fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3035 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There's literally no good reason to insist on a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible. And even if you did want to insist on it, you can still make pretty legitimate arguments in favor or against most of the moral positions you want to talk about (particularly if you want to start arguing for the New Testament as superseding the Old, and if you want to start throwing shade on Paul). They're complicated, old books that were composed in a variety of languages and times and circumstances. You can't just assert that you have to take everything at precise face value. That's one specific interpretative method, not intrinsically more valid than any other.

The problem that I have with this argument is that it's almost like insisting that all theists act like idiots. I see no reason to do so.

I think they insist on a literal interpretation of the holy books because so many self-identified religious people have historically and are currently using literal interpretations of the holy books to target people like them (e.g. gay people). In majority-Muslim countries even more so. So it's a matter of turnabout being fair play, I guess.

These aren't only Christian friends, anyway. I can't really tell you what their thoughts on Paul are.

Man, this thread annoyed me so much ("What do you mean, you have to follow the whole Bible literally to be a Christian??") until I remembered that Christian fundies are in fact the biggest proponents of that notion. :/

AYRT

If the huge number of conservatives in the US weren't always pushing the idea, there'd be less misaimed backlash at the liberal Christians, I'm sure. Keep in mind though that the liberty to say there are different kinds of Christians and that liberal Christianity is just as valid as the fundamentalist one isn't a liberty held by a lot of the rest of the world. Try saying there's more than one way to be religious in countries with governments strongly influenced by Sharia law or with legal courts for Sharia law where it's fully or partially recognized as a valid secondary legal system, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country#Sharia_in_the_world

Separation of church and state is a huge privilege of ours.

Oh, it definitely is. (I keep trying to remind people who want to legislate religion that theocracy is working out pretty poorly for those who have already tried it...)

[ SECRET POST #3035 ]

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday

Re: Since it's Sunday