goethefaustworld

[goethefaustworld]

The Boys are Here for Pokémon Go’s Spring 2025 loading screen

[goethefaustworld]

[goethefaustworld]

This is cinema actually

[goethefaustworld]

why was homura’s house like that

[goethefaustworld]

just had a convo with my friend. she mentioned she doesnt like sake cause its sparkling.

“wait, sake is sparkling? what have i been drinking?” i said. because i also dont like sparkling stuff.

i look at the sake bottle ive been drinking from for fun events for the past year. its vinegar.

i’ve been drinking strawberry flavored vinegar.

[goethefaustworld]

[goethefaustworld]

Not what I expected coming from John Green

[goethefaustworld]

Both Selfish; you each lose 2 points

You Selfish, prev Cooperative; You gain 2 points

You Cooperative, prev Selfish; You lose 1 point

Both Cooperative; You Each gain 1.5 points

(ps make sure to say what you voted)

Making this post long so you have to scroll to see prev's tags.

[goethefaustworld]

[goethefaustworld]

all goofing aside I genuinely don't understand the urge to reimagine Taylor Allison Swift as a secretly queer icon when the pop music scene(TM) is like. literally overflowing with women who actually like women. Gaga and Kesha and Miley and Halsey are right there. Rina Sawayama and Hayley Kiyoko and Rebecca Black and Kehlani and Victoria Monét and Miya Folick if you're willing to get slightly less top 100. Janelle and Demi for them nonbinary takes on liking girls. like what are we doing here. like I'm not even saying you can't enjoy Taylor but why would you hang all your little gay hopes on her.

[goethefaustworld]

[goethefaustworld]

Insp by:

[goethefaustworld]

It has in very notable ways: the politics have been taken out of marriage in this side of the world (for the most part at least), the groom no longer has to pay a bride price, te bride isn't being considered as leaving her family to join the groom's

You could say that it's still an oath to love one person... Kinda, it was acceptable to have multiple wives but the idea was to love all wives equally, to the point that it's part of the law. But to whom is the oath has kinda drifted

Marriage has changed. To the point that the idea of what marriage even is has changed aside from "the union of a man and a woman"

I disagree with you in regards to the evolving nature of "sin"

Looking away from the homosexuality issue, most laws on marriage found in the bible are perfectly antiquated, seeing as we don't treat women as property anymore (for the most part)

Considering that levitical law is where the identification of (male) homosexuality as a sin can be found and it specifies a lot of things people don't really consider sinful (do you avoid mass when menstruating?), I don't find it wise to pretend it's timeless

And most notably, we're not part of a nomadic culture wandering the desert during the bronze age!

You are confusing law with sin. In Leviticus God was giving special laws to the Israelites to set them apart as a holy people. Yes, some laws have changed since that time but sins are still sins.

God gave the Israelites laws on homosexuality but he also described homosexuality as a sin. The Mosaic Law, which you are describing, is part of the old covenant God had with his people. Today, we are under a new covenant. Hence, the New Testament. But this is not an example of god changing his mind or the nature of sin evolving. Everything that happened in the Old Testament was setting the stage for the events of the New Testament. I mean, we can see God basically prophesying Jesus’s crucifixion as early as the story of Adam and Eve.

When Jesus was sacrificed that created for us a way to God without having to follow Mosaic Law. It doesn’t mean God changed his mind here or that the nature of sin evolved.

What is and isn’t a sin has never changed.

[goethefaustworld]

Don't get it wrong: I don't really get anything from going to mass; I already know the teachings and can understand them (ya varying degrees)

My current spiritual guide is a man my extended family consults on less transcendental things. He's a man of power and could see right through me when he met me, hence him saying I don't really need a teacher.

Matthew might be showing his bias and using Jesus as a mouthpiece, similar to the author claiming the gospel was written by Mathew the disciple. Can an analogous passage be found in either Mark or Luke?

I gotta say, marriage in itself is something so far not discussed on this thread. Back in the day, arranged marriages were the norm and a price was to be paid in exchange for the bride, a drowry we call it. It was a highly political event and was often used as a way to secure alliances: consider Disney's sleeping beauty, where the betrothal of Aurora to Philip is with the purpose of joining the kingdoms of their fathers

Changing the gender of one of the parts of a marriage raises the question of how to go about it: who provides the drowry? Is it needed in the first place? Who's joining whose family?

Are we referring to marriage in a contemporary sense even when Jesus was most probably referring to it in a more familiar sense to the people around him: Judeans living in a Roman occupied Levant during the first century CE?

Language drifts and implications change. Consider the Iliad, where women for the island of Lesbos (guess the demonym) as re described as "the women whom all men lust for." The idea was that they were really attractive, but nowadays it's... Almost funny

I disagree with you in regards to the evolving nature of "sin"

Looking away from the homosexuality issue, most laws on marriage found in the bible are perfectly antiquated, seeing as we don't treat women as property anymore (for the most part)

Considering that levitical law is where the identification of (male) homosexuality as a sin can be found and it specifies a lot of things people don't really consider sinful (do you avoid mass when menstruating?), I don't find it wise to pretend it's timeless

And most notably, we're not part of a nomadic culture wandering the desert during the bronze age!

You are confusing law with sin. In Leviticus God was giving special laws to the Israelites to set them apart as a holy people. Yes, some laws have changed since that time but sins are still sins.

God gave the Israelites laws on homosexuality but he also described homosexuality as a sin. The Mosaic Law, which you are describing, is part of the old covenant God had with his people. Today, we are under a new covenant. Hence, the New Testament. But this is not an example of god changing his mind or the nature of sin evolving. Everything that happened in the Old Testament was setting the stage for the events of the New Testament. I mean, we can see God basically prophesying Jesus’s crucifixion as early as the story of Adam and Eve.

When Jesus was sacrificed that created for us a way to God without having to follow Mosaic Law. It doesn’t mean God changed his mind here or that the nature of sin evolved.

What is and isn’t a sin has never changed.