deleted by creator
Why is it always so hard to just leave people alone? How empty is her life that she actually went to court over this, spent money, time, and resources on hate.
Because everyone is more important than anyone else & they all not only deserve to be heard, but if you disagree, you’re the asshole… it’s internal justification for ignorance
Not everyone deserves to be heard. That’s ridiculous. Being heard means someone is listening. We don’t have sufficient time or ears for everyone to be heard.
I agree that everyone deserves the chance to speak. But not everyone deserves a platform to be heard.
If someone wants to be a bigot, they can go shout about it in their backyard. But don’t put the burden of hearing it on the rest of us. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
I think you two are on the same page, the words they emphasized point to a ‘this is from their point of view, look how selfish they are’ kinda message.
I shoulda added the /s I suppose
Yeah, I wasn’t sure so I worded it to possibly be agreeing :-)
If you examine the tenets of Christianity and the Bible, spreading homophobic beliefs can be seen as a duty:
Firstly, let’s explore why it a Christian responsibility to share God’s message. Leviticus 19:16-18 says: “Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.” This passage encourages us to be truthful in our communication with others, as well as to avoid causing harm to those around us. By sharing the Biblical perspective on various issues, including sexual morality, they fulfill this commandment.
Additionally, Matthew 28:19-20 emphasizes the importance of spreading the Gospel in all parts of the world: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of time.” This verse illustrates the mandate from Jesus himself to preach his gospel and instruct new converts in His ways.
Now, when we turn to the subject of homosexuality, there are multiple verses in both Old and New Testaments that categorize homosexual acts as sinful and an abomination. For instance, Leviticus 18:22 declares: “You must not lie down with a man as with a woman; that is detestable.” The concept of homosexual behavior being considered an abomination or detestable act appears several times throughout the Bible (e.g., Leviticus 20:13). In Romans 1:24-27, Paul speaks about how certain people exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, which resulted in God’s wrath.
In summary, it is crucial for Christians to spread the Word of God, because the Bible serves as the guide for living a virtuous life. Homosexuality stands out as one of the practices contrary to Biblical teachings, described as an abomination. Therefore, by sharing their beliefs, these Christian individuals aren’t merely promoting homophobia but rather, they are adhering to the principles set forth by God in the Bible.
You may not agree, but it’s at least consistent with their faith.
I don’t mean to be that guy, but I’m not gonna read all that. You replied to me assuming I don’t know anything about Christianity, which isn’t true. My comment was kind of rhetorical.
I grew up in a household that was Christian, my partners household was catholic, and I’ve read pretty good chunks of the Bible.
I appreciate the sentiment, but your time is really better spent elsewhere.
I don’t mean to be that guy, but I’m not gonna read all that.
Guess the Bible would be too long for you as well. Have a nice day.
I mean, don’t you think it’s a little presumptuous on your part to give someone what amounts to a lecture on the tenants of christianity in a lemmy comment?
How do you know what it is if you didn’t read it?
We’re clearly not getting anywhere with this. I’m gonna go do literally anything else. This is exactly why I don’t browse atheist communities. There’s always a know-it-all that’s willing to dole out all of their clearly very much more correct than yours opinions.
I’m here for discussion – feel free to analyze what I wrote and provide specific feedback. I am able to change my mind.
BECAUSE SHES BEING VICTIMIZED. /s
I noticed this with the universe: somehow resources and time find their way into the pockets of those who use it cause harm on somebody else. But for us folks who wanna just put food on the table or pay debt we are always at the verge of drowning.
Being homophobic in THEATER, of all places?!?
I’m just surprised to know there is a straight actor in theatre. It’s like finding a Shiny Pokémon or something, surely.
“I do not believe you can be born gay, and I do not believe homosexuality is right, though the law of this land has made it legal doesn’t mean it’s right,” Omooba wrote in the post. “I do believe that everyone sins and falls into temptation but it’s by the asking of forgiveness, repentance and the grace of God that we overcome and live how God ordained us to, which is that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.”
Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
After hearing testimony in 2021 that Omooba had previously told her agents that she refused to play gay roles and had not bothered to read the script for the musical version of The Color Purple before accepting the role, an employment tribunal dismissed the actor’s religious discrimination claim, The Telegraph reported.
How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you’re trying to land in an acting performance?
“I have long forgiven all those who have sought to ruin my theatre career,” Omooba said in a statement following the ruling, “but the theatre world needs to be told, loud and clear, that canceling people for their Christian beliefs is illegal and wrong.”
Doesn’t look like it turned out well for her.
As someone of color, I wonder if she would agree with the KKK discriminating against her, as they also consider themselves “Christians” spreading hate against people over things they do not control.
It’s simple. They’re the wrong kind of Christian, and she’s the right kind.
They’re not real Christians.
