Decisive Scriptures On Gays!

Waaaaaa?!

What's that doin' in here?

W-e-e-ll. This last week there was this huge controversy all over the Islamic online worldwide, about some interviews given to a Danish radio station, by two Muslims, one being the incredibly well-known Islamic Da'i Mufti Menk - about the matter of gayness; and of course, what the Islamic outlook is on it. The controversy flared up this week, but the interviews were a few years ago as far as I understand it.

'The Jacket.'
That'll take you to the stars, that one!
Harris Tweed an' all.

Mufti Menk and the other person had been placed on a Danish government 'no fly' list because they were 'supposedly' deemed 'hate preachers.' Now I am going to leave that canard to one side at the moment and simply go to the actual subject of 'gayness.'

Now what is the official scriptural position on being 'gay?'

Believe me, God is not a simpleton, and where we are going to go here is likely to give some people nosebleeds. We are going sophisticated like you have never seen before.

The only person, or people who could really give you a decisive view on this, a real actual 'teaching,' are those who were there, back then, when the scriptures were composed, and seeing as how no one has been able to uncover the whereabouts today of 'Al Khidr' (in respect to the Muslim narrative) or this famous disciple who never died (in the case of Christianity) - you're gonna get me instead.

I will give you a categorical and decisive ruling!

Now the one thing I should have you know about God, is that neither is He furtive nor dishonest. ...Unlike preachers and public intellectuals, who all are abundantly those very things. 

There are two types of 'gay' set forth in sacred scriptures:

In the first and most obvious reference, this would be the narratives surrounding Lot ('Lut' in Islam, in the Arabic) and obviously - Sodom and Gommorah.

In this sacred scriptural reference, which is shared by Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the two angels or angelic beings, who came and appeared at sunset approaching to Lot's residence, were categorically described as 'male.' 

So we can simply draw from this statement of descriptive fact (in the narrative), that when the townsmen of Sodom wished to have sex with these two angels, they indeed intended to have male homosexual intercourse. 'Gay sex.'

Scottish mohair scarf,
women's, obviously!
Or is that 'womxn's?'
LOL
Nah, it's not womxn's; womxns have
no such taste.

See? Not being furtive here. Being pretty explicit.

Lot offers the townsmen his literally virginal daughters - again, we must readily adduce this is for the purpose of sex - in place of the two male angels. And the townsmen refuse him and physically then seek to advance into Lot's residence. Whereupon the angels strike them blind.

Two things in the matter of discerning the scriptural 'moral' then, or 'ruling,' we can take from the account: firstly, clearly this is all going to be a one-way street - the townsmen are going to force themselves on whoever they get, and they want the male angels.

Ostensibly, according to much apocryphal exegesis, we are to understand that the male angels, were extremely 'beautiful.' What that exactly means I cannot myself say. Do they mean to say they were big brutish Azov neo-Nazis, sporting tattoos and lengthy Viking beards? And thus 'attractive' to gay males? Or that they were effeminate - aka like females and then 'beautiful' in that sense?

So the second thing then, that we can most certainly adduce, is that there was some basis of attraction -  but we cannot see right away if the townsmen of Sodom were 1. sexually attracted to big strong ugly men, or if they 2. were seeking to have intense sexual gratification from exercising power (in other words 'power centric') via literal physical rape, or yet again 3. whether it might simply have been a matter of seeking the sexual category-specific (unique, in that sense?) sexual gratification from the raping of effeminate males (which is, I suppose a dual purpose thing: power plus specific sex)...

Seeing that we are now speaking on behalf of God though (which is what I am doing, because I am saying what the sacred scriptures do say), what we must do, is organize a hypothetical meeting, a court, as it were, consisting of men and women, and gay men (we are not here and now dealing with female homosexuality; Plato does that somewhere...), and put our charges to each of them so that they may make out their case fully and openly with nothing left hidden 'behind their backs.'

At this juncture we also must introduce something of a scriptural future anachronism ( a kind of a 'prochronism'), which is namely that of the situation of the gay male person in the New Testament. Timothy is gay, he betrays his bias and prejudices against women at every turn, and even Paul warns about his 'nature,' but then he, Paul, tells others 'not to despise him.'

