Ziggy's New Fall Hoodie ...

 Like Daddy and Mommy wear! LOL!

Thug pug, da pug life.

Of course I have one in the exact same color -  I am a cheeseball, after all :)

___________________

PS - He LOVES it!

Fall Decorating with Ziggy ...

 

So I did a bit of fall decorating today ...

And Ziggy decided he would "help" me, taking a particular liking to the fake pumpkins and gourds, shredding this particular gourd in about two seconds flat! 

I Told You So: Lauren Bimbort - Erm - I Mean, Boebart ...

 As I said in this in this previous post, I don't like to throw shade at other women because we have enough of that in general going on -  but in her specific case, that's exactly what she is, a bimbo; and worse, she's a political prostitute. 

Not being very bright herself, her "assets" and values are for sale to the highest bidder, including Christian "nationalists," and she's an argumentative, obnoxious Karen - you know, basically a female version of Trump :) 

In case you haven't seen the two videos yet, she's vaping in front of a pregnant woman and refused to stop when asked, repeatedly using flash photography though not permitted in the theater, dancing in her seat, clearly on something - and worse, not yet divorced from her husband, her new boyfriend grabs her breast for several seconds, while her hand is in his lap, where she begin to stroke him, in full view of everyone. 

And when asked to stop by, she either ignores them or argues with them, behaving like a truly falsely-entitled Karen, drunk on her own power. 

Then, after being escorted out, she gives the staff the middle finger ...

Of course, she denied all of this, blamed the "fog machines" for the show, as well as political persecution - until, of course, the theater just produced video. 

Hehehe.

No, wait ... hahahaha!

Let's see ...  a not-yet divorced woman performing sex acts in public, vaping in front of the unborn and refusing to stop, being drunk/high, - exactly how many "Christian" values does she claim to be for which she publicly defied here, I ask you?

I'm enjoying the exposure of "Christian nationalist" hypocrisy immensely, I can't help myself - and I told you so.

And the only reason Trumpers didn't see that she's exactly the type of woman that the far-right usually rails against was because she was pro-Trump and on their side.

(The same is true for Marjorie Taylor Greene, only she's just a smidgeon smarter than Hoebag, but not but much, still subpar - but just as crazy.)

But no, Trumpers see things clearly, they're not brainwashed cult worshippers or anything, of course not! ;)

Bimbort has just issued an apology for "falling short of her own values" or something, but it's too little too late sweetie ...

You denied it for two weeks, then blamed others - you know, the usual Trump MO of basically gaslighting the entire audience there and their story of what she did  - until the video was produced - and NOW you apologize?  

I don't think so.

Nevertheless, they will still back her, just because she's for Trump, wait and see, just like they continue to back Trump himself, and pedophile, Matt Gaetz, (who may I remind you voted "no" against reauthorizing a child-trafficking bill), despite mounds of evidence against them.

Because these people have found that gaslighting and projecting their own crimes onto others works - but let us not forget the smeller is usually the feller, especially in politics ;)

And Trump was right, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, on video, and not lose votes. 

What passes for "Christian" behavior in this day in age defies logic; of if they do see it, they pretend they didn't or make excuses or "forgive the sin" without an admission of the sin, even repeated sin,  though they claim is required for LGBTQ.

Double standards much? ;)

Ziggy with Placido Domingo Flamingo ...

So I popped by my friend Cherie's Place in the UK, today and the subject of one of the posts was flamingos. 

I mentioned that one of Ziggy's favorite toys is a stuffed flamingo with "crunchy" wings and tail.  He's tied to a string, now, so that he can "fly" about and be chased.

His name? 

Placido Domingo Flamingo, of course -  like the Spanish opera singer lol :) 

PS - Don't mind our balcony peeling, our apartment community is redoing them this spring ;)

A Woman's Worth - $11,000?

 

I just wrote a post that included the subject of a woman's worth to Christ (bottom of the post below) versus Mosaic and Roman law during his time.

And in the post before that, the outrage that has transpired over a known rape victim invited to speak at the university privately reporting MSU Coach Mel Tucker called her and masturbated on the phone, which was just leaked to the press.  (Though an investigation began in April, the investigation stalled, and Tucker was not suspended until the story leaked Saturday.)

Then we get this story, a Seattle police officer laughing about an accident where another police officer struck a woman crossing the street with his car and killed her.  

He laughs and says "Yeah, just write a check ... $11,000, she was 26 anyway, she had limited value."

That is ... disgusting, on so many levels.  

Laughing about someone getting killed by a fellow police officer in a car, then determining that her life was only worth $11,000, not just because she was female, but because she was 26 - what, was she too old for you already, a-hole?

Oh, we're evaluating the monetary value of lives now?

And who should get to determine the value of a life?

Certainly not THIS guy.

You see, this is the biproduct of rolling back women's rights issues such as extreme anti-abortion measures, etc. - misogynists and other sociopaths in power can openly display their sickness and no one says or does anything about it. 

Though there are some people who truly believe in the rights of the unborn child, there are also many misogynists who hide behind that flag, just wanting to limit the rights and voices of women in power abuse. 

Power abuse is rampant in American in general, but with women and other marginalized people?

Exhibit Z.  

In fact, we don't have enough letter in the alphabet to reflect all the evidence. 

