[ SECRET POST #3035 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3035 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 081 secrets from Secret Submission Post #434.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Since it's Sunday

[feotakahari]

The people who actually believe in this scare the fuck out of me. They will justify anything by claiming it's God's will. Rachel Held Evans has written some great responses to these people.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

I'd be interesting in seeing those questions!

But, I mean, yes, they will justify anything by claiming it's God's will. But the question, to me, is: can you demonstrate that there are things that can't be justified in that way?

Re: Since it's Sunday

[feotakahari]

Demonstrating ethics is a problem thousands of years old, and you expect me to solve it in an Internet comment?

At the very least, I think there's some value in a "you're being ridiculous" reaction. Just as we'd look skeptically at a survey claiming the average high school student is 40 years old, we can look skeptically at a statement that God can massacre whoever he wants: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/scandal-evangelical-heart

Personally, the way I'd respond is that morality is about the person you act upon. You don't treat people and animals exactly the same because people and animals have different needs. From that perspective, God can only teach us how to treat a god.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, no worries, I'm not expecting you to sort it all out. But I'm also not sure you necessarily see the challenge that I think is present here and that I'm trying to put across.

The problem is how you justify the "you're being ridiculous" reaction. Whether we can know that such-and-such a monstrous thing is wrong, and what the source of that knowledge is. The problem is, not pointing out the emotional monstrousness of the conclusions, but refuting them. Or on what grounds you ultimately justify the notion of morality as action appropriate to the target of that action. If you're talking to someone who's really convinced of that point of view, what reply are you able to give to them?

In other words, I suppose you could say that it's not God that's challenging, so much as the existence of people who believe in God and believe that morality can be justified only through God.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[feotakahari]

I feel like I'n being challenged to explain gravity to a hypothetical person who thinks the Earth is flat. They think in terms of up and down, and I try to explain that "down" only exists near a massive object with a gravitational pull, and I wind up banging my head on the table.