Pardon, but your tie is not symmetrical.

carpenter's boy

do you guys think jesus, the son of a carpenter, smelt the wood of the cross & temporarily thought of home

This is killing me

love david and goliath being like one of the main bible stories for kids. like yeah you might be small but with god on your side you can kill someone with a rock

Oh so when golden boy David does it, he’s heroic and a man after God’s own heart, but when I, CAIN-

God: Teenagers, as part of their growing independence and ability to take care of themselves, will tend to be night owls, allowing parents to care for younger children in the morning.

Humans: So you're saying that teenagers are lazy and we need to beat them to make them responsible adults.

God: No, this is a good thing! Now you have someone to watch over your tribes and homes while the rest of you sleep!

Modern society: If you can't operate during the day like everyone else, you're useless to us.

silly pucci redraw

hey uhhh but fr the concept of fallen angels existing but risen demons being an impossibility is kind of a great summary of sin in christianity

holy shit

no, no, come back here and tell me how stupid it is to talk about how the power dynamics inherent to christianity are built upon the rhetoric that failure is unavoidable and there is never enough you can do to make up for it

The prev tags

[ID: tiktok with text reading “vibrators are wrong and unnatural, the bible said adam and eve not florence and the machine.” / end ID]

[tweet from @cristinameagan_ says 

that quote like “god gave us transness for the same reason he made grapes but not wine; yeast but no loaves — so we may partake in the divine act of creation”

- Julian K. Jarboe, quoted in Something That May Shock and Discredit You by Daniel M. Lavery

[ID: a screenshot of black text on white background:

Going. As my friend Julian puts it, only half winkingly: "God blessed me by making me transsexual for the same reason God made wheat but not bread and fruit but not wine, so that humanity might share in the act of creation." /end ID].

Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012…

Good post OP

Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty.

WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing:

Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers:

Much appreciated.

I love when scholarship and history debunks bullshit

…I sadly have more bullshit to report.

“removed for violating guidelines”, EVERY screenshot.

…goddamnit

Let’s try this again

I am horrified that @prismatic-bell keeps getting censored + this info is gold.

World Heritage Post

For those who might be wondering, what about the new testament:

The word arsenokotai that appears in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy that modern translations claim means homosexuals is a word Paul made up that is believed to be a reference to Leviticus in the Septuagint, the Greek version of Hebrew scriptures, so this explanation also applies to those verses.

Romans is also a highly disturbing mistranslation that was probably the result of an anti gay agenda. The original Greek doesn’t have any sexual connotations to it. For example, the phrase translated as “natural sexual relations” is actually more accurately translated as “natural role”. Paul was not one to shy away from explicit sexual language when condemning sexual sin, but in this passage he doesn’t use any of those words. He uses words that anywhere else in ancient Greek literature don’t have any sexual connotations at all. You’d really have to have sex on the brain to look at those words and translate them as sexual terms. It’s not entirely clear what he was trying to say in this passage, but it’s not about homosexuality.

[ID 1-4: several, mostly black and white comics showing Jesus talking to homophobic and/or racist “Christians”.

The first, four panels show a protesting white man, holding a sign that says “homophobic slur!” and he’s wearing a shirt, saying “westboro baptist church”. The man’s screaming: “God hates f-” A hand appears and grabs him by the ear. Surprised the man says: “-wha!?” He recognizes the person who interrupted him, his eyes become big and shiny, as he whispers: “Jesus”. Jesus, only visible from the nose upwards, is a dark skinned, bearded man, wearing a white robe and dark shawl. He says: “Listen here, my child.” He leans close to the man’s ear: “Your actions disgust me.”

Panel five to seven show another white man, screaming: “Don’t you get it? Homosexuality is a sin! God condemns you all!!” Someone offscreen says: “Brian,” interuppting him. Brian turns around, a questioning look on his face. Behind him stands Jesus, now completely visible. He’s wearing sunglasses, a halo around his forhead. He’s holding a sign that says “Love is love” and his shawl is now in the colors of the rainbow. He says: “We need to have a talk.”

Panel eight to nine, shows someone reading a newspaper. The headline reads: “Radical Christians celebrate the bombing of islamic temple”. The person lowers the newspaper. It’s Jesus and he looks pissed as he says: “I didn’t die on a cross for this BS.”

