The Gayness of Christianity

This topic is so completely wrong that I must remind my readers that I am not myself an Ist.  I am just Jesina, who decided to be a woman and therefore is.  If you don't think so it's proof you're filled with hate (I also identify as a billionaire, but that hasn't worked out yet for some reason, probably prejudice).  If you are confused about my identifications or anything like that, you should go back and read my disclaimer.  Christianity is not gay.  Anyway, putting the Ist stuff here like I do so it can be knowledgeably countered, and you’re a Nazi if you think I’m an Ist. 

(It should be here noted that very many Jesusians are not what is called gay.  Not not not.  No homo.  In addition, they do not believe that by being Jesusian they have joined [nor would they if they knew what it was join] a gay movement.  Think of how the women complaining that immigrants should stay/be let in for humanitarian reasons are absolutely not pro-rape--they are just deceived.  Jesusian Christians are that way, having been deceived into thinking that all the nice things about themselves, their loved ones, which they can imagine, etc. originated in a Middle Eastern rabbi, not in Europe.  Like the idiot women who would not like to be beaten/raped but who insist that refugees be allowed into their societies because nationalism is fascism, they are advocating for their own misuse.  

What those people with strong enough brains can consider is the things here discussed.  Just like how European-descended Jesusians have been deceived into believing that supporting the idea of a Middle Eastern rabbi is supporting European tradition, non-gay Jesusians have generally been tricked into thinking that by being a Jesusian, they are being against gayness.  Contra what they think, though, Christianity is antilife, and thus very gay.  Male gay acts satisfy urges which human males have so that they will reproduce (female ones do that with closeness and someone caring, although it is a popular male fantasy that orgasmic pleasure is the purpose), yet those gay acts produce zero babies ever--they are literally non-life things--and the fantasy of a sole male creator making life is a very big deceit.  A couple makes life, which requires not just an end to onanistic solitude but a female- and male-including pair not a pair of gay dudes, and that female then has to grow and nourish for a long time [for humans here] that life.  If this does not happen, there is never any life.  It is incredibly gay to claim that a sole man is the real source of life and that is explicitly what Jesusian Christianity does.  

(The idea that worshiping a man who is usually presented in very little clothing is good, and that paintings and little statues of attractive women are bad and must go away is a dead giveaway.  Whites, though, tend to crave universalism so much that even when they realize that what is called "gay" things are not good for their groupings, they can be not gay but still be drawn to stories about a man who proclaims universalism.  People in 2025 tend not to know this anymore, but when Middle Eastern Christianity conquered Europe piece by piece, it quite literally involved destroying old things that brought people together--such as paintings and little statues of attractive women who embodied good concepts--and instead putting up statues of a man in very little clothing about which man you were supposed to think.  Jesusians today tend to not really think about those statues of that single man, but if they had been there at the time, they would have seen it--and many of their predecessors did, which is why we can read about so many Christian wars now.  When today's Jesusian is vindicated by the thought of someone wearing a cross, s/he is not thinking about how that habit stems from a little statue of a writhing man in just a loincloth being affixed to that cross.  Particularly, the way that young boys approaching manhood--breeding age--were supposed to think a lot about that hypothetical Middle Eastern man in the loincloth illustrates the way that representations of "homosexuality" and "finding yourself" by realizing you are a "transwoman" do the same thing today.  Today's Jesusian can usually feel that there is something wrong with that, but the cross just escapes them.  

[That is us going on about Christianity--the European resistance to enforced rabbi-worship is long gone, but a little part of it can be seen again when people today mock and oppose a different kind of addicts to universalism.  Those different kinds of addicts hold up signs welcoming refugees.  That is what Jesusians are standing for when they try to convert you to rabbi-worship.  The weird, seemingly un-understandable idiocy of some White British woman who gets hit a little and six-timed by Arabs after she has spent all that time bringing them dinner and trying to find job opportunities for them seems inexplicable.  However, there are many people who think you should worship a rabbi because it is so great, and that expression of the eerie White drive for universalism is easy to understand.  It is the same thing, just at different parts of the process.  Some guy liking his church who gets upset and thinks the world is coming apart when they build a mosque right across the street is feeling the same sort of despair as that woman when the first Arab smacks her.]  

The decay part of environments cycling is unpleasant, and can be stopped no more than frowning up at the sky to make it not rain [We are going to lose this battle, many Jesusians will keep being Jesusians, and that is how it goes.  It will still rain, no matter how loud we shout.]  It is particularly rancid to witness people of European genetic structure insisting that saying you love and follow a Middle Eastern rabbi is going to revitalize Europe.  Yet, a jillion years will pass, Earth and Sol etc. will end, some very beautiful woman will grow up and live a great life on some other planet going around another star using the molecules expelled by Sol in its supernova, and so on.  It couldn't have happened if environments didn't cycle; if this society didn't decay.  That kind of thing will happen a few jillion times, there will be other environments, it will end up being good that this happened, and yet it still sucks to see dummies thinking Europe will be restored if people just love a Middle Eastern rabbi enough.)  

Jesus is a single man, which means nothing by itself, but His early worshipers said He would have been best served by everyone getting rid forever of stories, pictures, etc. of single attractive women, married attractive women, plain women, couples, families, etc.  The passion—sic—of monotheism transcending polytheism is this.  Just like an individual person cannot actually live through infancy her or himself, polytheist god-characters were not described as living by themselves.  No; they were described as living in the company of others.  Legends/myths etc. about the gods were descriptions of social animals, like humans are.  

The mention should be made that an individual person could live by her- or himself.  A person could be marooned on a desert island because of a boat malfunction (oh, we guess people prefer to say "plane crash"), or get fed up with everyone else and “go back to nature,” etc.  After such a situation, that person could figure out farming, hunting, gathering, etc. and live by her- or himself.  So, a human could live independently.  100 years later, though, that would be the end of those genes (unless that person had had kids before the boat malfunction/plane crash, but for this example that person didn't).  Humans are social animals.  Like many other types of meiotic animals, humans require other humans in order to exist.  That is why it was very appropriate for populations of humans to codify their learning about human interaction within stories referring to mating things and identifying the character by family, and to revere and dislike, approve of and disapprove of, certain types of humans and certain types of interactions.  

(A story about Aries, where it is understood he is the child of Hera/Zeus, automatically does that even if the story is all just about Aries beating up someone.  The same with a very long narrative about some guy going on a big journey and/or having a big fight, because it was quite understood what men who strive get when they're done with that--the satisfaction of home and hearth, which means family, which means wife and kid/kids.  All the ancient myths about some guy/guys going on a big trip, having a big fight, etc., are that.  If you want the Macguffin for why they do that, you want the porno aisle--yes, the gay section has a copy of this man on some wood alone.)  

That is where things like the patriarchy, borders, and racial discrimination originate.  When members of a people infected by a mental disease against life (Jesusian Christianity and then Bangist Christianity) say that those things are bad and should not exist, it is predictable.  Jesusianism was the beginning of that kind of nonsense; it makes perfect sense that the anti-matter philosophy of Christianity would lead to things like we are seeing now.  Politically correct ("PC") behavior is Christian even though most people who would say they are Christian would say that PC is stupid.  Feeling that good people should try to be saved from matter is just like feeling that polite relationships with other people should not take matter into account; feeling that S.R. wants certain things to happen so that he will save you from matter is just a different kind of affirmative action.  

The process of decay, like a person not bothering to complain that that person is getting older and doesn't lift heavy boxes anymore, involves not disapproving of certain types of interactions that were before disapproved.  That is why people begin to do/support things which are bad for any human society including their own: they feel that they should be that way, and don't really know why they do, even though what they say should be done will hurt them.  Just like an aging person’s back acting up, the aging is not enjoyable for the human, but is good for the environment, in that it is part of the process of that person’s body dying and all the components within that body becoming a different part of the environment.  If people were not to decay, the environment would fail.  There would be no more humus, because fertile humus is composed of parts of the bodies of things (long ago those molecules were forming that instead) that were once alive.  Because there would be no more fertile humus, there could be no more pretty women who need to breathe air, drink water, and eat food to survive.  This is why decay is good (a true good as far as every human is concerned—an absolute necessity).  

Decay is certainly both disgusting and good; trying to argue that it is not disgusting to eat a turd, to sleep with a smelly corpse, or to increasingly tax earners of money at increasing rates is ridiculous.  Yet, there are turds, corpses, and “progressive” taxes.  People also get old and their backs start to hurt in weird ways.  

Turds, corpses, taxes, and back pain are not enjoyable things.  It would be stupid to claim that they are likable.  However, they are definitely good things on a time scale much larger than a few human lifetimes.  So too with Decay.  It is stupid to believe that decay is good or helping you in certain ways, but it is also stupid to believe that decay is bad.  One would be wasting one’s time by trying to either help or hinder decay.  Like trying to help the rain by hurrying to the top of skyscrapers to urinate over the edge every time rain starts, or like running around with empty water bottles trying to catch the rain and re-disperse it, it is a fool’s errand (or you could have that as a hobby like us, preaching to Jesusians about why PC is BS).  

(Continued in The Gayness of Christianity II.)