• chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      9 days ago

      Iirc there is a hypothesis in biblical interpretation that the Hebrew word for “feet” sometimes functions as a euphemism for dick. Though that wouldn’t apply to the Greek scriptures.

      • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 days ago

        That doesn’t stop theologians for claiming “aramaisms” as a convenient excuse for parts of the Bible that are theologically inconvenient. The classic example is the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is seemingly contradicted by the Gospels’ many references to Jesus having brothers. Catholic theologians claim that the term brothers actually refers to cousins because in Aramaic the term for brothers can mean cousins in some contexts even though the Greek term is not ambiguous. This type of mix up doesn’t seem to occur outside of the Gospels but that doesn’t stop people from claiming it.

  • potoooooooo ☑️@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    9 days ago

    I’m disappointed there’s nobody here so far proudly standing and saying, “ASS, YOU FOOLS!” So I’m stepping forward. Boobs are wonderful, but dat aaassss doe.

      • ArnaulttheGrim@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 days ago

        Joke regarding the nature of at least catholicism that is premised here in the meme. The concept that, St Thomas Aquinas, who is arguably one of the more acclaimed theologians in the catholic church post Council of Nicea.

        He frequently establishes premises that sex in and of itself is not sinful, however any take on sex that is for the purposes of pleasure/gratification is sinful and should be shunned. Thereby one could state that being fully human and also divine, Christ was not immune to but would not have pursued the concepts of pleasure or deriving pleasure through sex.

        So the posit Im making is a joke within the joke. Basically, the position is one wherein this guy didnt read that guy which refuted the point. Hardy-har-har.

        It should be noted, more modern versions of catholicism dont really follow these principles any longer on the premise that sex between a man and wife is good because it can result in conception and they experience their love which gets them closer to god’s love (not my personal view, more parroting some of the more modern beliefs). Additional note, StTA also kinda eludes to this but in a round about way.

    • zout@fedia.io
      0·
      10 days ago

      Isn’t that because women weren’t allowed in? I mean, I once saw a documentary about that time and place where it was shown women would pretend to be male and wear false beards so they could attend a stoning.

      • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        0·
        10 days ago

        Yes, no, it’s complicated. Early Christianity did push back against some masculine norms of the time. For example, Jesus saying that you should only divorce in cases of cheating was a help for women at the time. Men were divorcing their wives for whatever reason and leaving them destitute. However, now it’s flipped around by fundamentalist churches to say that’s the rule for all time, and that means women can’t leave an abusive husband. So what was intended as help for women is now a harm.

        1 Corinthians 14:34,35 (“women should remain silent in churches”) was probably stuck in there later on. The passage around it reads more naturally without it. From verse 26 on, it has an egalitarian outlook in saying that anyone who feels inspired should be allowed to stand up and speak their mind until someone else has an inspiration. Then it hits verse 34, and suddenly it’s “but not women”.

        And it’s interesting that a fundamentalist church might not approve women to even speak in church, citing this scripture as the reason, but not running their service in any other way that passage says.

          • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            10 days ago

            Still interesting though, having grown up in that environment, hearing about how it was shaped over time and questioning some of the batshit crazy bits is very useful.

            I’m not in this comment thread elsewhere, just found the analysis useful

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 days ago

      boobs…or ass…

      just because you hate to eat pumpkin pie doesn’t mean you don’t understand what your preference is between with and without whipped cream.

        • Wolf@lemmy.today
          0·
          9 days ago

          I have no clue how to even compare whipped cream vs no whipped cream.

          Do you like whipped cream?

          • lemsip@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            9 days ago

            Sure, but I wouldn’t put it on my vegetables.
            Can’t say if I’d like it on pumpkin pie without trying pumpkin pie.

            (I do actually want to try pumpkin pie, but I’ve never seen one before)

            • Wolf@lemmy.today
              0·
              8 days ago

              Where are you from if you don’t mind me asking?

