>>5185638 Gays are people, so they can be religious. Transsexualism is a state, and rarely ever pluralized, but presumably there could be, and supposedly have been, religious roles and drives for transsexualism. I don't think any current faith actively advocates it, but who knows?
>>5185638 There are a lot of religious gays, I don't know why. Religion is bullshit and I know most religions would hate me, but I can still enjoy some of the art, music, etc that have been created as a result of it.
>>5185638 >Is it possible for gays and transsexualisms to be religious? Well yes, just like how you can be a jewish neo-nazi. It'll contradict a lot and be a sign of severe mental issues but it is possible.
It doesn't make you look less like a self hating retard.
People who think it's anathema to be gay and religious are demeaning both religion and sexuality. I'm an atheist, but I have met plenty of devout gay people, some who even choose a lifetime of celibacy in order to ascribe to their faith. I happen to find these people sad, but they stick to their beliefs and I think they should be commended for that
I think if you're gay then it's up to you to stand up to the repressive nature of your faith, especially if you're a Muslim or Mormon or any other typically far-right sect.
>>5189333 >The majority of gay people have been religious in the past, even the ones who didn't repress their sexuality. And they died because of it. Horribly. And they're still dying, horribly, because of it.
>>5189352 Most of them didn't. Sure levels of acceptance similar to today's high income countries were rare, but I have a feeling that you're exagerating the amount of societies who outright burned Gays at the Stakes.
>>5189380 >Most of them didn't. didn't get caught you mean.
>Sure levels of acceptance similar to today's high income countries were rare Acceptance today is skin deep. Superficial.
>I have a feeling that you're exagerating the amount of societies who outright burned Gays at the Stakes. Let's see. All of Europe since the year 200 and going, Africa since christianity/islam arrived and still going, the entire middle east, lots of cultures in south america. Only middle and north America and Asia had varying levels of acceptance.
After all it's no longer considered a legal offence for like 50 years or something. It's only recent you wouldn't be considered mentally ill, and a meager 14 years ago for the first gays to be able to marry.
What a fine, welcoming and accepting world we live in. And apparently I'm the bad guy for being sceptic.
Certainly it's possible, but I don't recommend it. Human irrationality makes it possible for an individual to maintain two irreconcilable parts of their lives for an extended period; however over time this only leads to cognitive dissonance - 'the universe doesn't work that way'.
>>5189484 >There are religions older than them that ranged from from ambivalent to inclusive of homosexuals. Most of that meant "sit there, don't move and please don't do anything gay." Even Buddhism has a bad opinion about it.
Not this guy (or gal) but they're one hundred percent right. The young of today have no real concept of the historical reality on how everyone hate hate hates the gays. We in the first world currently enjoy a historical aberration against this norm, but as the other guy observed, this is very precarious.
Meanwhile, today's comfy queers don't want to be lumped in with any earnest, strident people who were fighting for survival a few years ago (fighting for survival? omg don't be so melodramatic). And the vanguard right are pushing to divide-and-conquer via dropping the T, that type of thing. We might even go for it. Yes, they won't try for any more. I'm sure of it.
Many of us will live long enough to see meaningful pushback. Islam seems to be the favored vehicle for this in Europe. Perhaps it will be something else in America.
>>5189549 >Just because you do a few things they say not to doesn't keep you from believing and practicing a certain faith. >Just because you do a few things they say not to That defeats the whole point.
>>5189610 If you were only religious by ascribing 100% to the faith then only 1-2% of the world's population would actually be religious. Just about every single person in the entire world picks and chooses.
>>5189522 I have to agree. In '79 I was beaten up by 4 bullies using baseball bats, and it was excused as boys will be boys, and he's queer so it doesn't count. I needed to be resuscitated on the way to the hospital, so they did actually kill me. I was lucky to have somebody there to revive me.
>>5189702 Why follow a religion if you're not gonna follow its rules anyway? Like being christian and worshipping other gods, or not accepting jesus christ as your lord and savior. It defeats the very point the religion tries to make.
Even worse is forcing your religious laws that you don't follow, on other people.
>>5189770 >Why follow a religion if you're not gonna follow its rules anyway?
Religions are hardly ever original. They form from the beliefs of earlier religions, slightly altered. And the religions that are around today will not last forever, new ones will emerge from them. Believers deviating from the norm and believing what they think is right is not new.
