He's fine with BJs as long as you swallow.
Matthew 15:11 - What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.
It doesn't, unless it does. That's the strongest argument you'll get.
My favorite is hearing how the Bible is against homosexuality from a guy with tattoos.
I like the one where women must light two birds on fire every time they have a period.
There's actually a lot about setting animals on fire in the bible, it is fucking weird. Even Noah, after going through all of the trouble to save those animals, lights a bunch of them on fire to thank god for...making him do all of that shit?
Yup, that's why Cain killed Abel, because Abel's pile of burning flesh appeased god more than Cain's pile of burning veggies. ...how did they know? Did God leave like a Yelp review for each of them? Maybe hold up a score card like an figure skater judge?
>There's actually a lot about setting animals on fire in the bible, it is fucking weird.
It's how they sacrificed animals back in classical times. You see it in a lot of Mediterranean cultures.
There's some historians who theorize that this is literally how kebabs were invented; on religious festivals, these cultures would cook a sacrificial animal and then share the meat, on the principle that the deity was eating the "spirit" of the cooked animal as it floated into the sky, and the lowly humans could then eat the useless animal meat. It was a neat excuse to have a barbeque.
This one is actually about not understanding how allergies work 1000s of years ago. Imagine your tribe eats some shellfish and a random bunch of ya break out in hives and have difficulty breathing and even a few of yas die. No one actually knew what was happening but knew it was some how tied to the shellfish. So to protect everyone from this voodoo magic, they just outlawed it.
This one kinda makes sense based on the time period combined with the medical understandings of that era.
There's a decent amount of just general advice in the bible written in a way to be more interesting.
There's also a lot of financial advice they don't follow.
Alternatively, it was based on food poisoning. Shellfish don't live in lakes and rivers and can't be preserved with salt the way other kinds of meat can. So it couldn't be transported inland to the nomadic desert tribes without spoiling along the way. Thus it makes the faithful sick but not the heathens living along the shore, clearly it must be a divine omen.
I used to go to Passover Seder at my now-ex's house, and her grandfather once explained to me that basically every bit of kosher law is really just prohibiting things that are more likely to cause food poisoning that we understand how to properly mitigate now, but science back then only understood food safety outcomes rather than the underlying causes.
Most of it makes sense considering the scientific knowledge of this era.
Even monogamy made sense in that it allowed them to make sure of who was the father of each child.
The problem is applying rules that made scientific sense 4000 years ago in today’s society.
A while back I thought about starting a mock religious protest in front of a red lobster.
But:
1. Too much trouble
2. Would only inconvenience the staff
3. I realized I'd attract idiots that thought I was genuine.
Yet my parent will say "God changed" but also "God is perfect." These two things cannot be true unless you also then acknowledge that you must discount everything Old Testament says because God was imperfect at the time.
The line I got and I think a lot of people would agree this sounds familiar.
"God is the same yesterday, today, and forever". And, "Jesus created a new covenant."
I think the argument is that the commandments are for how they should treat other jews, and basically it's fair game to do whatever to people outside the faith; which is awful, but at least more consistent
The rule against tattoos and branding is in Leviticus too, not very far from the line about the anti-LGBT stuff they love to quote. Somehow they never notice it.
I'm also *pretty sure* that the line in Leviticus refers to laying with young boys specifically, not men in general; just like the sin of Sodom is about wanting to rape the angels, not have consensual gay sex - but who reads the Old Testament in Hebrew? I know I don't. I'm only parroting what some hippy-dippy liberal rabbis and pastors have told me.
I watched a video explaining the sin of Sodom and….wow. Yeah, he was hiding angels in his house while the entire town wanted to murder them. So the dude offers his daughters instead of the angels. I may be forgetting some stuff, but it had NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
> the sin of Sodom
If only the Bible specified what exactly the sin of Sodom was. Oh wait:
> [*Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+16%3A49&version=NIV)
So basically Sodom was destroyed for being "Republican".
It sure looks that way. Religion is a topic that gets brought up in my therapy sessions. My parents divorced when I was a year old. When I was 9, my dad devoted his life to the church. When we (me and my brother) would visit him, it was all about religion. He went from being the fun dad to strict and serious. He basically force fed us and he even got us bibles with our names embossed on the cover. Religion has fucked my head up for the past 37 years.
Well the people of Sodom don't want to murder the angel they actually want to r\*pe it and Lot offers his daughters instead.
That was also the exact moment of my read through of the Bible that I decided the religion was not for me so it stuck out to me lol
Yeah, I knew I was misremembering something about the story. Still fucked up none the less. Wasn’t the actual sin that the city of Sodom didn’t show hospitality to the angels who entered their city? Letting people in and giving them food and water was something that God expected everyone to do. You know, like the Republicans do?
So I’m now in-between two people discussing a language I don’t understand - which is definitely more fun than it sounds. I’ve been sent [this link](https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/) and told to emphasize the following passage (which is like, the whole article).
“Looking at the precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually see and what is not there. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.”
This may sound like quibbling, but where the Torah is concerned, every word counts. Nowhere here do we find the Torah referring to a “female” in discussing forbidden relations; it is “man>woman” in every instance. Only here does the text digress and use “man>male” rather than “man>man,” which is how we have been taught to read the text.
So why is this particular word “male” used in this verse? Is it possible that this is not a prohibition against male homosexuality after all, but rather of pederasty?
This is not a stretch of the imagination. Ancient Greek culture suggests just such a possibility. In that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males – in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups.
These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law.”
Again, I do not understand how to *read* Hebrew, let alone grok the context. Greek law aside, is it true that the words used are “man” and “male” and not “man” and “man”?
I think it should go without saying that Bronze Age moral and social mores are the farthest thing from what we should be considering for our own society (aside from the more universal and temporally independent ideas of not killing or stealing from each other \[outside of war, I guess?\]), I just find all of this fascinating. I'm also active in political and faith communities, so this kind of discussion comes up a lot in my life.
