skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Yeah, Falwell's dead. It's been confirmed not only by a coroner, but by 10,000 saints and angels ushering him through the gates of heaven (or hell, depending on your take) and a prophet or two declaring that the tribulation may begin...
What's so utterly, tragically hilarious about everything isn't necessarily his death--we all knew Falwell would die, didn't we?--but now the Christian sites are full of sympathy, outpourings of "love," and an all-around pat-on-the-back for a life lived in stupidity.
One site said:
The truth is that he was a great man of God who stood for what is right and was not afraid to take on the liberal media. Even Larry Flynt, who once hated Falwell, has said that they became great friends.
It takes a pretty small person to ridicule someone after they are no longer on earth to defend themselves. The great thing about it is that Jerry Falwell did not care what atheists thought of his message while he was here and he is certainly not concerned with what they are saying about him now.
Another had this to say:
The irony watch begins: Will his critics spew the worst kind of venom while talking about what a hater Falwell was? Surely not. They will display their love and tolerance for someone with whom they just had philosophical differences.
And, the end-all be-all of "Christian" reactions to Falwell's death:
I was sorry to hear that Jerry Falwell passed away today. I sometimes criticized him harshly, but he seemed like a decent man and he has certainly done a lot of good in the world. My condolences go out to his friends and family.
PS: I'm keeping the comments closed to keep the liberal posters from trashing Falwell there. If they want to trash him -- and they will -- let them do it somewhere else besides Right Wing News.
Anyone see a trend? The people that wouldn't get near to the controversial man when he was alive, for fear he made them all look as crazy and delusional as he was, have made him a saint. Saint Falwell: The saint whom you pray to when you want to fall from grace gracefully.
Now there's a catchy slogan. Catholics, get a pen and paper.
But seriously, we all made fun of him, trashed him, Christian and non-Christian, but suddenly because the man is dead, it's as if the Christians are afraid sky god did love him best and will judge them all on what they said about him now that he's gone... Talk about your Fairy Tales Gone Awry! So a man is dead--it's kind of sad, but when you look at his track-record? Good riddance to bad rubbish. There's something you won't hear in his eulogy.
Of course, to the most conservative of the nutballs, this makes me evil, inhumane (as if somehow compassion and kind words were the mainstay of this religion.... HA!), certainly "non-Christian" (and since when did I claim I was?), and let's see... there were a few other choice words for those who didn't worship the selective memory of Saint Falwell...
But we're the hypocrites? We trashed him in life, we'll trash him in death. It's not like he's going to care. This was the same man who said things like this:
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." (hmm, yeah, that sounds like something rooted in scripture...)
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." (Sounds like someone took some note cards from Phelps!!)
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh’s charioteers." (Yes, we must ask ourselves, WWJS: Who Would Jesus Save? It certainly wouldn't be an Egyptian, let alone a homosexual!! Heaven just wouldn't be heaven if the gays were there, I suppose... Which is why you won't be able to blame us for the tacky gold roads...)
"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country." (It certainly couldn't have been put in place by smart men who knew the viles of religion, right?)
Listen, we could do this all day and never stop laughing our asses off at this tragic moron of a human being. The hypocrisy comes not in trashing him after his death for his moronic ramblings, but in suddenly making a saint out of a man you tried to hide from whenever he was in town. Now that a man is dead does NOT make him a better human being than he previously was... And lying about it, and suddenly saying he "was grounded in scripture" when you know all along he didn't agree with you on half the things you each thought scripture said... Well, that speaks to how silly it is to hold a book in such high esteem that no two people can read the same way...
Inerrant word of god my ass...
So we bid you ado, Saint Falwell. Christians who hated you in life for making them all seem delusional now love you in death, just like Jesus would...
One less radical, militant religious person is no loss... It's the loss of what a great man he could have been that is mourned...
I remember one lesson I learned in sports as a young child. Whether it was basketball, soccer, or baseball, all my coaches always had one thing to say: "Winning isn't everything." Whether we had a great team or not, whether we played a great game or not, whether we won or lost. It was repeated often, and always against a backdrop of pride, arrogance, and all-around bad sportsmanship.
Winning isn't everything.
Remember when Iraq was supposed to be easy? "We will be greeted as liberators." We wanted to avoid "the mushroom cloud." We said we didn't need that many troops, that much time, that much money... (Source.)
You'd never know it by this administrations actions. His way at all costs, his way at any price, to secure Iraq, to secure "freedom," but largely, in the hopes of securing "his legacy." Bush says it often enough, as do his 30% of followers. "History will show he's right," or "His legacy will show this was the right course of action." (Source.) More than anything else, though, is this "We must succeed," or "We must win" mentality, the line of thinking that is not just the goal, but the strategy and the tactics as well. The way he threatens to veto any type of oversight or limitations on the war, which Congress has every right to do, is just more bravado in the face of stubborn refusal to entertain the notion that maybe winning in Iraq isn't the way to win the war on terror, even though Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the United States originally...
