#that's not inherent to the religion from what i understand but i don't agree with it personally

[uncanny-tranny]

I've been thinking about modesty from a specifically trans lense lately. I was taught that modesty indicates shame, that modesty means you're simultaneously ashamed of being human and having a human body, but also that you are "purer" because you adhere to a hegemonic idea of modesty. Frankly, I just don't agree with this, and it was very much steeped in the idea of specifically christian ideas of modesty.

Before I transitioned, I felt very unprotective of my body because it never felt like mine to begin with. I didn't really care what happened to it, and while I was modest by other people's standards, I certainly didn't feel it. Once I actually started transitioning (and especially on testosterone), I've found that I'm so much more "modest" because I've become protective of my body. There's this stereotype that trans people start "showing themselves off" after transitioning, but I honestly feel the opposite. I'm possessive over my body and exactly how it acts and appears because I actually like my body, and it finally feels like mine. I'm honestly kind of selfish about it, and I think I've earned the right to be.

I made this post because I think this is an interesting topic, and I think it's interesting the ways in which we internalize the influences that be. It's also a reminder that no matter how you feel about things like modesty, you should adhere to what makes the most sense to you and what you are most comfortable with. There are pressures to be modest in this way or that way, but what truly matters is what you decide with your body and yourself.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

(I’m popping a extra disclaimer here because I don’t know if I worded this very well, and I understand if this isnt the kind if question you feel comfortable answering, but this is a genuine question made in good faith. I also apologise if this sounds really stupid)

I read one of your recent asks about inclusivism and it reminded me of something that always sat in the back of my mind with this train of thought.

If we say that everyone regardless of religion, or absence of it, gets into heaven, doesn’t that seem disrespectful to their faith. By saying that people of other religions get into christian heaven, is that not inadvertently telling them that their religion or their gods are fake, and that when they die it’ll be okay because they’ll learn the real truth? I hope this doesn’t come across as blunt or disrespectful to anyone, I’ve just never be able to come to a conclusion that isn’t exclusive (which is kind of a depressing thought), but is also respectful. Because it’s a beautiful idea that god loves us all regardless of who we are or what we believe, but what about people who have the kind of faith we do in a completely different god, or multiple gods, do they have the same thoughts about us? that their god loves us even though we dont believe?

I feel like I’m asking questions I’m not supposed to but I’m just really curious about your perspective if this is something you’re comfortable answering.

Hey anon, this is an important question, so thanks for asking it! You don't sound "stupid"; you're thinking like a theologian :) I'm probably not going to do it justice, I'm afraid, but maybe folks will hop on with more ideas or resources?

This got really long, so the TL;DR: I agree with you, and so do a lot of theologians and other thinkers!

In a religiously diverse world, it makes sense that people of various religions ponder where people outside their religions "fit" in their understanding of both the present world and whatever form of afterlife they have.

If someone has a firm personal belief in certain things taking place after death (from heaven to reincarnation), I don't think it's inherently wrong to imagine all kinds of people joining them in that experience, when it points to how that person recognizes the inherent holiness and value of all kinds of people, and shows that they long for continued community with & flourishing for those people.

However, this contemplation should be done with great care — especially when your religion is the dominant one in your culture; especially if your religion has a long history (and/or present) of colonialism and coerced conversions.

Ultimately, humility and openness are key! It's fine to have your own beliefs about humanity's place in this life and after death, but make yourself mindful of your own limited perspective. Accept you might be wrong in part or in whole! And be open to learning from others' ideas, and truly listening to them if they say something in your ideas has caused them or their community tangible harm.

In the rest of this post, I'll focus on a Christian perspective and keep grappling with how to consider these questions while honoring both one's personal faith and people all religions...without coming to any solid conclusions (sorry, but I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all or fully satisfying answer!).

I'll talk a bit about inclusivism and how it fails pretty miserably in this regard, and point towards religious pluralism as a possibly better (tho still imperfect) option.

And as usual I'll say I highly recommend Barbara Brown Taylor's book Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others to any Christians / cultural Christians who want to learn more about entering into mutual relationship with people of other religions.

In previous posts, I brought up the concepts of exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism without digging into their academic definitions and histories — partially because it's A Lot for a tumblr post, but also because it's by no means in my sphere of expertise. I worried about misrepresenting any viewpoint if I tried to get all academic, so I just stuck to my own personal opinions instead — but looking back at some posts, I see I didn't do a great job of clarifying that's what I was doing!

So now I'll go into what scholars mean when talking about these different viewpoints, with a huge caveat that I'm not an expert; I'm just drawing from notes and foggy memories from old seminary classes + this article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), and anyone interested in learning more should find scholarly articles or books rather than relying on some guy on tumblr!

Defining exclusivism, inclusivism, & religious pluralism

When we encounter traditions that offer differing and often conflicting "accounts of the nature of both mundane and supramundane reality, of the ultimate ends of human beings, and of the ways to achieve those ends" (IEP), how do we respond? Do we focus on difference and reject any truth in their views that conflicts with our views? Do we avoid looking too closely at the places we differ? try to find common ground? try to make their views fit ours?

Exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism are three categories into which we can place various responses to the reality of religious diversity.

It's important to note that this is only one categorization system one can use, and that these categories were developed within a Western, Christian context (by a guy named Alan Race in 1983). They are meant to be usable by persons of any religion — all sorts of people ask these questions about how their beliefs relate to others' beliefs — but largely do skew towards a Western, Christian way of understanding religion. (For one thing, there's a strong focus on salvation / afterlife and not all religions emphasize that stuff very much, if at all!)

Drawing primarily from this article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), here are basic definitions of each:

Exclusivist positions maintain that "only one set of belief claims or practices can ultimately be true or correct (in most cases, those of the one holding the position). A Christian exclusivist would therefore hold that the beliefs of non-Christians (and perhaps even Christians of other denominations) are in some way flawed, if not wholly false..." . (From my old class notes — Exclusivist Christians believe 3 things are non-negotiable: the unique authority of Jesus Christ as the apex of revelation; Jesus as normative; salvation exclusively through repentance and faith in Christ's work on the cross. Some will allow that God does provide some truths about Godself and humanity through general revelation, including truths found in other religious traditions, but the Biggest most Important revelation is still Jesus.) .

Inclusivist positions "recognize the possibility that more than one religious tradition can contain elements that are true or efficacious, while at the same time hold that only one tradition expresses ultimate religious truth most completely." . Christian inclusivists tend to focus on salvation, claiming that non-Christians can still achieve salvation — still through Jesus Christ. Sometimes they hold that any non-Christian whose life happens to fit Jesus's call to love God and neighbor, etc., will be saved. Other times they hold that only non-Christians who never had the chance to learn about Jesus can be saved; if you know about Christianity and reject it, it doesn't matter how "good"you are, you're doomed. .

Pluralist positions hold that "more than one set of beliefs or practices can be, at least partially and perhaps wholly, true or correct simultaneously." For Christian pluralists, that means believing that Jesus is not the one Way to God / to heaven/salvation; Christianity is one way of many, usually conceived of as all being on equal footing, to connect to the Divine. .

(These three categories are not all encompassing; the IEP article also brings up relativism and skepticism.)

Issues with Exclusivism & Inclusivism

I hope the issues with exclusivism are clear, but to name a few:

Christians who are taught that all non-Christians (or even the "wrong kind" of Christians) are doomed to hell are taught to see those people as Projects more than people — there's a perceived urgent need to convert them asap in order to "save them." The only kind of relationship you'd form with one of them is centered in efforts to convert them, rather than to live and learn alongside them as they are.

Doesn't matter if they are already happily committed to a different religion. In your eyes, they're wrong about feeling fulfilled and connected to the Divine.

Doesn't matter if you have to resort to violent and coercive practices like wiping out all signs of non-Christian culture or kidnapping non-Christian children to raise Christian — the ends justify the means because you're looking out for their "immortal souls."

