Comments | linwenilid: *flabbergasted*

linwenilid

flabbergasted

Oct 23, 2007 01:21

No, I'm not alright. I was shocked yesterday, which is why I was able to be silly and write a humorous (to me, at least) mock-letter containing JKR's humble request to fans. That's how I handle things: shock and denial takes a huge hold on me for a good while, and then I realise ( Read more... )

rants, wtf, links

Comments 33

thewhitelily October 24 2007, 00:31:37 UTC

Not going to rant at length, even though your response makes me cross. Having just read a series of forum posts where a set of Christians are assuring a Christian mother she did the right thing to insist to her son that he was unchristian to consider himself gay, even though it drove him to commit suicide, I'm perhaps a little sensitive. Unlike many Christian beliefs, this is not harmless, it's a belief that causes material harm to fellow citizens of the world, and thus one that makes my blood boil when I hear it professed. But that's beside the point, so I won't mention it.Assuming you're right about homosexuals burning in hell for all eternity, I'm just going to mention one thing you seem to have missed ( ... )

linwenilid October 24 2007, 05:33:52 UTC

Assuming you're right about homosexuals burning in hell for all eternity

For starters, I never said that. I hate it when people immediately infer that a Christian is sending people to hell when we say they have sinned. Salvation stems from a personal belief that Jesus' sacrifice was enough to put us in good terms with God, and not the saintly life you lead after that. But there *is* a list of things one has to avoid and correct when coming to the realisation of the former, which comes from the logical conclusion that, since your initial belief was sincere, you want to please the God you have just accepted as your Saviour. It's in Romans 1:18-31, in case you want to check it out, and homosexuality is thrown in with the lot of other things that do look like bad things. And bear in mind that the book of Romans was mainly written for non-Jews, in the middle of the Roman Empire, so influenced by hellenistic cultures and paganism. They all could have easily argue that being gay was right and natural for them given their time and place of ( ... )

thewhitelily October 24 2007, 06:25:40 UTC

I know the bible verse. I'm not arguing against your assertion that the Bible says it is wrong - the Bible says a number of other things are wrong, too, which I won't go into here. I also know what you mean by saying that they have sinned being different to going to hell. Perhaps I should have said unrepentant homosexuals burning in hell for all eternity - it's what I meant, anyway - because I wasn't including those who deny their feelings becuase they believe it's wrong. I think they're usually referred to as ex-homosexuals, etc, anyway ( ... )

linwenilid October 24 2007, 08:39:51 UTC

you're attacking Dumbledore for being gay

Again, I'll make the distinction: I was never, ever, attacking *Dumbledore*, or even thinking 'he shouldn't be gay, it's wrong', or anything like that. He doesn't exist, I don't care about him being gay, really. I was gathering JKR's stance on the subject from her act of revealing his sexuality, and connecting the dots. It's different; I frankly don't care about the implications of his being gay in the story - and honestly, your point that he repented from being gay and his subsequent celibacy stemming from his suffering doesn't convince me, nor it will convince any fanfiction writer (or even just readers) who want to play with his newly-discovered sexuality. So, I was not condemning *him*, a kid lit character, at all, but censoring the author's stance, after her self-proclaimed Christianity.

Harry saw Dumbledore's flaws, Aberforth saw Dumbledore's flaws, Dumbledore saw his own flaws (which is, after all, what matters) - and if you're only counting Elphias Dodge, then you've got just as ( ... )

Thread 7

Bit confused as to why you're cross... jangrafess October 24 2007, 12:26:29 UTC

I don't understand why she shouldn't be allowed to write about someone who is gay because she's a Christian...

She doesn't say, 'he is gay and this is a good thing.'

She just says, 'he is gay.' She doesn't give her opinion on it. Maybe that's why she had him as a lonely and slightly depressed character - because he was gay and was therefore unable to have a 'Christian relationship?'

Jangra, still in existence, barely.

Re: Bit confused as to why you're cross... linwenilid October 24 2007, 15:59:29 UTC

She doesn't say, 'he is gay and this is a good thing.'

