That’s not quite correct. If we look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 (not nice) and the commentaries around the words to explain it, we can find things like the below. Summary: not just being gay but even being effeminate. Additionally, I’ve never heard a single sermon where they were saying the Greek doesn’t actually mean that. They all very much meant it.

Reading exercise if anyone likes walls of text.

English amplified:

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (perversely) effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers [whose words are used as weapons to abuse, insult, humiliate, intimidate, or slander], nor swindlers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

Here’s one commentary: https://gospelreformation.net/pauls-understanding-of-sexuality/

Paul’s Meaning in 1 Corinthians 6:9 First, the two words malakoi and arsenokoitai describe individuals who are engaged in activity that Paul regards to be sin. We see this point in at least two ways. First, these two words fall in a much longer list in 1 Cor 6:9-10. Paul insists that persons whose lives are characterized by these actions “will [not] inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:10). There is considerable overlap between this list and the list of 1 Cor 5:11, which describes individuals who are subject to the discipline of the church. Second, the word arsenokoitai appears in one other place in the New Testament, 1 Tim 1:10. In the context of Paul’s argument of 1 Tim 1:10, this word describes a violation of the moral law of God (“the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for … men who practice homosexuality,” 1 Tim 1:9,10 [ESV]). These two words, then, describe activities that are violations of the law of God, that exclude one from the Kingdom, and that are subject to the church’s discipline. Paul understands these two words to describe sin.

Second, Paul understands these two words to describe a particular kind of sexualsin. These two words follow three words, two of which denote immoral sexual offenders (“the sexually immoral … adulterers” [ESV]). The word arsenokoitai follows “the sexual immoral” in Paul’s catalog of sins against the Decalogue in 1 Tim 1:10. The context in which the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai appear together, then, shows that these terms refer to a specific type of sin against the seventh commandment.

Third, these two terms together capture the range of male same-sex activity. Some have argued that Paul is only condemning a particular or narrow kind of homosexual behavior, such as prostitution, pederasty, or rape. On this reading, there is space in Paul’s ethic for non-exploitative homosexual activity between two consenting adults. This view runs aground on Paul’s argument in Rom 1:18-31 and it finds no support from 1 Cor 6:9. For one thing, in Paul’s day, the term malakos had already acquired a technical meaning when it was used in sexual contexts.[2] It denoted the passive partner in male same-sex activity.[3] The term arsenokoitai makes the point particularly clearly. As commentaries frequently note, Paul is the first Greek writer who appears to have used this term. It is a compound formed from two nouns meaning “man” and “bed.” Its origins are not difficult to discover. These two terms appear together in LXX Lev 18:22 and 20:13.[4] In fact, in Lev 20:13 the two component parts of Paul’s new word stand side by side. Both these passages in Leviticus roundly and categorically condemn same-sex activity. This background is important to understand what Paul means by the term arsenokoitai. This word must refer to a wide range of male same-sex activity and may properly be translated “bedders of males, those [men] who take [other] males to bed,” “men who sleep or lie with males.”[5] Since it is paired with the word malakoi, the word arsenokoitai may particularly denote the active partner in male same-sex activity. The two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, then, capture, in unqualified and comprehensive fashion, male same-sex activity.

Fourth, Paul is concerned to address sinful sexual behavior in these two terms, but not only such behavior. In Paul’s day, the term malakoi could denote more than just sexual activity. Such persons sometimes “intentionally engage[d] in a process of feminization to erase further their masculine appearance and manner.”[6] That is to say, the word malakos was used to describe “a man who is trying to be a woman,” a man “who significantly blur[s] gender distinctions.”[7] To be sure, Paul’s primary concern in 1 Cor 6:9 is with same-sex behavior. But the apostle is also aware that, in the social context of which he and his readers were part, those who committed themselves to this lifestyle not infrequently blurred the culturally discernible lines between a man and a woman.[8] It is in this sense that one can appreciate the translation “effeminate” for malakoi, even if one opts for another English word that better captures the sense of the Greek word in the context of Paul’s argument.

I think we get the point though. There’s more.

I just got a Mac for work. The hotkeys are definitely worse

What you didn’t know is that the universe is mostly ducks. Dark matter? More like duck matter!

