Tag: Anonymous

What do you think about the views of the Bible abt women? A lot times women were commanded to submit themselves to men. A verse in 1 Corinthians mentioned that women aren’t allowed to preach the Word. It’s unfair no matter how i look at it, or is it just teaching women humility? Im srry for asking you too much religious questions, i just realllyy love your answers.

It’s okay! For anyone who doesn’t want to see it, I am tagging my answers, so feel free to block the tag. 

Suffice to say, I’m an ardent feminist, and I remember getting in trouble in the cult school I grew up in for arguing with people about this. #futureheretic

Context is my answer here 😉 I don’t want to delve really deep into the theology (though I did study it in one of my classes in college) but interpreting someone’s letter to their friends as being a proclamation for all women at all times is like… not good reading comprehension lol. It was a suggestion for a specific group at a specific time, and there are a lot of really wonderful articles written by woman theologians and scholars out there specifically looking at the context the writer of Corinthians was referring to, and it’s not quite as misogynistic as it sounds. 

Which isn’t to say there aren’t misogynistic perspectives in the Bible because there sure are, but it’s also fairly on par for the norm for the time period in which it was written. You can believe the bible is inspired of God while still acknowledging the intent behind certain books (in this case, a letter to friends) and the time period and the fact that it was written by humans. 

I think a lot of white American evangelicalism is inclined to say that the word of God is the bible, but they’re actually wrong according to scripture itself. The word is Jesus (John 1:1), not the bible. Which of course doesn’t downplay its importance since it tells us the story of the faith, but all that to say, sure, the word of God is inerrant because it’s Christ. The bible, imo, is inspired, but not inerrant, and saying it is downplays the whole point of the Christ story–Immanuel, God with us, coming to earth as a human and working with humans–and makes the bible out to be a god. When you have people taking 1 Corinthians and being like SHUT UP WOMEN and then you also have, in contrast, the very first proclaimer that Christ rose from the dead being a woman (Mary Magdalene) and they put weight on the first but not the second (because #power), I’m comfortable criticizing that interpretation of scripture. 

Maybe I should rephrase my Annie question better. It has come off as awkward to me that Annie sort of just became what amounts to dead in the narrative, and then for her to reintroduced so late into the game sort of rubs me the wrong way. It’s entirely my subjective opinion and perhaps it’s my bias for hoping for more for her, but I always felt it could’ve been handled better. Thoughts, I’m by no means a good writer?

Oh no worries! I understand what you mean (and I hope for more for her too, she’s such a good character). But I actually think it could really work well for the narrative, in that her coming back for the final arc fits with a kind of chiastic structure of story, which SnK doesn’t entirely have but does have some elements of. In other words, in a lot of stories (Tokyo Ghoul, various books int he Bible, Harry Potter, Star Wars) elements that are introduced at the beginning vanish until the end, forming a neat chiasm in terms of story structure. I’ve done a few posts on chiastic structure before (like this one on Tokyo Ghoul), so you can search on my blog for it, but in short having Annie play a major role at the beginning and a major role in the ending would be textbook good writing in my opinion! Having her play a major role and then come back and not really play a role at all, or just linger as a crystal, would not be good writing imo.  

You believe in life after death, but not in hell? Why is that?

*clears throat, cracks knuckles* All right buckle up, it’s about to get theology in here.

I don’t believe in a traditional fire and brimstone hell. Honestly the way that’s taught in evangelical Christiandom is like… God is a teacher who leaves everyone with a bunch of textbooks and is like good luck kiddos figure out which one is the right one! And then he never really shows and then whoever fails the test at the end of the year gets lit on fire. That’s just dumb. I also didn’t come up with that analogy but I think it fits. So, bah to religious litmus tests for hell. 

I’m a Christian, right? So part of it has to do with the way I interpret different Biblical verses via looking at the original context and the original language used in the text (sorry white American evangelicals it wasn’t English). There are beautiful verses like about God is love and then about Jesus reconciling all things to himself–and the word used in Koine Greek really means, like, all things, like everything ever, like everyone ever. A lot of the hellish imagery is almost certainly a writing tool (cough Revelation) not prophecy, and the traditional fire and brimstone hell is really not an idea that originates with Hebrew texts or with early Christian ones, but instead with nearby cultures. I could go on and go more in depth, but those are just my religious beliefs. 

But in another reason irregardless of specific religion: I’ve seen a lot of fucked up shit in person in this world. Like a three week old baby too far gone to save from starvation. Like a four year old I knew left to die in a hospital hallway from a scorpion sting because he was the wrong caste. Like a boy whose mother was raped and then lit on fire in front of him, who never smiled in the three years he was at the school I worked with. Like kids whose parents sold them into prostitution. I despise the people who hurt these kids I care deeply about. I still do. I wish they would spend time in prison and if I saw them I don’t know what I’d do. 

But I’ve also seen abuse victims go on to abuse others, and I’ve seen students I love try to murder other students I love. I saw a boy cruelly mock his disabled peers, and then found out his mother lit herself on fire to escape his father’s abuse and his father hung himself on the same day. I saw a child who molested another child because they had been molested, and after exhausting legal options, we had to give the child back to the person we believed was abusing them. I love those kids too. It’s easy to condemn them, and people did. And of course, first priority is to protect their victims from them, and we did. But don’t those kids need help, too? It’s agonizing when you can’t give them that help. When justice won’t happen for any of the above people I mentioned.  

