I totally missed the borders and only read the comic. The comment section makes more sense now.

Ah, well. That’s a bit different. I was trying to highlight how denominations like the one you grew up in chase away souls in the more liberal denominations. It was harder to see the lies when were not so falsifiable. But the science lies, aka the falsifiable ones, led me to explore a bit more. I think our paths converge there.

I went through a phase of trying to argue facts with Trump supporters in my extended network of family and friends. I finally decided it wasn’t worth it when the last of them I was in touch with went absolutely bugshit insane during COVID lockdowns, but probably the most demoralizing one was when I spent weeks going back and forth with a friend of a friend via DMs, citing research papers and statistics, only to be ultimately blown off with an admission that the guy didn’t care about any of it beyond who was going to be friendlier to the oil industry (he worked as a safety consultant for offshore operations). No amount of racism, bigotry or violence was enough to sway him away from Trump as long as his own pocket was being lined appropriately.

I briefly went back to check how he was feeling about that when WTI crude went negative in the early days of COVID, but he was just parroting the Texas lieutenant governor’s line about how grannies should feel proud to die for the economy, so I didn’t even bother razzing him about it.

Don’t talk to him then.

It’s also why they rant and rave a out policing the internet. It used to be that getting out of your small town and going to ANY type of higher learning like community college or a even some trade schools was enough to grow, learn, and meet diverse groups of people. Now you don’t ever have to leave your small town to learn, grow, and be presented the largest collective of diversity ever. It’s sitting in the palm of your hand.

They always have been

It’s not that they don’t want people to say skateboarding is dumb, it’s that theyre full pipe extremists and want to hear nothing of half pipes, ramps, grinding, or just using the board as a means of transportation. Loop back and forth on the full pipe or get out.

If your community consistently berates safe spaces, then making a safe space for your community is hypocritical.

"If you need a safe space, you’re a special libtard snowflake who hates reality, logic, and free speech…

… Now stay out of our safe space"

Safe spaces aren’t bad, but any conservative who hangs out in one is loudly and openly admitting to the world that they believe anything they say and spout their garbage only to control and suppress those they don’t like.

Just the hypocrisy really

Which is why I said tankies are red fash. They are just fascists who took the aesthetic of socialism.

It’s because a significant number of hexbears are right wing Poe’s law trolls.

It’s great to have an open mind, it’s a prerequisite for critical thinking.

But often times awareness itself might not be enough, as I see it. Emotions are a much bigger driving force than we give it credit, and if you’re deeply ingrained into a community with certain beliefs, it might cause a deep crisis when you change them. Mileage will vary, but emotions will always influence your thinking on this way, and some won’t ever be able to escape.

That’s the joke.

Well, Google scholar is used. But I get your point.

It kind of depends on which Jesus.

Based on your disclosure, you are concerned with the cannonical depiction of Jesus. In which case what he was allegedly discussing with these two seeds parables were the growth of faith.

But as can be seen from 2 Cor 11, before the gospels are written there are other versions of Jesus floating around, and a number of the topics Paul writes about to Corinth in 1 Cor overlap with the group who thought Jesus was effectively citing Lucretius in his seed parables. You can even see that in 1 Cor 15 Paul refers to sown seeds in the context of the human body where he also talks about a first physical man vs a second spiritual man. It’s only in 2 Cor that we see Paul talk about sown seeds relating to proselytizing.

This other extra-canonical group with ideas overlapping with early Corinth and their “other version of Jesus” had a very different eschatology from cannonical Christianity, and in their case they explained these parables as effectively relating to Greek atomism, but with the specific language of Lucretius. In fact, the apocryphal text they were following is filled with sayings of a Jesus very concerned with addressing the philosophical points of Leucretius in a rebuttal of the Epicurean belief there was nothing after death.

Essentially, there were at least two versions of Jesus in antiquity. One that was talking about evolution and matter being made of indivisible parts, and one that was not saying anything about this. The one that was canonized and a third of the world believes in today was the latter one, but personally I find the former a bit more astonishing coming from an age where these ideas were fringe and unconformable concepts but is now being read in an age where they are largely recognized as facts.

It actually reminds me of the structure of the third seed parable. That in the earlier age when they couldn’t tell what ideas were wheat and which ideas were weeds it would have been better to have waited preserving both until such a time it was clear which ideas were wheat and which were weeds. But instead the church perhaps prematurely labeled this other tradition as weeds, it was banned on penalty of death to even possess, and we only know of it today from works buried and lost for millennia and only recently rediscovered.

(This too was an idea in Lucretius - that it would be a mistake to throw out explanations for things before knowing for sure what was correct.)

Whether or not the gospels were depicting real events, there are points where they almost certainly are depicting earlier stories of events.

For example, Peter’s denying Jesus three times right around the time Jesus is having approximately three different trials to eventually convict him, in one case even going all the way back into the guarded area where the trial was taking place to deny him.

Did this happen exactly this way with the rooster and everything? Almost certainly not.

But it is very unlikely that a group of people following Peter as the person receiving the continuation of the tradition would have invented his denying the founder right when the founder was being tried, and would have made it happen a specific number of times or placed it literally inside privileged areas.

More likely is that there were stories of Peter having been denying Jesus around the time of the trials and having been spotted going back into guarded area where the trial was taking place, and then the gospels in his later tradition were trying to explain these accusations away through narrative.

i.e. Yes, he denied him, but it was only to normal people standing around and it was prophesied so it was ok.

Also, in particular in Mark you can see these splits between earlier stuff which is typically described as in public and the later stuff which is typically described as occurring in private with only a handful of people.

So with a saying like the sower parable, it was likely widely known at the time the gospel of Mark was being written which is why it was characterized as being spoken in public. But the part about him explaining it in private probably isn’t even originally part of the first draft of Mark, as they jump from the shore to a private meeting and never jump back, yet are back at the shore before it moves on to the next segment. This makes more sense if a later editor inserted the explanation and the entirety of Mark 4’s sayings at the shore were in public.

So did a historical Jesus actually stand at the shore talking about randomly thrown seeds? Who knows?

But regardless of that narrative detail being true, it’s likely that there was a saying about thrown seeds attributed to Jesus before Mark was being written, and that either the author or a later editor was adding in a secret explanation well after the parable itself was more widely known and attributed.

Removed by mod

I’m aware there’s a distinction between gender identity (psychology), gender expression (sociology) and sex (biology). I used the “biological gender” term since the comment I’m answering to did. I could have expressed myself clearer though. I’m just gonna use the fact English isn’t my mother tongue as an excuse here…

Generally my argument is „sex isn‘t binary (and shouldn’t be regarded as such), so why would gender (both identity and expression) be?“

Besides, sex is a spectrum beyond chromosomes. Even two XX or two XY people can have differing physiologies when it comes to hormones, etc. resulting in one appearing more masculine and one more feminine.

It is basically the entire premise of their argument, and it’s wrong, so yes.

Since most transphobes base their arguments primarily on a perceived biological binary, the argument needs to be brought up.

The psychological and sociological arguments around gender identity and expression sadly aren’t very fruitful when the people you’re trying to convince fixate on biology knowledge that has been refuted for decades.

You have to connect with people based on their existing world view. If they think gender identity must be exclusively determined by chromosomes, then talking about XXY and YYX and whatnot can help them see that it’s not as simple as only two genders. It’s my understanding that the intersex rate is more like 1%, but it’s been a while since I looked into it and I don’t know the mechanism behind the other ones.

Never heard of π-sexuality?

deleted by creator