#side a

[dead-wives-tourney]

Round 3 Side A

who is more dead wife?

propaganda:

Padme Amidala:

Anakin literally turned into Darth Vader to save her from dying and I think that's so integral to the plot of Star Wars that if she wasn't his Dead Wife then so much of that franchise would be so different.

Owen Carvour:

His deaths bookend the musical and they leave impacts on the main character, his secret boyfriend. The GAYASS Flashbacks Curt has multiple times across the show. The man he was before he was left to die is so long gone, when he's in disguise he's played by a whole other actor and we only see him again at the end.

[ohholydyke]

Hi! As an LGBTQ+ Christian, I'm genuinely really curious how you reconcile non-celibate homosexuality with Bible verses like Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-28? While I know alternative interpretations/translations are offered, taking into account context, I really struggle with why God would allow the more commonly accepted interpretations to be so widespread if they were wrong, so I'm super interested in your view on this (if you're okay to share?). <3

Of course! First of all let me start by acknowledging I am not a biblical scholar and am only human, so I encourage you to do your own research. Also, if any of my dating or analysis is factually wrong (like my manuscript analysis), I will be happy to address that if pointed out.

Allow me to take this step by step. This post ended up being super long so I’m going to break it up into three separate posts. Part I is Leviticus 18:22, part II will be on Romans 1:26-28 and part III will be on why I believe the widely held interpretations are so widespread if they are wrong, and why widespread theology and belief doesn’t necessarily mean correctness or truth. I’ll @ you and cross link these posts for access as I go.

Edit: Part II is now up

Part I: Leviticus 18:22

First off, external context:

The following text is from The New Catholic Bible: St Joseph Compact Size Edition (2019)

Modern critics agree that during the Babylonian Exile some priests (of the tribe of Levi) collected and made part of their final text the liturgical books that had taken shape in the course of time: a ritual for sacrifices, another for the investiture of priests, a set of norms for distinguishing clean from unclean; at some later point, they added the "Law of Holiness" (chs. 17-26). It is this body of material that makes up the Book of Leviticus. The various components are not all from the same period: some prescriptions date from the time of Moses and even earlier; in other instances the editors adapt ancient rites to their own present religious concerns. The Law of Holiness, which probably dates from the last years of the monarchy (end of the seventh century) reflects the viewpoints of the Jerusalem priesthood and stands in contrast to the viewpoints found in Deuteronomy, which was published during the same period.

All the laws systematized in Leviticus are regarded as expressing God's will. They impose on the chosen people a common religious behavior by which this people will show themselves to be the people of the Sinai covenant. The Lord has delivered his own from the land of Egypt and he now expects them to acknowledge his presence and render him the worship due to him.

Sacrifice, which takes numerous forms, is the essential act of worship. It signifies that the children of Israel hand over themselves and their possessions to him who is their supreme protector. It unites them to their God and, by winning his forgiveness, restores this union when sin has broken it. In short, through sacrifice God saves and sanctifies his people. Israel is a priestly people; the priests in their actions symbolize the worship of an entire people.

In addition to moral and liturgical precepts, Leviticus lists various, sometimes quite detailed regulations meant to decide which objects and things hinder a person from drawing near to what is sacred, even though no moral fault might be involved; it was thought that these objects had a baleful power. Like the neighboring peoples, the children of Israel had their prohibitions, but even through these taboos, which were standard in this ancient civilization, they came to know the holiness of God, which is so strongly asserted throughout this book and which came to pervade their entire existence.

Let’s do some close reading here. First of all, Leviticus as we have it was compiled and written during the Babylonian Exile, likely combining oral tradition, Jewish practice and written documents. This means that the text carries with it a long history of existing laws and reflection on customs and law/the priesthood. This isn’t to say that the text isn’t divinely inspired (a doctrine I personally affirm though you don’t have to), but because it was written through mortal men we can assume the limitations of humanity apply such as bias, cultural understanding (such as the way an American’s understanding of the date 9/11 is coded by the 2001 plane attacks as a modern day citizen), and imperfect dialectic and rhetoric skills. Once again, this doesn’t denigrate the text as much as just humbly acknowledge that as humans we are limited, and we must approach Scripture with that knowledge lest our arrogance overtake us into the sin of pride (which is similar to the issue a lot of Catholics take with Protestants defending strict sola scriptura). This means that we must approach the text with the understanding that Leviticus 18:22 was written after the law was given, traveling in the desert, the establishment of Israel as a kingdom and the Babylonian captivity and exile. That’s…a lot of time for potential interference between the law given by God and the text in our hands. It’s like playing a really long game of telephone: we’re probably really close, but there can be gaps and we should acknowledge that potential. So I can acknowledge that the verse was written by fallible men, with human limitations, quite some time and distance culturally and geographically from the original handing of the law at Sinai. Once again, this doesn’t denigrate Scripture and its worthiness, but is a necessary acknowledgement for humility and understanding within the text’s proper context.

