Gay nation says that there are "queer Muslims", lol

submitted by RACHEL_THECOW from self.whatever

No there are not queer Muslims.

The Quran clearly states that homosexuals are to be executed.

I dare any queer Muslim to go to hajj or even to enter a masjid during Ramadan wearing a gay rainbow..

I wanna see that..

https://gaynation.co/road-turned-rainbow-in-front-of-terror-attack-pub/

AllahuAkbar

https://youtu.be/DyqBbzp-7S8

all 41 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]EternalSunset 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (19 children)

The Quran clearly states that homosexuals are to be executed.

Leviticus 20 13 says the same thing, yet look at the state of Christendom. Just because a religion says something, it won't make the hypocrites who pretend to believe in it not twist and bend logic in order to pretend they are allowed to sin.

[–]RACHEL_THECOW[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

The reality is that there are Muslims that are quite happy to walk into a gay parade or nightclub and kill as many as is possible and don't give a fk about going to prison and don't care if they get killed.

Go ahead, fly your 🌈 flag, I like the pretty colors.

Did you know that if a Muslim goes into battle, he is allowed to take you as a slave, for labor and sexual purposes?

The world is going thru some serious power shift now

Fyi, most people don't understand what is going on in our global economies right now.. for example, when the price of gas goes to $65.00 per gallon, Muslims own the entire food distribution network.. and they own the gas stations and refineries.. they get richer, while you are busy sucking a dick and can't afford to idle your car.

Alhamdullilah

[–]EternalSunset 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not a faggot and wasn't defending faggots you fucking dipshit.

[–]RACHEL_THECOW[S] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Sure thing, anything you say.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Wrong, Leviticus 20:13 says to execute men who do it in the ass because it's filthy (STDs). It specifies that they must be lying "a woman's lyings", not just any lyings. Another conveniently left-out fact is that many of these condemned practices are reminiscent of pagan rituals.

[–]EternalSunset 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This seems like just excessive rationalization too me. It pretty clearly just says kill men who have sex with other man.

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman," not, "If a man lies with a male." You've been trained to read it a certain way. The original Hebrew is even clearer: ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה, "And a man who will lie a woman's lyings with a male..." As a matter of fact the entire Protestant Bible only has one instance of what I consider to be an actual condemnation of homosexuals, which is Romans 1:26-27. However even in a translation it's clear that the style of writing in all of 1:19-2:11 is nothing like Paul's, and as far as we can tell Marcion's shorter version of this epistle only had verse 2:2 of this section. That means it was almost certainly written by someone else, most likely Polycarp or Irenaeus along with their fake letters to Timothy and Titus. Even if Paul wrote it this is in a personal letter to the Roman Christians, not a revelation from God.

Many people just accept what their pastor or ministry website says as fact, and they themselves probably take what megachurch cabal mouthpieces such as John MacArthur say as fact. There is undoubtedly an agenda going on with the SBC and most megachurches, who only preach about modern-day culture wars to make themselves more popular and get more money and power. They want to turn Christianity into a business, and if possible a state. They have severely corrupted it in the process and no one notices. What's going on now is nearly identical to 1st century Judaism and the Pharisees, I can't believe I didn't see the parallels before. "God's name is slandered in the nations because of you." If you read any one of the four gospel accounts you'll realize there are some serious problems with modern Christendom, which is probably why it largely avoids studying them.

[–]Anman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Leviticus, the laws of the old testament, ONLY apply to the people under it and strangers who are part of the clans. If you say you are a person of God, but then participate in homosexuality, then you are to be killed. The redemption version that Christians follow say that if there is a christian that participates in homosexuality, you are to exclude him from your society, as if he was dead, until l he repents.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Still incorrect, see my other comments here for explanation.

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Where in the bible does it talk about STDs and where in the bible does it say these laws apply to other people? It clearly states it applies to the people under the covenant and those that live with them. Further, you mention that there is minimal condemnation of homosexuality, but there is countless condemnation of sexual degeneracy. The pretext is set that homosexuality and many other forms of sexual deeds count as degeneracy. Any author of quality will not relist every single form of sexual immorality when it is mentioned. Might as well say sex with insects is allowed because it is not mentioned in the bible.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The is the only sexual law I can think of that doesn't deal with rape, incest or adultery. And no you can't have sex with insects, zoophilia is prohibited.

