this precise moment, right before the Vendée War, was perfect for the church-haters those writers are. And it ended up just being as bad as the original show, without any nuance... Ok there might be a little bit of nuance because of Mizrak, a guy who served the church and in the end actually team up with Richter and the gang, and it looks like he's there to stay. Emmanuel (the abbott) tries to be complex, but in the end, he is still a God-obsessed man that makes terrible decisions and is not a good representation for the church. So okay, it might be a BIT better than the original show thanks to Mizrak, but it's not saying much.

Another thing. Only the main characters are shown to have a dislike for the church. We don't see ANY of the french people doing anything against the church (but we do hear the church complaining about the revolutionaries, tell don't show y'know), not even talk about it. It's mostly jokes about how haha priests are sexual predators/they can't keep it in their pants (with the occasional "it exploits the people and take their money" line, and by occasionnal I mean once). There IS a few shades thrown at God here and there, honestly I didn't bother remembering the exact lines because they are so cliché and really not that deep. I think Maria is the one complaining the most.

What angers me the most is the lack of ANY ACTION FROM THE FRENCH PEOPLE. It's like nothing is actually happening except vampire killing people and vampire hunting (wich begs the question: WHY bother making it happen during the FRENCH REVOLUTION?). Nocturne literally made the french people the side (oh what am I saying, the BACKGROUND) characters in their OWN REVOLUTION. AND ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS. WHAT THE FUCK. Maria is supposed to be a revolutionary leader but she doesn't lead anyone. We never see anyone do anything outside of the main characters. The french are literal planks, except from those three girls from the festival and villains, they don't even have a voice. At some point the vampire Messiah arrives in town, in plain view, and people are like "OUR SAVIOR IS HERE! OUR DELIVERER!" and I thought the people shouting were vampires, but no, there is humans TOO. ALL TOGETHER. And you have no idea how much I hate that they basically portray the french people as not doing shit and needing someone else to save them 🙃 To do things for them 🙃 And also. That that someone else is not even french themself. 🙃 Even without the Messiah... the revolutionaries we saw were led by Richter (romanian/american/british idk at this point), Annette (Haitian, even if Saint-Domingue was owned by France at the time), Tera (Russian) and, of course, Maria, who's both Russian and French, at least. Those four were doing most of the work while the french people were in their houses cooking baguettes, I guess. And by "work" I mean fighting vampires and night creatures, there was nothing done about the Revolution. Almost like there is NO REASON TO MAKE A CV SHOW ABOUT THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

Oh and I just HAVE to talk to you about Saint-Domingue, and the BLACK PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED theme going on with Annette. And that's when I'll have to take out this magnificent dialogue again:

"Even these french with their high ideas, what do they know about we've suffered? And what do they care? They're building new world, but it won't be freedom, or equality or brotherhood for US"

This is said by Annette's teacher. Worth to note that before that, in episode 3, she also shat on the French revolution and our motto. Basically, the show portray the French Revolution as being one thing and the slaves in Saint-Domingue having their own other revolution. And not just that, it implies that the French did not care about slaves, and that they do not know what suffering is (yeah, people just start revolutions because they feel like it y'know 🙃). And the anti-white dialogues are portrayed as normal and are even applauded, btw. And it is BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLSHIT. MY FUCKING GOD. OH THIS SHOW MAKE ME SO ANGRY.

First off: Only the colonies were pro-slavery. The french pretty much weren't. A "Society of friends of black people" was even created in France in 1788 to fight for the abolition of slavery. People fought for black people's rights during the French Revolution. Books written by black people to join the fight came out. The French Revolution scared the colonies who were very against losing their slaves and it led to Haiti's own revolution (slaves rebelling, killing their owners, burning the plantations... Nocturne at least got that part right). So both revolutions are very closely linked and the slaves might not have rebelled at this point if it wasn't for the French Revolution threatening Saint-Domingue's economics and creating social upheavals.

And what does those shitty american writers remember? BLACK PEOPLE OPPRESSED. BLACK PEOPLE SUFFERED SO MUCH MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE. LOOK AT THESE POOR BLACK PEOPLE. WHITE PEOPLE ARE SO POWERFUL. THE FRENCH ARE UNGRATEFUL ACTUALLY. BLACK CHARACTER IS RIGHT TO SHIT ON THE WHITE FRENCH WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM.

FUCK.

Oh, and I mentioned the Vendée War earlier... So, fun fact, during the revolution, we have what we call "la Terreur". It's a pretty gruesome period of time during the Revolution that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people. La Terreur happened from 1793 to 1794. So one year after this first season of Nocturne. 🙃 I'm just saying. It wouldn't surprise me if they used this for season 2. 🙃(I literally do not trust them)

And the vampires... Look the vampires have their own can of worms that I'm not motivated enough to open. I'll just say that, of course, in classic NFCV fashion, the message the show is trying to pass is not subtle at all. They're just evil. All of them. All of the french nobles. Evil evil EVIL EVIL!! NUANCE AND COMPLEXITY ARE FOR PUSSIES.

Also the count of Vaublanc? Annette's ex-owner? This guy existed. And he never owned slaves. He was pretty pro-royalty, at some point he voted against slavery, then later voted in favor of it... but he did not own slaves. But honestly I don't care about that guy much, I just wanted to show that NFCV really doesn't care about nuance. Everything has to be black or white (lol) and that's why we have no human nobility in Nocturne.

Urgh. UUUUUURGH. I SWEAR WATCHING THIS SHOW WAS A PAIN AND THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT THE MORE PAINFUL IT BECOMES. THERE IS SO MUCH GOING ON IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NFCV IS DOING JACKSHIT WITH IT. I MEAN IT'S SO MUCH FUNNIER TO SHIT ON THE BELMONT CLAN AND SHOW TIDDIES TO MAKE THE FANS HORNY.

So, my opinion on the portrayal of the French Revolution: CREATE YOUR OWN FICTIONAL REVOLUTION NEXT TIME AND LEAVE THE HISTORY OF MY COUNTRY ALONE.

#i'm sorry this show just makes me so ANGRY #FOR SO MANY REASONS #i bet i could find more things to say but i really wanna stop thinking about this shit for now #castlevania nocturne #anti netflixvania

[gay-otlc]

Hello I'm tired as shit but the Disk Horse is stressing me out so I am going to make a post about it. Cultural Christianity. Let's fucking go. Fair warning this is very long and rambly but whatever.

For context I am an atheist(?) Jew.

I can honestly see both sides of the argument. I definitely see how some people might abuse the term to invalidate atheists' struggles. On the other hand, it's a useful term to describe the way many (not all! not even a majority!) atheists still carry harmful beliefs from their Christian upbringing, which often results in bigotry towards non-Christian religions.

Also, I've seen a few too many posts criticizing the term that end up just criticizing Jews for me to be entirely comfortable hearing "'Culturally Christian' is a bad term and anyone who uses it is bad!"

I don't really think "culturally Christian" should be applied to an individual solely based on the fact that they're an atheist who wasn't raised with a different religion. Definitely not as a "gotcha" or like they have an irredeemable moral failing. But I don't think it's bigoted to tell an atheist "Hey, this comment you made was insensitive and likely influenced by your Christian upbringing, perhaps you should educate yourself more on this."

For example, someone in my class told me he thought religion was stupid because it teaches people to unquestioningly believe in something. As a Jew who went to Hebrew school and was allowed- sometimes even encouraged- to question my beliefs from at least as young as eight or nine (possibly before, I just can't remember), that was laughably false.

I told him that wasn't true, he just thought it was true because Christianity had been his only exposure to religion so far and he saw all other religions as basically identical to it.

I had every right to say that to him. He was an asshole for telling me my religion was stupid, especially considering this conversation started because I mentioned reading Maus.

However, if I told an atheist that no matter how much they educated themself, they would always be a bigoted, watered down version of a Christian? Than I would be the asshole.

I'm not sure cultural Christianity is really the best term, just because of how broad it is. There's no clear, agreed open definition*- some people use it to mean someone who actively believes Christian values minus the god part, some people use it to to mean people who secularly celebrate Christmas, some people use it to mean anyone who was raised Christian, regardless of whether they've unlearned those beliefs. *of course there's no clear agreed upon opinion, it's commonly used by jews and we can't agree on anything ever lmao

And "culture" can include so many things. I generally prefer to pinpoint what aspect of Christian culture I'm talking about rather than just saying "cultural Christianity."

