My wife refers to this as “the bath tub planet.” She will talk about how Janeway and Chakotay should have stayed and had a happy life on “the bath tub planet.” It will forever be known in my household by this name.

My completely unscientific theory is that all the preservatives in his food are, well, preserving him. Which is why he’s still up and moving around.

Well, The Hard Times has, for many years, satirized the fact that pop-punk singers tend to gravitate toward high school aged women…

Nah, Vance is going to jump over to evangelicalism. It’s more expedient; the white supremacists have always been anti-Catholicism and this will only serve his larger purposes. Also, evangelicals are more lenient on divorce (unless Erica has already moved on since she dropped out of that recent TPUSA event that drew like eleven people the other day)

I feel like there’s a really great Bob Dylan song that deals with this very topic… Maybe JD Vance should listen to it?

I think they let their cat walk on the keyboard when it was set for Wingdings, iirc

Doctor or The Great Physician?

Reminds me of one of my favorite ways to eat vanilla ice cream: with olive oil and a bit of sea salt. I get a lot of grief for this, but I learned about it ages ago in an old Cracked (.com) article and it is really good.

Roman children yearned for them.

I always smother those IKEA meatballs in lingonberry jam. Delicious.

Also, I’ve heard of Lakota dishes that involve bison steaks drizzled with a blueberry reduction or compote. I’ve always wanted to try that.

THANK YOU

You’re welcome. Thank you for reading. I know it was a bit long (that article is basically three separate blog posts rolled into one).

Not trying to convince anyone their book is wrong. I just want folks to see that there are better ways of reading it. As a former evangelical myself, but also a priest who deeply loves the Bible, the Christian faith, and Jesus, I think it’s been the case that the Bible has been read incorrectly. Further, as Christians, we’re (speaking of myself here, not assuming you are a Christian) supposed to allow Jesus to be the filter through which we read the whole thing. This is difficult, yes. But it can offer clarity. The evangelical reading tends to say “the sin of Sodom was that they were gay, therefore God is going to unleash wrath on anyone who engages in that or supports it.” But even Jesus Himself says that the sin of Sodom was that they were inhospitable. So if Jesus tells us that it had nothing to do with what we today call “sexual orientation” then it opens up a space for a better understanding of what’s going on. It allows us to see the truly monstrous sins that Sodom and Gomorrah were actually committing (which, to be frank, are the sorts of sins that we see happening in places like Lebanon and Gaza right now, the sins of the Epstein class, the sins of the Catholic Church and other churches coming to light in recent decades). The sin is exploitative sexual violence and the domination of the “outsider.” I can’t help but notice that the same organizations who treat the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as “homosexuality” tend to be the same ones either engaging in or accommodating the sins of sexual violence and domination. Is it a smoke-screen? Or is it willful ignorance?

Yeah. Sorry about that. Fixed it.

Out of habit I clicked the link icon and wound up creating a recursive loop lol

I will concede that the arsenkoites argument of mine is wanting (and maybe a bit innovative). When I first wrote that in 2015 I was still operating under the assumption of the Hebrew Bible being the “real” Old Testament (a mistake a LOT of scholars make). I’ve since studied more on the importance of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Jewish Bible that, for centuries, was the Bible) and it’s there that we learn Saint Paul is deriving his term from the Greek version of Leviticus. But this is still only what, two verses?

Also “homosexual” is a term invented in the 1890s that has its own ideological baggage. Using that term to translate a Greek word is not great because you are injecting a later concept into an ancient text. Somewhere along the way I read about some folks who looked at how old French and Spanish texts (or was it German?) that predated our English versions translated “arsenkoites” and they used a term related to pederasty.

You could, I don’t know, read the article that I linked in the post that addressed each one of these.

EDIT: I realize that I did such poor job of linking the article that you might not have actually been able to read said article. Fixed it.

I will also take the moment to add that if you think the reprehensible sin of Sodom and Gommorrah (a systemic culture of gang rape, likely irrespective of sex/gender, as a kind of “cost” for staying the area) is the same thing as “homosexuality” then I don’t know what to say.

They captured Starscream mid-transformation

It’s blasphemy and playing right into the assumption that he’s the Antichrist.

Also, what is that Evangelion looking thing above his head?

Hi, Episcopal priest here, who just so happened to do his master’s thesis on the topic of reconciling same-sex marriage with traditional Christian understandings of marriage. So to give you the quick answer: no, “being gay” is not in the Bible. If you want the long answer, here’s a link to a blog post I wrote about this: https://catecheticconverter.com/same-sex-marriage-and-the-church

EDIT: I fixed my (apparently very shitty) link job.

His first wife saved Star Wars in the editing bay. He was wise to let others direct Empire and Jedi.