Again, it is not necessarily so crystal clear and cut-and-dried that Paul is talking about Timothy's gayness, but it has always been standard scholarly exegesis that this is indeed the case.

Gay people have afternoon tea like this,
don't they?
Do they...?
I dunno. Wish I knew some 'any' people
who served me tea like this!!

'Quranists' would understand it when I now point out that Timothy was not a disciple, but an apostle. This means (in the same way that Islamic scholars distinguish between 'hassan' hadith and weak ones) that Timothy was just given a message to send or deliver to someone, not that he had large-scale teaching foundations himself.

Timothy was meant to have 'posted a message' and parallel to which though, he slings off at women too!

LOL

Anyway the point is, Timothy was not 'destroyed' by God, whereas the cities of Sodom and Gommorah were.

The Danish radio station Radio24syv (closed down now) posed the question to Mufti Menk: 'Is it okay to be gay?' And he said 'yes.' And everyone is up in arms about what he said, since this is in fact not Islamic teaching at all.

The Bible shows us that Timothy was existentially gay. Not that he was becoming gay, or deciding whether or not he was, or might have been, or should 'be' gay - he actually was gay.  

So now that makes things easier for me to outline which two things the sacred scriptures depict about 'gayness:'

They depict existential gayness, and political gayness.

What is that??

'Political gayness' is what the townsmen of Sodom were all about - they were having a deliberate stance to not only 1. impose by force a sexual act upon another, and 2. because of the declining of the offer to have sex with Lot's virgin daughters, we have a sociopolitical stance imposed upon local society about how to order the hierarchy of what is 'good.' And it is this latter that we have to investigate further now.

...So now back to our court of men and women and gay males.

Nothing to see here,
no 'gay people;' 
just people people.
You know them?
What are they like?
Tell me.

The question has to be put, to the gay males, and they have to give their answer before the women present - 

Do you hold that sexual gratification from males, reaches higher intensities of sensation and pleasure for you than anything you can get from sex with women...

I want an answer to that question before I ask the women whether I should destroy you.

Now this is not something you ever heard from Mufti Menk, and neither have you heard it from those who decry him. In fact, you never heard it at all before you heard it from me just now.

You certainly may have 'felt it' somewhere in some dark and mysterious alcove of your own mind.

Taken to an extreme, yet the logical one, and again, the prochronistic one, which is that at some time in the future, human scientists could manufacture entirely synthetic, living android beings made by abiogenesis -, actual humanoid beings, and then, sexual reproduction would not be necessary, and in all events, raising children need not involve any human beings whatsoever; it could all be done by 'AI.' Whose 'AI' exactly we don't know. Doesn't matter. It will certainly not be a benign form of AI.

Because right off the bat it has a deeply suspect political slant: it tells you, right up front, we have a way of determining what 'good, better, best' is and that is 1. whatever we say anyway f* you, and 2. possibly, it is ordered by the highest return of sensation without referencing external feedback or respecting the sensations of others - it is the lion killing and eating everything, not just the lamb. The 'best,' is the most for me. 

Except it is not going to be for you, it will be for them, and that 'them' is some people you have never even seen nor been told about exist behind the scenes pulling strings, giving air and money to the Mufti Menks of the world, driving every public political agenda.

Every single one of them.

Serge Lutens is gay.
This must be his idea 
of Lucifer's board room, then.

There are existential gays; the Bible says so.

And there are gay men who hate women, and show their biases and their extreme prejudices and God never 'destroyed' them at all. And yes, that is entitled to make women extremely p*'d off and that's okay too. It doesn't make the way that such gay males behave 'right.' Timothy is not 'right.'

What makes it acceptable however, that you or I or anyone, can arbitrate that 'good' consists purely of self-involved gain?

The only reason there is to have some kind of lab-made 'people' who never die, and alongside that to have 'education of children' by AI or political systems formulated from the template of hierarchic self-involved apex predator gain (and this is not 'altruism') - is because there is some 'I' somewhere who needs and wants you to behave! This is predatorial.

Well you have to decide right now, if or whether you can ever be a social species at all.

