#it would be a new revised standard bible

[coffeetime88]

If I went up to Santa- If I went up to Santa Claus-

If I rode the literally magic Polar Express with Tom Hanks as my conductor and the train is powered by belief in Christmas, then I went up to

SAINT NICHOLAS HIMSELF

And my request was for concrete and undeniable proof of The* Biblical God existing...

Santa would do that thing where he winks at me and wrinkles his nose, then points to my heart cause I'm a Good Christian Boy (tm). Then I'd get a Bible for Christmas

*I'm assuming you mean the Christian God and not just like, proof of Baal existing, cause while that would be cool I don't know what you'd do with that other than just have more questions.

If, in The Polar Ezpress, you had told Santa what you wanted for Christmas was proof of the existence of a Biblical God do you think he'd

1) Give it to you on the spot, safe in the knowledge it would dissappear come the end of Christmas like the memory of the Polar Express itself

2) Deliver it to you on Christmas morning leaving you with a document that would be incromphensible to your child brain without the knowledge of having asked Santa for it

3) Refuse on principal

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Do you have a list of good sex ed books to read?

BOY DO I

please bear in mind that some of these books are a little old (10+ years) by research standards now, and that even the newer ones are all flawed in some way. the thing about research on human beings, and especially research on something as nebulous and huge as sex, is that people are Always going to miss something or fail to account for every possible experience, and that's just something that we have to accept in good faith. I think all of these books have something interesting to say, but that doesn't mean any of them are the only book you'll ever need.

related to that: it's been A While since I've read some of these so sorry if anything in them has aged poorly (I don't THINK SO but like, I was not as discerning a reader when I was 19) but I am still including them as books that have been important to my personal journey as a sex educator.

additionally, a caveat that very few of these books are, like, instructional sex ed books in the sense of like "here's how the penis works, here's where the clit is, etc." those books exist and they're great but they're also not very interesting to me; my studies on sex are much more in the social aspect (shout out to my sociology degree) and the way people learn to think about sex and societal factors that shape those trends. these books reflect that. I would genuinely love to have the time to check out some 101 books to see how they fare, but alas - sex ed is not my day job and I don't have the time to dedicate to that, so it happens slowly when it happens at all. I've been meaning to read Dr. Gunter's Vagina Bible since it came out in 2019, for fucks sake.

and finally an acknowledgement that this is a fairly white list, which has as much to do with biases with academia and publishing as my own unchecked biases especially early in my academic career and the limitations of my university library.

ANYWAY here's some books about sex that have been influential/informative to me in one way or another:

The Trouble With Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life (Michael Warner, 1999)

Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences (Laura M. Carpenter, 2005)

Virgin: The Untouched History (Hanne Blank, 2007)

Sex Goes to School: Girls and Sex Education Before the 1960s (Susan K. Freeman, 2008)

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex (Mary Roach, 2008)

Transgender History: The Roots of Today's Revolution (Revised Edition) (Susan Stryker, 2008)

The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women (Jessica Valenti, 2009)

Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex (Amy T. Schalet, 2011)

Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality (Hanne Blank, 2012)

Rewriting the Rules: An Integrative Guide to Love, Sex and Relationships (Meg-John Barker, 2013)

The Sex Myth: The Gap Between Our Fantasies and Realities (Rachel Hills, 2015)

Come as You Are: The Surprising New Science That Will Tranform Your Sex Life (Emily Nagoski, 2015)

Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men (Jane Ward, 2015)

Too Hot to Handle: A Global History of Sex Education (Jonathan Zimmerman, 2015)

American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus (Lisa Wade, 2017)

Histories of the Transgender Child (Jules Gill-Peterson, 2018)

Revolting Prostitutes: The Fight for Sex Workers' Rights (Juno Mac and Molly Smith, 2018)

Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex (Angela Chen, 2020)

Pleasure in the News: African American Readership and Sexuality in the Black Press (Kim Gallon, 2020)

A Curious History of Sex (Kate Lister, 2020)

Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent, and Navigating the New Masculinity (Peggy Orenstein, 2020)

Black Women, Black Love: America's War on Africa American Marriage (Dianne M. Stewart, 2020)

The Tragedy of Heterosexuality (Jane Ward, 2020)

Hurts So Good: The Science and Pleasure of Pain on Purpose (Leigh Cowart, 2021)

Strange Bedfellows: Adventures in the Science, History, and Surprising Secrets of STDs (Ina Park, 2021)

The Right to Sex: Feminist in the Twenty-First Century (Amia Srinivasan, 2021)

Love Your Asian Body: AIDS Activism in Los Angeles (Eric C. Wat, 2021)

Superfreaks: Kink, Pleasure, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Arielle Greenberg, 2023)

[bluecatwriter]

Jonathan: Do I have to read it, oh my dear one?

Me: (cries)

Jonathan: "I will keep my mouth as it were in a bridle: while the ungodly is in my sight. I held my tongue, and spake nothing: I kept silence, yea, even from good words; but it was pain and grief to me. My heart was hot within me; and while I was thus musing the fire kindled."

Me: (cries harder) Do you have to remind me!

OKAY BUT THE INCLUSION OF THIS LINE HAS ME GOING FERAL

(Theological ramble incoming. You have been warned.)

Jonathan is reading from the Book of Common Prayer, but the scripture is Psalm 39. (I originally thought that this was a quote from Jeremiah 20:9, which uses similar language to show the prophet's frustration with burning up inside if he refuses his call to prophesy, but this is even better.)