...But what about inclusivism? If you're a Christian inclusivist, you aren't forcing anyone to convert to Christianity right now! You acknowledge that non-Christians can live holy and fulfilling lives! You even acknowledge that there's scraps of value in their valid-but-not-as-valid-as-Christianity religions! So what's the problem?

Turns out that this is a major case of one's good intentions not being nearly as important as one's impact.

You may be pushing back against exclusivism's outright refusal that non-Christians have any connection to the divine at all, which is nice and all — but by saying that non-Christians will basically become Christian after they die, you are still perpetuating our long history of coercive conversions.

There's a reason some scholars argue that inclusivism isn't actually a separate category from, but a sub-category of, exclusivism: you're still saying everyone has to be Christian, "so luckily you'll See The Light and become Christian after you die :)"

This is very reasonably offensive to many non-Christians. If nothing else, it's ludicrously smug and paternalistic! I won't get into it here but it only gets worse when some inclusivist positions try to get all Darwinian and start arranging religions from lower to higher, with Christianity as the "evolutionary" apex of religion ://

For now, I'll only go into detail about Catholic Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner's particular version of inclusivism, because it's quite common and really highlights the paternalism:

Rahner's Anonymous Christians:

A question that Catholics and other Christians struggled with in the 20th century was this: If non-Christians cannot be saved (because they held firm in believing that salvation must be in and through Christ), what happens if someone never even had the chance to learn about Christianity? Surely a loving God wouldn't write them an automatic ticket to hell when they're non-Christian through no fault of their own, right?

German Jesuit Karl Rahner's response was to conceive of a sort of abstract version of Christianity for non-Christians who lived good, faithful lives outside of official (what he called "constituted") Christianity:

"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity. ...Let us say, a Buddhist monk…who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity." - Karl Rahner in Dialogue (1986), p. 135.

So someone who has intentionally devoted themselves to another religion, someone who does good work in that religion's name, is...secretly, unbeknownst to them, actually Christian?

I hope the offensiveness of that is clear — the condescension in implying these people are ignorant of what religion they "really" belong to! the assumption that Good deeds & virtues are always inherently Christian deeds & virtues! the arrogance of being so sure your own religion is The One Right Way that you have to construct a "back door" (as Hans Küng describes it) into it to shove in all these poor people who for whatever reason can't or don't choose to join it!

One theologian who criticized the paternalism of "anonymous Christianity" is John Hick, who was one of the big advocates for religious pluralism as a more respectful way of understanding non-Christian religions. So let's finally talk some more about pluralism!

Religious Pluralism!

As defined earlier, religious pluralist positions hold that there are many paths to the divine, and that all religions have access to some truths about the divine.

For Christians, this means rejecting those 3 non-negotiables of exclusionists about Christianity being the one true religion and Jesus being the one path to salvation. Instead of claiming that Christianity is the "most advanced" religion, pluralism claims that Christianity is just one religion among many, with no unique claim on the truth.

Some other pluralist points:

Pluralism resists antisemitic claims that Christianity is the "fulfillment" of (or that it "supercedes") Judaism.

Various religions provide independent access to salvation rather than everyone's salvation relying on Christ. (Note the still very Christian-skewed lens here in emphasizing salvation at all though!)

When we notice how different religions' truth claims conflict with one another, pluralists reconcile this by talking about how one's experience of truth is subjective.

Pluralism tends to give more authority to human experience than sacred texts

John Hicks' pluralist position

I mentioned before that Hicks is one of the big names in the religious pluralism scene. The IEP article I drew from earlier goes into much greater detail about his views and responses to it in the section titled "c. John Hick: the Pluralistic Hypothesis," but for a brief overview:

His central claim is that "diverse religious traditions have emerged as various finite, historical responses to a single transcendent, ultimate, divine reality. The diversity of traditions (and the belief claims they contain) is a product of the diversity of religious experiences among individuals and groups throughout history, and the various interpretations given to these experiences."

"As for the content of particular belief claims, Hick understands the personal deities of those traditions that posit them...as personae of the Real, explicitly invoking the connotation of a theatrical mask in the Latin word persona."

"Hick claims that all religious understandings of the Real are on equal footing insofar as they can only offer limited, phenomenal representations of transcendent truth."

We must accept that world religions are fundamentally different from each other, rather than falling into platitudes about how "we're all the same deep down"

Each religion has its own particular and comprehensive framework for understanding the world and human experience (i.e. we shouldn't use the normative Christian framework to describe other faiths)

Another angle: hospitality

As various philosophers and theologians have responded to and expanded upon pluralist frameworks, one big concept that some emphasize is hospitality: that all of us regardless of religion have an obligation to welcome others to all that is ours, if and when they have need of it — especially when they are of different cultures or religions from us.

Hospitality requires respect for those under our care, honoring and protecting their differences.

When we are the ones in need of hospitality, we should be able to expect the same.

Hospitality implies being able to anticipate our guest's needs, but we need to accept the impossibility of being able to guess every need, so communication is key!

Liberation theology & Pluralism

I also appreciate what liberation theologians have brought into the discussion. Here's from the IEP article:

"Liberation theology, which advocates a religious duty to aid those who are poor or suffering other forms of inequality and oppression, has had a significant influence on recent discussions of pluralism. The struggle against oppression can be seen as providing an enterprise in which members of diverse religious traditions can come together in solidarity.

"Paul F. Knitter, whose work serves as a prominent theological synthesis of liberation and pluralist perspectives, argues that engaging in interreligious dialogue is part and parcel of the ethical responsibility at the heart of liberation theology. He maintains not only that any liberation theology ought to be pluralistic, but also that any adequate theory of religious pluralism ought to include an ethical dimension oriented toward the goal of resisting injustice and oppression.

"Knitter claims that, if members of diverse religions are interested (as they should be) in encountering each other in dialogue and resolving their conflicts, this can only be done on the basis of some common ground. ..."

Knitter sees suffering as that common ground: "Suffering provides a common cause with which diverse religious traditions are concerned and towards which they can come together to craft a common agenda. Particular instances of suffering will, of course, differ from each other in their causes and effects; likewise, the practical details of work to alleviate suffering will almost necessarily be fleshed out differently by different religions, at different times and in different places. Nevertheless, Knitter maintains that suffering itself is a cross-cultural and universal phenomenon and should thus serve as the reference point for a practical religious pluralism. Confronting suffering will naturally give rise to solidarity, and pluralist respect and understanding can emerge from there."

Knitter also sees the planet as a source of literal common ground for us all: "Earth not only serves as a common physical location for all religious traditions, but it also provides these traditions with what Knitter calls a 'common cosmological story' (1995, p. 119). ...Knitter makes a case that different religious traditions share an ecological responsibility and that awareness of this shared responsibility, as it continues to emerge, can also serve as a basis for mutual understanding."

When Knitter and other liberation theologians speak of suffering or earth care as rallying points for interreligious solidarity, it's important to point out that such solidarity doesn't happen automatically: it is something we have to choose to commit to. We have to be courageous about challenging those who would pin suffering on another religious or cultural group. We have to be courageous about having difficult conversations, again and again. We have to learn how to work together for common goals even while accepting where we differ.

How to end this long ass post?

My hope is that as you read (or skimmed) all this, you were thinking about your own personal beliefs: where, if anywhere, do they fit among all these ideas? where would you like them to fit?

And, in the end, did I really address anon's question about whether it's disrespectful to people of other religions to assert that everyone is loved by God, or gets into heaven? Not really, because I don't know. I think it probably depends on context, and how one puts it, and how certain one acts about their ideas about God and heaven.

For me, it always comes down to humility about my own limited perspective, even while asserting that we all have a right to our personal beliefs, including ideas about what comes after this life.