Like a camel going through the eye of a needle, but he never said we couldn’t make a bigger needle!

Oh wow. I hate them with a passion haha

Oh yeah, and giving each person their own ringtone

Now there’s some 'member berries

Maybe cross post to !workreform@lemmy.world

Oh the urbanity! Also did a piece on this https://youtu.be/o5PieqjOuzA

Some scholars characterise the famine as anthropogenic (man-made), asserting that wartime colonial policies exacerbated the crisis. Others argue that the famine was the result of natural causes.

When your empire is so evil some call it “natural causes”

One thing I either missed or wasn’t stated is the daily cost of ownership. If you purchased on a loan, you have a monthly fee, which can be a daily fee. Then you have insurance and maintenance, but no one knows how much maintenance is, so we typically underestimate it. And even if your vehicle is paid off, you still have that flat cost, which you could compute to a daily rate for the current lifetime of ownership.

For example, I had a car in the US that I paid $25k for after taxes and bogus upsells that I didn’t need. Then I had insurance, which was expensive where I lived. My monthly cost just to own it was ~$600/month for the note and insurance, not even including gas.

So, your trip calculation then becomes the daily rate / # of trips, then you add on the other fees, so for a two leg trip, each leg would cost me $20 for that day plus maintenance, gas, parking.

And that doesn’t account for how much parking raises costs elsewhere, as noted in the book, The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X

While I know what a missile corvette is… https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIG.PqAq78UtW0zq28_0zEcv?pid=ImgGn

this is also not really a normal thing to do, but I tried trimming my armpit hair and had a huge reduction in sweat marks and BO immediately

I think it’s a mixed bag. While anarchistic approaches do lean that way (and there’s a lot more I need to learn about it beyond the nonsense I was told in school), the communist ideology also gave a lot of power to workers, but on the flip side, taking the approach of a centrally planned economy requires a concentration of power. So, the world is full of contradictions, I guess

Judging by this person’s code, I totally understand their socio-economic leanings and policies!

In case anyone isn’t in the know, Gov. Greg Abbott just removed mandatory water breaks for construction workers

The Yale University professor’s former ties to Big Tech companies including Microsoft and Apple raised eyebrows, as she would have been in charge of advising on the Digital Markets Act, the EU law designed to tame those very companies.

Yeah, that’ll do it

gotta make time! (in case there’s confusion, this doesn’t mean make time for breaks, but to get there as quickly as possible)

We’re getting a bit off topic from the original question, but I’ll chime in b/c why not.

Technically, neither China nor the USSR were communist states. They were/are socialist states run the by the communist party. Neither were able to get rid of capitalism. China has taken an approach of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” for their “implementation”.

China is still “socialist” in a sense because socialism is a pretty broad spectrum. They’ve kept capitalism along side socialism, but try to keep capitalism beholden to the state.

People talk well about China b/c the economic policies have arguably worked quite well given where they’ve come from. That doesn’t mean you have to agree or support some of their …worse… policies. It’s a mixed bag. But so is the west.

As of now, China is the closest large economy for an existing implementation of socialism. There are other states, but they aren’t as large or successful as China.

But yeah, I do agree that the lemmygraders are a bit much. But that’s my thoughts on what I’ve seen since joining and why I think lemmy seems to trend where it does on that topic.

I’ve mainly just seen in on the lemmygrad instance when I go to all. I find the content over there to be a bit silly (even as a socialist). I think you can block instances? I’ve blocked some of the more trolling/low effort communities.

But I also see it in the other direction. I’ve seen people ask open ended questions about the USSR and CCP for something they may have done well and people will downvote and “what-about-ism” for other stuff that isn’t/wasn’t so good, but is also off topic for what was asked.

There’s not a lot of effective discourse around the topic, I think. The conversation seems to be either entirely positive or negative for everything about them, even when the post is about one thing in particular. We can’t really say, “This thing was done well” without the what-about-isms, nor can we say “This other thing was not done well” without it applying to everything.

But to come back to your question, as you worded it “support for…”, that seems to be in line with the conversations here. It’s either “support” or “against” and not a whole lot of analysis. As in, if you say something positive then you support everything. Obviously, that shouldn’t be the case, but that does seem to be the narrative here.