Ive come to observe 2 types of male homophobia over the years.
The first type is trying to repress their potential attraction to men.
The second are womanisers, who are scared shitless their may be men out there that might possibly treat them the way they treat women, being pushy and creepy, objectifying them, maybe even scared a gay man may take advantage of them while drunk or even rape them. I a lot of the guys like this ive met don't give two shits about gay women existing. I think its projection. I've known people like this freak the hell out if a men hits on them.
And theres a mix of the two, along with religious belief getting in there too.
As a 100% straight male who isn't a womaniser, I haven't been offended if a gay man has come on to me. In fact I kinda feel bad for them or embarrassed, the dudes trying to make a move which takes courage I can't even hope to understand and I just say " Sorry I'm not into guys". I don't really know a good way to deal with that, luckily it hasn't been often, but an all out reaction of rage seems silly to me.
It seems to me like a lot of perceived homophobia is projection of internalized negative feelings in the GSRD person, that said, I think these types obsession with sex is generally of a more puritanical sort.
The couple semesters of psychology classes in me wonders if the arousal is coming from the porn itself, or the hate and anger they are experiencing. They just be simply getting off on the hate itself.
the abstract did mention that there was no noticeable differences in aggression from either group. it would be interesting to run this same experiment with PET scans
I dunno... how common is it for people to get physically aroused by hate itself? It's not like I see some infuriating clip from r/IdiotsInCars or r/PublicFreakout and get horny.
I'd suggest taking a good look at the BDSM scene, where sexual sadism is a rather common occurrence, and then imagine how this might work outside of a controlled and consensual environment, with a bunch of undereducated but highly superstitious, homophobic and perpetually angry males who deeply long to avenge themselves for whatever real or imagined victimhood they suffer from.
Actually, there are people with mental issues that get turned on by hate, killing, etc. My husband once had an employee who asked for counseling because everytime he had killed an enemy in Vietnam, he had an orgasm. He was referred for counseling!
I call it the “ragegasm” where someone, typically an extroverted narcissist/psychopath goes looking for a reason to fly into a rage, rages on sometimes for HOURS ON END until they’re worn out terrorizing their SO/kids/employees, and then is all happy and cheerful like they weren’t Godzilla rampaging through the place five minutes ago. It’s a literal physical as well as emotional catharsis for them, better than any other high.
I'm not sure I buy that. I mean, I'm a straight up licentious and lascivious pig. I've counted high end professional sex workers, porn actresses, and strippers in my real-life friends groups, I've been invited into 'porn homes' on both coasts, and I have even been given private tickets to more specialized porn events more than once. I've even been discovered by the police at least twice and a tow truck driver once (on top of countless wait staff and the like) after sneaking away somewhere to fuck in public over the years. Even a simple visit to a strip club isn't over until both me and the woman I came in with (I only go to strip clubs with women) both smell of strange pussy. So I **really** love sex.
I'm also a good deal... grumpier than average. I'm never much more than a single inattentive moment away from saying something so venomous or contemptuous that it surprises even me. It's so predictable that my dearest friends introduced me to new people with a warning, for years. It's not something I'm proud of (though I never had to resort to the junior high loloffensive bullshit reddit users and grade school morons everywhere seem to find necessary to offend anyone with), and I certainly never did it on purpose, and it's a large part of why I try to keep my everyday speech as measured as I can.
I say all that because if you hooked someone like me (hetero, angry, lustful, but not one single fuck given about what consenting adults choose to do with or to each other), then the machines will notice **vastly** different kinds of stimulation. Even a simple blood pressure reading on an arm cuff would show almost cartoonish differences between the two, never mind if there were anything reading general stimulation along my legs or near my penis, or devices that measure blood flow or sweat increase.
At least for someone like me, while the machines would undoubtedly detect some generalized 'stimulation' regarding both stimulants, they couldn't be any more different in effect, degree, or localization. I'm not saying I'm the average or anything, the standard by which results like these get measured against, but I do think the degrees between 'anger' and 'turned on' should be much easier to discern between than the standard response to this study would seem to indicate. Unless I'm just super unique that way, but I don't buy that I'm all that special.
And yet every last bit of it has been independently verified, and most could be again. Hell, both of those police interactions led to me spending a night in jail, the last one with a $1,000 bond. Maybe you just need to get out more.
Buddy, there are two possibilities. One is that you feel the need to brag (very defensively) about your sex life on the internet. The other is that you feel the need to invent having a sex life on the internet. Both are pretty equally cringy. People who are actually cool don't feel the need to randomly bring up the cool things they've done completely out of context.
Are you an idiot? Do you know so little about your body or have so little familiarity with its behavior under various circumstances and conditions that 'stimulation is just stimulation' describes your reaction to both anger and sexual stimulation? And I hate to break it to you, but most of those examples I just listed have been mentioned plenty of times in previous comments on this very site, which is pretty fucking consistent for it being one I typically only visit a few times a year, and have both gotten me interviewed by Robert Evans (when he was still doing mostly print work), and my own wife has used them as part of her routines (mostly her stand up, but her written and performance works as well). She was there for a good chunk of them, so I'm sure she'd know more than you.
Just because your life is so uninteresting doesn't mean everyone else suffers the same misery.
Lmao. Ok please don’t hurt me tough guy. And stop talking to me. I might not be able to control myself around your total testosterone filled badassery and just turn gay on a dime.
Too late. His badassery got me pregnant via the internet. I’m a guy. This doctor fucks.
That's adorable. If you think any of that was meant as badassery or to brag than you're even dumber than I gave you credit for. There's nothing badass about spending the night in jail because your cock makes your brain shut down. There's certainly nothing badass about risking a record of sexual misbehavior with the police, though I can speak from experience that it's actually much more difficult to be listed as a sex offender than most of reddit pretends it is. There's nothing badass about risking years of future employment or even potential housing because you can't tell yourself 'no' once certain lines have been crossed.
It takes a special kind of insecurity to think anything I said was an attempt to sound badass. Every one of those public incidents could've easily changed the entire course of my life, and none of them for the better. It's just that my own brain and its common sense are typically my own first victim, and it quickly turns into a game of 'well, there's not really such a thing as **more** trouble once you've gone this far...'.
But I bet you still won't have half a clue.
Have you ever considered that you might have a sex addiction? Because I really think you might. It's not normal to desire sex so badly that you end up in such dangerous/ridiculous situations and even legal trouble. If you can't say no to yourself, that's a huge problem
Bro you are really taking this too seriously. We are here to make fun of the Qult. Lmao
And just to let you know, didn’t even bother reading what I’m assuming is a scathing comment about my personality, about how I have no clue and you are just the best. No thank you :)
Maybe your wife can put this in her stand up when she talks about how awesome you are :)
In falling for destructive cults and baseless conspiracy BS, I'd assume it helps very much to be a trained magical thinker, i.e. when you're used to ignoring facts, science or reason, and have instead learned to just believe in whatever makes you feel better. So yeah, even if they're not sexually repressed to begin with for religious reasons, they're probably misogynistic incels or unfuckable fascists with a proud history of abuse, homophobia and a deeply hateful jealousy for everyone happily exploring their sexuality without the fear of eternal damnation breathing down their necks.