The only way I can cope with the problem of evil is the idea of, somehow, a loving God. If God is not loving, I don’t want jackshit to do with him/her. If God is Love, then I cannot ever imagine sending someone you love to suffer forever. Even if your child is a totally terrible person, you should still love your child but not the deeds. Not only that, but I think humans are limited in understanding and there are so many factors–genetic and nurture too–that go into making someone who they are. Which isn’t to excuse responsibility, because I look at certain political leaders and I want them to rot because they are responsible for their choices and they’re hurting people. I’d think that breaks God’s heart, and that he has plans to redeem all this horror somehow. Because the world sucks in a lot of ways. 

But in terms of infinity, I think humans have finite minds. I also don’t think everything done in this life should be swept away and justice shouldn’t exist because that is not love in any respect, but I don’t think it looks like an eternity burning in hell. In short, I don’t know, but if God is love and I believe he is, then I trust him. I don’t think mercy and justice are two opposites, but rather that they compliment each other and work together in an ideal world. 

So I don’t really know what an afterlife looks like in terms of justice, but I do know that I choose to have faith and trust. I don’t need to know everything, nor do I want to (sorry cult I grew up in, certainty is dumb). I am comfortable with grey matter, but that’s just me. I am also sorry if this isn’t very clear. I have not yet had my morning tea. 

Do you think it’s lazy writing if Isayama just brings Annie back into the story after being gone for years in the narrative? Her character has been “dead” for such a long time that it would feel somewhat hamfisted to just drop her back into the story after missing and being absent for so long.

Nope. It’d be lazy writing never to address her again. Characters go in and out of narratives all the time, but they should return, so I’m not sure what you mean by hamfisted. If you leave a running plot line for a long time, and you leave said plotline alive, readers expect said plotline to return. There’s been build up for her to come back in recent chapters as well. 

Oh you write original fiction?? What’s the genre of some of your stuff? If dont mind me asking ^^

It’s mostly YA!! Sometimes with fantastical elements, sometimes with historical elements, but I like writing from a teenage point of view. I think teenagers get far worse a rap than they deserve in general. It’s a pivotal time in a lot of peoples’ lives, not that it’s nearly as important as it seems nor is it as unimportant as adults like to pretend sometimes. Teenagers are awesome and they deserve to have their stories told without being condescended to, or without ya know, none of the teenage characters actually thinking or acting like teenagers. 

are you a writer or do you dabble in literature? I know one doesn’t need to be an expert on a field to hold an opinion on subjective stuff like literature, but you appear to know a lot on the subject. So I was just curious.

I have a Bachelor’s in Literature and Creative Writing! And I taught it for high schoolers for a year after I finished college, though now I work at a university (not in a teaching capacity). I love to write; it’s my dream to get a novel published (I had two short stories published in anthologies before, but it was a long time ago), but even if I don’t, writing makes me happy. It helps me relax, whether fictional or analytical writing. 

And thanks lol. The thing about writing and literature is that you’re always learning, so I may have a degree, but I’m still learning and oftentimes learn from people who don’t have degrees! 

I don’t want to send this and make it like I’m looking for a fight, but comparing eiji and ash’s relationship with historia and ymir’s isn’t quite fair, I’m a lgbt person and as far as we know ymir did love historia in a romantic way but we can’t say that historia loved ymir in a romantic way as well you can see it that way in your headcanon but please don’t go saying it’s canolically a thing.

Anon, I really do believe it’s canonically a thing, and I don’t think it’s really textually debatable, though you are welcome to disagree. I’m pretty “death of the author” but I believe someone involve with creating the anime actually confirmed they’re in a relationship so. But even going by the text, If Historia acted the same way towards a male character that she did towards Ymir, saying things like that being with that character makes her feel unafraid, etc., crying at a goodbye letter, in a depression after he left, saying she would betray humanity for a chance to help him like she says she will for Ymir, remembering Ymir in her moment of temptation and being inspired to live her own life by that memory, no one would be saying it’s purely platonic. It doesn’t need to be spoonfed to the audience, and I for one am glad it was never sexualized even with a kiss. It’s clearly there. That’s what the original ask was saying, and I frankly agree it’s there. If someone wants to deny that it’s textual, they’re entitled to do so, but it’s missing a key component of the relationship. That’s why I responded how I did. I am sorry if it offended you, but I stand by my response that it’s canon. 

I don’t mean to sound annoyed at you, Anon, but it’s also frustrating to me that LGBT+ representation is constantly being denied or having to pass far higher standards of obviousness than straight pairings. It really, really frustrates me. Spoonfeeding an LGBT relationship shouldn’t be necessary any more than it is for a straight couple. I don’t think Historia and Ymir’s relationship is that much different from Ash and Eiji’s, in terms of how they express affection for each other, how far they’re willing to go for each other, etc. That’s why I used that comparison. Again, I didn’t mean to offend, but I think it’s canon. 

Hi! It seems like a large portion of the fandom seem convinced that Nicolo and Sasha were actually dating due to Kaya’s remark. Do you have any thoughts on that? I always enjoy reading your analyses! :)

*shrugs* there’s no way to know! Nicolo’s feelings absolutely seem to be romantic, but we have no idea about Sasha and won’t because she’s dead. They might very well have been. 

Tbh, I think it’s a bit cheap writing-wise to shoehorn the romance element to add motivation for Nicolo’s actions last chapter, when what he said about her teaching him he could do good in the world with his cooking honestly would have sufficed given that someone in his position being mentally unstable would hardly be unusual, and that statement made me cry on its own. This is just my opinion though and is not a judgement on it, people are welcome to disagree! It just reminded me of Kaya trying to kill Gabi–didn’t seem quite necessary for the drama and themes of the scene, but w/e. Many people seem to like it, so that’s great!