Religion Christianity and its views of Gays

[Karmic Acumen]

I mean he started it with his “homosexuality describes something real” thing.

Assuming he answers then I’d respond with “why don’t we make a term up for men who like that type of woman.”

And he can refuse because he'll say it's just another meaningless label until that man has fucked that type of woman.

 

[King Arts]

And he can refuse because he'll say it's just another meaningless label until that man has fucked that type of woman.

No that would be my line. I was the one who was saying homosexuality is an act not some feelings.

 

[S'task]

See it's nonsense like this that will let the gays infiltrate the Church's like they did with the mainline protestants.

No it's not ok to be a homo and Christian. If you don't act on your sinful urges you are not that type of sinner.

So a person who has attractions to the same gender should not think of themselves as LGBT. Just like someone who has urges to kill someone else for being dumb in traffic is not a murderer. They just need to resist their desires.

. . .

You know, you pick the ONE EXAMPLE that doesn't work and is explciitly conjoined in this conversation to why Lust is considered fully sinful, and that is Matthew 5:21 - 30 in which Christ Himself said:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

So... uhh... according to Christ one who is angry is just as sinful as one who commits murder, just as one who looks upon someone with Lust is just as sinful as one who commits adultery...

 

[Karmic Acumen]

Bible-based debates become self-defeating when you realize Jesus fell on the side of the 1984 Party on thoughtcrime, alas.

Also, that part about 'I come not to bring peace, but a sword' and 'to turn brother against brother' and 'father against son' etc., but that's another discussion entirely.

Both of the above are things the current woke cult is riding on. I'd dare say that's why Christianity has never managed to become a credible opponent to it. Nor does it seem interested in doing so, regardless of denomination.

I prefer the Belagines and Nine Noble Virtues myself.

Best path forward: don't watch or play anything that came out after Lord of the Rings. Especially 'franchises.'

 

[King Arts]

. . .

You know, you pick the ONE EXAMPLE that doesn't work and is explciitly conjoined in this conversation to why Lust is considered fully sinful, and that is Matthew 5:21 - 30 in which Christ Himself said:


So... uhh... according to Christ one who is angry is just as sinful as one who commits murder, just as one who looks upon someone with Lust is just as sinful as one who commits adultery...

Jesus isn't speaking literally. Yes your desires can be sinful, but Chistians have always had a distinction between thoughts and actions. I mean to give a hypotetical if someone tells you that they have fantasies about raping a woman, will you act the same proscribe the same penalty as if they actually did rape a woman?

Christianity understands that resisting your evil desires is good and praisworthy, and sucombing to them is bad.

 

[S'task]

Jesus isn't speaking literally. Yes your desires can be sinful, but Chistians have always had a distinction between thoughts and actions. I mean to give a hypotetical if someone tells you that they have fantasies about raping a woman, will you act the same proscribe the same penalty as if they actually did rape a woman?

Christianity understands that resisting your evil desires is good and praisworthy, and sucombing to them is bad.

From a imperfect human legal justice? No of course not, but the spiritual penalty is the same for both, and are equivalent as sins.

And that's the critical aspect I was getting at: the penalty for ALL sins is the same, ALL are evil under Christianity, homosexual actions are not special in that regard and holding that somehow Christianity has special antipathy towards homosexuals because it calls homosexual acts evil isn't accurate or true.

Bible-based debates become self-defeating when you realize Jesus fell on the side of the 1984 Party on thoughtcrime, alas.

Also, that part about 'I come not to bring peace, but a sword' and 'to turn brother against brother' and 'father against son' etc., but that's another discussion entirely.

Both of the above are things the current woke cult is riding on. I'd dare say that's why Christianity has never managed to become a credible opponent to it. Nor does it seem interested in doing so, regardless of denomination.

I prefer the Belagines and Nine Noble Virtues myself.

Best path forward: don't watch or play anything that came out after Lord of the Rings. Especially 'franchises.'

. . . I don't even begin to have a way of breaking down this incoherence. All religions condemn what would be considered immoral thoughts and desires, including what you claim to prefer to follow.

I would also point out some of the strongest criticism and pushback against the Woke has been coming from the Religious Right, with considerable amounts of criticism and efforts. Heck, the largest explicit AND SUCCESSFUL pushback that has happened in public has been driven by the State of Florida and Gov. DeSantis, who is a card carrying Republican Social Conservative type and expresses Christianity, which most recently included the complete firing of everyone involved in DEI at the University of Florida.

