Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
No, I ofc remembered I wasn't supposed to use disparaging rhetoric.
What I forgot about was the PM's that CN and I had after the post when she told me to avoid that topic altogether.
Please try to pay attention. Maybe any psychotropics you are taking are making it difficult for you to track the conversation? Who knows the answer?
Lol. Troll much? You keep saying that you have an agreement with the mods that you can't discuss certain topics and get corrected over and over again that you are free to discuss whatever topic you want.
Anyway, looking forward to having this conversation again next month when you claim the mods are preventing you from discussing certain topics.
No, I ofc remembered I wasn't supposed to use disparaging rhetoric.
What I forgot about was the PM's that CN and I had after the post when she told me to avoid that topic altogether.
Please try to pay attention. Maybe any psychotropics you are taking are making it difficult for you to track the conversation? Who knows the answer?
To be fair, my posts to you that day also specified what the issue was. The PM’s merely reiterated it.
Lagtight, I will not tolerate you edging around this topic. You have been told repeatedly to avoid using stigmatizing language. Using archaic terms to demean others isn’t righteous — it’s hateful. If your beliefs require kindness, start there.
I would advise you to drop this immediately.
Let me tell you a little bit about your personal experience. When you use that disgusting term as a weapon, you’re not defending faith, you’re defiling it. It’s not moral clarity you’re offering; it’s moral rot dressed in religious theater. If that’s your idea of righteousness, the problem isn’t with the people you condemn, it’s
Yes, I advised you to stop talking about it overall because I know you very much want to bust out that word and I very much do not want that. You are free to talk about whatever you want, and you are free to believe whatever you want, but you are not free to espouse every belief you have here on this forum if they entail demeaning and dehumanizing an entire group of people.
I’m not here to police thought crimes; I’m here to moderate what you actually post.
And far too dumb, but more to the point --wouldn't it just be simpler for everyone if you weren't an ******* to gay people? I'm not saying you have to respect LGBT folks or even treat them as though they were made in the image of God Himself, whom Christ the Redeemer would sacrifice the world entire to save, but surely you could just not call them "sodomites" after you've been asked nicely to knock it off? Or is all this hoopla part of the fun for you?
Sodomy is still an ok term or no?
It's not one I use I'd just say oral sex but it seems fine.
It's fine but it's ambiguous. Like, are we talking butt stuff or oral or what?
I don’t think it was against their legalism really. I think he was mad at the implication that you needed more than what Jesus promised in the new covenant.
But sure, that could have been a secondary issue.
Right. He had no problem with the law and almost certainly kept it himself. But he thought it was destructive to the Jesus movement to force gentiles to start following the law to be christian. Paul was educated, well traveled and Hellenized so way more familiar with non Jewish culture than a fisherman from Galilee
Sodomy is still an ok term or no?
It's not one I use I'd just say oral sex but it seems fine.
Well, it is certainly not ok to do in the following countries. Special shout-out to Uganda for carrying the torch of being the only Christian majority nation to have the death penalty for sodomy. Second special shout out to our new BFF country Qatar for making the list.
Afghanistan: Same-sex sexual activity is criminalized and punishable by death under interpretations of Sharia law.
Brunei: Sharia penal codes allow for death by stoning for same-sex sexual acts. The country announced a moratorium on the death penalty in 2019, though the law remains in effect and could be lifted.
Iran: The penal code permits the death penalty for consensual same-sex relations between men.
Mauritania: While the law prescribes death by stoning for Muslim men engaging in homosexual sex, the country has had a de facto moratorium on capital punishment since 1987.
Northern Nigeria: States in the North that have adopted Sharia law can impose the death penalty for sodomy, though it is not commonly carried out.
Pakistan: The Hudood Ordinances can be interpreted to punish same-sex activity with death, although no known executions for this crime have occurred.
Qatar: Sharia law allows for the death penalty for married Muslims who engage in homosexual acts, but there are no known instances of it being applied to consensual relations between adults.
Saudi Arabia: Under its interpretation of Sharia law, married men who commit sodomy or a non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim can be stoned to death. Executions have been reported in the past.
Somalia: The penal code sets lesser penalties, but in some southern regions controlled by insurgents, Sharia law and the death penalty are enforced.
Uganda: The Anti-Homosexuality Act, enacted in 2023, includes a provision for the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality".
