In which we post yet another ten thousand plus interesting or amusing - or neither - tweets

Ok, I'll try to keep this short and sweet [edit: I failed on both accounts].

The Old Testament (specifically Leviticus) only mentions male homosexuality, not female homosexuality. As such, lesbians are totally in the clear. Thus, homosexuality is never condemned in the Old Testament

The wording and context in Leviticus associates male homosexuality with a purity violation, as it does having sex with a menstruating woman. It is to'evah, not zimmah. You'll note that contact with impure substances (including semen, menstrual blood and especially fecal matter) make a person "unclean". That is the issue in the Old Testament in regards to male homosexuality. Male homosexuality was a purity violation, akin to eating lobster, while female homosexuality didn't even warrant a mention. By male homosexuality I specifically refer to both oral and anal sex by males, both of which are purity violations.

The New Testament is even more vague on the topic of homosexuality (male or female). The first time any translation actually condemned homosexuality was the RSV in the late 1940s (see the fairly new documentary 1946; disclaimer - I personally know one of the main people involved with that and have been used as a resource by her). The RSV later retracted their use of "homosexual" in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, but the damage was already done as it inspired many other translations. Once put out there, it's hard to put that lying deceitful bird back in its cage (not that they care, mind you).

To be more specific - in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 Paul borrows from Leviticus 20 to apparently create the term arsenokoitai ("to bed a male" would be an English approximation). Arsenokoitai was interpreted by early Christian authors to refer to abusive sexual practices (such as forced male prostitution - Romans of the time would kidnap young males, castrate them and use them as sexual toys and prostitutes). Arsenokoitai morphs into a condemnation of homosexuals in the mid 1900s for reasons that are more political than linguistic.

Evangelicals will cling to Romans in order to condemn gay males and lesbians, but when taken in context Paul is actually presenting an argument designed to reconcile Jewish and Gentile Christians. In Romans 1 Paul presents the Jewish perspective that male homosexuality is "icky", before challenging that purity violation in the subsequent chapters. In Romans 1 Paul basically says men went against nature in lusting after men and women also acted against nature (for reasons unclear). In Paul's time women having short hair or taking a dominant position to men were considered unnatural. As such, it's unclear if Paul was addressing female homosexuality or not in that passage. Either way, Paul was simply using examples that seemed to "side" with Jewish Christians before rebutting their arrogance in subsequent chapters by siding with Gentile Christians, suggesting all things are permissible. No verse outside of Romans 1 can even remotely be considered to condemn lesbians, and Romans 1 is at best highly vague on the topic.

Others use Jude to condemn homosexuality because it references Sodom. But Jude 7 is very clear (at least until 1903) that the offense of Sodom was trying to rape angels, not male homosexuality. I mean, even Ezekiel 16:48-50 explicitly states the reason Sodom was condemned and it doesn't include homosexuality (or raping angels for that matter - it focuses on gluttony, mistreating widows and orphans, etc). All English translations into the start of the 20th century correctly translated Jude's use of sarkos heteros as condemning sex with non-humans. It was only until the gay rights movement (as determined by Oscar Wilde) started that heteros sex was viewed as a condemnation of homo sex. I mean seriously, condemning gays for having heterosex is simply laughable, but typical of the stupidity and outright dishonesty of Christians - I cannot control my mocking of Christians who condemn gays for having heteros sex - these "Christians" are the perfect example of Republicans and deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. I'm sympathetic to the nice Christians in this forum, but they choose to continue to associate with extremely dishonest, despicable and disreputable people and I find it takes all my grace to be civil to them, given they provide space for these disgraceful Christians and white supremacists to breathe. I mean, how often do you see the self-identified Christians here calling out each other when they say and do extremely un-Christian things? Never?)

In short, not one single passage in the Bible condemns homosexuality in general (but that said, nor does any passage condemn rape or pedophilia - I mean seriously Christians, consider how your book of morals never speaks out against rape and pedophilia - we need to jettison the Bible onto the trash heap where it belongs; this is not the Bronze Age and we recognize that children and women should have rights, not just fetuses).

tl:dr - The passages used by "Christians" to condemn homosexuals are normally ripped from their biblical and cultural contexts and are applied inconsistently with the intent to condemn people the Bible is silent on. In my opinion, Christians need to be condemned thoroughly and relentlessly until they atone for their sins. Saying "our bad" is not good enough given the number of people whose lives have been and are still actively ruined or ended because of blatant Christian dishonesty and bigotry. They need to atone for their sins against us. These people are deplorable and immoral.

 

My point is that trying to look at abortion with a moral component is bad and is one of many ways to how we got to the current state of abortion rights. The last time the US passed a law with a moral component, we got Prohibition. And that didn't go so well.

