|
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:59 pm
 |
|
|
|
ಠ_ಠI disagree with the article.
Even if the bible were to be given a "trigger warning",
for how politically-incorrect it is, there's a difference
between how the Bible reads and how these secular
books read. Some secular books make you repeat
expletives in your heart—or imagine the scene in
lewd detail—just to get through the book. The bible
doesn't do that to you. Even when scripture speaks
about rape or slavery, I don't walk away feeling
violated or having visualized much of anything.
The bible is detailed enough to be specific, but not
detailed enough that you're living vicariously through
the speaker, going through an experience. But the
way these secular books are written, they do put you
through that. They want you to immerse yourself
into the character and into the environment. They
want you to vicariously "feel" things in your flesh
from their description alone—anxieties, fears,
and lusts.
Maybe that's why, despite being a bestseller, the
bible doesn't get read as often as it should: it does
not appeal to one's flesh—but to one's spirit—and no
one really reads it unless they fall in love with God's
mind or really want to know about him (even if they
reject him later, they were curious enough about him
to pick it up and read).
Sometime after being saved, not sure how long after,
but it was over the summer: my little cousin read
The Catcher in the Rye and she asked me if I
wanted to read it. Innocently enough, I said "sure"
because my classes never assigned it to me, and I
was curious. But despite my enthusiasm, I couldn't
make it passed the first chapter. The language was
too much. It felt like I was taking daggers to
the heart.
I suppose this is why Jesus did not save me until
after I was done with school. Back when I was not
saved, reading obscene language didn't feel like a
violation to my very being. Back then, it use to be
a delight and something to ignorantly laugh at. But
now? Torture. It's a misuse of words, with so much
hate, anger, and carelessness behind them (not
caring how they affect the listener).
A "trigger warning" would not have helped if
I were now to be forced to ingest the material to pass
a class. Nor do I think a trigger warning would've
helped someone with PTSD who had suffered verbal
abuse and obscene language was their trigger.
Unless, because of the trigger warning, they could
be assigned another book...? or not buy the book in
the first place if they're reading it for leisure's sake
or curiosity.
If the bible does get a trigger warning, and people
avoid reading it because of the trigger warning, that
could be a problem, but it would be mislabeled
because the bible is not graphic at all nor uses
expletives. You will not walk away thinking you just
relived your moments in a war zone or walk away
feeling sexually or verbally assaulted.
I think this phenomenon is just a failed way to deal
with a very real problem going on in the classroom.
From a different article: link, because of copyright
and terms of use, they don't allow you to even
provide excerpts without permission, but it's the
sixth paragraph. A professor showing a graphic
film depicting rape :l
Why do college professors think that, just because
you reach a certain age, that you all of a sudden
need to have your conversation become sexually
graphic (either by them feeding you pornographic
material, whether visually or with their words,
or discussing sex in a pornographic way in class),
as if that was okay? This was one of many factors
that played into my decision of not returning to
university. I wasn't even saved yet, but I felt
violated by my English class. Specifically,
her discussions.
And that college class was not the first time I'd be
violated by an English / literature class. Similarly,
in high school, 11th grade English, not so much
because of the content, but the teacher: he had an
obsession with psychology, liked to "crack" certain
students in class, get inside their minds, even
against their will (mental rape). I don't know if
anyone else had an issue with the way he acted,
but I didn't give him permission to know me and yet
he's still trying to probe my mind, invading, against
my will, trying to crack me and figure me out, letting
me know he's trying to do that—this has nothing
to do with the material in class at all by the way.
Some teachers are overstepping a line they shouldn't
cross. But people applaud them for being edgy,
innovative, and not afraid to make their students
violate their boundaries (what if their boundary is
staying within the commandments of God, and the
teacher wants to push them out of it? are we going
to applaud them then?). Certain boundaries shouldn't
be crossed. If they're violating the boundaries God
set up, that isn't right. "Respecting free will" and
"not violating someone's conscience" are two such
boundaries.
All that said: trigger warnings are useless if the
person has PTSD, and they still have to participate /
interact with the material to pass the class. What's
the point? They never addressed how this helps
them? However, at least people are getting warned
ahead of time, given an opportunity to decide whether
to proceed or not without getting "surprise" violated
first by the material.
Maybe this is a move of God to protect the
consciences of people—assuming they have the
choice to not read the material. Technically, we all
have a choice even if the alternative is to flunk the
class lol. Or maybe it is their "test" to prove what is
in their hearts and what they prioritize more: if they
flunk, so as not to violate their conscience/psyche
and avoid the torment the material will wreak on
them, then so be it. Choosing God over the world—
even if they don't know it yet. Afterall, the reason
they want to pass is to advance in the world, but
what if you have to violate your conscience in
the process?
1 Timothy 1:19 (NIV)
19 holding on to faith and a good conscience,
which some have rejected and so have suffered
shipwreck with regard to the faith.
Matthew 16:26 (NIV)
26 What good will it be for someone to gain the
whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can
anyone give in exchange for their soul?
Even if we choose the path that the world warns
is not conducive to preserving "self" or "prestige", we
can't violate our conscience.
edit: if it wasn't clear, I don't agree with the article.
God's commands serve to protect our emotional
well-being. He's saying emotional well-being is a
tyrant. How is this article on a Christian website?
He's idolizing Western civilization. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