Second of all, the above quote tells us that the laws are there to show that the Sinai people are different and set apart (more on this later). This gives us the motivation and intention of the text and the laws within them. Now, while we may certainly argue that the truths expressed in the law have worthiness in being continued (one of my favorite parts of Leviticus is the house code of Leviticus 14 which tells the priesthood how to deal with mold infections in a house and when it’s salvageable and when it needs to be destroyed/how to avoid getting sick from it with the means available to them in the desert and later on when they could actually build houses) it’s important to recognize that the law was given to the Jewish people in order to keep them alive in the desert and to separate them from Egypt and the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:3). Thus everything contained in the law is for one or both purposes, and should be evaluated in this way. The question becomes: what was the behavior being addressed in 18:22, and how did that keep them alive in the desert and/or separate them from the people around them? I’ll come back to this question later.

Notably, the point of being separated from people around them was twofold: the purpose was either to avoid being judged and looked down upon by other nations (by doing something they’d see as shameful or dishonorable) OR it was to set apart Jewish religion from other religious practices around (remember Leviticus is primarily aimed at priests and framed within a religious law (rather than secular) context). So 18:22 must be referring to behavior either condemned by other nations OR religious behavior normalized within other nations (a good comparison is the prohibitions of scarification and tattoos, as these were regularly performed by surrounding religious groups for ritual purposes. Notably, we no longer uphold such prohibitions as we are not Ancient Israel.)

As a quick side note the detail on describing houses of stone also emphasizes my above point about the text being written post Sinai and the desert exile (when they were more nomadic and largely in tent encampments).

Another aspect of note is when the quote above talks about “the various components are not all from the same period: some prescriptions date from the time of Moses and even earlier; in other instances the editors adapt ancient rites to their own present religious concerns.” This also affects our approach to the applicability of the text in our lives, and we must acknowledge that we don’t have the law dictated by God at Sinai (dated roughly 1313 BC), we have an inspired account by men written during the exile (dated roughly 425 BC to 328 BC). That’s a thousand year separation. Remember that game of telephone? So we have God’s dictated law, filtered through God’s inspired scripture a thousand years later by a divinely inspired yet still fallible and limited human being. And that’s just the original copy. The earliest manuscript of Leviticus we have, 4QExod-Lev of 4Q17, is a Dead Sea scroll that dates to 250 BC (so at least 78 years since the original), and that manuscript doesn’t even have 18:22. For that verse we have to go to 4Q23 which is dated sometime between 140 and 37 BC. So now we have our divinely dictated word of law being written by divinely inspired humans, then (since we only assert that the originals are divinely inspired, not copies or translations) being copied and translated into a not divinely inspired manuscript written approximately 1,173-1,276 years after the original law was dictated at Sinai, all by fallible humans. That’s a lot going on in our game of telephone before we even touch the question of translation, preservation, and the biblical canon.

That’s made even more complicated by the fact that 18:22 is part of the Law of Holiness, which “probably dates from the last years of the monarchy (end of the seventh century) [and] reflects the viewpoints of the Jerusalem priesthood [of the time] and stands in contrast to the viewpoints found in Deuteronomy, which was published during the same period.” Telephone game and human limitations.

Finally, for external context, we have the following part of the quote: “Leviticus lists various, sometimes quite detailed regulations meant to decide which objects and things hinder a person from drawing near to what is sacred, even though no moral fault might be involved; it was thought that these objects had a baleful power. Like the neighboring peoples, the children of Israel had their prohibitions, but even through these taboos, which were standard in this ancient civilization, they came to know the holiness of God” I want you to keep this in mind as we move into the next part of our verse analysis

Internal context:

Leviticus 18 is part of the Law of Holiness (or Holiness Code), which is unique for regarding all of Israel as holy (not just the priests or sacrifices) and mainly is the bit where God says that the Canaanites were doing certain practices and Israel needs to not do them. So we know 18:22 refers to something the Canaanites were doing, which satisfies the earlier question about the verse needing to help Israel survive in the desert and/or set them apart from other peoples. 18:3 specifies this by saying “you shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.”

