[ SECRET POST #2708 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2708 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Degrassi Junior High/Degrassi High and Saved By The Bell]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Cinema Snob]

__________________________________________________



04.
[Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Silicon Valley]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Xavier Dolan]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Pacific Rim]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Sailor Moon]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Iwan Rheon]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Love Stage!!]


__________________________________________________



11.
[The Losers (movie)]


__________________________________________________



12.
[K-pop]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #387.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

No, Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ (New Testament). Not the Old Testament where that "Gays are evil" belief stems from. New Testament on gays? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. And you would think that with Jesus being around Romans who were all about loving whomever, he would have a thing to say about that. But you know what he did say? "Judge not lest ye be judge." That's what a real Christian should do if they say they follow Christ.

[vethica]

Not all those of us who follow the Old Testament believe the "gays are evil" thing either.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

This is correct, and I think the Duck Dynasty guy is an abomination for entirely separate reasons...but I also believe (as a Christian who believes the division between "angry OT god" and "happy hippy blue-eyed Jebus" is blasphemy) that it is 100% a lifestyle CHOICE for people (thus why I say this anon and spare me the vitriol, the Book backs me on this) so maybe it isn't as clear-cut and black and white as both atheists and fundies make it out to be.

TL;DR: Another religion thread! I've got Reese's Pieces, who made the popcorn?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not going to jump on you, but why do you think it's a choice? And how do you deal with all the slash and BDSM (which I figure you might also consider sinful?) in fandom?

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Thanks for not jumping me, first of all. Secondly, I believe, which is a vast departure from, like 99% of Christians you may encounter on the street, that all humans are given free will by God (I also believe in Intelligent Design, just as a heads-up) and that our consciousness/intellect that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom also allows us to use reason to be able to understand ourselves and our actions, and not to be mindlessly driven by blind instinct or "biological urges" that are supposedly uncontrollable/inevitable (I disagree with that, but the bulk of atheists think like this, because they do see humanity as little more than intelligent but still instinct-driven creatures, which is incorrect).

As to your second question, I don't read slash or BDSM or even any fic, unless it's gen (and rarely then), and I'm not involved in any TV/movie fandoms for the same reasons. I read books. *shrug*

[(Anonymous)]

Do you choose to be attracted to the gender/people you are attracted to?

[(Anonymous)]

It's a choice to embrace or deny how you feel about a person, of course it is. It's not a choice to FEEL it.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. The old testament had all kinds of jacked up rules. Like being pro-stoning.

[(Anonymous)]

OK. Let me preface my remarks by saying I in no way condone, endorse, or even believe this myself, but I have heard the argument that this is all down to the translation, and how it was implemented IRL was vastly different, based on the judge who was hearing the case at the time. (Think Solomon and the baby.)

Yes, it's thin on the ground, and a bit specious (especially given that extremists from all three of the Abrahamic religions tend to go with a literalist view of such verses), but that's the counterpoint I've heard that goes a little deeper than "something something Jesus loves me I'm not listening lah lah lah" which is the tack the fundies take.

[(Anonymous)]

I doubt that highly, considering in the same region where the events of the Bible were to have taken place, modern-day stoning is still practiced. I can't imagine that somehow back in Biblical times it was less brutal.

[beverlykatz]

... I may have read this as "pro-getting-stoned". I am a little bit terrible. Or maybe I watch too much bad television.

[sarillia]

There is plenty of anti-gay stuff in the New Testament. There are people who argue with it and talk about different possible interpretations, but to say that it's not there is just wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

This is true. However, none of it is said by Jesus, and I don't think any of it even comes from the Gospels (could be wrong there, though). So it's not all that hard to just say "Paul was an asshole" and move on.

[(Anonymous)]

Was he ever.

[sarillia]

That's my take on it. Paul seemed to hate everything. Except Jesus. Although I did talk with someone who told me about some interesting interpretations of his books. I keep meaning to look into that more.

[(Anonymous)]

And it is also possible to say that the NT stuff refers to temple rape/rape of young boys (which was the majority of the sex acts between males in the ancient world anyway. It isn't like Greece/Rome were gay friendly. They were just okay with raping boys) and the OT stuff, given that it is surrounded by various cleanliness laws, was really about cleanliness and health in the ancient world, and not actually about gay people.

And really, there is nothing at all in the Bible about homosexuality as an orientation. Nothing.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not all that hard, if you want to be burned at the stake by Evangelicals. Very few of them will even admit the authorship of some of the letters attributed to Paul is suspect!

[diet_poison]

Correct. Jesus and the Gospels have no mention of homosexuality or gay sex/relationships.

I don't know if I would call Paul an asshole, but he was a) an imperfect human and b) a product of his time. Context is important, yo. And while I think some of the things he says are wise, people aren't comfortable with admitting that the stuff wrote was stuff he wrote and not divinely inspired.

Mini-rant time: people claim all of the Bible was inspired because it refers to itself as "the Word" and all that, but the Bible as we know it didn't exist when those passages were taken, including probably most or all of the Letters (for the passage in John I'm thinking of). Each book or letter can refer only to itself and perhaps others of a set, because they were written independently, and compiled (much, much) later by humans who argued about what should be included and what not.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

I don't recall anything explicitly anti-gay in the New Testament--just people who argue it is, when if you look at the historical context it's not the gayness that was depicted as wrong (or it was piss poor translation).

Unless this is Paul stuff. I kind of ignore him because he hated everyone and everything and I don't know how he even made it into the Bible when he condemns everything.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, back then nearly everyone except priests etc was supposed to be married and have kids, so the people who were "gay" (or more accurately, participating in homosexual behavior) were mostly raping young boys. Even if they weren't, they were cheating on their wives and doing stuff that was incredibly unhealthy (unhealthy in the sense of 'likely to cause infections and spread disease') back in that era. It was a pretty valid thing to not be keen on back then -- the problem was saying "this is an ABOMINATION" because they weren't educated enough to figure out specifically *why* doing this stuff was bad, same way most people a long time ago didn't know *why* eating certain kinds of food in certain ways was bad (because they didn't know how to properly cook/preserve it), only that it acquired a blanket social taboo over time. One of those lazy social shortcuts people STILL do all the time, especially in politics.

Christians should take a leaf out of Buddhists' book: the old monks believed that all scriptures ought to be constantly updated to allow for new ideas and new information -- neither blindly clung to "just 'cuz", nor thrown out wholesale.

[diet_poison]

I think a very great deal of the Bible is subject to "piss poor" translating.

[(Anonymous)]

New Testament does speak of that though. Look at Romans:
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

It comes down to succumbing to those desires. If you want something bad enough, God will give it to you. It's still a sin as well in the New Testament but Jesus dealt with the heart matters and not the Law. He said that any thought that is lustful is sinning and one should repent of it.

All sin is equal, so this deals with everything big and small. It's on the same scale as alcoholism or cheating or lying.

[(Anonymous)]

Romans 1:26-32 seems rather specific:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (NIV version)

[(Anonymous)]

If you're a Good Baptist, you'll follow the teachings of both the Old Testament AND the New Testament.

Source: An entire childhood in the Baptist church.