fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1544 ]

[ SECRET POST #1544 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1544 ⌋

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.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

23. [TRIGGER WARNING for sexual abuse]

__________________________________________________

24.

__________________________________________________

25.

__________________________________________________

26.

__________________________________________________

27.

__________________________________________________

28.

__________________________________________________

29.

__________________________________________________

30.

__________________________________________________

31.

__________________________________________________

32.

__________________________________________________

33.

__________________________________________________

34.

__________________________________________________

35.

__________________________________________________

36.

__________________________________________________

37.

__________________________________________________

38.

__________________________________________________

39.

__________________________________________________

40. [tb]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 12 pages, 286 secrets from Secret Submission Post #221.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 1 2 - repeat ], [ 1 - omfg use .png ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hatefulness is an essential property of a "hateful religion".

Except that hatefulness is not an inherent property of Christianity. Quite the contrary in fact: Christ Himself taught only about loving and forgiving everyone. So by equating Christianity with the hateful bits of it, you are effectively doing the same as equating blackness of skin with Black muggers. Congrats.

I wish people would read who's replying to what before jumping on rebutting the points no one made.
Some anon said: "I don't think it's a problem that people who belong to hateful religions feel ashamed. I think it's great."

interrobangings replied: "that's like saying "all black people are bad because i got mugged by a black gang""
and that's what I replied to, Christianity was not mentioned.

Explaining that, the question of whether Christianity is hateful becomes completely off-topic to the discussion, but just for the record, I do think Christianity is evidently a hateful religion. It's hateful toward promiscuous women, hateful to-... to be honest, I'm not in the mood to list all the groups it's hateful towards. Its hatefulness to certain groups of people is undeniably a part of it, not just as a hatefulness of some of its members, but as an intrinsical part of its doctrine (see: any page of the Bible).

You're not making any sense. The very topic of this entire thread is whether Christianity is hateful or not! And interrobangings's comparison was about equating hate against all Black people due to being mobbed by a few Black muggers to hate against all Christians due to the hateful attitude of some Christians. So what are you going on about me being off-topic??

Also: go ahead and show me a teaching of Christ Himself that was hateful. No, really, I'm serious.

See the reply below.

It doesn't matter what the original topic is, I am allowed to talk about the specific, smaller points made, that can but don't have to be in direct connection to the original topic of the thread. That's what we do at F!Ss, that's why you have to pay attention to who's talking about which specific points.

As for the "Christ Himself", he's irrelavant. As I said, the entire religion doesn't have to be 100% hateful to be overall hateful, the same way as a person doesn't have to be 100% beautiful in order to be considered overall beautiful (despite their, say, ugly toes). This isn't such a hard concept to grasp.

Context, how does it work again? If you mention "a hateful religion" in a thread about whether or not Christianity is a hateful religion, then NO, you are NOT allowed to expect people not to think you're talking about Christianity.

As for "Christ is irrelevant"... You do realise that being a Christian means believing in Christ, right? In fact, that's ALL it means.

Also, there's no such thing as "the entire Christian religion". If you take away the ONE thing all Christian religions have in common (ie. Christ Himself), then there is effectively NO SUCH THING as Christianity any more, but just a mountain of disconnected churches and doctrines teaching about everything possible under the sun. So you condemning the whole of it because of some churches is like burning down an entire forest because there are patches of poison ivy in it. Over-reacting much?

ilu

<3333333

Also: go ahead and show me a teaching of Christ Himself that was hateful. No, really, I'm serious.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

Seriously serious.

So... Christ wanted only self-hating anti-social disciples? The same man who taught to love one's neighbour as oneself? I don't think so.

Context, again, how does it work?

25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
28 “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?
29 For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you,
30 saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’
31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand?
32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.
33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

In short: Christ was warning His would-be disciples that the price to pay to follow Him could be extremely high, including losing their family and even their life.

"Hate" and "be willing to lose" do not mean the same thing. DO NOT. You have to be willing to lose something you hate, but you don't have to go so far as to hate it. But he directs that.

Luke 16: 13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

Hyperbolic language, ever heard of it? Jesus was simply talking about the order of magnitude of difference between loving Him and loving oneself/one's family that could become necessary if one decided to become His disciple. And considering how many of His disciples did get killed for being Christians, He was really doing people a favour by warning them so strongly.