When I imagine all human beings together in whatever comes next, I hope I do so not out of a desire for assimilation into my religion, but a desire to continue to learn from and alongside all kinds of people and beliefs. I hope I remain open to learning about how other people envision both what comes after death, and more importantly, what they think about life here and now. What can I learn from them about truth, kindness, justice? How can we work together to achieve those things for all creation, despite and in and through our differences?

I'll end with Eboo Patel's description of religious pluralism, which sums up much of how I feel, from his memoir Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim:

"Religious pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus. It is a form of proactive cooperation that affirms the identities of the constituent communities while emphasizing that the wellbeing of each and all depends on the health of the whole. It is the belief that the common good is best served when each community has a chance to make its unique contribution."

___

Further resources:

Explore my #religious pluralism tag for more thoughts and quotes

You might also enjoy wandering through my #interfaith tag

Two podcast episodes that draw from Eboo Patel, Barbara Brown Taylor, and other wonderful people: "No One Owns God: Readying yourself for respectful interfaith encounters" and "It's good to have wings, but you have to have roots too: Cultivating your own faith while embracing religious pluralism"

My tag with excerpts from Holy Envy

Post that includes links to various questions about heaven

Here’s a post where I talk about why I don’t believe in hell

My evangelism tag (tl;dr: I’m staunchly against prosletyzing to anyone who doesn’t explicitly request more info about Christianity)

[wistfulwatcher]

I agree 100% with the tags on your gifset of Misty looking to Nat for approval. I think we start really seeing it in the teen timeline earlier but Misty pledging herself to Nat when Nat was crowned the antler queen is like, just a formal pledge. She's solidifying what was already there. Nat wasn't the antler queen when she chose to save her over Javi. Nat was the one being hunted for sport, and Misty could've run over to her to finish the job. Or help Javi and then finish the job. But nope, she just went straight to pulling Nat off of him and telling her if she doesn't run the others WILL kill her. Nat was also the first person to jump in front of Misty and defend her to Shauna after Shauna punched her in 2.07 so I'm sure that helped Misty glom onto her a bit lol

Fully agree, this is my reasoning as well! I do also believe that Nat and Misty have always had a level of understanding as outcasts - I think Misty always saw her as "safer" than the other girls, and I think Nat could understand Misty in ways that allowed her to be more tolerant than others because she understood where Misty's need for acceptance comes from. (Though, the other side of that is, I think Nat also got more frustrated with Misty because she understands what it's like to be an outcast, except Nat leaned into it where Misty fought against it - in the sense of, "if it was so easy for me to be different, why can't you just do the same?") And not that it was official/canon in the show, but at least some of the actresses (I think Christina and/or Juliette, but could have been Sammi/Soapy too) have mentioned there being that sort of understanding, where Nat was always nicer to Misty than the others were.

I also, on the less romantic side, do think that Misty is just too pragmatic to not see Nat's value (even pre-wilderness). I think she has always seen Natalie as someone important to have around, and since she is such a practical person I think her emotional responses are sort of tied up in her pragmatism; in fact, I would argue that practicality is inherently romantic for her. So Misty has the - arguably, as a hunter - most useful person in the group, who understands her, and is kind to her (even if distantly), and then defends her? And on top of that, is indebted to Misty (at least as far as Misty is concerned) for saving her life? That is a romantic-pragmatic mashup feast for Misty.

So I definitely think the seeds of her attachment and obsession were there far before the coronation. (Sorry Christina. I agree with 99% of what you say, but not this.) And I agree, the pledge was really just a formal commitment, and more of a conscious decision for what she would already have done subconsciously. I think that moment of Misty looking up is very much things clicking into place for her, like that it's okay to appreciate and care for Natalie the way she does, because now she's her queen. (Not to mention that Misty is neck-deep in comphet. Her being given this tool - this religion, this coronation - that not just allows her to feel the way she does, but encourages it?) I don't see anyone bending the knee with the fervor she did without the seeds being there beforehand.

[apollos-olives]

wow thank you again for the great reply. i honestly never knew gender dysphoria could be like that so please forgive my ignorance. i was aware of it's existence but like we both said, my not being trans will never truly understand your being trans. i also appreciate the analogies because that does put it into perspective as well. Suicide of course should be prevented, and if transitioning is truly the only way to prevent it, then Allah knows best.

religious trauma is something i greatly identify with - having attended a Muslim school and being subjected to blatant misogyny as well as being the daughter of a revert who married into a culturally Muslim family, and growing up in a household that didn't really practice either - i totally understand why queer Muslims may feel distant from Islam and I do not judge them whatsoever because someone leaving the folds of Islam truly says more about their community. However, what I learnt from my own trauma and healing from that is that at the end of the day, we do have our own choices and we can choose whether to open our hearts back to the religion or not. ofc this statement is easier said than done.

Regarding queerness and children - I did not word myself correctly and forgot to mention what you have mentioned. I don't believe that being queer is inherently sexual and I apologize if it came out that way. You are right in saying people don't have a problem when heterosexual people make assumptions but will immediately have a problem when someone who is non-hetero does. It is hypocrisy and I admit that, I am not against children learning about people who are queer or even what queer means, my concerns are merely with people who hypersexualise under the guise of being lgbtq+ activists and in the same breath I will say that I feel the same way about heterosexual people who sexualise kids.

Where I stand, as long as Bi'dah is not committed, for example, free mixing in salah or roles of men and women interchanging when it comes to the practices of Islam, I genuinely have no qualms with anyone.

I have honestly learnt so much more in these two replies than I have learnt through media and discussions with people who identify as part of the community and for that i am truly grateful. many of your points allowed me to question my own perspective of queerness as well as to challenge myself regarding how I actually view people who are different than myself.

All in all, my stance on lgbtq+ hasn't changed much in the sense that I can agree with anything and everything that the community preaches but I have become more aware that not everyone who belongs to it shares the same opinions and not every Muslim who is queer/non-hetero hates or blatantly chooses to reject Islam. I do think that this discussion has been fruitful and it's a conversation I'm glad to have had, especially since it's civil, hopefully from both our perspectives.

Allah truly knows best, regardless of my view or your view and we all are Muslim and hopefully striving towards the end goal in the Hereafter. We should focus on the issues on hand and spread Islam through its meaning and not on our own prejudice because you as a queer Muslim may be doing much more good than I, a heterosexual Muslim, am currently.

Thank you for the discussion and may Allah bless you ♥️

no worries thank you so much for being so respectful and understanding! most muslims i meet aren't willing to listen to people they don't agree with so it's very refreshing that you're being so open to trying to listen to me. it's very heartwarming :)

alhamdulillah i'm glad you understand the struggles of being trans and how queer muslims may stray away from islam because of religious trauma. and you're absolutely right that at the end of the day, allah knows best and it is always up to the person to choose the right path for them.

and thank you for clarifying your stance on the whole children situation. and yes you are correct that people do use the lgbtq+ community to try to get away with stuff that is deemed unacceptable! unfortunately the community is facing hardship because people are abusing the openness and acceptance of the community and sometimes are using it as an excuse to do bad things, which most people in the queer community condemn and are actively trying to fight against! and even then, those situations are kept to a minimum and are handled as best as possible, and the occurrence of those problems are not as common as people think, actually. but i do understand how you may be concerned and that's totally fine, but i want to assure you that it's not common at all and most of the lgbtq+ community want to protect kids as much as possible!

i don't have much of an opinion on bi'dah and whatnot, but your beliefs are very valid and i totally respect them as well :)

i'm so happy that i could help educate you and give you insight about how queerness affects me and other muslims. i'm so glad that you were open to listening. it's totally okay if my insight hasn't changed your opinions very much, i'm just glad to have been able to be given an opportunity to share my perspective as a queer muslim. and you are right that the muslim community as a whole must drop their prejudices and all reach to strive for jannah in the afterlife. inshallah we can all have good discussions like we did in jannah as well :)

[utilitycaster]

Hi, first religion anon (NOT the same as the second religion anon). My main complaints are with TUC (mostly s1 but the ‘Jesus is real’ thing in s2 really bothered me) and the way that Laudna and a few other characters engage with the gods on CR. I have 0 complaints with Sam, I think his engagements with religion as both Scanlan and FCG are fascinating. I think things like ACOC and Kristen on D20 are done fine, but when they move outside of Christian allegories they tend to stumble. I know Brennan and Ally have philosophy backgrounds and Emily has a religious studies background, but frankly I’m not super confident in American universities’ ability to make people deconstruct Christian hegemony, and things like Emily using the phrase “Judeo-Christian” aren’t super encouraging to me.

thanks for clarifying, I was wondering about the second anon bc I was like "the first anon came in being fairly normal even if I don't agree and this feels...bad and also just a hunch but it feels like it's coming from a Cultural Christian who is not American. (also I did get your follow up question and I want to answer that one separately bc I think it's a good but separate point).