No True Christian would fail to hate the exact same groups of people I hate.
Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs. Plantation owners believed that black people were cursed by the mark of ham, and thus were entitled by an act of God to enslave people.
Also, the Bible literally says: “but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” 1 Timothy 2:12
So according to Christian dogma, SHE wouldn’t be allowed to speak up against men, even if they are breaking some other rules, or try to teach the theatre world anything.
But it’s a fair bet saying she’s never opened a bible in her life, seeing she can’t be bothered to even check out what the story is about when applying for roles.
Edit I realised this might read quite neutral, so I’m adding a fuck monotheism here just to make my view on the matter clear
Eh, fuck all religions, not just monotheism. Religions are the worst, the amount of gods doesn’t matter much. They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.
“Religion” is a every wide term though.
Dogma makes religions bad, but not all religions have dogma. Also when does faith become religion?
I get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism#Violence_in_monotheism
The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.
get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.
Idk, I think that’s a pretty hard claim to make. One that’s mainly dependent on the fact that the majority of written history happened after the advent of monotheism, especially in the west.
If we examine the body of evidence of polytheistic cultures outside western influence, things get a bit more complicated. Especially considering that terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.
In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god. How do you weigh that with the modern understanding of concepts like progressiveness or tolerance?
You’re literally making my point for me.
In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god
“RIVAL” god.
a person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.
That’s the proto-version of dogmatic monotheism. That’s the origin of the first commandment. That’s THE reason monotheism is so unaccepting and violent.
I’m not going to write a several page essay detailing why this is so. Do you know why Jesus was accepted as a deity to the Roman and Greek pantheons at the time, instead of being seen as a rival god? How the same thing happened later in the North of Europe as well with norse polytheism?
Polytheism by its very nature has more explanatory power, as not every explanation is “God works in mysterious ways” as one god is considered omnipotent and infallible, whereasin polytheism gods are often more humane, fickle, and fallible, despite being very powerful.
terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.
Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you’re not too tolerant. “Progressive” is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, “Viking” rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called “civilized” European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime – there was no “victim,” but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.
That’s not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of “women are people” is more progressive than “women are things”?
Or do you consider that a subjective thing…?
Whenever there is a belief in something supernatural, it will be abused, it will end badly, because we’re already talking about people believing things without any proof. Sooner or later, a leader will pop up and it’s it’s rather easy to make these people do your bidding by inventing new wonders or dogma or whatever works for said leader(s)
People need to grow up. Yeah, maybe there is a mighty system operator that manages our simulation, or maybe I’m a Boltzmann brain or whatever. Thinking about it, these two ideas are more plausible than any religion out there, yet we don’t have the great Boltzmann church.
Science is finding out reality, maybe we should focus more on that
Fuck blind faith.
Agreed. I have faith in science, I have faith in people, I have faith in real things.
Religions are the worst
Religious philosophy is fine. Not everything needs to be crammed into the framework of hard sciences. And the social aspects of religious organizing are no more good or bad than the individuals who take part in it.
You can just as easily find religiously motivated abolitionists as slavers. You can just as easily find religiously motivated homeless shelters as pedophile priests. The spiritualist language used to describe our social bonds is no less legitimate than some Evo-Devo prattle about brain chemicals, at least from the perspective of setting useful policy.
They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.
You can just as easily find abusive and detrimental habits in business economics and the hard sciences. Rationalization of a perverse or destructive behavior often follows the decision to embark on it. And you don’t need religious beliefs to rationalize bad behaviors.
So just keep the philosophy and ignore any supernatural stories.
You’ll never sell any comic books with that attitude
Yeah, no. How many wars were fought over atheism? None. How many over religions? Too many to count.
The average Catholic is a fine person, I’m sure, but the Catholic church is a horror show. How many people have suffered because of that organization? More than I could count. How many wars has it started? More than I’d like to know.
Want to try a different religion? Any religion? Any cult? Scientology, maybe? No? How about Jim Jones temple of what was it called again?
Individual spiritualism then? In on itself harmless, maybe, but it’s still pure nonsense in the level of believing in unicorns and Santa Claus, and it still will end in either groups starting to form, that makes cults that either die out or become organised religion. And in its entire trajectory, it WILL cause suffering and abuse.
Yes, abuse is possible in any organization, but no organization will allow and tolerate abuse as religious organizations do. Give us your money, old grandpa with cancer, god will cure your cancer and return you your money double, I swear! Climate change isn’t real, god would not allow it! All our thousands, millions of followers should just continue to pollute the hell out of this world because God will fix it, people! Hurricanes are caused by gay wickedness and women won’t get pregnant from rape, god will stop that unless they like it.
I see no positive point in any religion or spirituality that could not be made without it.
So yes, fuck all religions, they’re a detriment to the growth of humanity.