The psalmist here is a great example of how people's responses to God in the Bible do not fit neatly into the "unquestioning obedience and reverence" framework any more than Jonathan's actions do. The narrator of this psalm speaks despairingly about the vanity of life, begs God to stop heaping hardship on him ("Remove thy stroke away from me: I am consumed by the blow of thine hand"), and while he expresses near the middle that his ultimate hope is in God ("And now, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee"), he also flat-out asks God to leave him alone (the last line of the psalm in King James Version says "O spare me, that I may recover strength/before I go hence, and be no more," though I love the more modern translations such as the New Revised Standard version, which reads, "Turn your gaze away from me, that I may smile again/before I depart and am no more").

It's a gut-wrenching psalm that doesn't flinch from the realities of life: things feel meaningless, hardships are heaped on those who are faithful, humans are fragile, riches cannot safeguard against death— and the right to rage and weep before God is a given. It ends not with the line of hope from the middle but with a challenge to God, and the main conflict of the psalm is not resolved or neatly tied up. Like all the Wisdom literature in the Bible, it invites the readers to sit in the tension and the confusion and the pain, rather than hastening on to a "correct answer" or even a sense of resolution.

I assume this is why it's included in the Book of Common Prayer's burial service: death cannot be tied up with a bow, or smoothed over with platitudes. This psalm expresses solidarity with people from every generation who have tried to make sense of their hardships and pain and the devastating reality of mortality.

Anyway, inclusion of this line in this scene was absolutely stunning. I suspect that many of Bram Stoker's original readers would have familiarity with the burial service since it would be read at every funeral, so adding in the words was wonderful to enhance the experience for the modern non-Anglican reader. This passage helped drive home how thematically resonant these words are with what's happening in the story in the moment. Very cool.

[babyangelsky]

*sits at a lighted vanity mirror with clown makeup half on and a multicolored wig on a stand beside me*

I would like to share with you all a little fact about me: I have an incurable case of Fluke Pusit Heart Eyes. All I asked for Christmas was more Fluke, then all I asked for New Year's was more Fluke, then all I asked for my birthday was more Fluke.

So while that may admittedly be coloring my judgement, I'm gonna ask ya'll to let me cook here for a second.

A few days ago I ran my lil self over to Petty to share a bit of news I came across, which was that Fluke stated in a recent interview that he had a project coming up and that it was maybe a BL.

THEN, a couple of days later, Be on Cloud announced that Ta, Copper, Bible, and Bas would be at the One D press conference and it began to be speculated by some that Bas would be paired with Bible in the upcoming series 4 Minutes. Nothing was announced or confirmed at the press con...

BUT!

In an interview with The Standard, the relevant portion of which has been kindly translated here, Pond Krisda stated that the script for 4 Minutes had just finished being revised and:

THAT AN ACTOR HAS BEEN CAST TO STAR ALONGSIDE BIBLE.

Now! I love Bas. I'm very excited to see him in Man Suang when it gets released on Netflix at the end of the month because by all accounts he gave a fantastic performance. If he is paired with Bible in 4 Minutes, I'll be seated for it. I'll be seated regardless.

But! I HAVE FLUKE PUSIT HEART EYES! AND NOT ONLY DO I HAVE THEM, A MONTH AGO FELLOW FLUKE PUSIT ENJOYER CHICA PUT THIS IN MY HEAD:

DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS? DO YOU SEE?

Fluke shares that he has a project coming soon but can't share any details and then TWO DAYS LATER Pond gives an interview and says that they have a co-star for Bible! Is the co-star Bas or one of the other BOC boys? Very possible! Probable even! Is this all just coincidental timing and Fluke's new project is something else entirely? Maybe!

BUT WHAT IF IT ISN'T? WHAT IF IT REALLY IS FLUKE WHO HAS BEEN CAST TO STAR WITH BIBLE?

*secures my clown wig, completing the clown transformation, and takes deep breath*

There is absolutely no reason for this post to exist or be this long other than my profound desire to see Fluke star in something, and these may very well be the delusional ramblings of a freshly 30-year-old lady in a "-I've connected the dots/-You haven't connected shit" situation.

But I just want ya'll to consider that much like the chances of being attacked by a bear in everyday life, the chances of Fluke being in 4 Minutes with Bible are slim, but not zero.

And I would like to invite ya'll and @respectthepetty and @chicademartinica to join me in this clown car

[and-her-saints]

What do you recommend for someone who's starting to read the bible? Like where to start, complementary readings, methods of study, etc

short answer: not really, i am so sorry. i have not found anything i would publicly recommend. there has always been some really heavy drawbacks that make me not want to back them.

the only thing (method-ish) i would recommend for Gospel readings wholeheartedly is the podcast Imagine: A Guide to Jesuit Prayer . however, it IS a contemplation podcast. not a bible study.

long answer: hmmmmm… my buddy El really recommends the The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) but i do not own it, i pretty much only read the bible in Spanish (REINA-VALERA‼️🔥) but the NRSV is a very good, recent and accurate translation 👍 or so i’ve heard…

in regards to Bible studies… i’ve taken so many Bible study/Theology online courses and they have all SUCKED 👎 i don’t have many (if any) recs on that end.

many (many) people would recommend “Bible in a Year” with Fr. Mike Schmitz, however! i cannot stand him (respectfully) i am SO sorry…

this America article has some really good points on how to approach Catholic bible studies and has some recommendations.

i must finally add that i will be checking out the Agustine Institute’s podcast on the Bible/Bible in a Year because i’ve really enjoyed the experience of the “Amen” app. but i’ll have to give it a shot first.

i’m sorry this was SO unhelpful. i’m sure some people on here might have some actual suggestions and recommendations. pls add them. pls….. for the sake of us all…..

[walkswithmyfather]

This is fascinating! By Stefan Hager (FB)

“We currently have 5,800 plus Greek New Testaments manuscripts, 10,000 plus Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 plus manuscripts in various languages). if we were to stack the manuscripts we have found today it would reach more than a mile high). Beating all other historical records of the ancient world. for example, no one doubts the historical person “Homer” as we have 1.800 plus manuscripts of his life, yet we have 25,000 plus manuscripts of the life of Jesus, and that doesn’t include secular sources). And considering that the earliest copies of the New Testament are written within 25 years after the death of Jesus, but the earliest copies of Homers works are written 400 years after the death of Homer. Jesus is the gold standard for historians. If we’re going to doubt Jesus. We might as well doubt all ancient history.

Comparing these manuscripts we find that the teaching, stories, doctrines of the bible are all surprisingly the same. reading a bible in English vs reading a bible in Russian. It may be worded differently but you get the same story/biblical doctrine).

Tho no one manuscript is perfect. Through the centuries, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. The vast majority of these differences are simple spelling variants, inverted words (one manuscript says “Christ Jesus” while another says “Jesus Christ” or different ways people have spelled names). or an easily identified missing word. In short, over 99 percent of the biblical text is not questioned. Of the less than 1 percent of the text that is in question, no doctrinal teaching or command is jeopardized. In other words, the copies of the Bible we have today are pure. The Bible has not been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with.

“The early books of the bible” were so vastly copied and wide spread that if one group in Africa wanted to change any part, believers in Israel, Rome, Alexandria would have easily identified the change to the wide spread text/message.

This is also evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls (large portions of Old Testament) which were found in 1947. These scrolls are dated 200BC. So Jesus would have those as scripture during his earthly time, and the content of those scrolls match. If we look at any bible in any chapter and we look at the Hebrew and the same chapter it’s going to read the same way we have today, now it is true there are variations in reading/wording or translation. Every book prior to the printing press has variations. The Quran has variations, The point is, variations don’t give you a different text, a different theology, a different meaning.

Here’s a scaled down example. using textual criticism and cross checking manuscripts. We can pretty much reconstruct what the original said. How does this work?.

Consider the following example. Suppose we have four different manuscripts that have different errors in the same verse, such as Philippians 4:13:

1.I can do all t#ings through Christ

2.I can do all th#ngs through Christ

3.I can do all thi#gs through Christ

4.I can do all thin#s through Christ

Is there any mystery of what the original said?. None whatsoever. By comparing and cross checking manuscripts. the original can be reconstructed with great accuracy and the reconstruction of the New Testament is easier than this, because there are far fewer errors in the actual New Testament manuscripts than there are represented by this example. Plus a vast amount of material to work with.

Any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. No one group has ever had control over the biblical text. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempt to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the inconsequential differences among the manuscripts.

Ancient scribes often copied books letter by letter (one by one). not sentence by sentence. It was a long process but they assured Accuracy. And they would count the letters of the copies and count the letters of the original. if the original had 500 letters and the copy had 497 letters, they would destroy the copy and restart.”

[vital-information]

"In 1946, the term 'homosexuals' appeared for the first time in an English Bible. This new figure appeared in a list of sinners barred--according to a verse in the Apostles Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians--from inheriting the kingdom of God. The word change was made by leading Bible scholars, members of the translation committee that labored for over a decade to produce the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible. With an approach inspired by text-critical scholarship, many of their choices upset readers of the older King James Version, the favored Bible of Protestant America since the colonial era. Amid the outrage over other changes--to the red-letter words of Jesus and the old Shakespearean idiom--another modernizing innovation went virtual unremarked. Two enigmatic Greek nouns, referenced in the King James as 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind,' now appeared as a single, streamlined 'homosexual.' Subsequent Bible commentaries approached the new term as age-old tradition...

Some Bible readers, however, responded with surprise to this textual change. In everyday use, the verse in I Corinthians had other meanings. The author of a 1956 advice book on how to write sermons recounted the embarrassing tale of one minister's well-loved sermon. That sermon, delivered on various occasions, expanded on the 'general meaning' of the Apostle Paul's reference to the 'effeminate,' which the pastor took as warning against 'the soft, the pliable, those who take the easy road.' The take-away point was that Christians must undertake the difficult path of faith. It was a fine sermon, or so the pastor thought, until he read the RSV. He discovered 'to his amazement and chagrin; that 'effeminate' was translated 'homosexuals.' The confusion was a lesson, the author of this advice book chided, on the need to use recent translations. A check through earlier Bible commentaries confirms that outdated reference tools may indeed have contributed to this pastor's error. An eariler edition of The Interpreter's Bible, published in 1929, said nothing at all about homosexuality in its commentary on the same verse in I Corinthians. It noted that the Apostle Paul was keenly aware of the 'idolatry and immorality' of the pagan world. However, the named vice that so perturbed the apostle was 'self indulgence of appetite and speech,' an interpretation that more readily fit with the pastor's call to a disciplined faith. If Christianity did indeed set itself against homosexuality from the first, then this popular Christian reference text neglected to make that prohibition clear.

Several scholars of American religion have puzzled over the peculiar silences of early twentieth-century Christian texts on the topic of same-sex sexuality. After surveying the published Christian literature of that time, Randall Balmer and Lauren Winner concluded that during those decades, 'the safest thing to say about homosexuality was nothing.' They note that even the published commentary on 'sodomy,' which would seem to be the clearest antecedent to later talk about homosexuality, yielded little that would illumine a long tradition of same-sex regulation. Although many Bible reference tools mentioned that damnable 'sin of Sodom,' the muddled and circular commentary on this 'loathsome vice' offered little that clarified its nature. Historian Rebecca Davis, on her own hunt to find Christian teachings about homosexuality, similarly notes the profound absence in early and mid-twentieth century Protestant literature--and especially in the writing by conservative fundamentalists. 'The extant printed record,' she observes, 'suggests that they avoided discussions of homosexuality almost entirely.' Adding further substance to this void are the findings from Alfred Kinsey's study of the sexual behavior of white American men, conducted between 1936 and 1946. The study suggested that Christians, although well acquainted with the sinfulness of masturbation and premarital intercourse, knew very little about what their churches had to say about same-sex acts. 'There has not been so frequent or so free discussion of the sinfulness of the homosexual in religious literature,' Kinsey wrote. 'Consequently, it is not unusual to find even devoutly religious persons who become involved in the homosexual without any clear understanding of the church's attitude on the subject.' Before the 1940s, the Bible's seemingly plain condemnation of homosexuality was not plain at all.

...

What this book [Reforming Sodom] shows is that the broad common sense about the Bible's specifically same-sex meaning was an invention of the twentieth century. Today's antihomosexual animus, that is, is not the singular residue of an ancient damnation. Rather, it is the product of a more complex modern synthesis. To find the influential generators of that synthesis, moreover, we should look not to fundamentalist preachers but to their counterparts. Religious liberals, urbane modernizers of the twentieth century, studiously un-muddled the confused category of 'sodomitical sin' and assigned to it a singular same-sex meaning. The ideas informing this shift germinated out of the therapeutic sciences of psychiatry and psychology, an emerging field of the late nineteenth century that promised scientific frameworks for measuring and studying human sexual behavior. Liberal Protestants were early adopters of these scientific insights, which percolated through various early twentieth-century projects of moral reform. Among the yield from the convivial pairing of medicine and morality was the midcentury translation of the RSV. The newly focused homosexual prohibitions evidenced the grafting of new therapeutic terms onto ancient roots. The scores of subsequent Bible translations produced in later decades adopted and sharpened the RSV's durable precedent. In the shelves of late twentieth-century translations and commentaries--none more influential than the 1978 New International Version, which quickly displaced the King James as America's best-selling Bible--American Christians read what might be called a 'homosexualized' Bible. Instead of the archaic sinners and enigmatic sodomy talk found in the King James, these modern Bibles spoke clearly and plainly about the tradition's prohibition against same-sex behavior. The subsequent debate about the implications of these self-evident meanings overlooked a nearly invisible truth: the Bible's plain speech about homosexuality issued from a newly implanted therapeutic tongue."

Heather R. White, Reforming Sodom: Protestants and the Rise of Gay Rights

[bible-word-counter]

I'm super-new to this, how many english translations are there? Which one should I read as a first-time reader? I'm sorry if people've already asked you this

There are over a hundred translations of the Bible into English and over three thousand total for all languages.

The most common ones used are

King James Version (The one I use)

New International Version

New Revised Standard Version

As far as which one to start with? I would say the one that you can understand the best. Though it is fun to read KJV out loud because you sound like a Shakespearean actor

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Judging Others

1 ‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbour, “Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s eye.

Profaning the Holy

6 ‘Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.

Ask, Search, Knock

7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

The Golden Rule

12 ‘In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

The Narrow Gate

13 ‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

A Tree and Its Fruit

15 ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

Concerning Self-Deception

21 ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” 23 Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”

Hearers and Doers

24 ‘Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!’

28 Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, 29 for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. — Matthew 7 | New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA) New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition, copyright © 1989, 1995 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. All rights reserved. Cross References: 1 Samuel 15:33; 1 Samuel 24:13; 1 Kings 13:18; Job 22:16; Psalm 6:8; Psalm 16:11; Psalm 34:4; Psalm 37:4; Psalm 84:11; Psalm 109:17; Proverbs 9:8; Proverbs 10:8; Proverbs 10:25; Proverbs 23:9; Isaiah 35:8; Isaiah 63:7; Daniel 4:14; Matthew 5:17; Matthew 8:1; Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:1; Matthew 12:33; Matthew 22:40; Matthew 25:10; Luke 6:37; Luke 6:41-42 and 43; Luke 11:10; Luke 13:24; John 3:14; Romans 2:1; 2 Corinthians 11:3; James 3:12

[stephyytheseeker]

Figs

Knowledge, Sex, Shame, Possibility.

I believe that figs represent a thirst for knowledge. A desire to know everything; to be everything. A hunger for godlike powers. It is thought by some that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which Adam and Eve ate from was a fig tree. This could be because figs are an ancient symbol of wisdom.

In Genesis, Adam and Eve covered themselves specifically with fig leaves when they became ashamed of their nakedness after eating from the tree (Genesis 3:7). For this reason, I think that figs also represent shame. The ancient Greeks considered figs to be a symbol of fertility, sex, and love. The fig represents acknowledging and embracing your sex and sexuality while simultaneously wanting to hide it away; pretending that it doesn’t matter or exist. The fig to me represents the unfortunate awareness I have of the realities of my sex; the beauty as well as the limitations that come with it. The fig to me represents my sexuality; my desire as well as the shame that I feel about that very desire. It represents my awareness of the ways the world tries to suppress it.

When these multiple meanings are combined, figs end up representing the shame that comes along with having wisdom and awareness; of the world around me and of myself. Knowledge is power but it’s also my kryptonite. My knowledge of the horrors in this world keeps me from feeling joy. Sometimes I wish I was ignorant. Maybe then my life would be easier. Maybe then I’d be happy. Knowledge makes me confused. I know a lot but I am not an expert in one thing. I’m at best mediocre at many things. If I could be an expert at only one thing, maybe I would know which path to choose. I am ashamed of my indecisiveness. I am ashamed because I know too much but also because I know too little to make anything of myself. In Sylvia Plath’s famous novel The Bell Jar, the main character Esther Greenwood compares the inability she possesses to decide what to do with her life to a fig tree: 

“I saw my life branching out before me like the green fig tree in the story. From the tip of every branch, like a fat purple fig, a wonderful future beckoned and winked. One fig was a husband and a happy home and children, and another fig was a famous poet and another fig was a brilliant professor, and another fig was Ee Gee, the amazing editor, and another fig was Europe and Africa and South America, and another fig was Constantin and Socrates and Attila and a pack of other lovers with queer names and offbeat professions, and another fig was an Olympic lady crew champion, and beyond and above these figs were many more figs I couldn't quite make out. I saw myself sitting in the crotch of this fig tree, starving to death, just because I couldn't make up my mind which of the figs I would choose. I wanted each and every one of them, but choosing one meant losing all the rest, and, as I sat there, unable to decide, the figs began to wrinkle and go black, and, one by one, they plopped to the ground at my feet” (Plath 77)

I feel the same things that Esther expresses in this passage. I want every fig. I want all of the knowledge; all of the possibilities. I want to live every life. But that desire prevents me from acting on any of the figs. I want to do and be everything but I can’t. Ultimately I am left paralyzed, unable to decide.

References

Coogan, Michael David, et al., editors. “Genesis 3.” The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version With The Apocrypha: An Ecumenical Study Bible, Fifth ed., Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 15–17.

Plath, Sylvia. The Bell Jar. Harper Perennial Modern Classics ed., HarperCollins Publishers, 2005.

[rinkwrites]

different interpretations of the 'thou shall not lie with man as you would with women' line in the old testament (excerpts from my larger essay)

The Torah was written a very long time ago and has been translated many times into many languages since then, which means that some passages can be interpreted differently. One famous example of this is the line commonly translated as “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Many people have previously interpreted this as saying that gay male sex is a sin in the eyes of God, as the English translations say that, however the original Hebrew was much more complicated. Many believe that when the Old Testament was translated, people let their personal views blind them towards other possible interpretations. Most other western religions forbid same-sex relations, so to some extent it makes sense that this line has been interpreted as being anti LGBTQ+. This verse is a famous example of a ‘clobber passage’, a passage that people take from the Old Testament to say that homosexuality is a sin.

However, recently people have been questioning whether it has been being interpreted wrong. While this verse is used to condemn homosexuality, it never actually uses the term ‘homosexuality’ as for a long time there was no word for same-sex attraction. None of the passages in the Old Testament ever mention the word homosexuality specifically.

Levitcus.18:22 has been translated into English many times. The New Revised Standard Version agrees with the anti LGBTQ+ interpretation, phrasing it: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” In the King James bibles version of the Old Testament the verse gets translated as: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” In a similar vein, the New International Version phrases it as: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” The only standardised version that differs from these is the Priest for Equality translation which puts it as: “Do not lie with a person of the same sex in the same way as you would lie with a person of the opposite sex; it is detestable.” Which not only goes  against gay men, but it also goes against lesbian women. There is no official, widespread translations that translate it as anything other than a condemnation of homosexuality.

The first possible interpretation mistake lies in the phrase ‘lie with’. Most people over time have taken the phrase ‘lie with’ to mean ‘have sex with’, in reality this quite possible isn’t what it originally meant. Bible scholar, Jacob Milgrom found that in this verse the word for a man is singular but the word for a woman is plural. He also found that the bit that says, “as one lies with a woman” is only found in this verse and in Lev. 20:13. However the phrase “as one lies with” appears In the Old Testament five different times, and is mostly used to mean ‘slept next to’, the people were sharing a bed but not actually having sex. The only one that explicitly says a sexual act is taking place is in Genesis 49:4 which shows Rueben sleeping with his father’s wife. Because of this, Milgrom believed that the saying “as one lies with” should be interpreted as meaning a non-sexual act, however this is not a widely accepted belief.

There is also an argument that the phrase ‘as one lies with’ specifically refers to a non-consensual act of sex. There are some that  believe the line is a condemnation of rape, however there are specific words for rape in Hebrew, and it isn’t logical to base an argument off of the connotations of a word, especially as we don’t know exactly what the connotations are as languages change over time.

Another bible scholar, Renato Lings, also studied this particular passage. He wrote papers building on David Stewart’s idea that this passage is actually referring to homosexual incest, as the word used for man is a different word to the one used in most of the rest of the Old Testament. The Hebrew word here has connotations of brotherhood, which Lings and Stewart interpreted as a condemnation of having sex with a sibling. It could also be taken as meaning a boy, as the noun used for male is non age specific, which is what has lead some to argue that the passage is condemning paedophilia.

Modern Orthodox Judaism - Wikipedia

The Jewish experience in the contemporary scene. The transformations of the Nation-State and the development of new Inter-Civilizational relations (openedition.org)

It's Still Hard to Be a Jew | My Jewish Learning

Lost in Translation: Alternative Meaning in Leviticus 18:22 – Queer Bible Hermeneutics (smu.edu)

Leviticus 18:22 – Queer Bible Hermeneutics (smu.edu)

[the-annotated-antichrist]

Act II, Track 05 - Temple of New Jerusalem

Song links: Spotify - YT Music - Apple - Tidal

Today, we are getting more into the Biblical sources. I normally put them into extra posts, but they're too important for this song, so I'll discuss them here. I also apologize if I miss any important references or misinterpret anything - this song touches on a lot, and I am not a theologian. As always, this is my analysis which I am fairly confident in, but it's not an "official" interpretation.

Seth is now a well-established leader for whom everything is going well at the moment, so of course he has new plans. But so does Apollonius:

[Apollonius:] Listen now thee Caesar to me: Christians are speaking of pain Open shall I The gate beyond high to the astral domain..?

This is, I think, phrased a bit weirdly, but what it means (according to the scene description) is that Apollonius is "perplexed" that Christians are starting to doubt Seth and the suspicion, previously only expressed by Johanna, that the Antichrist might be on his way and that Seth might even be the Antichrist, is becoming more widespread.

This is perhaps not as surprising as Apollonius seems to think, since he and Seth sort of match the description of the Antichrist and his right hand in the Book of Revelation.

Apollonius' solution to this is to open the gates to an astral dimension and allow demons to come through. I don't really know what he hopes to accomplish by this, but Seth shoots down his idea immediately anyway and starts talking about his own plans.

[Seth:] Gates must not be opened Nothing but the flow is for us to follow hear me now There used to be a temple in Jerusalem that shall reach the heavens once again Palace dreams of ancient might Bring the past trough time to the light Let's build a temple!

He wants to restore Jerusalem, which at this point is "only a fragment of a town", to its former glory by building a spectacular temple that will also be a palace for him to live in. This too is a very questionable idea from a Christian perspective, since it's disturbingly similar to what the "Man of Sin" does in the Bible:

He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. (Thessalonians 2:4-8, New Revised Standard Version Bible)

Seth's servants agree with his plans:

[Servants:] Caesar, we hear

[Seth:] Let's build it now Let's build a temple! [Servants:] Future and past... [Seth:] ...unite the world Congress of the truth Within the temple walls One day soon shall triumph

[Male servant:] Holy, Holy majesty [Seth:] Palace dreams of ancient might Bring the past trough time to the light Let's build a temple! [Servants:] Time Rise through time The given sign Always to remember thee divine Hail! We all hail May it prevail Temple of new Jerusalem

So why would Seth do something so antichristy? Well, he calls his temple-palace the "Temple of New Jerusalem". New Jerusalem appears in the Bible as Jerusalem after the Apocalypse, a place of peace and plenty. So it's really a matter of interpretation where we are in the Christian timeline - is the Apocalypse only beginning and the Man of Sin is about to put himself above God? Or was the collapse of industrial civilization the Apocalypse and Seth is the Second Coming of Christ? It's the same two-sided imagery we saw previously when Seth was called the "morning star".

However, New Jerusalem in Revelation explicitly does not have a temple - it doesn't need one because God and the angels are there themselves. The very thing that Seth wants to do proves that it's not the real "New Jerusalem" he is creating. One could see the use of the two-sided symbolism here as a clever way to set up something that a shallow Christian could reasonably see as a good idea but a Christian who looks closely will see as a warning sign.

At the same time, Seth is keeping it a blasphemous secret that he sees himself as something akin to a new and improved version of Jesus. Yet his servants seem to have no problem with the whole idea. Do they not see the connection? Or do they not care? Seth is getting worshipped like a god anyway - maybe many of them do privately see him as a second Messiah, but won't say it out loud. Then again, maybe they do say it out loud. "Always to remember thee divine" - does that refer to God or to Seth..?

In the Solovyov book, the temple is no big deal. In Beloved Antichrist however, it kinda is. In the next song we will hear about its construction.

[mathsandcomedydotcom]

Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy is my least favourite apologist. That said, he is to be commended for not trying to twist the words of John 7:8-10, where Jesus lies concerning going up to the feast. To save Jesus from lying, some late Greek manuscripts add the word “oúpō” or “yet”. In our best Greek manuscripts, Jesus says: ‘I am not going up to this feast’. In later manuscripts, and in the KJV, Jesus says: ‘I am not going up yet to this feast.’ Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy readily admits that Jesus lied here... however, because of "context"—an apologist’s ultimate escape hatch!—Jesus can tell a lie, here, and yet remain “sinless”, as lying, it would seem, was ok in an ancient Jewish cultural context, according to Michael Jones.

In John 7:8-10, Jesus lies to his brothers, about going up to the feast, and then goes up secretly to the feast. As far as I am aware, Michael Jones does not dispute this.