For example, if I'm talking about atheists who were only ever really exposed to Christianity, I might say "atheists who think every religion is basically the same as Christianity," and talk about how this isn't much different from Christians who want other religions to assimilate and want us to be exactly like them or close enough that they can pretend we're exactly like them.

Or if I'm talking about, like, moral purity and sex negativity and whatever, I might say "atheists who otherwise still hold/haven't unlearned Christian beliefs"

Or if I'm talking about aggressive atheists who want everyone else to be atheist too, I might say they copied and pasted Christian proselytizing and just changed a few words. "Everyone must believe in my god (or lack thereof) to be a good person, and everyone who believes in a different god (or lack thereof) is an immoral sinner/bigot."

And I don't think any of those descriptions could be interpreted in good faith as an attack on atheism in general.

"Culturally Christian atheist" just doesn't give a whole lot of specific information on someone's beliefs, what beliefs are harmful, and how they're harmful. Two people might both fit someone's definition of culturally Christian, and be wildly different in how they view religion and the world in general.

My friend has Christian parents and went to church as a kid, has been an atheist for about as long as I've known him, and is really cool about other religions! He's interested in hearing me talk about Judaism and thinks our customs are neat, he just doesn't personally follow any religion. And I have another friend with Christian parents who went to church as a kid who makes "sky daddy" jokes and mocks the idea of prayer.

Both of these friends would qualify as culturally Christian, but it wouldn't make much sense to lump them together when describing how their beliefs affect minority religions.

Not every single religious person has to specify the exact type of culturally Christian atheist they're referring to every time they mention the topic. It functions to get the point across, and I don't see a problem with someone complaining to a friend saying "I hate it when I meet queer people and all the culturally Christian atheists hate me for being an observant Jew." But in a more serious discussion, I think addressing the specific issue is more helpful than just saying "cultural Christianity."

And if the specific issue is that you think someone is inherently bad for being atheist, or for being non-[insert your religion here], you're being a dick. Don't use "culturally Christian" if that's the only thing they've done wrong.

Also. I know this discourse has been around for a while but it seems to have really exploded today (technically yesterday in my timezone. January 27. Whatever) and it's kinda shitty that there are so many people attacking this term, often used by Jews to talk about antisemitism, on Holocaust Remembrance Day. The timing kinda pisses me off idk.

These are my thoughts. I'm open to hearing other people's thoughts but refrain from being an asshole.

#cultural christianity #discourse #jew crew #jumblr #god i spent forever writing this. i am still tired as shit #i hate anxiety brain i would not be able to stop thinking about this if i didn't make the post

[psychological-musings]

On the topic of Thought Crimes, Plurality, and Purity

[TLDR/summary at bottom]

I am a system of two people, divided into five alters, and uncountably many personalities. I consider myself plural, but am not sure if I would medically qualify as having DID— nor do I really care for a formal diagnosis.

I was raised in Christian and Christianity-influenced circles which placed a strong value on being morally upstanding and, in other words, "pure". The definition for how to be "pure", of course, varied by group, and sometimes was impossible to meet (possibly by design).

For example, one group (radical feminists, though they only identified as feminist) defined purity by gender, or proximity to those gender's conventional roles— femininity and female identity was "pure", while masculinity and male identity was "sinful", and something that could never be washed away. Internalizing this culture caused us a lot of long term psychological damage that we are still working on repairing today.

As a result, I find a lot of "proship" rhetoric, which dismantles this kind of purity culture, reassuring— the idea that metrics of "purity" which are not based on actual, real people's comfort and safety are essentially meaningless.

But one thing that I was never able to be comfortable with was the assurance that "thought crimes are not real/cannot be bad". I understood and appreciated the sentiment, but it never really felt right to me. After a recent altercation between my alters, I was finally able to pin down why— the idea that "thought crimes" are morally acceptable relies on the assumption that thoughts alone are not able to affect any other person. And, in my case, as a system, this assumption is false, because my thoughts can be heard by another, real, independent person.

So, functionally, "thought crimes aren't wrong because they can't affect anyone" is about the same as saying "things you say out loud in your own house can't hurt anyone, because no one can ever visit people at their own homes". It would be true if the assumptions were, but there is a small disconnect because it fails to account for a particular variety of the human experience.

I don't mean to nitpick— this is just my autistic need for precision speaking. And, specifically, I think a lot of people who identify as "antiship" are upset about this lack of precision, too. It seems like a conversation in which one side says "this is okay, because it cannot hurt anyone" and the other replies resentfully, "you have failed to account for the ways in which it could hurt someone".

So, for those who feel similar to myself, and need a way to distance themselves from purity culture without feeling like you are accidentally condoning things that genuinely hurt people, I propose the following ideal instead:

"A person's existence, emotional responses, identities, experiences, inclinations, desires, fears, distastes and dislikes, bodily functions (or lack thereof), neurotype, attractions, repulsions— in general, anything that they cannot remove or control, only mask or express differently— none of these things can ever be a source of moral error, because they cannot inherently, directly, cause harm to another person."

To be precise about my revised opinion on thought crimes— it is possible, if a bit of a special case, to hurt someone with your thoughts. Just as it is possible to hurt an external party by voicing an opinion aloud (typically after they have expressed a boundary about not wanting to hear it), it is possible to hurt an internal party with thoughts alone. In my opinion, thoughts are something that is often very difficult to control (one of my alters often struggles with intrusive thoughts, even)— so it would feel somewhat cruel to me to make an alter repent or feel guilty for their thoughts, but it may be healing or comforting to at least ask them to acknowledge that it may be uncomfortable or hurtful to others.

TLDR: The concept of "thought crimes" can be easily complicated by facets of the human experience, such as plurality or trauma. I personally think the best way to conceptualize the moral charge of it would be somewhat like stepping on a friend's foot— simply walking is not something you should constantly have to monitor and feel ashamed of, but perhaps if an instance arises where someone genuinely is hurt by your thoughts, it would be courteous to consider acknowledging that pain, even if it isn't somewhere that anyone else can see. Furthermore, the more precise definition of "thought crimes aren't real" could be something more like "actions which do not impact others cannot possibly cause harm to others, and it can be healthy to take joy in your existence and self expression whenever and wherever it does not harm others", perhaps along with the corollary "if your self expression (including thoughts) does harm someone, a compromise will need to be reached, with the same neutral moral charge of agreeing on what music to play in a living room." In true privacy —something that is very difficult to achieve with plurality, unfortunately— no form of self expression could possibly hurt anyone besides yourself, and therefore any and all self expression which does not create lasting effects (destruction of others' property, for instance) or break established boundaries or agreements (cheating on a partner, for instance) is simply an exertion of your own right to autonomy and agency, and therefore cannot be morally wrong."

#purity culture #proship #antiship #thought crimes #discourse #serious #human rights #morality #my thoughts #important to me #musings.txt #I Sure Hope I Dont Receive Hate Mail For This #These tags are not for reach at all. it's just so that if this DOES get reblogged then people who have the tags blocked can avoid it #well. here goes #AH SHIT FORGOT ONE LAST TAG #internalized christianity

[thegroovywitch]

Hi this isn’t related to classic rock or Led Zeppelin. This is more of a question . What is your opinion on religion? Especially Christianity? I was raised a Christian and recently I am either agnostic or an atheist. Is that bad? I’m not hating on Christian’s it’s just there are many that love to spread fear and force their religion down everyone’s throats. And they always say awful things about the lgbt. They say that we have to repent. Also as to why I have problems being religious is because I am a part of the lgbtq+. And I have been stuck in the closet for a while. I feel like I’m such a bad person because I want to have a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend. I know I shouldn’t care about what people think, but deep down inside I feel like I’m bad because I might be bisexual or a lesbian. I know it’s not a sin to be a part of the lgbtq+ but I sometimes think it is because for so long my relatives and other people I know have always said that the lgbtq+ is evil. It’s awful because they have caused so much hate and they have hurt so many people who are a part of the lgbtq+. I honesty hate religion because it feels like it’s here to control and hurt people who think freely and are trying to be their true selves. I hate seeing my parents and relatives judge gay people and trans people. When gay people and trans people are just trying to be them selves. I wish I can be out the closet and be my true self but I don’t think I will ever be able to.