I'm just telling you what it says. All the other laws about having sex with someone speak of "lying carnally" with them, but in this case it specifies lying "a woman's lyings". Meaning don't have someone ejaculate up your colon. The word used to describe this act is the same one used to describe pigs and unkosher foods, which was also linked to disease in ancient times.

On top of this chapter 20 is clearly a forgery of chapter 18 edited to include the death penalty. That's assuming real God ever gave the Jewish law at all, and there's some pretty convincing evidence he didn't. Most of it is imported from Babylonian traditions, real God complains about the lying pen of scribes right before that, and it seems the collection as a whole was cooked up by Ezra after returning home from exile. Ezra was extremely racist against non-Jews there are various problems with him, so he's not exactly the person I'd put my trust in. That's why God says to treat the foreigner as one of their own in one place but then says to treat them like dogs in the next (note: dog was an insult back then, like calling someone a bastard).

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

And no you can't have sex with insects, zoophilia is prohibited.

How about necrophilia?

All the other laws about having sex with someone speak of "lying carnally"

You mean the specific laws that were written down for the chosen people in deuteronomy and levitcus (which were the same really). Many times God has said similar things in other channels. Such as in genesis in sodom, it is clear that faggotry was part and parcel of having your city blown up by God himself.

The word used to describe this act is the same one used to describe pigs and unkosher foods

Interesting. I'm going to have a look.

Leviticus 18:22 - the only word I could find that comes close is זָכָר zakar. Which was used to refer to man or animal kind (ie, living creature). Nothing about kosher or std or anything. Except perhaps תּוֹעֵבָה tow`ebah, which is refers to all evil things as a whole. How did you come to your conclusion?

On top of this chapter 20 is clearly a forgery of chapter 18 edited to include the death penalty.

Clearly a forgery? How? Lets ignore the fact for a second that God is an all powerful being that is fully capable of ensuring his word is maintained correctly, all you have said is "I would not do X" as your reasoning. Further, I would say you are taking lines out of context, specially in the dog reference.

The death penalty is demanded several times in genesis, exodus, numbers, leviticus and deuteronomy. Several times, in the same book each. Surely, they can not all be forgeries?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

How about necrophilia?

I'm not sure if there are any laws on that, but you'd still be abusing someone elses' body which belongs to them and their loved ones, even though they're dead.

Such as in genesis in sodom, it is clear that faggotry was part and parcel of having your city blown up by God himself.

They were trying to rape, and not just anyone, but angels. It's hard to argue that's even gay because angels aren't really thought of as having genders. And all kinds of evil and corruption was already running rampant there.

Except perhaps תּוֹעֵבָה tow`ebah, which is refers to all evil things as a whole. How did you come to your conclusion?

It's just a passing thought. We actually don't know what that word means exactly, and words about filthiness are often used to describe evil as well. And there's not really anything evil about eating pork, it would just be full of food poisoning and diseases at that time in history. That's why it warns them they'll get sick if they eat it.

Clearly a forgery? How? Lets ignore the fact for a second that God is an all powerful being that is fully capable of ensuring his word is maintained correctly

You say you believe he's all powerful, yet you think he needs a book copied by imperfect and hopelessly corrupt humans to reach us. That doesn't sound all powerful to me. And what about everyone who lived before anything was written down? Clearly he had followers anyway, and you think he's lost that ability? No, but corrupt human religious institutions which seek to control people and extort the masses for power and personal gain and wealth do need books forged in the name of God to make people think it was from him.

The death penalty is demanded several times in genesis, exodus, numbers, leviticus and deuteronomy. Several times, in the same book each. Surely, they can not all be forgeries?

First of all if we actually obeyed this we would have to kill everyone on the planet and then kill ourselves. Because everyone is guilty of something.

And they absolutely can be all forgeries. God himself testifies that all the bs about animal sacrifices are forgeries, and the 5 books of law actually go out of their way constantly to remind you to do animal sacrifices to atone for sins and appease God with a "pleasing scent" like a pagan god. And when man tampers, it's almost always in the direction of a more wrathful version of God, one who appeals more to their desire for a mighty leader who will crush their enemies mercilessly and let them thrive in a corrupt regime. If you don't believe me look at some of the changes made to Paul after Marcion appeared.

