Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

My favorite was in the also recommended by amazon: Pounded in the Butt by Nothing and That's Okay

Nice, sounds like a sequel to Not Pounded At The Last Second Because Consent Can Be Given And Revoked At Any Moment And This Is A Wonderful Thing That’s Important To Understand

I wish this was unrelated to American Politics but hey

[MrRoboto75]

I wish this was unrelated to American Politics but hey

#MyButtToo

[Dunamisdeos]

I wish this was unrelated to American Politics but hey

#MyButtToo

Ladies and Gentlemen, the apex of Ameripol discussion.

*applause*

[Teneb]

I wish this was unrelated to American Politics but hey

#MyButtToo

Ladies and Gentlemen, the apex of Ameripol discussion.

*applause*

The first of my sig quotes is exceptionally relevant now.

Chuck Tingle truly is the hero we need.

[Max™]

It's funny as a true outsider watching people talking about religious influence in politics and then diverting back to discussion of Trump.

Trump got elected because he's so disconnected from reality that he seems convincing to some people who then believe anything he lets plop out of his turdhole.

Similarly people believed that the big orange moron would respect certain norms of presidential behavior, though it was clear very early on that he had no idea what those are.

The broad televangelist following chunk of "christians"--who care less about trying to do all that "be chill to each other" bullshit than the importance of restricting the rights and freedoms of women and to some extent brown people--all believed Trump would be on their side and nominate judges to overturn Roe v Wade, and this belief was at least partially based on reality: he doesn't actually possess the ability to give a fuck about them, but he did helpfully fill the seat McConnell stole plus the next one.

No, the problem isn't religion, it is the idea that beliefs must be respected in general which allows people to take specific beliefs and try to use them to limit and dictate actions on or by others, even those who lack said belief, and even when said belief is contradicted by observable reality.

You are welcome to your own beliefs--things you hold as true--but without some sort of evidence underlying it, that is all they are: things you feel or choose to accept.

People feel all kinds of weird shit, experience by itself is often difficult to explain to others, much less confirm.

I love grapes, I learned that raisins are made from grapes and people like them so I tried one and discovered they are little turds scraped from the rim of satans butthole, hateful and vile little things. I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would ever deliberately put one in their mouth, but I recognize that my impression of their taste is not guaranteed to be the same as what others experience, and indeed many people appear to enjoy them, so I'm happy to pass and let others have them.

It would be insane if I took my personal experience of raisins being disgusting and turned it into a belief: raisins are disgusting.
It would be more insane if I took that belief and began trying to force others to accept it and agree with me, even knowing that many people seem to enjoy them.
If I then began trying to convince people that their enjoyment of raisins is due to the little bit of satan wrapped in each of his turdlets, and that they were sinners for liking them, but I could absolve them of this soulcrime*, wouldn't it still be insane?
If I got my reformed soulcriminals** to join me in efforts to influence and elect people to public office as long as those people promised to put forward legislation to limit access to raisins, would I not be forging deeper into ever more deranged levels of insanity?

Why is it different when someone else does this with abortion or homosexual marriage or welfare? That shit isn't part of what america was founded on, couldn't find it last time I read a bible, which was admittedly years ago but I saw no "thou shalt not poke thy bro in his fanny, nor shall thou allow a seed to be prevented from coming to term, and thou shalt definitely not assist the poor or sick other than to point at the bootstraps of thy suffering kin" in there.

Some where along the way we gathered these backwards ideas like the prosperity gospel and sanctity of marriage or conception, and the cynical side of me thinks it seems kinda obvious that the only reason rich straight(-ish) dudes push this shit is to fuck over women and poor people.

These are not legitimate conversation options, if an npc tries to force you to make a decision like that you don't accept their quest and follow it, you duck out of their line of sight, remove their equipment, hand them a pouch full of poisonous herbs and laugh when they start eating them.

[smjjames]

I'd probably skip the NPC abuse bit but anyway, it seems more like a self-reinforcing feedback loop with populism added in: Evangelicals want conservative stuff empowered, Trump, wanting the Presidency, panders to that, Evangelicals fall in love, Trump, loving the adulation, wants more, and so on. Plus tapping into the whole anti-globalism backlash.

[Kagus]

Well as for the Bible saying stuff, there is a line in Leviticus about how if a man "lies with another man as he would a woman", then they both need to be killed. Just like banging a divorcee or driving a firetruck.

However, there's the argument that Christ "fulfilled" the old testament and that it's no longer relevant as a set of rules to follow, therefore including the bit about not laying with men.