A Sticky Subject With My Mother: Christianity VS LGBTQ ...

*Editing still in progress. 

Before I begin, let me just preface this conversation that I had with my mother, yesterday, by saying that I do not believe that LGBTQ is a choice - I believe they are "born this way" or "created this way."

I also feel that most of my fellow Christians oversimplify what the bible actually says on this topic, instead accepting without question their church doctrines, without considering: Separate word translations from Hebrew or Greek, knowledge of Levitican, Mosaic, or Roman law,  nor the audience at the time of the verse - the who said it, when it was said, and why. 

Also, Jesus wasn't a conservative, he clearly wasn't a fan of much of Mosaic law - he evolved the law, as he said all the law should "hang" on love - something that we must also strive to do as Jesus would still if he were here today 

Also keep in mind that I have lost two friends to AIDS, and another who tried to commit suicide by slitting his wrists for being unable to be straight.  The two friends that died of AIDS tried to reach out to churches but the churches would not call them back.  So it was up to me to try to convey Christ's love, and I'm a poor surrogate.

LGBTQ people are estimated to be twice as likely to commit suicide, with teenage/young adult gay men in particular being up to 5x as likely.

Thus, this is an issue very close to my heart that I can be very passionate about.


So as I've mentioned before, my mother and I have reconnected within the last year over a DNA reveal situation and it's gone extraordinarily well, IMO, because she's now on antipsychotics lol. 

That was, until today - I may have upset her?

(*There was a portion here about a song she shared with me regarding grace, but while editing, I decided it was too personal of a thing to share and could be misconstrued, so I removed it.  I wrote this stream-of-consciousness anyway so I wouldn't forget the details of the conversation in case I need to later.) 

She had shared a song about grace, and on that note, she brought up that her pastor was "counseling a trans person today."

*Record scratch*

I bristled.

Then the conversation went something like this, from my perspective:

Me: "What does that mean, counseling a trans person? I mean, what is the goal?" 

 

Mom: "I guess it means that he's going to counsel him/her on what the bible says about being trans because he/she asked."  

 

Me: "Mmkay. I'm not sure he's qualified, most Christians aren't because they don't know the actual translation of these sexual terms in the bible from the original Hebrew or Koine Greek, which often have no direct translation, or meant something according to Levitican or even Roman law that doesn't exist today." 

"But I guess I need to know what your pastor, and you, think the bible says about LGBTQ issues first. I think I know where you stand, but where does he stand?"  

 

Mom: "Well, the bible says it's wrong." 

 

Me: "Well, it depends on which law is being referred to, who said it, when, and why - the context and the audience, the actual meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words used versus what we think they mean, as well as the difference between Hebrew law and their captors laws." 

"I'm not sure this person is looking for anyone to save their soul or turn them straight. They're looking for the love of Christ, acceptance of them, even if YOU think they're a sinner,.  I personally don't, I think they're created this way and it's not a choice." 

"Christians tend accept even repeat sinners (like Trump), just so as long as it's not LGBTQ or abortion, and it doesn't make any sense." 

"So perhaps focusing on the love and acceptance of Christ should be the first goal of this "counseling" rather than education?"  

"Because I don't think the bible says what you think it does, particularly if you know what the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek terms actually translate to." 

 

"Levitican law in Leviticus is one of two places where the original Hebrew translation for  consensual homosexuality is used ("miskeve" or 'lie with.")  All other times, the word "shakab" is used, meaning rape - in fact, "shakab" is used for rape of both men and women because there is no Hebrew term for anal sex, consensual or sodomy - and sodomy actually means rape by anal sex.)    

(Also and FYI, the word for sodomite is Kadesh or Quadesh, and it literally meant a person from Sodom, known for raping both men and women.)

 

But Levitican law also says some complete nonsense, like you shouldn't mix your fabrics, eat pork or shellfish. That is because at the time, they were trying to increase the population and we knew little about things like parasites and bacteria, so they just outlawed the overall environments to avoid a problem, before they knew about the underlying culprits.  

"We are NOT trying to increase the population, at least not to that degree, we're already overpopulated."  

 

"And besides, Levitican Law was literally stolen from their captors, the Sumerians/Babylonians, from Hammurabi's code stone - a people who didn't believe in an afterlife and thus all punishment must be swift and merciless. They just stamped God's name on it. This is why Jesus worked so hard to repudiate it and say that all of the law should hang on love."   

 

"Levitican law also says touching a leper was punishable by death, and not just because they knew it was contagious, but because it was erroneously believed that they had leprosy because of their sin"

"Jesus knew this was complete nonsense -  leprosy is caused by bacteria with no respect for person or character or moral status - which is why he defied law and walked right in there, touched lepers, healed them,  loved them.  And again, Jesus defied any OT law that did not "hang on" love, loving thy neighbor as thyself" such as healing on the Sabbath:)" 

"In my opinion, AIDS was the leprosy of our time, and yet we Christians abandoned them instead of doing what Christ did."

 

"Now, in the New Testament, the only person to mention homosexuality was Paul; in fact, he seemed obsessed with  it and other sexual sin, unlike Christ, who seemed to feel greed, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, deception, and power abuse were more destructive and thus more important." 