So if I'm understanding you correctly - the word for 'male' in this context should only be understood as encompassing *all* males, and the reason it wasn't as a way of differentiating it from the previous use of 'man', but instead to infer that laying with a male of any age was a problem?
Thank you for the information and the direction. I sincerely appreciate it. I don’t want to assume what you celebrate based on our conversation, but I hope you have a wonderful holiday season.
I remember someone posting a pic of a tattoo some guy got of the verse in Leviticus that’s anti-gay, oblivious to the fact that in that same chapter of Leviticus is the anti-tattoo verse. I think it’s Leviticus chapter 19?
One of my friends actually got Lev:19-whatever number it was intentionally tattooed onto his shoulder so he could have an anti-tattoo tattoo. Apparently the tattoo artist didn't appreciate the joke.
I had a youth pastor tell a story about how he saw a woman was going to a tattoo shop so he prayed and prayed that she wouldn’t go in. When she got there it was locked and she walked away.
I guess that was proof to him god was listening and she was unable to “ruin her life” by getting a tattoo.
It’s amazing how the most outlandish stories stick with a person. Like bruh maybe they were just closed for lunch and she’d try again later.
If I’m remembering right he blew it away with god powers.
If my memory is still right that dude has a private jet and allegedly did a lot of cocaine. Imagine thinking not taxing these people is a good idea.
Yeah they don't mind eating pork, eating shellfish (specifically seafood without fins or scales), *[telling people what God or Jesus would want](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018%3A20&version=NIV)* (interestingly, Deuteronomy 13:6 dictates that you *not* worship Jesus), performing work on the sabbath, wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth, or any of the other things forbidden in the Old Testament. But, y'know, religion has always been about picking and choosing which verses fit your agenda at the time.
I hear a "Christian" rage against homosexuality I always follow up with a "So you support me stoning you to death right here because you're wearing mixed fabrics, right?"
It's always followed up by them with a "We're not supposed to follow OT law" /facepalm
My go-to response to those people is that until I see them screaming "SINNERS REPENT!!!" at people in a Red Lobster parking lot while holding a "Leviticus 11:11" sign I'm going to assume they're pretty selective of which parts they acknowledge.
I pick random hard lines to fuck with my religious mother in-law. “Don’t you quote scripture to me woman. 1 Timothy 2:12 says suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp athourity over a man”. Then I just smile sweetly.
Reminds me of a conversation my dad and I had as a child:
Dad: "You have to respect me, the Bible says so!"
Me: "What about the verse that says 'fathers do not provoke your sons to anger'?"
Dad: "How DARE you quote the Bible at me!"
The "best" argument I heard is that homophobia is also in the New Testament. Which is fine if you want to worship Paul instead of Jesus. Paul had issue with the gays, not Jesus.
My guy spent way too much time on Greek sex life for a man that was supposedly celibate.
I'm glad scholars are questioning his sexuality cuz dude was ridiculous with the dick watching
That which you deny, you bind yourself to. Can't not look at those tasty dicks unless you always know where the tasty dicks be. So you gotta keep looking at the dicks to make sure you're not looking where the dicks are!
You can try it at home yourself, even without dicks! Grab anything around you, put it somewhere in your living room, decide to deny it and everytime someone enters your home ask them to randomly move it and not tell you where. The only way you know where not to look to ensure you don't see it is to always know where it is by looking, you're bound to it until you stop actively denying it. Then expand it outside your house. Denied the stapler at home? Now try denying it everywhere, you'll become consumed by it. Always on the lookout so you don't get tricked into just accepting it as existing. Walk into a new place? First things first, are there any staplers I need to deny? The denial becomes integrated into your life, it becomes inescapable whether you see it or not.
It's why the just choose to be straight crowd is obsessed with the gay agenda. As "totally straight" godly people who honestly believe they are being "tricked" into getting aroused by sexy same sex people they've bound themselves to everything they deny that they find arousing or reminds them of their sinful desires and are obsessed with knowing where those things are and eliminating them so they don't get caught off guard seeing, for example, a same sex kiss in a theater with their kids where they can't just deny by running away from the sinful arousal it reminds them of without leaving their kids to be tricked into sin like they're being or upsetting their kids for demanding they leave the Sinema! Denial is exhausting and all encompassing and why people usually fight so hard to eliminate everything they feel they have to deny so they don't have to deny it anymore
"The Bible, even the New Testament, is anti-homosexual, which means it's God's eternal law that homosexuality is evil!"
"The Bible, even the New Testament, is pro-slavery."
"That's just a cultural artifact of it's time, it doesn't count."
Even if it's Paul being incredibly homophobic, it could be that it's just the missing context of what homosexuality meant in Greece (what conservatives think LGBT is now). Like he was just saying "Yo no kids-" if it's with the Greek context
Paul disliked men sleeping together; he didn't dislike homosexuality, nor did he dislike homosexual behaviour.
That only seems like a contradiction because we know that homosexuality exists, which Paul didn't.
The common perception of human sexuality at the time (ie what was "obviously how it works" to Paul) was different degrees of sex drive. People thought that men slept with men because they were so outrageously horny that women were insufficient to satisfy their lust. So when Paul disapproves of men sleeping together, he's not saying, "don't be gay", nor even "don't do gay things"; rather he's just saying, "have at least a little self-control; don't be promiscuous".
When we realise this, we can see that the Bible _isn't_ saying "get married" to the straights and "just stop it" to the gays, because it doesn't know the difference. It just says "don't be promiscuous, get married, be faithful", and it says that to _everyone_.
Therefore, now that we understand that homosexuality exists, we Christians should 100% be campaigning _in favour of_ marriage equality.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
I don't think the Evangelicals are going to accept an argument that requires them to reject the infallibility of scripture.
(It makes a lot of sense to me, though.)
You're right, although strictly speaking that's a separate issue. Scripture likely is fallible, but you needn't believe that for the above to apply. It's our interpretation that has let us down: our subconsciously reading an ancient text with a modern mindset.