Remember the earlier definition of “set apart”? Let’s come back to that. Option 1 is to avoid shame. Option 2 is to avoid religious practices to set Judaism apart. The word used in 18:22 is the infamous to’evah. Abomination. What does to’evah mean in its original context? Let’s look at other verses. In Genesis 43:32, it’s used to describe the way Egyptians believed it was a to’evah to eat bread with the Hebrews. In Genesis 46:34, it’s used to describe how Egyptians saw shepherds as to’evah. In Exodus 8:26, it talks about how the Egyptians saw certain Hebrew sacrifices as to’evah and that’s why Moses asked pharaoh to let them go out of Egypt to make sacrifices. In all these cases, option 1 (behavior detested by other nations) seems to be the best case. It’s notable that none of these things are morally bad in of themselves (the Bible itself discusses how shepherds, Egyptians and jews eating bread together, Jewish sacrifices are all fine) but instead are cultural taboos.

So let’s look at behaviors that were prohibited by surrounding nations:

First off the Hittites had laws against a father having intercourse with his son (I don’t know for sure if this means consensual or not because the term I came across is “violates” which could mean rape or it could mean defilement). It is accompanied by other anti incest laws similar to the rest of Leviticus 18. The scholar Harry Hoffner Jr notes that the Hittite law was because the partner was the man’s son, not because they were of the same sex. The following quote is by scholar Brian Gerig:

Table A, paragraph 20 deals with a physical act done, not just a rumor: “If a seignior [an Assyrian man] lay with his neighbor [another citizen], when they have prosecuted him (and) convicted him [the first citizen], they shall lie with him (and) turn him into a eunuch.”14 This describes a situation where a man has forced sex upon a local resident or business partner, who then has the option of bringing a charge against him. Noticeably, the perpetrator is punished while the victim is not; so the crime here is rape. Homosexuality itself is not condemned, nor looked upon as immoral or disordered. Anyone could visit a prostitute or lay with another male, as long as false rumors or forced sex were not involved with another Assyrian male. Still, both of these laws suggest that for a male to take the submissive woman’s role in same-sex intercourse was looked down upon as shameful and despised.

I’ll come back to the idea of a man in a submissive woman’s roles being looked down upon later. But for now, Brian Gerig continues on:

Pictorial and literary references in ancient Mesopotamia show acceptance of some forms of homosexuality, but wariness toward others. Anal intercourse was freely pictured in figurative art in the ancient cities of Uruk, Assur, Babylon, and Susa from the 3rd millennium B.C. on – and images show that it was practiced as part of religious ritual. Both Zimri-lin (king of Mari) and Hammurabi (king of Babylon) had male lovers, which the queen of Zimri-lin mentions matter-of-factly in a letter. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman, of a woman for a man, and of a man for man.16 (Lesbian love is not mentioned, probably because of the low status of women in ancient times, when women were basically considered property, and adultery was considered a trespass against the husband’s property. A husband was free to fornicate, but a wife could be put to death for the same thing.17) The Summa alu, a manual used to predict the future, sought to do this in some cases on the basis of sexual acts, five of which are homosexual:

“If a man copulates with his equal from the rear, he becomes the leader among his peers and brothers.

If a man yearns to express his manhood while in prison and thus, like a male cult-prostitute, mating with men becomes his desire, he will experience evil.

If a man copulates with an assinnu [a male cult-prostitute], trouble will leave him

If a man copulates with a gerseqqu [a male courtier, or royal attendant], worry will possess him for a whole year but will then leave him.