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

abusing someone elses' body which belongs to them and their loved ones, even though they're dead.

Do people love dead bodies or the people they used to be? Is any one actually capable of owning a dead body? What about a dead wife? Also just for your note, there are no laws on necrophilia. However it easily fits within the general "immoral" term.

They were trying to rape

This is true. The angels were in disguise however so you cant use that as a reference. Further, there other examples of rape in the bible that did not end in destruction. But I think homosexual gang rape on an entire society level is the thing here. But sure, I guess the example was not specific enough. All through the bible it is clear that man and woman are meant to be together. New testament though has lots to say about it.

It's just a passing thought. We actually don't know what that word means exactly, and words about filthiness are often used to describe evil as well. And there's not really anything evil about eating pork, it would just be full of food poisoning and diseases at that time in history. That's why it warns them they'll get sick if they eat it.

Your passing thought was very specific, you said it with authority and certainty. We do know what the words mean. The issues that occur is in the historical use of the words. And even then, there is minimal issue when you look at context. Through the old testament some words meanings changed as it is a very long history, but it's not hard to figure them out. It's no different than the word gay-happy and gay-faggot having evolved. Even if you have doubt, there are resources on the internet that cover the hebrew words of the original records.

There is no mention of disease prevention in any of these sort of texts. There are a couple, but definitely not in reference to things like pork. Unclean is as good as youre going to get. The modern concepts of germs and disease carrying do not exist in the bible. While to us it makes sense that this is why these things exist, there is no direct proof to say this is why they do exist. Many people argue circumcision was a way to prevent disease, it may have been. However, the bible is clear that the reason you were circumcised was because of obedience. If you can not follow this command, you can not be one of God's people. This is the only acceptable answer, when using the bible itself only.

You say you believe he's all powerful, yet you think he needs a book copied by imperfect and hopelessly corrupt humans to reach us

Then you have no concept of what it means to be all powerful. Or how many times he has used evil people to accomplish his goals. You also forget that people have tried to add texts to the main collections of the bible and in the main stream cases have failed. Those that adopted those texts have clearly shown up as corrupt, such as catholics, mormons, jehovas witnesses, etc.

First of all if we actually obeyed this we would have to kill everyone on the planet and then kill ourselves. Because everyone is guilty of something.

Can't say I've ever done anything from the old testament that warrants death. Mmmmm. No. I take that back. I think the one about being nice to your parents is a death sentence. Or, it says to honour, honouring and respecting are two different things.

Regardless, it is this line of thinking that shows you are not aware of the progress of this law and the provisions for it changing in the future. Which is progressed through the forgiveness cycle via Jesus.

If you don't believe me look at some of the changes made to Paul after Marcion appeared.

You are lot more coherent that I expected, for a muslim.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

there are no laws on necrophilia. However it easily fits within the general "immoral" term.

Then you can't use it to bolster your argument.

All through the bible it is clear that man and woman are meant to be together. New testament though has lots to say about it.

Oh yeah, like:

Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But I say this as a concession, not a command. And I wish that all were as I myself am.

But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

But I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Yeah, very pro-traditional marriage and family huh?

The modern concepts of germs and disease carrying do not exist in the bible.

Obviously not, which is the whole reason for those strict cleanliness laws.

However, the bible is clear that the reason you were circumcised was because of obedience. If you can not follow this command, you can not be one of God's people. This is the only acceptable answer, when using the bible itself only.

More forgeries. The whole New Testament is clear about this. Besides, this would imply again that no one before Abraham could've been one of God's people.

Those that adopted those texts have clearly shown up as corrupt, such as catholics, mormons, jehovas witnesses, etc.

Catholics literally gave us our Bible.

Can't say I've ever done anything from the old testament that warrants death.

Have you ever been angry with someone? Have you ever looked at someone lustfully? Those count as breaking commandments against murder and adultery according to Jesus.

Regardless, it is this line of thinking that shows you are not aware of the progress of this law and the provisions for it changing in the future. Which is progressed through the forgiveness cycle via Jesus.

I'm aware. But it didn't change, man changed it and then later prophets and Jesus changed it back.

You are lot more coherent that I expected, for a muslim.

I'm not a Muslim.

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Then you can't use it to bolster your argument.