And while I don't know if anything specific about abortion, they're generally pretty clear on how they feel about sperm (every one being sacred and all). Like, shit, if you pull out then you've earned yourself permanent ostracization from the community for daring to waste such precious seed.


And I can't comment about NPC interactions... I took the wig in Borderlands 2.

[Trekkin]

I'd probably skip the NPC abuse bit

Weirdly, the people using "NPC" to describe other people are typically Internet nihilist Trump supporters, who use it as a  solipsistic gloss for this perpetually offended tender misanthropy that is, I think, as core to Trump's appeal as his evangelical pandering. In much the same way latter-day racists will dismiss the achievements of people belonging to underrepresented groups as solely the result of affirmative action, the "NPC"-using crowd tends to use it like the Daily Stormer uses ironic-but-actually-earnest Nazism: the joke that everyone else is an unthinking automaton and can be ignored out of hand is used to mask and normalize the earnest belief that they are the sole arbiters of who deserves to be considered human. That is also the root of the less racist portions of their Trump hagiography: it's darkly self-affirming for them to watch Trump veer wildly away from reality and come out the far side riding this shambolic assemblage of faulty reasoning, swaggering egocentricism and ultracrepidarianism where everything's a joke until it's real and facts are whatever you can gaslight into existence before the news cycle turns over. That looks like acumen to people who have never had any.

Even if Trump weren't in favor with the evangelicals and never engaged that feedback loop, he would still be the patron god of whiny losers.

[Teneb]

Well as for the Bible saying stuff, there is a line in Leviticus about how if a man "lies with another man as he would a woman", then they both need to be killed. Just like banging a divorcee or driving a firetruck.

However, there's the argument that Christ "fulfilled" the old testament and that it's no longer relevant as a set of rules to follow, therefore including the bit about not laying with men.

And while I don't know if anything specific about abortion, they're generally pretty clear on how they feel about sperm (every one being sacred and all). Like, shit, if you pull out then you've earned yourself permanent ostracization from the community for daring to waste such precious seed.


And I can't comment about NPC interactions... I took the wig in Borderlands 2.

I am pretty sure there is one (and just one) instance of homophobia in the new testament, but I forgot which apostle said it. It ain't a quote from Jesus though, so there's that.

That said, all homophobic passages in both old and new testaments explicitly talk about homosexual men, so lesbians are fine apparently.

[Kagus]

That said, all homophobic passages in both old and new testaments explicitly talk about homosexual men, so lesbians are fine apparently.

Oh, definitely! Hell, the church didn't even acknowledge that female masturbation was a thing until several hundred years later, and as such couldn't condemn it as a sin!

So sure, you should serve your man faithfully and silently and never propose to try and teach something to a man (a quote that got me removed and blocked by a female and very evangelical former contact), but you get to have all the sex due to loopholes. And if you never have a man to begin with, no worries!

[Teneb]

That said, all homophobic passages in both old and new testaments explicitly talk about homosexual men, so lesbians are fine apparently.

Oh, definitely! Hell, the church didn't even acknowledge that female masturbation was a thing until several hundred years later, and as such couldn't condemn it as a sin!

So sure, you should serve your man faithfully and silently and never propose to try and teach something to a man (a quote that got me removed and blocked by a female and very evangelical former contact), but you get to have all the sex due to loopholes. And if you never have a man to begin with, no worries!

I am pretty sure both the cases you mentioned would count as adultery. I wonder now if it is explicitly said anywhere that marriage has to be a heterosexual affair.

[smjjames]

That said, all homophobic passages in both old and new testaments explicitly talk about homosexual men, so lesbians are fine apparently.

Oh, definitely! Hell, the church didn't even acknowledge that female masturbation was a thing until several hundred years later, and as such couldn't condemn it as a sin!

So sure, you should serve your man faithfully and silently and never propose to try and teach something to a man (a quote that got me removed and blocked by a female and very evangelical former contact), but you get to have all the sex due to loopholes. And if you never have a man to begin with, no worries!

I am pretty sure both the cases you mentioned would count as adultery. I wonder now if it is explicitly said anywhere that marriage has to be a heterosexual affair.

Kind of tangenting away from politics here (barely), but anyway...

Pretty much all of the reasonings that I've heard of that try to justify marriage as being only a heterosexual affair revolve around 'god creating only one man and one woman' (nevermind the fact that there's apparently another woman named lilith that existed at the same time in some texts).

[PTTG??]

(Plus the other pre-adamites in general.)

