>>9616324

Love isn't sin.

So love between men can't be sin.

Don't you love your fellow man?

Oh, I know, you don't have sex with your fellow man.

So when is sex a sin?

When it's non-procreative?

How many times in a life does a man have sex outside of the sole purpose and intent of procreation? In that sense, it seems that all sex is pretty much a sin, by that measure.

I don't claim to understand the mystery of sex, no matter who is having it, though surely love changes the parameters in some respect. And surely non-sexual love doesn't have to be limited by gender.

Sex is still a great mystery. Perhaps the greatest carnal mystery of all. Or perhaps it really is just carnal, plain and simple, and our challenge is to to finally rise above all carnal desires/needs: food, sleep, vanity, physical touch. I just can't help feeling like sex is some desperate need to connect with the divine while we are trapped in the flesh. I think it probably fails to do so in a meaningful way. Or does it? Why is the cabal so obsessed with the distortion and corruption of the sex act? They never include love or caring in sex in their rituals or in their pornography. They teach us to have sex without love or caring. So I come back around: is all sex bad? Or are we just deceived about what sex really is supposed to be while here on earth? I honestly don't know. Even Q says to reject lust. But is lust sex? Or is lust sex without love? What love is sufficient to justify sex? Krishna supposedly advocated celibacy. Many ancient religions included celibacy as part of their spiritual journeys. There's some connection, i just don't think any of us understand it.

Clear our mind?

I only just realized that the latest Anjunabeats link from Q includes a voice-over narrated by Alan Watts. I only came across Watts a few months ago and felt that there was something important about what he was saying (even if he's comped - because even the cabal shares important truths for the benefit of their own cult followers).

>>9616699

It seems to me based on circumstantial Biblical evidence that Jesus was probably what we'd today call "gay."

If true, was he "gay" because he was born into a body of sin, like any man?

Or are we lied to about the sin of love between men?

It's an uncomfortable subject, but does it have to be? We defend the downtrodden. We try to think for ourselves and rectify injustice. Were blacks not once enslaved? Yes, and anons know now that this slavery was by the cabal. And so are homosexuals not villified by the cabal too? Another lie to divide and enslave and torture? How many people tried to justify AIDS as some sort of punishment for homosexual sin, when in fact it was the cabal who introduced this horrible disease amongst homosexual men to torture and kill them?

>>9616734

I think you explain this well. I'm inclined to agree with you. "Temptation is the means of the devil" used to overcome us. To compromise God for the sake of sexual gratification/fantasy/desire.

I've also questioned this with regards to material things. I don't really have much attachment anymore to material things. I realize that lusting for "things" is very sinful and takes me further away from God. I could actually relinquish every material thing I own right now in the name of God. And yet, at the same time, I do desire to be comfortable: healthy, safe, warm. And material things, to a degree, while in the flesh, provide for comfort, safety and warmth. Indeed, while in the flesh, some material things (food, shelter, warm clothes) help me to wage God's battle against evil. So while "things" are also "carnal," they are part of the law of this fleshly existence. And I wonder if "sex" isn't also part of this fleshly existence and can be used to help elevate us to God, so long as it's only done with love for your fellow man (or for most, your fellow woman).

>>9616775

>(Jesus was probably gay)

>Work on saucing that, if you don't mind.

>>9616776

>jesus was a man…a real man…in every way…he was not gay

Isn't it striking to any of you that Jesus didn't marry or have children? I' mean, not according to the Bible. It's never mentioned. Isn't he the only major Biblical figure to NOT have any wife or children?

And isn't it striking to you that he is so often depicted as a feminine male? All the angels are too. They are "androgynous" at least insofar as their classical depiction in art.

So that's some sauce.

>>9616782

>If only you knew the truth!

If only I did! Not sure why I try, because we can't. Not here, not now. Maybe soon.

>>9616795

>All I will say is read the alleged Gospel of Judas; whether Jesus was fucking with Judas or being straight with him

I have not read the alleged Gospel of Judas. I presume it's a non-canonical scripture? I'll have to [google] it. And I've never heard the suggestion that Jesus was sexually intimate with Judas, though it wouldn't surprise me I guess. Too bad Judas was such an asshole though.