hi anon! well i'll let you judge yourself, here are two of my favourite books:

from nietzsche's book:

The belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable [...]. Everything that was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it, including the whole European morality, is bound to “collapse”.

from crowley's book:

Man has used the idea of God to dictate his personal conduct, to obtain power over his fellow, to excuse his crimes, and for innumerable other purposes, including that of realizing himself as God. He has used the irrational and unreal conceptions of mathematics to help him in the construction of mechanical devices. He has used his moral force to influence the actions even of wild animals. He has employed poetic genius for political purposes.

this is a very sensitive topic and i know i'm most likely gonna get hate for saying this, but my experience with christianity has always been very complicated. the religion was forced upon me when i was a little child, and i was forced to believe in something i really didn't and couldn't understand as a small kid. they say "get them young and you'll have them forever", right? well that process didn't quite work on me, i quickly grew tired of being thrown by force into a spiritual path that wasn't my own.

i sought new spiritual ways, i read about eastern religion, i read philosophy and that's how i understood where i stand and what i stand for.

being a christian AND a queer person is especially hard, i get you, because that religion (and many of its followers) asks you to betray something as pure and personal as sexuality and feelings of love.

my opinion on religion is simply this: everyone has their own religious path and it's their right to follow it. it's something extremely personal, which has to form throughout a person's life assisted by their own personal choices and beliefs. no one can force a spiritual journey on you, not the government, not your teachers, not your family. it has to come from you.

#i want to make it clear that i have absolutely nothing against christianity #but everyone has a right to be who they want to be and believe what they want to believe #no religion has the power to take this away #ask dee dee

[thethiefandtheairbender]

My homie please don't tell me you tried to equivalate the real life debate and seriousness bof the don't say gay bill to your anti vs. proship bs

Hi, out queer, ace, and trans person here! I also have an honours degree in the study & history of how fiction can influence reality. Let me take you for a walk (and I'll make sure it's short or else you'll pull the "you think I'm reading all that?") I also already know, thanks to looking at your blog, that you’ve decided I - a sex repulsed, ace adult in a relationship with another adult - am a pedophile, so thanks for bringing back the years of harassment I experienced when I was a literal minor but was unwilling to post my age online bc u know, I was a minor who wanted to keep my privacy a mind-whopping... 2.5 years ago. But clearly I’m decrepit and out of touch now. Never change, tumblr.

A lot of current American politics, including the Don't Say Gay bill (and previously the Hayes Code) was derived from puritanical Victorian era leanings and Calvinistic conservative Christianity. This includes: gayness as an identity > an act (trial of Oscar Wilde), idealization of motherhood, and the moral panic surrounding the 'degradation' of the English language that 18-19th century Grammarians were always concerned with (hi Samuel Johnson).

Another thing grammarians and writers have been concerned with since before is what is Okay to be portrayed in art. Plato's The Republic thinks that art is immoral because it may give people unrealistic or unsafe ideas because people are 'unable' to distinguish fiction from reality. He later retracted this, although Aristotle's Poetics was a text where Aristotle disagreed with Plato's prior established opinion.

Re: the past 3000+ years of literary discourse - those who try to restrict the radical aspects of art lose the argument every time, and start it back up 30 years later.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that art has always been very political, as is most things. Fandom, as a pop-junkie transformative spiel, has also been deeply political, particularly for marginalized people.

Fandom nowadays is full of people who believe that, in order to be really sorry about something, someone has to publicly repent per whatever moral standard has been decided to else the congregation - I mean twitter - will publicly shame them for their sin.

Fandom is entrenched in cultural Christianity and the conservative mindsets that come with it. Aphobia in fandom was rampant from 2014-2017; truscum and tucute discourse as well; how prevalent TERF rhetoric can be (women are inherently good, attraction to men is shameful, etc). I've seen all of these things in fandom. All hinge an idea on being able to decode a person's intent (somehow), the rising attachment of morality to genres of entertainment (antis), and how many antis I've seen that are TERFs or Aphobes or guzzling down that rhetoric without even realizing.

Terfs and the Conservative far-right have a long history of working together. Both frame concerns of gay people as pedophiles, being anti sex work (because sex is nasty and a sin), that we must Protect the Children who cannot monitor or make any decisions for themselves at any age. The anti vs pro ship dynamic online is a microism of larger public discussions regarding purity culture - and that includes how queerness is overly sexualized, how queer sex is seen as especially dirty, the "should kink be at pride?" discourse, and issues with respectability politics.

Antis who say we have to harass people to control what exists in fandom to "protect minors" on a moral basis are ideologically adjacent to parents who decry earlier Sex Education for children (which, every time it's implemented, is shown to decrease the amount of abuse children face, not further it). A quick scroll through your blog tells me you're willing to generalize hundreds of people's personal history with CSA because you don't think survivors can 1) vehemently disagree with you or 2) demand disclosure of their personal history to exist online void of that harassment.

Aka to take some tags to the forefront: #like the schools don't want to talk about queerness and are banning books so kids don't get Ideas#and people also don't want 'problematic' fiction in fandom in case kids get Ideas or can't use critical thinking skills#it's not a hard leap to make

It sounds like you're the one who has a problem with reading comprehension and building connections between different kinds of discourse, not me. It's almost like teenagers (queer or otherwise) raised in conservative or culturally Christian homes are more susceptible to puritanical rhetoric, or something... 🤔 (I could also get into just how American the current fandom anti vs pro conflict is, but I think this is long enough, don't you?)

A final note from this article:

Beyond betraying simple art illiteracy, though, these intensely personal, emotional complaints and appeals to public safety have a clear antecedent: religious and conservative opposition to “obscenity.” The centering of individual values and pain, the assumption that a universal moral standard exists which should guide all public or quasi-public art and behavior, and the belief that art can do material harm to both people and culture as a whole unite the two at first apparently disparate groups of angry indie gamers and religious fundamentalists.

The deployment of victimhood as an unimpeachable defense is an old tactic frequently used by hate groups like One Million Moms and its parent organization, the American Family Association, whose rallying cry “think of the children” now echoes through everything from intra-community Gay Pride discourse to the drearily predictable “there’s too much sex on TV” tweets that seem to sweep across the platform on a weekly basis.

#anti purity culture #thanks for asking #sincerely a very tired nb queer english major #wasn't as short as i wanted but like #had to approach a certain level of incompetence with a direct read

[guns-n-jovi]

Slash, sweet tea (bcs you’re southern), Star Wars, curiosity, Jesus, 80s rock music (but definitely NOT 90s music), bananas. 🖤

Ooh! I'm going to give some commentary on all these, if you don't care.

Slash- Heck yes! He's only the literal love of my life at this point. Him and Jon Bon Jovi, although I do prefer Jon. I don't know, actually. They're almost both on the same level for me, but they don't look the same at all! Jon is more handsome and cute (he somehow is both, it's crazy) whereas Slash is just on an otherworldly level of HOT. 🥵. But yes, I love my Slash very much. He's my man, that's for sure.

Sweet tea- Shells, you're going to kill me, oh my gosh. I don't actually like sweet tea that much. I'm really just not a tea person. I explained to you a while back that there's only two kinds of tea I like. But hey, it's fine! I am southern, you're right, so I don't mind being associated with sweet tea.

Star Wars- YES! I love Star Wars with all that I am. My favorites, however, were the original trilogy and the Mandalorian. My gosh, I can quote all three of the original movies word for word. I was diehard obsessed for like three years, and I still love them so much. The Mandalorian is my all-time favorite series. It is EPIC.

Curiosity- Definitely. I'm always wanting to know everything- what's going on, what people think about certain things, etc. I was one of those little kids who asked, "Why?" every other breath when I was little. I've always been curious.

Jesus- Thank you so much! My wonderful Savior ❤. I try to use tumblr, and whichever other platform I can to be a light and positive influence for Him 💕. (Just so all my mutuals know- I am Christian, but I still respect everyone else's opinions and beliefs! I am a firm believer in everyone having their own worldviews and own opinions, so I will never, ever judge anyone else's viewpoints on any topic whatsoever. Under any circumstance. I hold fast to my own morals and beliefs, but I will NEVER judge or criticize anyone else's.)

80s rock music- Heck yeah! I love me some of that. But of course, you knew that. I love almost all 80s rock bands! Haha yes, definitely not 90s rock. That is definitely not my thing, with the exception of Bon Jovi and GnR's 90s work.