The argument was, is it ok because the bible does not specifically mention it? It does not specifically mention it. Does that make it acceptable?

Not everyone can receive this saying

Do you know who Paul was? Clearly not. If you were a Paul, and did the things Paul did and had to compensate for the evil he did, then this would make sense. Further, not all men will get married and have kids. This is completely fine and according to people like Paul, great. As far as I can see, you are pulling verses out of articles from the internet, without reading the bible in its prophetic order and understanding its context.

Obviously not, which is the whole reason for those strict cleanliness laws.

Show me where in the bible the purpose of those cleanliness laws are specified?

More forgeries.

No point discussing anything with you further. If you beleive the bible is a forgery, then there is no point debating it. Your only ultimate argument point is to prove the bible is real and even if I give you the full history of the written words, you still wouldn't accept it and say that those are just forgeries. So there is no point continuing. Everything I say is based in forgeries, I lose.

[–]DrPVM 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

It's a leftist fantasy. Anyone knows that you cannot be gay and muslim. I mean you can think you are. Just the same way you can think you're a lion, but then get your fucking face chewed off when you go to live in a pride.

[–]RACHEL_THECOW[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I watched a video about a couple of "gay mosques", bit rest assured that it is a matter of time before that is dealt with.

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Dunno gay churches are a thing now so I'm not totally sure the idea won't catch on in the west.

Granted anyone who comes out as gay in a Sharia country is not going to be for very long.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

Remember when Obama said "Latino Muslims." LMAO.

[–]RACHEL_THECOW[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't get what you mean by that.

But I can tell you that 99.99% of converts to Islam are sold a watered down version of Islam that is soft and fluffy, which is much different from the true and pure nature of Islam, which is absolutely focused on the religion achieving absolute world domination where Muslims rule over all of mankind.

Fact.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know this to be the truth. Islam is a political movement as much as a religion, and it is unbending on both homosexuality and its own primacy.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That sounds just like every single tribe and organized religion in history.

[–]Newzok 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I mean, say that to all the Muslim closet cases on grindr sending me unsolicited dick pics. So many. All from my neighbourhood.

[–]RACHEL_THECOW[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I could believe that does happen, and maybe it happens a lot.

I used to smoke weed with a Hafiz(someone that has memorized the Quran) and he would smoke crack every day. So I am not saying that things are perfect.

I would suggest that if you are gay, maybe you should keep that on the down low and don't advertise.. cuz you will eventually be killed. Period.

AllahuAkbar

[–]Newzok 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So much for a diverse society.

I'm not part of the club, so I reckon I'm safe.

[–]hfxB0oyA 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Oh there are gay Muslims alright. And in some countries, they even have the power of flight.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

They're not gay, but their 11-year-old friends sure are!

[–]RACHEL_THECOW[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

But seriously.. no there really aren't..

To say that there are gay Muslims is like saying that there are tranny girls that are lesbians.. sure thing.. but the lesbians will never welcome them.. just like Islam will never in a million years welcome gays.. I am not exactly happy to say these things, but it is what it is.

Islam recognizes the LGBT as a spiritual corruption and the instructions in the Quran are not wishy washy about their punishment.

https://youtu.be/WfwodlBGHKg

[–]Anman 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)

Although as with anything in islam, you can just say something like "its not the quran, so its not real" or "it is wrongly translated" or something.

[–]HanssenBob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The Qur'an only prescribes that punishment for wilful anal sex, not for "being queer". The same punishment applies for adulterous sex while married. Do you think there are no Muslims who commit adultery? That is a no-true-Scotsman argument.

Muslims who engage in prohibited behavior are still Muslims, albeit transgressive ones. Once a Muslim, there is no way to cease being one in the eyes of Islam.

Shalom aleichem.

[–]RACHEL_THECOW[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Is there a difference between "willful anal sex" and queer?

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Queer doesn't mean you've actually had homosexual sex before.

[–]HanssenBob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes. About half of gay guys don't have anal sex.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

According to Levitical law they're in the clear. Contrary to popular belief it only condemns lying a woman's lyings with another man, not lying with another man at all.

[–]HanssenBob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

According to the Islamic law of zina too, I think.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gay men are totally "ok" human beings. The overly "queer" thing is the real hassle.

I don't care about their religion as long as they pay for my drinks.

I found the quran interesting enough to have a conversation about it.