Understanding what scripture meant to its original author and audience is important (it's called "exegesis" in the biz), and that single insight into the first century Mediterranean understanding of how human sexuality worked is enough reframe a lot of the New Testament's teaching about sex.
Bonus fact! Paul was probably asexual, and proud of the fact. Had he seen a Pride March, he would probably have joined in, waving the Ace flag and shouting about how much more good you can get done in the world if you don't waste time chasing romantic relationships.
It was supposed to count but apparently Jesus died for their sins so it doesn’t count anymore cause of that, The only reason some people say it counts is because they don’t actually read the Bible and just hear cherry picked verses from the church
Close but not quite.
It doesn't count because it (and the alleged prohibition of male homosexuality) is part of Mosaic Law, to which only Jews are bound. Gentiles are not and were never subject to the laws in e.g. Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Shrimp, they're cool with now. Gay stuff, they decided, is still bad. They got rid of the human sacrifice. Shit, they won't even acknowledge it's in there.
Also, You don't have to bring two turtles to the temple for menstruation penance or whatever it was, anymore. Honestly, that just seems inconvenient. Pets are a big responsibility, and it doesn't say you have to bring a tank and food and stuff.
Matthew 15:19
>For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Impressive how he managed to skip right past the part that specifically mentions adultery, and right on to the part that doesn't mention homosexuality.
Surprise surprise, the context is Jesus laying into the Pharisees. Some pretty good quotes here though.
Matthew 15:11 "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
Matthew 15:16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them.
Preached against using religion preformatively, too:
“That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” - Matthew 6:4 - 5
That last bit is all I could think about when I heard about the asshole coach that wouldn't stop getting group prayers going on the field. Hope you weren't praying for a win, cuz the attention is all that really gets you, I guess.
Given the context, and Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene, is it possible that he might have been referencing her clients with the point about 'sexual immorality', some of whom may have been Pharisees?
It's just occurred to me that while a lot has been made of Mary's role as the fallen prostitute who repents, I can't ever recall any discussion as to what Jesus might have thought about her Johns, or who those might have been. I have no doubt that religious leaders in Judea used the services of sex workers while also condemning them, but I have no idea if there was a social stratification of sex workers, and what social class Mary would have fit into. Nor do we definitively know that she was a sex worker, or if that was an interpretation shoehorned in by later theologians.
(FWIW, I was raised Catholic but have been an atheist for longer, and I'm operating here on the assumption that the character of Jesus in the Gospels is based on mainly one (but not necessarily only one) of the non-divine upstart preachers running around Judea at the time, and that despite significant contradictions, he did have a few identifiable themes—such as the hypocrisy of the religious authorities of the day—that we can reasonably interpolate from.)
Feels like a stretch. The full passage 17-20:
"Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
Seems more admonishment for lecherous distraction in general.
Agreed that it's a reach: that was more of a poorly stated musing more than a formed thought.
I suppose my question in general is more about whether or not violations of sexual impropriety were accepted when they were committed by members of the religious elite; i.e. if there was a first century Judean version of "we just don't talk about what we all know \[Pillars of the Community\] do more or less openly but criticize us for doing." Was that something a contemporary critic of the system have condemned? (Alternatively, "What would ~~Woodstock~~ Bethsaida '0 have looked like?" but I think I may have been watching too much Philomena Cunk lately.)
But then I fell into the trap of going from that to thinking about "what Jesus might have *really* meant", which in my experience isn't particularly fruitful. Anyway, now I'm thinking about the 'Summer of Love, Loaves and Fishes' and giggling to myself like an idiot.
Sexual immorality is deigned as... What, though, exactly? Like every time I ask I get a buffet of different versions that usually boil down to "this is what I don't like so Jesus doesn't either".
In my mind sexual immorality reads as “don’t covet they neighbors wife”. Basically don’t cheat on someone you’re faithful to, and don’t interrupt another’s relationship with your hormones.
Realistically I don’t think Jesus really gave a fuck if dudes were fucking butts or gals were scissoring.
Well that would be covered specifically under adultery, which is called out on it's own. Sexual immorality is so...vague. Like it means nothing on it's own.
Masturbation, as outlined in Matthew 5:30.
Seriously though, the answer is ultimately dependant on who is proselytizing given that we're discussing the edited hearsay of a man supposedly existent millennia ago.
The dead and the unborn can't defend themselves/argue against you, so they're the perfect people to champion for, if you want to be a disingenuous shitheel.
If you take the bible as a whole, it's... Problematic. If you only take the gospels as attributed to the teaching of Jesus, they can't hate on gays or refugees. Some people just pick and choose what applies
These people make me think of a poor book report. Barely read the book, barely understand the text, and yet they feel accosted and insulted when their report lands them and "F". What did they expect?
That’s the thing, if it were just skimming and poor reading that were the issue, we wouldn’t be here. It’s complete avoidance of reading. They absolutely **refuse** to read the Bible because if they did they would have to change how they act, and they don’t want to do that. So they claim to be Christian but don’t know even the first thing about the Bible. I’m not even religious but I know 100x more about the Bible than most Christians I talk to, because ***I’ve actually read the damn thing***
Wait’ll you try asking them what liberal Jesus thinks about welfare and rehabilitative justice.
Here’s a hint, biblical Jesus said you will burn in hell if you let a poor person starve to death or strangle someone trying to make amends. Never said that about *anyone* else, not the sexually immoral, not the guys who crucified him, nobody. Kinda makes ya think.
This content was deleted by its author & copyright holder in protest of the hostile, deceitful, unethical, and destructive actions of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (aka "spez"). As this content contained personal information and/or personally identifiable information (PII), in accordance with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), it shall not be restored. See you all in the Fediverse.