Bananas- It's cause my name is Hannah, isn't it? I know that's your tag for me- Hannah with a banana emoji. Haha, I love it! And I love bananas, too. Banana pudding is especially amazing.

I am so sorry to blabber so much! You did not ask for all of that, oh my gosh. I just wanted to talk a little about each of these because they all mean a lot to me! I'm glad to be associated with these things! (I am so sorry, I talked so much. And that wasn't even part of the post. Please forgive me, but you seem to enjoy it, so...💛)

Here, since you had to listen to all of that, have your boys- you deserve them.

#I talked so much and I don't even know why #shells 🐚 #my southern sis 🧡

[the-chaotic-christian]

Fanfiction And My Current Project

Voice of the Dark is my most massive project currently, having a projected length of thirteen books, not including at least three prequels. Outside of my original work, this series is my main focus at the moment. And it's a Ninjago re-write.

I actually started this project about sixteen months ago, and the first book is in editing processes while the second undergoes drafting, and the third outlining. I'll do another post about all those techniques later. Right now, I would like to discuss the place of fanfiction in Creative Writing.

There's a lot of opinions about fanfiction and whether it's viable writing or not, and I'm sure we've all heard published authors talk about it. Fanfiction has become increasingly popular in the advent of the internet and the creation of sights such as Archive of Our Own, Fanfiction.net, and Wattpad, to name a few. I myself am on the first two of those websites, and post semi-frequently on both when I'm not working on a large project like the one mentioned above. Before then, fanfiction wasn't as much of a controversy as there really wasn't a way to, on a large scale, share and read other people's creations. Now, of course, fanfiction is a major part of online communities.

So, should we or should we not write fanfiction?

As you can see, I'm sure you know my immediate answer; yes. My full answer is much more nuanced than that.

Fanfiction has been accused of stifling creativity, especially in young writers with aspirations to become published. I disagree with this to an extent. Fanfiction, in my experience and in many of my friends', has been a safe place to practice writing techniques and receive helpful feedback from other writers, some of whom have more experience. However; fanfiction cannot become all-consuming. If you have a dream of becoming a published author, you must branch out and step outside of fanfiction. Practice is great; but this is a part of being a creative where Yoda's most famous quote applies fantastically-Do or do not, there is no try. At some point, you have to take the leap and do, not just try to write, or else you'll never advance.

Fanfiction is still using another person's work. This argument is essentially null because no one makes any money off of legally produced fanfiction. I'm sure there are some folks out there, but in what I have seen fanfiction is a popular pastime-particularly among teenagers and young adults. There is one space I see as different-as in you shouldn't write fanfiction unless given explicit permission-and that's unpublished authors and fanfiction writers' original plots and characters. These artists are not getting paid to do what they do, unlike mainstream creatives who sell their work. I myself prefer not to share OCs or original plots with others. Of course, if permission is given than obviously it is perfectly fine, but outside of that I find it inappropriate and rude to simply take another unpublished writer's imagination.

On that note; what should we write fanfiction about? This is probably the most biblical portion of this discussion, since what we write about is directly influenced by our Christian beliefs. If you write fanfiction as a Christian, I would advise holding your content to first the Bible, and then to the great Christian classics such as the Pilgrim's Progress and the Chronicles of Narnia. Of course, target audiences vary, but the point is that Christian media-media written by a Christian, that is-should line up with the three transcendentals; Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. Obviously, not all Christian media contains overt references to God, but all should contain morals and values in line with traditional Christianity. In other words, Christian stories should not end with darkness winning. Oh yes, we can have darkness, deep, terrible darkness, but the darkness should not win-to let it win, even in a story, surmises that God is not all-powerful, and that is blatant Christian heresy (heresy in all Abrahamic religions, in fact). A story can be well-written and have compelling characters and yet contain a theme completely out of line with Christian faith, and that, I strongly believe, is wrong.

As for actual content.......well, I leave that up to personal conviction. That's not for me to call, and I don't believe I have lived long enough or have the proper judgement over what is and isn't appropriate. The only thing I will be stalwartly against is writing fanfiction about real, alive, people. That is treating another person as a tool, as opposed to remembering that even celebrities deserve an amount of dignity and respect even if they give neither to themselves or others. Published biographies (with verified truth and accuracy) are a completely different story, as the celebrities themselves often are involved. People who are dead......well, that's a different story, particularly when it comes to historical fiction.

At the end of the day-yes, I think that Fanfiction is a valuable way to develop skills as a writer and practice in a 'safe' way, but I also think that fanfiction should be held to the same parameters as regular Christian-and non-Christian-media that we consume on a daily basis. Basically, a good rule for both writing and reading fanfiction is this; if you wouldn't pick up a book in a store, or choose a movie on Netflix with the exact same content as that fic you just clicked on on FFN, it's probably a good sign to read your Bible, pray, and get outside for a few hours.

Hope you enjoyed my rambly post and it got you thinking about something new.

Remember Jesus loves you and have a blessed day!

#creative writing #christianity #christian creative writing #ninjago #star wars #master yoda #fanfiction #jesuslovesyou

[the-accidental-assassin-dr-shah]

The Church of David LaChapelle is a blog post I enjoyed:  Mimetic Margins

One of the reasons I was drawn to this blog and posting was because, David LaChapplle is my favourite photographer, is also a music video and film director, is most synonymous with pop culture, celebrity and fashion, he often references art history and religion, with strong biblical references, adding his own modern twist.

The post discussed his religious upbringing, and how this influences his art, and how his work actually shocks Christian’s.

There was enough stated about how his work shocks people from Abrahamic faiths, there is a reference to Christian’s, however Jews and Muslims also fall under the same umbrella, of having similar religious beliefs and having the same prophets. The post was more of an opinion piece of the blogger’s appreciation of the David LaChapelle, with that said the blogger is go into some depth regarding David’s past and upbringing and how that affects him today, and there was accurate reference to bible verses.

I AM ALI-RAZA SHAH

I’ve been a huge fan of David since I was a child in the late 90’s, I was very into pop culture and celebrity at the time. He was often hired by fashion and pop culture magazines, such as Rolling Stones, he’s shot some very iconic and controversial magazine covers, including the controversial of Britney Spears cover, which featured dressed suggestively and posing provocatively with children’s toys (tele tubbies). Putting controversy aside, I like how David uses art history and modernises them to make them relevant in the now. As art is subjective, to me his work from a contexts and visuals, represents Ascension, something which means a lot to me and something which I came across when I took an interest in spirituality and was trying to find myself and look for meaning in life, I believe I reached a place of authentic Ascension, and this affects me day to day life, including but not limited to my morals and values.

[puppyluver256]

My Deconversion Story

It’s just occurred to me that I don’t think I’ve ever told the exact story as to why I am an atheist. Considering certain events and recent experiences, I feel like it’s a story that could stand to be told to the fullest that I can recall.

Buckle up, pups, it’s gonna be a long one.

I have to preface this with a suspicion I’ve had for the past few years: despite being raised in an environment where belief in jesus and god were taken as A Given, I don’t actually know if I ever truly believed in the bible stuff. I don’t think I ever took it super-seriously the way some people end up doing when they’re heavily indoctrinated as kids. My dad, while raised methodist, was never super enthusiastic about religion. My mom still affirms her belief in a god and jesus to this day, even with the occasional questioning of such, but she only ever took me to church because my grandmother (her adoptive mother, we’ll go into more detail with her later) played the piano at that church. Once she stopped playing, we stopped going, and even during the sunday school stuff things were never pushed to the point of “if you don’t believe all this is real You Will Burn Forever”.

Or if they were, I didn’t pay much attention.

Another thing you gotta understand is that I am autistic, even though I didn’t know about that myself until after college. (I was diagnosed, but never told about it.) I think that may play a role into why even the mildest indoctrination never really “took” with me. Obviously I knew of jesus as a concept, and I had the vaguest kid-friendly knowledge of some bible stories because I watched some Veggie Tales stuff. I specifically remember my really cringey way of drawing asterisks as a kid: “a cross + :D with jesus on it X :D” But I don’t think I ever thought of any of that as “real” any more to my child brain than I thought of Pokemon being “real”. And I wanted Pokemon to be real so, so bad.

