Jesus’s mastectomy
Another random set of tweets! But they’re too hilarious to pass up.
You’re thinking it’s parody. I looked him up, and he’s an art student and he’s written in this vein elsewhere so nope, he’s not joking.
There’s more; it’s all funny.
Here’s a wild idea: maybe it’s not that Jeezus wuz tranz but that the idea of being trans is rooted in the magical thinking of Christianity. God is ONE and also THREE but definitely ONE. God in three persons, blessed triniteeee. Plus there’s a pigeon in there somewhere. If God is God and also his son and also The Holy Ghost/a pigeon, then men becoming women by saying so is a doddle.
Wait, I thought God was a TERF, and that’s why all the religious right nutjobs are seeking to keep those nice trans-girls out of the bathroom, prevent them from peeing, from playing sports, from existing. And TERFs are cozy with the religious right because, well, just because they agree with them on one issue (though certainly not in all the details). So now religion is…trans? Based in a trans body?
Or is it that the TERFs are the ones who reinterpreted Jesus as a cis-male? Not hetero, though, because he apparently never had sex, so maybe aromantic.
Taking a work of fiction and trying to use that work of fiction to support your own fictions is…well, rather…fictional.
Well maybe a reverse transhumanism, do I guess that sort of works… Then there’s transubstantiation… A religious transformation… Jeezus…
Isn’t it though! Like taking the movie “Carrie” as evidence that “borderline personality disorder” is EVERYWHERE and that women are EVIL.
As if further proof were needed that Twitter is the biggest manure pile on the planet:
The ‘chromozome’ (sic) may well have been a subject in Mediaeval Christian literature, though Jonah Conan is a bit light on specifics as to sources. (I had no idea that the history of genetics went back that far.) I also find it amazing that he makes no mention of transubstantiation; I would think it of prime concern to him.
But his whole tweet, cackle, cockadoodledoo, or whatever is yet another illustration that belief systems are either about believing what we want to believe, OR believing, however reluctantly, what we are forced through lack of acceptable alternatives to believe.
And I solemnly swear and believe no further proof is needed that Twitter is the biggest manure pile on the planet.
The Trans narrative and the Christ narrative both derive from a plot line older than both. First, someone is scorned. Then, the scorned one reveals they have been hiding their worth. Then, those who scorned the Worthy One are either 1.) ashamed and amazed or 2.) punished. The “worth” can be a skill, a noble lineage, beauty, great wealth, or whatever has currency in a community.
So the parallels Coman draws aren’t quite as ridiculous as they might be. There’s a kernel of truth in there — but it provides no addition credit to the timeless truth of transgenderism. It’s just yet another variation of an appealing story in which we would all like to be the protagonist.
Ah yes. I loved that plot line as a kid – under this deceptively dorky exterior (see: Clark Kent) lurks a…something something something. I was vague about the nature of the hidden worth, but…something something.
So what could possibly be lurking beneath the let-it-all-hang-out, gargantuan ego of the average trans-tweeter? There really cannot be the space for much else.
iknklast @#1:
May I draw your attention to Matthew 5:28 (KJV)? Yeshua bar Joseph (aka Jesus Christ) says: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Only two possibilities there: either 1. He was speaking hypothetically, and totally off the top of his head, like a 5-year old who at best had no experience of what he was mouthing on about, ie was an ignoramus or 2. He was speaking from experience (IMHO far more likely) in which case he was hoist on his own petard, if not as a prize hypocrite, then as one who was in no position to talk.
I rest my case.
You’re forgetting 3. he knew because he’s all goddy inside and knows everything.
Is that ‘known’ in the Biblical sense? How many divine girlfriends is one god allowed (by his own consent) to have? Perhaps to ask the question is to answer it.
Jeez. All this theology is complicated. I need a drink.
This alone fully explains it. The whole thing is ridiculous piled on ridiculous (religion pile on religion?), but I enjoy that this twit might also really annoy the perpetually offended christians.
.
Maybe two, given that photo you posteda few days ago…
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/good-morning-sir/
Jesus was definitely hetero. He fathered at least one child with Mary Magdalene and the blood-line survives to this day. I know this is true because I saw it in that Dan Brown documentary, The da Vinci Code.
