[ 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

[(Anonymous)]

The problem is that there's so much complexity in the interpretations of the various Books - and so much validity on most sides of the argument - that it's extremely difficult for me to say which interpretations fundamentally are and are not valid, especially as someone outside of the religion. How are you going to say which symbolic readings and which textual variants are and aren't valid?

Certainly, there are probably some people for whom it's true that they don't really care about the tenets. But there's also a lot of justificatory arguments on all sides of most of these questions, and I at least don't see the need to be an arbiter there.

Like, just because someone has to make an argument for a reading or a position, that doesn't mean it's a stretch. I think there's a lot of care and thought in those arguments (at least, when those arguments are at their best) which this line of thought tends to skim over.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Yup, I'm agreed with you on all that. This isn't a stance I hold myself, I'm more apathetic toward it all. I grew up with the opposite extreme religious version of the same with family that called other self-identified Christians not True Christians (see below thread). I was just trying to explain the anti-theist stance the way I've heard it from friends who hold it.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, sorry, I definitely took you to be advancing the theory yourself.

No, I agree, that's definitely the idea that's out there. I just don't agree with it.

Re: Since it's Sunday

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Ha, I see how it looks that way since my initial reply was the thread below and this one blew up a little bit, lol.