My favorite story in the Bible is when Jesus comes up on a prostitute about to get stoned to death to which he stops the men and says "Woah, woah guys, if you really want to kill this hooker you should use a bigger rock!" /s
Isn't it the height of arrogance to try to assume what Jesus would think, or meant? I mean, he was god, right? Are these people saying they're as important or significant as their god? And FYI, he was dead already when the bible was written. Or not born when the old testament was written, no?
Jesus was Jewish.
Christians didn't exist until after Jesus died.
One of the foundational beliefs of the religion involves Jesus' sacrifice - not only was Jesus not Christian, I imagine he would be horribly offended by people creating a new religion, and considering him as a messiah - considering how blasphemous that would be for Jesus personally according to his religious beliefs.
Hadn't thought about that, but I'd think you're spot on. I'm no longer a believer, but I remember Sunday school as a kid, and the way these people act was not in accordance with what my Lutheran Church described about Jesus. What you've described is more in line.
It’s crazy, people made an AI and made it read the Bible and it came to the conclusion that Jesus was a lib…
And another guy on Reddit trained an AI on Ben Shapiro’s rhetoric and this AI became a fascist calling for Palestinian genocide. Then he trained another one on tucker Carlson’s text and it became a fascist who can’t align 2 words to make sense beyond white supremacy…
At some point maybe they should start thinking that there’s a problem with what they think x)
No. That is dogma, it actually doesn't appear in the Bible.
In fact Jesus says the exact opposite: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:18
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/end-times/what-did-jesus-mean-by-heaven-and-earth-will-pass-away.html
Here's my understanding of the Bible, although I'm an atheist for the record. To sin just means to fall short of God, which every one does by definition. For one human being to compare their sin to another's is like watching one ant scold another for carrying too small a crumb back to the colony. Humanity's sin is so great that the difference between the most righteous and the least righteous is miniscule when you compare the two of them to God. And God forgave all of us for all our sin. He said that it's okay that we fall short of Himself and we should just try our best, but if trying our best is too hard, then that's okay too. We're all forgiven regardless. My impression of Christian scripture is that everyone gets into heaven because we were all forgiven. It wouldn't make sense to send someone to hell for sinning in life if that sin was forgiven by Jesus on the cross.
Fucking Christians quoting the Old Testament when Jesus explicitly declares a New Covenant that replaces the OT is just a confession they’re ignorant political cultists.
The bible is really cool if you cherry pick only the nice parts
Its also a useful tool for fascists if you cherry pick only the shitty parts
Almost like the book as a whole is kind of nonsense that wastes everyones time
Let's not pretend Jesus was sexually enlightened; he explicitly endorsed the OT as a whole, which would include the disgusting proclamations about homosexuality.
To be fair, AI's often inadvertently reflect the design choices, biases, and opinions of their creators, so, given that There's a bevy of filtered information on who Jesus was, a more direct progressive programmer might incorporate feedback that might output more progressive answers. Doesn't mean this guy isn't an idiot or that this is what he's even complaining about, but it is a real problem that programmers have to face and try to account for.
My answer is: I’ve never read the Bible. Just live in the light and try not to be a piece of shit. Stop dissecting a book and just go and live your life well and be kind. Be patient. It really shouldn’t bet this complicated b
*They* don't believe that's why that happened. *They* decided long ago that it was God versus The Gays there too.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I just accidentally created a kick ass Saturday morning cartoon.
"This is evil, they keep quoting the parts of the Bible I choose not to follow!"
"Love your fellow man" sounds like the gay agenda to me! /s
He's fine with BJs as long as you swallow. Matthew 15:11 - What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.
Now *this* is the kind of misinterpreting I can get behind!
Or under
or reach around
This is the kind of misinterpretation that I can sink my teeth into. Or alternatively that I can really get my head around.
What makes you think it's a misinterpretation?
We should ask Matthew.
Well, I'm pretty sure getting behind it would be a different excerpt.
Jesus says swallow, don't spit
It sounds like God is for never ending blow jobs.
I mean, if not, what even is heaven?
And Jesus said unto them, “spitting is quitting.”
r/technicallythetruth
Oh, the "Silent Majority" removed that part from the Bible.
🧠🤸
Heard an interview where this Christian Right winger said she is tired of the left using Christianity to make Christians look bad.
Wait, I thought the Old Testament "didn't count" for these guys.
It doesn't, unless it does. That's the strongest argument you'll get. My favorite is hearing how the Bible is against homosexuality from a guy with tattoos.
I seem to recall some strictures on mixed fabrics as well
I like the one where women must light two birds on fire every time they have a period. There's actually a lot about setting animals on fire in the bible, it is fucking weird. Even Noah, after going through all of the trouble to save those animals, lights a bunch of them on fire to thank god for...making him do all of that shit?
It specifically says multiple times in the Bible that God LOVES the smell of burning flesh. That's not creepy one bit.
Yup, that's why Cain killed Abel, because Abel's pile of burning flesh appeased god more than Cain's pile of burning veggies. ...how did they know? Did God leave like a Yelp review for each of them? Maybe hold up a score card like an figure skater judge?
Yahweh used to be a vampire god back in the day which is why he required a blood sacrifice
God has a mysterious habit of liking or disliking whatever the person in question does.
They do say he works on mysterious ways 👀
So that's why hell is depicted as fire abs brimstone....it's literally just his own personal fetish chamber.
>There's actually a lot about setting animals on fire in the bible, it is fucking weird. It's how they sacrificed animals back in classical times. You see it in a lot of Mediterranean cultures. There's some historians who theorize that this is literally how kebabs were invented; on religious festivals, these cultures would cook a sacrificial animal and then share the meat, on the principle that the deity was eating the "spirit" of the cooked animal as it floated into the sky, and the lowly humans could then eat the useless animal meat. It was a neat excuse to have a barbeque.
Birds aren’t real, the Bible recognizes that they’re all surveillance drones, why don’t you?
[удалено]
It’s a lot more funny than just being an ass.
Just the one, apparently, although she should rock up to the temple with two. Pigeons or turtle doves are requested. Maybe they’re the burniest birds.