If a man copulates with a house-born slave, a hard destiny will befall him.”18

The fact that different kinds of homoerotic pairing will occur is taken for granted. What mattered was the role and the status of a partner, especially the passive partner – and the anticipated ramifications in each case. To penetrate a male who was of equal status or a cult prostitute was thought to bring good fortune; but copulation with a royal attendant, a fellow prisoner, or a household slave was thought to probably spell trouble.19

Needless to say, none of these are about being queer as we understand that now. The closest one is the act of anal sex between men, used as a power and social dynamic: they are equals until anal penetration occurs, after which the penetrator is superior and a leader, and the nature of each case of homosexuality comes down to power dynamics and social class between men. This isn’t an act of a romantic and sexual relationship such as the gays have now. Notably, 18:22 reinforces this distinction by the addition “as one lies with a woman.” The prohibition isn’t against lying with another man, but against lying with him in a specific way. This separates 18:22 from the other verses in ch 18, in which incest is just flat out prohibited in all forms such as 18:7 (you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father or mother), onto 18:20. Similarly, 18:23 (beastiality) is a flat out prohibition rather than a specific font of an action. Only 18:22 stands out with the qualifier “as with a woman.” I would argue this is because of the above power and social dynamics of anal sex in the Ancient Near East. The woman was submissive and penetrated, for a man to receive anal penetration was for him to become a woman and thus degrade himself and be judged for it. That’s why Sodom and Gomorrah ought to be read as gang rape in an attempt to humiliate a foreigner (which is the interpretation that better aligns with Ezekiel 49-50: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.” [Emphasis added]).

This is further emphasized by the fact that Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome both had similar views of anal sex, in which the bottom participant was seen as holding the role of a woman and/or an inferior (and thus denigrated) while the top was accepted (and in some cases seen as asserting his manliness and power in having anal intercourse as the penetrator). More on Rome’s views later.

So to summarize: to’evah suggests practices that are cultural taboos rather than inherently immoral acts. This lends itself to an interpretation of “being set apart from Canaanites” as avoiding behavior that would shame Israel in the eyes of the nations around it. Historical evidence does not suggest that queer relationships were an issue. Instead, the judged behavior was either actions that aren’t queer relationships OR an act based around power dynamics and social class hierarchy and humiliation that led to the social shame of one of the participants as “less of a man” and as an inferior. Obviously, that last one is not the case for modern queer relationships, which are not about power and social class dynamics in that way AND our society does not look down upon men who practice anal sex the same way the Ancient Near East did because we no longer have the same views of men and women and their sexual and social roles (excluding of course modern homophobia which is fueled by verse interpretations and thus out of the question here).

But let’s say I lost you with my interpretation of to’evah as social taboo. Maybe 18:22 was a matter of Israel avoiding behavior that surrounding nations allowed or celebrated religiously or socially (option 2 of being set apart). Let’s examine it again from that lens then:

Brian Gerig and many other Near East religious and cultural scholars highlight laws and cultural norms around homosexuality as taking two main forms outside of the ones already addressed above: pedastry and temple prostitution/religious erotic practices.

Pedastry is, of course, pedophilia. I think we can all agree that pedophilia is evil and also NOT WHAT QUEER RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS IS.

As for temple prostitution (of which Canaanite cultures did have quite a few instances of men and women who engaged in sex with worshipers as an act of religious devotion) and religious erotic practices (in which priests and priestesses engaged in erotic and sexual activities as offerings or devotion to their gods and spirits), this aligns more with the idea of “being set apart” = “not doing religious practices of surrounding nations” (remember the scarification example?). Once again, this is situationally limited (we as Christians no longer prohibit tattoos because we don’t do them religiously and are not Jewish so as to be set apart like Ancient Israel) and more importantly IS ALSO NOT WHAT MODERN QUEER RELATIONSHIPS AND SEX ARE ABOUT. A gay couple isn’t having sex as an offering to an ancient Mesopotamian deity or as a temple act with worshipers and parishioners for religious reasons (most of the time at least, idk what everyone does with their time but we’re not talking about that here).

I have one final nail in the coffin for Leviticus 18:22, and that’s about exegesis and application:

Supersessionism is bad and antisemetic. We’re not replacing Jewish people in the covenant and in being set apart from other nations by YHWH. Thus, we are not under the same category of having to be set apart from Egypt and Canaan like the Ancient Israelites were. You could argue the Holiness Code does not apply to modern day people as a result.

Part 2: Romans 1:26-28 and Part 3: Why the commonly held interpretations are widely spread if they are wrong to come shortly.

[onepiece-polls]

One Piece Crack Ship War - Round 1 Side A

Sho-Dan art by @shepherd-bones. Check out the full post here.

Propaganda under the cut.