But if you want to keep believing that the same man who kept teaching about loving everyone, and who gave His life because He loved us, also taught about hating oneself and hating one's family, all because of one hyperbolic verse that makes sense when taken in context, be my guest.

I think I'll go on believing he's a fictional character written by many different people, and it made his character inconsistent.

It's a very convenient arguing tactic to say that the text someone else points out is hyperbole, but yours is legit. How can I tell when something is hyperbole and not literal, apart from when it doesn't fit your narrative? Is it when it's not supported elsewhere? How about the passages where Jesus refuses to even see his mother and brothers? Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21.

Which unfortunately can be traced back to the fact that the Bible is originally written in Hebrew and Greek, and even with all the different English translations of it, there is going to be confusion because some words just down have a perfect equivalent from them to English.

This is why many Pastors and Priests and other religious leaders that use the bible learn and study it in the original language. They do so so that can convey it's meaning as clearly as possible, and to explain passages such as that.

The translators of the Bible chose the word "hate", all the way up to the New International Version. If they didn't choose it for it's accuracy and clarity, then I don't know why they did... Christians are perfectly willing to point to the text to make their arguments, but when someone else does, suddenly that person doesn't really understand it. There's something lost in translation.

DA

Christians are perfectly willing to point to the text to make their arguments, but when someone else does, suddenly that person doesn't really understand it. There's something lost in translation.

You've never heard two Christians from different denominations argue while using the Bible, have you?

Of course I have. It's a very contradictory book. And getting back to the main topic... one that is absolutely filled to the brim with material that commands hatefulness, no matter the fact that it's also spilling over with material that directs loving. And people like OP don't understand why we who don't give the damned thing any stock wonder why they hitch their wagon to such a thing when it's so incoherent that announcing you've hitched your wagon to it doesn't even have a useful meaning.

You do understand you're talking about a translation in modern language of something that was written nearly a couple thousand years ago in another language altogether? We're talking about a language where "virgin" merely meant a young woman originally.

Go ahead and show me a teaching of Christ Himself full stop. Even IF he actually existed (which I realise is generally accepted by historians now) he never actually wrote anything down himself. You have no idea what his actual teachings might have been.

It's possible he was planning on making the big speech against the gays right after Easter, but I guess we'll never know.

also (forgot to mention):
"by equating Christianity with the hateful bits of it, you are effectively doing the same as equating blackness of skin with Black muggers"

No, just no.
In order to proclaim Christianity "hateful" it doesn't have to be consisted only of "hatefulness". If bits of it are hateful (depending how significant you deem those bits), you can call the thing as a whole hateful.
The same way, to proclaim Black person a mugger, "bits of them" have to be a mugger. I mean, they have had to, at some point, mug someone. Now, how much mugging there has to be (someone stealing a wallet once is different from someone mugging for a living) before someone's a "mugger" is debatable (the same way how how much hating has to be done before something's "hateful" is debatable), but what's sure is that there has to be mugging in order for someone to be a mugger (which obviously isn't the case with all the Black people).

You're not very good at understanding comparisons, are you? Interrobangings's comparison was not between Christianity as a whole and ONE random Black person: it was between Christianity as a whole and the WHOLE Black community. Apples to apples, you know?

So now, by your reasoning, since there ARE Black muggers, it IS acceptable to consider that Black people in general are muggers... See where the problem is?

Inversely, if you want to compare oranges to oranges, then you need to compare ONE random Christian to ONE random Black person. Just like there's no telling if the Black person is a mugger just because they are Black, there is also no telling if the Christian is hateful just because they are Christian. Simple, really.

So what you would really be saying is "I don't hate black people, I just think that their culture is wrong and hateful. Because, you see, these muggers were black people who were claiming that their mugging me was a part of their cultural identity. Ergo, the black culture is hateful."

That is what you're saying, right?

Cool story, bro. You're still a bigot and an asshole. :D

He also taught "Go and sin no more" and "If you love me, you will obey my Father Who sent me" and "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me"

Just sayin'

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #1544 ]

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

New Anon

Re: New Anon

Re: New Anon

Re: New Anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon