idea: an arts and crafts video podcast where a couple people get together and work on a DIY project and chit chat. and they announce the next podcast’s project and materials needed at the end or after so you can be prepared to craft along if u want
the set would be like a cozy a-frame attic. it would be aimed at teenagers/adults, but it would be like a playhouse/treehouse kind of with lots of shelves and books and tapestries and fairy lights lining the walls. and there would be one window that would be backlit to look like day or night or certain weather. and the set could be decorated and changed to match a holiday or season or theme etc. it would be very “after school/dinner hangin out w ur friends”. there would be comfy chairs and couches and tables and giant mugs for ur tea or hot cocoa or w/e and fluffy throw pillow and blankets. u can wear pajamas if u want we just makin art
When I die I want to be buried with grave goods that make future archaeologists think I was of much higher status than I actually was so that my grave will be referred to as a princely burial and I’ll be remembered by some cool name like “The Colchester Barrow Princess” (I’ve decided that I will be buried in a highly visible barrow, possibly with a ship) and the National Trust will erect a small museum about me filled with entirely incorrect but cool sounding archaeological assumptions
Be buried literally holding a sword and axe and then sit back and watch the endless ‘powerful warrior queen v. just usual valuable grave goods indicating a high status individual’ debate from the afterlife.
I want a spring-loaded casket and non-degrading glitter. I will be remembered as “that *£^$% thing that killed Professor Hannover”
I’m willing to bet there will be a follow up article about how scholars have made a startling discovery that the gold was used for crafts and the craft people of the world will just be like “…..Really?”
I love how they just kind of leap to “A PRIEST KING MUST HAVE WORN THIS SHINY GOLD STUFF!”
“Everything is mysterious! We have no idea! It, uh… it was for a ritual, yes.” “…don’t you say everything is for a ritual?” “Shhh, ancient peoples liked rituals.” “But there’s a giant painting on this wall showing how this was used, and modern crafters you could ask.” “SHHH. RITUALS.”
I have a very strong urge to email that researcher.
This keeps happening, you know.
For decades we thought water or oil was poured onto the rocks being used to build Egyptian pyramids for “ritual purposes”. Turns out if you ask people who have worked on sand they can tell you that wet sand is A LOT EASIER TO DRAG ROCKS ACROSS.
We spent centuries unable to figure out how the hair styles of ancient civilisations were constructed, typically going with “all the women wore wigs” (seriously. That was literally the solution) until a hairdresser with an interest in the hairstyles she saw in classical art turned her hand to them and BLEW THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY AWAY with her incredibly accurate recreations of hairstyles using tools available to the original peoples.
Academia has this real, huge problem where you’ve got a whole bunch of insulated people who know a lot about history and research and academia but shit-all about anything else. And who, when presented with something they can’t figure out, they turn to other academics rather than to people who might have some practical experience with similar stuff.
And it spreads into popular culture in a really unhealthy way. Because there is so much stuff that academia leaves as “ritual purposes” or “we don’t yet know how X was done”, which becomes “it’s a mystery!!!1!” in popular science shows and magazines. Which winds up fuelling the fires of people who would rather believe that ALIENS BUILD THE FUCKING PYRAMIDS than that the Egyptian people might actually have been competent at this thing they did.
Yep. Interesting thing about the hairstylist: there was a word that kept being used in documents about hairstyles that could translate as two different things, one of which was something like “sewing needle”. Academics ruled out that translation of the word, because “lol, sewing hairstyles. That’s ridiculous.” The hairstylist who recreated them… looked at that word, at the available tools of the time, and tried a sewing technique with needles to keep hair in place. AND IT WORKED.
The silo effect in academia is a major problem.
Side note: IDK if this is the same lady or not (it probably is) but there’s an entire youtube channel devoted to not only period-correct hairstyles from ancient greece/rome and egypt all the way up to the napoleonic and civil war eras but also a few needle/fiber/cloth crafts like beading, dyeing, etc.