Sho-Dan: Issho is based on Ichi from the Zatoichi series, so in my mind it made sense that he would've been a wandering swordsman in his youth, maybe running into Dadan during his travels. I think they'd be perfect for each other because I think their personalities are complimentary- Issho is intimidating and powerful but very kind, whereas Dadan is tough and cowardly yet has a secret sweet heart. I think they're both misunderstood characters that have lead lives absent of love, and I think they could find that in each other.

Smoking Kills: Why was Caesar so vindictive when he thought he was stabbing Smoker’s heart? Sure, his plans are crumbling around him, but is that really Smoker’s fault? Law orchestrated everything, Luffy beat him senseless, and Chopper was rehabilitating the kids. Did he just want a victory? Or was it because it was Smoker? What happened before everything? He knew about Smoker. Did he envy his freedom? Sympathize with how he felt ineffective to change anything? Did he feel he wasn’t strong enough to deserve Smoker, and thus put everything into developing his weaponry? It was only when Smoker was right there with him did he learn that Smoker hated what he was doing. He tried not to dwell on it. Vergo could fill the void, right? …no. It wasn’t the same. As he thought his fate was sealed, he made one more choice. If he couldn’t have Smoker in life, then Smoker would await Caesar in death…but for naught. Smoker was alive….and a small part of Caesar felt relief.

[butchdykejesuschrist]

That feel when you want a wall cross, but you don't want to spend money at an institution or buissness that might spend that money to fund anti-queer, anti-Muslim, or anti-choice legislation or campaigns, so you have to just make your own.

My first thought was "oh, I'll just find one at a goodwill, I see Christian decor in the home isle all the time" but every time I've gone in the past few months, they haven't had any wall crosses. Did however find a cute small wooden icon of Jesus, which I've added to my prayer corner!

Not sure if I should keep this cross with the nude wood look or if I should paint or stain it 🤔.

[thatrebeldream]

[makethosenarratorsfight]

REVIVED UNRELIABLE NARRATORS; SIDE A

NOTE; This is a revival round. These narrators are not fighting due to being dead

[boog-how]

Booghow's ONESHOTS: Speed Mating (Side A)

"can you please have my babies?"

[beloved-of-john]

sorry if this is a silly or obvious question, but whats side a and side b of the homosexuality and christianity debate? i googled it and couldn't find anything.

It's no problem! So a basic outline is:

Side A is the position that homosexuality is not in conflict with Christianity and that homosexual relationships can be pleasing to God. Sex between homosexual partners is no more sinful than sex between heterosexual partners and gay people should be welcome in the church. Gay marriage is supported.

Side B is the position that homosexuality is acceptable as long as it remains strictly non-sexual. Homosexual sex is uniquely sinful, and gay people should only be welcome in the church if they make a promise of chastity. Gay marriage is not supported as this position holds that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

I myself am very firmly Side A. As you probably saw in my pinned post, I can accept Side B as a personal choice for queer people, as long as they have truly made that decision themselves, although I don't agree with the logic behind it. The other options I didn't bring up because they are entirely unacceptable to me. There's Side X, which advocates for conversion therapy, and Side Y, which holds that it's not just homosexual sex that's sinful but any homosexual thoughts or feelings whatsoever, however involuntary.

[crmsnmth]

Side A

Laying face down on the floor I watch the vinyl spin at 33 rotations per minute I've listened to side A so much that's almost nothing but cracks and snaps and pops And makes me feel just a little less alone So I'll keep spinning it until the sound just goes away and the grooves have all been wore flat still hearing the music, even after all of that

I listen to words written with song in mind lyrics that are poignant and observant and relatable clever. And I find the words in someone else's mouth Someone who carries me when it's dark Someone I'll never know Only what they show with the music in their arsenal

I feel connected as the singer spouts poetry in motion and I can relate as he croons over lost loves. I instantly think of you Of course I do

And the needle reaches the end, popping up to signal silence and I place it on the edge so I can drink Side A again sing to the flies in the windows and the cockroaches hiding underneath my dresser serenading pests

As I slowly am losing any control At least the music keeps me whole

[sidebaxolotl]

Do side A people still count as Christians or is it like a denominational difference but still under the Christian umbrella ? In your opinion

From a theological standpoint I do not think you have to be correct about EVERYTHING to be saved. So TECHNICALLY yes they can be. There's always the chance that they haven't matured enough yet in their faith to know better or maybe they do know and the Lord has to convict em.

