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

(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.

But you seem to be assuming that the entire Bible is basically homogenous in origin and significance. It's not.

It's interesting that you seem to assume an interpretation is automatically there to suit one's needs, rather than it's the best the person could honestly come up with given evidence and background.

I was speaking of particular cases rather than the general attitude. Of course it hardly can be generalized.

Case in question: the binding of Isaac. It is actually more likely to be a literal statement than a figurative one (although different interpretations are possible), and it has always struck me as a pretty revolting thing, from the very moment when I had first read about it as a kid.

Is it possible to interpret it in a different way? Of course. Is it honest to say that this interpretation is the most plausible one and is supported by strong evidence? ...Nnnot really.

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

[ SECRET POST #2650 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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