The ones that bug me are always the textiles stuff – naturally, as I do that myself. Like the vase paintings of ancient Greeks and Romans and their warp-weighted looms. Archeologists kept saying shit like, “No, that must be an artistic rendering, that couldn’t possibly work like that,” and meanwhile people in Scandinavia are still using nearly identical looms today. Because nobody ever thought to ask actual weavers. The nitwits looking at women preparing wool and spinning on vases, and coming up with completely ridiculous explanations for this shit, and any spinner could glance at it and go, “Um, no.” Just. Argh.
I think this also ties into who is seen as an “expert” in our culture. Laborers who do work that is looked down in our society, such as hair stylists and landscapers, are not perceived as experts unless you’re going to get your hair done or your yard remodeled–and even then, they tend to be perceived as a worker providing labor, as opposed to a consultant or expert professional using their knowledge to preform a specialized skill or art. But these people ARE experts. Academics, however, have internalized cultural values around who is an expert and whose knowledge translates to expertise valuable enough to cite in a paper.
So honestly, this is a bigger issue than academia, because our society as a whole doesn’t tend to perceive laborers as experts in hardly any capacity. Academia is just one institution that reflects this classist disdain.
Disclaimer: I am only speaking for myself and my experiences within Christianity. Though some of these points may apply to other ex-faiths, I am not knowledgeable enough to talk about them all. It would be really helpful to see other lists like this for ex-mormons/ex-muslims/ex-cult/ex-moonies/ex-catholics and others, however that’s not my place to do so!
First off, what is religious trauma?
Religious trauma is mainly defined as resulting from an authoritarian, dogmatic religion and the act of leaving the religion and unlearning/coping with the harmful doctrines
However, spiritual abuse will almost always result in a variety of different forms of abuse including, but not limited to: child abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, domestic abuse and neglect
Long lasting side affects can result in: suppression of normal child development, damage to normal thinking and feeling abilities, long-term physical and mental health problems, confusion, poor critical thinking ability, negative beliefs about self-ability and self-worth, black and white thinking, perfectionism, difficulty with decision-making, depression, anxiety, anger, grief, loneliness, difficulty with pleasure, loss of meaning, loss of social network, family rupture, social awkwardness, sexual difficulty, behind schedule on developmental tasks, unfamiliarity with secular world; “fish out of water” feelings, difficulty belonging, information gaps (e.g. evolution, modern art, music)
(For a better understanding, I would advise you to read the information on this website. It is possible that not everyone who has experienced spiritual abuse will develop religious trauma syndrome and I am not a psychologist, however it is the most helpful way of detailing the detrimental affects of dealing with this specific kind of abuse. Feel free to correct me if i made any errors with this statement!)
Which brings us to the main point. How do you have a safe dialogue with someone who has been religiously abused?
There is a gross lack of resources out there for religious trauma, and because of this there is a large amount of ignorance. This post is mainly centered around ex-christian interaction with practicing Christians, though it can be applied to other areas. Please note that this reference list comes from several personal conversations and experiences, so it may not be relatable to everyone.
Someone sharing their trauma with you is a serious thing. If someone chooses to confide in you, that normally means they have a great amount of trust in you and are looking for security, acceptance and love.
‘‘You just had a bad experience with the church!’‘
Why is this harmful?:
It’s dismissing the trauma that someone has personally experienced and witnessed. Most times this will come from someone who feels threatened by the notion that faith can be a perpetrator of abuse. Saying this gives the distinct impression that you could care less about what the person has experienced. It’s a good way to ensure that the person confiding in you never shares anything personal with you ever again. Someone who has spent the majority of their life centered around faith has probably been to more churches than you have.
‘‘Not all Christians are like that!’‘
Why is this harmful?:
This one is the most common. Again, it dismisses the experiences of the person confiding in you. It’s similar to the phrase ‘’not all men’’ in the way that it jumps to the defense of the abusive party, assuming you are attacking the majority. The person confiding in you knows that all Christians are not the same. It’s also fair to mention that the majority of ‘’good’’ Christians are viewed by more dogmatic sects as ‘’false’’ Christians.