"The Koine Greek term that Paul uses - the apostle that appears to be obsessed with sexual sin - is “ἀρσενοκοῖται” (arsenokoitai)" - which actually means "male prostitute" - not homosexuality, or even "lying with" as is in Levitican law.  

(Prostitution was actually legal under Roman law, but Levitican law forbade it - but not for the reasons that you think.)  

 

"Now, let's look at what Jesus said, who admittedly came to repudiate aspects of Levitican/Mosaic OT law that did not hang on love, and is our actual Messiah - not Moses, not Paul, not anyone else." 

"Jesus wasn't concerned with gender or sexual sin, he barely mentioned it. In fact, when the Sadducees (religious scholars) tried to trick him and ask him about marriage in heaven, this happened in Matthew 22: 

 

23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him." 

25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 

29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 

30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

 

What do you think that means, Mom? 

 

Mom: "I dunno, just that God doesn't care who she married first, or about marriage in heaven, all he cares about is your spirit and your soul." 

 

Me: "Exactly, I agree, marriage appears to be an earthly construct for social insurance that isn't required and doesn't apply in the afterlife and Jesus doesn't seem to be particularly concerned about; and further, that we will be like the angels in heaven; what do you think that means, what do we know about angels?" 

 

Mom: "They are purely spiritual beings that do God's will." 

 

Me: "Exactly - and that they have no gender - which is why Christ said it :) 

So Jesus - and God - aren't concerned with our gender or our marriages, that is an earthly manmade construct - he's concerned with our soul and spirit. And let us not forget, the Holy Spirit has no gender, either.  Perhaps the soul itself has no gender then?" 

 

Mom: "He's not concerned with our soul, he's concerned with our spirit. " 

 

Me: "Huh??? Of course he is, he's concerned with both soul and spirit. Do you know the difference?" 

 

Mom: "Yeah, they're interrelated, but it is our spirit is what goes to heaven, not our soul, and the Holy Spirit lives in ours. The soul is part of the flesh, the body." 

 

Me: "Huh?!?  I don't think so. The flesh dies, the soul doesn't. In your opinion, what is the difference between the soul and the spirit?" 

 

Mom: "The soul is the thoughts, will, and emotions. " 

 

Me: "If that were the case, then animals have souls. Do they? Because although they may, and I wish that to be true, the bible is silent on this subject."  

 

Mom: "No, because humans have free will choice to choose him, animals don't." 

 

Me: "But you just said the soul contains the will, thoughts, and emotions - animals have thoughts, emotions, and a will to do what they want to do or not, too, albeit less complex, but they do -  so that can't be the definition of the soul." 

 

"Let me tell you my definition of the soul - the soul is the spiritual center, the anchor for the spirit - it's the house where the spirit resides. You can kill the flesh, the body, but you cannot kill the spirit, nor the house that contains it, the soul."  

 

Mom: "No, that's not right. The spirit is what Christ was talking about "like the angels in heaven," not the soul."  

 

Me: "Oh? Then why would Satan want our souls? Why does he want to collect the soul rather than the spirit?" 

 

Mom: "I don't know, I'd have to think about it." 

 

Me: Perhaps because it's as Christ also said in Matthew 10:28: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." 

 

"So there's Christ himself clearly saying the soul is not part of the flesh and that the soul cannot be killed by anyone here on earth, only in hell. So Satan would then be after our soul - not our spirit."  

"So our soul is like the "house" for the spirit, the anchor, that will go to heaven or hell." 

 

Mom: "But Christ also says that we will have a body when he returns again?" 

 

Me: "Yes, when he returns, not after death in heaven.  And does he say it will have a penis or not or be married or not?  I doubt it - because he already said he essentially doesn't care, that's not what's important, the body isn't important, the soul and spirit are."  

 

Mom:  "So do you believe that children should have these surgeries to be another gender?" 

 

Me:  "Of course not, I think they should be legal adults before they make such a life-altering decision.  Where is this happening, by the way, because there are no doctors that perform those surgeries in Kentucky?" 

 

Mom:  "I don't know, but they are.  And the parents are pushing for it." 

 

Me:  "Okay, I don't know, but here's what I DO know. .." 

"I transcribed for a year for Boston Children's Hospital Intersex/Gender Identity Clinic, one of the first in the country several years ago.  The first thing you need to know is that there are more children born with some element of both genders than we'd like to believe." 

"And though it is often the parents wanting to place a gender on them, the doctors always encourage that the child be the one to make that decision when age-appropriate." 

"In fact, the parents are often encouraged to go to therapy to figure out why it's so important to them to have their child be a certain gender over the other one. 

"So if ANY parent is pushing their child to have a particular gender, such a life-altering surgery, they need to get therapy first to understand why pushing for that is so important to THEM rather than their child, and that's what these doctors usually request of them first."

 

"Also, the reason men have nipples, why?" 

"The brain develops first, then the nipples, then the lower reproductive organs - so the reproductive organs aren't even  determined yet until much later, so we have nipples because it could go either way at first." 

"How do we know the brain didn't develop one gender and the reproductive organs didn't, that something got lost in gene translation or gene expression?  The fact is, we don't. " 

"We also know that both men and women have male and female hormones that frequently become out of balance, particularly with age.  We also have just discovered that trans-women express more female gene features already, even before hormone therapy or surgery." 