But what about the charities then? Charities don’t require religion, you can do one perfectly fine without the other, and that ignores that charities only exist due to governments not fixing issues.
How many wars were fought over atheism? None.
The entire Cold War was a protracted struggle between hard right Christian fascists and Communist Rationalists.
Look up the history of the John Birch Society. The entire movement is based on the Chinese Maoist treatment of Western Evangelicals.
Did you mean to say ham?
Cure of Ham
Yep. God cursed Noah’s son Ham and his descendent to eternal slavery. All for the devastating crime of Ham witnessing Noah sleep in the nude.
Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs
Goes even beyond that. Christianity - specifically, the New Testament verses that extolled the virtue of earthly toil on behalf of a secular lord in exchange for heavenly reward - was leveraged to convince the slaves themselves that their lot in life was justified. And for a great long period of time, it was successful. Even after the Confederacy’s back was broken, mobilizing a population that had been wiped into submission for centuries was legitimately difficult. The Freedman’s Bureau had a herculean effort put at its feet - to engage, re-educate, and empower millions of newly emancipated black men and women after a lifetime of debasement and degradation.
When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.
When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.
I mean that, but also Andrew Johnson was a horrible person and even a worse president
deleted by creator
Not just theater but musical theater the absolute stronghold of the LGBTQIA+… Yeah let’s just talk openly about how I believe the vast majority of my coworkers and peers (who probably have backgrounds of religious trauma) are morally defunct and how their ability to feel loved and supported shouldn’t be considered protected by society!
I want to grab her by the shoulders and say : For fuck sake honey. No one in your field wanting to touch you with a 9 ft pole isn’t their fault. Having someone openly homophobic in a role where getting the gold star of casting has been for the past several years meant actually choosing someone who has actual experience in a similar identity to what they are potraying… It would be suicide for a production. People are going to look to a queer character to project themselves in those situations. Knowing you’re just a bigot doing it for self agrandizement, accolades and cash is going to cause fucking boycotts from the very target audience of the show!
Spilling your theocratic dirty laundry on twatter because you can’t hold it in can be a “career limiting move” and that’s just normal in a pluralistic society.
I’m not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor. That is called acting, the entire idea is to be someone you’re not. If wr put that rule, then you can also say that straight characters cannot be played by queer or gay actors, not something we want, I’d say.
To be fair I never said “can only be played by” just that the gold standard has become preferred casting of actors who can apply their personal experiences to the role be it people who come from a specific place or culture (like a queer culture) , have a specific racial background or a disability those roles particularly are earmarked with a growing cultural preference for people because there’s some wider cultural issues of stereotyping, typecasting or framing out people who can tell you is something the playwright put in is full of shit. More people are becoming wise to media literacy and can spot things off with an uninformed take on a performance.
There is a silver and bronze standard that are still acceptable. Sometimes you cast someone outside the gold standard for a bunch of reasons. Availability, overwhelming directorial notions that it was an audition above and beyond… but in leftist spaces particularly - like audio drama podcasts as an example the gold standard of preferred applicants is explicitly listed on audition sides.
gold standard has become
<citation required>
No, the entire thing about acting is that people can play people other than themselves. If you can’t play outside your own experiences, you’re not the “gold standard”, as you randomly claim, you’re a bad actor.
Well you can cast your creative projects as you like.
You do seem to be missing the point and leaving most of my point untouched however. It isn’t that a person without the experience can’t play the part. It’s that when you are not accostomed to seeing people like yourself lifted up it is far more thrilling to see it happen. It’s not about the actor. It’s about the audience.
I’m not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor.
Maybe not, but having it played by a queer-hating religious zealot won’t do.
True
Imo it’s the same idea as having black people play black characters instead of white people with black makeup. If everyone was treated as equal then it wouldn’t be an issue. However, that’s not reality. People are treated differently based on gender, sex, race, age and so forth. Wanting queer characters to be played by queer actors is a way of making sure they have a space to demonstrate their skill, talent, and potentially make a living off it. Same thing with black people playing black characters, or women playing female characters.
There’s another element, however, in which good acting can’t fully replace personal experience. A queer actor playing a queer character will likely be able to identify with said character much better than a straight actor could, and as such, they would be able to harness their personal experiences and channel them through the character they’re playing.
While my latter point doesn’t refute your point about straight characters being played by queer actors, the former hopefully explains why it isn’t universally applied. I do believe though, that in a just and equal world, things like sex, race, gender and so forth shouldn’t be (dis)qualifiers for any given character, it’s just that we don’t live in that kind of world.
I think its more a push toward making space for people who have marginalized identites to act. For a long time being openly queer was career suicide. So now that those stories are finally being told, people also want actors writers and producers of those identities involved in the process.