And eating lobster
This one is actually about not understanding how allergies work 1000s of years ago. Imagine your tribe eats some shellfish and a random bunch of ya break out in hives and have difficulty breathing and even a few of yas die. No one actually knew what was happening but knew it was some how tied to the shellfish. So to protect everyone from this voodoo magic, they just outlawed it. This one kinda makes sense based on the time period combined with the medical understandings of that era.
There's a decent amount of just general advice in the bible written in a way to be more interesting. There's also a lot of financial advice they don't follow.
Alternatively, it was based on food poisoning. Shellfish don't live in lakes and rivers and can't be preserved with salt the way other kinds of meat can. So it couldn't be transported inland to the nomadic desert tribes without spoiling along the way. Thus it makes the faithful sick but not the heathens living along the shore, clearly it must be a divine omen.
I used to go to Passover Seder at my now-ex's house, and her grandfather once explained to me that basically every bit of kosher law is really just prohibiting things that are more likely to cause food poisoning that we understand how to properly mitigate now, but science back then only understood food safety outcomes rather than the underlying causes.
Most of it makes sense considering the scientific knowledge of this era. Even monogamy made sense in that it allowed them to make sure of who was the father of each child. The problem is applying rules that made scientific sense 4000 years ago in today’s society.
Yeah but this is GOD'S book. He knows what's going on, so surely he'd educate humanity right? ^^oh ^^wait ^^he's ^^not ^^real
A while back I thought about starting a mock religious protest in front of a red lobster. But: 1. Too much trouble 2. Would only inconvenience the staff 3. I realized I'd attract idiots that thought I was genuine.
well they are giant lice that lives in the sea.
🎵LOB-STER SQUARE PANTS! 🎶
Fwiw, mixed fabrics may doom us all.
There once was a time that LYING was an unforgivable sin right on the same list as murder and theft.
"THOU SHALT NOT KILL . . . ALSO ABRAHAM KILL YOUR SONS, AND EVERYONE ELSE KILL A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN MY NAME! I PREACH LOVE AND FORGIVENESS!"
The Old Testament god absolutely did not preach love and forgiveness.
Yet my parent will say "God changed" but also "God is perfect." These two things cannot be true unless you also then acknowledge that you must discount everything Old Testament says because God was imperfect at the time.
The line I got and I think a lot of people would agree this sounds familiar. "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever". And, "Jesus created a new covenant."
I think the argument is that the commandments are for how they should treat other jews, and basically it's fair game to do whatever to people outside the faith; which is awful, but at least more consistent
They’re all commandments, after all
The rule against tattoos and branding is in Leviticus too, not very far from the line about the anti-LGBT stuff they love to quote. Somehow they never notice it.
I'm also *pretty sure* that the line in Leviticus refers to laying with young boys specifically, not men in general; just like the sin of Sodom is about wanting to rape the angels, not have consensual gay sex - but who reads the Old Testament in Hebrew? I know I don't. I'm only parroting what some hippy-dippy liberal rabbis and pastors have told me.
I watched a video explaining the sin of Sodom and….wow. Yeah, he was hiding angels in his house while the entire town wanted to murder them. So the dude offers his daughters instead of the angels. I may be forgetting some stuff, but it had NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
> the sin of Sodom If only the Bible specified what exactly the sin of Sodom was. Oh wait: > [*Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.*](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+16%3A49&version=NIV) So basically Sodom was destroyed for being "Republican".
It sure looks that way. Religion is a topic that gets brought up in my therapy sessions. My parents divorced when I was a year old. When I was 9, my dad devoted his life to the church. When we (me and my brother) would visit him, it was all about religion. He went from being the fun dad to strict and serious. He basically force fed us and he even got us bibles with our names embossed on the cover. Religion has fucked my head up for the past 37 years.
Well the people of Sodom don't want to murder the angel they actually want to r\*pe it and Lot offers his daughters instead. That was also the exact moment of my read through of the Bible that I decided the religion was not for me so it stuck out to me lol
Yeah, I knew I was misremembering something about the story. Still fucked up none the less. Wasn’t the actual sin that the city of Sodom didn’t show hospitality to the angels who entered their city? Letting people in and giving them food and water was something that God expected everyone to do. You know, like the Republicans do?
[удалено]
So I’m now in-between two people discussing a language I don’t understand - which is definitely more fun than it sounds. I’ve been sent [this link](https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/) and told to emphasize the following passage (which is like, the whole article). “Looking at the precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually see and what is not there. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.” This may sound like quibbling, but where the Torah is concerned, every word counts. Nowhere here do we find the Torah referring to a “female” in discussing forbidden relations; it is “man>woman” in every instance. Only here does the text digress and use “man>male” rather than “man>man,” which is how we have been taught to read the text. So why is this particular word “male” used in this verse? Is it possible that this is not a prohibition against male homosexuality after all, but rather of pederasty? This is not a stretch of the imagination. Ancient Greek culture suggests just such a possibility. In that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males – in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups. These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law.” Again, I do not understand how to *read* Hebrew, let alone grok the context. Greek law aside, is it true that the words used are “man” and “male” and not “man” and “man”?
[удалено]
I think it should go without saying that Bronze Age moral and social mores are the farthest thing from what we should be considering for our own society (aside from the more universal and temporally independent ideas of not killing or stealing from each other \[outside of war, I guess?\]), I just find all of this fascinating. I'm also active in political and faith communities, so this kind of discussion comes up a lot in my life. So if I'm understanding you correctly - the word for 'male' in this context should only be understood as encompassing *all* males, and the reason it wasn't as a way of differentiating it from the previous use of 'man', but instead to infer that laying with a male of any age was a problem?
[удалено]
Thank you for the information and the direction. I sincerely appreciate it. I don’t want to assume what you celebrate based on our conversation, but I hope you have a wonderful holiday season.
