#Blasphemy! All fights are necessary! (open starter.)

[scxrredmerc-blog]

      slams inside tumblr the room-

      “ guess who is back ? ”

(open starter.)

[bonewitchery]

👨‍💻 🌐SILICON VALLEY SENTENCE STARTERS 🌐 👨‍💻

A collection of sentence starters from the hit HBO show Silicon Valley, about a group of perfect idiots struggles and battle with the tech industry in California as they try to make something of their start up, Pied Piper. Be warned for offensive language, profanity, blasphemy and mild racism. Feel free to change pronounces/tenses as necessary.

“You just brought piss to a shit fight!” “Do you want me to be honest or nice?” “Alright. As long as God isn’t involved and there’s beer.” “Does he actually smile like that, with his upper and lower teeth at the same time?” “The witch has lost his mind.” “You gave me a sense of self-worth, like Richard Gere did to Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman.” “At least it didn’t happen in a public and brutally embarrassing way.” “I have a PowerPoint that I’ve been wanting to show you for some time.” “There are very few things that I will defend with true passion: medical marijuana, the biblical Satan as a metaphor for rebellion against tyranny, and motherfucking goddamn cryptocurrency.” “What is that atrocity? What are we, an Irish pornography company?” “Says here she’s looking for a man on the go. You don’t go anywhere.” “We never had pizza ‘cause my step-mom said Italians aren’t real white people.” “Okay, there’s no way I could’ve squirted this lemon in your eye, on purpose from this distance. I’m not a fucking lemon sniper.” “I’ll curb-stomp that little face so hard that your teeth will go flying, you little shit!” “You just disappeared up your own asshole, you know that?” “Fucking billionaires.” “Change the lighting to something erotic because it’s gonna get pretty fucking erotic in here.” “Your shame is my paradise.” “How would you like to die today, motherfucker?” “If I have to, I’m going to keep my fucking Star Blazers VHS tapes in my room. It doesn’t take an IQ-9 to know they should remain alphabetized.” “My head is so far up my own ass I can see the future.” “Respectfully… respectfully, you’re terrible. You have a world-class showman standing right in front of you. And you’re gonna pass on that?” “"I’m gonna stop you right there. You do know that ferrets are illegal in the state of California?” “His shoulders were all tight, and he wouldn’t answer to his name, and his eyes went dead, like when I tell him I love him.” “When you don the skin of the beast, the man within dies. One of the boys in my group home always said that. He died.” “You’re like a Mr. Potato Head of beautiful people.” “Look at you! You’ve got the hair of Giovanni Ribisi, and the complexion of Timothy Hutton, and the eyes of Joni Mitchell.” “I haven’t slept in a box in years, stop.” “I simply imagine that my skeleton is me and my body is my house. And that way, I’m always home.” “I thought maybe you were locked in another Starbucks bathroom overnight.” “Sorry if I scared you, I know I have somewhat ‘ghostlike’ features.” “My uncle used to say 'You look like someone starved a virgin to death’.” “Kiss my piss.” “I’m an independent businessman. Emphasis on 'independent’. And 'business’. And 'man’, come to think of it.” “You know, Hitler actually played the bassoon. So, technically, Hitler was the Hitler of music.” “Have you seen the new Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition? The cover model has the most lovely, enigmatic facial expression.” “I’ve never felt like I was anyone’s bro before. The only people who have used that term with me were assailants.” “I’m a pro, [NAME]. And I won’t apologise for it. I dress according to the moods that I sense in the room. As such, I must have options.” “You look like a ferret that gave up on itself six months ago.” “For example, there is something called 'mansplaining’. Have you heard about this?“ “I’m sure you can find a way out with one of your two faces.” “At least the actual Judas had the courtesy to kill himself after betraying his leader. Jesus Christ, CEO of the world.” “If I’m being honest, you look like a ventriloquist dummy. If I’m lying, you look like shit.” “It is a mystery why you think you’ll ever see a woman naked.” “He started crying in Taco Bell. He tried to blame the taco sauce.” “Fuck you, if you look at my shit, I’m gonna look at your shit.” “He’s the least cool guy I ever met.” “Your borders are merely a construct. I prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the world.” “That’s the first cool thing you ever said.” "Pretend you’ve seen a woman before.” “I’m sure you can find your way out with one of your two faces.” “If my mother was naked and dead in the street I would not cover her body with that jacket.” “I’m going to leave this room without saying goodbye to you.” “It’s like when somebody says they want to go birding with you, but really they just want to get you alone in the woods so they can take your binoculars.” “Beige is a good colour for you. You’re a true Autumn.” “You can’t help but be elegant, you’re like Audrey Hepburn.” "I mean, by that logic, anyone who goes to an open-casket funeral is a murderer.” “I mean, she’s attractive. But almost every woman is attractive.” “What about the time I got a bulls-eye and yelled 'Bazinga!’, and you said 'Okay’. You can’t fake enthusiasm like that.” “Buttholes, indeed.” "In Latvian, bro roughly translates to…‘one who beheads the Messiah’.”