I was never told by my parents that bad behavior or having certain undesirable traits would send me to hell. I was never threatened with eternal torture for anything. The worst instance of hell I managed to process as a kid was that “go to hell” was a comeback to throw at other kids on the playground. It was never something I was meant to take seriously.

When I started getting into middle school, I started to realize that people actually were taking the god thing seriously and it wasn’t just the “weird thing the adults do to influence the morals of the kids” thing I thought it was. I was starting to notice that they were taking it seriously enough to be against The Gays, at least. I never had problem with The Gays, mostly because of an experience years earlier when I and a girl classmate kissed and people taunted us and called us gay (that’s another story, and how that came back to mind with my recent realization that I am a romantic lesbian is something to be saved for another time). I will admit at the time I thought it was a choice to be gay, much less in the “choosing something bad over something good” sense and more like “choosing to have delicious pizza for lunch instead of an equally delicious cheeseburger”, but that was because a boy I didn’t like had made a presentation that it was not a choice to be gay and I hadn’t quite matured enough to realize that yes, you can agree with someone you dislike, especially when it’s a proven fact rather than a subjective opinion.

(though I think I started to realize people were taking the whole “god” thing seriously a few years earlier, when they started attacking certain groups for following their god in a different way because of the actions of a certain pocket of assholes, but that’s not really my story to tell as I was never directly affected by all of that beyond being shown the broadcast of that inciting incident on TV at school WHYYYY WOULD YOU SHOW THAT TO NINE YEAR OLDS)

Remember me mentioning that maternal grandmother earlier? Well now we’re coming back to her. She was the hardcore christian in the family. She was the one who played piano at church. She was the one who most likely influenced my mom into taking me to church and being enrolled in the sunday school. Her house was COVERED in jesus memorabilia. And despite the fact that she would watch Logo (a queer-themed channel on satellite TV that may or may not still exist) on a regular basis, she believed any “lifestyle” that wasn’t cishet was An Abomination. She wouldn’t word it like that specifically, but when I knew about this, I knew. (And yet she never had a problem with me being so into Pokemon. At least she had her division between reality and most fiction set up pretty solidly, or rather the division between secular and religious fiction.)

Now we get to me at the age of 14. I literally only know that it had to have been 14 because this was when I was in my Muppet hyperfixation and I had brought the DVD set of season 1 of the Muppet Show on my weekend sleepaway to...this grandmother’s house. One night, as we were talking about something, she began to shake unexpectedly. I knew she had diabetes. I had been briefed about how to help her if she went into diabetic shock. I had not, however, been briefed on what the signs of diabetic shock were. I thought she was playing around. I had laughed. I didn’t realize what exactly was happening until her husband rushed in and forced a cookie into her mouth, at which point the shaking slowly subsided.

And then it hit me. I had watched her experience a medical emergency and I had laughed.

I was 14. I was uninformed. I was wracked with guilt.

And my guilt was about to be used against me.

Since this was a weekend with the god-fearing granny (which btw, why would a supposedly benevolent god insist on its creations fearing it? but that’s a side tangent), she had of course taken me to church with her. Maybe Friday night, likely Saturday night, definitely Sunday morning. Church was not enjoyable at 14 as it had been at 5-6. I didn’t get to spend time away from the service among peers, I didn’t even get cheesy crackers and appl juice (or the more “cool” equivalent for a teenager) to snack on while the adults droned on with their boring songs. I could tune it out, but I don’t even remember if I was allowed to bring my drawing supplies with me to keep me occupied in the meantime. At some point, my grandmother had convinced me to get a baptism. Or maybe I had convinced myself that getting a baptism--doing something related to the religion she seemed to care about so much--would help mend the damage I had seemingly done by laughing at my grandmother’s medical distress. She was delighted. My parents were called and asked to come to the church to see their child become “washed clean” as a “(child) of god”.

I was brought to the church. I was put in a white full-body smock and led to the pool at the front of the service hall. If my assumptions about what was to come had been correct, I would likely still be trapped in a metaphorical contract with a fictional god that I now know for a fact cannot be real. Ah yes, I neglected to mention that I have--or at least had--a mild case of hydrophobia. Having water poured over my head isn’t so bad. Having my head pushed underwater, absolutely a no go.

This church did full immersion baptisms.

Once I learned this, I couldn’t go through with it. I protested, I begged the person who intended to baptize me not to put me under, I didn’t want it anymore, I couldn’t do it. This person thankfully understood, as did my parents, who would later tell me that they thought it was weird that I’d wanted to get baptized considering I had never really been serious about the bible stuff. But sooner than that, I would hear of my grandmother’s perspective on the whole thing via my mother.

“Ohhhh I’m so worried for Jess, (they’re) not baptized and I’m terrified (they’re) going to go to hell!”

“(They’ll) be fine, (they’re) a good person.”

“But (they’re) not baptiiiiized! (They haven’t) accepted Jesuuuus! (They’ll) fall into siiiiiin and never get a boyfriend!”

“And what would you do if (they were) a lesbian?” (note: I did not realize I was romantically into girls at this point, I only knew I was asexual)

“Oh, I’ll pray for (them).”

This botched baptism and the fallout thereof was the catalyst for two things. One was the beginning of my further distancing from religion. The other was the beginning of the end of my relationship with this grandmother. Hearing about how she’d gaslit my mother and being trapped at her house for family gatherings a few years later when she couldn’t (and her husband wouldn’t) properly clean up after her dogs and making my allergies activate so hard that I consistently sneezed so frequently I pissed myself absolutely did not help in the latter part.

As for the distancing religion thing, I stopped saying “under god” in the pledge in the mornings. I even stopped saying it in the Spanish version of my Spanish class. That was the only time I got in trouble for it, and at least there it was slightly understandable because I was there to learn the language and not necessarily proclaim an allegiance to a god that I had no interest in pretending to believe in. Eventually I just stopped saying the pledge altogether.

Over the years I could see even more how fervent people can be when it comes to religion. I was forced to wear long pants to my birthday party in June in Kentucky and be incredibly uncomfortable because of that grandmother and the fact that we had rented out a building that just happened to be on the same property as a church simply because “ladies don’t wear shorts in church even if it’s like 80 degrees out and really humid because upper south” (but hey, I ain’t even a lady anymore and we weren’t in church, shame this bitch ain’t around anymore cuz then I could tell her to eat it!!). I was yelled at by roommates by referring to the bible as a “storybook” without even saying that I specifically meant “fictional storybook” (a memoir is a storybook too, y’know). [You might’ve seen the story of me trying desperately to avoid an evangelizer.] I’ve seen countless apologists insist that I and people like me “know” their god exists and that we “suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness”. People like me are painted as cold, hateful, uncaring, immoral, self-serving, egotistical assholes, all because we are not convinced of the idea that there is a higher being that made us or literally anything else in their favorite storybook.

I wasn’t heavily indoctrinated like a lot of former christians might be. I wasn’t pulled out of school because I mentioned the teachers telling us about Neanderthals rather than adam and eve. I never grew up worrying whether I would get into heaven or hell, never worrying how I would spend an eternity that honestly sounds like an awful thing in and of itself even without the potential intended torture. I was never encouraged to watch creationist propaganda in place of fun science shows. Veggie Tales was easily consumed as a secular product with my mind filtering out the god stuff despite it being front and center. (is it any coincidence the best VT content is always when it’s more secular, at least on the surface?) There was more crying and heartache over learning that Santa Claus wasn’t real than there was in realizing that there was no god. Santa Claus was a decent dude, and if you were “bad” the worst he would do would be to leave you a less extravagant present that would at least have kept you warm back in the day. The god of the bible is written as a petty tyrant that would allow every innocent person in the world burn just for the victimless “crime” of not believing in it and fulfilling every demand it gave of them, and I am glad to be rid of it before it could worm its way deeper into my brain than it had been able to.

But I understand that I’m one of the lucky ones. My most negative direct experiences with christianity ended with my hydrophobia kicking in, most of what’s happened since then is the typical internet evangelist being their typical annoying self, and the threat of hell has never worked on me beyond informing me of how unlikeable someone who tries to use that threat often is. Not everyone is so lucky. There are those forced into religious schools whether or not they believe, those whose parents complain to public schools that dare to teach the understood facts of evolution rather than the fairy tale of creationism, those who are denied from expressing anything even remotely queer or sexual independence or divergence from strict gender roles because idk some nonsense about the fictional concept of “sin”, those who can’t access important physical or mental health care because people in charge want to deny them that right under bizarre reasoning like “that fetus has a soul and if you stop it from growing that’s MURDER” or “you are a man/woman because you have a penis/vagina and it’s wrong to change that and there’s definitely NO other option besides male and female”, those who have seemingly no way to escape the Grasp Of God that life has dropped them into.

