[ SECRET POST #2650 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

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

[dreemyweird]

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.

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

[diet_poison]

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?

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

[dreemyweird]

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]

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.

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

[dreemyweird]

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.