Panel ten to eleven show an angry white woman. She’s holding up an open bible, saying: “It says right here that homosexuality is a sin.” Jesus looks at her, clearly annoyed, massaging his temples. He says: “For the last time, Pam, that book is over 2,000 years old.”

In one pane of each comic is the signature of the artist: “©ARTBYMOGA”. /end ID].

[ID 5-11: screenshots of a Tumblr post but each image only shows the “This content has been removed for violating Tumblr’s Community Guidelines” banner. /end ID].

[ID 12: a screnshot of prismatic-bell’s answer: “Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say "forbidden.” Here’s the thing:“ the rest of the answer is gone. Underneath is a reblog by "the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99”, saying: “Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @ prismati-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Yet underneath are, as described, only the "This content has been removed for violating Tumblr’s Community Guidelines” banners. /end ID].

[ID 13-17: another set of screenshots of “prismatic-bell” ’s answer, this time they show up:

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Levitivus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing:

1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn't… wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we…sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.” Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog - its saying you shouldn’t have sex with anohter man in the Temple as a sacrifice.

2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which whas a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time.

3) Herbrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isnt the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural and also female.)

One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive - that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, its worth mentioning that in modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.”

Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening.

Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In the light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point - “see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” of this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not like with a boy,” then its pretty clearly “my duded, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.”

4) Because of the grammar i mentioned in #3, it is also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldnt have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like - that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “Don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”

5) And as on offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most like to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was a slave or free, male or female, and so on - thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than a man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter could carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy)

So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time.”

(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) /end ID].

The above image description of the last set of screeenshots was made possibly by a reblog by @gatorademachinegun who typed all of this into a google docs document (I found this reblog somewhere in the notes while searching for a complete image description. Thanks for that!!!)

A link to the google docs document.

And, as if that post isn't long enough already (sadly it's not possible to reblog it at a much earlier point as many of the reblogs got deleted by now), another good addition:

[ID: a screenshot of a reblog by "dragonskilnstudio":

For those who might be wondering, what about the new testament:

The word arsenokotai that appears in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy that modern translations claim means homosexuals is a word Paul made up that is believed to be a reference to Leviticus in the Septuagint, the Greek version of Hebrew scriptures, so this explanation also applies to those verses.

Romans is also a highly disturbing mistranslation that was probably the result of an anti gay agenda. The original Greek doesn’t have any sexual connotations to it. For example, the phrase translated as “natural sexual relations” is actually more accurately translated as “natural role”. Paul was not one to shy away from explicit sexual language when condemning sexual sin, but in this passage he doesn’t use any of those words. He uses words that anywhere else in ancient Greek literature don’t have any sexual connotations at all. You’d really have to have sex on the brain to look at those words and translate them as sexual terms. It’s not entirely clear what he was trying to say in this passage, but it’s not about homosexuality. /end ID].

Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012…

Good post OP

Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty.

WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing:

Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers:

Much appreciated.

I love when scholarship and history debunks bullshit

…I sadly have more bullshit to report.

“removed for violating guidelines”, EVERY screenshot.

…goddamnit

Let’s try this again

I am horrified that @prismatic-bell keeps getting censored + this info is gold.

World Heritage Post

For those who might be wondering, what about the new testament:

The word arsenokotai that appears in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy that modern translations claim means homosexuals is a word Paul made up that is believed to be a reference to Leviticus in the Septuagint, the Greek version of Hebrew scriptures, so this explanation also applies to those verses.

Romans is also a highly disturbing mistranslation that was probably the result of an anti gay agenda. The original Greek doesn’t have any sexual connotations to it. For example, the phrase translated as “natural sexual relations” is actually more accurately translated as “natural role”. Paul was not one to shy away from explicit sexual language when condemning sexual sin, but in this passage he doesn’t use any of those words. He uses words that anywhere else in ancient Greek literature don’t have any sexual connotations at all. You’d really have to have sex on the brain to look at those words and translate them as sexual terms. It’s not entirely clear what he was trying to say in this passage, but it’s not about homosexuality.

[ID 1-4: several, mostly black and white comics showing Jesus talking to homophobic and/or racist "Christians".

The first, four panels show a protesting white man, holding a sign that says "homophobic slur!" and he's wearing a shirt, saying "westboro baptist church". The man's screaming: "God hates f-" A hand appears and grabs him by the ear. Surprised the man says: "-wha!?" He recognizes the person who interrupted him, his eyes become big and shiny, as he whispers: "Jesus". Jesus, only visible from the nose upwards, is a dark skinned, bearded man, wearing a white robe and dark shawl. He says: "Listen here, my child." He leans close to the man's ear: "Your actions disgust me."