[to-learn-of-living]

This Bible Passage Proves God is Cool With Same-Sex Marriage

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”

‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭4:1-5‬ ‭(NIV) - emphases mine‬‬

Source: Google Images

Clearly this passage speaks directly to our modern age. Paul was obviously saying that the opponents of same-sex marriage are hypocritical liars who forbid LGBT people to marry. They have abandoned their faith and follow deceiving things taught by demons.

If you are reading this and hold a ‘biblical’ view of marriage, you're probably jumping out of your chair screaming ‘blasphemy’ right now. You're probably preparing a three point rebuttal in your head to prove me wrong. You may be dying to hit the comments section and explain why this passage can't possibly be applied the way I've used it...

...and you're probably right.

Sorry-not-sorry about the click bait.

But here's my point: Christians on both sides of this debate take scripture out of context. It is impossible to prove biblically if God is for or against same-sex marriage because it is a 21st century question that was never posited to the bible’s authors!

This particular passage is in the genre of ‘prophetic writing’, which by its nature makes it extremely hard to pin down the exact meaning (though many claim to ‘know’). This could have been written prophesying today's events, but it also could have been written about inter-racial marriage 50 years ago, inter-class marriages of previous eras, something yet to come, all of the above, or none of the above. We don't know! We need to study this text through meditation and prayer to decipher it, and even then we can never be 100% certain we’ve come to the right conclusions! That’s the point of faith!

But many people who would cry ‘heresy’ at my former reading of this passage are advocating for a similar ‘straightforward reading’ on all passages relating to LGBT sexual acts. They claim we need to stick to ‘biblical marriage’, and denounce same-sex-marriage activists for taking the bible out of context.

So let’s look at the bible passages on same sex relations in context.

There are only 6 or 7 passages in the bible that reference gay sex. 

This is hardly the be all and end all that many of today’s Christians make it out to be. If anything it’s an afterthought.

Importantly, there are no passages that mention same sex marriage.

That’s right. Zero. 

Therefore any biblical text used to prove anything in this debate has to be taken out of context and applied to modern life!

So what did these LGBT passages mean in their original contexts?

The story of Sodom is probably the most well known of the lot - after all we get the term ‘Sodomy’ from this story. But read it again in Genesis 18:16-19:29. God tells Abraham he will destroy Sodom. Abraham begs for mercy. The townsfolk try to gang rape some angels. Then Sodom is destroyed. 

There are 2 main takeaways from this story. First, the passage never says what Sodom’s sin was. Yes, there was an attempted gang rape. But this happened after God said he would destroy the city! However, God does clarify his reasons later in the bible:

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” ‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭16:49-50‬ ‭(NIV‬‬)

An argument could be made that sodomy was the ‘'haughty and detestable things’ God describes here, but once again we resort to speculation to figure that out. The obvious teaching of this passage is that God cares far more that the Sodomites didn’t help the poor and needy, than any possible sexual sin they may have committed.

Secondly, like a similar passage in Judges 19, this incident is specifically about gang rape. That is a very different social issue to two men wanting a monogamous marriage. To apply these passages to same sex marriage is to take the texts as far, or perhaps further, out of context than I did with my opening statements!

Pieter Schoubroeck, De verwoesting van Sodom en Gomorra

Leviticus 20:13 says “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV). This sounds like an open and shut case. But once again we need to look at it in context. 

This passage is found in a list of sexual sins (which are pro-polygamy by the way, I'll get to that later). Many people argue that because the death penalty is advocated here, gay sex is far worse than other sexual sin. But adultery is also given the death penalty in the same passage, and Jesus specifically said that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery. Yet so many of our churches give divorcees leadership positions they deny to gay Christians.