 

"Stranger so-called "birth defects" have happened, but I don't even like to call them that because God doesn't make mistakes.  But the lesson from those children with so-called "defects" is for us, not them - how to better love our neighbors, including those who aren't like us." 

"It's not a choice, it's not even a birth defect - they were created that way for a reason, and those who suffer most are the most sanctified - so we often should be learning from them and not vice versa." 

 

"On that note, I am going to pray for both your pastor and this trans person, that they will nurture each others' spirits, because if you think one is morally superior to the other and is in the teacher, think again - sometimes the student becomes the teacher, particularly with those that have suffered most, and suffering sanctifies." 

"Forgive my passion on the subject, but I have buried two friends from AIDs and watched another slit his wrists because he couldn't be straight no matter how hard he tried. I'm afraid of them feeling more shame when believe me, most already feel shame enough on themselves, if you knew any of them well. " 

 

"As you said, your pastor has no experience with LGBTQ and asked for prayer.  They're not so different, they're people too, with souls.  And they've suffered enough already, shamed themselves enough they don't need any more, or some misguided/mistranslated/misinterpreted instruction on what the bible says, even if done gently. " 

"Jesus said that greater a millstone be hung around thy neck and thrown into the deepest sea than cause a little one to stumble (Mark 9) - and he didn't mean just children.  Again, that's oversimplifying a complex topic and taking semi-literally a metaphor." 

"He meant those seeking him.  And yet most Christians slam the door to the kingdom of heaven in their faces like Jesus said of the Pharisees, putting heavy burdens on them without lifting a finger to help them (Matthew 7)." 

"My friends died never knowing how much Jesus loved them too, Mom.   I tried to tell them but I was just one Christian.  And when they got AIDS, no church would even call them back.  I don't want to ever hear of that happening again from a single Christian, it grieves MY soul." 

 

Mom:  "Well, I didn't mean to cause World War III and I'm sorry you don't like my pastor." 

 

Me:  "Now mom, I never said I didn't like your pastor, I've never met him and from what I've heard, he sounds like a very kind man.  We just don't agree on this topic." 

"We've all, as Christians, been conditioned to believe certain doctrines that aren't actually supported in scripture, particularly what Christ himself said, and when it comes down to what Christ said versus anyone else in the bible, I choose Christ."  

"And World War III?  Hardly, that's a bit dramatic.  We're not arguing, I'm not angry, you're not angry.  I'm just telling you my interpretation of the bible versus yours.  

 

Mom:  "Well, do you believe that Jesus is the son of God and died for your sins?" 

 

Me: "Of course, I do, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  When did Christians start to equate stances on LGBTQ or abortion or my political party with whether I'm a Christian or not, or believe Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins? 

"There's something very wrong with that - those are  entirely  separate issues, but only one of them is a requirement for being a Christian."  

"We are Christians because we believe Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem us from sin - period.  All this other stuff is up for interpretation and debate." 

 

Mom:  "Well, I didn't mean to get into all this." 

 

Me:  "Well, I didn't mean to get so passionate, but you did already know how I felt about LGBTQ." 

 

Mom:  "Well, I know how you used to feel, but I thought maybe you'd changed opinions. Regardless, I don't want to discuss this, I don't want my faith shaken." 

 

Me:  "I hope you don't think I'm trying to shake your faith?  Because I'm not, but I can see where if a new or different interpretation of what we've been conditioned to believe might be difficult to accept, but the song remains the same about Christ and his message." 

"My faith is actually strengthened by this interpretation, I'm actually encouraged by this interpretation of Christ on gender issues, because it means that more people I know that have beautiful souls and also believe in Jesus will make the cut - who also happen to be gay."

 

"But I apologize for my passion, this is a sore spot with me because of the way my friends died, hope you can at least understand that plays a part in my vehemence.  I worry that Christians are 'slamming the door to the kingdom of heaven' in their faces and about their suicide." 

So I don't think that ended well. I think I may have upset her, which was not my intent, but I absolutely would not change a word of what I said, just the vehemence.

Two things that didn't come up that I want to address are often given as arguments to my "case," here, are what Jesus said about Marriage just two chapters earlier. in Matthew 19:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?  

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.  

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?  

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.  

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.  

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.  

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

Now you may be saying to yourself, "What? Just three chapters later, he talks about marriage not being spiritually important in heaven, but now he's going off about it."

Again, this is why the audience and context are important - and he gives you a clue about those at-first-glance differing answers in this passage.

Again, he is talking to now the Pharisees, also trying to trick him.  And he knows the underlying reason for the question is to justify wanting to "put away" or divorce their wives, you see.

And the reason we know this is because he expressly states it: "Because of he hardness of your hearts."

So it's not that he's being contradictory, he knows the motivation for their question - the hardness of their hearts, wanting to put away their wives - not because she was unfaithful -  but because they just didn't want her anymore  ;)

The other argument I encounter is the woman at the well in John 4:

4 Now he had to go through Samaria. 5 So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6 Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon. 

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 

9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a]) 

10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” 

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 

15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.” 

16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” 

17 “I have no husband,” she replied. 

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” 

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” 

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

This story is clearly not really about water.

It's also not about marriage nor adultery  - even less than the story of stoning the prostitute is - though most Christians think both stories are about sex and marriage.

