This is why I care
This is why I care
69 comments
-
Conservatism is a plague long overdue for a cure.
-
"Conservatives" are not that conservative about themselves.
-
-
Conservatives chose me/us as their enemy. No matter how kind I am to them, how patient I am, how polite I am, they still see me as their enemy. They are proudly calling for a civil war if they cannot legally oppress or kill us.
I have been polite in my demeanor with them for over 50 years. I don't have much time left on this earth, so when they finally start this war they crave so badly, I plan to be as prolific as my body will allow. The sooner the better.
-
Wot mate?
-
-
Funny how bible thumpers are always focusing on very specific portions of the bible to justify their hatred, but completely ignore the tons of other horrific bullshit that they are also guilty of.
-
Meanwhile complaining that atheists are cherry picking specific portions of the bible
-
Nothing makes me roll my eyes harder than amoral Evangelicals telling me that I can't have values and morals if I'm not religious.
Listening to a hate-preacher denounce and proscribe their list of enemies is not self-improvement, but the conservative persecution fetish is the secret sauce of Christian Nationalism. Following a prescriptive list of rules is not morality either, but it's much easier to control people by reducing gradient situations to black-and-white "abortion is murder" style slogans.
-
-
-
I'm pretty sure straight married people have sex like that too, what is the problem?
-
Brought to you by the same death-cult cranks that claim to care about kids being groomed.
-
What is that sign even trying to convey? Pretty sure stick person is just spotting a squat.
(I mean I get it- they’re being raised as bigots. Apparently by illiterate bigots.)
-
Been hearing a lot about grooming, that sure looks like it. Psychos shouldn't breed.
-
Conservatives, the real groomers.
-
does the bible actually say anything about homosexuality/gender anyway?
-
Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death.”
That is one quote that I could find. There are probably more.
Edit: But wait, there's more...
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
Romans 1:26-27, Corinthians 6:9-10, Timothy 1:9-10, etc, etc.
That bible is a really hateful book, for sure. It's mind boggling how anyone could be gay and christian. Mental gymnastics to 11, I suppose.
Universal christianity rules apply: Always pick and choose your scriptures.
-
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
This is about having sex as an offering to god, in the temple. Substituting a man in place of a woman is the abomination. Not just having sex in general with a man. Also, Leviticus applies to the Levites and the Levitican clergy.
There is literally NOTHING in the bible that says homosexuality is wrong. But it does fully endorse incest and genocide.
-
Just to add on. Sodom and Zeke referencing it. For bonus points you can consult the writings of the people alive when these rules were being enforced like Philo and Josphius.
-
-
Nope. I’ve written about this at length, as it’s one of many things in scripture that requires a significant amount ignorance and/or bad faith to mistranslate as “gay is bad”.
In Leviticus there is a part of a laundry list of household incest laws that reads “A man shall not lay with a male as with a woman.” The phrasing is extremely specific and particular. Why “male” and not just “man”? Why is “as with a woman” added when the command would be perfectly clear without it? What does that addition mean? Why is there no mention of women and women?
This is easy: this command was never intended for us (gentiles living thousands of years later in dramatically cultures), so we can easily miss a massive amount of important context. In the middle east thousands of years ago, if you - a man - wanted a bride or a concubine, you BOUGHT one. You owned her. If you already owned a female slave, you could freely rape her or force her into marriage or concubinage. The prohibition is not a blanket statement on consensual equal gay relationships, it was about not being allowed to rape your male chattel slaves, who had more inherent rights than the female ones.
It’s also important to point out that these laws were handed only to the Israelites who had left Egypt and wandered the desert, ostensibly (according to YHWY, per the same scripture) to guarantee the tribes survival until they could establish a new homeland.
Paul also writes about this once, using a greek colloquial term that translates literally to “male-bedders”, making it parallel to Leviticus in terms of meaning. This appears to be condemnation of pederasty as well, not a condemnation of consensual equal gay relationships.
And yes, the historical circumstances surrounding all that is no heinous to any modern audience… but for different reasons than modern Xtians paint.
P.S. This is not a defense of many awful, gut-churning stories in scripture - merely an explanation of this one specific topic within it’s own social, cultural, and historic context and scope.
