Veraxus

They know this, that's why their strategy is now "full blown fascism". If they can't win democratically, then they will ignore, undermine, and destroy democracy to get what they want; which is exclusive control of all the money and all the power.

The wild thing is that scripture supports abortion and even demands it in some cases. These people don't know their own scripture and they don't care about scripture... they care about what the loud, dramatic white man told them on stage last Sunday. Nothing more, nothing less.

Republicans: "Stop calling us fascist!"

Then stop meeting the literal definition of it.

Unfortunately, the DNC has a real problem with extreme far-right infiltrators who wear the D but only actively support fascist GOP policies and agendas.

There is definitely a giant radioactive lizard emerging at that location.

You are thinking of beef. The Rich are full of bacteria and parasites and should be thoroughly cooked before consuming.

Kagi is awesome. I strongly recommend giving them a try.

Nope. I’ve written about this at length, as it’s one of many things in scripture that requires a significant amount ignorance and/or bad faith to mistranslate as “gay is bad”.

In Leviticus there is a part of a laundry list of household incest laws that reads “A man shall not lay with a male as with a woman.” The phrasing is extremely specific and particular. Why “male” and not just “man”? Why is “as with a woman” added when the command would be perfectly clear without it? What does that addition mean? Why is there no mention of women and women?

This is easy: this command was never intended for us (gentiles living thousands of years later in dramatically cultures), so we can easily miss a massive amount of important context. In the middle east thousands of years ago, if you - a man - wanted a bride or a concubine, you BOUGHT one. You owned her. If you already owned a female slave, you could freely rape her or force her into marriage or concubinage. The prohibition is not a blanket statement on consensual equal gay relationships, it was about not being allowed to rape your male chattel slaves, who had more inherent rights than the female ones.

It’s also important to point out that these laws were handed only to the Israelites who had left Egypt and wandered the desert, ostensibly (according to YHWY, per the same scripture) to guarantee the tribes survival until they could establish a new homeland.

Paul also writes about this once, using a greek colloquial term that translates literally to “male-bedders”, making it parallel to Leviticus in terms of meaning. This appears to be condemnation of pederasty as well, not a condemnation of consensual equal gay relationships.

And yes, the historical circumstances surrounding all that is no heinous to any modern audience… but for different reasons than modern Xtians paint.

P.S. This is not a defense of many awful, gut-churning stories in scripture - merely an explanation of this one specific topic within it’s own social, cultural, and historic context and scope.

And coffee. And avocado toast. And wokeness.