I don’t speak out against christianity’s wrongdoings, christianity’s overreach, and fundamentalist christianity’s refusal to accept any facts about history and nature and science because I just want to whine about something I find distasteful. I speak out against it because it is inherently wrong, and for the people who currently can’t speak out. For the people who’ve had it worse than me. For the people who are having concerns about the religion they’ve been brought up in and are too afraid to ask themselves those incredibly burning (metaphorically) questions less they risk finding themselves burning (literally) in a world that never even existed in that silly old book to begin with.

-----

Feel free to reblog, but if you do please take care to keep the content warning tags or tag further if you feel it warrants it. I am aware that I dug heavy into christianity here, but that’s because that’s what I’m even vaguely familiar with. If you want to hear someone speaking out against some other religions, go talk to an apostate from those religions, because I’m not going to rail against something I’m not properly informed about.

This is not an invitation to proselytize. Do not try and convert me or anyone else that interacts with this post either in the notes or in my inbox. If you wanna try that crap, make your own post on your own blog.

#jess's boring life #knock knock get the door it's religion #or lack thereof #atheism #deconversion #christianity tw #christianity mention #hell mention #diabetic shock mention #homophobia mention #unsanitary mention #anti-abortion mention #transphobia mention #ask to tag further

[automatismoateo]

Damn, sometimes I wish I would have kept my mouth shut. via /r/atheism

Damn, sometimes I wish I would have kept my mouth shut.

For context, I'm a 15 year old American girl. I'm also raised in a Christian household with both my mom and dad being Christian. I on the other hand am an atheist, and my parents are not aware of that. They still think I'm Christian, and I play along and pretend so I don't risk getting in trouble.

This whole thing begins one night when my mom and dad got back home from a restaurant, and my mom calls me into the living room to talk to me. Here's how the conversation went.

Mom: So I heard that it's apparently a trend for teenagers to identify as gay or lesbian. Have you heard of that?

Me: Uh… no, I don't think I have.

Mom: Well you are aware that being gay is wrong, aren't you?

Me: Nah, I don't think it's wrong. I'm okay with it.

Mom: It is wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman only because the Bible tells us that. Do you not believe what the Bible tells us?

Me: Yeah, I believe the Bible but I don't think it ever said anything about gay being wrong. I think being gay is okay, can you show me in the Bible where it says that it is wrong?

Mom: No, the Bible clearly says being gay is bad. Being gay is wrong. Do you not believe in God???

Me: Uh… yeah, I believe in God.

Mom: If you believe in God, then you also believe the Bible because it is the word of God, and the Bible says being gay is wrong.

That's not the whole conversation but that's how it started. She completely ignored me asking her to show me where in the Bible being gay is said to be wrong which frustrates me. If you're gonna say the Bible states that being gay is wrong you should at least have some fucking proof and show me it when I ask.

While this conversation was going on my dad walked in, but for the most part it was my mom talking. She is concerned that I don't believe in God or the Bible because of my opinion. She starts fucking interrogating me then, asking questions like “What video games do you play???”, “What type of music do you listen to???”, “What if we checked your phone???” and things like that assuming that those questions actually had anything of relevance when it didn't. She's the type of person to think that I'm being influenced by others and that what I do and the music I listen too also impact that. The thing is… I'm not being influenced by other people or anything else. You wanna know what I am though? A person with her own thoughts, views, and opinions. Not every view I have is because “Oh well this person said [insert thing] so I believe that now”, I have my views through my own personal experiences and moral compass. I wish she would understand this. Just because I have one differing opinion from hers she thinks something is going on with me even though it is really not. She thinks this is a deeper issue than it actually is. I'm really starting to wish I had kept my mouth shut or have just pretended to agree with her that gay was wrong so this wouldn't have happened.

Oh well, I guess. I'm just going to put up with it until I can move out at 18, but I just felt like sharing to you guys. Thank you for taking the time to read this, have a good one. :)

Submitted June 02, 2022 at 04:58AM by celestial_cutie (From Reddit https://ift.tt/b0S3cq7)

#reddit

[alatismeni-theitsa]

“Hello! I am not sure what you reviving pre-Christian traditions from your own country has to do with Greeks reviving ancient god worship in Greece”

Because the phenomenon of people rejecting Christianity and the harm that it has brought in various ways, is global imo and I have an interest in seeing whether people from other countries are also doing it. I find it intellectually interesting as well as personally and probably what’s better for people in general. Christianity has been responsible for repression of women, sexuality, being used for authoritarian and other negative purposes historically. Just my opinion of course but its influence has had some unhealthy effects.

My main reason though is that globally we see missionary work and domination of Christianity used to destroy the original cultures of various countries. so to revive original cultural beliefs is like a healing work imho.

(religion anon again) Having read your post, thank you for your shared thoughts, and if none of my addition in the last message is of interest to your personally or you disagree, I completely understand. I mostly mentioned it as context for how I found the videos. Thanks for your reply ---------------------------- end of ask --------------------------------

Yes, I get it now! Allow me to elaborate... Well, Christianity has different denominations and you must probably refer to Catholicism and Protestantism. Greece is Orthodox.

Orthodoxy has done missionary work but not to the extent the others have done. Orthodoxy is the "first" version of Christianity and had strong roots in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. It became the native religion of the region until its prosecution to the point of extinction by Muslims. This also includes the Christian Greeks. Also, see the situation in Egypt for today's Christians.

For Greeks, it has been at least 1.600 years since polytheists were prosecuted for their faith by the Christians. It was a loooong time ago and, even if it saddens most Greeks of today, it doesn't feel personal. We didn't burn witches like in West Europe and most of our ancient traditions were transferred to our Christian customs.

For almost two thousand years the Hellenes flourished under Christianity or were supported mentally by it. It's two thousand years of history that one cannot dissociate from being a Hellen. Christianity is almost synonymous with Hellenic culture now. This religion is so much woven into our daily lives we many times don't even notice. You can't heal from your own self.

That's why, to my understanding, Greek polytheists are not seeking to heal anything. They just respond to their call by the old gods. Some dislike Christianity, some are indifferent. But they don't return to the old religions because of the morals of the ancient era.

I can't be convinced that in the time of the ancient Greek religion women had more rights when female characters being abducted and raped was a frequent phenomenon in stories involving the gods. The Greek antiquity was misogynistic and sometimes the stories of the gods reflected that. Needless to say, quite a lot of worshipers of the ancient gods were what we would call today misogynistic. Conquest, raping, pillaging, authoritarianism, repression of women and sexuality, and many more negative things were made by the ancient worshipers. That was the society.

Today's Hellenic polytheists don't follow the old norms, naturally! But I mean that people of the ancient faith weren't exactly a beacon of Human Rights and to equate Christianity globally with an oppressive force is not accurate and it can lead to blindness of Christian persecution historically and today. At the same time, I understand that Greek Orthodoxy and Christians, in general, are not without faults, and, for me, there is no issue with people turning to the ancient gods.

A small step forward for women's rights was done with the Christian preaching of women and men (and all people) being equal under god. Misogyny and bigotry weren't magically deleted by Christianity, that's not what I am saying, but it took rights up a notch. Paul said "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit fin everything to their husbands." and soon after he writes "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and he gave himself up for her". Aka, "your wives are worth dying for, give your whole selves to them."

Under the ancient religion many times women weren't even seen as proper humans and many philosophers supported that. This notion faded a lot under Christianity. A "female deity", Panagia (the one above all the saints, aka what you know as "Virgin Mary") is above any other saint - even all the male ones - and people turn to her as much as - if not more sometimes - as they turn to Christ. The value of human life also went up for local societies because the Christian religion became about the soul of the person.

But certainly, people are people, no matter their religion. Good and bad actions were made by people of all faiths. And usually, all groups (polytheist or not) historically have done their part in oppressing other groups.

You are focusing on the faults of your "your type" of Christians because it's what you know best based on your lived experience. But your experience is not universal and I don't recommend saying that leaving Christianity is "what’s better for people in general." Maybe that rings true to you, but not for lots of people in other societies, who fought to keep their Christian faith alive.

