[ 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

[ypsilon42]

The problem with thinking like that is, that these people do not believe everything in the bible, no matter what they claim. Do they believe that that gay people are abominations? Sure. Do they believe that evolution is a lie? Maybe. But do they believe that slavery is okay? Mostly not. Do they believe they cannot wear mixed fabric? Definitly not. And so on. No matter what these people claim, they always cherrypick, which of these outdated rules they want to follow, so no, they don't get respect for that.

And srsly, if they really were to follow every single thing in the bible, they would a) end up in jail really fast and b) still be more ridiculus and horrible, than worthy of respect.

Also you are srsly overestimating how anti-gay the bible is.

[elaminator]

+1

[tasogare_n_hime]

Agreed 1000%

They are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites trying to use the bible as an excuse to be douche canoes.

[philstar22]

Very true. They believe in literal interpretations when it suits them and their viewpoints and in a non-literal interpretation at other times. And even within the literal interpretation, they choose the definitions of words that best suit them (usually out of the English translations at that)>

[(Anonymous)]

usually out of ONE 400-year-old English translation, at that

[philstar22]

Very true. One translation that has already been proven to have inaccuracies. And ironically enough an interpretation that the Puritans, who they often idolize as somehow ideal Christians, hated. That has always amused me.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Yep. The Geneva Bible (what the Puritans used, although they started to abuse it too, after they crossed the Atlantic) is vastly different in certain places, than the KJV. Vastly. It was the favoured translation for George Fox and William Penn, and other early Friends (Quakers). There's a reason for that. The Quakers weren't by any stretch of the imagination Puritanical!!

[(Anonymous)]

SA

what *some Puritans used -- some of them used Wycliffe

[diet_poison]

Still aren't :)

[a_potato]

I am rather fond of the fundies who think that the King James version is the One True Version.

Yes, of course. The version written by a prick king who wanted to get away with shit is definitely more accurate than, say, the first Greek translation.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I wish I could get a hold of an old King James Version. It apparently has unicorns in it, while the New King James Version doesn't. I like unicorns.

[a_potato]

You laid out something that I was thinking much better than I did. Well put.

[(Anonymous)]

Not really relevant to the secret, though. Let's use one of your examples: if someone believes that they cannot wear fabric with mixed fibers, is that silly? Yes. Is it unChristian? No. Because it's in the Bible, and regardless of whether or not this person believes/follows ALL the Bible laws, their choice to follow this specific one (rational or not) is perfectly consistent with what the Bible says they ought to do.

[ypsilon42]

The secret talked about admiring someone for their beliefs being consistent with what the bible says. I pointed out, how most of the people claiming to be consistent, aren't really, but instead are picking those pieces that fit their believes. I don't see how that is not relevant?

Also I never said being homophobic is unchristian, just that the OP is overestimating the amount of anti-gay in the bible because at least to my knowledge, most of the things people cite are pretty ambiguous.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd like to believe this, but I'm not really seeing the ambiguity of "surely shall be put to death". :(

[ypsilon42]

Well, I am no expert on the bible, but below someone posted a link discussing the translation of Leviticus in detail and there is a threat about how it could relate to idolatry. Also it is important to keep in mind that Leviticus is putting up a lot of rules that were relevant to society back when he wrote it, but many of those are just not relevant to society as it is today (for example the mixed fabrics one). We can alway consider the one about homosexuality to be one of those.

So maybe it is not exactly an uplifting passage, but at least in my opinion it is not as clear cut as some people seem to believe.

[(Anonymous)]

The ambiguity is what exactly it's condemning.

[(Anonymous)]

Picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow is not consistent, though.

But even if it were, then it would still be worth pointing out to the OP that Robertson doesn't follow everything that the Bible says, which would put him on even footing with people who choose not to follow the passages about homosexuality, and which would therefore invalidate the claim that he's a true Christian and those other people are not.

In other words, if we're going by your logic, then OP can't say that pro-LGBTQ Christians are not true Christians. And if we're going by the logic that a Christian must be consistent (e.g. not pick and choose), then OP can't say that Robertson is a true Christian. OP is wrong either way.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

At the very least, if people are going to ignore the mixed fibres rule, then they should ignore the possibly anti-gay text in Leviticus and only use texts from other areas.

I do however think that one very good reason why a lot of Mosaic law can be ignored is because we now understand why they are good ideas. Putting items through fire to clean them, or boiling water if they would survive fire, to our modern society sounds like basic hygiene practices.

I usually presume the mixed fibres rule was because in Moses' time they didn't know how to process fibres properly to make mixed-fibre fabrics safe.

[(Anonymous)]

Relevant article posted without comment:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

[(Anonymous)]

TY that's a good one.

[caffeine_buzz]

This is what always bothers me too, people who cite the Bible as absolute when it comes to needing justification for their own hatred, but then if you cite any other part of the Bible which might actually inconvenience them or cause them to be uncomfortable in any way then oh, well, it's really more like guidelines anyway.