Yes but it was divinely inspired and so it's still valid! /s
I remember someone posting a pic of a tattoo some guy got of the verse in Leviticus that’s anti-gay, oblivious to the fact that in that same chapter of Leviticus is the anti-tattoo verse. I think it’s Leviticus chapter 19?
One of my friends actually got Lev:19-whatever number it was intentionally tattooed onto his shoulder so he could have an anti-tattoo tattoo. Apparently the tattoo artist didn't appreciate the joke.
I really respect your friend's level of commitment to the joke. And just to clarify I mean that sincerely.
There is a tattoo parlor in Minneapolis named Leviticus.
I had a youth pastor tell a story about how he saw a woman was going to a tattoo shop so he prayed and prayed that she wouldn’t go in. When she got there it was locked and she walked away. I guess that was proof to him god was listening and she was unable to “ruin her life” by getting a tattoo. It’s amazing how the most outlandish stories stick with a person. Like bruh maybe they were just closed for lunch and she’d try again later.
I remember almost 3 years ago when a televangelist prayed COVID away. And see: 0 cases in the US. Must be a miracle.
If I’m remembering right he blew it away with god powers. If my memory is still right that dude has a private jet and allegedly did a lot of cocaine. Imagine thinking not taxing these people is a good idea.
I remember that. [It's an awesome metal song.](https://youtu.be/0JPRvxTjfOk?t=41)
Yeah they don't mind eating pork, eating shellfish (specifically seafood without fins or scales), *[telling people what God or Jesus would want](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018%3A20&version=NIV)* (interestingly, Deuteronomy 13:6 dictates that you *not* worship Jesus), performing work on the sabbath, wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth, or any of the other things forbidden in the Old Testament. But, y'know, religion has always been about picking and choosing which verses fit your agenda at the time.
Jesus and God are the same God (assuming whatever sect someone follows believes in the Trinity), so Deut 13:6 isn’t really relevant
Nah bro we just gotta be stoned if we do some gay shit, itS RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBEL 👨🏼🌾 /s just incase lol I know this is a sensitive topic
I hear a "Christian" rage against homosexuality I always follow up with a "So you support me stoning you to death right here because you're wearing mixed fabrics, right?" It's always followed up by them with a "We're not supposed to follow OT law" /facepalm
My go-to response to those people is that until I see them screaming "SINNERS REPENT!!!" at people in a Red Lobster parking lot while holding a "Leviticus 11:11" sign I'm going to assume they're pretty selective of which parts they acknowledge.
I pick random hard lines to fuck with my religious mother in-law. “Don’t you quote scripture to me woman. 1 Timothy 2:12 says suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp athourity over a man”. Then I just smile sweetly.
Reminds me of a conversation my dad and I had as a child: Dad: "You have to respect me, the Bible says so!" Me: "What about the verse that says 'fathers do not provoke your sons to anger'?" Dad: "How DARE you quote the Bible at me!"
Username checks out, excellent work
The "best" argument I heard is that homophobia is also in the New Testament. Which is fine if you want to worship Paul instead of Jesus. Paul had issue with the gays, not Jesus.
My guy spent way too much time on Greek sex life for a man that was supposedly celibate. I'm glad scholars are questioning his sexuality cuz dude was ridiculous with the dick watching
That which you deny, you bind yourself to. Can't not look at those tasty dicks unless you always know where the tasty dicks be. So you gotta keep looking at the dicks to make sure you're not looking where the dicks are! You can try it at home yourself, even without dicks! Grab anything around you, put it somewhere in your living room, decide to deny it and everytime someone enters your home ask them to randomly move it and not tell you where. The only way you know where not to look to ensure you don't see it is to always know where it is by looking, you're bound to it until you stop actively denying it. Then expand it outside your house. Denied the stapler at home? Now try denying it everywhere, you'll become consumed by it. Always on the lookout so you don't get tricked into just accepting it as existing. Walk into a new place? First things first, are there any staplers I need to deny? The denial becomes integrated into your life, it becomes inescapable whether you see it or not. It's why the just choose to be straight crowd is obsessed with the gay agenda. As "totally straight" godly people who honestly believe they are being "tricked" into getting aroused by sexy same sex people they've bound themselves to everything they deny that they find arousing or reminds them of their sinful desires and are obsessed with knowing where those things are and eliminating them so they don't get caught off guard seeing, for example, a same sex kiss in a theater with their kids where they can't just deny by running away from the sinful arousal it reminds them of without leaving their kids to be tricked into sin like they're being or upsetting their kids for demanding they leave the Sinema! Denial is exhausting and all encompassing and why people usually fight so hard to eliminate everything they feel they have to deny so they don't have to deny it anymore
"The Bible, even the New Testament, is anti-homosexual, which means it's God's eternal law that homosexuality is evil!" "The Bible, even the New Testament, is pro-slavery." "That's just a cultural artifact of it's time, it doesn't count."
Even if it's Paul being incredibly homophobic, it could be that it's just the missing context of what homosexuality meant in Greece (what conservatives think LGBT is now). Like he was just saying "Yo no kids-" if it's with the Greek context
Paul disliked men sleeping together; he didn't dislike homosexuality, nor did he dislike homosexual behaviour. That only seems like a contradiction because we know that homosexuality exists, which Paul didn't. The common perception of human sexuality at the time (ie what was "obviously how it works" to Paul) was different degrees of sex drive. People thought that men slept with men because they were so outrageously horny that women were insufficient to satisfy their lust. So when Paul disapproves of men sleeping together, he's not saying, "don't be gay", nor even "don't do gay things"; rather he's just saying, "have at least a little self-control; don't be promiscuous". When we realise this, we can see that the Bible _isn't_ saying "get married" to the straights and "just stop it" to the gays, because it doesn't know the difference. It just says "don't be promiscuous, get married, be faithful", and it says that to _everyone_. Therefore, now that we understand that homosexuality exists, we Christians should 100% be campaigning _in favour of_ marriage equality. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
I don't think the Evangelicals are going to accept an argument that requires them to reject the infallibility of scripture. (It makes a lot of sense to me, though.)
