zloubida

What's Iowa?

"...A normal person has a 45% chance of failing to tie a knot? What does that even mean?"

Nice well written text, but I think it distorts the spirit of the rule quoted a bit. It is clearly a rule for tying people up, not for tying simple knots, from the context. I prefer the rule in Xanathar's Guide, but the one in the new PHB is not absurd.

Ils reprennent une info du très sérieux L'Informé.

That's the only good part of far right movements : they all hate each others.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Windows, is in fact, Firefox/Windows, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Firefox plus Windows. Windows is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another component of a fully functioning Firefox system made useful by the Firefox browser, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS.

Many computer users run a modified version of the Firefox system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Firefox which is widely used today is often called Windows, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Firefox system, developed by Mozilla.

There really is a Windows, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Windows is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Windows is normally used in combination with the Firefox operating system: the whole system is basically Firefox with Windows added, or Firefox/Windows. All the so-called Windows distributions are really distributions of Firefox/Windows!

I've wasted enough time arguing with edgy atheists and fundamentalists on the internet... I'm limiting myself to real people and memes these days.

It just notes that there are a plurality of interpretation of the Bible, and that edgy atheists and evangelicals generally have the same, but the firsts reject Christianity because of this interpretation while evangelicals embrace this interpretation.

Romans 1:27 speaks of "lust for one another". Mutual lust is an aspect of a sexual relationship. Are you trying to tell me that homosexual men don't lust after each other?

In my mother tongue, lust and desire are very different things. It's normal to desire your significant other, not to lust after them. It may not be the case in English, but it was in Greek.

There is absolutely zero mention of children when there could be

Yes, but that's why I spoke about culture. There were no need to explicitly speak about children, as the involvement of children was the norm. On the contrary if Paul spoke about adult relationship too, it would have been logical for him to say that explicitly, and he didn't.

And these "scholarly revelations" about the meaning of these verses in the Bible did not predate the LGB movement.

That's normal, science and culture evolve, and out understanding of the Scriptures have to evolve too. Just like everyone thought that the Bible taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was logical for everyone that, say Isaiah 40:22 was geocentric. And we discovered that Earth was not the center of the universe, and we stopped to take these texts literally. It will be the same with the texts about homosexuality, as our understanding of sexuality changed.

The word αρσενοκοιται

αρσεν Male

κοιται Bed

It literally means "males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)"

And “butterfly” literally means “winged insect made of butter”.

An ἀρσενοκοίτης is a male who has homosexual relationships, but there's no certainty about which kind. Nothing permits to be sure that Paul thought there about all kinds of homosexual relationships, that's why I said and still say that these texts aren't clear.

We have two clues, however, that suggest this is not the case. The first is Romans 1:27, which does not speak of love but of lust. Nothing to do with today's romantic and sexual homosexuality. The second is Paul's context: in his time, homosexual sexuality existed mainly in the form of pederasty, that is, the rape of young boys by mature men. So when Paul writes about “males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)” he has this image first in mind. It would therefore be entirely justified to translate ἀρσενοκοῖται as “pederasts” and not as “homosexuals”.

If these texts seem clear to you, it is because you are injecting your cultural homophobia into them. This is the opposite of “taking the Bible seriously.”

None of these words can be translated by “homosexual” or “homosexuality”, if you understand homosexuality as “a loving and stable romantic and sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex” like the marriages blessed by this pastor.

Your translation is. The Greek isn't.