>>5189770 >Why follow a religion if you're not gonna follow its rules anyway? Because of your culture and family most of the time. You think children who grow up reading the Bible every day, truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and his proclamations and commandments, live their life by what he says and what he did, are going to suddenly lose their faith because they read in Leviticus that gays are evil? You're treating religion like it's choosing which Vegas hotel to stay at. The ties that bind them run a lot deeper than that and the vast majority of the world has some belief or desire that is completely against their faith. They just kind of forget about it in order to keep the rest and there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever
>>5189853 What I expect from religious people is that they follow the rules said religion has laid out for them. Thus if said child reads in Leviticus that men who have sex with men should be killed, he is not gonna have sex with other men no matter how tempting it may be because the rules say so. That's the sacrifice you make: Ditching things you enjoy because God dislikes it. >You're treating religion like it's choosing which Vegas hotel to stay at. No, that would be "Oh I'm not gonna follow this rule because shellfish is really delicious". Religion isn't some fun ride full of joy and happiness. It's dedication to live life according to the rules your God has made up for you. If you can't do that, it either means you'll be in the confession booth every sunday honestly trying but failing because the temptation is too great, or (and this applies mostly to those who switch religions to "find themselves") it's simply not for you.
>>5189941 >What I expect from religious people is that they follow the rules said religion has laid out for them. Then Christians would be against hair cutting, wearing polyester-cotton blend shirts and eating shellfish. The same parts of scripture that outlaw homosexuality (not merely disagree with it) are the ones that outlaw a number of insane things.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong that religious people disregard certain elements of their faith, but the fact is they all pretty much do it and gays are in no way being more egregious by disagreeing with the parts about homosexuality than say a gluttonous man would about the parts of scripture that forbid his choices in life.
>>5190109 >gays are in no way being more egregious by disagreeing with the parts about homosexuality than say a gluttonous man would about the parts of scripture that forbid his choices in life. Both are massive hypocrites and I can't get why one would be proud of being one.
>>5189222 Islam is pretty shitty towards gay/trans people, but that may be partially because the region of the world where it's centered has very backward, traditional views. Like not every Muslim lives in the middle east, but that's where they're likely to look for a role model of how to be a good Muslim. Where I live, Christianity is far more often used to justify homophobia than Islam is; the few Muslims around here are already hated enough for being outsiders, they seem to know better than to make themselves even more hated by being openly homophobic.
>>5189770 >Why follow a religion if you're not gonna follow its rules anyway? Because people's minds are flawed, and they can easily convince themselves that violating a few of their religion's rules is "okay" as long as they follow some part of it.
>>5190150 You have a misunderstanding of religion. Faith is the basis of religion. If a gay Christian genuinely believes that homosexual love is not sinful, and uses whatever interpretations of the bible verses you think disagree with homosexuality to justify his beliefs, e.g. Different time, different society, different rules, he isn't wrong.
Religion is subjective because it depends on faith. The same verses that you think disapprove of certain things, a Christian might sincerely believe that they are ambivalent or even encourage those some things.
Pic related would not exist if your understanding of religion was fact.
>>5190341 >The same verses that you think disapprove of certain things, a Christian might sincerely believe that they are ambivalent or even encourage those some things. That would work if it weren't about God's law. Laws are written with no room for interpretation. So if the rule says "do not work on the sabbat, it is a holy day", it means you cannot work on the sabbat.
The only thing you could argue about is "on what day is the sabbat". But arguing about that doesn't change the meaning of the law. Whether the sabbat is on friday, saturday or sunday doesn't matter, you cannot work on that day.
And things like "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.", "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." have one, and only one meaning and you can't just ignore it because you don't like it.
Interpretation only works in parables, not in laws.
>>5190514 I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Even when Scripture is attempting to be as definitive as possible they are still being vague and creating misinterpretations
Take for example the Old Testament's rules that we are all speaking of here. The rules against homosexuality and eating shellfish, etc. Now, Christians will tell you that these rules (except for homosexuality) are to be forgotten about with the new covenant. But that's not what Jesus or any of the NT writers say: in fact Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount says no letter from the old covenant will be stricken on his account, and that he did not come to destroy the old covenant "but to fulfill it." Well what the fuck does that mean? Do the laws of the OT currently ascribe to all Christians or not? The Bible is absolutely vague about this, and this is where so much interpretation comes in
So when people say you can't be gay and Christian then gya Christians point out that you can eat shellfish and be Christian. Christians usually respond with the same quote- Matthew 6:25; that you should be worried about what comes out of your mouth rather than what goes in, and this somehow removes the dietary commandments of the Old Testament. Well I'm fine with that, but it takes an awful lot of interpretation to even get to that point.
