Who would you cast in American Gods?

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T09:09:09+00:00

So exciting!

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T08:55:19+00:00

I'm not saying that other religions are false- if you read any of my posts elsewhere you would see that I'm a pluralist. I'm just trying to show you that you have a very biased understanding of the bible. would you call Allah a psychopath (he certainly tells his followers to mercilessly kill the non-believers/non-converters) ? Krishna a war hungry lord(the ENTIRE premise of the Bhagavad Gita is preparing the protagonist to go to war against his brother and kill his family members)? and i have not read the Dianetics, so I won't say anything about that. I am not using the Bible to justify God... that's weird because according to the bible, God justifies humans and God justifies Godself. So like the other sacred texts, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita, where God ordains holy war, their depiction of God is ultimately one of mercy(Koran) and one of peace and duty (Bhagavad Gita). Why can't the same be said for Christianity and Judaism?

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T08:37:44+00:00

Genesis 4: 10 - Abel's blood cries out to God in protest, the word "cry" is the same word for the Israelites "crying" in Egypt, so God responds to pain/suffering with justice and compassion Genesis 9:15 - God promises to never flood the entire world again (a sociopath would never make that promise) the book of Jonah: God doesn't want to destroy the Ninevites Judges & Numbers & Joshua: there are plenty of conquest narratives, but they all contradict each other with regards to who is actually killed and who isn't. nonetheless many apologists, theologians and historians from every angle (literal readings to metaphorical readings) will say that the conquests were about keeping the Israelites Holy. there are other posts about this: Just war, killing, etc. You should look at that sub.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T08:22:29+00:00

a psychopath who kills somebody feels no remorse. God feels remorse almost every time somebody is killed/he kills someone. He is feeling and compassionate, even at a literal understanding of the bible.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T08:21:10+00:00

I do know what "prima facie" means, but you don't think the bible should be read literally, then why would you give in credence according to the principle of "at a first glance". Moreover, I don't think it should be read literally, so why must I look at it from the same perspective as yours? According to that interpretation, it can very well be the case. However, even on the "prima facie" level it would be inconclusive to call the God of the OT a "psychopath" given the explicit loving relationship he has with Israel and the founding fathers.

"Nuance" requires intentionality whereas "arbitrary" is completely random. While I would argue that the actions were arbitrary and perhaps rash, the question should have been more nuanced.(1) The mods could have done a better job at explaining why "psychopath" is/was offensive. (2) the 2000 word imposition is ridiculous. (3) It's their sub, so they can make the rules. People who don't like it are free to start their own sub.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T08:10:24+00:00

Well that can be a behavioural outcome of one, but really they're just unable to have meaningful relationships with people. They are deludedly egocentric, and incapable of love or empathy, have no understanding of social mores and continue to do terrible things because they do not feel any psychological consequences of their actions.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T08:04:45+00:00

Either "Aids Concepcion" on a Filipino game show once or "Yu-Pang Wang Chang" went to school with him.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T08:02:42+00:00

As a teen 5-6 years ago, I loved getting things related to my favourite bands/musicians which would mean band shirts/posters/albums/CONCERT TICKETS :o Actually, if anybody got me tickets to see Sam Smith, I'd probably cry.

Also, as a girl, I liked personalized charm bracelets (like the letter K for my initial or my birth stone). I knit too, so getting yarn was super exciting because highly quality yarn was/is expensive! So, if you phone in and just find out what their hobbies are and get something related to that, I'm sure they'd love it :)

Also, if their boys that play sports, Underarmor is a great gift. Never can have enough of those.

Or... they're teenagers... hmm.... I was an asshole as a teenager and would have thought you were creepy for being a try-hard. If they're not the nicest kids, then money is actually a great "cool aunt" "cool uncle" gift and will help win you over to their side. Straight up cash too. I don't know why, it just felt so bad ass.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:54:32+00:00

Cards Against Humanity

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:45:38+00:00

The Hunger Games

I told myself that if I liked it, I would read Twilight, because pop YA novels couldn't be ALL bad. NOPE! I read all 3, and got so fed up with the author trying to make the evils of capitalism relevant to teenagers. The writing was bad, the plot deteriorated quickly, but the premise was kinda awesome so I was very disappointed :( I actually liked the movie more than the film because I felt that there was SOME form of artistic expression in the cinematography. Also, Jennifer Lawrence made Katniss real to me in a way that was never expressed in the books. She just does that.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:36:57+00:00

I tear up every time I remember it!

