The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Can you be gay and religious?

cuck72 said:
I ask, can you still be good in the Lord's eyes when you indulge in any kind of pornography? if you have these perverted gay or other sexual thoughts like being a cuckold? I would think these are all sins, so can you still ask for forgiveness, and then keep on being a porn addict?

Having a gay relationship, or even sissy gay or wife sharing fantasies, aren't they still sins in the Lord's eyes even if you say forgive me Lord?

I just wonder because don't most of us have some kind of hot sexual fantasies that we keep going back to, and masturbate to?
Click to expand...

As for myself, I think that if the word "sin" has any constructive meaning at all, I would define it as something that harms you or harms someone else. I would look at sin in those terms. All the lists and teachings out there that don't acknowledge and consider what the real harm is I would throw out.

Speaking of private personal fantasies, everyone has them, and I bet that nobody's fantasies fit the "proper" framework that religionists have constructed. We're just not built that way mentally, or you can even say that God didn't make you that way that churches say you should be.

So indulge in your private fantasies. If thinking about watching your best buddy fuck the hell out of your wife while you watch makes you bust you nut hard, I'd say go for it. It doesn't hurt you or anyone else, and who's going to know? No one's getting hurt, so where's the sin? Of course, if you wanted to enact that fantasy in real life, things get a lot more complicated.

As far as watching pornography or masturbating privately to your fantasies, I don't see that as a sin. If there is a God, he already knows what goes through your mind, and guess what? He knows what's going on in everyone else's mind.

The only way I can see it becoming a "sin" is if it keeps you from developing into your "best" self, as in terms of sex addiction, or it causes you to involve behaviors that others don't consent to, such as exhibitionism or inappropriate touching. If those don't apply, I don't see where the "sin" is.
 
The Gospel of Mary proclaims that there is no such thing as Sin.
 
The concept of sin is not about being "harmful" to someone else. It is a very real thing to religions all over the world. Sin is an offense against god's law, and however the law of God is defined, whether or not it harms no one is irrelevant. God has said no. That's the end of it.

If one wants to keep portions of a religion and toss others, great. The religious will disagree and call one a sinner. But it's probably more intellectually consistent to just toss the "God's Law" part than it is to attempt to redefine a fundamentally religious concept under its own terms.

If there is no "God's Law" there is no sin, and one does not have to quibble with what it does or does not mean.
 
First, I attempted to answer cuck72's question in the terms he used. He specifically asked if certain things, such as viewing pornography, being in a gay relationship, and having wife-swapping fantasies are sins. Had he not used the word sin, I probably wouldn't have used it in my reply. I was trying to give an alternate view for the concept of sin.

Your response points to the problems of using the word sin in any contemporary context. It has been defined by religions through the ages, and thus, has rather unyielding connotations. Generally that has made the word rather useless for real understanding.

Of course there are many modern religious people who try to define the concepts of established religion in terms which will inform their attempts to be good people (I am not talking about rigid fundamentalists here). They often recognize that tradition religious concepts bring problems with them, and try to navigate between modern concepts of ethics and ancient concepts like sin (let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, they might say). Of course, if you see yourself as completely outside of all religion, you would have no need to determine the usefulness of concepts like sin and God's Law.
 
Meh, attempting to "modernize" something that has ossified over thousands of years and is stubbornly clung to by clergy and congregation alike is just a thankless task that will and does leave one on the irrelevant fringes of that tradition.

Mainline Protestants and others change over time by themselves. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. It's more effective to introduce a new argument into the mix than try to redefine one that the vast majority of that tradition is just going to label heresy and then promptly dismiss, no matter how relevant it might be.

I am of course most familiar with Christianity (Southern Baptist) and sin is a foundational concept that one can't just explain away without running into the problem of when one explains away so much that one isn't Christian anymore. Sin is not the only absurd Christian concept.

Might as well just start over. It's simpler, and no mental gymnastics are required.
 
Religion also has elements of interpretation. Different people at different times can interpret the same religious concepts with a different emphasis. At one time Galileo's concepts were viewed as anti-Christian and the Inquisition was viewed as pro-Christian. I don't think that most Christians would interpret those this way now.
 
Rickrock said:
Religion also has elements of interpretation. Different people at different times can interpret the same religious concepts with a different emphasis. At one time Galileo's concepts were viewed as anti-Christian and the Inquisition was viewed as pro-Christian. I don't think that most Christians would interpret those this way now.
Click to expand...
To a degree, most likely individually that's true. But every Christian denomination I'm aware of also has a formal dogma. If you went into a Catholic church and told them your "interpretation" of Catholicism is different than the Pope's, you will get precisely nowhere. If you insist, they will toss you out.

Whatever they may or may not have believed in the past, we don't live there and if one wants to stay a Catholic these days, you have to accept their terms. That goes for every Christian denomination I can think of. Religion as defined by Catholicism and mainline Protestantism is not a flexible proposition. It only has a small amount of give.
 
Anyway, if one disagrees with them, why bother to stay?
 
TX-Beau said:
To a degree, most likely individually that's true. But every Christian denomination I'm aware of also has a formal dogma. If you went into a Catholic church and told them your "interpretation" of Catholicism is different than the Pope's, you will get precisely nowhere. If you insist, they will toss you out.

Whatever they may or may not have believed in the past, we don't live there and if one wants to stay a Catholic these days, you have to accept their terms. That goes for every Christian denomination I can think of. Religion as defined by Catholicism and mainline Protestantism is not a flexible proposition. It only has a small amount of give.
Click to expand...

I know a ton of Catholics who don't accept every single piece of church teaching. In fact, I'd wager that a sizable majority of U.S. Catholics don't accept everything that has come from the Vatican even over the last 50 years, let alone the past 1,500.

But those people don't go into a Catholic church and tell them their "interpretation" of Catholicism is different than the Pope's. There's no point, you're right about that, and they know it very well. In fact, going into a church and tell them your "interpretation" of the religion is different than the leader's isn't really a Catholic thing; it seems much more like something Southern Baptists and other fundamentalist Protestants might do.
 
A lot of people are only incidentally "religious." I suppose that might be an American phenomenon, we love to tell pollsters how much we love the Jeebus, then never go worship him. I read a book once which posited that since the great majority of people have neither the inclination, interest, time, nor resources to study theology, therefore religion tends toward stagnation. It's the fewer true believers who maintain the status quo, and the incidentally religious have little influence over doctrine for the simple reason that they will just ignore whatever they don't want.
 
You probably can't be Evangelical but there are liberal groups of most religions, even if they are not mainstream. In my local Pride parade there are a ton of liberal churches who march so it's possible. There is also a Lutheran church near me that flies the Pride flag year round. So it's possible but I'm sure there is push back from all sides.
 
So, Pope Francis just said that the Catholic church is open to gay people - so long as, you know, you don't do anything, gay.

No thanks Frank, Conditional inclusion is still prohibition.
 
In my experience of what I consider Spirituality, I have determined that yes, religion as a concept of the practice of performing ceremony or ritual can be applied, but it does not define it and it's not the desired effect or result of it.
 
I really don't know for sure. But I would think according to God it would be sinful just to have dirty thoughts, being a pervert who gets off to gay or straight sexual fantasies. If you are a porn addict wouldn't that be a no, no in the eyes of our lord? But I also think most of us do still have these perverted fantasies and get off to them.
 
gayjay82 said:
You probably can't be Evangelical but there are liberal groups of most religions, even if they are not mainstream. In my local Pride parade there are a ton of liberal churches who march so it's possible. There is also a Lutheran church near me that flies the Pride flag year round. So it's possible but I'm sure there is push back from all sides.
Click to expand...
I just wonder would our Lord still forgive us if we continue down this path, even if we ask him to forgive our sins. We ask him to forgive us for our perverted ways, but then we still have our perverted thoughts and jack off or perform those acts. Would he take our forgiveness as an empty please forgive me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top