I think its less that straight actors cant play queer characters and more so that there are already plenty of roles for them. Maybe in a more equal future that pressure wont be there but right now it is.
I also think it depends on the role. A side character that happens to be gay? Yeah a straight actor can definetly play that. A lead role in a comming of age tale about discovering your gender identity? Probably best played by someone who has lived experience.
Concrete proof that these people simply don’t live in reality.
She thinks this is oppression.
Concrete proof that these people simply don’t live in reality.
Religion should have been your first clue.
Oh they live in reality. When reality bites them they feel it. For the most part I respect belief. These people legitimately believe that there is a power which will inevitably maliciously destroy us and that to save other people they must be discouraged in any earthly way possible. They believe that to be a noble thing because the foundation comes from a rock solid belief in the divine and honestly there’s not much you can do to shake that belief so what they are doing makes sense from that perspective.
The issue with that being around people with that belief who act on it as though it’s their job to dissuade people from what they perceive as that particular danger is miserable. Like okay, you believe that we’re gunna burn do so quietly because LGBTQIA folk aren’t going to change because even if you believe in God with those tenants it’s really hard to believe he is actually benevolent. Most of the LGBTQIA Christians who believe that God hates the only terms under which they can be happy end up killing themselves. That’s part of why conversion therapy is considered a human rights issue.
For the most part I respect belief.
The ones based in bullshit (like religions), I don’t.
Alright, so what? What good does treating them petulantly do? If you cannot treat them in a way where they feel understood and cared for they don’t change. If you treat someone poorly or like you are superior they are more likely to double down on their belief and spit in your face. Unless your aim is to bash their faces in and straight up use force you have to see the human in them to get started reversing the programing because a lot of religions preach that unbelievers are evil and the first step in any questioning of the whole is to show that no… You aren’t evil. You are moral and kind actually.
What’s the end goal of disrespect? To be rude to them for fun?
If you treat someone poorly or like you are superior they are more likely to double down on their belief and spit in your face.
They’re prone to do that anyway.
you have to see the human in them to get started reversing the programing
Why do you say “I have to”, like is my obligation and my work to deprogram religious nuts?
You don’t have to. Only if you want to try and stop them from being religious nuts that’s where you start.
It’s not your job to interact with them so don’t. If they are actively causing you pain where you are you have a right to defend yourself to get them to stop but like any violence there is a line where you cross from self defence to just taking out your anger and trauma on someone else to make yourself feel better. People who do that make the job harder for those of us who want to stop religious trauma from perpetuating.
Respecting religious belief is part of the healing process of religious trauma. It doesn’t mean subscribing to belief in religion. It means seeing the actual human beings inside the system that hurt you.
Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
The Daily Caller is always hiring.
How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you’re trying to land in an acting performance?
More curious how she got hired on those terms. It seems like a simple line reading might have clued everyone involved in on what this story was about.
So you cant cancel people for their christian believe. But apparently you can cancel people for well everything else? Woman is mad.
TBF, the supreme Court has mostly agreed with her in multiple cases.
That’s what I have trouble understanding - not even reading the script. Apparently she counted on her agents to “filter” things for her. Sounds highly unprofessional.
I’m not supporting this dumb bigot at all but isn’t that kind of an agent’s job?
In the case of a good, reputable agent who makes you their top priority, it can be. In other cases, if the agent sees a role for a black woman in her 30s(?) who can sing, that’s good enough. Unusual, specific demands/requirements could slip through the cracks. They pass the script along, expecting her to at least skim the damn thing, and leave the final decision up to her.
Definitely failed at basic adulting: “read carefully before signing”.
Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
I laughed so loudly as this comment, my kids came to check in on me.
deleted by creator
A society doesn’t have freedom if I can’t insist others can’t have freedom! /s
You really shouldn’t be starring in The Color Purple if you don’t understand that discrimination is bad.
Discrimination against ME is bad.
Discrimination against YOU GODLESS HEATHENS is good aktuly.
Besides, something something mumble mumble black liberation had its roots in religious movements something something mumble mumble don’t ask what white slavery had its roots in though.
She is absolutely clueless and didn’t even read the script before taking the part.
She always had the right to express her ideas… she just didn’t have the right to be free from the consequences of doing so. I also enjoy the tension of “I follow everything the Bible says” / “I’m not homophobic”
I can understand that you might not approve of the lifestyle, as some kind of religious person, but why do they have to persecute others.
So I’ll try to explain this from my upbringing which was extremely Christian and conservative, they all need every part of their lives to be a constant affirmation and validation of their faith because reality makes believing it literally really difficult. Gay people especially are a very visible reminder of one of the inconsistencies in the belief system because if God is perfect, all powerful, infinitely merciful, and says he loves us and wants to save us from our sin then how can anyone be born LGBTQ when his book calls them abominations. He can’t make mistakes so he must have wanted them to be abominations, but he loves everyone. This obvious paradox is seen as an attack and persecution, which is something their faith has taught them to expect as a Christian.
I’m happily agree that it’s a lot more complicated than that, but that to me is the heart of the matter and can be extrapolated to many of the other things they want and why they refuse to relent. Because if Christianity is the one correct way to live life anyone living a happy life outside of what it prescribes or can’t be happy within those boundaries is an affront to their faiths foundational principles.
Just because deities within certain polytheistic religions were rivals, doesn’t imply the advent of monotheism.
Youre right, it doesn’t.
But just because you assume I’ve assumed something doesn’t make it so.
Polytheism having more explanatory power and being inherently more tolerant is somewhat the consensus on the subject, and I have no need to defend that position to someone I’d have to first lecture for several hours.
That the Viking culture was based on the rape and pillage of Christianity, not exactly a progressive perspective…
See sentences like that reveal your inherent ignorance. I put quotations around “viking”, because that’s just how a lot of people view Scandinavian historical culture. And that you don’t know that viking is a profession, not an ethnicity, is one of the reasons I’m not debating anything with you.
Yes, the people who went on raids usually did the things that were common for raids.
That’s like you saying that robbers rob. Wow.
And saying “their culture was based on rape and pillage” is about as true as racist claims about black people stealing more; amazingly ignorant and inherently racist.
on assuming that Viking in Viking culture women were thought of as equals…which is doubtful.
So because you’re ignorant and assume something, that is how it is? I assume you’re capable of using Google, so you chose not to even check. You just asserted that something is “doubtful” when it’s not. No historians doubt that gender equality was more advanced in Norse communities than in Christian/Islamic countries of the time.
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-gender-equality-dates-vikings.html
You’re not even aware of what Norse society was like, imaging all they did was “raping and pillaging”, but you’re expecting examples from societies which you probably know even less?
Okay.
“Explain the Mongol Empire”
Lol Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist?
But just because you assume I’ve assumed something doesn’t make it so.
You literally claimed that RIVAL gods was evidence of proto monotheism…Making a rebuttal of a claim isn’t me making assumptions?
Polytheism having more explanatory power and being inherently more tolerant is somewhat the consensus on the subject, and I have no need to defend that position to someone I’d have to first lecture for several hours.
Lol, nice appeal to authority there? If only there were some way to show that your claims are backed by a larger body of experts or evidence… Some way to display the source of evidence you stake these claims on…
See sentences like that reveal your inherent ignorance. I put quotations around “viking”, because that’s just how a lot of people view Scandinavian historical culture. And that you don’t know that viking is a profession, not an ethnicity, is one of the reasons I’m not debating anything with you.
Lol, I used quotes when I utilized it as a proper noun. Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture, the same as if you made a statement about factory culture.
My God, you can’t even correctly utilize logical fallacies in your arguments. How about focusing on the actual claim instead of trying to clumsily devolve into pedantic reasoning.
Yes, the people who went on raids usually did the things that were common for raids.
Right … And you think rading other societies is considered progressive or tolerant?
And saying “their culture was based on rape and pillage” is about as true as racist claims about black people stealing more; amazingly ignorant and inherently racist.
You need to work on your reading comprehension… This was a common claim by the same sources that you utilized for your claim about “Viking rape law”. So if you are willing to validate your argument on their testimony about “Viking rape laws” then their claims about Viking “barbarism” must be equally valid.
Also… I thought you said “Vikings” was a job, not an ethnicity?
No historians doubt that gender equality was more advanced in Norse communities than in Christian/Islamic countries of the time.
More advanced does not equate to equals… and the study you sourced from isn’t making any claim based on primary sources. It’s just examining the comparative health of women vs men based on skeletal remains. Not exactly anything that gives us a better view of their societal structure.
Again, part of my primary argument is based on the fact that there is not a lot of actual written information from polytheistic societies, especially in the west.
You’re not even aware of what Norse society was like, imaging all they did was “raping and pillaging”, but you’re expecting examples from societies which you probably know even less?
Lol, that wasn’t a claim I made. It’s a common claim from the source material you based your “Viking rape law argument on”.
Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist?
No you claimed that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive.
You also defined tolerant as equating to less violent. My rebuttal about the Mongol empire is made to directly confront your definition of tolerance.
And again, you are extrapolating your assumptions about a specific type of European polytheism onto all polytheistic societies. When the vast majority of which we actually have primary source materials are from outside of western hegemony. Stop trying to white wash all of human culture because you’re obsessed with Scandinavian history.
You literally claimed that RIVAL gods was evidence of proto monotheism…
You have bad reading comprehension. You brought up ancient Mesopotamia as an example. They may have had several gods, but they were essentially monotheistic in the context that it counts. That IS more or less the birthplace of monotheism. All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion, so it’s very unlike the polytheism of say Hinduism, Greeks, Romans and the Norse.
“Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture”
No yeah, definitely, much in the same way as all those extinct big lizards were dinosaurs, right?
It’s Scandinavian culture, not “viking culture”, lol. This is exactly what I mean. I see no reason to even try to have a chat with you, since you’re arrogant while definitely not having earned the right to be, being that ignorant.
can’t even correctly utilize logical fallacies in your arguments
Thanks for another laugh, lol. The irony. chefskiss
This was a common claim by the same sources that you utilized for your claim about “Viking rape law”.
Yeah no, again, even the assumptions you use to think about this are wrong. So utterly, utterly wrong. But seeing as you clearly have the sources for these claims at hand, please, produce them.
Also… I thought you said “Vikings” was a job, not an ethnicity?
I literally said “Norse society”, not “viking society”. It is a profession, but you’re clearly unwilling or unable to understand that, so I used the silly language you insist upon, even after having made myself clear on the proper use of the term. It’s how we just have to accept the fact that “literally” is nowadays used as emphasis.
It’s a common claim from the source material you based your “Viking rape law argument on”.
Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist? No you claimed that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive. You also defined tolerant as equating to less violent.
See this is why you talking about logical fallacies made me almost choke on laughter. What you’re trying to do there is an incredibly pisspoor strawman. You’re saying that if a thing Y is likely to make thing X less attribute A, then thing X can not have attribute A at all. Which is, again, hilarious.
Unlike many empire builders, Genghis Khan embraced the diversity of his newly conquered territories. He passed laws declaring religious freedom for all and even granted tax exemptions to places of worship. This tolerance had a political side—the Khan knew that happy subjects were less likely to rebel—but the Mongols also had an exceptionally liberal attitude towards religion. While Genghis and many others subscribed to a shamanistic belief system that revered the spirits of the sky, winds and mountains, the Steppe peoples were a diverse bunch that included Nestorian Christians, Buddhists, Muslims and other animistic traditions.
The Christians went over to the “Holy Land” to literally rape and pillage, because they considered those people there to have the wrong beliefs. Did the Mongol empire kill a lot of people? Yeah, they did. But had he been a dogmatic Christian monotheist, he’d have killed even more.
The only reason Christians got a foothold in Greece, Rome, Norway and Asia was that those societies were tolerant of the new god, not realising that the believers of that new god would eventually hunt and kill them for believing wrong.
“specific type of European polytheism”
Nah, it’s pretty global, which you’d know if you had any education on the subject, but you don’t.
They may have had several gods, but they were essentially monotheistic in the context that it counts.
Semantics.
That IS more or less the birthplace of monotheism. All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion
You do understand how long the ancient history of Mesopotamia is? Monotheism was only prevalent towards the later aspect of ancient history. You are ignoring thousands of years of history to force this concept to bend to your argument.
All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion, so it’s very unlike the polytheism of say Hinduism, Greeks, Romans and the Norse.
Lol, you don’t think the Greek, Hindu, or Romans were hierarchical, or engaged in dogmatic beliefs?
No yeah, definitely, much in the same way as all those extinct big lizards were dinosaurs, right?
Lol, wtf are you talking about? You were the person who brought them up to begin with, if you don’t like the nomenclature of “Viking” then you shouldn’t have utilized it in the first place.
However, unless you believe that Scandinavian people of this era and profession possess no culture, then utilizing Viking culture without quotations is grammatically correct.
It’s Scandinavian culture, not “viking culture”, lol. This is exactly what I mean.
Not when we’re are talking about a period of time before the concept of Scandinavians… Priest recording history in the 2nd century aren’t going to have much to say about Scandinavian culture you dolt.
Yeah no, again, even the assumptions you use to think about this are wrong. So utterly, utterly wrong. But seeing as you clearly have the sources for these claims at hand, please, produce them.
Lol, you were the one who brought up “Viking rape laws”, now I have to source your claims? Who the hell do you think the primary source is if not priest?
literally said “Norse society”, not "viking society
Lol, no you called me racist for saying the primary sources believed Viking culture to be based on raping and enslaving Christians. Implying an internal contradiction with your prior claim.
You’re saying that if a thing Y is likely to make thing X less attribute A, then thing X can not have attribute A at all.
Lol, no. See my argument is rebutting your claim. Your claim was that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive than mono theistic societies. I just gave examples that refute your claims.
You were the one who defined both tolerance and progressive, my examples about the Mongols was to explain that those terms were subjective. I can’t control the fact that you incorrectly interpreted my argument to apply to the entirety of your argument.
but the Mongols also had an exceptionally liberal attitude towards religion.