In fact, both stories - the woman at the well AND the prostitute-stoning story - are about the worth of women to Jesus versus the law at that time :)

Because first of all, she's a Samaritan and Jews didn't even speak to Samaritans, they thought they were beneath them - but Jesus wasn't racist like that.

Secondly, because she is Samaritan, Jesus knew she wasn't held to Levitcan or Mosaic marriage law, and in Samaria, you could marry and divorce as many times as you like and marriage wasn't even required. 

Lastly and most importantly, Jesus isn't chiding her on having five previous husbands, in fact, he isn't chiding her at all - he recognizes her as having those different husbands and men - which was common and legal in Samaria for women - because she was searching for something emotionally that she wasn't getting fulfilled through men, a thirst that could only be quenched by satisfying her spirit :)

But let's talk the word "adultery."  

In the Old Testament, the words "na'aph" and "moichos" were both used for adultery - but they have very different meanings.  

LEVITICAN AND LATER MOSAIC LAW: 

"Na'aph" means being unfaithful or infidelity in Hebrew - breaking a covenant - and was often used interchangeably to mean moichos, but not always - because it is also used to describe unfaithfulness or infidelity to God (i.e., the 10 commandments).

"Moichos" means literal sex outside of your marriage - but what may not be realized is this rule did not apply to men under Levitican law UNLESS the sex was with a woman betrothed to another man as his property.

Often, these words were used interchangeably in the bible because infidelity/unfaithfulness most often means in a marriage, but infidelity is, by its literal definition, breaking trust. 

For women, on the other hand, sex outside of marriage was always moichos.

Because the female population has always been larger than males, men could have more than one wife or concubines for social insurance -  especially if taken in the spoils of war, especially in earlier Israelite civilization.

Divorce was legal, but only by men, and only if his wife committed moichos. 

Prostitution was forbidden, but still common.

Shakab or rape, male or female was illegal - and again, there was no word for anal sex.  

Mischeve or homosexuality was illegal.

And again, the context of this is because they wanted to increase their population and also ensure legal inheritance and provision for children. 

ROMAN LAW:

Only one wife, no concubines.

You could divorce and remarry. 

Though you couldn't have concubines, you could legally have sex with your slaves or a prostitute and it wasn't considered adultery.  

Adultery or sex outside of marriage with a "free woman" - any woman who was not a slave, not a prostitute, married or not, was illegal. 

(Again, it was illegal because it would produce illegitimate children or children's whose true father would not be known and may not be legally recognized and provided for - social insurance.)

Homosexuality or Παιδεραστεια in Koine Greek was legal and widely practiced, actually considered a sexual alternative when not wanting to produce children from sexual activity.

Malakos means effeminate men.

ἀρσενοκοῖται or arsenokotai means   "male prostitution."

Paul used the last two terms in the bible, but what we don't know is if he was ignorant about the subject, he was knowingly using these terms for specification, or if he was referring to all gay males as prostitutes/whores, no one knows for sure. 

Regardless, like most things in the bible, sexual "sin" isn't sin because sex is just a bad thing or engaging in sexual acts without being married makes you a bad person - it's because before there was birth control, children might be produced from it and wouldn't be provided for or inherit properly.

HOWEVER, both God and Jesus were not fans of unfaithfulness and deception, either to themselves or those we love because it breaks trust, causes pain and breaks covenants/promises.

On that note and lastly, let's look at the last verse in the Matthew 19 excerpt above, Matthew 19:12: 

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

What does he mean, "eunuch from their mother's womb?

Well, let's look at the Koine Greek translation of the word, "Saris," which means castration, physically  or emotionally celibate; not engaging in traditional sex acts with a woman, either by physical inability or by choice.

So when they were "saris" from their mother's wombs, does he mean biologically, or by choice, like priests?

We don't know - but what we do know that some men did not engage in sexual acts with a woman since they were born, but they are mentioned in a separate group from men who were eunuchs by choice for religious purposes - why?

I'm not saying he's condoning homosexuality here, but what I am saying is that he did recognize that there were some men not interested in women since birth for religious purposes and that there was a separate group of or "since birth" - but we don't have clarification on what he meant, physically or by choice.

I'm not sure we can say what that means, but what we CAN say is that the bible doesn't say what most Christians and Christian doctrines think it does on homosexuality OR marriage, and the reason Christ gave different answers on marriage to different people was because of their underlying motivation in asking the questions :)

FDA Just Approved the New COVID Booster ...

 

Says the NYT.

Well, it's about dang time!  Cases were going up again!

So ACIP is the advisory committee for the CDC,  They will meet with the CDC Director on Tuesday with their recommendations.  If the CDC Director approves them, they'll be available within days. 

HOWEVER, keep in mind the public emergency was declared over in May of 2023 - which means that private insurance now has to cover it so not sure if their decisions will hold up further or not.

 So when ACIP and the CDC makes their recommendations, they will decide whether it's going to be Part B (like the flu shot) or Part D (like the shingles vax).  My guess is that it will be Part B like the flu shot, or it should be.

This is what we want because commercial insurance takes their cues for whether Part B or Part D and it affects our copay price, as well as how much they decide to charge commercial insurance will also affect this amount. 