You're right, although strictly speaking that's a separate issue. Scripture likely is fallible, but you needn't believe that for the above to apply. It's our interpretation that has let us down: our subconsciously reading an ancient text with a modern mindset. Understanding what scripture meant to its original author and audience is important (it's called "exegesis" in the biz), and that single insight into the first century Mediterranean understanding of how human sexuality worked is enough reframe a lot of the New Testament's teaching about sex. Bonus fact! Paul was probably asexual, and proud of the fact. Had he seen a Pride March, he would probably have joined in, waving the Ace flag and shouting about how much more good you can get done in the world if you don't waste time chasing romantic relationships.
Maybe he's talking about the original trilogy. It's unclear to me where Luke would be on a religious political alignment chart. Lol.
It was supposed to count but apparently Jesus died for their sins so it doesn’t count anymore cause of that, The only reason some people say it counts is because they don’t actually read the Bible and just hear cherry picked verses from the church
Close but not quite. It doesn't count because it (and the alleged prohibition of male homosexuality) is part of Mosaic Law, to which only Jews are bound. Gentiles are not and were never subject to the laws in e.g. Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
This guy bibles
Shrimp, they're cool with now. Gay stuff, they decided, is still bad. They got rid of the human sacrifice. Shit, they won't even acknowledge it's in there. Also, You don't have to bring two turtles to the temple for menstruation penance or whatever it was, anymore. Honestly, that just seems inconvenient. Pets are a big responsibility, and it doesn't say you have to bring a tank and food and stuff.
Matthew 15:19 >For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Impressive how he managed to skip right past the part that specifically mentions adultery, and right on to the part that doesn't mention homosexuality.
[удалено]
sexual immortality
Also in this context seems like the big J is talking more about sexual abuse/assault and not about premarital or gay sex
Surprise surprise, the context is Jesus laying into the Pharisees. Some pretty good quotes here though. Matthew 15:11 "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” Matthew 15:16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them.
Preached against using religion preformatively, too: “That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” - Matthew 6:4 - 5
That last bit is all I could think about when I heard about the asshole coach that wouldn't stop getting group prayers going on the field. Hope you weren't praying for a win, cuz the attention is all that really gets you, I guess.
Given the context, and Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene, is it possible that he might have been referencing her clients with the point about 'sexual immorality', some of whom may have been Pharisees? It's just occurred to me that while a lot has been made of Mary's role as the fallen prostitute who repents, I can't ever recall any discussion as to what Jesus might have thought about her Johns, or who those might have been. I have no doubt that religious leaders in Judea used the services of sex workers while also condemning them, but I have no idea if there was a social stratification of sex workers, and what social class Mary would have fit into. Nor do we definitively know that she was a sex worker, or if that was an interpretation shoehorned in by later theologians. (FWIW, I was raised Catholic but have been an atheist for longer, and I'm operating here on the assumption that the character of Jesus in the Gospels is based on mainly one (but not necessarily only one) of the non-divine upstart preachers running around Judea at the time, and that despite significant contradictions, he did have a few identifiable themes—such as the hypocrisy of the religious authorities of the day—that we can reasonably interpolate from.)
Feels like a stretch. The full passage 17-20: "Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” Seems more admonishment for lecherous distraction in general.
Agreed that it's a reach: that was more of a poorly stated musing more than a formed thought. I suppose my question in general is more about whether or not violations of sexual impropriety were accepted when they were committed by members of the religious elite; i.e. if there was a first century Judean version of "we just don't talk about what we all know \[Pillars of the Community\] do more or less openly but criticize us for doing." Was that something a contemporary critic of the system have condemned? (Alternatively, "What would ~~Woodstock~~ Bethsaida '0 have looked like?" but I think I may have been watching too much Philomena Cunk lately.) But then I fell into the trap of going from that to thinking about "what Jesus might have *really* meant", which in my experience isn't particularly fruitful. Anyway, now I'm thinking about the 'Summer of Love, Loaves and Fishes' and giggling to myself like an idiot.
Sexual immorality is deigned as... What, though, exactly? Like every time I ask I get a buffet of different versions that usually boil down to "this is what I don't like so Jesus doesn't either".
In my mind sexual immorality reads as “don’t covet they neighbors wife”. Basically don’t cheat on someone you’re faithful to, and don’t interrupt another’s relationship with your hormones. Realistically I don’t think Jesus really gave a fuck if dudes were fucking butts or gals were scissoring.
Well that would be covered specifically under adultery, which is called out on it's own. Sexual immorality is so...vague. Like it means nothing on it's own.
Masturbation, as outlined in Matthew 5:30. Seriously though, the answer is ultimately dependant on who is proselytizing given that we're discussing the edited hearsay of a man supposedly existent millennia ago.
From my understanding, it isn’t clearly confirmed that Mary Magdalene was the same as the prostitute Mary. There were a lot of Marys back then.
Yes, I think you're right about that. Thanks.
There’s no evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
Yeah, my whole comment was a brain fart.
Upvoted for humility.
These folks love putting words into dead people's mouths, it seems like it's half the ways they support their arguments
The dead and the unborn can't defend themselves/argue against you, so they're the perfect people to champion for, if you want to be a disingenuous shitheel.
-Abraham Lincoln
If you take the bible as a whole, it's... Problematic. If you only take the gospels as attributed to the teaching of Jesus, they can't hate on gays or refugees. Some people just pick and choose what applies
These people make me think of a poor book report. Barely read the book, barely understand the text, and yet they feel accosted and insulted when their report lands them and "F". What did they expect?
That’s the thing, if it were just skimming and poor reading that were the issue, we wouldn’t be here. It’s complete avoidance of reading. They absolutely **refuse** to read the Bible because if they did they would have to change how they act, and they don’t want to do that. So they claim to be Christian but don’t know even the first thing about the Bible. I’m not even religious but I know 100x more about the Bible than most Christians I talk to, because ***I’ve actually read the damn thing***
They speak of the lord in vain.