‘‘______ aren’t true Christians!’‘
Why is this harmful?:
This isn’t helpful. Instead of acknowledging that people who share your faith can be toxic, it’s simply discrediting them and shoving them under a rug. Authoritative religious leaders will do the exact same thing, dismissing acts by more liberal Christians as ungodly and sinful.
‘’God loves you and would never hurt you!’’
Why is this harmful?:
Most people who have experienced religious trauma have been terrorized by the concept of God. Disobedience is avoided out of the fear of God bringing harm to them or their loved ones. God’s ‘’love’’ is similar to that of an abusive father or spouse. In most deconversions, even when belief is gone there is still a fundamental fear of God. The image of a kind God is a foreign concept.
‘‘You should try _____ instead!’‘
Why is this harmful?:
Spiritually abused people can either be incredibly defensive against all forms of religion or extremely susceptible to be pulled back into an abusive religion while trying to heal from their previous one. If someone is visibly alarmed by religious topics, they don’t want to talk about them.
‘‘Why do you hate Christians???’‘
Why is this harmful?:
Traumatized people have a right to talk about their abuse just like you have the right to talk about your beliefs. If you care about improving your faith, there should be an interest in hearing the experiences of those who have been spiritually abused without acting like you are being directly attacked. Calling out an abusive system and the abusers inside the system does not include the people who are suffering inside the system or trying their best to reform it (though some ex-religious people may want nothing to do with any kind of church reform).
‘‘If you think Christianity is bad, then what about ____ ? Are you going to ignore that???’‘
Coming from the perspective of a Westerner, America is very centered on Christianity because we are a majority Christian nation. People who have broken away from Christianity will mainly focus on Christianity because that’s their experience and what they’re knowledgeable enough to talk about. However, it’s our job as ex-religious people to stand in solidarity with other ex-religious people and to learn about their struggles. Focusing on one abuse does not mean that you do not care about the others.
Other Topics:
Racism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny are incredibly prevalent in the church. Bending over backwards to prove that the Bible doesn’t approve of any of these things is most times neither helpful or wanted, though the intention can be well-meaning.
So, what should I say?
The proper way to start a dialogue with an ex-religious person is what you should do for any abuse or trauma victim.
Listen to them just like you would anyone else!
You don’t have to defend what you believe, or try to convince them that there are good religions. You just have to want to listen.
Mammals both produce milk and have hair. Ergo, a coconut is a mammal.
I know you’re being facetious, but this is an actual issue with morphology-based phylogeny.
*leans over and whispers to person beside me* what are they talking about
*leans over and whispers back* Human ability to quantify and categorize natural phenomena is sketchy at best and wildly misleading at worst
consider the coconut
this reminds me of that time Plato defined humans as “featherless bipeds” and Diogenes ran in with a plucked chicken screaming “BEHOLD A MAN!”
i love how you say “it reminds me of that time” like you were there.
listen if an immortal feels brave and supported enough to come out we should respect them
This post is a journey
1 Reblog = 1 Respect
I maintain that humans started attempting classify animals, and some god or another made the platypus, and is still laughing.
Zeus: *hits joint* okay so like. It’s gonna have a duck bill right. But an otter body okay? And then a beaver tail. It’s a mammal. But. It lays eggs!
Hades: wait wait dude. Give it. Give it poison. Make it poisonous
Athena: You mean venomous, and make sure the eggs have both reptile and bird traits.
Hermes: *takes the joint* Give it extra senses.
Poseidon: It should be aquatic.
I MEAN where’s the lie
Demeter: … And where exactly do you expect me to put this?
Everyone: Australia.
This thread goes every which way and is a glorious thing begat by Tumblr.
Hestia, who brought the weed and has been quiet this whole time, suddenly, but with forceful conviction: IT DOESNT HAVE TEATS IT JUST SWEATS MILK. she nods sagely before collapsing into giggles
The Carving Witch 