in winged words

[i sing of times transshifting]











Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay

I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:

Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.

I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.

The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’

Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.

Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them. 

I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts. 

Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.

I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.

Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “dolos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (dolos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.

Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.

Matthew 8:5-13


In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.


reblogging for the comments ^^^^^^


Reblogging because it just needs to be heard.

(Source: idiotsonfb, via amaronith)

Steve Rogers and American Music Month



Happy August, everyone!

What kind of songs would be out there about Captain America? What kind of songs would be out there about Steve Rogers? How would he feel about that? How does a man who’s spent 70 years at the bottom of the ocean get caught up on generations’ worth of music? (Is kissing somehow involved?) What are the bands that a time-displaced kid from Brooklyn would connect with? Are we so sure that line about the barbershop quartet was a joke?

Fics, art, meta, filk, playlists: whatever you can think of! For easy finding, tag it ‘national manthem

Go forth and have fun!

(via soemily)

The ER rewatch that my mother and I are conducting has taught us two things.

1) We remember a lot more about the early seasons than we thought we did, but simultaneously have apparently forgotten gigantic storylines. What this means is that we’ll start an episode and end up weakly flapping our hands at the screen as we laugh because we’ve just recognised ‘that guy’ and we remember where the story goes, but we’re befuddled by large overarching happenings because we don’t remember any of it. So, in the last episode we watched we remembered the tie-dye wearing nurse trainee who wept with the patients and caused Carter to look even more horribly confused than usual, but had entirely forgotten about the whole Baby Suzie storyline.

2) The paramedics are really hot.


"It was like getting a new family. The cast of ER is very close and everyone has treated me so well. I thought working in Hollywood was going to be cut-throat, and the producers would be like characters from Dallas who would sit behind big desks, smoking cigars and bullying people. But everyone was easy-going and made me feel at home."  - Alex Kingston

(via such-heights)

I had as moral an upbringing as a fundie could hope for. We went to church twice a week, we talked about Jesus, the family prayed together, we read a devotional pamphlet at mealtimes. My mother was deeply devout. My stepfather was a neurotic slimeball, I’ll grant you, but he was the sort of slimeball that attends Church discussion groups and was condescendingly Christian in a major way. Prior to that, we were Catholic. The notion of sex before marriage was never anything BUT taboo. You didn’t do it. My grandmother’s serial marriage sprees were basically the Catholic version of sleeping around, but she, by god, did it by the Book, even if the paperwork occasionally got crossed. One Did Not Have Sex Outside of Marriage.

And at no point in my entire childhood, as I contemplate it now, did it ever occur to me that this applied to me.

Sex is the best example of this, but many of the other conventional moral teachings can also be slotted in. Sin did not worry me. Yes, people could sin, in general, but me, specifically? Nah. Obviously if I did it, it was for a damn good reason. (Thankfully, we left Catholicism before my first confession, or this attitude would probably have gotten me into serious trouble.)

This sounds like raging egotism, I realize, and of course it is, since I was a kid. Kids are compassion and cruelty and curiousity, wrapped up in solipsism and leaking random fluids. But it wasn’t that I thought I was above sin, or perfect, or anything like that. I would have been shocked by the very idea. I just…didn’t think it applied. If there was a box marked “sin - Yes/No?” I would have written “N/A.”