Another MSU Bombshell: The Accusations Against MSU's Football Coach, Mel Tucker

 

So as we all know, MSU made international news with the women's gymnastic team doctor - later the official U.S. Women's Gymnastics team doctor - Dr. Larry Nassar, sexually abused hundreds of young girls, and after local police refused to help, the FBI stepped in with a sting operation, provided video evidence, and Dr. Nassar is now sitting in prison, right?

Also, former head football coach, Mark DAntonio, was accused of looking the other way and helping assist players that had engaged in a gang rape avoid prosecution, but chose to step down rather than put the school through any more humiliation (and avoid investigation/possible prosecution)?

So since then, MSU has supposedly attempted to clean up and hire men dedicated to changing the culture of not just college sports teams abusing their privilege and power - particularly towards women - and they hired Mel Tucker as head football coach.

Outwardly, Mr. Tucker appeared to be on board, inviting rape and sexual assault advocates to come and speak to the team, training the men on how to appropriately behave like young men in their private and public lives, and engage in services to the community for the less fortunate. 

One of the advocates he invited to speak to the team was famous rape survivor, Brenda Tracy.

Ms. Tracy was violently gang raped by four Oregon State University football players and a high school recruit.  Despite indisputable DNA evidence proving all 5 men raped her - and a confession by two of the boys - the district attorney refused to move forward with the case.

Fast forward to 2021, new football head coach invited Ms. Tracy to speak to the MSU football team three times over eight months as part of a college sports team effort to fight sexual violence with sports players. 

That is until a fateful phone call in December 2022, where Ms. Tracy alleged that Mel Tucker called her, made sexual references -  and proceeded to masturbate. 

Now, you may be saying to yourself this woman is a liar, lightning doesn't strike twice.  Or that she has PTSD and just got triggered by something Mel did that was innocent.

But Mel Tucker admitted masturbating on the call - only he says it was consensual.

That's a common cry by rapists, sexual abusers, sexual assaulters, and sexual harrassers that most people buy it.  Sometimes it's true and there was either some misunderstanding, or the woman was luring him into a trap.  

However, about 99% of the time, , the man just thinks it's consensual because the woman "freezes" or just doesn't say anything, doesn't fight back (see more on that below). 

Most sports publications are calling for him to be fired, I already saw one less-reputable sports outlet defending him saying "She wanted a sugar daddy" to pay her to be his girlfriend, despite being married for 20-something years, like he's the victim here - despite at the very least, admitting he masturbated on the phone with another woman! 

Okay, they had never gone on a single date, they weren't in a relationship, so how exactly was it consensual?

And, who, in their right mind, would ever call a well-known rape victim and make sexual references and masturbate?

At the very least, that's just stupid.

At most, he's a married predator that sought out someone who had cried rape before, knowing that no one will believe her that lightning would strike twice. 

Either way, fire his  dumb, likely predatory ass immediately!

Now, I have no evidence that it isn't consensual other than her testimony and his admission that he did do that.

And yet I do know victims that this has happened to, lightning has struck twice, it happens all the time.

This is because power abuse is rampant in America, with powerful people abusing their privilege and power with people they know won't be believed versus themselves - especially people who have cried abuse before and/or have little social support or family - they're actually a predator's prime targets.

And all we women can do is move on with our lives, go to therapy, etc., only to be told what we can do to keep ourselves safe and change any behavior that made us susceptible to the violence, as if it's our fault :(

Okay, we can change the way we dress, act, avoid alcohol, pay more attention to red flags and our instincts, etc., and yet men so inclined will still do what they do - and if they escape consequence, they'll likely do it again, that's part of the the thrill.

If you'd just throw them in jail, rather than make excuses because they're rich, famous, powerful, and/or white, instead of focus on what the victim was was doing or not doing to protect herself, then we'd have less of a problem!

And I'm so sick of men bringing up the Duke rape case when stuff like this happens I could spit.

That's one time versus the literally hundreds of other times on record that star athletes from athletic teams have sexually assaulted hundreds of women, WITH DNA EVIDENCE AND SOMETIMES VIDEO EVIDENCE THAT THEY TOOK WITH THEIR OWN PHONES!

Also, Ms. Tracy has said that she froze on the phone, unable to believe this was really happening, that she wasn't just triggered from her prior experience.

I think this is something that men and women who haven't been sexually harassed or assaulted don't get, but "the freeze" is a common behavior and appears to be the body's response to rape after an initial fightback - the body freezes, the mind simply leaves the body and goes someplace else, anyplace else.

It's also common for rape victims to doubt themselves that this is even happening, especially if they've experienced prior trauma, and especially if it's someone they trusted or is publicly trusted.

"No, no, this can't be happening, I must be getting this wrong. I trust this person, this person is publicly trusted. I must be imagining this. I must just be triggered from prior experience, something they're doing is reminding me of past trauma, but it's not really happening again, right? It can't be."

Then you go into all the choices you shouldn't have made, how you should've known, how you should've fought back instead of freezing, and so you don't want to tell anyone for the longest time because you're still blaming yourself for what happened, unless you finally do and somebody says "Um, that's sexual assault. And it doesn't matter what you were wearing, what you had to drink, or that you even accepted the data, or even if you married the guy, that was unwanted, forced sexual contact."