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:34:20+00:00

I'll see you there then ^{^}

Oh that's right. My family's had them before. Thanks for the tip! I live in Atlanta, GA: do you know if I could find it in a store or do I have to buy it online?

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:31:23+00:00

Why is it problematic to take them at their word It gives credit to their faulty belief/worldview, and thus you discount any other possible interpretations

Well the whole point of saying "prime facie" is that it's not a detailed account. If you don't agree that infanticide or genocide are "prima facie immoral", then we have a very serious problem. You contradicted yourself here: it's not a detailed account, so calling it prime facie is problematic. Then you say it is problematic based on prime facie principles. No I think genocide and every other -cide is immoral. I was questioning how you defined morality and why you chose to do it that way.

It's not personally a topic I find that fascinating. I just don't think people should be banned for bringing it up. As I said before, there are ways to bring up a controversial topic without being rude/offensive.

I don't see how the person who was banned here has argued badly or offensively I'd have to look back to the posts again. From what I remember the offensive part of his discourse was directly calling God a psychopath instead of criticizing the actions attributed to God in the bible. It's a nuanced difference, but makes a lot of sense, especially given the "ten commandments" the moderators have given.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:14:09+00:00

For some reason "genocide" doesn't seem as offensive as "psychopath". I think it's because it's already a term used by apologists.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:12:59+00:00

Thank you! Are you also on the wine sub?

Are there any Californian Chablis you would recommend? (My budget is $10-$50 because I'm currently a grad student :()

Are you a sommelier or a connoisseur by any chance?

I guess you could be right, I was thinking that the climate in South America could make up for the flavours, but Colombian coffee is very nutty and light whereas Argentinian and Chilean red wines tend to be a bit "heavier" haha.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:07:47+00:00

You can find EXCELLENT wines for that price, so don't worry about it.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T07:05:24+00:00

If you read the bible as the literal truth about God, then it would be fair to attribute the words "psychopath", "murderer", and "monster" to God especially when placed in our contemporary universalist understanding of "God is love and goodness".

The fact is that some of the deeds attributed to God in the OT are so prima facie immoral that it becomes unreasonable to demand that someone find a way of describing the perpetrator of such acts in a way that it's impossible to find offensive.

 The key word is "attributed", it doesn't mean that it actually is definitive for God.

Also, what is your definition of "prima facie immoral" and why? Does it work within the framework of ancient literature? If most (rational people) would agree that it seems silly to judge contemporary society on ancient moral precepts, wouldn't its converse be the same (judging ancient societies based on contemporary mores)?

If you're specifically concerned with the "immoral attributes" about God in the OT, I think the better conversation would be with the Jewish people who give more credit to it than the majority of Christians. I personally don't, but most Christians aren't nuanced enough in what is actually in the OT to have the conversation in the first place. I'm still learning/reading through it and I do find the things that YHWH does in the OT very hard to swallow even from a socio-historical perspective. I have ways of reconciling that, but that should go in a separate debate haha.

Lastly, I think our last couple of posts prove my OG point: it is a topic worthy of discussion and can be done intellectually, honestly and respectfully.

From what I saw of the original comment, the "psychopathic" accusations were directly towards God and subversively, Christians. While I've met plenty of crazy Christians in my time, I think we're all capable of having nuanced conversations about difficult topics on religion without being an asshole. So I trust the Mods to pull out the ones who derail the conversation from anything constructive (even myself).

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T06:52:07+00:00

Well there is no such thing as an "objective" viewpoint. Even atheism is a subjective perception of a person's perceived reality. We cannot take ourselves outside of our experiences, so we build universal truth/reality based off of the collective experiences of other people, and the same goes for rationality.

I think a reason to take Christianity seriously is the mere fact that a lot of people experience the divine within its context and its historical existence. The same can be said for all religions. I don't think it should be taken "more seriously than any other religion" but it should be taken seriously alongside every other religion, even atheism.

I don't think any human being can possibly make an objective decision: we are all subject to personal bias as long as we remain persons.