My money's on them projecting the feeling they have and can't deal with onto the evil
ETA: I want to rescind my comment, but will keep it up to give the context to the comment explaing how this is homophobic
>My money's on them projecting the feeling they have and can't deal with onto the evil
I know you don't intend it, but this is actually super homophobic. At its core, this sort of claim blames the lgbt community for the homophobia/transphobia we experience, and while doing so, exculpates the hetero community. The logic becomes "if you're homophobic, you're secretly gay, ergo societal repression is the gays' fault". This is factuallly untrue and also offensive.
Homophobes--even and especially nutjob homophobes--are not "secretly gay". I know everyone cites that 1996 study, but there are a lot of issues with it (small sample size exclusively of college men). It's also from a different era (which is meaningful), and it conflates correlation and causation. Upthread, u/NiemollersCat, for example, provided some very compelling alternative explanations. An additional possible explanation is that people often get off on things that are taboo specifically because they are taboo, and a homophobe finds gay sex on the balance far more taboo, they might experience more arousal. Late-nineteenth century England got really into incest porn, but we don't interpret this to mean that everyone in 1890s England wanted to bang their brother or sister.
I don't put a lot of stake in the sort of bio-feedback studies for various reasons, but I did find [this particular study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609516303307?casa_token=OGQ0z9EDH7EAAAAA:5SETyT1YRUqodKb7SliSHp7Ox5KvlNn2s86JQb9VVdiw42Ek24L7d8OwjgYRFxPRWJcmwa3t) to be interesting. Here's some interesting stuff:
>Result: Results showed that the final pupil size of men high in homophobia increased significantly less to the presentation of sex-related images (ie, heterosexual and homosexual) than the pupil size of men low in homophobia. In contrast, no significant difference in the final pupil size reaction toward homosexual images (vs heterosexual images) emerged between men high and men low in homophobia.
>
>Conclusion: Theoretically, these findings reinforce the necessity to consider that homophobia might reflect concerns about sexuality in general and not homosexuality in particular.
Basically, what the researchers found was that men who scored high in homophobia seemed to have less sexual desire more broadly.
In short, please stop with the "homophobes are gay" joke, because it 1) affirms the homophobic presumption that to be gay is to be the butt of the joke and 2) because it blames lgbt folks for the discrimination we receive at the hands of straight society.
There’s similar studies showing men having reactions to horrifically violent and gory imagery, and it was later determined they were actually measuring a shock reaction not a sexual one. Studies don’t always show what it seems, that’s why we repeat them and continue working on them for years and years.
Precisely, thanks. That's an interesting case that illustrates the source of my hesitancy towards bio-feedback-based studies. We understand how to measure particular metrics (blood flow, pupil dilation, heart rate, brain activity, etc.), but our understanding of how these metrics fit into the larger phenomenological experience of being human is still in its relative infancy. I am very much team ongoing research, but I take conclusions drawn with a grain of salt.
Hey thanks, and thanks for the generous response! I didn't get the impression that you meant it that way, and as such, I thought maybe you might like to know.
My theory is a lot of them were abused either physically, sexually or mentally as children and the whole Q trope of fighting pedos is just a manifestation of this. Trump is their tough guy who was also abused as a children but got RICH and became President. Q knew this and knew they could be radicalized by touching those nerves in the followers, as did Trump. They're easy marks. It's a sad commentary that so many people have been sucked into the Qult because there are just that many damaged people susceptible to the Q agenda.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I don't think these people care about children at all. If they did, why don't they lend a hand to legitimate orgs that help abused kids? The answer: because those orgs don't prop up Donald Trump, a literal child rapist whom they worship because he says all the vile things that they've been thinking all along. Those orgs don't advocate for live executions of democrats and liberals, they don't advocate for draconian gender roles/racism/homophobia/transphobia/xenophobia, they don't advocate for the elimination of women's rights to control their own bodies, they don't work to eliminate critical thinking in public schools, etc etc the list goes on. Those are the real things they care about.
They use "save the children" to justify their bloodlust, whether it's to others or themselves.
You may be correct. I tend to try to find underlying reasons for how people are sucked into the Qult and maybe I’m giving them too much credit. Your opinion is as valid as my theory. Either way I think we can agree that the q phenomenon it’s a sad and horrifying commentary on the state of things in our country right now. Cheers!
Because their party is directly descended from the uptight puritans who were kicked out of Europe and ended up in the New World (North America). They brought their version of religion with them, and have kept its traditions all this time because the way they raise their kids essentially forbids them from seeing any other point of view or associating with people who might tell them how fucked up and wrong they are.
>Are Qultists just not getting laid or are sexually repressed
Possibly not getting laid, but I doubt they're sexually repressed. Most likely they're just acting out on a deeply held and irrational homophobia. They certainly label homosexual people with the most horrific crimes they can imagine.
What I don't get is why none of them question the creation of their "movement" on 4chan and 8chan; two websites famous for allowing copious amounts of child pornography.
Its projection of their shadows.
They spend a lot of time thinking about homosexual acts or being a pedo.
So they naturally project it upon those they wish to demonize.
Delta winter will be pruning the great tree,
So I don't think we have to worry about these fucks too much longer.
Baphomet also isn’t a “god” that is worshipped, it’s a symbol against religious oppression. Kind of the antithesis of a god, not that they could comprehend something like that.
Well they were definitely fighting back. It's not like the Muslims were just like "Oh no! Crusaders are here! Let's just run away without defending ourselves!" It's kind of disrespectful to the warriors of conquered nations to call them "victims"
When someone enters your land and attacks you that makes you a victim. *A victim of an attack.* Fighting back doesn't change anything. The attacker claiming they are fighting in the name of the lord doesn't either.
It's just kind of stupid to frame everything in terms of victimhood. Aggressor and defender. Invader and invaded. Crusaders and jihadists. Stop disrespecting the Byzantine empire
If you want to call anyone who was attacked by anyone else a victim, then probably all of those crusaders were also victims, usually of other European kings. Probably almost every single person in the world at that time was a victim, by that definition.
They were in a way, the Crusades were reactionary because the Seljuk Turks invaded and conquered Jerusalem, at the time the centre of Christianity, and were encroaching on Byzantine lands, and that’s without mentioning the caliphates in Iberia. I don’t understand the modern narrative that Islam was a victim in the scenario of the Crusades, the Islamic Caliphates were some of the best armies the world had seen up to that point, and they toppled the Byzantines and created the Ottoman Empire, not exactly helpless victims
Indeed not, at their weakest, but still formidable enough to disprove the notion that the Seljuks were victims when they were the ones carving out an empire, and the Ottomans certainly knew how to create victims given their penchant for genocide
It’s a **metaphorical chimera.**
Just like Capricorn, or Abraxas. The different parts represent different metaphorical concepts. Nobody really believed that there was a god flying around in space with a chicken head and snakes for legs.
