[ 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)]

Obviously it's not impossible to be both Christian and not-homophobic, but I don't see where the secret says that it is? It just points out that it's disingenuous to say that being homophobic is unChristian. This is true. The Bible DOES have very clear cut passages about homosexuality being a bad thing. Nobody has to agree of course, but it's a bit silly to pretend those passages don't exist as the basis for why many Christians believe homosexuality is wrong.

[vethica]

Can you cite these clear-cut passages?

[(Anonymous)]

DA

""If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them"


Of course, Leviticus also says pork is bad, so that's why many of us don't take it literally. However, I have friends who do, and yeah, they think it's a sin. Although they still do eat pork.

[(Anonymous)]

Yet Another DA

I don't eat pork, actually. Nor shellfish, nor carnivorous birds. (Tbf, the last item on the list is endangered anyways.) Draw the line at kosher locusts, though, I do.

[diet_poison]

Well, yeah, that's why it's not clear if you're citing Leviticus given that so much of OT law doesn't apply and Jesus even basically said the letter of the law wasn't terribly important. I dismiss any argument that says "it's wrong because [OT passage says]". The Letters are where it gets a bit stickier.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

What Jesus said was that He did NOT come to do away with the Law and the Prophets, and that not one line nor word of it will pass away, until everything else does.

/another nonny who has oft been accused of being "an OT Judaizer"

[(Anonymous)]

But there's also a line in the NT somewhere that all things made by God are good and therefore fit for consumption.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

The context of that particular verse being, Peter was a given a vision to show him/the others that the Gentiles were now considered "clean" by God, and were given the Holy Spirit (as Cornelius and his household, all Gentiles, already had been), and the apostles were being told to accept them into the Church.

The clean/unclean animals rolled out on the scroll were/are an allegory/metaphor for the OT prophecy, that because the ruling authorities of the day rejected Jesus and His teachings, "the truth will be given to foreigners."

Only literalist fundies use that verse to say it's ONLY about clean/unclean meats. If that were ALL it was about, there would literally be no Christian Church!!

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, those literalist fundies, going around suggesting that Christians don't have to follow the OT to the letter. As opposed to you, who thinks that it should be. Wow you are totally less of a literalist.

[(Anonymous)]

...pretty sure I said somewhere upthread that some of the OT rules came from the culture and beliefs of the time. I'm not one of the Christians you want to hate, dude, I'm a pacifist, and I fully appreciate the allegory present throughout the Bible. (And in other books that didn't make it into the "official" Bible.)

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for the scripture lesson but I didn't say it was ONLY about anything, cuntyfuck.

[(Anonymous)]

Eeehhh, I think it might be a little more complicated than that.

This site collated a bunch of the different pertinent verses and concluded that some OT laws no longer apply, while others still do:
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, those folks get the part in Acts (Peter's vision) right, but they also agree with the parenthetical, that was added hundreds of years later (and since has been taken out of modern, present-day translations), "(by this he made all meats clean)" (added to Matt. 15:1-3 but since redacted), which is much clearer if you read the corresponding part in Mark 7:2-4, that they were being criticized for not ritually pouring water over their hands every time they ate a bite of bread.

TL;DR: That webpage makes at least one literalist fundie error, themselves. So take with a pillar of salt, etc., etc.

[(Anonymous)]

ok I have to admit I laughed at the play on words

[diet_poison]

Jesus also said "what comes out of your mouth is what makes you clean, not what goes in". He worked on the Sabbath and ate without observing the ritualistic handwashing He was supposed to do first. He prevented a bunch of religious men from stoning a woman who should have been stoned under OT law. I do not know exactly what He meant by that line about not one line passing away, but I do not think it meant "you are sinning if you don't follow this law to the letter". Rather, I think it had more to do with pointing out that the law was put in place for a reason and we all fall short. But He made it clear in His actions and other things He said that He wants us to focus on being loving and good and kind, not obsessing over the letters of the law.

I'm not a scholar, but His actions are speaking to me just as loudly as His words.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

Understanding that I am talking only of the interpretation I grew up with, but the meaning I have always understood of that "not one line passing away" bit is more about the Ten Commandments, which were always the central laws.

I also recall once hearing the opinion that some parts of the New Testament were really confusing because the word "law" was used to translate both references to the Commandments and the laws of Moses.

[diet_poison]

Maybe. But Jesus did do the "working on the Sabbath" thing.

I think it's easy to make an argument that the Sabbath law was intended to be more like "take time out of your life to rest and honor Me" but if you're going by the letter of the law then yeah it's definitely the "seventh day" thing. Though of course you can argue about what constitutes "work" and which day is the seventh day.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

The iconic story of Jesus "working" on the Sabbath is when he and his disciples were out, with no food, and stripped some wheat plants for a handful of seeds to eat.
It was not like they were harvesting the whole field, they were only getting enough for a snack, but the authorities of that time had such strict rules that doing that was against them.

So my church at least believed in abstaining in unnecessary secular activities. You'd probably get a hundred and one opinions on what counts as "necessary".

My church at least considers Saturday the seventh day.

[diet_poison]

Huh, that's interesting. I have never encountered a church that recognizes the Sabbath on Saturday.

What is meant by "no unnecessary secular activities"? Does that mean no work, or no anything? I knew an Orthodox Jewish guy in high school who couldn't even go to parties on Saturdays. I wondered what they did all day. (And that's not even to argue the point about what is and isn't secular, like you pointed out.)

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

Seven-Day Adventist - it's even in the name. There's a few others, some of which are off-shoots of SDAs, but it's not common outside of Judaism.

Depends on what sort of parties they are, I guess.

A lot of "secular activities" lists do sound like they're lists of "anything that's fun is banned!".

[(Anonymous)]

Don't you mean "And with mankind you shall not lie beds (plural noun) a woman/wife (singular noun)." "‘And with a male you shall not lie [in the] beds of a woman," Or in modern speak, "Sex for fun with other men, and sex for procreation should be kept in separate beds." There was also a lot of discussion that this was specifically referring to sleeping with Moloch's prostitutes, since several of the other Leviticus laws deal with Moloch worship.

[(Anonymous)]

The S!B takes it over the top into trolling for me.

Again, not arguing on the merits, not saying that the OP is being insincere, but I do think that they're trolling and what they really want is a fight about whether or not the Bible is inherently anti-gay. They're not just pointing it out. They're saying it over and over again in a way that's kind of inflammatory. Daring someone to knock the chip off their shoulder, you know?

[(Anonymous)]

This.