[ 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

[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)]

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

I can't comment on the society that produced the OT, but the NT largely came out of Greco-Roman society, which didn't have any real concept of homosexuality as an orientation the way we do. The prevailing understanding of sexuality was concerned with the individual act, and whether the man in question was 'active' or 'passive'. Fucking a man was considered pretty much the same as fucking a woman - only being fucked was different. There seems to have been some awareness of men who weren't interested in women at all and just liked to be fucked by other men, but that was regarded as more of a wacky fetish (and a serious failure of manhood) than anything else.

[(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]

:O source on this? I've never heard that

[(Anonymous)]

There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

[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)]

I think you're the first Christian online who is speaking about their faith in a way that makes me think "Hey, I like the way you rock your faith" without first finding out if you're agnostic or not. Very cool, very level-headed, very respectful stuff!

[(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.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Huh, interesting perspective there. I always figured homosexuality was condemned more for logistical purposes (small village, need to have babies to survive, have to make love to the opposite gender) - I hadn't considered that they were also addressing rape, which definitely is NOT the same thing.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT
There was also a belief that a man only had a certain amount of sperm to last his lifetime, so spilling it in any way that didn't allow even a chance of conception was wasteful, and like you said, babies and such.

[diet_poison]

This is why I personally theorize homosexuality was outlawed in OT times (assuming literal events, etc.) - because the Israelites really needed to expand their numbers and mortality rates were super high

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

In villages and stuff it probably was mostly what you say -- logistics and all. In cities, with lots of prostitution and the like, the rape thing was a problem too, though they may not have called it "rape", more like just...debauchery or whatever they used to term adultery and sexual hedonism. (The taboo again sexual hedonism also mainly came about for health and pregnancy reasons, then was jacked up even higher by the "stop having fun! Everything that makes you feel good is a SIN!" puritan camp.)

Social dialogue around sex was basically a morass of logic!fail, communication!fail, and perpetual selective amnesia, passed through a giant game of "telephone" so that principles came out so warped that no one knew exactly how they had arisen. Still is, in some ways.

[(Anonymous)]

"Debauchery" and free love are particularly hated by authorities because social mores are a convenient means of shaming and control.

What if people wanted to cooperate and have a six person cooperative household and bang each other and share things? How would the owners of the means of production possibly control the vassals if they're not sole breadwinners?

LOL I know it sounds crazy. I can't wait for Burning Man this year.

[diet_poison]

that's not crazy, it's actually an excellent point esp. as far as non-democratic societies go.

[(Anonymous)]

This!

[diet_poison]

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

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. Especially due to a woeful lack of context, courtesy of both spotty writings in that area of the world, and the church officials who selectively compiled and interpreted the Bible to suit their own personal interests, excluding and banning many books of scripture.

[diet_poison]

Yup. Even the inclusion and exclusion of various books was up to human whim. May or may not have been "inspired" whim, how can we know? I think it's the responsibility of someone who wants to learn more about Christ, Christ's early followers, the ancient Israelites, and so forth to do some research.