[ 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

[vethica]

"very clear"

The abomination thing is mentioned once, and it's unclear what they were actually trying to say with that line, so...........

[(Anonymous)]

Plus, there's that line about two men sleeping together and one being taken up to Christian God and the other being left behind. So at most He hates half the gay people.

(I know I am misinterpreting that particular verse. But language is funny.)

[(Anonymous)]

what verse is that?

[(Anonymous)]

Luke 17:34 - I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL. That is amazing.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

It's amazing that sleeping in the same bed as another person has become synonymous with sex, in this day and age. That is NOT what that verse meant, not what it was implying, nor even what it was saying, and you are an offensive gutter-minded trollhard for thinking that. 1/10 b/c you got me to respond.

[(Anonymous)]

(I know I am misinterpreting that particular verse. But language is funny.)

cry moar

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

10/10, would laugh again. Besides your obvious ignoring of the disclaimer, my favorite part of this comment is where you come into F!S and call someone gutter-minded. Like, did you forget where you are?

[diet_poison]

they even said they knew they were misinterpreting it anon

[(Anonymous)]

Peeps ain't be trollin' when peeps say they ain't bein' serious.

[(Anonymous)]

Considering that in the language of the bible "knowing" someone is synoymous with sex, "sleeping in the same fucking bed" is really not that much of a jump.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm pretty sure it was a marketing line. Religions of the day weren't exactly shy about guy/guy (take Rome) plus there were festivals centered around sex, male/male sex being the highest standard. It's basically just their way of saying, "No, you can't go to that guy's party! You'll get X if you do it!" and not from an honest hatred towards homosexuals.

[(Anonymous)]

plus the mistreatment of temple prostitutes, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

err. how does that remotely change the fact that it calls male/male sex an abomination?

and this isn't exactly a modern interpretation of the text by conservatives, you know. people were executed for having gay sex since Christianity first had the authority to execute anyone.

[(Anonymous)]

The abomination thing is mentioned once, but the topic of homosexuality is is mention more than once.

http://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

This passage in particular is fairly specific:

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has produced a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "... rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

At the beginning of the chapter that includes this passage, Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Here, God is saying that the Hebrews are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or of the Canaanites. Homosexual ritual sex in temples of both countries was common. Thus, one might assume that Leviticus 18:22 relates to temple same-sex rituals -- something that was ritually impure.

http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus1822.htm

There are a lot of ways to interpret this sentence. A lot. To act like yours is the only way is a bit shallow.

[(Anonymous)]

That is really fascinating. Thanks for posting it.

[(Anonymous)]

You're welcome.

[(Anonymous)]

IIRC, I think "the woman's bed was her own" had to do with the menstrual issue being considered unclean, and if a man touched his wife who wasn't pregnant, but menstruating, he was ritually unclean as a result. It's somewhere around that same passage, but I can't be bothered to look, LOL.

I also recall that this (segregation of menstruating women) is/was practiced in indigenous peoples around the world, so maybe it's an ingrained thing that got written down as law? Along with the other, necessary, laws I mean. (Don't kill, don't steal, don't sink everything you have into false idols.) The reasoning being, if a woman has her period, she's not pregnant, and so is "barren" which was never considered a good thing, in ancient times. Propagation of the species, and all that.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the menstruation taboo was more of a health issue that got out of hand just like most health issues did back then (remember, no such things as pads or tampons, and cloth pads and the like were not terribly advanced), combined with a lot of patriarchal "ewwww!" about something that men didn't experience, and since ~men~ didn't experience it, it was ~obviously~ "other" and creepy.

[diet_poison]

combined with a lot of patriarchal "ewwww!" about something that men didn't experience, and since ~men~ didn't experience it, it was ~obviously~ "other" and creepy.

mostly this I think. and just the general mess of having noplace to put all that blood in a lot of situations.

[(Anonymous)]

About 80% of all those rules in the OT are at heart health issues - all the foods you're not supposed to eat are things that spoil very easily in the heat so you really shouldn't eat that stuff etc.

[beverlykatz]

This is terrific, thanks for sharing. I was trying to remember the first bit, but it's been so long since I've read up on this stuff. :)