/lit/ - Literature

>>21428091
But Buddhism and Islam are different. Buddhism doesn't require everyone to be part of a global collective, it just wants to insert an organ (Buddhist monasticism) into every societal-body. Islam, meanwhile, wants every societal-body to be within the larger body (the Ummah), and be subject to a certain limited set of cosntraints (Shariah, speaking Arabic, worshiping Yahweh as Muhamamd told people to do), but allows for an inner-outer distinction wherein bodies that follow this limited set of rules are allowed to maintain a degree of heterogeneity with respect to other bodies (that is, you need to speak Arabic, but you are allowed to also speak Malay). I don't want what Islam offers, but it is different from what you, and other Christians, want.

You, meanwhile, want everyone to be part of one body. You yourself say so. You said that everyone has to be part of the same body, and that there can be no distinctions between parts of that body. It has to be homogeneous. Everyone has to be subject to a faceless bureaucracy (the Vatican). This is justified as we are all equal (being made in the image of Yahweh). It was ordained by Yeshua (the Great Commission Christ "hinself" sought us to do) that everyone be brought together, which is something that only can happen BECAUSE we are all equal; any perceived inequalities are thus blemishes placed upon man by other men, spitting on the design of Yahweh (in whose image we are all made). This is why Judaism is bad: it was a bunch of particularisms that the Jews created to keep themselves apart, Yeshua got rid of them, and this has to be done with every other group. This is why, as you say, "the fact there are non-Christian countries out there is a bad thing", because inequality and diversity are unnatural and everyone needs to be made equal and the same, subject to the Apostolic Majesty of the Vatican. But, it's all okay, and everything will be better once this is achieved.

This is purely going off of your posts in this thread.

>>21274742
The Skoptsy, various Gnostic sects, literally every other Church Father if literally every Church Father is to be believed, and various monastic Saint cults. More broadly, a Catholic monk/nun/clergymen is a eunuch. They aren't physically castrated, but spiritually, they are a eunuch.

Now having said that, much like how you can find Gnostic parallels with Liberalism, or Buddhist parallels within certain Christian sects, this is a case of convergent evolution. By definition, no one "was Transgender" before Jewish psychologists invented it in the early 1900s. But, again, through convergent evolution, if you start out with a certain set of basic assumptions, the product will be similar to another religious tradition adopting those basic assumptions.

For example, if you believe that souls are genderless and pure, and that sexuality is inherently evil, you're going to setup the groundwork for weird cults where castration becomes a high-status symbol (in part because it forces the castrated to commit to the cause). Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, whatever, these basic premises (pure genderless soul, sexuality bad, body bad) result in the same outcomes.