I know it's not terribly popular to say but being weird about the term "Judeo-Christian" feels like one of those things that Jumblr and other people in Jewish Millennial/Gen Z spaces online made a big deal about and I'm like "uhhhhh this was a thing my actual Jewish middle school teachers said sometimes; it's not the best term, no, but it was the go-to term in a lot of contexts until quite recently to the point that yeah, Emily going to school in the 2000s would probably hear it even from Jewish profs, and so it's not so much a red flag as a sign that she graduated before 2010."

I also honestly don't mind Jesus being real in TUC 2; at some point if you've decided all other mythology is real why not Christian religion. It feels, in a way, far more Christian-centric to treat Christianity as something that cannot be incorporated, as too real, as compared to say, Norse or Greek myths or Golems.

I will say that I agree that Ally and Marisha do tend to be a bit more limited in how they engage; I actually don't mind Laudna's frustrations with the gods from a "I think this comes from Marisha's personal feelings" perspective more so than a "could we...actually explore this as a throughline rather than a bunch of random-ass statements." I do think that Ally does tend to pull from their own experience; understandably so, but yes, it's very different than my experience as someone not raised Christian let alone strictly so.

I guess, and this might just be difficult to do as an anon ask thing, that I am looking at this very holistically. I am looking far more at what the GM is doing than an individual player, and I haven't had issues with Matt, Brennan, Murph, or Aabria's portrayal of divine forces. I find that Worlds Beyond Number has been explicitly very not Christian (and indeed, heavily influenced by Shintoism and pre-Christian Irish religion) in how the spirits are portrayed, and while I think Matt does tend to draw a lot from Catholic architecture and imagery and vibes, the way the gods engage with the players does not feel exclusively Christian (notably in Campaign 2; none of Fjord, Caduceus, Yasha, nor Jester's experience feel inherently cultural Christian beyond the fact that Travis mentions he doesn't feel like he can connect with the Luxon because 'it's a shape'). So it means I'm not looking to Ally for example for an exploration of religion that is as accessible to me, but I do find that actual play on the whole feels fine. I find a lot of the claims do feel like they get really hung up on specific details (eg: the Santa jokes in Chetney's backstory) instead of the overall feeling (eg: the fact that many of the deities have a very open, fluid, and at times intellectual form of engagement; the fact that the general message is that suffering is not purifying but rather simply sucks; Melora death domain traditions and especially Caduceus's philosophy which is very much outside American Protestantism; the polytheistic society of Vasselheim.)

[spotsupstuff]

With the things said recently regarding Suns being a bad influence on Pebbles, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly agree but that I. Actually dislike Suns willingly giving Pebbles the taboo overwrite instructions from a writing perspective like. The jump from "ultimately means well but is unhealthy and incredibly emotionally insensitive" to "literally handing your blatantly emotionally unstable best friend instructions on how to destroy himself" is not a small one!!! It just doesn't really. Feel like a reasonable thing for Suns to do at least as far as I see. They're definitely still a dumbass though and I want them put through every last one of the situations

gjklsdcmklgjkdscmdl damning them to every situation ever GJSKLCMKL BUT! -snaps fingers n finger guns atcha- i'mma tell you why it makes sense to me personally!

see, when handling the Iterators (and just about anyone from RW's world), one needs to keep in mind their situation and the general set up. their world functions differently than ours, they have different faith, different ultimate goals towards which they wish to lead their lives

irl Buddhism views the living world and situation (Saṃsāra) as a cycle of torture. the ultimate goal is to escape it. it's just how the culture and understanding of the world developed over there. a christian or something might view it as insane, but that is an opinion that should be kept to themselves in order to respect something strikingly different from what they are used to. Buddhism isn't inherently evil for thinking this way

n as well aaaaaaaaall know RW has Buddhism elements in it (whether filtered thru the idea of Theosophy or not is -aggressively shrugs- who knows). therefore we gotta understand that what Suns did was, in a way, that "ultimately means well" thing

all that the Iterators are left with in the world... *is* the Great Problem. hard canon speaking-wise, Suns was most likely to definitely correct when they said that that isn't anything else for them except work on the Problem or be Stuck

and that pearl was supposed to have the answer to it. an ending to the suffering that's just stretching and stretching on, so so much more palpable to the Iterators than irl Saṃsāra is to us. they are fated to end *horribly* if they don't find the solution and THIS might be it

from that angle, the thing they did doesn't sound so bad anymore! it's def still shit cuz like. yeah, Pebs was Not in a good mindset and they should've communicated more with the rest of the group (ESPECIALLY Moon) to coordinate better n prevent all that tragedy, but... Yeah

i like shoving the blame at Ancients for this as well, cuz motherFUCKERS -hits 'em with rolled up newspaper- just HAD to go and want to speedrun a fucking RELIGION instead of proper dedicating themselves to it. feckin no wonder the children are doing it too! it's a line of dumbfuckery!!!!! mama mia! 🤌

[eeveecraft]

Hihi! I saw this post in the syscourse tag and was wondering if u had seen it?

https://www.tumblr.com/kipandkandicore/723924087333879808/alright-so-we-feel-like-we-need-to-respond-to

The post says u blocked that user. I wanted to make sure u knew about this in case you didnt since its about your essay and all

Well, you can probably understand why I have them blocked. I was initially planning to reply to it, but I decided against it because I really don't want to give it attention.

Like, oh my god, that post is atrocious. Nearly every goddamn sentence they typed (out of 2.6k WORDS) is twisted or just false. All it did was really highlight how horribly ignorant this system is of not only our community (seriously, they say they've been in the Tulpamancy community for a year and has a spouse who has a tulpa, but then clearly state misinformation like "Tulpamancy" or "Tulpamancer" being used with the paranormal definition of "tulpa" when both of those terms were made in the community and are exclusively used by the community), but also just Buddhism in general.

For context: that system is white and clearly suffers from white savior complex, it isn't even funny. They go on tirades about uplifting POC, but then are the ones to make Google Docs, make these harmful posts, and legitimately harm people with them (some of which definitely include POC). They tried to group all Asians into one homogeneous group that can dictate each other's culture (which is so goddamn racist, what the hell) and when they were called out on it, they backpedaled and then swapped to lumping all Asian *Buddhists* into one group that can have say over all of Buddhism. They have this habit of stripping the nuance from things like religion and race, and in my opinion, that is far more harmful than us using "tulpa."

And like every single system who tries to say us using "tulpa" has caused harm, they provide zero actual examples of "tulpa" specifically causing harm to Tibetan Buddhists. Yeah, they linked articles to other aspects of Tibetan Buddhism being appropriated and how those specific instances are harmful, but I'm gonna say this for the umpteenth time: tulpa was DERIVED from Tibetan language, not directly ripped. Tulpa as a word literally does not exist in Tibetan and if you tried saying it to a Tibetan person, they're going to look at you funny.

Every single time any of us has asked for any specific instance of "tulpa" being used by the Tulpamancy community causing harm to actual Tibetan Buddhists, these people can't provide any because there is no harm. They just can't admit it.

