wow. it has been said here many times:
the taliban fashioned their bullshit on american christofascist bullshit, not the other way round.
edit: typo
19 Likes
Two entirely different religions and approaches and saying “They’re the Taliban” gives the Christian fundamentalists a pass.
Two sets of assholes with similar ideals but they are not the same.
24 Likes
Who would worship such an arbitrary God? One who cares what form my legwear is in but can’t be bothered to cure cancer.
Who lets Breonna Taylor die but this jerkface live.
Lucifer had it all right.
12 Likes
Interesting. You know, in one or two circles (Art; Freudian Psychoanalysis) a purse symbolizes a woman’s sexuality.
4 Likes
The women in his parish should all wear hot pants to church. I mean, that’s what he’s saying, right? It can’t be literal. Nothing in the Bible is literal.
11 Likes
if we all wore the proper legwear there wouldn’t be cancer! /s
( unfortunate that all the various gods can’t agree on what is proper clothing. if it ain’t one of them giving us cancer for dressing wrong, it’s another one who is. all very complicated )
7 Likes
Both purse and pussy may derive from the proto-Germanic “pusa” for purse.
10 Likes
That is why I live here on BBS.
9 Likes
In our 8th grade parochial school, certain girls were admonished and nun-shamed for “trying to get away with” wearing *culottes rather than the mandatory skirts. I guess even our school (noted for its progressive attitude) had its limits.
*The particular style was pleated in such a way that the split in the garment appeared to be just another pleat. Nuns don’t miss shit.
6 Likes
“And if you’re a man…”
You should also be burning your pants. Ain’t no trousers in the Bible, bucko. Jesus was actually pretty specific about what sort of clothing men should wear: mini-skirts. Ok, technically “robes” that don’t go much below the knee (because longer robes were a sign of wealth), but it amounts to the same thing.
It’s always mind-boggling to me that Christianists don’t get that things like this are totally culture-specific and change all the time - as demonstrated by their own fucking holy book. Obviously women wearing pants is NOT “cross-dressing” because women’s trousers have been a thing in the US since the mid-19th century, much less when talking about other countries. Using 2000+ year old texts as a justification for dress guides - while also completely ignoring what it actually says about how you should dress - is obvious hypocritical nonsense. It’s just another example of religion being used to shore up what amounts to completely personal prejudices of how “things should be.”
As Jesus intended.
Shoot, even this god apparently keeps changing his mind about what “proper” clothing is, as evidenced by what the churches tell people…
22 Likes
Uh… that collides head-on with the Bible being the literal, inerrant word of Christ [translated from the Aramaic to the Greek, written down 40+ years after death of Christ, then copied/recopied on vellum/papyri over the centuries, edited/excised/canonized at Nicaea, then translated to modern English] and the Conservative mindset that: Nothing. Ever. Changes. (Or Should Change).
9 Likes
And yet his clothing prescriptions have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible itself, nor what the general cultural context of the writers, says about the subject! They’re saying “everything should all be based on how things were done 2000+ years ago in the Middle East… which is why we’re demanding everything must be done the way they were in our (completely imaginary) notion of how things were in 1950s America!” “The Bible is the literal, inerrant word of Christ - which is why we’re totally ignoring it!”
8 Likes
Sounds like they need a hobby.
That…that’s beautiful! 
6 Likes
I’m puzzled(well, would be puzzled if I had reason to assume that he desired intellectual consistency):
Even if we concede for the sake of argument that ‘crossdressing is double super forbidden’ is a sound biblical interpretation; what guidance does that provide us in a clothing context markedly different from that of the levant of two thousand years ago?
Stuff like ‘no murder’ is one thing, social and technical change won’t complicate that one until we get to the stage of “is it murder if I kill one of his flash-clones; but leave his cortical stack backups intact?”; but “don’t wear man clothes, woman!”, even if it appeared precisely that clearly in the text, isn’t really a meaningful instruction when the relevant classes of clothing are undefined and it’s a matter of historical fact that they’ve drifted all over the place(sometimes fairly quickly; it was downright normal to have ‘unbreeched’ boys running around in dresses until pretty recently; and not because the victorians were into juvenile drag acts).
6 Likes
I believe they claim it’s the word of god, not Christ.
Unless the Old Testament is his memory of a fever dream, which would actually help it make more sense.
Does it, though? Does anyone have a reference for that?
5 Likes
Skirts and dresses, designed to make rape easy for all those centuries women did not wear underwear or open pantaloons.
2 Likes
Then why did (and do) men sometimes wear what we’d consider “skirts or dresses”?
And why would a patriarchal society, concerned with women’s purity, force them to wear clothes that are easy to violate them? That doesn’t track. The concern would be with protecting women’s purity. I don’t think the various sumptuary laws were built on the notion of making women available for random men to rape.
18 Likes