As for bucket lists, Smurfquake addressed it, but the anti-abortion movement always viewed abortion as a way out for bad choices. And it's why I always get annoyed whenever people bring "morality" into it.

 

I think you all are using different definitions for "moral".

 

But morality is the original basis for many if not most laws, from murder to theft. What you seem to have a problem with are issues of a grayer area like abortion or substance use, where there’s no general societal agreement and competing moralities are attempting to legislate according to their own assumptions.

So abortion is always going to be a moral issue on some level because you have to make a choice as to when that cluster of cells becomes a human being. Since neither science nor spirituality give us a firm answer it’s up to us to determine that moral issue ourselves. For somebody who believes an early term fetus is a full-fledged human being it’s a hard pill to swallow to allow anybody to take that life. And thus here we are.

 

Competing worldviews based on science and religion. Competing worldviews have competing moralities.

 

I will never accept that Christians think life is sacred or precious until they start actively supporting the inherent dignity and humanity of LGBT+ people. Until they do, they are nothing but hypocritical bigots. I mean seriously, in the last day I have been subjected to superdave and marek going off on trans people yet again, and the other self-proclaimed Christians here have stayed silent.

Do not talk about life being sacred until you support our lives! Staying silent is not an option you hypocrits. For once follow Jesus, who you think is your deity.

 

The people arguing this on a moral level aren't doctors and should have no business opining about it. Nor are they qualified medical professionals. That's the problem.

 

But doctors can’t answer the question either, they can’t tell you exactly when an individual human life worthy of protection begins. I basically agree with you that it should be between doctor and patient, but we shouldn’t thus pretend there isn’t a personal moral or spiritual dimension to the issue.

 

The Civil Rights Acts had a moral component. The ACA has a moral component.

 

We rock Air Jordans, not Aryan Jordans https://t.co/J569X6QoFE

— I Smoked J.D. Vance's Couch (@BlackKnight10k) February 22, 2024

 

pic.twitter.com/htg0IIGW7H

— Kyle (@GodzillaKyle) February 22, 2024

 

Lol, "our jobs"? What is your job exactly? You think sitting in an unearned opinion sinecure & cranking out glib opinions that reinforce the priors of the powerful is threatening to the kids? You think that's what bothers them?

— David Roberts (@drvolts) February 22, 2024

 

I’ve always been fond of Justice Thomas, jurisprudentially and personally. But I can’t see how it’s possible that he hasn’t committed a whole slew of violations of federal criminal law. To suggest otherwise just doesn’t compute. https://t.co/pDX42x26vx

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) February 22, 2024

 

Court documents related to a recent police raid suggest that Bolsonaro personally edited a decree that would have overturned election results & imprisoned a Supreme Court justice; a general loyal to the president confirmed he would provide the troops needed to carry out the coup

— Oliver Stuenkel 🇧🇷 (@OliverStuenkel) February 21, 2024

One of Joe Biden’s most significant foreign-policy achievements to date remains curiously overlooked. Mounting evidence suggests the US government was crucial to keep pro-Bolsonaro generals at bay in 2022 when Brazil's democracy was on the brink 🧵👇

— Oliver Stuenkel 🇧🇷 (@OliverStuenkel) February 21, 2024

 

this you? https://t.co/YTp14XRSku pic.twitter.com/e3FPIaxaUt

— Steve Marmel (@Marmel) February 22, 2024

 

lol me too pic.twitter.com/zjyP7bHcPf

— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) February 22, 2024

 

pic.twitter.com/9T6MNneA8E

— mike luckovich (@mluckovichajc) February 21, 2024

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Boards of @CPAC and CPAC Foundation:

We condemn the police state tactics of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Lula da Silva, and Joe Biden and all of their attempts to silence, legally harass, and imprison their main political opponents. These are election…

— Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) February 22, 2024

 

Was there anything about Alexander Smirnov in the BINDERS of Russian Espionage intelligence that Mark Meadows illegally stole from the White House when Trump left office?

And where are the binders now?!?

— Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) February 22, 2024

 

DOJ can do what??

And most rational people don't hold anything Clarence does with any regard. He's been a turnip on the court, is married to a loonytune & has been a hardcore wing nut since Day 1. George still on wrong team

 

Smirnoff is back in jail....

“Lawyers for Alexander Smirnov, the former FBI informant charged with feeding the bureau false corruption allegations against Joe Biden, say he’s been re-arrested just days after a magistrate judge in Las Vegas ordered him released from pretrial custody,” Politico reports.

 

When she was pressed on it she pretty much admitted it and that she was trying to get a return on her investments.

DeVos family needs to shut up and stay in West Michigan. Oh, and she pushed right to work in Michigan.