Lesbians are repelled by the Bible and crosses.

>>279632743 (OP)
But nowhere in any scripture does it condemn female homosexuality

Is this a christfaggot tourist who can't handle lesbians in anime? I think there are more yuri anime than there are overt fully Christian anime lmao

>>279632743 (OP)
That's what makes them so awesome.

>>279632743 (OP)
Just like any decent person would be

>>279633389
Most anime are christian because they are gnostic, but there probably aren't any that encourage demiurge worship

>>279633118
it's condemned in one of the letters

>>279633469
Post it then

>>279633487
Romans 1:26-27

>>279633537
That isn't what it says

>>279633576
then what is it that it says? what does it condemn actually?

>>279633631
Being lustful

>>279633636
>Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.
i think it's more specific than that and you're being dishonest but lets say I agree with your interpretation are you implying lesbianism isn't lustful?

>>279633726
>>279633537
The context of Romans 1:26-27 is about demon worship. And "unnatural relations" for women in this case was about them sleeping around and being promiscuous. As opposed to their natural relations of being faithful to their spouse. That's why the passage only specifically talks about men sleeping with other men.
Romans 1:26-27 is against polygamy and degeneracy.

>lesbianism isn't lustful
In the same way any other romantic love wouldn't be lustful.

>>279633726
It's not clear if "also the men" section means the women's unnatural intercourse was lesbianism specifically or just anal/oral. Though I guess if the men all became homos the women would have to make due with each other.

>>279633992
>The context of Romans 1:26-27 is about demon worship
Not exactly, it's about rejecting God and worshipping human creation.
>And "unnatural relations" for women in this case was about them sleeping around and being promiscuous
Can you elaborate how you came to that conclusion? My reading skills aren't the greatest but when I read the passage I understand like >>279634099
meaning 'the same way also the men' indicates 'unnatural intercourse' is lesbianism or typical gay fetishes. You're sort of ignoring what is said and trying to push your narrative instead.
>In the same way any other romantic love wouldn't be lustful.
So you're saying male homosexual sex is permitted if it's under 'romantic love' ?

>>279633992
>That's why the passage only specifically talks about men sleeping with other men.
the passage isn't specific in the case of women probably because both interpretations here >>279634099 are true
meaning it condemns lesbianism specifically and also anal/oral

in the first place why use the word 'natural' when you actually want to address romantic love? Animals aren't capable of that

>>279634224
Space your posts correctly. You look autistic and your post is annoying to read with it being so cluttered.

>it's about rejecting God and worshipping human creation
No, it's specifically referring to worshiping an animal, an goat in this case. The symbol of Satan.

>Can you elaborate how you came to that conclusion?
Because in the same story of Romans it talks about this same group of people, and it specifically says that what this group of people are doing is sleeping around, being promiscuous, having origies and the likes.

The text only says "unnatural" for women, while it specifically says "homosexual" for men. And the bible says the natural state of women is to be faithful to their spouses and loving mother to their family.

>christfags

>>279634748
Thirdie religion.

>>279634224
>meaning 'the same way also the men' indicates 'unnatural intercourse' is lesbianism or typical gay fetishes.
“In the same way also the men” is saying that the men were also consumed with “unnatural intercourse”, not that the women’s “unnatural intercourse” was with other women. It’s saying that both men and women were consumed with “unnatural intercourse” which is vague. The last line “were consumed with passion for one another” is also vague but the only context I see from that excerpt is how both men and women were consumed with “unnatural intercourse”, so that last line might indicate that the men and the women were having unnatural intercourse with each other, not homosexually with other men and women, which could mean any number of things. “Intercourse” is usually just defined as penis in vagina, so “unnatural intercourse” could mean anal or oral. However since it specifies “intercourse” that could mean that ONLY penis in anus or mouth is unnatural, which would leave cunnilingus and fingering scott free. However translations are obviously fucky so who knows what they actually meant.

>>279634782
cope

>>279634647
>No, it's specifically referring to worshiping an animal, an goat in this case. The symbol of Satan.
the fragment we're discussing is a direct continuation of
>24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Which means you become a pervet and homosexual if you reject God generally, not just in favor of a specific demon. Satan is an allegory of that general rejection.
>Because in the same story of Romans it talks about this same group of people, and it specifically says that what this group of people are doing is sleeping around, being promiscuous, having origies and the likes.
Yes it also talks about other degeneracies in other passages. Who could have thought that one degeneracy leads to another?
I fail to see how people can either be promiscious and have orgies or have homosexual and unnatural sex. How about both things are bad?
>And the bible says the natural state of women is to be faithful to their spouses
so they should be faithful to men?
or do we now ignore entire history of the church until recent decades and God's establishment of marriage between man and woman in Genesis 2:24

>>279634864
>obsessively refusing to space your posts correctly
Thanks for admitting you're replying in bad faith, and are just the usual "anti yuri" shitposter.

