Tell me, if it wasn’t notable—i.e. odd—i.e. Queer for a ‘man’ to be carrying water how the heck could ‘a man carrying water’ be enough identification for Jesus’ disciples to identify to correct person to lead them to the correct house.
If as you imply anyone would be carrying water what kept them from walking up to the wrong dude doing it and getting betrayed to the Romans (before it was time time to be betrayed by the Romans)?
Would not further the person with ties to Jesus being Queer fit in perfectly with the ministry of someone who pointedly associated with social outgroups such as sex workers, Samaritans, and tax collectors?
Address why it was a notable enough description to identify the correct person to lead them to the Cenacle if as you imply dudes carrying water was considered completely normal.
Yall are so quick to label people, putting them in neat little boxes, and declaring them queer if they dont conform to your ideas of gender roles.
But that’s exactly what conservatives do: if a person doesn’t conform to gender roles, when the don’t act like a man or a woman, then they’re otherized, treated differently as a resulted. It’s conservatives who insist that only men and women exists and there is nothing else except moral debauchery.
Queer then is an inclusive term that captures genders outside of men and women and just…goes along with it. Because it’s fine.
But that’s exactly what conservatives do: if a person doesn’t conform to gender roles, when the don’t act like a man or a woman, then they’re otherized, treated differently as a resulted
So we have an example of yall doing it here. Where’s your example of conservatives doing this?
We’re well familiar with your story of who conservatives are. Problem is, it doesn’t match who we really are.
Conservatives are often misunderstood. I think there is a big divide between social conservatives, such as the religious right, and economic conservatives like myself. People assume we are bible-thumping Jesus freaks.
Most of my beliefs are around adults doing what they want as long as they don’t harm others and the country making good financial decisions that allow all Americans to prosper.
I am against all the group classifications the Democrats want to do it. It rings to much of the Jim Crow days that the Democrats created. We should be one group of Americans
A person calls them one, doesn’t make them one—nor did I state explicitly they weren’t a man.
How did I get Queer from a ‘dude’ doing feminine-coded labor?
Fellas, is it feminine to bring water home?
Yall are so quick to label people, putting them in neat little boxes, and declaring them queer if they dont conform to your ideas of gender roles.
No, but I also don’t live in the Roman Imperial Province of Judea in 20 AD.
Tell me, what work in our culture do you think is “women’s work?”
All work is womens work. Are you trolling?
Nope. Just asking you challenging questions to make you question your stance.
Well you failed at that, mainly through sheer misunderstanding
Imagine being a single man back then: you’d die of thirst!
Tell me, if it wasn’t notable—i.e. odd—i.e. Queer for a ‘man’ to be carrying water how the heck could ‘a man carrying water’ be enough identification for Jesus’ disciples to identify to correct person to lead them to the correct house.
If as you imply anyone would be carrying water what kept them from walking up to the wrong dude doing it and getting betrayed to the Romans (before it was time time to be betrayed by the Romans)?
Would not further the person with ties to Jesus being Queer fit in perfectly with the ministry of someone who pointedly associated with social outgroups such as sex workers, Samaritans, and tax collectors?
So would a single man die of thirst?
Sure, Id buy that there were gender roles in 20ad, but carrying a jug of water? Everyone gets thirsty.
Address why it was a notable enough description to identify the correct person to lead them to the Cenacle if as you imply dudes carrying water was considered completely normal.
Because he just so happened to be the only man carrying a jug of water at that time and place? Its Jesus, dude made a lot of miracles.
You’re more willing to believe in magic than the existence of gender non-conforming persons in 30 CE Jerusalem?
Its the bible, yes.
So are gender non-conforming people.
Its the bible, yes.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
But that’s exactly what conservatives do: if a person doesn’t conform to gender roles, when the don’t act like a man or a woman, then they’re otherized, treated differently as a resulted. It’s conservatives who insist that only men and women exists and there is nothing else except moral debauchery.
Queer then is an inclusive term that captures genders outside of men and women and just…goes along with it. Because it’s fine.
So we have an example of yall doing it here. Where’s your example of conservatives doing this?
We’re well familiar with your story of who conservatives are. Problem is, it doesn’t match who we really are.
Conservatives are often misunderstood. I think there is a big divide between social conservatives, such as the religious right, and economic conservatives like myself. People assume we are bible-thumping Jesus freaks.
Most of my beliefs are around adults doing what they want as long as they don’t harm others and the country making good financial decisions that allow all Americans to prosper.
I am against all the group classifications the Democrats want to do it. It rings to much of the Jim Crow days that the Democrats created. We should be one group of Americans