And again, though they can't cite any harm besides the word annoying them, we can cite multiple instances of harm being done to the community and others because of posts made by this system, Amanitasys, and more.

Such as: The harassment we faced before. Sophie being told to end it because she uses tulpa (and literally is one).

The post you linked labeling us as racist, @cambriancrew as ableist, and @sophieinwonderland as a "proud racist."

Posts like these flooding the #tulpa tag.

And more! We have literally been told in Discord servers that people want to drop tulpa, not because they agree that it's appropriative and/or racist, but because they're tired of arguing/getting harassed.

That sounds like a harassment campaign, NOT a good-faith discussion on a term that DOES have a murky history of both good and bad.

Oh, can't forget how they called me racist because I supposedly "promot[e] incredibly racist ideas," and they provide ZERO evidence for this besides me saying tulpa isn't an inherently racist word. While also simultaneously going (paraphrasing), "Well, we don't condone harassment, buuuut we can see why because Eeveecraft is racist." Please tell me I'm not the only one who realizes what's being implied there.

Overall, that post is, quite frankly awful in every sense of the word and it really highlights why "tulpa = appropriation" is very often not made in good faith. I don't even encourage replying to it and slam-dunking it into the ground like it deserves because all that does is give it more attention and visibility. Though obviously, I can't stop people from doing so, even if I don't condone it. EDIT: I also want to add that this system says that the majority of systems who say "tulpa = appropriation" are pro-endogenic, but then posts like this exist that just blatantly disprove that.

And in that same post, you can see what many users on r/Buddhism think about Tulpamancy and most of them are either neutral/fine with it. Who woulda thunk it?

7-27-2023

[xceanlynx]

hey so I saw your post about allos and 'love is what makes us human' and I agree with you but I also never know how to respond when someone uses this phrase with me. maybe I'm stuck in the amatonormativity because I really don't know what makes us human outside of the love answer. what makes us human to you?

Hi! First of all, don't feel bad if you still see life through a love lens even within the aro/ace/aroace (assuming you're aspec) community. We all still live in a society that values the emotion of love more than other emotions, so it is a long journey of unlearning.

What made me understand that the ability/will to love isn't what makes us humans was, not so much surprisingly, animals. We tend to think we are so different than them, but in reality, all we differ in is that we crossed the threshold of consciousness and rationality. Animals do love, some species more than others. We can't say someone is human just based on that.

I already said that consciousness and rationality are concepts to consider when defining humankind, but they still aren't enough. That would assume people who lost consciousness or their rationality (people in comas or people with neurodegenerative disorders, for example) have lost their humanity, which is obviously false. Some may say our intelligence and our curiosity makes us human, but again, animals are smart and curious too.

I like to think that one of the things that might makes us human is our ability to make, give and search for purpose. It's our drive, what makes us go forward. Many things in our universe do not have a reason to be, and by themselves they'll never have. Why do we get sad? Why do we engage in wars? Why do we laugh when we see someone fall? Animals can also do all of these (in their appropriate proportions), but they don't ask themselves these questions, they just do what's innate of them. We do what's innate of us too, but we aren't satisfied with just that. We ask, and we need the answers. Why are we so stubborn? Why we live the way we live? Where do we go when we die? What are we doing here, even?

See, maybe we don't know the answers to all of these questions, but we sure do try to find them. Some even have them — they found their purpose within religion, community, militancy, philanthropy, nihilism and so on. I'm not saying the purpose needs to be collective, nor that it has to be a good thing. People give bad purposes to their lives and actions all the time. Greed. Ire. Boredom. The belief of being superior. That still makes them human (human as in human being, not as in person that inherently deserves sympathy — some people tend to convolute these definitions).

In the end, it's not just a simple concept that will answer the question of what gives us our humanity. I've said three but I am certain there are many others. I don't know if you will agree with me, and maybe in a few months I won't agree with myself either — as I said, long journey of unlearning (and also learning). But I hope I could make you a little bit inspired to search for your own answer.

btw I'm not aro (as far as I know for now), so I encourage you to also ask aro people from all sides of the spectrum for their own views on the "love is what makes us human" argument. And I'd also encourage you to not engage with people (specially online) if they give you "arguments" like this. Avoid all types of aphobia at all costs. Have a great day!

[autumn-rain-co]

One question to start this all off, what is tulpamancy anymore?

I've heard told several times that it is not "inherently" a spiritual or religious thing, and it's more psychological and a "science". Well, it can be! But it depends on the person I guess?

I've also seen that it stemmed from a spiritual practice from Tibetan Buddhism, but tulpamancy is so different from the actual (closed) practice that they should be considered the same/similar.

The actual practice being about reaching a higher self by spiritual means, while tulpamancy is about concentrating thoughts into one thing and continuously interacting with it for it to become self-aware. Alright, cool.

The problem is never about the tulpas themselves. The methods in tulpamancy have changed so much that it isn't recognizable. Threw out a lot of the spiritual and religious things that were tied to it.

The issue on the table is, "Why would you call something that is not inherently spiritual or religious with a name that is absolutely tied to spirituality and religion?". It is appropriation to label something, that isn't even tied to this one thing anymore, with something from said thing.

This wouldn't be a big problem if those who are pro-tulpa didn't accuse the ones who are pointing out that the term tulpa is appropriative for doing so with ill-intent, or just silencing them. Even saying that they're supporting Not So Great things. A lot of the people who are calling it out are POC and you're just ignoring and accusing us of things because we don't agree with you.

People have already made new terms to use such as "paromancy", " thoughtform", and a couple others. So many people argue that they'll lose their resources over changing terms, but that doesn't... Make sense. They wouldn't suddenly just poof or you're not allowed to use them. They would just need to be changed or people just acknowledge that these studies are old and were using the previous term.

Another argument is that it'll take a long time to have everyone change terms since the community is so big. So, you're just lazy? Think it's a hassle? Change doesn't happen in one night. Adapting to a new thing would take time and that's fine! Just continue to educate people on the new terms and why the old term was not good. Sure not everyone will change it, that's inevitable, but at least the majority of the community will understand and change their ways.

Some people argue that they like it and are attached. Unfortunately, even if you like it, it is still the result of appropriation. No matter if you're POC or not, it does not negate the fact it is a harmful term. If you want to listen to POC and understand the term is appropriative, you should change.

Even with all of this, people refuse to change! They keep arguing and giving excuses that are just the same thing over and over. What is tulpamancy and why won't you change terms?

[traegorn]

hi! i want to be clear that i mean no disrespect in asking this. as someone who knows the history of wicca, how it was created in the 50s and has largely appropriated other pagan traditions etc, ive always wondered why people still find it compelling? in a more answerable format, why do you choose to be wiccan over a different pagan tradition that doesn't have that history as its baseline? i know theres no easy answer to this and the question likely sounds ruder than i mean it to. for context im part of two of the cultures wiccans have taken a huge chunk of practices from, as well as being trans (i know you are too which is why i mention it) and the extremely binary gendered "god and goddess", "divine feminine and masculine energy" stuff makes me uncomfortable. in researching, it seems like a lot of the cultural appropriation aspects of it were added by early practitioners in the 60s and 70s, but that still makes it deeply ingrained in the religion. i genuinely want to be more understanding and compassionate, and since you are pretty involved in the wiccan community specifically like answering questions and stuff i wanted your perspective. sorry if this is uncalled for in any way.

There's a lot here, and I don't necessarily agree with the way everything in the ask is framed (and I never like comments about "appropriation" without going into specifics because that can mean many things) -- but I can tell you're asking in good faith, so I'll do my best.

I'm not going to dig into my relationship with the god and goddess as a nonbinary Wiccan because I've answered it so many times before. I've done a whole podcast episode on it, so that's out there if you want to know what my feelings are on the topic. You're asking me how I found faith in a religion that's less than a century old though.