However, from what I've observed in my own life and in general. They are not and often end up dropping the pretense of faith anyway with enough time. I would hesitate to call them Christians in the vast majority of cases.

[delinquentbrawl]

ROUND 3, MATCH 1 - SIDE A

OHHHHHH SHIIIIIIIIIITTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN ALL OF ANIME DELINQUENT BRAWL HISTORY I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HAD COMPETITION THIS FUCKIN' FIERCE!!!!!! TAKEMICHI'S GOT THE CRAZY DIAMONDS' FULL BACKIN' BEHIND 'IM, BUT SUSIE'S CRUSHED EVERY SINGLE ONE TA COME 'ER WAY... THERE'S JUST! NO! TELLIN'! WHAT IT'S GONNA BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO VOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(TAKEMICHI FANART BY @krynutsreal!!!!!)

[dead-wives-tourney]

Round 3 Side A

who is more dead wife?

propaganda:

Kaworu Nagisa:

He dies in front of Shinji every timeline. During one of Shinji's slumps, he approaches the boy and does a friendship 100% + confession seeded run with Shinji, proceeds to provide one of the biggest lore drops in the original anime series, then dips. This causes Shinji to spiral so deeply that it basically lead to the Third Impact. THEN, in the movies, Mr Kaworu Nagisa over here appears again and you guessed it DIES in front of him :D

Cheng Xiaoshi:

i feel like the propoganda js the same as the reasonings but i will add here more tragic details which is the person trying to save Cheng Xiaoshi has stranded their soul in space and time by doing the Illegal Thing of STAYING in the past instead of the hard rule in the show of returning within 12 hours. he is not only changing the past, but also living the whole three years until the death point jjst to try and save his bestie . he also tried to kill a man so.

so he's silly and goofy and he's a puppy character however literally the opening to the yingdu arc they put him in the dead wife filter from the other guys perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFHvA-sK-Ek also the ending he's always yearning for his wife bro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3I3kbHtYvo plus Cxs is just wifey i mean he cooks he doesn't clean he protects his husband he calls for LG when his sister is bullying him he dies sexily over and over in front of him to drive him crazy and then flirts with other men before reminding LG this was truly their link click before getting shot agai-

In the 3rd opening ("The Eye", please listen to it, you won't regret it), Cheng Xiaoshi IS BATHED IN WARM LIGHTS!!! IT'S THE CLASSIC DEADWIFE SHOT FROM FILMS!!!!!! THERE'S A LITERAL MONTAGE OF CHENG XIAOSHI BEING PORTRAYED IN THIS WARM BUTTERY LIGHT BECAUSE IT COMES FROM LU GUANG'S MEMORY!!!! Cheng xiaoshi said to "save them" before he died, referring to the other people who died along the way, YET LU GUANG'S INNER MONOLOGUE SAID "I want to use this final chance to go back to the beginning to save you". LU GUANG ALSO THROWS HIMSELF AT AN ACTIVE SHOOTER AFTER SEEING CHENG XIAOSHI GET SHOT BECAUSE HE IS REMINDED OF ALL THE PREVIOUS TIMELINES WHERE CHENG XIAOSHI WAS SHOT!!!!! CHENG XIAOSHI IS LU GUANG'S LIGHT AND HE'S WILLING TO WALK THROUGH HELL AND BACK FOR HIM IM GOING INSANE!!!!! LU GUANG PURPOSEFULLY DELAYS VEIN IN HOPES THAT IT TRIGGERS THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT SO THAT VEIN DOESN'T HARM CHENG XIAOSHI!!!!

[mod minty: ngl this is the round im most excited and nervous about my blorbos are pitted against each other]

[musicalpilftournament]

Marvin vs Bill Woodward

Propaganda (Click names for full propaganda pages and other actors)

Marvin: Middle aged divorced gay father w one of the fattest asses on Broadway. I mean. Look at him he’s constantly serving cunt and I love him. Likes to bond with his son, so tired and so divorced and so gay.

Bill Woodward: Submitted without propaganda

[onepiece-polls]

One Piece Crack Ship War - Round 4 side A

Propaganda under the cut.

AceLaw: unintentionally slutty x intentional slutty

Reishigi:

Vinsmoke x Swordsman That one cover page.

Reiju being a sapphic icon was already canon in my heart but the way she cuddles up to Tahigi in a recent cover illustration just convinced me further. Good for them, Tashigi deserves a badass gf and Reiju someone who will treat her right.