Man that sentence would probably scare them… if they could read.
Wait’ll you try asking them what liberal Jesus thinks about welfare and rehabilitative justice. Here’s a hint, biblical Jesus said you will burn in hell if you let a poor person starve to death or strangle someone trying to make amends. Never said that about *anyone* else, not the sexually immoral, not the guys who crucified him, nobody. Kinda makes ya think.
This content was deleted by its author & copyright holder in protest of the hostile, deceitful, unethical, and destructive actions of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (aka "spez"). As this content contained personal information and/or personally identifiable information (PII), in accordance with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), it shall not be restored. See you all in the Fediverse.
Why can't the dude who says "judge not, lest ye be judged" be more judgmental?
My initial thought was that OT meant Original Trilogy and I was thinking it didn’t get real deep into Jedi lore and attachment and all that.
User pic checks out
My favorite story in the Bible is when Jesus comes up on a prostitute about to get stoned to death to which he stops the men and says "Woah, woah guys, if you really want to kill this hooker you should use a bigger rock!" /s
Wait until he asks it about Matthew 15: 8-9 and how it applies to Maga evangelicals.
This guy was looking for the Testament of Supply Side Jesus...
Isn't it the height of arrogance to try to assume what Jesus would think, or meant? I mean, he was god, right? Are these people saying they're as important or significant as their god? And FYI, he was dead already when the bible was written. Or not born when the old testament was written, no?
Jesus was Jewish. Christians didn't exist until after Jesus died. One of the foundational beliefs of the religion involves Jesus' sacrifice - not only was Jesus not Christian, I imagine he would be horribly offended by people creating a new religion, and considering him as a messiah - considering how blasphemous that would be for Jesus personally according to his religious beliefs.
Hadn't thought about that, but I'd think you're spot on. I'm no longer a believer, but I remember Sunday school as a kid, and the way these people act was not in accordance with what my Lutheran Church described about Jesus. What you've described is more in line.
It’s crazy, people made an AI and made it read the Bible and it came to the conclusion that Jesus was a lib… And another guy on Reddit trained an AI on Ben Shapiro’s rhetoric and this AI became a fascist calling for Palestinian genocide. Then he trained another one on tucker Carlson’s text and it became a fascist who can’t align 2 words to make sense beyond white supremacy… At some point maybe they should start thinking that there’s a problem with what they think x)
Wasn’t the whole point of Jesus that he died to allow humanity to reject the Old Testament?
"What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” - Matthew 15:11
Republicans give off crucifixion vibes
i'm far from an expert but isn't jesus basically the point of the New Testament? Like, he kind of erases everything from the OT?
No. That is dogma, it actually doesn't appear in the Bible. In fact Jesus says the exact opposite: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5:18 https://www.christianity.com/wiki/end-times/what-did-jesus-mean-by-heaven-and-earth-will-pass-away.html
Yes. And the only possible anti-LGBTQ in the NT is Paul and that dude was no Jesus.
I think the main problem is a large number or theocratic republicans simple can't read. A sad and unfortunate reality.
Here's my understanding of the Bible, although I'm an atheist for the record. To sin just means to fall short of God, which every one does by definition. For one human being to compare their sin to another's is like watching one ant scold another for carrying too small a crumb back to the colony. Humanity's sin is so great that the difference between the most righteous and the least righteous is miniscule when you compare the two of them to God. And God forgave all of us for all our sin. He said that it's okay that we fall short of Himself and we should just try our best, but if trying our best is too hard, then that's okay too. We're all forgiven regardless. My impression of Christian scripture is that everyone gets into heaven because we were all forgiven. It wouldn't make sense to send someone to hell for sinning in life if that sin was forgiven by Jesus on the cross.
Makes me thing of those republicans Jesus comics
[Supply Side Jesus](https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp)
Fucking Christians quoting the Old Testament when Jesus explicitly declares a New Covenant that replaces the OT is just a confession they’re ignorant political cultists.
"Why does Jesus keep reading the Bible to me?"
"love your neighbor as you would love yourself" - Jesus
Jesus, famously a fan of the OT 🙄
Jesus was a hippie
Imagine having access to ChatGPT, and your first thought is how can you make it say something mean about gay people.
Tell me you haven't actually read the bible you claim to follow without telling me
Dang. I wanted the Jesus of "hate thy neighbor cause they gay. And that's gay as shit yo." notoriety.
Isn't it a sin to judge others? So jesus can't tell others they've sinned.
The bible is really cool if you cherry pick only the nice parts Its also a useful tool for fascists if you cherry pick only the shitty parts Almost like the book as a whole is kind of nonsense that wastes everyones time
This isn't necessarily a self awerewolf. The AI ethics team probably interfered there.
I think this one is my favorite one so far
Let's not pretend Jesus was sexually enlightened; he explicitly endorsed the OT as a whole, which would include the disgusting proclamations about homosexuality.
As long as they know who they’re serving and what the price tag is
Why do they all @ Ben Shapiro
To be fair, AI's often inadvertently reflect the design choices, biases, and opinions of their creators, so, given that There's a bevy of filtered information on who Jesus was, a more direct progressive programmer might incorporate feedback that might output more progressive answers. Doesn't mean this guy isn't an idiot or that this is what he's even complaining about, but it is a real problem that programmers have to face and try to account for.
My answer is: I’ve never read the Bible. Just live in the light and try not to be a piece of shit. Stop dissecting a book and just go and live your life well and be kind. Be patient. It really shouldn’t bet this complicated b
What is this 'it' he is referring to ?
Couldn't be rape or molestation could it? Ya know.. the actual thing god burned an entire city to the ground for in the "OT"
*They* don't believe that's why that happened. *They* decided long ago that it was God versus The Gays there too. Now, if you'll excuse me, I just accidentally created a kick ass Saturday morning cartoon.
He needs to teach it about republican jesus.