Oh but they are so clever and cunning, those forces and that intelligence behind the sloganism and the propaganda of 'inclusivity.'

They are not including anyone.

You think you are being included - you are being discounted.

A social species insists that all people (and there are many women who are unable to bear children) participate looking after the society and the species.

That does not mean, gay male couples 'can' raise kids because it's 'their right.' It means gay males WILL raise kids WITH all others participating, and not anyone being excluded! What obliges so-called 'gay' people to be anti-social - against heterosexual women, for instance? The modern politics of political gayness is highly and grossly anti-social in that way. Why is that? All the actual real gay people I know are not like that. The political gayness agenda is not an actual reflection of any gay people that I know. It's a surreptitiously twisted 'reflection' if it is a reflection at all. It is playing on the sensitivity about exclusion. And it is doing that for malicious political reasons that are not favorable to gay people at all. But it can succeed in seducing susceptible minds.

So let's re-run Sodom.

Two beautiful, slightly effeminate angelic beings descend one evening, just as the sun is setting, so that their craft is easily seen coming down against the darkening horizon background.

Lot knows who they are. He drags them into his house. 

Angels to Lot: 'We are going
out into the town, spend the whole
night out there... ...in the town.'
Lot: 'Waaaa?! Are you mad??'
Angels: 'Na-r. We're not. We have
Walther PPK, old school style.'

Townsmen roll up and bang on his door and say 'Hey, Lot, you are just a sojourner here. This is our town. How come these amazing people come and stay with you and don't visit with us?'

Lot: 'Because you're a bunch of evil f*ing bastards and you are going to do some bad things to these guys, who do not look to me like they can even protect themselves at all!'

Townsmen: 'Aaargh no no. You have us all wrong. Yeah we look rough and all that, and um, yes, sometimes there's some of us who have gay sex with males. But we are also really good chefs and hey, trust us, Lot, darn it. Besides we saw their clothes and there are some gay designers here who want to ask them some questions about those...'

Lot, thinks to himself - hmn yeah sounds pretty convincing, but still... Lot to the angels: 'Listen guys, they want you to go talk to them but I think I should come along so that you fellas don't get um, well, you know.'

The angels (look how I am placing words into their mouths! Fancy doing such a thing!): 'Don't worry, Lot, buddy. You come along but we can take care of ourselves, and decide for ourselves what we might want to do.'

(And by the way, that is exactly, what the angels did say to Lot according to the Bible account, except knowing that these particular townsmen were not the ones like I just described in the last few paras above, they told Lot they would stay all night in the town, but that he must not).

Well is that gay enough for yer?

Because that is not what is going on anywhere in the 'LGBTQ+++' world though, is it?

What is going on is, 'we are going to tell you how to think and what to think.'

And why is that? Have they become 'God' now all of a sudden?

Because someone sure as hell is behind the scenes here deciding he is definitely 'God.' And it ain't you Mr Actually-gay-man. 

This is a very sophisticated game being played here.

It's not a sex game, it's a political power game that is using sex among many other doorways into your brain.

The question is not 'is it okay to be gay?'

Angels to Lot: 'And we have Brioni jacket
with silk lining.'
Lot: 'A bit gay isn't it?'
Angels: 'But Bond had one.'
Lot: 'Bond? Who's Bond?'

The question is 'what are they stealing from you and have gotten away with stealing now since for a very long time and where has it ended you up being.'

When 'they,' those guys at Imperial College London make a living conscious android, and they make it 'beautiful' - what will that actually mean? Do you think you know what they mean by 'beautiful?' Is it going to look 'gay' beautiful, or effeminate beautiful, or female, or plastic-injected like the faces of Hollywood 'females' today? What?

You answer that question and you can get to come into the court where we are deciding right now who to destroy down here on this planet... Oh yes.

...And discuss whether or not it 'is okay to be gay.'

Mufti Menk is a frikkin' damn ugly bastard. I am not going to get on some space ship to go to Jannat ul Firdaus with Mufti Menk!

Or the Pope.

Why are you taking payment in substituted coins all the time?

Since when ever did God play games? (It takes a lot of work to be able to move like in this vid. But anyway - let's see what Guru Josh thinks):