‘Go to the festival yourselves. I am not[c] going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but, as it were, in secret.’

John 7:8-10, New Revised Standard Version (Updated Edition)

The NRSV UE is the translation preferred by most English-speaking professional Bible scholars.

The below link takes one to a free book—‘The Justified Lie by the Johannine Jesus in its Greco-Roman-Jewish Context’ (2nd ed., 2022)—by John MacDonald—that argues that Jesus is indeed portrayed by the Johannine author as lying, in these three verses.

[osamu-jinguji]

My favorite books in Apr-2023 - #5 The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy: New, Updated and Completely Revised by Lawrence Freedman (Author), Jeffrey Michaels (Author) “The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy quickly established itself as a classic when it first appeared in 1981. This edition makes it even better, incorporating as it does new material about the Cold War and up-dating to include subsequent developments. Filled with insights and penetrating analysis, this volume is truly indispensable.” ―Robert Jervis, Author of How Statesmen Think "Freedman and Michaels have written a thorough and thought-provoking guide to nuclear strategy. The authors analyze the causes of both wise and unwise strategic decisions in the past and thereby shine a bright light on dilemmas we face in our common nuclear future." ―Scott Sagan, Stanford University, USA “With its comprehensive coverage, clear and direct language, and judicious summaries of a vast literature, this new and wholly revised edition of The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy will be essential reading for any student of nuclear history, strategic studies, or contemporary international relations.” ―Matthew Jones, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK “Sir Lawrence Freedman’s The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy has been the first port of call for three generations of academics and policy-makers wanting to familiarize themselves with the subject matter. The success of this book could have led Professor Freedman to satisfy himself with regular updates or afterwords. But the tireless author is now gracing us with an entirely revised edition of his masterpiece nearly forty years after its initial publication, taking into account findings from archives and declassified documents. At the same time, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy remains true to its original purpose and spirit: an easy to read manual, light with footnotes, focusing on policy rather than on theory, and thus the best possible introduction to an arcane subject. In an era when nuclear strategy issues seem to be becoming relevant again, its historical scope and breadth will make its reading or re-reading even more useful – if only because knowing about the absurdity of the Cold war arms race is a prerequisite if one does not want to repeat its mistakes.” ―Bruno Tertrais, Deputy Director, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, France “This updated and improved edition of the classic text on the evolution of nuclear strategy is a must read for anyone attempting to understand the nuclear predicament and where it is heading. Impressive in every respect!” ―T.V. Paul, James McGill Professor of International Relations, McGill University, Canada, and the author of The Traditon of Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons “After the end of the Cold War, we hoped for a world in which nuclear weapons would have ‘low salience’, or might even disappear into virtual, non-assembled arsenals. Alas, they are coming to the fore again. With changes in political context and technology, it is thus pressing that ‘the Bible’ on the Evolution of Nuclear Strategy should be updated. Lawrence Freedman’s great classic has been admirably updated with the help of Jeff Michaels. The work, just as its previous editions, thus remains the definitive and authoritative point of reference on nuclear strategy in the twenty-first century.” ―Beatrice Heuser, Chair of International Relations, University of Glasgow, Scotland First published in 1981, Lawrence Freedman's The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy was immediately acclaimed as the standard work on the history of attempts to cope militarily and politically with the terrible destructive power of nuclear weapons. It has now been completely rewritten, drawing on a wide range of new research, and updated to take account of the period following the end of the cold war, and covering all nuclear powers.

[riverdamien]

The Brave Never Die!

"Sloughing Toward Galilee!

"The Brave Never Die!"

"The brave die never, though they sleep in the dust, their courage nerves a thousand men and women!" Minot J. Savage.

"Never Allow Yourself to Be Made A  Victim, Accept  No One's Definition Of Your Life; define yourself." Harvey Fierstein.

"It is Revolutionary for any trans person to choose to be seen and visible in a world that tells us we should not exist."  Laverne Cox

---------------------------------------------------------

New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition:

Mark 10: 17-27

The Rich Man

17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not defraud. Honor your father and mother.’ ” 20 He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” 21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money[a] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 22 When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is[b] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They were greatly astounded and said to one another,[c] “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”

================================

Twenty years ago I was an interim pastor of a local church, and wanted to lead a new Bible study on non-violence; a parishioner, who had served in Vietnam sat down and opened the book that was chosen, and began screaming at me, really screaming and upset, for he had been wounded in Vietnam, this study was questioning who he was and what he did in his life.

Inadvertently my brainstorm of sharing a different approach to the Bible had violated this gentleman to his very core; the one thing a pastor never intentionally does. I asked his forgiveness, put the Bible study away, and never used it publicly again.

In the same manner, several years later I attended a meeting wearing clericals, and a woman minister started screaming and crying because the black clericals represented patriarchy and sexual abuse; since I have worn clericals and only colored ones.

In the months and years to come I would serve young and old homeless veterans as the one on Haight in the photo above; be in a Veterans PTSD group struggling with my issues, and assure each one of my thankfulness for their service. I remember a cousin and uncle who were veterans of World War II and Vietnam, both suffered silently from depression, and I would suggest PTSD through the years.

I do not believe in war, I do not believe in violence, but we live in a broken world, and like Mark Twain:  "Patriotism Is Supporting Your Country All the Time, And Only Your Government When It Deserves It! Mark Twain. We live in a "dirty rotten system", and my support is through caring for people who are disabled, homeless, and severely crippled.