And the answer is... because it's what I believe in?

I mean, you're asking me to explain faith. My personal journey (which, uh, I've also gone into detail with in another podcast episode) was one where I started with what I believed in and found something that asked the question I already felt I'd answered? I don't know if that makes any sense.

It's never been about Wicca being ancient (though I certainly came up in an era where that was still a very common belief in the community), but what I found in it. We fetishize practices and traditions being ancient in a really unhealthy way. Something being older doesn't make it inherently more authentic or real, but time and time again people fall into this trap.

Early Wiccans fell face first into this one, and even though the truth eventually came to light about it, the rest of the neopagan community never really moved past it. Like how many "Celtic Shamans" are out there pretending they're doing something ancient still? To a lesser note, think about how many Norse Heathens don't admit a good chunk of what they practice is reconstruction.

You ask "Why do you choose to be wiccan over a different pagan tradition that doesn't have that history as its baseline?" And I ask, as a white Midwesterner with no cultural connection to those other traditions -- how would it be any better if I laid claim to those either? Not to mention that it's not what I believe. My conception of divinity isn't an outfit I can change. I can't just say "Okay, I believe in [X God]" the next day out of nowhere.

A person's faith isn't hot-swappable.

I don't know if I fully answered what you asked, but that's what I've got this random Monday morning.

[rollercoasterwords]

hey rae, congrats on winning the costume contest! gotta be honest, i got very curious about what you think about promising young woman's politics and the ending. i remember enjoying it, other than thinking it was a bit irresponsable at some parts... but also i watched it a while ago and dont really remember much from it. im currently reading the zombie essays you rec'd, and im franlky loving it so so much. monster theory my beloved. And this is the first time im reading about zombies through sexuality lens, all essays i've read about zombies so far were about afro-latin religions and black resistance during colonization, but im loving, reading it in bed while giggling and quicking my feet, etc.... bc "queer zombie jesus" deserves to be a bed read cmom look at that sexy combination of words. hope you're doing well!! xxx substack guy

hi substack guy <3 would love 2 share my thoughts abt promising young woman but i will do that in a min + put it under a cut bc. spoilers etc. love that ur enjoying the zombie essays tho!! there are so many different angles 2 approach zombies as a monster; if u have any reading recs abt religion + colonization my inbox is always open...i have a book or 2 downloaded but have mostly read scattered articles in that vein. agree that 'queer zombie jesus' is SO fun that was one of my fave articles from zombies & sexuality lol. also just recently bought a book called dead white & blue that's abt zombies + usamerican nationalism so. excited 2 start exploring that topic as well...

anyway. promising young woman thoughts (got long...also tw sa):

still thinking & working thru them etc but. generally speaking i am not a huge fan of movies that fall into the rape revenge genre so i typically start them skeptical, and ultimately i thought it was...an odd choice to have the main character be seeking revenge not for herself, but on behalf of her dead friend's past assault...talk abt a dead girl haunting the narrative etc...but like. usually one of my issues w rape revenge is the tendency to turn the person who's been assaulted into this figure of the Righteous Victim such that they become less a person + more a symbol onto which an audience gets to project + live out violent catharsis etc...honestly don't necessarily think there's an inherent issue with creating or seeking out that form of catharsis in film but i just. do not think it is particularly politically useful...+ this setup just like. took that to the next level by literally removing the Victim from the narrative entirely, stripping her character of all agency + personhood, and making her friend the Agent seeking Justice on her behalf which. i mean it's a bit ironic innit...

was also not too sure how i felt abt the whole setup of "woman goes to bars, acts drunk, and there's ALWAYS a creep who tries to take her home + assault her"...i'm somewhat torn feeling-wise here bc i used to very much have this sort of "all men are [potential] monsters" mentality that like no matter where u go there will be someone there ready 2 take advantage of u but. i no longer feel like that is a very useful framework 4 discussing or addressing sexual violence. firstly in that it tends to devolve quickly into the sort of gender essentialism that i am fundamentally opposed to, but also bc it seems so defeatist to me. how are u supposed 2 address a problem if u assume that the problem is already so baked in, and in such simplistic terms? so while i do understand that this is a film and it's sort of dramatizing what is a very real issue, i'm not sure i was entirely sold on the way it was dramatizing it...felt like it was trying 2 highlight but in the process was also flattening 2 a certain extent...

and then like. i did to some extent appreciate the way the film is trying to highlight that it's oftentimes "nice guys" committing sexual violence, especially bc rape revenge films often just portray the "bad guys" as like. cartoonishly evil. but i felt like even there the film was still wanting to get back into that black + white territory, which manifested especially in the bo burnham character. like, on the one hand the film wants to highlight the fact that people committing sexual violence are often sympathetic, perhaps even kind, "nice" people and not obviously evil bad guys, but on the other hand it did not seem to want to sit in the gray area of what that means at all (ie, asking the audience to actually sympathize with or relate to anyone implicated in acts of sexual violence), meaning that whenever we found out a character was involved in an assault that character immediately became a completely unsympathetic bad guy. and like, again, i understand why the film wants to do that--nobody wants to encourage someone to sympathize with a rapist. but irl sexual violence is by and large not black and white, and the fact is that most people are able to sympathize with and relate to people who have committed these forms of violence, because they're not cartoonishly evil bad guys--they're friends, partners, coworkers, family members, etc. and so again, this just isn't a framework that i find particularly useful in addressing irl sexual violence, bc i think it leads to this dichotomy we so often seen where if The Perpetrator/The Accused is not clearly Evil, then they must be Innocent. so like. the film tries, in some ways, to trouble that dichotomy, but i think in the end it just falls back into it--it's just that the guys we thought were "nice" are actually "bad"; imo the audience isn't really encouraged to sit in any emotional stew beyond that.

i do give the movie props for the actual way it handled portrayals of assault; i thought it did a pretty good job there. in particular was a fan of the way they elected to never show the actual video of nina, and how in basically any scene with sexual violence the emphasis was largely on the face + emotions of the person experiencing it. and i mean i did enjoy the movie, for the most part, while i was watching it--like i thought it was a pretty engaging film, good acting, etc.

but if anything the ending really. solidified my disappointment in the politics of the movie. not just bc cassandra died--honestly, i think the death was an interesting choice and there are ways they maybe could have played it that i would have liked more. but having the "triumphant" ending be the cops swooping in to arrest al...give me a fucking break lol. like u set up this whole movie abt how the legal system + these various institutions fail people who have experienced sexual violence, and then...i'm supposed to expect the cops to handle it? the justice system that already failed previously in the movie? and the entire framing of the ending--cassandra's final texts, the music, etc--makes it clear that this is supposed to be a triumphant moment. so i was just like. wtf....like in the end both women are dead. what form of justice is the suggestion that their abuser might go to prison? especially when prison itself is a violent + corrupt institution that must be abolished as part of the fight to end sexual violence? just a very shitty ending overall to what was already a movie that had me sort of going "hmmm...idk" throughout lol. so! those r my thoughts currently

[sophieinwonderland]

YEAH the new person saying the endo community is a cult is so weird like heh?? im gonna try to paraphrase their comments so you can get the gist of what they say without anyone going to attack them since they are a cult survivor and i can understand why they think that endogenics are a cult, but... it's just projection imo

they see the term sysmed as terrible and say using it is a cult tactic because it compares sysmeds to transmeds (even though if u think about it for 3 seconds it's like hold on, maybe there IS a connection between between two groups of people who think the only way to experience there personhood-related thing is through suffering. who knew!)

they think being pro-endos are brainwashed and programmed to believe a certain "niche" way of thinking, which is really really silly when the "way of thinking" is "hey maybe there are other ways of being more than one person other than trauma"

theres one exerpt of a post comparing plurality to scientology and saying that endogenics think that plurality makes you a better person compared to singlets / that dissociation/identity disturbances/internal voices aren't disordered at all / are not symptoms at all. when that is factually entirely incorrect, they can be symptoms of problems and no system is better than any singlet just by being more than one person