[Trekkin]

Pretty much all of the reasonings that I've heard of that try to justify marriage as being only a heterosexual affair revolve around 'god creating only one man and one woman' (nevermind the fact that there's apparently another woman named lilith that existed at the same time in some texts).

Technically Lilith is only mentioned in the Bible once, and as an otherwise undescribed demon (which makes sense, as they were imported from the Babylonian lilitu); her origin as having been created from the same clay and golem spell as Adam wasn't a thing in folklore until the ~7-10th century CE in the Alphabet of Ben Sira (which is non-canonical), and her subsequently leaving the Garden rather than serving her equal was added still later. Earlier versions had Lilith as something closer to what we'd recognize as a succubus, which might be why in later canon she's also described as bearing half-angel children.

Of course, if we add that to the canon of Genesis, that would mean Eve was plan C. Lilith was plan A, "go see if you're interfertile with literally any other animal" is plan B, and only after neither of those worked was the rib thing. That was evidently quite a messy breakup.

[wierd]

This totally belongs in the Spirituality and Railgun thread


To me, the whole "Adam and Eve as first people" is not really correct in a straight up "Only these people existed" sense. (I do not ascribe to dogmatic beliefs of this nature. Fossil records show quite a few early hominids of many stripes and types. Guess which one I put more faith in.)  More reasonable is to look deeper at the context.  God says "Wait, nobody is tilling the earth!" (Eg, agriculture is not a thing.)  God creates a set of humans for the purpose of doing agriculture. These are Adam and Eve. He gives them special favor.


Why do I say this?

Well--  First up, the "Nobody is tilling the earth!" is right there in Genesis 2.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Agriculture is very much a part of this early narrative, since without it, any of the things these descendants are attributed to makes no sense.  We know with certainty (thanks fossil record!) that people existed for thousands of years before inventing agriculture, or producing cities. It is only because of dogmatic beliefs that the assertion that Adam and Eve must *ahem* "Absolutely be the first people or else the sacrifice of the christ makes no sense!!". It makes things a lot less tidy and neat if there are other people in the world at this time.  However, this myth is focused on explaining why this specific group of people is special, and such-- as is the practice with basically every culture's genesis story. This story is about "These people", and not "those other people", and so-- those other people are not mentioned. Easy as that. Else, why even mention that tilling the soil bit in the first place? What does it delineate? If there are no other people at all, why bother with shining a spotlight on agriculture at all?

This is further given some weight, because later on it says that Cain was exiled to "The land of Nod" (interpreted as "land or state of wandering") in genesis 4.  Then, not just a few verses later-- WHOOP, Got a wife, had a baby, built a city, named the city after the baby.

You are left with 2 possible explanations for this.

1) (the one favored by apologists)-- Cain married one of his unnamed sisters, and because of how badly women were treated in this culture, she had no say in the matter and was exiled with him.
2) there were other people out there, cain found one of these wanderers, married her, and had kids, then built a city.

I favor choice 2.  Not only is it better supported by fossil records, (which CLEARLY show human habitation for a protracted period before the invention of agriculture), it also plays into how and why names are given to places and people in the bible.  EVERYTHING has allegorical names.  How could it be a land of wandering, if nobody is wandering in it? If one person is sent there, wouldnt it be a land of exile instead?  Why name it NOD, and not the appropriate alternative?  Also, why is Cain paranoid of being murdered out there, IF NOBODY LIVES THERE?! Too many things just do not add up for option 1 to be the preferred choice.

For starters, it takes more than just two people to build a freaking city-- Division of labor is totally a thing-- You need masons, architects, metal workers, craftsmen of various kinds--- You do not get those ex nihilo.  NOW-- this guy, who being blessed by the divine by his origin as being "made for agriculture/culture", could insert himself into a more hunter-gatherer group, and direct them in the needed divisions of labor, and thus produce a city.  Which totally makes sense-- but you do not get that from option 1, unless god also kicks a buttload of other people out of Eden.  This does not even get started with explaining where the inhabitants of such a city magically appeared from-- To be a city, you need people living in it. Not just a few either, you need quite a lot of them to make a city function. God would have to be working overtime kicking people out of Eden to have that many people on hand to build, and operate a city.  If he was doing that, it would be important to the narrative, so why no mention?

The "Those people are not relevant to the story until they interact with the chosen" angle makes it all go away. It just makes the apologists sad pandas.  I don't care if it makes them sad. It's the more sensible interpretation.

Lilith, as Trekkin states, is a much later invention, and is the result of combining the myths and legends of a contemporary (and probably older!) culture with those of this demographic, as part of a cautionary tale about the dangers of insubordinate women.