United Arab Emirates: While less severe punishments are more common, Sharia courts have the authority to impose the death penalty for consensual same-sex relations, although there are no known recent instances.
Yemen: The penal code prescribes death by stoning for married men and imprisonment or lashing for unmarried men convicted of sodomy.
Afghanistan must have some sort of exclusion for certain ages as the dancing boys seem to be pretty popular.
I think that Paul was mad because they were trying to go by the old covenant, not because he thought they were being bigoted. Famously he said that he hoped the circumcisers would chop off their own dick while circumcising themselves.
I only point this out because Paul is kind of a dick in general so I think the reading of him as being anti-bigotry is overly charitable.
Hey, a crazy thing in the Bible that I didn't know! What book/letter is that in?
Special shout-out to Uganda for carrying the torch of being the only Christian majority nation to have the death penalty for sodomy. Second special shout out to our new BFF country Qatar for making the list.
Imagine the type of incel it takes to cheer capital punishment for what consenting adults do in their bedroom.
2 Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that, if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be reckoned as righteous[a] by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.
7 You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? 8 Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. 10 I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty. 11 But my brothers and sisters, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 [B]I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!
NRSV Galatians 5:12
The imagery here is that when you do a castration as an adult, you basically cut off the foreskin of your own dick. So he’s saying if you think it’s necessary to circumcise you should castrate yourself instead lol
It’s quite an image.
NRSV Galatians 5:12
The imagery here is that when you do a castration as an adult, you basically cut off the foreskin of your own dick. So he’s saying if you think it’s necessary to circumcise you should castrate yourself instead lol
It’s quite an image.
So I'm still ok if I was circumcised as an infant without my consent?
Am I the only one that figures it was probably +EV that I was circumsized at birth (as the vast majority of Americans of my day were).
I get that it is supposed to feel better with the extra skin, but as I never had it I dont really miss it. And it isn't like I ever turned down sex because it just didn't feel good enough, so doesn't seem to be much of an issue in that respect. At the same time, wouldn't the extra sensation just mean that I would finish even faster than I already do?
Seems like an ok tradeoff.
Am I the only one that figures it was probably +EV that I was circumsized at birth (as the vast majority of Americans of my day were).I get that it is supposed to feel better with the extra skin, but as I never had it I dont really miss it. And it isn't like I ever turned down sex because it just didn't feel good enough, so doesn't seem to be much of an issue in that respect.
No. I truly mean it when I say that cutting parts of baby penis for what amounts to a cometic surgery is just not ok.
Botched circumcisions are real and horrible as well.
I say this as a circumcised individual so I’m not being biased.
In fairness that seems to be a regional practice that predates Islam. And the Taliban is less permissive of it than most for religious reasons.
I doubt it's strictly enforced due to tribal politics.
And it's kind of par for the course in the Muslim world wives are for children and boys are for fun or something along those lines.
I doubt it's strictly enforced due to tribal politics.
And it's kind of par for the course in the Muslim world wives are for children and boys are for fun or something along those lines.
The practice is called "bacha bazi", and has been a cultural plague in the region for a long time.
It is a very pervasive myth that the Taliban is less permissive of it, but the reality it is simply that when they are in power all reporting of it disappears. Sudden lack of reporting of sexual assault over a region / organization / country rarely means sexual assaults have stopped, it just means reporting of them has stopped.
Afghanistan is in essence an apartheid state, with the Taliban serving as religious and political justification for Pashtun rule over other ethnicities. It's just that most people in the west don't give a ****, because most people in the west can't tell the groups apart. As one can imagine in apartheid regime, practices such as "bacha bazi" doesn't happen solely along the sociocultural divide, but it is definitely the most common way for it to happen; that victims are picked from the oppressed ethnicities.
The practice is called "bacha bazi", and has been a cultural plague in the region for a long time.It is a very pervasive myth that the Taliban is less permissive of it, but the reality it is simply that when they are in power all reporting of it disappears. Sudden lack of reporting of sexual assault over a region / organization / country rarely means sexual assaults have sto
It is wild how little the world cares about such things when it doesn't neatly fit into anti-white/Jewish ideological boxes, and how much it does care when the right boxes are clicked.
Yep, very wild that is.
How do you all know about that practice??