So to say "the rules are all laid out for you" and it's up to the interpreter to live by these rules is completely ridiculous. These books are not definitive in their rules and regulations and even those who ascribe to these rules generally disagree completely on what they are or how these rules came to be.
>>5190538 >These books are not definitive in their rules and regulations and even those who ascribe to these rules generally disagree completely on what they are or how these rules came to be. They are definitive in their rules, that's clear. Simply reading them makes it clear.
What does happen is cherry picking which passage one agrees with and which to forget exist. It's not a lack of understanding of what the words are supposed to mean, or the many interpretations. It's willfully ignoring what is literally written on paper, selective ignorance of the letter of the law of God.
If it was a story with a deeper meaning then interpretations are an issue, but when it is literally and explicitly stated "do not do X or you'll be murdered" you cannot twist the words to mean the opposite without severely bending your own mind to make it believable.
Christianity is not pro lgbt in any shape or form, just as it isn't pro eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabric. cutting your hair or getting a tattoo.
If I say "x equals 5" you cannot make x equal 3 because "people interpreted it wrong". That's cognitive dissonance of cosmic levels.
>Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount says no letter from the old covenant will be stricken on his account, and that he did not come to destroy the old covenant "but to fulfill it." Well what the fuck does that mean? Do the laws of the OT currently ascribe to all Christians or not? Yes. And it's nowhere stated that they don't.
>>5191299 >They are definitive in their rules, that's clear. No. They're not. I just showed you an example of an issue that different Christian sects have been debating for centuries upon centuries. Which parts of Jewish law are Christians expected to follow? Some say none, some say only certain elements (which elements are those exactly? There are 613 total laws, where is there a list of which to follow and which to forget about?)
Jesus comes to speak on the subject and these are his exact words: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17. That is quite possibly THE MOST confusing sentence in the history of organized religion! Is he saying the laws still stand or not? It's a deliberately and directly self-contradicting statement, and yet it's part of the law!
So I truly have no clue how any one who has studied just remedial facts about Scripture can possibly say it's clear-cut or definitive. That is nonsense. >Yes. And it's nowhere stated that they don't. Well pretty much every Christian would disagree with you since there is no church policy not to eat shellfish or wear poly-cotton blend shirts.
>>5191621 >Is he saying the laws still stand or not? >Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; Thus they still count >I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Thus what is predicted in the Law of the Prophet is his to fulfill. What do you predict? Events happening. When do these events happen? Now before any news could reach you or the future. Jesus is cearly later in time than the Law of the Prophets. >Is he saying the laws still stand YES
>So I truly have no clue how any one who has studied just remedial facts about Scripture can possibly say it's clear-cut or definitive. That is nonsense. It's not nonsense. If you can't get the clear cut meaning of "thou shalt not murder", then there's something not right. That shit be clear as fuck. No deeper meaning, no complicated wordplay, no nothing.
>Well pretty much every Christian would disagree with you since there is no church policy not to eat shellfish or wear poly-cotton blend shirts. "It's not a lack of understanding of what the words are supposed to mean, or the many interpretations. It's willfully ignoring what is literally written on paper, selective ignorance of the letter of the law of God." One cannot "you're reading it out of context" or "it's just parable, not supposed to be taken literal" everything one disagrees with. That's cherrypicking, and it's hypocritical when you enforce the same laws you ignore on everyone else, like the kill all the gays law of the OT.
Oh, your religion is tough to follow in today's society? Is it hard and difficult? Welcome to life.
>>5191693 You are in direct contradiction of pretty much all Christians by saying all 613 laws of the Old Testament are still applicable to Christians if that is indeed your stance. I'm not a Christian and I don't pretend to be one but I know what their arguments are.
Nope. Mostly Abrahamic crap is homophobic. Cristians and muslims specially. With Hinduism is not quite clear, some shiks are homophobic, some are not, budhism doesn't have problems and jainism is not homophobic, Taoism.... So no, most religions don't have problems accepting homosexuality. Mostly abrahamic religions.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.