So yeah, got any examples of neo-pagans pulling anything even CLOSE to that level of pushback against the Woke?

 

[Vyor]

ok let’s play this game. What type of woman do you like?

The ones without dicks.

Also known as: straight

I mean he started it with his “homosexuality describes something real” thing.

Assuming he answers then I’d respond with “why don’t we make a term up for men who like that type of woman.”

The entire classification of mammals is entirely arbitrary. I mean, fuck, the fucking platypus is included and it lays eggs: entirely ignoring a key part of the classification!

 

[Vyor]

. . .

You know, you pick the ONE EXAMPLE that doesn't work and is explciitly conjoined in this conversation to why Lust is considered fully sinful, and that is Matthew 5:21 - 30 in which Christ Himself said:


So... uhh... according to Christ one who is angry is just as sinful as one who commits murder, just as one who looks upon someone with Lust is just as sinful as one who commits adultery...

I would likely to, not entirely seriously, note that fictional people are not included in this. Therefore jesus approves of loli :V

 

[LordsFire]

Bible-based debates become self-defeating when you realize Jesus fell on the side of the 1984 Party on thoughtcrime, alas.

Also, that part about 'I come not to bring peace, but a sword' and 'to turn brother against brother' and 'father against son' etc., but that's another discussion entirely.

Both of the above are things the current woke cult is riding on. I'd dare say that's why Christianity has never managed to become a credible opponent to it. Nor does it seem interested in doing so, regardless of denomination.

I prefer the Belagines and Nine Noble Virtues myself.

Best path forward: don't watch or play anything that came out after Lord of the Rings. Especially 'franchises.'

Tell me you don't understand anything about Christianity, without telling me you don't understand anything about Christianity.

This looks like a classic case of 'I have only heard about what these people believe through the words of their enemies.'

I will echo S'task's words.

 

[Karmic Acumen]

Tell me you don't understand anything about Christianity, without telling me you don't understand anything about Christianity.

This looks like a classic case of 'I have only heard about what these people believe through the words of their enemies.'

I will echo S'task's words.

Mhm. Dude, I read the bible without anyone telling me to, I studied all about the Church history, and I attended mass almost every sunday until I was in high school.

I'll easily admit this is exactly the counter 'argument' I've come to expect from you people.

As evidenced way back during the Synods, the Great Schism, and even better later during the shitshow of the Protestant revolution, and now you two, your concept of 'debate' and 'canon' consists of cherry-picking what passages and interpretations best suit your standpoint at any given time, and damn everyone who points out every part in your own holy book that contradicts you (and itself). Even if it was the very words said by Jesus.

The fact that you unironically claim to speak for the entirety of Christianity, as if that's even possible, also renders any of your claims and position untenable.

This is why the Church keeps losing people. Because you 'echo' everyone but Jesus. And you just can't help but do it in the most condescending way possible.

And in your sheer hubris, you don't even realise it.

You owe more of your current talking points and Christian ethics to the Germanics from after the Investiture Controversy, than the Bible.

 

[Jaenera Targaryen]

...the fuck? How did this end up on my watched list out of the blue?

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Mhm. Dude,

what are you talking about?

 

[LordsFire]

Mhm. Dude, I read the bible without anyone telling me to, I studied all about the Church history, and I attended mass almost every sunday until I was in high school.

Attending mass may have been your first issue. The Roman Catholic Church has a very specific take on the Bible and the history of Christianity, one which is frankly anti-Biblical in a number of key ways. I may be off on this, because I'm not sure if any other denominations call church services 'mass.'

I'll easily admit this is exactly the counter 'argument' I've come to expect from you people.

As evidenced way back during the Synods, the Great Schism, and even better later during the shitshow of the Protestant revolution, and now you two, your concept of 'debate' and 'canon' consists of cherry-picking what passages and interpretations best suit your standpoint at any given time, and damn everyone who points out every part in your own holy book that contradicts you (and itself). Even if it was the very words said by Jesus.

I said your position 'looks like.'

You are outright asserting I am doing things you have no idea if I am doing or not.

The fact that you unironically claim to speak for the entirety of Christianity, as if that's even possible, also renders any of your claims and position untenable.

I did not claim to speak for the 'entirety' of Christianity, so you're putting words in my mouth here.

This is why the Church keeps losing people. Because you 'echo' everyone but Jesus. And you just can't help but do it in the most condescending way possible.