-
Yeah except it commands that both be put to death which wouldn't make sense if it was raping a boy. Especially since the Bible also says not to kill someone raped.
Secondly the exodus didn't happen.
Third Paul condemns it twice and no matter what games you play with the translation it still comes out to don't be gay.
Fourth if it was a bad on child molestation why not just say it? There are words in Hebrew and Greek for child.
-
If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death.
How in the fuck does it take a significant amount of mistranslation or ignorance to read that as "gay is bad"? You can speculate all you want about temporal context, but there is not a scholar alive that actually knows what the actual context was. Sure, we can assume contextual clues, but that is about it.
I hate to say this, but your analysis about "male" vs "man" and the silly confusion about "as with a woman" is just odd. I understand breaking down the meaning of a sentence into ultra-fine components, but damn...
"If someone with a dick tries to fuck another person with a dick like a woman (put it in the butt), it bad. You die." -- Today, in our context, that is what it means.
Books like the bible are written like an extended Nostradamus prophecy so they can be interpreted in any way that "scholars" see fit. Especially in this day and age, some things have to be taken literally.
-
-
Depends on who is doing the translation.
https://www.advocate.com/religion/2022/12/17/how-bible-error-changed-history-and-turned-gays-pariahs
Some scholars suggest Paul’s condemnations were added later.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
Jesus never said anything about homosexuals in the New Testament.
-
Not a word.
Although it DOES say that the man that Jesus resurrected from the beseeching of another man was his "life partner" but that is ALSO conveniently Ignored by the right wing.-
There are words, and they are fairly specific.
-
-
Multiple times. Pretty much the only thing the Bible is consistent on.
-
-
Oh but its the "gay parents" who would "spread gay agenda" on their kids right?
I'd rather a kid get adopted into a family of gay/trans/queer people rather than a family that is religious. In one, they will be actively or passively taught acceptance of other people, in the other, they will be indoctrinated.
-
Talk about grooming, right?
-
Yesterday's Behind the Bastards was on How Christianity Got Eaten By Capitalism which fills in some of the colors on why Christians don't go for Beatitudes or camels and needles.
During the Great Depression preachers and minister we left-wing like Marx (typically)
Enter James W. Fifield Jr. ( on Wikipedia ) co-founder of the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, in substantial debt in 1937 for having built a massive chapel (essentially the first megachurch). He found he could make a killing appealing to rich people and telling them by his interpretation they can shit on the poor all they want. Fifield became The Apostle to Millionaires.
Part two of the BtB rolls out tomorrow.
-
What the heck is the girl's shirt? Sign Movies Net?
-
They're just smashing words together at this point.
PURPLE
MONKEY
DISHWASHER
-
Good old PMD
-
I need to find some evil genius around here lol, you reminded me of how much I love that beer
-
-
When I googled it, the first result was a godhates[bundleofsticks] site. So still not sure what it means, but it's related somehow.
-
It's a video hosting site for the westboro Baptist Church. They own a bunch of domains like this. I believe this one is used for sharing protest videos with each other.
-
-
-
The same people that bring you "books that even mention homosexuality need to be banned to protect the kids" also bring us this.
-
Those stick figures have ass for days
-
They never skipped leg day
-
-
If not for the parents, I am completely sure that those kids woudln't know or even care about gay couples. Much less that the parents are showing them what they do in their privacy...... but somehow they claim that the drag queens are groomers, oh the irony.
-
The message is utterly confusing. An LMM level of confusing. That seems like it's generated after learning on conservapedia. Do this boy promote marriages, what's with them staying on their recolor of the US's flag? It's so, so damaged.
-
The boy is holding a sign that has the US flag upside down, a sign of distress, utilizing a slur on the poster to denote that gay marriage is an wrong and therefore causing the US to be in distress. The US flag with pride colours, which are to show acceptance, being stood on is a sign of disrespect.
-
-
I really do hate to see a Yankees fan.
-
As a Yankee fan, I can't dislike this picture enough.
-
-
Now imagine if one of those kids is gay... I'm so happy that my parents aren't human waste.
-
Of course god hates fags. Stop revving your loud fucking motorcycle all the time.
-
Typical Yankees fan
-
Weak excuse. You can't save everything, everyone etc
-
So because you can't help everyone, you shouldn't help anyone? Weak logic.
-
69 comments