Sastra #5
‘Then, those who scorned the Worthy One are either 1.) ashamed and amazed or 2.) punished.’
I recently came across on the internet a very Christian message on Youtube, in which the horrible deaths of five people, including John Lennon & the builder of the Titanic, as a result of saying something a bit disrespectful of the maker of the universe, his son, et al., are recounted with an obvious ghoulish glee and a large sprinkling of lies. The fact that over 1,500 other people on the Titanic died as well so that God might drown one man did not deter the maker of the video, or the commenters on it, who were clearly delighted that their god was such a vindictive, vicious & petty person. I think Sastra’s words should be rewritten thus:
‘Then, those who scorned the Worthy One are either 1.) punished or 2.) ashamed and amazed.’
Judging from that video & its commenters, that is the way round these lovely people think.
Why the quotation marks around the phrase “borderline personality disorder”? Is the existence of such a diagnosis in question? (I know nothing about the movie, and haven’t heard of it; just asking why you use quotation marks.)
My prediction for the near future is more hybridisation between gender-woo and religiosity. I get the impression the liberal (and in some cases, conservative) religious are starting to adopt more and more of the lingo, I guess they are attracted to the virtue-signalling possibilities. Many on the gender side have a clear affinity for magical thinking.
If so, this might cause some interesting fractures within the religious communities on one side, and the gender-woo friendly skeptical/humanist communities on the other.
Fun times ahead!
Because there are people with no training in psychology or related fields who diagnose BPD in everyone they don’t like.
Thanks.
Yes, I have been called BPD in my time, though I am not. I am so clearly OCD I’m surprised they miss that, and the major depression is a no-brainer, but the BPD is what one of my employers decided to call me after I reported sexual harassment on the job.
The thing is, the Arian depictions of Jesus are really effeminate, and the early non Arian Jesus is a rather cute youth. So this guy actually missed a rather rich vein to mine in obsessing over medieval Jesus depictions. Almost as though he knew little of the history or artistic conventions…..
The flip side of the same god who “saves” one gratefull follower from a burning building/plane-crash/flood/earthquake that kills tens/hundreds/thousands of others. And all those other victims? God has “called them home.”
I’ve always hated these Ugly Duckling stories (I guess they could also be Cinderella stories, but I prefer the former as the ‘breeding will out’ inherent superiority message is so much clearer) because of their underlying premise that some people are just naturally superior, and that no matter what circumstances or struggles they face, often at the hands of envious inferiors, that natural superiority will always cause the protagonist to triumph in the end. I hate these stories because they’re so clearly designed to manipulate kids (and adults) who cast themselves in the lead role, and because this plot is so appealing to that type of person that it’s a guaranteed moneymaker–‘lowbrow fantasy’ Harry Potter uses it, and so does ‘highbrow fantasy’ The Fifth Season.
iknklast, once at work I got sent to “communications training,” which is like a punishment detail. Everyone asks “what are you in for?” I was in for refusing to break federal law by billing social time (spent at his request, and not to my pleasure) to a government contract.
I thought my communication was completely clear: you have asked me to do something. It took two hours. I cannot bill this to my current contract, as it was unrelated. What code would you like me to bill it to?
It was a fascinating group of reeks and wrecks there on the Group W bench, er, in the “communications training.”
—
As for Jesus, I think there’s textual evidence he was a foot fetishist. Not that I’m kink-shaming, mind you. Also, he totally wore a dress.
guest, I always find that an interesting take on the Ugly Duckling, because as a child of abuse, poverty, and so forth that was reminded by my mother nearly every day how ugly I was (I wasn’t, but I didn’t know that until my 30s), I didn’t see it as breeding will out, but as the ability to rise above misfortune and how even those who seem to be on the bottom may be able to have opportunities. Though I never expected them to accrue to me, I did get a lot of comfort from stories like that, because rags to riches, while almost never happening for real people, can give you something to dream about.
Of course, the flip side could be the extreme despair and depression when you don’t turn out to be one of those who gets the opportunities that help you overcome…you could make that argument, too.