For you, Christianity is less intellectually stimulating than the old religion of your area but plenty of important pieces of work regarding all the sciences and philosophy were produced and maintained by Christian Greeks - and other Christians - so for others the intellectual part of Christianity might seem more appealing.

If your reality is different and returning to the ancient gods means something different to you, I am not here to judge your choices. I won't judge anyone's choices as long as they are not causing harm. We must respect all people and their right to religious freedom, as long as peace is kept.

All the best to you!

#answered #hellenic polytheism #christianity #greek orthodox #polytheism

[frownyalfred]

have you talked already about how batmans no killing rule reflects jewish views on justice? i would love to hear it!

hey anon! I totally forgot to do that, didn’t I?

If you’ve read my other Batman/Judaism post, I argue about the canonical likelihood that Bruce is considered halachically Jewish, though most likely does not view himself as such. You can check that out here, as well as some comic panels that suggest a slight cultural Jewish influence (here). 

So, how exactly does Batman’s “no killing” rule reflect Jewish views and teaching on the concept of Justice? 

One of Batman’s most famous characterizations is his refusal to kill. Though it wasn’t always present (hello guns and killing of the early Batman comics!), it’s come to shape Bruce’s personality and, in the words of Medium, makes him “a much more complex character than one who has no limits.” 

Batman doesn’t kill criminals. He might injure them severely, but never to the point of (immediate) death. Inextricably tied to this rule is his refusal to use guns, likely because of his own parents’ deaths in Crime Alley. This is slightly subverted in BvS, but still largely holds true throughout his history. 

So what does this have to do with Judaism?

Modern interpretations of Jewish teachings on the subject of violence are just as interesting and complex as Batman. Just like Bruce’s rules, Judaism holds a capacity for both extreme violence, and the teachings of nonviolence and the pursuit of peace. 

To quote wikipedia, since my days in hebrew school were long ago, this principle can be stated as "(wherever) Jewish law allows violence to keep an evil from occurring, it mandates that the minimal amount of violence be used to accomplish one's goal."

And, again, like Bruce, within Jewish teachings, the “shedding of blood (shefikhut damim) is the primeval sin (Gen. 4:8) and throughout the centuries ranks in Jewish law as the gravest and most reprehensible of all offenses.”

Essentially, one should deescalate a situation using the least amount of violence possible, and reserve killing as the absolute last option. Sounds about right for Batman?

Interestingly, Talmudic teachings also make a distinction between killing in self-defense or in defense of another's life (supra) and killing in the preservation of life (pikku'aḥ nefesh) in general. The first is acceptable under (some, debatable) circumstances, while the latter is forbidden. 

So, unlike other super heroes (looking at you, Green Arrow), Batman does not justify broader killings in the name of “saving” Gotham. In a way, he already reflects a rejection of pikku'aḥ nefesh by weighing every criminal’s life as sacred, essentially on a case-by-case basis. 

In other words, no singular life is worth the overall betterment of Gotham. To claim so would put him on the further path of killing (a fear of his) and into the grey world of pikku'aḥ nefesh.

Was this characterization intentional?

It’s hard to say. Batman’s creators were indeed Jewish, but as stated above, the transition from killing/guns to absolutely no killing/guns didn’t happen immediately. 

It’s also hard to make an argument of it being an intentionally Jewish-coded trait when Old Testament teachings undoubtedly influence modern, Christian creators and readers. Yet Talmudic teachings are not included in the Christian version of the OT, and the OT is quite arguably not a copy of the Torah itself. 

Conclusion

Batman’s “no killing” rule reflects a core tenet of (ever-evolving) Jewish teachings, which forbids the act of killing with minimal exceptions. 

Whether or not this was intentional, Bruce’s aversion to killing in the name of a better Gotham clearly reflects the divisions between killing in self-defense or in immediate defense of another's life (supra) and killing in the preservation of life (pikku'aḥ nefesh). 

Dovetailing this is the concept of minimal violence, which Bruce may or may not adhere to, depending on the reader. Does beating the shit out of a criminal affect that criminal’s ability to commit acts of evil at a level of violence that is unreasonable for the situation? 

Again, it’s open to interpretation, which is a very Jewish saying. And again, the saying “two jews, three opinions” applies here: I am just a lowly reform Jew with minimal Talmudic familiarity under my belt, and I certainly don’t speak for everyone on this topic. 

However. The inherent Jewishness of characters or their moral codes within the DC universe (often thanks to Jewish creators) is important to me, and I think more folks should know about its roots! 

I welcome any and all questions/criticisms! Thank you, Anon <3 

#batman #jewish bruce wayne #jewish batman #batman's no killing rule #more on how jewish views on justice are reflected in batman's no killing rule later #bruce wayne #dc #dc comics #me ranting #sloppy first drafts of thoughts #asks #anon #thanks anon

[heartlandians]

RE: GW

I wasn’t going to respond to your post about “GW” as it didn’t seem like you wanted feedback, but you published a response to it, so I decided to go ahead and respond. I don’t care whether you publish this or not, I just want to say I agree 100% with your comments, and the person who responded too. I am actually encouraged when I see people comment about Graham like this as I think that, as a ‘celebrity’, he is dangerous. 

I enjoy heartland for many reasons. There are a lot of themes which match my sense of morality or things I believe to be true - What goes around comes around, believing in yourself, not giving up on horses or people, that many people have issues related to their childhood and/or parents, etc. But I also loved the Amy & Ty thing in the early seasons, when they were first accepting that they loved each other, etc. But, like the person who responded to your comments, I also thought Ty’s attitude towards Amy changed after Season 8.  I would assume that the change in relationship was a result of the writers but why did they do this? Were they trying to move into a new phase showing that once you get married (and no longer 'pursuing’ someone) things change? Were they trying to prepare us for other solutions ie they get divorced? Or was it actually the actors themselves influencing this?

 Specific to Graham, I don’t even know what has happened to him. I was fine with his early podcasts and he recommended some great books (like the Michael Singer books). I am very open to philosophical ideas so I didn’t mind when some of the discussions went towards more abstract things like meditation. But he started promoting things via his IG stories and Twitter like Dr Joe Dispenza and later Lynette, whom I view as “new wave” snake oil peddlers.  He would portray himself as moderate in opinion about COVID in his podcasts at first, but meanwhile he was re-posting extreme things from whom I consider right wing people like Joe Rogan, Ron Paul, etc.  He posted a talk show discussion where the actor Jim Caviezel suggested that Christians should be arming themselves, that a war was brewing between secular people and Christians. WTF?  I followed up on some of the covid related stuff he re-posted and what I found were videos that had been selectively edited to give false impressions, to articles where the data was misleading or drew wild conclusions based on no evidence, or where the authors clearly just didn’t understand how vaccines work, etc. It seems like he is searching for something and readily falls prey to snake oil salesmen. It actually cracks me up when I see people fawning over him and how nice he is etc but meanwhile he is promoting things that hurt people.  Personally, I think there are legitimate issues regarding our response to COVID. How far society is willing to go to get people to get vaccinated etc is a legitimate ethical question. But I start with the premises that I care about other people and will do things to help others even if it means I am inconvenienced (at least health wise),  I generally trust the science, that vaccines work, that COVID is dangerous, and there could very well be more dangerous things to come along in the future so it matters how we handle COVID.  I get that this is a hard fight, that people are tired of endless restrictions, etc, but Graham doesn’t even accept the basic premises nor care about people other than himself …. I have lost all respect for him and I hope he doesn’t take Amber down with him.  I kind of wonder if he has already created issues within the people involved in Heartland (ie whatever happened between Michelle, Alisha and Graham) Submitted by: rippleish20 ________________________

It’s okay! I should have been more clear that I meant more in line of I would rather not get messages like “You should support him in everything because he gave us Ty!” or “Why does it matter what he thinks/does?” because I already explained my stance. As in, more about how I run the blog and how I want my blogging experience to be like, etc.