And boom - you realize it did happen and it isn't your fault. 

If this is true, I am beyond disgusted by Mr. Tucker's behavior - because it means he played the game all too well, did everything he could to appear not to be predatory, so that she would be less likely to be believed.

Disgusting.

And on that note, let's talk about Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis letters to the judge requesting leniency in sentencing on behalf of their former "That 70s Show" costar, just convicted rapist, Danny Masterson.

These are two people that run a charity for child sex abuse victims, mind you, and yet they wrote a letter requesting leniency on Danny Masterson, testifying to his exceptional character.

Look, you two idiots need to come out of your overprivileged little bubble and wake up, because you two don't know shit about what it's like for the rest of us in the real world.

Just because he acts a certain way around you, his fellow overprivileged costars,  doesn't mean he's not different in private with women that aren't famous, have little social support.

And the fact is, we now know that just like Bill Cosby, he drugged and raped at least four women, likely more that they couldn't get convictions on.

WTF are you two doing, writing a letter on his behalf, when you claim to run a charity for child sex  abuse victims?

Suspending your morality because now it's a buddy convicted?

You two should know better, and if you don't, then you need to receive more training on the subject before you run a charity for it!. 

And yes, I saw their lame apology - and that's all I have to say about that - it was lame and not a real apology.  They're just mad that their letter sgot leaked and are back-peddling.

Two other castmates wrote a letter on his behalf, too.  

But as we know, Wilmer Valderrama was too busy trying to bed every woman in Hollywood, underage or not, to get involved.

At least fellow costar Topher Grace had enough sense to not get involved for the right reasons, because the evidence was overwhelming against Masterson and the Church of Scientology protected him for way too long.

And his wife, Ashley Hinshaw, posted this to Twitter immediately: 

Go Topher and Ashley!

You know, it's interesting - the cast previously called him "pretentious" for not wanting to hang out with the cast.  

Well, knowing what we know now about Danny, and Wilmer's sexual antics, too, can you blame him? 

Now, having said that, I don't want to focus too much on gender, here, because women abuse their positions and powers with those less powerful, too.

So I'd like to end this post with the term "wokeness" and what is really means - it means we have to start waking up to our hero worship, believing rich and powerful people - particularly white ones - couldn't possibly commit these crimes, when the fact is, they are the most likely to commit these crimes because they know they can get away with it easier.

That is not to say we should presume guilt, either.

I'm just saying that we need to stop giving people a Get Out of Jail Free card because they're rich, powerful, and famous.

Dang, we already elected a president based on this delusion, who tried to overthrow democracy -  how many more lives need to be ruined before we stop presuming innocence with rich, powerful, famous people - especially if they're white? 

Who Is My Favorite Actor/Actress?

 

I'm often asked this by people that know I'm a film buff, and the even fewer people that know of my history, and my answers always surprise them.  They're like "Who?" LOL

That is because the two people I'm about to mention are so skilled at their craft that you don't even recognize them from role to role, and actually take it as a compliment that you don't recognize them  in a new role because it means they've done their job well - they've so seamlessly slipped into character that you may not even realize who they are until you're halfway through the movie lol :)

To them, an award isn't necessarily the highest accolade they could achieve - the fact that you didn't recognize them from role to role is the highest compliment they could ever receive :)

FAVORITE ACTRESS: TONI COLLETTE 

First of all, of course I think the much-awarded Meryl Streep, Frances McDormand, Sally Field, and Shirley McClain have earned well-deserved praise for their acting skills, but that's just it - they are already appreciated for their talent and you immediately recognize them in every role they're in, despite makeup or different accents, etc.  

And I don't know them as people at all, but I suspect if you said to them "I didn't even know it was you until halfway through the movie," I doubt their response would be "Thank you!"  - it would likely be "WHAT?"  or "Do you live under a rock? I've won like three Academy Awards" LOL

And although especially Meryl and Frances are famous for their versality and ability to do believable accents, and rightly so, IMO, Toni is the most versatile actress I can think of, so much so that again, you often don't even recognize her :)

The Australian actress can do any accent, she can make you laugh, make you cry, or scare the pants off you.

And she's fearless - she takes on controversial movies and characters that even seasoned actresses wouldn't dare touch, but not for an award - she does them simply to challenge herself.

And again, when someone tells her that they didn't even realize it was her until later, such the interviewer says at the beginning of this clip, she isn't offended, she's delighted - and responds "Aw, I LOVE that!"  

Because again, to her, not being able to recognize her from film to film is the highest compliment -  even better than an Oscar - because it means she did her job so well that you didn't even see Toni Collette the person, or even her personality in the last role you saw her in.  :)

And speaking of personality, she's the only actress I know who could've believably played a woman with multiple personalities/DID (including Meryl Streep and Frances McDormand) in Showtime's "The United States of Tara," transitioning between the different personalities so adeptly that you could even tell when one of the alter  personalities was pretending to be another alter personality, before it was even revealed that this was the case. 