That color spread is very lesbian

All of the manga readers have seen THAT cover page, and the tumblrinas probably did too after tumblr blew up.

Reiju is definitely looking at Tashigi with lust in her eyes.

LETS GO LESBIANS! There was literally no reason for Oda to illustrate Reiju leaning down on Reiju with her tongue out like that, the both of them in short dresses while drinking. Reiju cradling her face…

Oda's personal crack-ship, apparently. He drew them in a color spread because apparently he had a vision that no-one else shared and he needed to let it out in the world. And honestly, Oda cooked with this one.

Oda drew all the propaganda I needed.

There is SO much chemistry in the colorspread alone, but if that isn’t enough to convince you, please imagine Reiju flirting in the exact same loser way as her brother. But for her somehow it works because Tashigi is an even bigger loser.

I think Reiju should kiss all the pretty girls and according to the 1108 cover Oda agrees with me.

I don’t know if you’ve seen the recent color spread but there was nothing straight about how Reiju was holding Tashigi. She had her arm around her and is licking her lips. Tashigi looks very flustered. I’ve now decided they are gay for each other. Just trust me everyone.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

you've said in a Side B post "I’m side B. I would be side A but 1) I have 17 years of internalized homophobia to work thru, 2) I’ve searched the passages and this is my interpretation, and 3) even when I do buy into other interpretations I can’t tell if i believe it because it’s true or because I want it to be."

do you think being Side B is inherently homophobic?? if you interpret the bible as condemning homosexuality where does that interpretation come from? or have you changed your mind and you're side A now

Hello, anonie <33

So, you asked 3 questions

"do you think being Side B is inherently homophobic??" No. As for my earlier comments, I definitely should've phrased that better but no I do not believe Side B is inherently homophobic, though many people seem to think so.

"if you interpret the bible as condemning homosexuality where does that interpretation come from?" So for me this is really important: 1) I do not interpret the bible condemning homosexuality ("the quality or characteristic of being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex"). 2) My thoughts on this subject have nothing to do with clobber passages. Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Timothy. I do not agree with an interpretation of any of these passages that they are talking about homosexuality. Nor, at the end of the day, do I think that would even matter. When Jesus is asked about marriage and divorce in Matthew, he does not turn to Deuteronomy or Exodus or Leviticus or Numbers. He turns to Genesis 1-2. And when he looks there he sees God ordain marriage for purpose of 1 humanity becoming 2 persons who become 1 again thru covenant. I've said it before and I'll say it till I die, the answer to almost everything is on the first 3 pages of Genesis. And when I look there, I see two humans, man and woman, get married.* And then no where do I see a compelling argument for any same sex marriage. (not even my beloved David and Jonathan). As such, I can't do it in good faith.

"or have you changed your mind and you're side A now?" So, as stated above, I am not side A even though I would wish to be. That said, my thoughts on the subject are very much influenced by Romans 14, which talks about people in the faith who are stronger and weaker. Now what exactly this "weaker" and "stronger" means is actually up for debate but for this convo we'll go with the conventional interpretation of having weaker or stronger faith. The debate at hand is about food, among other things: can we eat meat sacrificed to idols. Those with stronger faith believe that "Yes, we can eat food sacrificed to idols, it's perfectly fine." Meanwhile, another group thinks that "No we shouldn't eat food sacrificed to idols." And so there is a lot of contempt and hatred and pride and Paul says they all need to settle down and humble themselves, devoting themselves not to arguments and judgement but to love for each other and allegiance to God. Whether they eat or abstain, they do it in thanksgiving and allegiance to God. And so neither are sinning.

"I know and am convinced through the Lord Jesus that nothing is profane in itself; but to the one who thinks something is profane, to them it is profane. For if because of food your sibling is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your food they for whom the Anointed One died. Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be blasphemed; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but right relationships and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For the one who serves the Anointed One in this is acceptable to God and approved by people. So then we pursue the things of peace and the things of the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the person who eats by offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your sibling stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But the one who doubts is condemned if they eats, because it is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is failure."

This is my thoughts on the matter. I believe firmly that if a person searches God and the scriptures and they believe with confidence that God has blessed them and who they love, then I desire to see them married. And I praise God for the faith they have. I myself, tho, do not have that faith and so remain as I am.