"they actively target the mentally ill and instill fear towards them seeking treatment" as if sysmeds aren't the ones making us feel more fake and less deserving of disordered-system resources

also them repeating the idea that people think alters arent real people but soulbonds/endogenic headmates are real people, which isn't true (many alters are real people and some endogenic headmates may just be parts / not full people)

also them claiming that most endogenics are white, middle class americans with religious/christian trauma??? they used screenshots from SAS to "prove" their point which is really strange- (and also making fun of people "bastardizing other cultures" right after... like maybe, some of the people who are "bastardizing" cultures might just be engaging in their own culture? or be engaging in something so disconnected from the original concept like tulpamancy, that many non-actively-syscourse-engaging buddhists dont care and don't mind lol)

also also them reblogging from sweet-sloths-sys making fun of someone asking for money, which is the literal ONLY "pro-endo" that i've seen act like that. it's embarrassing. like we blocked that "pro endo" the moment we saw them they are just as bad as any sysmed we've seen lol no one whom i know is pro-endo agrees with their bullshit

them saying endogenics have MADD and not plurality??? what the fuck lol

and more but im getting a headache scrolling through their blog lol

and yk maybe i am looking too hard into it but when we've had moments when we were fixated on cults (especially this one youtuber who talks about a certain cult a lot), comparing that to people going "hey maybe my perspective on life isnt the only perspective, science doesnt always account for personal perspective" and supporting endogenic systems is... weird.

yeah, sure there are a LOT of cult-like behaviors in certain endogenic groups, but to call the entire thing a cult is very strange, and honestly downplays the actual cult behaviors in the sub-groups which should be talked about.

but me saying "hey maybe plurality isn't inherently a disordered experience" isn't fucking cult-behavior! at least compare this shit to the BITE model or SOMETHING lol

Thanks for the rundown!

they think being pro-endos are brainwashed and programmed to believe a certain "niche" way of thinking, which is really really silly when the "way of thinking" is "hey maybe there are other ways of being more than one person other than trauma"

Another thing that bothers me about this is that by this logic, any belief that's not mainstream could be considered a cult. That includes a ton of smaller religions. It could even include the MOGAI community, since xenogenders are still pretty niche themselves.

And I too am SO curious where their endogenic demographics come from! It sounds like they just made them up.

them saying endogenics have MADD and not plurality??? what the fuck lol

I've seen this take several times, and it's just total medical misinformation.

If you have daydream characters with a will of their own who takeover your body, those aren't just daydream characters. Switching is not a normal symptom of MADD. (Although MADD is often related to plurality.)

[lheautontimoroumenos]

I've been meaning to write this since @luckthebard 's post about the fandom's treatment of the whole Ludinus situation but I'm only getting to it now, and didn't want to hijack the og post. The basic point of this is that it made me realize that this is basically the same discourse as "Luke was right" in Percy Jackson.

You have the gods, of Exandria or Olympus, who are somewhat questionable in world.

You have a guy, Ludinus or Luke, that feels like he's been wronged by the gods, some could say that this feeling is accurate, some would disagree (I believe that's a interesting in-game convo, don't know how relevent it is outside of it).

This guy then wants to get rid of the gods, to set up a new world order, and to do so, he makes an alliance with an older being, that existed prior to the gods (Predathos or Chronos).

This older being wants to kill the gods for his own interests and is using the guy as a means to an end, while the guy believes he's bringing forth lasting change.

Both fandoms ask at some point, "is the guy right ?". Because the guys criticizes an imperfect system, but with violent and unfit means.

That's about all I have to say about pjo, I just wanted to point out the parallel.

To the second part of this post.

I think the only thing with which I disagree from the og post is the seemingly firm belief that the criticism of the gods by the fandom is unfounded.

I'll add that the comparison to Evangelical American Christianity isn't quite relevant to me, or at least misses the point of some of the criticism. This specific way to practice Christianity and Christianity in general is not inherently bad or evil or wrong, nothing is. Did they do horrible things in the past ? damn right. Should they make amends ? damn right. Are they still today being used as a symbol and a way to justify horrible things ? right again.

But as true as all of this is, I think it is just skirting what is actually criticized about religion in general here or in extreme atheist circles. I'll quote Le Guin here "religion, yes, clergy, no.". The problem is not the religion in and of itself, it never is. The problem is the institution it creates and how this institution is then used as a tool of oppression. And absolutely every religion can fall victim to this, none is exempt.

That is true of real life religion, and our fake fantasy religions. The Dwendalian Empire forces strong restriction on worship, and shockingly, they're (it's in the name) a whole ass empire, whose control of the religion practiced by its people allows it to control its general array of thought. One could argue that the Kryn Dynasty also uses the worship of the Luxon as a tool of control of their elites and population, but let's keep that for another day.

I also think the hole in the og post's argumentation is saying that we have had good interactions with the gods before, and following a few paragraphs later with "our personal relationships with individual gods and feelings about them are irrelevant actually".

And yeah, we've seen great interactions with the gods, but the gods are not what are criticized in anti-religion movements, again, the problem is in the institutionalization of it.

I'll end this by saying that I do understand that the problem pointed out in the og post was the support given to Ludinus. Regarding this, I definitely agree with Luck. Even if I think there is criticism to be made about organized religion in whatever form, that's really not what Ludinus is doing. His problem seems to be the gods themselves and not the institution of them, which means I believe he's missing the point as well.

There is of course, the question of violence as a means to an end, and if you're interested by this as a philosophical debate, I'll advise reading a bit about utilitarianism in general and some famous books and plays (The Just Assassins, by Albert Camus ; Ivan Karamazov's speech to his brother Aliocha in Dosyoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov ; really basic trolley problem stuff ; and Camus wrote a lot about the use of violent means in war in various texts, including Resistance, Rebellion, and Death). But we're in a fantasy world, and a D&D game, and they kill a bunch of people and creatures all the time, so the moral aspect of violence or non-violence is also not the same as in real life.

I believe violence is at times necessary for change, and it is always necessary to overthrow an oppression which uses violence first (for more about this, I would advise reading Frantz Fanon and Paulo Freire).

However, Ludinus is not thriving to overthrow this oppression in its institutional form, but wishes only to suppress the people currently in power, without changing the minds of the people or the way they think power, which in turn will keep the oppression alive (which is why revolutionary movements have to come from the people and not the elite).

TL;DR: LUDINUS IN CR IS BASICALLY LUKE IN PJO, AND EVEN IF LUDINUS IS 100% WRONG, THERE ALWAYS IS A CRITICISM TO BE MADE AGAINST ORGANIZED RELIGION SEEING AS IT IS OFTEN USED AS A TOOL OF OPPRESSION.

[bijoumikhawal]

Karaites are not a were (there are probably around 50,000 of them today), and they aren't biblical literalists. Karaites still interpret the Torah. They do not try to read the most obvious meaning out of it (which is still interpretation), they try to read what would have been obvious in Antiquity (which is also interpretation). Community leaders may often be Ḥakhamim (scholars) who are consulted regarding the Torah, and in the past compiled volumes of different interpretations (most have been lost). However, the only exaltation they have, to my understanding, is as scholars, filling an advising role. Every Jew in Karaite Judaism is encouraged to study the Torah and interpret it. All interpretations are held to the same scrutiny. The interpretations I've read from Karaites can be very satisfyingly logical (such as the "Tekhelet is woad" argument).

They reject that the Talmud is equal to or above the Torah, and I've seen a few different opinions from Karaites about what that means. One person I've bumped into said you shouldn't consult the Talmud at all, but the stance on the official site for American Karaites is as follows: "Rejection of the authority of the Talmud does not mean that the Karaites consider it unlawful to consult it or to rely on it; it means only that they deny its heavenly origin and regard it as an original work of the Sages in interpretation of the written Torah, and therefore subject to the shortcomings inherent in any handiwork of mortal men uninspired by heaven." Not to be controversial or anything, but I agree with them on that point. Further, that which directly contradicts the Torah is to be discarded as a custom, which is a contention with some Talmudic interpretations.

