[ SECRET POST #3472 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3472 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 19 secrets from Secret Submission Post #496.
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

[sarillia]

I'd probably be right there with you in not being comfortable with that genocidal fury. And I'm Christian. I'm not the type who thinks "sinners" are a separate class of person who deserve whatever they get though.

[diet_poison]

I'd even go so far as to say anyone who does think that way about "sinners" is misunderstanding something fundamental about Christianity.

[sarillia]

Eh, they're misunderstanding something about my Christianity and your Christianity but it is someone's Christianity. We're all just going by what makes sense to us and how we interpret the texts and our backgrounds. I don't think I can say anyone's beliefs are less valid than anyone else's just because I don't like them.

[(Anonymous)]

I hate how the term 'valid' is being used these days. I might be able to understand why someone believes what they do, and in fact I always try to ... but is it valid? Nope. The Bible is very clear about loving the sinner and hating the sin. Westboro holding signs that say 'God hates fags' - no, that's not valid. It's not the correct view of the Bible, of God, and what he wants us to do. I will absolutely call it that bullshit out. It's not 'valid.'

[sarillia]

That's fair. I don't agree with it because I think I'd have to toss out a bunch of other things that I don't have a problem with if I'm going to apply that logic consistently (the bible is a very complicated collection of writings), but I get it.

Plus I've just seen too many incidents where someone's been hurt by that kind of bigoted Christianity and people are more interested in defending the religion than reassuring the person. I have a kneejerk reaction to people who seem to be going into No True Scotsman territory.

[diet_poison]

I am not in the business of telling people they're not the person they identify themselves to be. Saying I think someone misunderstands the point of Christianity isn't the same as saying they aren't actually a Christian, and I worded that the way I did deliberately. So no I wasn't going "no true Scotsman". It is entirely possible and, I would argue, important and necessary, to debate the true meaning of an ideology without attempting to cast other people out of it.

[(Anonymous)]

da

I could be wrong about this, but I don't remember any episodes in the New Testament where Jesus rejoiced in people's suffering. There were quite a few times he made an effort to REDUCE suffering, though.

[diet_poison]

I'm stating my opinion. Anyone's beliefs are valid, but I am free to disagree. And my opinion is that it's difficult to read through the Gospels and argue that "sinners" are a distinct and separate group of humans who will always be treated differently. Christ ate with sinners and made it clear that they could be forgiven because of who He was rather than being permanently damned based on their actions. He also made it clear that we all sin.