You're going to talk about condescending while you're making posts like this? Really?

You came onto this thread saying that "Jesus fell on the side of the 1984 Party on thoughtcrime, alas."

This is utter nonsense. The Party in 1984 explicitly is an institution of secular power, something which Jesus rejected holding during His time on Earth. Further, The Party is a functional product of post-modernist ideology, not believing that such a concept as objective Truth even exists, and it polices 'thoughtcrime' to enforce its tyrannical power over society, using force pretty indiscriminantly towards that end. They certainly did not believe in things like grace.

Jesus delivered moral commandments, but made no move to enforce them himself during His time on Earth, and was the literal personification of grace. He tried to persuade people to believe in the Truth, not bludgeon them into believing party lies.

The one scripture you mentioned was Jesus speaking of 'coming with a sword.' This was a metaphorical sword, not a literal sword. And that metaphor is about how the message Jesus came with will divide people, because those who accepted his message and those who rejected would believe profoundly different and incompatible things.

And in your sheer hubris, you don't even realise it.

You owe more of your current talking points and Christian ethics to the Germanics from after the Investiture Controversy, than the Bible.

You don't even know what I believe in. I don't recall having any long exchanges on theology or doctrine with you on this site in the past, and looking at your posting history, that memory is pretty much confirmed.

You don't know what denomination(s) I have or have not been a part of, you don't know what doctrines I follow, who has or has not taught me, you don't know what history I've studied, you know practically nothing about me, pretty much just that I said 'you're wrong about this,' and yet you immediately assert my ideology comes from very specific places?

And you accuse others of hubris?

 

[IndyFront]

So yeah, got any examples of neo-pagans pulling anything even CLOSE to that level of pushback against the Woke?

The pagans are smaller in number and more divided amongst themselves than the religious right, which is larger and more organized and controls more levers of power than pagans. I don't think there's a single pagan representative in office in the United States

 

[Simonbob]

So yeah, got any examples of neo-pagans pulling anything even CLOSE to that level of pushback against the Woke?

I don't have anything about that.

I do have a story, now more than 25 years old. I was in the US to visit a friend in the bible belt, and we went to visit her friend, who ran the local "Magic" store.

She spoke of 3 groups of pagans there, and their relationship with more pushy Christians.


She said there were 3 groups of pagans there, the fluffy bunnies, the serious pagans, and the Norse pagans. The Fluffy Bunnies were described as "the kind of people who's girlfriend had a girlfriend, and who's boyfriends had boyfriends", basically degenerates larping, welcome mostly for the obvious. The serious pagans were the kind who, if they thought they needed to do a skyclad ritual on midnight in winter? They'd be out there, for that was their faith. And the Norse pagans, who were mostly younger men looking for something the local Christians couldn't, or wouldn't, offer them, a reason to fight.

The Norse also made their own booze, mostly mead, and were welcome at other pagan meetings, because if the Christians pushed, they stopped pushing quite so hard when the Norse turned up. (The Norse apparently turned up more for the Fuffy Bunnies than anything else.)


Don't know what it's like now, though.

 

[ATP]

And if they did it would allow the degenerates to screech oppression and launch attacks on the game, its developers etc.

And anyone who doesn’t have issues with homosexuality is a fool. All this filth is down river from it. I will not dignify a degenerate sexual fetish by claiming otherwise.

True,but Title is wrong.It should be Christianity and its viev of pederasts."Gays" were invented by leftists,let do not use their definitions.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

True,but Title is wrong.It should be Christianity and its viev of pederasts."Gays" were invented by leftists,let do not use their definitions.

That's why I refuse to use the terms straight or cis. I am not straight. I am a man who has sex with women. It is not an 'identity'.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Oh my, a controversial topic to jump into!

To my mind I think both sides overdo it. The Alphabet cause spirals into degeneracy with reckless abandon, and the Fundies give the impression that they’d strap the poor buggers back onto tables and electrocute them.

To me they’re just a bit weird and something of a footnote in history. But for the most part quite a harmless footnote.

 

[ATP]

That's why I refuse to use the terms straight or cis. I am not straight. I am a man who has sex with women. It is not an 'identity'.

Good.When you start using their language,you arleady lost.

 

[Karmic Acumen]

'Cis' is a slur invented by a pedophile. Using it is supporting pedophiles. I strongly entreat anyone and everyone to spread this knowledge as far and wide as possible.