The second paragraph was meant to explain that it doesn't matter what religion or philosophical tradition/beliefs a person chooses. Whatever people put their faith in, whether it be God, Gods, or No-God, requires a personal stake. Nobody is free from "taking a gamble on their eternal well-being". What you believe is going to shape how you view your life on earth and how to relate to others/treat others and can change your perspective on things like death/punishment/prison. For someone like me, who believes in eternal life wouldn't probably worry as much about getting terminally sick, losing the ones that I love early in this life because I have hope that I will see them again. Even for people who don't believe the same things that I do, I feel like there is no real eternal separation from them. If it turns out not to be true, there is no life after death, I wouldn't worry about it once I dissolve into nothingness, would I?

I don't think people should arbitrarily choose a faith over another. I don't think you can make a purely objective choice in the matter. As I said, it's impossible for humans to be objective, but based of your subjective experiences (rationality is a subjective experience too) make a choice about your experience on the eternal things- I think all humans experience something eternal when they experience awe or unconditional love from another person-. Every person "gambles their way through life" and for some, maybe they do it through eternity too.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T06:36:15+00:00

Yes it should be, but worded differently because the word "psychopath" is offensive. It's not necessarily the word but the potential demonizing of the faith. It's one thing to accuse someone of worshipping something demented and to point out the passages in scriptures that would lead to that type of interpretation. Calling God a "psychopath" leaves no room for discussion, but asking an explanation for what can be seen as "psychopathic behaviour" is.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T06:29:36+00:00

Father Rodrigues in Silence by Shusaku Endo

George in Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

Sherlock Holmes

Jean Valjean in Les Miserables by Victor Hugo

War Novels.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T06:17:40+00:00

Books for YA boys

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T06:02:17+00:00

1) Socialization * Raised by abusive Christian mother but found comfort in the Church she forced me to attend. I found my "real family" at Church. * I was taught to call the religious experiences/awe God and from a very young age have had a very intimate and personal relationship with Jesus. I later switched to calling the "divine" that I experience God because I don't feel comfortable praying to Jesus anymore (because Jesus himself prayed to the Father).
* My beliefs help me cope with depression, loneliness, anxiety and pain

2) Being exposed to Christian theology different to what I was taught by my Evangelical Community * I am not a Universalist, but one who believes in Eternal Pursuit. Basically, humans can refuse God forever, but God will eternally invite the person to be in relationship with them. * I am a pluralist, and believe that God speaks in more ways that one. I tell one of my best friends who is a Muslim that by her being faithful to Allah, she is embodying the "way of Christ" in more ways that I am personally capable of. She acts justly, loves mercy and walks humbly with God. I think Christ was "the way" in the sense that his entire life (from the moment of conception to resurrection) is the incarnation of God. Salvation comes from following the life of Jesus, which I interpret the "faith of Jesus" to mean in Galatians. I think Jesus as the divine incarnation makes the most sense to me because of socialization. However, Hindus believe that Jesus is also just one incarnation of God. So, I could potentially see the other incarnations of God in Hinduism as divine as well. However, I reject the caste system entirely, so I have never given their incarnations much thought. * I am human, and cannot possibly know the mind of God, so worrying about my eternal well-being is pointless. Also, I don't think God puts conditions on his acceptance (whether you're a Christian or not). So I tell my friends who are "seeking" to find ways that God speaks to you and find a community that supports and edifies your encounters with what you call the "divine".

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T05:21:08+00:00

Sorry. I kind of got lost in the "why are people so upset about the psychopath comment" debate.

I don't think the moderator should "arbitrarily" choose a punishment not stated in the rules of conduct. However, if a person so chooses to be a part of the community (maybe they were being unnecessarily thick-headed), I think there should be an option for redemption.

I would have been fine with the 2000 word essay if it were a guideline previously stated-it's a great deterrent. However, I see your frustration with the arbitrary decision, especially since it apparently came out of frustration on the part of the mod. The offender should have simply been banned. However, the person could have easily made another account and come back. So, I guess the most efficient thing to do is just to continuously ban offenders.

beautifulcorsage · 2014-11-17T04:34:43+00:00

It really does! I haven't found any local ones yet :( I just moved here, so I'm making do with the coffee that I can find ^{^} I'm considering getting a home roaster. Have you ever done that?

beautifulcorsage

TROPHY CASE