There was a time early in my ministry when I was going through the process of being a military chaplain, but came to my senses when I admitted my being queer to myself. I could not stay in the closet! And we in our country are still struggling with letting queers in the military, especially transgenders!

In our election campaign season and on Memorial and Veteran's Day our politicians promise to eliminate homelessness among veterans on the street, and yet year after year I see the same people living in tents, unable to get their foot in the door. Several are disabled in wheelchairs, and all struggle with PTSD and other forms of mental illness, and yet they are homeless.

June is Pride Month! LGTBTQ'S celebrate they're being a presence in the world! But beneath the celebratory mood, real fear exists in parts of our country and the world. Homophobia is still alive and well in our religious institutions, government and social institutions, and our population! You should hear the comments I receive on my blog and through my email, most are telling me what a sinner I am, and what the Holy Scripture says about my way of life! My sister, a fundamentalist, will not talk to me, and canceled a meeting with me when I was back in Southeast Missouri to "clean the church," rather than to hang out with this sinner!

And so on this Memorial Day, we celebrate living veterans, queer veterans, and the deceased giving their lives for us, we celebrate their sacrifice and dedication. This Memorial Day I will take out the veterans on Polk and Haight for a meal, give them thanks for their service, and end the day by walking through the Presidio cemetery in prayer and thanksgiving!

This  June we celebrate "Pride Month", and are declaring to all who want to condemn and dehumanize LGBTQ individuals we are proud to be who we are, children of God!

We can talk about political parties, and

politicians, in their harm or no harm to individuals, but in reality, change comes only through each one of us looking at ourselves, and seeing every human being simply as a child of God, deserving of love and care without regard to sexual orientation, race, creed, and color. Change begins with you and me, and I invite you to join me in donating to the Wounded Warrier Project:

Wounded Warrior Project, P.O. Box 758516, Topeka, Kansas 66675-8516

 Deo Gratias! Thanks be to God!

============================

Dr. River Damien Sims, sfw, D.Min., D.S.T.

Post Office Box 642656

San Francisco, CA 94164

www.temenos.org

paypal.com

415-305-2124

Dr. River Sims, D.Min., D.S.T.

Director

Certificate in Drug and Alcohol Addiction

Certificate in Spiritual Direction

Certificate In Religious Trauma

(30th Anniversary Celebration!)

October 5, 2024

5:00 p.m.

Victor's Pizza

(Where Bought Youth First Pizza!)

Prayer of St. Brendan!

"Help me to journey beyond the familiar

and into the unknown.

Give me the faith to leave old ways and break fresh ground with You. Christ of the mysteries I trust in You to be stronger than each storm within me.

I will trust in the darkness and know that my times, even now, are in Your hands.

Tune my spirit to the music of heaven,

and somehow, make my obedience count for You"

------------------------------------------------

(Temenos and Dr. River seek to remain accessible to everyone. We do not endorse particular causes, political parties, or candidates, or take part in public controversies, whether religious, political or social--Our pastoral ministry is to everyone!

[shawnjacksonsbs]

Getting to the meat of the deal. 3-30-24

"Once our idea of Heaven meant

all the dead relatives waiting

on the kept lawns of the many mansions

as if, suddenly sinless, they had nothing to do." - Deborah Digges

I have finished my self-imposed prerequisite reading material, the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, and the Simple Faith of Mister Rogers by Amy Hollingsworth.

I have lots of [new] notes already, too.

Both were very good reads in their own rights, plus they played a kind of balancing act with my mind as I went back and forth with them in sections, so, I wouldn't unintentionally lean harder in one direction more than another.

The open-mindedness needed for the next part is gonna take everything I got to stay on point, and how . . .and why. Lol

Now, I am to start the bible portion of this project. Starting at the beginning and reading all the way through while collecting scriptures, in note form to be used in the new book, specifically omitting all parts debatable. So that only those that would transcend . . .all beliefs, or lack of belief, are what's left and usable.

I'm already at my first, dilemma, or my first struggle of a decision.

Although I will be reading every word from 2 different versions, a New King James Version (NKJV), and the C.S. Lewis New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) I wonder where to draw my line in the sand.

Practically, I imagine I could leave out some whole selections as the probability that the whole book, such as Genesis, or whole groups of them found in the Laws as example, won't be found agreeable,

or

I skip to the verses that could be not seen as . . .superstitial(?). So I'd start with like;

Genesis 1:13, So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then to;

Genesis 1:19, So the evening and morning were the fourth day.

Then;

Genesis 1:23, So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Etc, etc.

I struggle with even adding things historical from some of this because it's not, all . . .believable.

I don't think anyone denies that there was a third day, or a fourth day, or even a fifth, regardless of where they drew their conclusion.

So . . .?

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

I imagine I have several more, relative struggles awaiting me in the upcoming weeks? months? years? Yikes.

How long does it take to read the Bible straight through, especially, with slow starts, transcribes, pit stops, and rereadings. Lol This is gonna be a lot.

I wonder if I'll feel like it was worth it when I'm done, like I feel like it is now as I start.

Wish me luck.

I'm gonna need it. Lol

Until next time;

"I have identified so many times that sudden

earnest spasm of the throat in children,

or in the jaundiced faces of the dying,

the lower eye-lids straining upward.

Fear needs its metaphors.

I’ve read small helplessnesses make us material. . ." - Deborah Digges