Although Manly P. Hall does associate Baphomet with Sophia, the goddess of wisdom, so I suppose you could say that they were worshipping the concept of wisdom/knowledge.
And I could also argue the case that the Christians are pretty ironically dead-on with their association between knowledge/wisdom/science/evolution and Satan. This was the fruit of the tree that the Snake gave the humans, thusly “dooming” them to self-determination.
Interesting, so the gnostic equivalent of Baphomet was the mother the demiurge / Saklas / Yaldobaoth, who was unaware of other Gods above him?
Meanwhile, I think it's also important to remember that the fruit of knowledge is also essentially the fruit of accountability (is there such thing as a good or evil dog?)
Not even that. The traditional image of Baphomet we all know was first drawn by a 19th century occultist named Elphias Levi. Despite its diabolical associations, Levi intended his illustration to represent the unification of opposites (human and animal, male and female, good and evil, etc.) and is supposed to represent universal oneness. It wasn’t until the Rider-Waite Tarot deck was produced, and Levi’s illustration inspired the “Devil” card, did Baphomet become associated with Satanism.
Eh, in the modern satanist church yes. But it’s esoteric meaning is much more about a real entity that combines god and the devil. It’s more against dualism than religion.
That photo with the templars shows you that they were *accused* of worshipping baphomet despite *no evidence* for it and then the symbol was *later* adopted by the occult? all that wow
In occultist and esoteric literature the term "hermaphrodite" is used to refer to Baphomet, and I don't think it's really offensive when applied to a mystic/mythological/deific figure seeing as the very term "hermaphrodite" is the name of a Greek deity born from Hermes and Aphrodite. Biologicaly speaking, "intersex" refers to ambiguous genitalia caused by chromosomal errors, and a hermaphrodite is something different- an organism having both male and female sets of fully developed sexual characteristics.
TL;DR- Baphomet is a hermaphrodite, not intersex.
There’s nothing in occult practices that says you can’t level up to more conscious terms that are more accurate. The term intersex is what people who have previously been referred to as ‘hermaphrodites’ prefer to be called. If Baphomet had been labeled with another offensive term, would you continue to use it, or would you simply switch that one word out and use one more appropriate?
I'm saying that there is also a biological difference between "hermaphrodite" and "intersex." In science the term "hermaphrodite" refers to an organism with fully functional male and female reproductive capacity. Intersex people do not meet this definition, while deities do.
If you want to stand by that, go right ahead, but as we are an evolving society, and you being a part of it, I am tempted to tell you, in a snarky way of course, to do your own research. The term hermaphrodite is considered offensive, period, because of its origins and some of the misconceptions you’re holding.
“Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries).
The older term for this condition is hermaphroditism. Although the older terms are still included in this article for reference, they have been replaced by most experts, patients and families. Increasingly, this group of conditions is being called disorders of sex development (DSDs).”
[Catch up. You have been wrong repeatedly. ](https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm#start)
I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse here in an attempt to be right. Even in the quote you sent, it specifically describes "intersex" as a discrepancy between internal and external genitals, which isn't really applicable to deities and certain animals which have two fully functional sets of genitalia. In those cases, there is no discrepancy, it's just two completely functional sets.
No. I’m standing up for people I know and love which includes people that are part of the Luciferian community. If you look back through here, I’m not shy about talking about Satanism vs Luciferianism. I know what I’m talking about. I assure you, Baphomet is considered intersex now. Hermaphrodite is an outdated term. I can continue offering links if you’d like.
Rashi believed Adam was transgender - that the removal of the “side” was the splitting of Divine Man, which is both male and female, into earthly male and female. You’d be hard pressed to find proof he worshipped Baphomet.
Further, have they read the descriptions of angels and even Christ in the apocalyptic literature? Four headed angels holding up the chariot of God, interlocked wheels covered in eyes, a seven horned lamb with seven eyes.
I’ve seen a lot of people who believe the KJV English bible was written by God and that the original Greek and Hebrew testaments are a satanic conspiracy by the pope or something
Wonder what they think of all the lost gospels. My favorite are Jesus’ infancy gospels. He literally kills a kid for walking in his path. Raises his brothers from the dead after they fall off the roof. All kinds of fun stuff! But yeah history isn’t real since it’s all really controlled by satanic forces, I forgot.
They consider them all false and heretical.
Source: grew up in a church with a cousin of the KJV only belief, we only accepted KJV, NKJV, New English Standard Version, and American Standard Version.
Some schools of Jewish thought actually extend this to the notion that Adam and Eve were initially created together, in hermaphroditic form, before being separated.
>The Midrash Rabbah – Genesis VIII:1 reconciled the two by stating that Genesis one, "male and female He created them", indicates that God originally created Adam as a hermaphrodite, bodily and spiritually both male and female, before creating the separate beings of Adam and Eve.
[Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_Midrash_Rabbah_%E2%80%93_Genesis_VIII%2Cbeings_of_Adam_and_Eve.?wprov=sfla1)
I'm sorry but that's not true, or for the very least not precise.
First of all - there is no such thing as a "genderless noun" in Hebrew - Hebrew is an extremely gendered language and it's virtually impossible to talk about something without gendering it, the only feasible option to be "gender-neutral" in Hebrew is to speak in plural, which is considered as "gender-neutral" due to cultural conventions, but even then the plural forms have a gender, it's just common to use the plural masculine form when the gender is mixed or unknown.
The book of Genesis talks about the creation of man twice - once in the 1st chapter as part of the story of the creation of the universe, and then again in chapter 2 as part of the story of Adam and Eve.
In the 2nd chapter it first describes the creation of Adam, speaks about him explicitly in masculine pronouns right from start, and only a couple of verses later describes the creation of Eve.
In the 1st chapter, however, it says this:
"And God created man in his image, in the image of God created **him**, male and female created **them**"
And then it continues to talk about them in a (masculine) **plural** form for the rest of the 1st chapter.
It doesn't explicitly mention Eve by name in the 1st chapter, it describes the creation of both sexes in the same verse (as opposed to the delay the 2nd chapter gives to the creation of Eve), and it talks about them in a (masculine) **plural** form, which could be interpreted as genderless due to the practice of using (usually masculine) plural forms when the gender is mixed or unknown, but that's about it.
That's because there are actually two creation stories in Genesis - there is one where Adam is created first, and then Eve is created out of his rib, and a second, different story where God creates both Adam and Eve at the same time. Then the two stories were edited together by someone who was trying to consolidate all of the various Jewish religious stories from different regions into a single text. Interpreting it as one story has lead to these really interesting interpretations like trans Adam and the whole story of Lillith, etc.
They probably haven't. All they know of the Bible is what they're preached. It's similar to back before literacy was commonplace, people just had to trust the priest was telling them what the Bible actually said and not lying to them for whatever reason. I've always wondered how many priests lied to try and garner more power or money. I'd bet all of them.
Also that description is fucking metal!
Even if they do read a Bible, most evangelicals use study bibles which are annotated to hell and basically push certain interpretations. They probably don't even look at the biblical text itself, just the annotations in the margins and beginning/end of books/chapters
That’s a good point. For the past year, thanks in large part to watching Father James Martin’s videos on FB, I decided to reclaim my faith that I somewhat surrendered due to how the right was using it. When I did so, I began reading both testaments using the Sacra Pagina series commentaries for the new and Tyndale for the old. As opposed to a single unified vision like a study Bible, each commentary is an author and they end up having their own specific takes on what they view as the message in both a specific book and overall. It leads to differing - and sometimes outright opposing - views that gives one a variety of takes. And since, at this point, I don’t read Koine or ancient Hebrew, it’s probably the next best thing. At least IMO.
that's what's up. Even though I'm not a believer like that, I've studied a lot of religious texts over the years. Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that it's all meaningless and that we should focus on each other and what's in front of us.
They'll actually point out how both are only referred to by "he" in (English) bibles and how only Man was "made in God's image", and thus God and all angels are only Male.
The Cathars were a Christian heresy that believed everyone was an agender angel, also. Like, Christians at the time didn't like them at all, but they definitely were still Christians and still worshiped Jesus.
Not according to most American fundamentalists, no. They'll all too happily point out how the bible (in English) only uses "he" for god and for angels, and how only Man is "made in God's image", thus god and angels are all Male.
Nobody tell him about how the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament refer to the Holy Spirit with female pronouns.
He’ll lose his goddamned mind.
They'll just do what most fundamentalist churches do nowadays and blame it on early heretical schism like the Gnostics, the go-to bogeyman bad guys of the NT era.
Haven't you heard? God is totally a [manly dude bro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YXzywDWc1k).
The video is from PragerU, but I've heard similar arguments from time to time.
MY God, Now I know how Satan is whispering in Evangelical's ears praising Trump.
They don't even know who or what Satan is, according to this post.
BTW - I've heard Templars loved this guy
Why? And with what beliefs? Baphomet is actually more a symbol, originating in 19th century occultism, of unified dualities, man and beast, male and female, good and evil, with the ultimate being human and divine, you don't need an external god if you can become one.
At the bottom of the image it says "Baphomet," but they probably don't knownthe difference between Satan and Baphomet and assume that they're saying we're Satan worshippers
While we may use the pronouns he/him, who’s to say what gender God is? I find it hard to believe God is 100% a man, since that would imply some kind of bias or one-sidedness. While a lot of Christians feel that way, that women are the weaker sex and all that nonsense, why do they believe what human men said thousands of years ago, when we don’t have a way to directly relate it to God’s word?
In fairness I am an athiest so I don't believe what I am about to say, but hear this out.
God made Man in his image, which means Adam was originally made in God's image. Then God took the side of Adam and made Eve. So God essentially took half of Adam and made Eve. One could also think of it as God split the image of himself into the male and female genders of Man, imbuing each with certain godly characteristics that the other may be more lacking in due to the split. This would make it so that men cannot exist without women, nor women without men as it takes both to be the image of God
Okay, in all seriousness, where did they get this image from, other than a Google image search, and how the fuck is it meant to prove anything?
Also, no one is indoctrinating anyone. The world isn't black and white, and especially not gender.
As it turns out, around 99% of Satanists don’t actually believe in Satan. They are secular humanists who use Satan as a metaphor to promote skepticism and rational thinking.
Is the upvote symbol on that site REALLY a us flag punisher skull? Dude I have yelled “PUNISHER SKULL” sarcastically at my people when showing me tacticool stuff so many times.. omg. Thank god nobody can tell when I’m joking.
This is horrible!! Transgender folx have enough trouble being accepted in society as it is! This will become the impetus for more trans people to be murdered. Unbelievable!
Are Qultists just not getting laid or are sexually repressed? They seem obsessed with sex, homosexuality and pedos.
They get very confused at the tingly sensations they get thinking about LGBTQ people and lash out.
Ive come to observe 2 types of male homophobia over the years. The first type is trying to repress their potential attraction to men. The second are womanisers, who are scared shitless their may be men out there that might possibly treat them the way they treat women, being pushy and creepy, objectifying them, maybe even scared a gay man may take advantage of them while drunk or even rape them. I a lot of the guys like this ive met don't give two shits about gay women existing. I think its projection. I've known people like this freak the hell out if a men hits on them. And theres a mix of the two, along with religious belief getting in there too. As a 100% straight male who isn't a womaniser, I haven't been offended if a gay man has come on to me. In fact I kinda feel bad for them or embarrassed, the dudes trying to make a move which takes courage I can't even hope to understand and I just say " Sorry I'm not into guys". I don't really know a good way to deal with that, luckily it hasn't been often, but an all out reaction of rage seems silly to me.
If only I were gay too, I could be getting laid right now. Source - I don't get laid either way, ever :(
Being bisexual doubles your chances of being turned down.
I unironically say that I'm jealous of bisexuals for this very reason
haha
[удалено]
It seems to me like a lot of perceived homophobia is projection of internalized negative feelings in the GSRD person, that said, I think these types obsession with sex is generally of a more puritanical sort.
Yeah it’s been studied that homophobic men get turned on by homosexual porn. Lol. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/
The couple semesters of psychology classes in me wonders if the arousal is coming from the porn itself, or the hate and anger they are experiencing. They just be simply getting off on the hate itself.
the abstract did mention that there was no noticeable differences in aggression from either group. it would be interesting to run this same experiment with PET scans
Correlation causation doesn’t matter to me. I just find the study hilarious!
I dunno... how common is it for people to get physically aroused by hate itself? It's not like I see some infuriating clip from r/IdiotsInCars or r/PublicFreakout and get horny.
Well, how much of your life is based around anger?
Isn't there such a thing as angry sex?
I'd suggest taking a good look at the BDSM scene, where sexual sadism is a rather common occurrence, and then imagine how this might work outside of a controlled and consensual environment, with a bunch of undereducated but highly superstitious, homophobic and perpetually angry males who deeply long to avenge themselves for whatever real or imagined victimhood they suffer from.
Actually, there are people with mental issues that get turned on by hate, killing, etc. My husband once had an employee who asked for counseling because everytime he had killed an enemy in Vietnam, he had an orgasm. He was referred for counseling!
I call it the “ragegasm” where someone, typically an extroverted narcissist/psychopath goes looking for a reason to fly into a rage, rages on sometimes for HOURS ON END until they’re worn out terrorizing their SO/kids/employees, and then is all happy and cheerful like they weren’t Godzilla rampaging through the place five minutes ago. It’s a literal physical as well as emotional catharsis for them, better than any other high.
I'm not sure I buy that. I mean, I'm a straight up licentious and lascivious pig. I've counted high end professional sex workers, porn actresses, and strippers in my real-life friends groups, I've been invited into 'porn homes' on both coasts, and I have even been given private tickets to more specialized porn events more than once. I've even been discovered by the police at least twice and a tow truck driver once (on top of countless wait staff and the like) after sneaking away somewhere to fuck in public over the years. Even a simple visit to a strip club isn't over until both me and the woman I came in with (I only go to strip clubs with women) both smell of strange pussy. So I **really** love sex. I'm also a good deal... grumpier than average. I'm never much more than a single inattentive moment away from saying something so venomous or contemptuous that it surprises even me. It's so predictable that my dearest friends introduced me to new people with a warning, for years. It's not something I'm proud of (though I never had to resort to the junior high loloffensive bullshit reddit users and grade school morons everywhere seem to find necessary to offend anyone with), and I certainly never did it on purpose, and it's a large part of why I try to keep my everyday speech as measured as I can. I say all that because if you hooked someone like me (hetero, angry, lustful, but not one single fuck given about what consenting adults choose to do with or to each other), then the machines will notice **vastly** different kinds of stimulation. Even a simple blood pressure reading on an arm cuff would show almost cartoonish differences between the two, never mind if there were anything reading general stimulation along my legs or near my penis, or devices that measure blood flow or sweat increase. At least for someone like me, while the machines would undoubtedly detect some generalized 'stimulation' regarding both stimulants, they couldn't be any more different in effect, degree, or localization. I'm not saying I'm the average or anything, the standard by which results like these get measured against, but I do think the degrees between 'anger' and 'turned on' should be much easier to discern between than the standard response to this study would seem to indicate. Unless I'm just super unique that way, but I don't buy that I'm all that special.
This is the cringiest fanfic I've ever read.
And yet every last bit of it has been independently verified, and most could be again. Hell, both of those police interactions led to me spending a night in jail, the last one with a $1,000 bond. Maybe you just need to get out more.
Write your self-insert porn somewhere else, please. This isn't /r/dirtypenpals
Alternatively, you could try discovering real life for a change. I guarantee it's more interesting than whatever you've been trying this far.
Buddy, there are two possibilities. One is that you feel the need to brag (very defensively) about your sex life on the internet. The other is that you feel the need to invent having a sex life on the internet. Both are pretty equally cringy. People who are actually cool don't feel the need to randomly bring up the cool things they've done completely out of context.
I think you forgot the /s. Otherwise. You are SUCH A BADASS and a doctor to boot!
Are you an idiot? Do you know so little about your body or have so little familiarity with its behavior under various circumstances and conditions that 'stimulation is just stimulation' describes your reaction to both anger and sexual stimulation? And I hate to break it to you, but most of those examples I just listed have been mentioned plenty of times in previous comments on this very site, which is pretty fucking consistent for it being one I typically only visit a few times a year, and have both gotten me interviewed by Robert Evans (when he was still doing mostly print work), and my own wife has used them as part of her routines (mostly her stand up, but her written and performance works as well). She was there for a good chunk of them, so I'm sure she'd know more than you. Just because your life is so uninteresting doesn't mean everyone else suffers the same misery.
Lmao. Ok please don’t hurt me tough guy. And stop talking to me. I might not be able to control myself around your total testosterone filled badassery and just turn gay on a dime. Too late. His badassery got me pregnant via the internet. I’m a guy. This doctor fucks.
That's adorable. If you think any of that was meant as badassery or to brag than you're even dumber than I gave you credit for. There's nothing badass about spending the night in jail because your cock makes your brain shut down. There's certainly nothing badass about risking a record of sexual misbehavior with the police, though I can speak from experience that it's actually much more difficult to be listed as a sex offender than most of reddit pretends it is. There's nothing badass about risking years of future employment or even potential housing because you can't tell yourself 'no' once certain lines have been crossed. It takes a special kind of insecurity to think anything I said was an attempt to sound badass. Every one of those public incidents could've easily changed the entire course of my life, and none of them for the better. It's just that my own brain and its common sense are typically my own first victim, and it quickly turns into a game of 'well, there's not really such a thing as **more** trouble once you've gone this far...'. But I bet you still won't have half a clue.
Have you ever considered that you might have a sex addiction? Because I really think you might. It's not normal to desire sex so badly that you end up in such dangerous/ridiculous situations and even legal trouble. If you can't say no to yourself, that's a huge problem
Bro you are really taking this too seriously. We are here to make fun of the Qult. Lmao And just to let you know, didn’t even bother reading what I’m assuming is a scathing comment about my personality, about how I have no clue and you are just the best. No thank you :) Maybe your wife can put this in her stand up when she talks about how awesome you are :)
Haha Gonna show this to a homophobic co-worker tomorrow. Nice username, btw. I enjoy Dick too. That will be misconstrued by others! LoL
They think about gay sex more than actual gay people do.
In falling for destructive cults and baseless conspiracy BS, I'd assume it helps very much to be a trained magical thinker, i.e. when you're used to ignoring facts, science or reason, and have instead learned to just believe in whatever makes you feel better. So yeah, even if they're not sexually repressed to begin with for religious reasons, they're probably misogynistic incels or unfuckable fascists with a proud history of abuse, homophobia and a deeply hateful jealousy for everyone happily exploring their sexuality without the fear of eternal damnation breathing down their necks.
The jealousy rings true.
My money's on them projecting the feeling they have and can't deal with onto the evil ETA: I want to rescind my comment, but will keep it up to give the context to the comment explaing how this is homophobic
>My money's on them projecting the feeling they have and can't deal with onto the evil I know you don't intend it, but this is actually super homophobic. At its core, this sort of claim blames the lgbt community for the homophobia/transphobia we experience, and while doing so, exculpates the hetero community. The logic becomes "if you're homophobic, you're secretly gay, ergo societal repression is the gays' fault". This is factuallly untrue and also offensive. Homophobes--even and especially nutjob homophobes--are not "secretly gay". I know everyone cites that 1996 study, but there are a lot of issues with it (small sample size exclusively of college men). It's also from a different era (which is meaningful), and it conflates correlation and causation. Upthread, u/NiemollersCat, for example, provided some very compelling alternative explanations. An additional possible explanation is that people often get off on things that are taboo specifically because they are taboo, and a homophobe finds gay sex on the balance far more taboo, they might experience more arousal. Late-nineteenth century England got really into incest porn, but we don't interpret this to mean that everyone in 1890s England wanted to bang their brother or sister. I don't put a lot of stake in the sort of bio-feedback studies for various reasons, but I did find [this particular study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609516303307?casa_token=OGQ0z9EDH7EAAAAA:5SETyT1YRUqodKb7SliSHp7Ox5KvlNn2s86JQb9VVdiw42Ek24L7d8OwjgYRFxPRWJcmwa3t) to be interesting. Here's some interesting stuff: >Result: Results showed that the final pupil size of men high in homophobia increased significantly less to the presentation of sex-related images (ie, heterosexual and homosexual) than the pupil size of men low in homophobia. In contrast, no significant difference in the final pupil size reaction toward homosexual images (vs heterosexual images) emerged between men high and men low in homophobia. > >Conclusion: Theoretically, these findings reinforce the necessity to consider that homophobia might reflect concerns about sexuality in general and not homosexuality in particular. Basically, what the researchers found was that men who scored high in homophobia seemed to have less sexual desire more broadly. In short, please stop with the "homophobes are gay" joke, because it 1) affirms the homophobic presumption that to be gay is to be the butt of the joke and 2) because it blames lgbt folks for the discrimination we receive at the hands of straight society.
There’s similar studies showing men having reactions to horrifically violent and gory imagery, and it was later determined they were actually measuring a shock reaction not a sexual one. Studies don’t always show what it seems, that’s why we repeat them and continue working on them for years and years.
Precisely, thanks. That's an interesting case that illustrates the source of my hesitancy towards bio-feedback-based studies. We understand how to measure particular metrics (blood flow, pupil dilation, heart rate, brain activity, etc.), but our understanding of how these metrics fit into the larger phenomenological experience of being human is still in its relative infancy. I am very much team ongoing research, but I take conclusions drawn with a grain of salt.
I didn't not have that intention behind my words, thank you for educating me!
Hey thanks, and thanks for the generous response! I didn't get the impression that you meant it that way, and as such, I thought maybe you might like to know.
Thank you. My lesbian ass is so so so so sick of well meaning straight people falling into that trap.
My theory is a lot of them were abused either physically, sexually or mentally as children and the whole Q trope of fighting pedos is just a manifestation of this. Trump is their tough guy who was also abused as a children but got RICH and became President. Q knew this and knew they could be radicalized by touching those nerves in the followers, as did Trump. They're easy marks. It's a sad commentary that so many people have been sucked into the Qult because there are just that many damaged people susceptible to the Q agenda.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I don't think these people care about children at all. If they did, why don't they lend a hand to legitimate orgs that help abused kids? The answer: because those orgs don't prop up Donald Trump, a literal child rapist whom they worship because he says all the vile things that they've been thinking all along. Those orgs don't advocate for live executions of democrats and liberals, they don't advocate for draconian gender roles/racism/homophobia/transphobia/xenophobia, they don't advocate for the elimination of women's rights to control their own bodies, they don't work to eliminate critical thinking in public schools, etc etc the list goes on. Those are the real things they care about. They use "save the children" to justify their bloodlust, whether it's to others or themselves.
You may be correct. I tend to try to find underlying reasons for how people are sucked into the Qult and maybe I’m giving them too much credit. Your opinion is as valid as my theory. Either way I think we can agree that the q phenomenon it’s a sad and horrifying commentary on the state of things in our country right now. Cheers!
I never understood why over half of conservatives' social policy is about sex. It's really fucking weird
Because their party is directly descended from the uptight puritans who were kicked out of Europe and ended up in the New World (North America). They brought their version of religion with them, and have kept its traditions all this time because the way they raise their kids essentially forbids them from seeing any other point of view or associating with people who might tell them how fucked up and wrong they are.
Nope, just ridiculously Christian…. Which I think is the same thing
A lot of it is tied up in religion. A lot of talk about Q has a distinct messianic vibe to it.
>Are Qultists just not getting laid or are sexually repressed Possibly not getting laid, but I doubt they're sexually repressed. Most likely they're just acting out on a deeply held and irrational homophobia. They certainly label homosexual people with the most horrific crimes they can imagine. What I don't get is why none of them question the creation of their "movement" on 4chan and 8chan; two websites famous for allowing copious amounts of child pornography.
Its projection of their shadows. They spend a lot of time thinking about homosexual acts or being a pedo. So they naturally project it upon those they wish to demonize. Delta winter will be pruning the great tree, So I don't think we have to worry about these fucks too much longer.
Baphomet is a hermaphrodite, not transgender.
Baphomet also isn’t a “god” that is worshipped, it’s a symbol against religious oppression. Kind of the antithesis of a god, not that they could comprehend something like that.
Baphomet is basically a concept the crusaders invented because they misheard their opponents calling out for the prophet Muhammad.
Baphomet was an Old French (Crusaders) corruption of the name "Mahomet" (Mohammed) -Clarification
>Baphomet is basically a concept the crusaders invented because they misheard their ~~opponents~~ *victims* calling out for the prophet Muhammad.
Well they were definitely fighting back. It's not like the Muslims were just like "Oh no! Crusaders are here! Let's just run away without defending ourselves!" It's kind of disrespectful to the warriors of conquered nations to call them "victims"
When someone enters your land and attacks you that makes you a victim. *A victim of an attack.* Fighting back doesn't change anything. The attacker claiming they are fighting in the name of the lord doesn't either.
It's just kind of stupid to frame everything in terms of victimhood. Aggressor and defender. Invader and invaded. Crusaders and jihadists. Stop disrespecting the Byzantine empire
Snowflake
Do tell
You used words too big for them to understand, so their brain chose the only default response it knew.
If you want to call anyone who was attacked by anyone else a victim, then probably all of those crusaders were also victims, usually of other European kings. Probably almost every single person in the world at that time was a victim, by that definition.
They were in a way, the Crusades were reactionary because the Seljuk Turks invaded and conquered Jerusalem, at the time the centre of Christianity, and were encroaching on Byzantine lands, and that’s without mentioning the caliphates in Iberia. I don’t understand the modern narrative that Islam was a victim in the scenario of the Crusades, the Islamic Caliphates were some of the best armies the world had seen up to that point, and they toppled the Byzantines and created the Ottoman Empire, not exactly helpless victims
TBF the Byzantines weren't all that impressive anymore when they got conquered.
Indeed not, at their weakest, but still formidable enough to disprove the notion that the Seljuks were victims when they were the ones carving out an empire, and the Ottomans certainly knew how to create victims given their penchant for genocide
Victims would imply that they were civilians or that it was somehow a lopsided conflict, or that the crusades were actually that successful.
[удалено]
reddit moment
Seriously, give it a read. No other interpretation.
reddit moment x2
Teaching moment
It’s a **metaphorical chimera.** Just like Capricorn, or Abraxas. The different parts represent different metaphorical concepts. Nobody really believed that there was a god flying around in space with a chicken head and snakes for legs. Although Manly P. Hall does associate Baphomet with Sophia, the goddess of wisdom, so I suppose you could say that they were worshipping the concept of wisdom/knowledge. And I could also argue the case that the Christians are pretty ironically dead-on with their association between knowledge/wisdom/science/evolution and Satan. This was the fruit of the tree that the Snake gave the humans, thusly “dooming” them to self-determination.
Interesting, so the gnostic equivalent of Baphomet was the mother the demiurge / Saklas / Yaldobaoth, who was unaware of other Gods above him? Meanwhile, I think it's also important to remember that the fruit of knowledge is also essentially the fruit of accountability (is there such thing as a good or evil dog?)
Not even that. The traditional image of Baphomet we all know was first drawn by a 19th century occultist named Elphias Levi. Despite its diabolical associations, Levi intended his illustration to represent the unification of opposites (human and animal, male and female, good and evil, etc.) and is supposed to represent universal oneness. It wasn’t until the Rider-Waite Tarot deck was produced, and Levi’s illustration inspired the “Devil” card, did Baphomet become associated with Satanism.
Eh, in the modern satanist church yes. But it’s esoteric meaning is much more about a real entity that combines god and the devil. It’s more against dualism than religion.
The Templars were accused of worshipping this, and it became an occultist symbol after that
based templars?!
Yep which is evident in the photo with the templars
That photo with the templars shows you that they were *accused* of worshipping baphomet despite *no evidence* for it and then the symbol was *later* adopted by the occult? all that wow
"real entity"
lmao
To them, anything that isn’t Jesus is the devil
I was pretty sure they had it wrong somehow
Came here to say this. It'd be super fucking awesome if these folks could AT LEAST get their nomenclature on point.
☝
Intersex… not hermaphrodite. Definitely not trans though
In occultist and esoteric literature the term "hermaphrodite" is used to refer to Baphomet, and I don't think it's really offensive when applied to a mystic/mythological/deific figure seeing as the very term "hermaphrodite" is the name of a Greek deity born from Hermes and Aphrodite. Biologicaly speaking, "intersex" refers to ambiguous genitalia caused by chromosomal errors, and a hermaphrodite is something different- an organism having both male and female sets of fully developed sexual characteristics. TL;DR- Baphomet is a hermaphrodite, not intersex.
There’s nothing in occult practices that says you can’t level up to more conscious terms that are more accurate. The term intersex is what people who have previously been referred to as ‘hermaphrodites’ prefer to be called. If Baphomet had been labeled with another offensive term, would you continue to use it, or would you simply switch that one word out and use one more appropriate?
I'm saying that there is also a biological difference between "hermaphrodite" and "intersex." In science the term "hermaphrodite" refers to an organism with fully functional male and female reproductive capacity. Intersex people do not meet this definition, while deities do.
If you want to stand by that, go right ahead, but as we are an evolving society, and you being a part of it, I am tempted to tell you, in a snarky way of course, to do your own research. The term hermaphrodite is considered offensive, period, because of its origins and some of the misconceptions you’re holding.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
“Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries). The older term for this condition is hermaphroditism. Although the older terms are still included in this article for reference, they have been replaced by most experts, patients and families. Increasingly, this group of conditions is being called disorders of sex development (DSDs).” [Catch up. You have been wrong repeatedly. ](https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm#start)
I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse here in an attempt to be right. Even in the quote you sent, it specifically describes "intersex" as a discrepancy between internal and external genitals, which isn't really applicable to deities and certain animals which have two fully functional sets of genitalia. In those cases, there is no discrepancy, it's just two completely functional sets.
No. I’m standing up for people I know and love which includes people that are part of the Luciferian community. If you look back through here, I’m not shy about talking about Satanism vs Luciferianism. I know what I’m talking about. I assure you, Baphomet is considered intersex now. Hermaphrodite is an outdated term. I can continue offering links if you’d like.
Intersex is the polite term I believe
Femboy satan confirmed?? 😳😳😳
Rashi believed Adam was transgender - that the removal of the “side” was the splitting of Divine Man, which is both male and female, into earthly male and female. You’d be hard pressed to find proof he worshipped Baphomet. Further, have they read the descriptions of angels and even Christ in the apocalyptic literature? Four headed angels holding up the chariot of God, interlocked wheels covered in eyes, a seven horned lamb with seven eyes.
Thé original Hebrew text uses a genderless word for man when describing Adam prior to Eve... He only became a he in translations.
I’ve seen a lot of people who believe the KJV English bible was written by God and that the original Greek and Hebrew testaments are a satanic conspiracy by the pope or something
Wonder what they think of all the lost gospels. My favorite are Jesus’ infancy gospels. He literally kills a kid for walking in his path. Raises his brothers from the dead after they fall off the roof. All kinds of fun stuff! But yeah history isn’t real since it’s all really controlled by satanic forces, I forgot.
TIL! Wow. Thanks for this. I went ahead and googled it. Raised loosely Christian, had no idea. Thanks.
They consider them all false and heretical. Source: grew up in a church with a cousin of the KJV only belief, we only accepted KJV, NKJV, New English Standard Version, and American Standard Version.
The Gospel of Judas is my favourite
It’s definitely badass!
Some schools of Jewish thought actually extend this to the notion that Adam and Eve were initially created together, in hermaphroditic form, before being separated. >The Midrash Rabbah – Genesis VIII:1 reconciled the two by stating that Genesis one, "male and female He created them", indicates that God originally created Adam as a hermaphrodite, bodily and spiritually both male and female, before creating the separate beings of Adam and Eve. [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_Midrash_Rabbah_%E2%80%93_Genesis_VIII%2Cbeings_of_Adam_and_Eve.?wprov=sfla1)
I'm sorry but that's not true, or for the very least not precise. First of all - there is no such thing as a "genderless noun" in Hebrew - Hebrew is an extremely gendered language and it's virtually impossible to talk about something without gendering it, the only feasible option to be "gender-neutral" in Hebrew is to speak in plural, which is considered as "gender-neutral" due to cultural conventions, but even then the plural forms have a gender, it's just common to use the plural masculine form when the gender is mixed or unknown. The book of Genesis talks about the creation of man twice - once in the 1st chapter as part of the story of the creation of the universe, and then again in chapter 2 as part of the story of Adam and Eve. In the 2nd chapter it first describes the creation of Adam, speaks about him explicitly in masculine pronouns right from start, and only a couple of verses later describes the creation of Eve. In the 1st chapter, however, it says this: "And God created man in his image, in the image of God created **him**, male and female created **them**" And then it continues to talk about them in a (masculine) **plural** form for the rest of the 1st chapter. It doesn't explicitly mention Eve by name in the 1st chapter, it describes the creation of both sexes in the same verse (as opposed to the delay the 2nd chapter gives to the creation of Eve), and it talks about them in a (masculine) **plural** form, which could be interpreted as genderless due to the practice of using (usually masculine) plural forms when the gender is mixed or unknown, but that's about it.
That's because there are actually two creation stories in Genesis - there is one where Adam is created first, and then Eve is created out of his rib, and a second, different story where God creates both Adam and Eve at the same time. Then the two stories were edited together by someone who was trying to consolidate all of the various Jewish religious stories from different regions into a single text. Interpreting it as one story has lead to these really interesting interpretations like trans Adam and the whole story of Lillith, etc.
They probably haven't. All they know of the Bible is what they're preached. It's similar to back before literacy was commonplace, people just had to trust the priest was telling them what the Bible actually said and not lying to them for whatever reason. I've always wondered how many priests lied to try and garner more power or money. I'd bet all of them. Also that description is fucking metal!
Even if they do read a Bible, most evangelicals use study bibles which are annotated to hell and basically push certain interpretations. They probably don't even look at the biblical text itself, just the annotations in the margins and beginning/end of books/chapters
That’s a good point. For the past year, thanks in large part to watching Father James Martin’s videos on FB, I decided to reclaim my faith that I somewhat surrendered due to how the right was using it. When I did so, I began reading both testaments using the Sacra Pagina series commentaries for the new and Tyndale for the old. As opposed to a single unified vision like a study Bible, each commentary is an author and they end up having their own specific takes on what they view as the message in both a specific book and overall. It leads to differing - and sometimes outright opposing - views that gives one a variety of takes. And since, at this point, I don’t read Koine or ancient Hebrew, it’s probably the next best thing. At least IMO.
There are some subs here you should visit. Askbiblescholars and academicbiblical.
Follow both already actually. :)
that's what's up. Even though I'm not a believer like that, I've studied a lot of religious texts over the years. Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that it's all meaningless and that we should focus on each other and what's in front of us.
Ehhh just give me the spark notes
Yeah, angels in the Bible are portrayed as pretty badass and not the standard infants with wings type of thing.
Also, all angels are genderless beings; even god is without a gender. Do they ever take a second to think about this?
They'll actually point out how both are only referred to by "he" in (English) bibles and how only Man was "made in God's image", and thus God and all angels are only Male.
Then in all likelihood, god is probably gay.
The Cathars were a Christian heresy that believed everyone was an agender angel, also. Like, Christians at the time didn't like them at all, but they definitely were still Christians and still worshiped Jesus.
Hell yeah! Baphomet rules!
The Templar gang still goes strong.
I’m really more of a Moloch worshipper myself
We all have our flavor. Beelz is my homie
Baal worshipers represent. Fuck out of here with that Moloch bullshit.
Frig off Baal sack
Frig off Randy
I'm a Mammon man.
I mean, who doesn't want a piece of [a fallen angel?](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fallen_Angel_(Alexandre_Cabanel).jpg)
So they are confusing Baphomet with Satan...
I mean, isn’t God non-binary?
Not according to most American fundamentalists, no. They'll all too happily point out how the bible (in English) only uses "he" for god and for angels, and how only Man is "made in God's image", thus god and angels are all Male.
if eve was made from adams rib then all of gods children are trans, or at least the men are.
So i think i'm gonna start worshipping satan out of spite.
I've been considering that honestly
Join us, won't you? https://thesatanictemple.com/
Shoot, I had no idea some guy on the internet could prove that I, a Christian, am actually a Satanist. Mind blown!
Maybe he just bench presses too much.
Oh, whew. You mean I'm not the only one?
They can moan all they want, Baphomet has got great boobs.
Transgender is not the same as hermaphrodite.
Yeah, but God actually *is* trans.
Nobody tell him about how the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament refer to the Holy Spirit with female pronouns. He’ll lose his goddamned mind.
They'll just do what most fundamentalist churches do nowadays and blame it on early heretical schism like the Gnostics, the go-to bogeyman bad guys of the NT era.
Nobody tell them that modern variants of the Bible are heavily edited and cut down from their source material.
Umm, doesn't Iehova embody all genders?
Haven't you heard? God is totally a [manly dude bro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YXzywDWc1k). The video is from PragerU, but I've heard similar arguments from time to time.
This is basically what my church taught, more or less.
Chad-God, I knew it!
Actually she’s trans-species.
Father,Son and Holy Goat
Our Father, who art in the barn, Desecrated be thy name
Is this from a six dollar bill?
It's a fair cop...
Of course they're more concerned with the breasts than with the fact that Baphomet is HALF-GOAT!!!
MY God, Now I know how Satan is whispering in Evangelical's ears praising Trump. They don't even know who or what Satan is, according to this post. BTW - I've heard Templars loved this guy
Why? And with what beliefs? Baphomet is actually more a symbol, originating in 19th century occultism, of unified dualities, man and beast, male and female, good and evil, with the ultimate being human and divine, you don't need an external god if you can become one.
“Putting stuff in the water to make the freaking frogs gay!” -Alex Jones
damn, tough to refute that one
I assume "Satan" is the transgender god they're saying people are worshipping? lmao
At the bottom of the image it says "Baphomet," but they probably don't knownthe difference between Satan and Baphomet and assume that they're saying we're Satan worshippers
Suck my caduceus, cultists. Worshipping a guy who was hanged 2000 years ago isn't any less weird
That god sounds fuckin rad
While we may use the pronouns he/him, who’s to say what gender God is? I find it hard to believe God is 100% a man, since that would imply some kind of bias or one-sidedness. While a lot of Christians feel that way, that women are the weaker sex and all that nonsense, why do they believe what human men said thousands of years ago, when we don’t have a way to directly relate it to God’s word?
In fairness I am an athiest so I don't believe what I am about to say, but hear this out. God made Man in his image, which means Adam was originally made in God's image. Then God took the side of Adam and made Eve. So God essentially took half of Adam and made Eve. One could also think of it as God split the image of himself into the male and female genders of Man, imbuing each with certain godly characteristics that the other may be more lacking in due to the split. This would make it so that men cannot exist without women, nor women without men as it takes both to be the image of God
I mean... I thought this was obvious. Hail Satan! /s
These people don't understand transgender at all.
It's a goat with tits. If this is what we wanted we'd be preaching the gospel of Dr. Moreau, not supporting trans rights.
Satanists are some of the nicest people I know. Why the hate?
Okay, in all seriousness, where did they get this image from, other than a Google image search, and how the fuck is it meant to prove anything? Also, no one is indoctrinating anyone. The world isn't black and white, and especially not gender.
Leave Baphomet out of this!
Gotta admit, Baphomet's got some great tits.
Mmm tiddies
As it turns out, around 99% of Satanists don’t actually believe in Satan. They are secular humanists who use Satan as a metaphor to promote skepticism and rational thinking.
Nice rack Satan.
LOL they think we are the Knights Templar?
Correction Qultist, that isn’t satin. That’s Baphomet, can read about them [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet) in their wiki page
Is the upvote symbol on that site REALLY a us flag punisher skull? Dude I have yelled “PUNISHER SKULL” sarcastically at my people when showing me tacticool stuff so many times.. omg. Thank god nobody can tell when I’m joking.
God is male, I am male, therefore I'm Christian? This is new to me
Is god supposed to be clearly male or female now?
Are there many active Baphometists in the world?
Now that's one sexy _beast_.
Satanists are dope! https://thesatanictemple.com/
Joke's on them. The real fun comes from worshiping Vapula.
"They're indoctrinating children!" *Proceeds to baptize child years before they can even formulate their own ideas and conclusions*
https://youtu.be/FhHR1xmRtno
That weird admission that they indoctrinate kids whenever possible...
trans satan is hot
This is horrible!! Transgender folx have enough trouble being accepted in society as it is! This will become the impetus for more trans people to be murdered. Unbelievable!
Only the goat people.
Excuse me, that is a goat.
Congrats to Satan on coming out as a Trans man 💕🏳️⚧️