jk I'm all about that bread @danishcookies@computerfairi.es

@danishcookies denmark? more like southern scania

anyway a summary is that while the still largely patriarchal and homophobic culture that informs most translations of the bible is very much wrong about whether or not LGBT individuals are welcome in the kingdom of god, it does appear that the translations of the bible don't seem to allow for the possibility of legitimate sex work while still being able to be a devout christian. also, unsurprisingly, the not-pagan thing condemns pagan actions

anyway the bible is old and confusing and i'm tired

in other words: Gay Panic Ruined the Bible

And men who worked to make themselves more attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women, were called effeminate.” They saw all pleasure-seeking men as effeminate, whomever they sought pleasure with. In first-century Roman terms, most pro-wrestlers in the WWF (manly men by our definitions) would be considered effeminate, because of their apparent interest in fancy, hyper-masculine costumes and posturing.

Paul wasn’t condemning men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to be manly or womanly was quite different from today. First-century Romans didn’t think of effeminacy as merely a homosexual trait. In that culture, any man who was more interested in pleasure than in duty was considered to be woman-like.

Patriarchy: Ruining Things Since Before Jesus!

In the patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and more vain. Thus, men who ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as “effeminate.”

And, as other Scriptures affirm, it is more generally a condemnation of the mistreatment of those who are most vulnerable, including strangers. It is ironic that the story of Sodom is now used by Christians to justify hatred toward another vulnerable group — gay people.

Remember, the words of 1 Corinthians 11 also appear to require long hair and head coverings for all women in all circumstances. But, because we have studied the context, we know that is not what was meant. A text taken out of context is pretext. Let’s apply the same common-sense rule here.

Some people may object, saying, “But if you ignore the context and just read the words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in black and white, they appear to prohibit all sex between men, not just sex in pagan rituals.” But that is the whole point: The meaning of words depends on context.

Scripture is not what keeps them from accepting their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters; only prejudice does. For if there were some authentic scriptural basis for excluding the Ethiopian eunuch because of the real possibility he was homosexual, we can be sure that Philip, a man who followed God even when God led him into the wilderness, would have been quick to pursue it.

#RiseUp4Rojava – Call for global days of action on 27 and 28 January 2019 - #Twitterkurds #Rojava Read here --> https://enoughisenough14.org/2019/01/06/riseup4rojava-call-for-global-days-of-action-on-27-and-28-january-2019/

TIL that the stage version of “Yentl” was much more queer than the film adaptation, and that we can blame this entirely on Barbara Streisand as she had full creative control of the movie.

@gasp Nope, you're totally correct.

at least in the united states, the rule of law is first and foremost a vehicle for the material and cultural genocide of low-income communities and communities of color.

change my fucking mind.

thesis: link is trans
antithesis: ghirahim is trans
synthesis: ghirahim is a wlw

"content warning, food" i shout before serving up an open-faced knuckle sandwich! 🤜 🥪 💥

valid to fuck junkrat!