FuglyDuck

Typically, too much ‘nip leads to vomiting in someone’s shoes.

Republicans love pedophiles.

Meh. Just make the ritual apology and everything will be alright.

They’re not. They’re speaking on behalf of the gooberment, which is the defendant.

The plaintiffs are a watchdog organization that focuses on public corruption.

Narrator’s voice: “I really wish people would stop tagging me in all this shit. I mean everyone knows Trump is full of shit! What do you mean we’re- oh shit. The mic is hot. Uh. Crap. Uhm. Okay folks. Here it is. Narrator’s voice: He lied.”

We know almost nothing about Magdalen, we neither know if she was or was not married, or a widow, neither do we know if she had a leadership role at all.

Remember “disciple” wasn’t a special position- it was just anyone who follows another. A disciple of Jesus was any of the hundreds or thousands. The 12 disciples and later 12 apostles were the leaders after Jesus.

As for Paul’s exhortation to unmarried women… how many women do you think never married?

Remember. They’re to obey their fathers. Who would be arranging marriages well before they reached marital age.

And then they’re married, they’re to obey their husbands. young girls were not making these decisions. Their parents were.

There’s still no verse where Paul says to obey women in the same way that women are to obey men. I’m sorry. Husbands are to obey wives in the same way wives are to obey husbands.

None.

And you understand why Paul was like that, right? They thought Armageddon was coming like in a year or two. Or sooner. Any day, really. (He just stopped for some milk!)

They thought there was no point in building a stable life because Jesus would come back do all the messianic stuff he failed to do the first time and then everything would be amazing.

Given that we’re still waiting, it’s probably a good thing for the early church they mostly ignored that.

If you can’t see why an eternal and unending punishment is not just, I really hope you don’t have kids.

Especially because Jesus tells you to stone them when they get into the teenage-angsty phase. (Or else)

Also don’t wear blended fabrics. (Or else)

Don’t eat the wrong kind of food. (Or else.)

Mutilate the dicks of your infant sons. (Or else.)

If a punishment doesn’t fit the crime, the punishment is unjust. And eternal torment cannot eve or be appropriate for a finite crime.

yeah. he tells children to submit to parents, too.

At no point does Paul tell men to submit to women in the same way that he tells women to submit to men. Neither does he tell parents to submit to children.

Also there were very few women who were unmarried, culturally, at that time, the role of women were to mary and attend to their husband's house and raise their children. No where does he contradict that.

But the truth, really, is that the English translation is a translation of a translation of old English of a translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation and it might even go beyond all that. It could have been a story ripped off of another story, etc.

I just want to touch on this... because for most modern translations, this is not the truth. As an example, the NSRVue is effectively based three sources:

• Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
• The Septuagint
• the UBS greek new testament.

The BHS is a sort of compendium of all the old manuscripts and fragments more or less patched together into a cohesive edition. It's not a translation, it's still in the original Hebrew, and is roughly consistent.

The Septuagint is used for the christian apocrypha because we don't have original-language manuscripts for them... which is one of the reasons they're considered apocryphal (another being that they're sometimes just batshit crazy)

The NT was originally written in Koine Greek, and the UBS is the gold standard for those original manuscripts. So they use that. (i believe we're on the sixth update to that? things change as we find more manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts.)

If you pull out whatever bible you use, it should have an introduction explaining what the original materials were found, choices were made in that selection, and the translation philosophy they used to translate it. for the NRSVue, you can find that here, even though it's revision of the NRSV (which I can't find the intro to, grrr.) You'll also note they tell you who comissioned it, who over saw it, and how the editorial process went. (IIRC, there's resources where you can see the arguments for changes, but that could be for a different version and the reasoning for it, or against it.)

While there are old translations that don't always use good translation philosophies... modern translations have a great deal more scrutiny and reliability. They're still going to be updating and improving those translations- in part because we're still finding new manuscripts, and also in part because languages are constantly changing. As an example, when Isaiah was translated into the Septuagint, the greek word 'Parthenos' just meant 'young woman'. by the time the authors of mathew were rummaging around looking for things they can wedge jesus into... 'parthenos' became 'virgin'. We have the same kind of shifting use of language, too.

Generally, most modern translations are going to be reasonable to just trust that when they translate the words of Jesus, the meaning isn't somehow being perverted. as I side note, I'm just using NRSVue as the example because it's what I generally use myself.

But the core principle is, like I said, to have empathy and to be nice to each other. This has always been the message.

And then there's the "or else". which kinda sours me on the "be nice" part. Like. mat 25:31-46. On the surface, this sounds cool right? But...Jesus is an all powerful and all knowing being (at least according to the trinitarian view,) who absoultely could have, when he created the world, created the world in such a way where it was unnecessary because destitute people simply don't exist. Or baring that for some bullshit reason, absolutely could have fed everyone and clothed everyone and gave everyone shelter... and didn't.

and in that same passage, Jesus is saying that he will throw people who may or may not have the capacity to do so, into the eternal torture of hell, for not doing the same thing he did not do, but- according to himself- had the power to do.

People are people, and everyone is some sort of chaotic mix of good and bad tendencies. We're complicated like that. I'm not saying Jesus is all-evil. I suspect he was- mostly- just a typical guy for his time and place. the 'mostly' is because pharisees felt that maybe we shouldn't stone teenagers for being, you know, typical angsty teenagers and he was. (he's referencing Deut 21:18-20 here. My opinion of him is that he was an iron-age fundamentalist trying to bring back a bronze-age legal code. and there's tons of baggage there that we just don't talk about.

you wanna get into even more cursed territory?

Trinitarian Christians- which is the vast majority of Christians- believe Jesus is and always has been god. So Jesus raped Mary.

I don't think they thought the whole trinity thing through.

So if a husband were to say, "Baby, I'd like it if you stopped working as an accountant so that you could suck my dick more," ... and she's like "No," ... is she disobeying her husband?

The answer is yes. and I'm a little pissed that you don't see that.

I'm saying it's unsurprising that christian nationalism crops up because Jesus- the figure head and literal christian god claimed to be a judean monarch and was himself authoritarian in nature.

That there's other people who chose to ignore that doesn't mean I'm wrong about Jesus saying some abhorent shit.

If you ignore all the awful shit Hitler said, you'll find there's a few times he talked about communal welfare and social responsibility in a way that isn't entirely offensive. The difference here is that we don't literally ignore all the awful shit Hitler said and recognize him as an utterly vile example of human awfulness.

For example, In Mark 7 and Mathew 15, Jesus criticizes the pharisees for not stoning disobedient children. Do you think it's appropriate to kill children who disobey their parents?