(FYI, Toni DID finally win an award, an Emmy, for this role, and yes, that is a young Brie Larson playing Tara's daughter, pre-Captain Marvel and pre-Oscar win for "Room" :)

IMO, the best acting in the series is actually when she's Tara herself, the base personality, coming to grips with the stuff her alters do, but for the record, the main alters are:  T, a 15-year-old wild child; Alice, a 1950s housewife; and Buck, a Vietnam vet.  Later, 4 more alters are revealed, including her former therapist from New York, an animalistic "ID" personality that doesn't speak, a 5-year-old girl called "Chicken," and Bryce, the psychopath abuser that sexually assaulted and tortured her as a 5-year-old. 

In fact, it is Bryce, when pretending to be the other alters to fool the family, whom the audience  recognizes is pretending to be the other alters even before the family realizes this. 

How hard would that be to convince the audience that you are one of your character's other personalities, pretending to be yet another personality, right? 

That's great acting - and Toni is the only actress that could've pulled that off, IMO. 

Toni has historically avoided mainstream films, preferring quirky independent and art films, but you may have seen her in more semi-mainstream films such as "Muriel's Wedding," "Emma (1996)," Little Miss Sunshine," "Fright Night (2011)," and "Krampus?" 

But you definitely have seen her playing Cole's hard-working, Philly mother in "The Sixth Sense," for which she received her only Academy award nomination for Best Supporting Actress ...

Not only is her Philly accent on point, but her transition from just  tiredly going about her day to caving emotionally after receiving the message from her dead mother, through her son, is one of the most believable performances I've witnessed.  

Many other actresses would've been OTT and overperformed, but this was a a perfect performance, likely exactly how a real person would react to this  information - holding back emotion because you don't want your son to see you cry, and yet you can't help yourself because of how healing this news was. 

Thus, why she was nominated for Best Support Actress by the Academy.

Then there's another of her mainstream films, as the flaky, pretentious, social-climbing, stereotypical "limousine liberal"  Joni in "Knives Out" ...

If you haven't seen this movie, you should know two things: 1) That it skewers both overprivileged white conservatives AND overprivileged white liberals, and 2) Daniel Craig's Kentucky accent is atrocious, he sounds like a British man trying to a gentile Georgia accent so badly that it sounds like Foghorn Leghorn lol.  

And yet it's still worth a watch, a fun movie with twists to keep it interesting.

Not her best mainstream role, but she does do a good job of playing moms, good ones, bad ones, and everything in between - especially self-absorbed unhinged moms lol.

And lastly, speaking of unhinged moms, if you're a horror movie fan, you will have see her in the only mainstream movie role that I thought really displayed her talent  "Hereditary." 

(I forewarn you, this scene of her verbally abusing her son, blaming him solely for her daughter's death and leaving herself out of the equation, is painful to watch -  but she does one hell of an acting job with it ....

Okay, granted, like Toni says about this role, she's grieving and what people say when grieving isn't the fairest time to judge, and yet she still goes way, way too far on her son.

And if you think that was scary, tack on the Satanic supernatural stuff that goes on in this family and this film!

In fact, though I think she did an incredible job and I'm a horror movie buff, the supernatural aspect of this movie freaked me out so badly (especially the ending) that I vowed that I will never watch it again! lol.  

(That is because though I've seen literally hundreds of horror films,  Hereditary is the one and only horror film I've watched as an adult that so disturbed me that I had nightmares about it for like three days after watching it lol. )

Regardless, her performance in this film was so incredible that there was Oscar buzz about it - but much like performances in comedies, performances in horror films rarely, if ever, get Oscar nods.

Speaking of those last 3 mainstream roles, for a bit more on Toni, this is an interesting interview, where Toni watches her best moments from her most famous roles and gives us her insight and commentary: "The Sixth Sense," "Hereditary," and "Knives Out."

FAVORITE ACTOR:   PETER STORMARE

Again, though I think much-awarded actors like Anthony Hopkins, Robert Deniro, Robert Duvall, and Al Pacino have rightly deserved their praise for versatility and ability to do accents, Peter Stormare is my favorite actor for the same reasons as Toni Collette. 

Because he is equally talented and unrecognizable from role-to-role . 

The Swedish actor has also been mostly in indie and art films you've probably never heard of, but he most often plays creepy psychopaths in more mainstream films because of his appearance and intense gaze, but he can do quirky comedy equally well.

He's the actor that's been in everything that stole the scene, but you never knew his name.

However, you might recognize him in more mainstream films such as the emotionless, psychopathic, man of few words (but still oddly hilarious), Gaear Grimsrud, in "Fargo" (the movie) ...

Or the quirky, snarky-hilarious Russian Cosmonaut, Lev Andropov in "Armageddon" ...

Or my personal favorite, a Southern, good-ole-boy version of Lucifer in "Constantine" ...

No one that I can think of would do a better job of playing what Satan might actually be like - creepy and explosively dangerous, paired with a warped sense of humor lol. 

And here's a little bit about Peter's approach to acting, calling method acting and Meisner methods both "bullshit" because if you're piecing several projects together to make a living, you don't have time for all that - let the material hit you, react honestly and "naturalistically" and that's it, only he says maybe a little bit above human reaction for either comedic or dramatic effect. 

And there you go, my two favorite actors (that you've never heard of) and why :)

I can't vouch for either of them as people, mind you, only their acting ability.

Peter Stormare seems especially an odd bird, but so most actors and actresses are a bit neurotic - and yet still nowhere near villain-level  unhinged roles that he usually plays.