There are very little other stances to gather from her announcement, to me. The reasons why I think that are spread all over the other comments, and since I don't have much time right now, could you please read them? :)

Maybe that's why she had him as a lonely and slightly depressed character - because he was gay and was therefore unable to have a 'Christian relationship?'

Probably, but she'll never come up with that story, nor people will conclude something like that, or at least, that's my (rather pessimistic, but not at all unrealistic) opinion on this matter.

(so nice to see you around! Do update your journal, since I suck to log in to MSN most of the time... :P)

jangrafess October 25 2007, 14:00:43 UTC

Well, I think there's very few stances to be gathered the other way too. It's just the audience reaction that suggests its a good thing, really.

And I know she won't - but she's also not going to say he's a practicing homosexual. Also... he didn't ever shag Grindel, I reckon. So man never did lie with man. T'was all emotions. I've had Christians tell me that's alright before, as long as Dumbles and Grindy didn't get down to any real lovin'

And no... I really shouldn't update. LJ is one of the sites I tried to leave totally. There's only about 2 sites I now visit regularly.

I'll just say that I'm not getting depressed that often anymore, and college is going well. Lovelife still non-existent though. :P

Hypocrite? Wut? ancient_roons October 28 2007, 10:32:08 UTC

JK has always been (and i'm not making this up, this is what she's been saying) an advocate of tolerance. I would say the general "tolerating" view is: you might disagree with gay practices, but just the same, treat gays like any other human being.

And hasn't that been how she has treated Dumbledore the entire time? In the books, it is never once mentioned he is gay. Implicitly, the readers have simply treated him LIKE ANY HUMAN BEING.

I find it hard to believe that the "tolerating" view contradicts Christianity. (So is she a hypocrite? Wut?) I also find it hard to believe that the books espouse anything stronger than the tolerating view (you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a passage saying "gay = good"). So what exactly is your problem with the books or the author?

Re: Hypocrite? Wut? linwenilid October 29 2007, 04:21:58 UTC

Thank you for your comment, even though I have no idea who you are. :P

So what exactly is your problem with the books or the author?

I think I have answered that throughout all the replies to other people's posts, so I'd like you to read them to gather the answer.

I would say the general "tolerating" view is: you might disagree with gay practices, but just the same, treat gays like any other human being.

I find it hard to believe that the "tolerating" view contradicts Christianity.

I also find it hard to believe that the books espouse anything stronger than the tolerating view (you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a passage saying "gay = good")Agree. And I don't think any different regarding tolerance, and regarding the books, I know there are many, many other topics and plotlines that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Again, please refer to my other posts for my answer to your questions ( ... )

Re: Hypocrite? Wut? ancient_roons October 30 2007, 22:04:21 UTC

My problem is: I was unable to find any previous explication that did not assume she was doing something "against" Christianity. Even the one in this post:

"So, basically, my being upset with Mrs Rowling stems from that: that a Christian must not put his or her own ideas before God's word"

Implies that her ideas somehow contradict "God's word" (or else there'd be no conflict).

But, as I mentioned before, I cannot find any ideas espoused by JK which contradict God's word. Tolerance is not contradictory; pro-homosexuality simply does not appear.

Re: Hypocrite? Wut? linwenilid October 31 2007, 21:33:02 UTC

*sigh* I don't really know how else to explain it. It is not about tolerance, it's about the idea of homosexuality. By assigning homosexual orientation to Dumbledore, JKR made it a good thing ("cool points", someone already said), advocating tolerance of the *idea*, not precisely of people. That's bad for Christianity, if you ask me. And it wouldn't be such a big deal if it had come from an atheist or anyone that doesn't believe, but she does, which is what makes it a bit more than just a comment. And right now, supporters of the idea are thinking along these lines:

"This is a victory for homosexuality the world over," (here)

"Since most kids realize they are gay when they are 12 or 13, the same time when heterosexual kids realize they like the opposite sex, this should help them all see that it's alright to be gay!" (hereIf you really don't get my point after this, then I don't know how else to explain it. Someone with such a huge fanbase like her should be a little more careful with what she says, especially when it's something ( ... )

Thread 5