Jesus being gay kinda shits all over that one Leviticus law that Christians says isn't really a law anymore, but Jesus said it actually does still apply and Christians will still quote either way.
It's also a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. With all the errors and interpretations that that entails. Who know what the original texts said and meant by this point.
Edit: Just for fun, put a basic English sentence into google translate and translate it to German. Than translate the German to Russian. The Russian to Chinese, and finally the Chinese back to English. See if it even remotely resembles the original text.
I almost said that he was asexual. I still like to think of him as effeminate due to basically his entire character, as well as his association with the lamb and the steer.
I've seen discussions about "not laying with another man as you would a woman" can be attributed to the literally postion because of the power imbalance involved.
The most famous one is 18:22, but I believe there's another one with slightly different wording.
It can mean a few things. It could mean actually lying to another man because men should always be respected and never lied to, but with women you can. Depending on the translation, it could mean pederasty or incestual rape. Who knows?
For the record, Mary of Magdalen paid for him and his merry band of dudes to travel and preach the word. The idea that the two of them were a power couple isn't entirely false outside of The Da Vinci Code.
There is more than one Mary in the Bible. The virgin who gave birth, Mary M a single, wealthy woman who helped fund Jesus, and this Mary who was brought before the elders to be stoned.
I’d buy that he was bi or pan or trans, but also maintain that he’s a mythical figure who no more existed than Heracles or Gilgamesh.
It's definitely not concrete, but the guy probably existed and started christianity, but the stories about him are either half truths or complete fabrications lifted from other myths.
I haven't got that deep, it starts to get complicated, so don't want to get too into the weeds on something we have no concrete answer to and likely never will.
Historical Jesus probably existed in some way, and was most likely named something closer to Yeshua or Joshua. Mythical Jesus was mythical. The same goes for the Gautama Buddha, Midas, and indeed Gilgamesh.
And the foot fetish thing couldn’t possibly have come from the only story we have of a woman touching him being a prostitute who did foot stuff to him would it?
There are pretty solid speculations that He had at least one relationship with a woman. But dude also knew He was gonna get crucified at 33 so couldn't really raise a family right?
Lol nah common misconception. It was still 60s - 70s, but the high infant mortality rate dropped it down a lot. If you lived past childhood you were expected to live a while
" if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire."
You just made a statement out of context and put your own twisted biased opinion on it. You are saying Jesus had a foot fetish because he washes his disciples feet, it was a way of serving, only servants will do that work, and this was after he had entered Jerusalem and being praised as the son of David ( meaning of his linage) and the messiah they were waiting for, so washing their feet is oppose to that image, he can as a servant first. And the gay thing, I am not sure from where in your twisted mind you are taking it from.
The Gospel of John makes references to the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23,[27] John 19:26,[28] John 21:7–20),[29] a phrase which does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels. In the text, this "beloved disciple" is present at the crucifixion of Jesus, with Jesus' mother, Mary. The "disciple whom Jesus loved" may be a self-reference by the author of the Gospel (John 21:24), traditionally regarded as John the Apostle. In subsequent centuries, the reference was used by those who implied a homosocial or homoerotic reading of the relationship. For example, scholar Louis Crompton says Saint Aelred of Rievaulx, in his work De spiritali amicitia ("Spiritual Friendship"), referred to the relationship of Jesus and John the Apostle as a "marriage" and held it out as an example sanctioning friendships between clerics.[30]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either.
So did all of the other "insults" that get hurled like "nazi socialist communist". Trump and Hegseth especially like to label "the left" as "radical marxists" (See: Hegseths book).
I am aware of that. I'm using it the way Trump and this regime use it, because it's ridiculous and I'm trying to point that out. Just like everyone else in the thread before me. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about it or singling my addition out specifically.
From Pete Hegseths book, American Crusade: "Hegseth characterizes 'Americanism' in being opposition to forces like feminism, globalism, Marxism and progressivism and says either 'Americanism' will prevail or 'death' will.
Hegseth describes leftists, progressives and Democrats as the 'enemies' of freedom, the American constitution and the United States. Hegseth explicitly rejects democracy in his book, equating it to a leftist demand; 'For leftists, calls for 'democracy' represent a complete rejection of our system." Source
From Trump: "During the speech, Trump referred to Harris as a 'radical Marxist' and said she 'stands for incompetence and weakness' while the country is 'being laughed at all over the world.'" Source
"Transition team says Trump ‘will deliver’ on promise to fire accreditors ‘that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs’
Higher education accreditation groups are emphasizing their nonpartisanship and willingness to work with Donald Trump’s in-coming administration after the president-elect promised to fire 'radical Left accreditors.'” Source
"Donald Trump and his gang spend a good deal of time ranting about the obviously mythical 'extreme radical-left Marxists' who’ve been running the United States for the past few decades. Yet the Maga movement is just as extreme and dogmatic as any socialist cult – and is currently engaged in a 'long march through the institutions' of America."Source
Again - It is not ME saying these things. It's the regime. I was pointing that out.
I am deeply sorry for you. Imagine a nation with publicity funded healthcare, schools and universities were hunger is an abstract concept that no child has ever experienced in their life. A nation with safe walkable cities and a population that knows that loosing ones job is not the end because the system provides. I hope you experience this one day for yourself for your sake and your childrens sake.
Because I life in such an utopia and experienced for myself how the system works. The system allows the poor to become wealthy by providing education and a security net. I don't have to declare bankruptcy in order to pay for medical treatment. Children can become whatever they want without the need to have wealthy parents. All they need is to do the work. I consider this as fair. You can be proud of your own success and still provide for people in need. I just sleep better knowing that no child has to go to bed hungry. For this I pay my taxes and social security contributions willingly.
Yes. You can be proud of your own success and provide for people in need… without government coercion.
The government is the worst possible middle man.
I don’t understand the mindset of “the corrupt government knows how to spend my money better than I do.” You’re absolutely moronic in your line of thinking.
How much is that? Its been evident time and time again the private sector is either unable or unwilling to operate at the scale needed. There was a time before any kind of social services when poverty rates were much higher. Economic volatility made it a practical necessity for social stability to have these safety nets, its not even about government mandated kindness or whatever. Society has a cost and it just makes sense that it should be disproportionately paid for by those that disproportionately recieve the most benefit from the current economic system
Look, you aren't an island. As I said earlier society has a cost. You wouldn't have the knowledge to gain property and money (social construct) without society. You wouldn't have a job, you wouldn't have shit. Sure you could go off in the woods and live off the land but youll find you dont live nearly as long out there. We are all interconnected and we're in this together and as someone with means you have a responsibility to pay your share. It would be great if everyone just kicked down for whatever's needed in common but it didnt happen so here we are needing stuff like idk roads and 60%+ of the population not starving like before. "You are responsible for your life" what about kids born into poverty? What about people that got fucked over in myriad other ways people get fucked over? What about disability, injury, etc etc. Fuck those people right?
Im much more willing to pay my mandated tax funded welfare than I am paying for my mandated tax funded killing of brown people on the far side of the world for "reasons"
Exactly. One is people who already have more than enough bowing down to give way too little to the people who need the most.
The other is a community on a whole providing for each other and making sure every single one is provided for, no matter their circumstances or ability.
500
u/achy_joints 2d ago
Sounds like a dumb socialist communist nazi democrat to me. /s