The chapter opens with an explanation of why these rules have been set. Pagan people all around the Israelites worshipped their gods by performing these sexual acts. So the Jewish people were commanded not to practice them. It is possible that this rule should still apply, but making that assumption requires taking the rule out of its context (a law for the Jewish people to not practice pagan worship) and applying it to today's world sans the religious meaning. By the same logic, we could take Paul’s 1 Corinthians 8 acknowledgement that there is nothing wrong with eating food sacrificed to idols out of context, and say there is nothing wrong with same sex relationships. Even if we hold onto this Levitical law as necessary for today, it should be acknowledged that it is a rule specifically for God’s people - and therefore it shouldn't bother Christians if gay non-Christians want to get married!

Romans 1 seems to be the most damming passage against all same-sex practices (and possibly the only mention of lesbianism in the bible), yet it's actually anything but. Paul uses it to illicit disgust in his Jewish audience, who he knows feels morally superior to the Romans living around them (much like many Christians today), only to turn it back on them in Romans 2 by reprimanding them. He tells the Jews they are far worse than the Romans for judging them. This should not be used as a justification to condemn the LGBT community, it should be used as a reprimand for anyone who thinks themselves morally superior to others!

But more than that, Romans 1 shows a logical progression. People knew God. They refused to worship him. They turned away from him. They replaced worship of God with worship of natural things. God gave them over to their lusts, and they degraded each other with their bodies.

I don't know about you, but I don't know any LGBT folk who have followed this progression. In fact, many are committed Christians, although a lot no longer attend church due to the awful experiences that've had there.

This passage makes much more sense in relation to the Roman mystery cults of the day, who literally praised idols and held group orgies as forms of worship. As with the leviticus passage, it is dubious at best to say that this text which deals with cult orgies should be applied to monogamous relationships.

Fresco from the Sala di Grande Dipinto, Scenes in the Villa de Misteri (Pompeii).

Finally we have 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. The problem with these passages is we don’t know the meaning of the words used! Entire books have been written trying to understand the meaning of the two Greek words often translated as ‘homosexuality’ in these two passages. What does seem clear is that they refer to some sort of male to male sexual act. Yet many ‘Christian Marriage’ supporters argue that these words definitely mean all homosexuality is a sin, and base their entire sexuality theology on this ‘fact’. That isn’t just isn’t just taking a passage out of context, it’s deliberately changing the bible to suit your own point of view - exactly what many same-sex marriage supporters are accused of doing. 

So to be clear, we can't prove that same sex relationships are either right or wrong using the bible in context. But what about marriage? The main argument of the ‘no’ campaign is to advocate for ‘biblical marriage’ after all...

...but that's not actually what they’re advocating for...

For starters, the idea of ‘biblical marriage’ is inherently flawed.

There are hundreds of marriages mentioned in the bible, and the overwhelming majority of them were made up of one man and multiple women. So if you want to fight for ‘biblical marriage’, you need to start by ‘redefining’ marriage as ‘one man and one or more wives’.

This is perhaps too simple. By the new testament era most Jews had adopted monogamy as the standard form of marriage, probably from the Roman influences of the time. But the bible never forbids polygamy! In fact passages in the Torah, including the levitical passage on homosexuality, prescribe polygamy as law! 

As for the new testament, all mentions of marriage I can think of could easily be applied to polygamy or monogamy, barring one possible exception: “...I asked you to choose church leaders in every city. Their lives must be so that no one can talk against them. They must have only one wife.” (Titus 1:5b-6, NLV) - and even this wording is only present in certain translations.

So clearly, using a straightforward reading of scripture, a biblical definition of marriage must recommend polygamy, unless you aspire to be a church leader. 

Over the last 2000 years we've changed the definition of marriage to be ‘one man and one women’, despite having no biblical support for this position!

So a fight for ‘biblical marriage’ is a fight for polygamy! Let’s lobby government to allow multiple wives for all men! (Sorry ladies, as with much of history you get the short end of the stick with this one).

On top of that, throughout the bible, and most of history, marriages were almost exclusively arranged by the couple’s family. A husband and wife sometimes wouldn't even meet until their wedding! Marriages were not commitments of love, they were a business contract. The couple might eventually come to love each other, but it wasn't guaranteed.

So let’s abolish love, and go back to ‘biblical marriage’, by selling off our daughters to the highest paying man, even if he already has 6 other wives...

Source: christiansforequality.com.au

...Or we could stop with this crazy assumption that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and realise that it is a constantly changing social construct that continually evolves with our culture. That's a good thing. A vote for same-sex marriage is not a vote against heterosexual marriage. It is a vote against ‘biblical marriage’, but I don't see ‘biblical marriage’ as anything to aspire too.

Do you?

[scxrredmerc-blog]

      ” deadpool gonna catch ya! “

// open starter. \\\