It is interesting, the whole timeline, and you two mentioning season 8. When he left the show, Amber mentioned in one of those “goodbye interviews” that he has been thinking about leaving for 5 years. Which would then be around season 8-9, depending whether she was referring to season 13 or season 14. I do think that there was probably “something going on” with the writers (based on the way they handled season 8) and the response the season got, but after hearing Amber’s comment, there was probably something going on behind the scenes too. And I don’t mean any drama, but more like a shift, a realization, just like with Ty and Amy. Because up until that point, there was this possibility that Ty and Amy would get married, but after season 8 finale it was almost like a real marriage; you’re in it for good. For a person who never planned on becoming an actor, that could have been this “oh shit, how long is this going to go on? Is this all there is to my life?” moment.

I mean, later on, it’s even more obvious he wanted to leave and seasons 10-11 were especially written with him in mind (Ty’s journey in Mongolia, etc). Even with newest seasons (S12-13), looking back, you can kind of see that most of his storylines were about action scenes or trouble Ty got himself into. It really feels like the story was no longer as much about Ty AND Amy, but rather Ty, and Amy. I know back in season 10, they were already planning on writing him out (in the finale), but I guess they were able to reel him back in because it never happened. I have a feeling that if the writers had had their way, 100%, the story would have been different from season 9->. I don’t think Ty would have been gone as much and I don’t think he would’ve died.

But yeah, you can definitely see the patterns more easily now that we know the outcome and that is exactly the reason why all these conspiracies about other people running him out back in 2020 don’t make sense (to me). I truly think when their last full season (S13) together as a cast wrapped, they were all fine with one another. Covid might have created tensions, but if everything went as it always does after a season, they were already arcing Ty’s death before we even knew what covid was.

As for the other stuff you mentioned, I agree. This type of radicalization by the algorithm is dangerous. You start looking into harmless stuff at first, sort of entertain all these interesting theories and alternative thoughts, but the more time you spend clicking into “videos/articles you might find interesting”, the deeper you get into it. It’s all crafted to “make sense” and create this addiction where your paranoia starts to feed itself without you hardly doing anything.

Like, for example, I have a co-worker who has a friend who has gotten into this whole conspiracy hole. This co-worker has no idea what Heartland is or who GW is. But whenever she would list all the things her friend would post about on Facebook, it was like I was listening to her talk about the same things GW was posting/promoting. These two parts of “my world” were not connected in any way, and yet… they were.

Finally, I totally agree with you that it’s important to have those conversations about legitimate ethical questions, especially because in these type of situations there’s never quick right answers or actions. That is exactly the reason why these conversations should be had.

#submission

[ouyangzizhensdad]

i've debated with myself so much about madam yu and saw you rt that post defending her and i read it but it still didn't sit right with me, i'm not chinese but i am from one of those taugh love mom cultures and still find her extra bad, i asked a few chinese people who don't stan the book and they were horrified at the defense and said that it was not normal, sure she shows regular ch mom characteristics but she's like the hyperbole of a ch mom so does anyone own the monopoly of wha's normal?

Hi there anon, 

This is only my pov and I cannot speak from the perspectives of Chinese and Chinese diasporic people, nor for the people who wrote on the topic of Yu-furen (I can only speak of how I interpreted the posts I came across).

My understanding of the situation, however, is that they are not attempting to do with these posts what you are suggesting. You ask “does anyone own the monopoly of what’s normal”, which suggests you believe the posts meant to give a definitive answer on what is ‘normal’ behaviour, when in reality the posts seem to have been made with the opposite aim in mind: to remind people who do not share the cultural background of the intended audience of MDZS that there does not exist a single definition of what constitute “normal” behaviour and that fandom discussions dissecting every single action or word of Yu-furen’s toward any character to portray them as “clear signs of abuse” has been difficult to stomach and might even feel imperialistic for people who have been raised by parents who came from a cultural background where some of these very behaviours are not regarded as abusive.  

These posts, in general, have also seemed to attempt first to explain the nuances of Yu-furen’s relationship to WWX, which often gets wrongfully portrayed as her unequivocally being his adoptive mother or a legal guardian. She is not a mother figure to him and does not act toward him from that position. These have also aimed to remind people that the behaviours and care we feel are “owed” to “children” as a group are spatiotemporally specific, and influenced by a variety of factors--in this case, WWX being the child of a servant and a disciple of the sect. By reminding people that, in her position, in that specific spatiotemporal moment, Yu-furen would have been allowed to be much more extreme in her disciplining or could have simply refused to let WWX stay in Lotus Pier, what I feel these posters are doing is not telling Westerners that they personally think it would be appropriate behaviour towards a child, but rather highlighting that this means something wrt how Yu-furen is characterised in the context of the novel considering that the intended audience of the novel would be aware of that reality. Differently put, that it suggests a framing of Yu-furen as someone that does bark more than she bites even if she does bite. And aside from the irrelevant surface-level readings of Yu-furen as a sort of “girlboss” that seem to originate mostly from the CQL-verse in any case, I’ve never seen anyone suggest that she is irreproachable. All the serious analyses I’ve seen acknowledge that Yu-furen is meant to be a complicated figure or acknowledge that she abuses her authority in the sect by giving WWX punishments she does not bestow on other disciples. What they seem to disagree with is the ways western fans make sweeping generalisations and accusations without the relevant context, which comes off to them as insensitive and coming from a place of cultural ignorance.

Maybe it is time for a discussion that humanist thought, that which underlines so much of our modern understanding of rights and social progress, flattens spatiotemporal differences (or, as they often talked about, cultural differences), staying deeply rooted in Western supremacy when it aims to provide a single answer to what is right and what is a right. It can verge very easily into the evangelical and the imperialistic: we have only to look at the influence of the “global” LGBT movement has had on erasing  localised social organisations and identity markers by superposing themselves unto them as more intelligible ideas through which to barter for rights with the political class. Or worst, by having the “global” LGBT movement frame localised expressions of queerness as not progressive enough or harmful (sometimes I think back at Gaudio’s ethnography of queer men in the Hausa-speaking region of northern Nigeria, and how the men who took on the penetrative role in sex  generally switch to self-reference and being referenced in a feminine way and using “women’s talk”, and thinking “wow, they would be so cancelled or condescended to by tumblr kids 😬”). 

The point of this tangent is not to underline that everything about humanism or its influences on modern life are bad, but that it is an intellectual “tool” that can be do harm and be imperialistic and racist (since it is generally the White, Christian-adjacent, Western standards that are posited as the moral truth that defies differences in cultures and material contexts). And most of the discussions of what “adults” owe to “children” (ideas that are generally treated as homogeneous and clear-cut across time and space, as apriori categories), of what rights are owed to children, exist within these frameworks. Or, they might exist within the framework of “science,” as if science itself cannot be influenced by Western imperialism and researchers’ biases. Reading western language acquisition research and comparing it with cross-cultural ethnographic sociolinguistic research on language acquisition really highlights how some of the science that informs “good parenting” in the West is incapable of realising how much the material and cultural context of the West influences the results that are supposedly controlled. 

Or, again, the idea that science can help us define clearly and once and for all where the line between shitty actions and abuse, or discipline and abuse, should be drawn, is to me one that cannot be dissociated from a belief that science can provide us with definite truths about our existence as social animals as if these sort of truths were not inherently positioned and negotiated. It is an uncomfortable idea, isn’t it, to realise that two people can be against abuse but at the same time not draw the line at the same place? How do we best grapple with the discovery that “abuse” is not an apriori category but rather one that is constructed according to varying forms of positioned and shifting knowledge and experience? I do not have an answer, but I certainly think that fandom arguments will probably not be the best place for that level of philosophical discussions. 

To conclude, anon, I do want to acknowledge that your ask seems to come from a place of concern and perhaps even hurt. And that is perhaps why the posts from Chinese diasporic people in the fandom might appear to you as dismissive or flippant towards the interpretations of other fans of the novel. But perhaps without this prism of concern and/or hurt through which your perception of these analyses are filtered, you might have been able to notice a lot more nuance to their points than what your ask suggests. And that is not a criticism per se, but simply a reminder that, sometimes, some topics are difficult for us to approach clear-headed and to receive differing perspectives in good faith. In any case, I am certainly not the arbiter whose opinion on the topic will finally settle these debates, as such you might want in the future prefer to direct your questions (politely of course) to people who penned such analyses or who can speak from the relevant cultural perspective. If your aim in sending me this ask (because I reblogged a post you disagreed with) was to judge whether I passed your litmus test for being “morally just” to decide whether anything I have to say on any other topic is still worth paying attention to, well I suppose you now have your answer. 

#anon ask #abuse cw #fandom discussions #yu-furen #long post