The rejection of the Talmud wasn't done for shits and giggles- it was likely a political choice reacting to the introduction of Islam, or in reaction to the consolidation of power among rabbis and how difficult the Talmud and additional interpretations risked becoming to learn, preserve, and transmit. There's a reason Sa'adiah Gaon was praised because “Were it not for Sa’adiah, the Torah might have disappeared from the midst of Israel", and it is notable that he was also a major opponent of Karaites. We don't actually know, because figuring out the beginning of Karaite Judaism is hard- some say it was a dispute over the Exilarch position (which Karaites say is made up, and some contemporary sources lack mention of), we have a document from 641 (i.e. the previous century) mentioning Karaites in Egypt, some think they were connected to Philo, others to some other group. But you don't break off from a major sect of your religion for fun!

Further calling Karaites biblical literalists invites one to think of Christian biblical literalists, which really isn't the case. For example in some ways Karaite women have better protections than Rabbinic women- they can initiate divorces! And if necessary, a court could issue a divorce order by itself. Fundamentalist can be a more accurate term, but still implies something false- Karaites did not arise in reaction to modernism, secularism, liberalism, etc. Most religious scholars will tell you fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon. Karaites are a decidedly, very old community. Further, "fundamentalist", in most cases, is being used as a pejorative for Karaites, not intended as an accurate description. People who don't use eithef of these terms also like to use the word "extremist".

[wathanism]

I am not a Muslim nor from any Abrahamic faith. But my religion has caused a lot of harm to lot of people. I have been crying this whole evening. Mostly out of shame for not being able to throw away it all. I keep thinking who will I pray to? How can I even utter another name...In your experience, if there had been love somewhere, where there still is love for you (not everyone is afforded this...love and peace in this religion of mine are for a select few..loathful isn't it?), does it eventually get easier to leave it behind?

i'm so sorry to hear you're going through that anon, and i'm proud of you for reaching out to talk about it ❤

it sounds like our journeys have been very different. personally for me, leaving islam was easy but the part i struggled with was learning to be less fearful and angry without invalidating my own trauma. but i know there are dozens of reasons why someone might struggle with leaving their religion or knowing if they want to leave at all. i hope it would be helpful for me to share my perspective of religion and its role in our lives, and maybe that can give you some comfort or clarity, whatever you choose to do with it.

obviously, a lot of people rely on religion for a lot of different things, including really awful things. for a lot of people, it's about creating their own sense of superiority, or justifying their hate for others, or as a political tool, or as a way to control their children. i've seen people do all sorts of cruel things and say it's in the name of their religion, and i'm sure you have too. that's why you see so many people say that this religion is inherently evil (or that ALL religions are evil).

as important as it is to understand that, i think it's also valuable to understand what religion can do for you personally and whether you want to hold on to it, change it, or let it go entirely.

because it's equally possible for religion to be something that grounds you and makes you a better person. it can be something emotionally healing for you, that gives you purpose and guidance and a space to feel connected to the world and to people. it can be something that inspires you to be kind and introspective and considerate of all people. and obviously, these are all things you can do equally without religion.

a lot of people seem to think that religion is the origin, and everything else—good or evil—comes out of that. but i don't agree at all. i think people always start with whatever values or worldview they want, and they use religion as a way to amplify those things. there's no such thing as a "good" or "bad" religion, there are only the views of the individual people practicing it. you can study the theology and argue about whether the scripture is saying this or that, but at the end of the day, each individual makes their own choices. and that includes you.

you ask who you can pray to, and i hope you know there is no shame in praying to the same god you have always prayed to, regardless of what everyone else in your religion is also praying for. you can also pray to a different god/set of gods altogether, if you find another religion that your heart and soul are drawn to. or you can not pray at all, and find other ways to express your hopes.

i think it's largely a matter of asking yourself what your religion adds to your life (or takes away from it). if you truly do find comfort in your religion and feel that it inspires you to be a good person, then i really encourage you to practice it and feel secure in that choice. you would be in a unique position to being love and acceptance to a space where it might not always be present. but if you find that your religion only brings you pain, then you are well within your right to leave (even if other people don't respect your right to choose, you ARE entitled to do whatever you wish).

it's not about having the "right" choice. it's about doing what you know will make you the kindest and happiest version of yourself that is possible. and you can take all the time you need to decide what to do, even if it takes years of reflection and experimentation.

you asked if it gets better, and i truly believe that it does. the most important thing is to let yourself sit with these feelings without shame, to know that you're valid regardless of how religious you are or what religion you follow, and to always center love and healing in your life. and also to talk about it and express how you feel/what you think when you are safe to do so. i hope you know that this is always a safe space for these conversations and that you'll never be judged here :) xoxo

[dionysianfreak]

Do you think Hellenic Polytheists need to worship exactly the way the ancient Greeks did? I've noticed this sentiment somewhat heavily, and while I think it's important to understand the historical basis for our practice and adhere to the values (xenia, kharis, etc.) It strikes me as... weird the insistence that you can only worship as the ancient Greeks did and it's kinda made me feel insecure about my practice. Would love to know your thoughts!

I just wanna disclaim that this is my opinion. this isn't a question I alone, or anyone alone, and answer. everyone has different opinions on it, and this is mine.

i don't think Hellenic Polytheists need to be reconstructionists (aka adhering to the ancient praxis rather than making your own) in order to respect or be valid in your worship. however, I also don't think that you can remove Gods from their religious cultural context without disrespecting that culture or the people who made the religion.

what I mean by this is that almost every religion has "rules" (loose term). Christianity has guidelines to avoid sins, Islam has customs you adhere to during certain times like fasting during Ramadan, and Hellenic Polytheism is no different. there's a difference between going against a norm like choosing to worship at home instead of in church as a Christian and violating the rules of the religion such as commiting a sin in Gods name. the same goes for Helpol—it's important to stay clean to the best of your abilities and observe our religious concepts like Xenia in order to avoid the religious consequences if you violate them.

one thing about some of our customs though is that they are sometimes neutral consequences of being mortal. cleanliness is important in our religion because humans are believed to be inherently "dirty" and it's respectful to be clean when facing a pure Being like a God. this isn't a punishment, it's just how it is. if you don't clean yourself, you can suffer consequences like illness which is true. if you don't keep yourself clean you're more likely to get sick. most people already keep up with good hygiene but this luxury wasn't afforded to the ancient Hellas so it was a bigger deal to them. still, we can be respectful and wash our hands before giving offerings.

other concepts like Xenia are a moral obligation to many of us, and I'd like to think most people already practice Xenia without any ties to Helpol. this is because it's good to not be an asshole. Xenia just tells us to be kind to our neighbors and offer help when we can. be kind to your fellow people and the people in most need. a lot of people outside helpol agree with this already.

so, to wrap it up, there's a difference between observing the obligations that a religious upholds and being a reconstructionist. I can stay clean and be kind even without making my rituals the exact same as the ancients. it's disrespectful in most religions to violate these obligations because they come along with the belief system. if you're going to worship Zeus, it is a direct offence to be a dickhead to those in need because He is the God of Don't Be A Dickhead. that is what we mean. don't remove Gods from Their religions just to avoid the level of piety that religion asks of you. you can be a revivalist practicing modernly while still upholding the values our religion asks of us.

and if it makes you feel better, I'm nowhere near a reconstructionist. if ancient values were the standard, the Gods would have turned on me a long time ago bc I am too neurodivergent for recon stuff. detaching my worship and self worth from what others were doing was the best thing I ever did for my practice :) if the Theoi are happy, then who am i to tell you what They want from you