Not going to bother addressing anything you say because you're schizo and will never admit you're wrong about anything.

>>279634796
>However translations are obviously fucky so who knows what they actually meant.
Well, translators and theologians also interpreted it as lesbianism for most of history. Isn't that a bit too convenient that they were all wrong for millenia untill now suddenly political landscape completely change to push depopulation agenda such as lesbianism and faggotry?

>>279634947
>translators and theologians also interpreted it as lesbianism for most of history
They didn't though.

>>279635011
>actually the church was always woke and lesbianism was always fully accpted in christian societies
and you call me a shizo?

>>279634947
>Well, translators and theologians also interpreted it as lesbianism for most of history.
Source?

>>279635114
They just never cared about lesbianism because they saw it as a non-issue. You're the only person who hyper fixates on it. There are 66 books in the Bible. And there are many cases of text about how it's sinful for men to sleep with other men, and zero about women. The best you will find is the one vague passage you posted.

And yes, you are schizo. You've spent the last 13.5 years of your life consumed with trying to fake "anti yuri" flame wars on an anonymous image board.

>>279635194
Hertzog, Mark (1996). The lavender vote: Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in American electoral politics

>>279635213
>And there are many cases of text about how it's sinful for men to sleep with other men, and zero about women. The best you will find is the one vague passage you posted.
That's cause women were man's possession in patriarchal societies so the issue was never big enough to make it necessary to address it untill the NT.

>>279635252
>That's cause women were man's possession
This isn't stated in the Bible either. Men and women are in an equal partnership in the Bible. But like always, you're just trying to side step and justify your mental illness.

>it necessary to address it untill the NT
They didn't address it there either. Again, 66 books and not a single mention of lesbianism. The Hebrew word for lesbian is לסבית, and it's literally never mentioned even once it the Bible.

And just a reminder, trying to "change your posting style" by changing between typing with capital letters and not typing with capital letters fools no one into thinking you're multiple people.

Yurifags are getting even worse than ntrfags on /a/.

>>279635354
Nope. That's just a narrative you try to force in your deranged mentally ill obsession with trying to fake "flame wars".

>>279635218
>In the half century since the Stonewall riots in New York City's Greenwich Village launched the national gay-rights movement in earnest, LGB voters have steadily expanded their political influence. The Lavender Vote is the first full- length examination of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals as a factor in American elections. Mark Hertzog here describes the differences in demographics, attitudes, and voting behavior between self-identified bisexuals and homosexuals and the rest of the voting population. He shows that lavender self-identifiers comprise a distinctive voting bloc equal in numbers to Latino voters, more liberal across the board on domestic social issues (though not necessarily on economic or national security issues) than non-gay voters, and extremely unified in high-salience elections. Further, lavender voters, contrary to popular belief, are up for grabs between the two major parties. Offering a clear and thorough explanation of LGB voting tendencies, this volume will be must-reading for elected officials, candidates for office, and all those interested in learning about LGB voters.

Is there a specific passage? I don’t see how this is relevant.

>>279635342
>This isn't stated in the Bible either. Men and women are in an equal partnership in the Bible. But like always, you're just trying to side step and justify your mental illness.
Except in biblical ten commandments lmao
I cant believe we're at the level of schizo mental gymnastics that now we're trying to deny Old Testament was patriarchal. It just goes to show were the line of thought that lesbianism is ok leads to. Might as well invent your own religion desu

>>279635533
>biblical ten commandments
Mind pointing out which of the ten commandments says "men own women"?
No need for your autistic schizo screeching in the reply, you can just say a single number.

>>279635633
those are not biblical 10 commandments

>>279635690

>>279635342
>And just a reminder, trying to "change your posting style" by changing between typing with capital letters and not typing with capital letters fools no one into thinking you're multiple people.
Even if noone helped I'd be fine taking you all yuri trannies on alone.

>>279635722
For whatever reason 4chan does not play MP4 files.

>>279635745
Good, because you are totally alone.
And you're an obese pathetic loser who spends every single waking second of his life shitposting on 4chan.

>>279635745
Every time I see someone say “yuritranny” I skim through the literal yaoi general and I never see you any anti-yuri schizos sperging out about trannies or degeneracy over there, why is that? You’re not helping your closet case.

>>279636011
the difference is that you are trying to create an illusion that you're not just sexual deviants. They are not dishonest like that.

>>279635745
>I'd take all of y-ACK

>>279636200
>the
>They
You're mixing up your "posting styles".
You're using both "not capital letters" and "capital letter" in the same post.

uh oh

ACK is a mentally ill nigger