>>5402
>Also: this whole tranny business today, complete nonsense. Jesus is paraphrased to have said that "some are born without a gender, some have had it removed through the actions of men or for religious reasons" and that the rules for marriage of men and women only concerns those whom it is relevant for.
>There is consequently no support for transphobic inferences made from this text, it does not apply to them.
>I don't know what people who read this literally actually read, is it even the same book?
could you elaborate what you mean? do you mean the pushback and autism regarding it by women and people online, the trannies that are batshit insane and cause problem or the whole thing overall?

>With the new connections I made between facts and topics, I started a new phase in bible study. I'm not sure it should be called that, but there isn't a better word. It is a powerful grimoire indeed. From the first layer of reading the text mindlessly with dedication, as the angels suggested, the next seem to be, to use a critical approach. Mock the text as you read it. Test it. Does any of the notions of its meaning even hold?
Most of it doesn't. I don't know how anyone can take this Jesus character seriously. He's openly saying he will bring swords and cause family members and generations to kill each other. He curses a tree just because it has no fruit for him. But the clearest indication of his true nature is that his birth was followed by the slaughtering of all babies up to 2 years of age. A sacrifice to Moloch was performed, and no one is making the connection of who he is and who sent him. He then goes around causing shit everywhere while absorbing illnesses from people for no reason.
i've read some of it off and on, like things with john the baptist (or was it his father?) being made into a mute because he was understandably skeptical about being told by an angel that his wife would become pregnant or the whole thing with ezekiel