fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2708 ]

[ SECRET POST #2708 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

To everyone saying "but only the OT is homophobic!!":

Romans 1:18-32, verse 27 specifically. "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."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 states that "men who have sex with men" are among the sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God until they change and accept Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:8-10 counts "those practicing homosexuality" as "ungodly and sinful", along with murders and slave traders.

Also, the whole idea that you can believe in one testament but not the other is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. The traditional Christian belief is that the "Holy Spirit" wrote the Bible by working through the book's actual writers, and there's only one Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit wrote both books. And that Holy Spirit is the same person as God the Father and his son, Jesus Christ. They're all technically the same person. If you worship one, you worship the other two is well. (This also means that Jesus is going to agree with whatever Dad said in the Old Testament, sorry.) Like, a quick Google search can tell you how the Holy Trinity works, ffs.

If y'all think the Bible is bullshit, fine. But calling yourself a Christian is stupid if you disagree with your primary religious text.

Romans: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/are-you-in-or-out-icorinthians-and-itimothy/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sav1.htm

Believe it or not, it's possible to call yourself a Christian, and interpret the Bible differently, especially given all the ways that the Bible has been translated.

I don't know shit about translations and the original text, so I contacted a friend of mine who's fluent in Greek and has been working on translating the Bible for years. I sent him the links, and here's what he had to say:

The best translation of Romans 1:26, refers to "dishonorable passions." And the Greek adjective φυσικός for "natural" and the cognate noun φύσις in Romans 1:26-27 mean contrary to nature, and are references to the nature men and women received at birth, here as the way in which they are physically equipped by nature for sexual relations. To suggest this has to do with sexual preference one might be born with is to violently wrest this passage out of the obvious implied context. Paul is saying that those born with functional male organs and those born with functioning female organs are going against nature itself and having relations with those of the same sex. Nor can we try to stuff this into some nice little comfortable context of pagan rituals. It refers to any male or female with functional organs turning away from the natural use of those organs to someone of the same sex.

Also, as for the word "homosexuality," it was a Greek compound word created by Paul, first used in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. The noun ἀρσενοκοίτης is a compound word from ἄρσην (male) and κοίτη (bed), which properly means a man engaging in sexual activity with another man, thus homosexuality. Any attempt to make this mean anything other than this is pure bias that wants to read into the word something that isn't there. It is a condemnation of homosexuality no matter what the circumstances. Paul referred to men in bed in a sexual context. Nothing here about a temple, a cult, etc. Simply men in bed with one another.

The Old Testament moral laws were not changed. Why would God change moral laws as if its not okay to practice homosexuality in the OT, but now it is? Doesn't that sound kind of absurd? That would be quite a confusing God. It's the same God, the same moral laws, only the enforcement went from God's representative theocracy of Israel to Jesus himself, and that theocracy no longer exists. It is now Jesus who will judge, condemn and punish sinful activities at the judgment.

And btw, I agree that some things in the Bible are up for interpretation. Me and my friend disagree a lot on whether "do not spare the rod" is talking about physical punishment or punishment as a whole, for example. But from my years of studying the Bible, the chance that you can interpret this topic differently is pretty damn unlikely.

Calling oneself a Christian means being a follower of Christ. I am not a Paulian.

The Holy Spirit worked THROUGH Paul, just like it worked through the other writers. And The Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Jesus Christ are all the same being. This is basic stuff. To say you follow Christ and then dismiss the writings of one of Christ's MAJOR followers doesn't make any sense.

Also, why the hell would God let something be put in his Holy book if he didn't agree with it? If God doesn't have a problem with homosexuality, surely Paul saying "homosexuality is wrong" in God's name would inspire him to maybe say "Hey Paul, I didn't say that, take it out"? Or find some other way of making sure it didn't end up in the book?

Trolololololol.

I never said I dismiss the writings of Paul. I said I'm a Christian, not a Paulian, and by that I mean I don't elevate the words of Paul above the words of Christ. I think Paul had a lot of really good things to say, but ultimately he was a man.

Where is your proof that the Spirit was working any more in Paul than He is in people today? Because people today still make mistakes and say bad things even when their intentions are good.

Also, as others have clarified: Paul didn't definitively say "homosexuality is wrong"

But the Bible makes it pretty clear that only people who accept Christ are given the Holy Spirit as a gift from God? Until you become a believer, you don't even have it. So good intentions =/= having the Holy Spirit.