              Pumpkin Pie is one of those things that you just have to experience to know if you like it. If you do try it I highly recommend it with Whipped Cream. Chances are if you like whipped cream than you will like the combo.

              • lemsip@sh.itjust.works
                0·
                7 days ago

                Australia. We don’t even sell canned pumpkin here, so I’d have to make one completely from scratch. Not opposed to doing that one day though, just to see what the fuss is about.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
            0·
            9 days ago

            I don’t think so? But I assume the same for the pie itself. And who knows how it would be together (most people, but not me) - some things are bad by themselves but good with certain things. And if the option is for a smaller piece with whipped cream, that might be less bad than a full sized piece without cream.

            • Wolf@lemmy.today
              0·
              8 days ago

              I don’t think so?

              You’ve never tried it or you just aren’t sure if you liked it?

              But I assume the same for the pie itself.

              You never know, some things don’t sound like they would be good but then you try them anyway and it turns out to be fantastic. There are very few things I will not at least try once before deciding its not for me. Hell sometimes I’ll try a food I’ve already tried once before and didn’t like it, and occasionally I am pleasantly surprised

              And if the option is for a smaller piece with whipped cream, that might be less bad than a full sized piece without cream.

              I believe that is what GreenKnight23 was getting at. Most people know whether or not they like whipped cream. If you did like it and were ‘forced’ to try a slice of pumpkin pie- well at minimum you will get something you do like along with something you don’t like. If you don’t like whipped cream, then you wouldn’t want it on your pumpkin pie slice because then you could possibly be eating two things you didn’t like.

              • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
                0·
                8 days ago

                You’ve never tried it or you just aren’t sure if you liked it?

                Pretty certain I did as a child, but not if even then I considered it a neutral or a negative? Certainly wasn’t something I had a positive opinion of.

                You never know, some things don’t sound like they would be good but then you try them anyway and it turns out to be fantastic. There are very few things I will not at least try once before deciding its not for me. Hell sometimes I’ll try a food I’ve already tried once before and didn’t like it, and occasionally I am pleasantly surprised

                Yeah. I meant “I assume the same for the pie itself” as a sort of self-criticism because I get its not a reasonable assumption.

                Anyways, my main point was more about the original topic. I’m not even sure how I would possibly rate them? What am I even trying to rate them on? People’s attraction to both left me wondering if people were just lying about it (and perhaps sexual attraction more broadly) because it was beyond me comprehension that would could actually care for either.

                • Wolf@lemmy.today
                  0·
                  8 days ago

                  Anyways, my main point was more about the original topic.

                  Yeah, kind of got hung up on the food aspect. Sorry about that. (I love food).

                  I’m not even sure how I would possibly rate them? What am I even trying to rate them on? People’s attraction to both left me wondering if people were just lying about it (and perhaps sexual attraction more broadly) because it was beyond me comprehension that would could actually care for either.

                  I think it’s just hard for people like us to imagine what that is like. Much like how the thought crossed your mind that maybe people are lying about sexual attraction- I think the reverse is also true. I think most people when they hear the word ‘asexual’ think the person just means that they have a very low sex drive- not that they are totally and completely unable to feel sexual attraction.

                  I have a hard time wrapping my head around it myself. I knew I was a boobs and ass man long before I ever reached puberty. Sexual desire is such a integral part of my life that it would be no less confusing if you said you never got hungry or never felt pain.

                  I think Jesus was a myth, but if we are running the thought experiment that Jesus was real and he was pious because he was asexual- that seems a bit like cheating to me. The reason that people have such a hard time following all of Christianities silly sexual rules is because most people do have sexual desires. It’s like being impressed that someone who never feels hunger hasn’t eaten in 30 days or someone who never feels pain walking over hot coals. Technically they did the thing- but it’s not the same.

  • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    9 days ago

    BTW the character under the comment is Joshua Graham aka the Burned Man, if you can’t guess based off the name the character is Mormon or Mormon derived at least. But if my understanding of Mormon theology is correct he would be of the opinion that Jesus fucks.