You’re just repeating what I said…? The point was that you claimed polytheistic people were both more progressive and more tolerant. I said those are too subjective of terms to blanket entirely different cultures with. You negated that and claimed that tolerance equates to non violence. I brought up Mongols specifically because they were liberal to religious beliefs but very violent.
The Christians went over to the “Holy Land” to literally rape and pillage, because they considered those people there to have the wrong beliefs.
And the Mongols did not? The Mongols believed that the Khan had celestially Devine right to rule the entirety of humanity.
Even claiming that the crusades were strictly about religion is kinda ridiculous even if you don’t agree with historic materialism. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the majority of campaigns to the holy land were more about economics than theology.
Did the Mongol empire kill a lot of people? Yeah, they did. But had he been a dogmatic Christian monotheist, he’d have killed even more.
I’m guessing you’ve never read much history outside of European history? They would wipe out entire cities and then send scouting parties back days later to kill anyone who hid or came to find their families. They literally couldn’t kill anymore people without slowing down the campaign. The population of Baghdad didn’t return it’s height during this period for nearly a thousand years. You are talking out of your ass.
The only reason Christians got a foothold in Greece, Rome, Norway and Asia was that those societies were tolerant of the new god, not realising that the believers of that new god would eventually hunt and kill them for believing wrong.
Again, you are being extremely reductive. Up until the 2-3rd century Christianity would be hard to define as strictly monotheistic. One of the first major internal contradictions that occured in the church were arguments about the Trinity. Prior to that even popes rarely found real importance in monotheism, as Manichaeism a dualist religion was very popular at the time, and often interchangeable with Christianity. Your statement presumes that over a period of 300 years the church insidiously carried out a conspiracy to slowly infiltrate and turn polytheistic societies. This is just conspiratorial thinking, and requires you to ignore hundreds of years of written history and context, you are making conclusions and working backwards.
Nah, it’s pretty global, which you’d know if you had any education on the subject, but you don’t.
Ahh, yes because you’ve done such a good job showing that you are an expert in the field…
Would you like to give me another historical interpretation of Scandinavian history that indicates you are a worldly scholar of history? You know what, I think I’m okay without hearing another reductive and eurocentric hot take.
Semantics
No it isn’t. It’s history. And I’m tired of arguing your quackery which makes no sense, and which you have no sources for.
Everything you write reveals your ignorance.
Lol, you don’t think the Greek, Hindu, or Romans were hierarchical, or engaged in dogmatic beliefs?
I’ve actually studied this. I don’t have opinions on it, I have knowledge.
Read up, little contrarian.
And use fucking sources.
Lol, wtf are you talking about? You were the person who brought them up to begin with, if you don’t like the nomenclature of “Viking” then you shouldn’t have utilized it in the first place.
Vikings existed. They were a small part of Norse society. You can’t even understand the distinction.
I’m not even gonna bother reading the rest of your uneducated guesses which contradict the consensus on these things
Oh my eye happened on one, too lol to skip:
Your statement presumes that over a period of 300 years the church insidiously carried out a conspiracy to slowly infiltrate and turn polytheistic societies
It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was open policy? Have you ever had a single history lesson? :D It wasn’t hundreds of years, it’s been several thousand (in different forms)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_colonialism
Through a variety of methods, Christian missionaries acted as the “religious arms” of the imperialist powers of Europe Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as “visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery”. However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the later half of the 20th century, missionaries were viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them”, colonialism’s “agent, scribe and moral alibi”.
Why are you so angry that monotheism is inherently violent, unlike polytheism? Is it because you’re still formally monotheistic, but know you don’t believe in it, but don’t have the balls to actually admit you’re an atheist?
The things I’ve talked about aren’t my opinions, or even some novel or fringe ideas.
They’ve been around for centuries.
David Hume said that unlike monotheism, polytheism is pluralistic in nature, unbound by doctrine, and therefore far more tolerant than monotheism, which tends to force people to believe in one faith.(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion)
Here’s some more reading for you little nephew
https://books.google.fi/books?id=S1tQ5Larst0C&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.fi/books?id=9P4TU-0zEs8C&redir_esc=y
Arvind Sharma, “A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion”
No it isn’t. It’s history.
No, it really isn’t. You are reducing thousands of years of history to “basically monotheism” because it suits your argument. You are literally trying to label one of the oldest polytheistic religions in the world as a monotheistic despite the fact that they only interacted with each other for a relatively insignificant amount of time.
And I’m tired of arguing your quackery which makes no sense, and which you have no sources for.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are constantly forgetting that you were the one who made the original affirmation.
My only claim is that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
actually studied this. I don’t have opinions on it, I have knowledge.
Lol, well actually, I invented history, and have been studying it before written time! You see how anecdotal evidence means next to nothing?
And use fucking sources.
Again, I was the first person to ask about sources? The burden of proof is laid upon the person who made the claim, not the rebuttal.
Vikings existed. They were a small part of Norse society. You can’t even understand the distinction.
When did I say they didn’t?
wasn’t a conspiracy. It was open policy? Have you ever had a single history lesson? :D It wasn’t hundreds of years, it’s been several thousand (in different forms)
Lol, we were talking about the beginning of the Christian church, specifically before the policy was made prior to the council of nicaea.
Why are you so angry that monotheism is inherently violent, unlike polytheism?
Lol, I’m not upset. I’m just explaining how you have no grounds to make that claim. You haven’t given any body of evidence that established your narrative, nor offered any evidence that prohibits alternative explanations if your narrative was proved in the first place.
Is it because you’re still formally monotheistic, but know you don’t believe in it, but don’t have the balls to actually admit you’re an atheist?
Lol, what? Your abilities to confidently jump to wildly inaccurate conclusions is pretty amazing. I don’t particularly care for any religious thoughts unless its about how it relates to culture or history.
I like history, I don’t like people making silly unprovable claims.
David Hume said that unlike monotheism, polytheism is pluralistic in nature, unbound by doctrine, and therefore far more tolerant than monotheism, which tends to force people to believe in one faith.(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion)
Lol, the philosopher from the enlightenment period? You know that is not actually an academically appropriate source for history, right?
There’s a difference between philosophy and actual history my dude.
And a couple of the books you listed look pretty interesting, but just based on the summaries. I highly doubt they actually attempt to make the same claims as you.
There’s no point in arguing someone like you who has zero understanding and is not ready to educate himself on the subject.
Just because you refuse the evidence in favour of opinions you pull out of your arse doesn’t make the evidence less credible.
There’s tons of books on this, and the mechanisms the theories suppose are very clearly written out in excerpts of those books, since you’re clearly nor a person with the ability to read an entire book.
You are literally trying to label one of the oldest polytheistic religions in the world
First off, “oldest”? You truly, truly make me laugh. Like heartily.
The reasons for why monotheism sucks began in early henotheism, which is a word I bet my left ball you don’t even know the meaning off.
Your temper tantrum won’t change the consensus on the matter, lil guy.
Was Atenisn mono- or polytheistic?
(Rhetorical question, I honestly don’t care about anything you say. Imagine how frustrating it’d be for you to try to discuss the intricacies of your favourite movie/game with some seven year old who’s barely seen proper movies or played games, and definitely doesn’t have a good grasp of them. That’s roughly what this conversation is like to me.)
Enjoy your ignorance.
There’s no point in arguing someone like you who has zero understanding and is not ready to educate himself on the subject.
Ditto?
refuse the evidence in favour of opinions
You haven’t given me any evidence that supports your argument. You’re just rambling about philosophy.
There’s tons of books on this, and the mechanisms the theories suppose are very clearly written out in excerpts of those books, since you’re clearly nor a person with the ability to read an entire book.
Anecdotal…
First off, “oldest”?
Learn to read…“one of the oldest”
Way to avoid the topic though.
reasons for why monotheism sucks began in early henotheism, which is a word I bet my left ball you don’t even know the meaning off
Lol, that excited to become eunuch? Henotheism probably isn’t going to be an unfamiliar concept if I’ve already mentioned dualism…
won’t change the consensus on the matter, lil guy.
Lol, I’m just correctting you. You’re the one whos relinquishing themselves with ad hominem. Also, ya haven’t established there’s a consensus, you’re just saying trust me bro.
Atenisn mono- or polytheistic?
Neither… You do know that history isn’t some walled garden that only Scandinavian have access too, right?
Just because I don’t partake in your pet philosophical theory doesn’t’t mean I can’t enjoy reading history.
Hey she still has the right. Just no job lol.
“Defending her right to make anti-LGBTQ+ comments” is a strange way to frame this by a pro-LGBTQ source. No one here is saying she doesn’t have a right to say these things, they’re saying she doesn’t have a right to stay employed at this job after saying these things and refusing to work with her employer to manage public perception
Another Christian religious nut. Get fucked.
How to ruin one’s public image in 10 seconds.
on this episode of “My Sincerely Held Belief Takes Precedence Over Everything” we once again attempt to claim that any consequences for my anti-social behavior is a direct attack on myself and my religion.
My religious dogma says it’s good to be a bigot against shitty bigots who target marginalized and minority groups for their hate. It also guarantees salvation at death or triple your money back.
But my religion says I have to hate people and tell them they’re going to Hell.
“All those who have sought to end my career.” So entitled.
She refused to play a gay role, but when she was found out she’d signed up for a gay role, she didn’t quit, just go all persecuted when she was fired from the gay role that she refused?
she’s not defending her rights, she’s challenging the rights of studios to choose who they work with.