Also, Paul's writings were identified by Peter as scripture in 2 Peter 3:16: "as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

And in 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"

And Jesus himself said that his apostles would be given special inspiration by the Holy Spirit in John 14:26: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

And lastly, Isaiah 8:14-22 prophesied that the law and testimony of God would be sealed up with the followers of Jesus. That alone pretty much puts them on a level above today's Christians.

As for "Paul didn't definitively say 'homosexuality is wrong'", I posted an explanation above from a friend who knows his Greek. Paul used "men in bed" in a sexual context, so I think it's kind of obvious what he was saying?

In the same incident in two separate gospels, Jesus says pretty explicitly that if the deeds are good then they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. "He who is not against us is for us."

But the Bible makes it pretty clear that only people who accept Christ are given the Holy Spirit as a gift from God? Until you become a believer, you don't even have it. So good intentions =/= having the Holy Spirit.

I was not making the argument that people have the Holy Spirit if they haven't accepted Him (that's an entirely different discussion). I'm making the argument that even Christians who have accepted Christ aren't perfect people and are not working via the Spirit 100% of the time.

Ok, Peter said that and Timothy said that. They're still men.

Jesus said that the Spirit would be with His disciples...does that mean everything they say or write becomes perfect? I don't see any logical reason to believe it must be so. A possibility, but not a definitive.

Paul's words on homosexuality may or may not have been referring to consensual homosexual relationships between adults, since those didn't exist back in the day nearly as much as temple rape and child rape of boys. :/

Jesus literally destroyed the Old Testament. That is literally what He came for. To abolish the Old Law, aka the Old Testament. I'm a goddamn ATHEIST and I know this. He literally fucking says so.

Also, your version of the Bible is wrong as the word homosexuality only appeared after 1950 or so when people purposely put it in due to homophobia. They also falsely translated certain things.

the ayrt was quoting the NEW testament

and of course it didn't say homosexuality. It wasn't even written in English, believe it or not. I'm guessing the original word was something meaning "sodomy" - or essentially, the practice of homosexuality. Meaning same-sex male sex. There was a concept of that before the 1950s, you know.

??? But Jesus didn't come to destroy the law? He came to fulfill it by living a perfect life and obeying it.

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." That's something Jesus "literally fucking said."

Could you cite your sources and show me ANYWHERE in the Bible where it says he destroyed the law?

THIS THIS THIS

So both the liberals and the conservatives massively misunderstand the old testament thing. Jesus never said he was throwing out the OT. He said the EXACT OPPOSITE.

DA, but then you better not eat a lot of foods and you better still burn animal sacrifices and shit.

As well, you realize what fulfill means, right? "Bring to completion." Abolish is destroy. He came to bring the Old Law to completion, which he did. And the Old Law is still around to learn from. But Jesus also kind of denounced a ton of them, such as the practice of stoning (which is a practice of the Old Law that you need to do if you are to follow it).

So either the Old Law doesn't apply, or it does and you don't get to cherry pick what you do and don't do.

He is fulfilling the Old Testament because the guy says, or the folks who wrote the New Testament claim this guy is, the Messiah. Whose coming is a big deal in the Jewish religion.

I'm not even sure how you get this quote to mean he is getting rid of the Old Testament. He's saying the exact opposite.

He never says the Old Testament doesn't apply. He just says some extra stuff, too.

Either way, the New Testament still has homophobia in it, so kind of a moot point.

The whole thing with the dietary laws was literal and symbolic, and was for a "theocracy" under God. But the moral laws are still valid and always have been. People keep bringing up Leviticus and saying "well, we can eat this stuff now, so all the laws are invalid!" Well, know what else that book condemns along with homosexuality? Incest and bestiality. You said we don't get to cherry pick, so fine, let's not cherry pick. If "homosexuality is a sin" is suddenly invalid because we can eat unclean meat, then all the other shit in Leviticus is fine too.

And as for the stoning, they were, again, a "theocracy", acting under God's direction as "judge, jury, and executioner". That isn't valid for us anymore because we're not a theocracy. But the punishment of death is still a thing, except it's GOD who'll be using it at the end of the world. The moral laws haven't changed; the players have.

My justification for the immorality of, say, bestiality isn't based on Old Testament law. It's based on the fact that animals are capable of suffering and cannot consent to sex with humans.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

Doesn't sound like he's abolishing the old laws to me. Sounds like he's stating his purpose is just the opposite. Most atheists I know are very knowledgeable about the Bible. Please do better.

You're not as familiar with Galatians as you are with those other books, are you?

lol you do not know what you are talking about

if you honestly don't think the Bible is blatantly anti-gay, then you are really delusional.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2708 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject