fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2650 ]

[ SECRET POST #2650 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2650 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 062 secrets from Secret Submission Post #379.
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

I know the context. I read this book a couple of times and I'm aware that parts of it are statements of historical facts rather than ideological statements.

But there are pars of it that DO promote murder and rape, and I personally am not okay with these parts. Period.

Discussion as to what? Again, maybe I have not made myself sufficiently clear, but I am not saying that any particular religion or branch of a religion is bad/non-peaceful because it's based on the Old Testament. Religions do not function like other ideologies. What I am saying is that there's a problem with consistency here (rather than an actual ethical problem).

Plus, nowhere have I indicated that I cannot be persuaded to change my views?? If somebody has good arguments and is willing to talk to me about it, I'm happy to listen and be civil about it.

(reply from suspended user)

...I know that, though? I assumed you were trying to defend Judaism (which I am not attacking, either) and some of the branches of Christianity that for whatever weird reason rely more on the Old Testament. As to mainstream Christianity, I simply wish it didn't associate itself with the book.

and some of the branches of Christianity that for whatever weird reason rely more on the Old Testament

Okay. I would conceivably fall under your definition listed above. If you want an explanation, I can give you one.

With one caveat: I am not about to try and persuade you, btw, even though this is what you seem to be asking for; in my beliefs, ONLY God can persuade you/open your mind/write His law on your heart..and you still have the choice to turn away from that, even if He does.

We don't rely "more" on "the Old Testament" we rely on the Bible as a whole, in the light of how the First Century Church behaved/what they believed. Before Constantine and the Romanization of the modern world, before it all hit the fan. The early Church had NO "New Testament" because they were still writing it down.* The only scripture they HAD were the scrolls of "The Old Testament" none of which were collected together and/or canonized nor any of the other theological nonsense that gets the "scholars" backs up these days/causes divisions and denominationalism. ("A house divided cannot stand against itself.") They read the same scrolls Jesus and the disciples did. They read letters to and from the apostles. To and from other congregations. They sang hymns, which were almost 100% based on the Psalms.

*A part of me still thinks John would look at his third letter, scratch his beard, and go, "This? This is what you included to be preserved for the ages? A letter to the wife and kids? Are you joking with me right now?"

Thank you for your explanation, anon! This makes sense.

I don't think you're gonna talk your way out of this, and in a way, that sucks. I approach the Bible as literature (as I think it was meant to be--some parts of it can't be taken literally), and there are parts of it that make me go "Wow, that's vile." I've had a "Wow, that's vile" reaction to multiple other literary works, and some people would inevitably disagree with all of those reactions (if only the folks who wrote the works.) IF (and that's a giant glaring IF) the Old Testament is approached solely as a work of literature, then it can be criticized in the same manner someone might criticize any other literary text, with no more inherent difficulty, and hopefully no more hurt feelings.

But no one read, I dunno, The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm and thought "I am going to live my life according to the ideas within this book!" People will inevitably take criticism of the Old Testament as a personal attack, because it IS a personal attack--it's an insult to beliefs and values they've integrated into their selfhood to the point they would feel hollow without them.

In other words, you have the right to your belief, but you need to be prepared to make people angry.

I'm not afraid of making others angry. Though I would really prefer not to make anyone hurt.

And in a way, I'm not avoiding sounding offensive. But it is, as you said, "an insult to beliefs and values", not an insult to individuals.

Wow. Forget religion--do you have ANYTHING that you value enough that you'd take it as an insult to yourself if someone degraded it? A nation? A hero? Your mother?

Oh, ok, maybe I was too hasty with "values". I rather thought you meant it in the context of the discussion, as in "religious values".

Certain people and/or traits, yes. If somebody insulted my best friend. If somebody insulted my nation(s), though, I'd just assume they're a violent idiot.

I was mostly talking ideologies and belief systems there. And I don't mind these getting insulted.

"Oh, ok, maybe I was too hasty with "values". I rather thought you meant it in the context of the discussion, as in "religious values"."

I did, actually. That's what I was trying to get at--that religion can be that personal and that intimate. (There's a reason it's described as your relationship with God.)

Yes, I think I see it now. Tbf the point was to attack intellectual beliefs rather than the emotional ones (I am not against emotional religious beliefs at all), but it's true that the line is pretty flimsy.

(reply from suspended user)

AFAIR I said like three times that getting offended about it is a perfectly reasonable reaction.

(reply from suspended user)

Maybe you're right, because some would take it as a personal insult. My problem may be that I fail to see somebody's justified, argued beliefs (as opposed to emotional conviction) as a part of their personality, no matter what they say.

So IDK, I suppose I ought to be more respectful of it. Though admittedly I don't understand how it works at all.

(reply from suspended user)

that's quite all right, I understand why people would react badly to that statement even if they aren't religious themselves. I have religious friends and as a former Christian myself I often feel weird when people express unjustified hostility towards religions (especially when someone tries to argue that Christianity is inherently homophobic based on that quotation from Leviticus...).

I hope I wasn't rude, either. I've always liked you.

"Personality", no, but personal identity and character, yes definitely.

At the same time I think both of you are being a little off-the-wall here. I do think a lot of what is in the OT is kinda vile. I don't think recognizing its important historical context as a basis for Christianity (therefore incorporating it into religious texts, not as a rulebook but as information to understand) automatically means you're endorsing such, as you put it, "sick fuckery".

As for Judaism, I really cannot say, but I don't think any modern Jews take the OT 100% literally. Again, context and all that. But if they've read it I'm sure they would also recognize that there are parts of it that are rather unpalatable.

Yeah, but some of this information is about God doing pretty vile things. I dunno how that information can be ever used or accepted without making the whole thing rather dubious.

Many Jewish and Christian people do not take all or part of the OT literally.

True, but it just feels like picking and choosing. I see no reason to reject some parts of the OT but accept others.

I accept your point in that I think it's possible to form a peaceful ideology based on the OT as well as the NT, but I consider doing so intellectually dishonest.

That's a rather unfair assessment. Are you saying that if I see one part of the Bible as having literally happened (i.e. the Gospels) it's intellectually dishonest for me to believe another part (i.e. the flood or the creation story) didn't literally happen?

It depends on what parts we are talking about, I guess. There are some that would be pretty ridiculous if taken literally, but with others there is no reason to interpret them in any particular way. And deciding to view them from a certain angle merely because it suits your needs and desires is, yes, intellectually dishonest.

Especially if they are ethically questionable. All too often people go all "this seemingly harmful and offensive statement is actually neither 'cause it's not meant to be taken literally!". And while on the one hand, this is precisely the mechanism that allows peaceful religions to grow on the basis of dubious texts, there's always a certain bad flavour in it, a dangerous potential.

Re: Questions there's never a good time to ask.

diet_poison - 2014-04-08 01:00 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Questions there's never a good time to ask.

dreemyweird - 2014-04-09 19:27 (UTC) - Expand

fail to see somebody's justified, argued beliefs (as opposed to emotional conviction) as a part of their personality

So where do you think those beliefs come from? You're arguing for a spiritual component (albeit a wrong one) not against it, with your "duality" reasoning here.

They are formed based on logical reasoning. No spiritual component is necessary.

(I've come to the conclusion that it's pretty hard to separate the emotional stuff from the intellectual stuff, though, so I actually agree that my insulting people's religious beliefs in that manner was uncalled-for).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only