Panel five to seven show another white man, screaming: "Don't you get it? Homosexuality is a sin! God condemns you all!!" Someone offscreen says: "Brian," interuppting him. Brian turns around, a questioning look on his face. Behind him stands Jesus, now completely visible. He's wearing sunglasses, a halo around his forhead. He's holding a sign that says "Love is love" and his shawl is now in the colors of the rainbow. He says: "We need to have a talk."

Panel eight to nine, shows someone reading a newspaper. The headline reads: "Radical Christians celebrate the bombing of islamic temple". The person lowers the newspaper. It's Jesus and he looks pissed as he says: "I didn't die on a cross for this BS."

Panel ten to eleven show an angry white woman. She's holding up an open bible, saying: "It says right here that homosexuality is a sin." Jesus looks at her, clearly annoyed, massaging his temples. He says: "For the last time, Pam, that book is over 2,000 years old."

In one pane of each comic is the signature of the artist: "©ARTBYMOGA". /end ID].

[ID 5-11: screenshots of a Tumblr post but each image only shows the "This content has been removed for violating Tumblr's Community Guidelines" banner. /end ID].

[ID 12: a screnshot of prismatic-bell's answer: "Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say "forbidden." Here's the thing:" the rest of the answer is gone. Underneath is a reblog by "the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99", saying: "Apparently tumblr mobile doesn't want to show @ prismati-bell 's long and in-depth essay, so here's the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Yet underneath are, as described, only the "This content has been removed for violating Tumblr's Community Guidelines" banners. /end ID].

[ID 13-17: another set of screenshots of "prismatic-bell" 's answer, this time they show up:

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Levitivus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing:

1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn't… wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we...sort of … don't know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.” Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog - its saying you shouldn’t have sex with anohter man in the Temple as a sacrifice.

2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which whas a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time.

3) Herbrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isnt the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural and also female.)

One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive - that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, its worth mentioning that in modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.”

Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening.

Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In the light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point - “see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” of this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not like with a boy,” then its pretty clearly “my duded, my fellows, my lads, don't be fucking pedophiles.”

4) Because of the grammar i mentioned in #3, it is also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldnt have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman's bed was sort of like - that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you're violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “Don't sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”

5) And as on offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most like to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was a slave or free, male or female, and so on - thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than a man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter could carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy)

So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time.”

(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) /end ID].

The above image description of the last set of screeenshots was made possibly by a reblog by @gatorademachinegun who typed all of this into a google docs document (I found this reblog somewhere in the notes while searching for a complete image description. Thanks for that!!!)

A link to the google docs document.

Do you think Jesus ever got many carpenter requests after he started preaching? Like did anyone ever go up to him and be like; "My Lord! My Lord!" And the disciples are all: "The Master won't do anymore miracles today." But obviously Jesus is like; "Yes, my child?" And they just ask what his basic rate is to fix their door.

No one talks enough about the fact that Jesus had a day job.

He repaired the relationship between humanity and god, he also repaired the table in his friend Mary's house cuz it wobbled too much.

“Jesus!”

“How can I help you my child?”

“So the Chair I got from you and your dad is great, but I tripped over it and it broke, I was hoping you could fix it?”

“Go home and be at peace, your chair is fixed.”

“Lord, did you really just use a miracle to fix his chair?”

“Luke my son, it was still under warranty.”

“honey that guy who made our table got crucified” 

i am totally here for these Bonkers But Technically Canon Compliant religion posts

t shirt that says YOU DONT UNDERSTAND MY RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD and the back says NEITHER DO I

lol this slaps

HOLD BABY JESUS RANSOM UNTIL ST. ANTHONY RETURNS YOUR FREAKING KEYS

What to do when you misplaced baby Jesus?

Asking for a friend

and the  Evangelical Fundie Calvinist Prots who eat that up are nothing but heretics!

[Image ID/ Tweet from Shane Claiborne (@/ ShaneClaiborne) reading: I can’t imagine Jesus waving an American flag any more than I can imagine him wearing a “God bless Rome” shirt. 

Patriotism is too small. 

Our Bible doesn’t say “For God so loved America”… 

it says “For God so loved the world.” 

America First is a theological heresy. /End ID]

Deposition, 1901, Viktor Vasnetsov