These aren’t even ads. They’re community announcements. There’s no ad on Wikipedia.

Soapy balls are boring. I Iove my tiddies soapy and my balls dirty.

UK didn’t exist yet.

Events like that, which spans on different continents and different centuries absolutely don’t have a common cause or purpose. It’s easy to read in them confirmations of one’s own preconceptions…

And Rohan will answer. Muster the Rohirrim.

I’m not speaking only about the literary context, but also the historical context. When this text was written, this was the social norm.

Our work, as people reading these texts 2000 years later, is to determine what was the intention of the author. Of course if someone was saying these words today, he would be a chauvinist asshole. And people repeating that today are chauvinist assholes. There’s no excuse for them. But we don’t judge people from the past with our moral compass. But to find the intention of this author needs time and reflection, one can’t just copy-past the words in a Facebook or Lemmy thread. (Most) Evangelicals and (some) atheists walk hand in hand sprouting simplistic half-truth and feel better than everyone else for that.

Spoiler alert: the Bible doesn’t condemn the lgbt communities, and only people who lack context and read new translations or poorly translated version use their Bible to justify their shitty world views.

I, a very active Christian with responsibilities in my church, and who studied theology in university, 100% agree with that. My church help migrants, marries homosexuals, and one of my friends is a trans pastor in my church.

My personal experience is thus very different from yours.

I never said he wasn’t a pastor. I said he wouldn’t be a good one…

No, the point they tried to make was that understanding the Bible makes you atheist. But understanding the Bible means understanding the history of its redaction and its context. If you don’t contextualize, you understood nothing.

And no, a good pastor never use stuff out of context in service. If mine did, I would change of church.

Citing a verse without any context proves that you, in fact, don’t understand the Bible. At best it’s an argument against Evangelicalism, but in no way against Christianity or for atheism.

I didn’t find this exact image, but this signature is Daniel Kanhai’s.

I used LaTeX to typeset it, so it’s okay.

Ask Polanski.

I still have intestinal troubles from my time in PhD. And I don’t even use the title…

Three possibilities :

• the DOE staff is Nazi;
• the DOE is uneducated, which is kind of ironic;
• both.

None of these possibilities looks good.

What if Jesus came to show who God actually is?

I never boxed.

I feel more jealousy than when I found my wife in my best friend’s bed.