We learned that "winning wasn't everything" in Vietnam and Korea. The world didn't come to a tragic end, Communism didn't spread like poison ivy across Asia, Europe, and Africa, and thousands of lives were saved through this simple acknowledgement of fact that we weren't going to "win" in the traditional sense. We said "Enough is enough" and came up with different ways to contain what we perceived to be a threat to our way of life, whether or not that perception was accurate... We learned new ways to make our voices heard above the din, to get the world behind us through diplomats, meetings, agreements... And while we learned that talking also doesn't solve everything, it at least saves on the body count, and opens up many more doors and windows for trying something different, something new, something that just may work...
Winning isn't everything.
When did we forget this? That sometimes compromise, sometimes thinking outside "the box" (as much as I despise that cliche), of getting a new map instead of trying to work with the old one... We continue to "surge" troops into Iraq while "insurgents" and al Qaeda surge themselves, feeding a frenzy of ideology, much like trying to put out a fire with kerosene and gas. We cry, "Liquid puts out fire, this will work!" as the flames leap ever higher, closer and closer to that explosion which will take us all out, no matter which side we stand on and shout "You are wrong!" While the "anti-war" movement grows in fits and starts, it also only serves to make this administration even more stubborn and resolute.
Winning isn't a strategy. Victory is not a goal. Of course, we also wouldn't know this from the propaganda shoved down our throats by this administration. "We need victory." "We will succeed, need to succeed." "We must win this war." Someone should have told the president that terror isn't a battle of guns and war plans and tanks--it's a battle of ideology, a battle of thoughts, a battle of beliefs. Remember that phrase "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"? The Bush administrations strategy is more along the lines of "You can lead a horse to water, and you can make him drink," except no one ever told Bush that, even if you get the horse to drink, you still can't change the horse's mind... And the more you make the horse drink, the more pissed off the horse is going to get. And no amount of bridles, saddles, and rodeo clowns will save your ass...
Winning isn't everything.
And it's no longer about whether Iraq was a good idea or not; that ship has sailed so far beyond the present problems, it's almost as big a fairy tale as Noah's ark. No one cares anymore whether it was right or wrong, they just want a conclusion. Now whether that conclusion is military victory or cold war stand-off, no one much cares. Thousands have died, both soldiers and civilian. Many more are wounded emotionally, physically, mentally... It's not a game. It's war. It's dirty, messy, bloody, and deadly. If there is a square marked "Pass go, collect $200," it won't be found at one end of a tank or at the other end of a car bomb. And while I can't say I had a better idea for taking out Saddam than Bush or his administration, I'm also wondering if we really needed to take him out to begin with...
Winning would be nice. Not great, or spectacular, or even grand. Just... nice. As we read through the names of those lost on both sides, civilian and soldier, we ask ourselves why? Was it worth it? What did we hope to accomplish? What was the point? Winning doesn't seem as important on an individual level...
These questions will need asked, and may not ever be answered. Rhetoric and propaganda from all sides of the political spectrum will attempt to appeal to our nationalism, our patriotism, our sense of pride in our country and what we stand for...
Yes, pulling out won't be "winning," at least not in the traditional sense, the Bush sense of the word. Time tables aren't victory. Leaving Iraq to it's tribal feuds and religious factions isn't success. There are no easy answers, no quick fixes, and no instructions on how to continue... Perhaps leaving is just what Iraq needs to pull itself together, to find its identity and move beyond its present state. Or maybe a pull out will lead to all-out civil war which would be our fault for starting. Or maybe, just maybe--as was the case with Russia, Korea, Vietnam, and many other wars between many other countries--war fatigue will set in and everyone will just be...
All this to say what? It sucks. The war in Iraq sucks. And "winning" isn't going to get us out, I think we all know that. Because it isn't winning we should be worried about...
Winning isn't everything. It never was, never is, and never will be.
Yes, my dear reader, I know you feel neglected. I had four days off of work and made the best of them by improving the hardscape and softscape around my home, so now I am more exhausted than I was before I had off of work--but it's a much better exhausted...
Some topics of interest:
1. I hate Luther. Next door neighbor, busy-body, lonely, and I know why he's been divorced three times. He never shuts up, and always interrupts you when you are obviously engaged in something else.
2. Falwell bit the dust. All he did was promote division and hate, and never had anything nice to say, at least on camera... So much for "eternal life." Is it a shame he died? I guess on some level, but hey, we all gotta die someday, right? For some of his greatest all-time stupid statements, see here.
3. Work sucks. So as previously stated, I was off for two work days (four days total) and no one did a goddamn thing around here except pile shit on my desk. Whatever happened to "team work" and all that other drivel? And it's not so much the leaving things on my desk that I mind--it's the whole mindset behind it that drives me insane. These are the same people that will wonder why I didn't get any of my scheduled work done on Wednesday without OT, despite the fact that they left two days worth of work go until I got back. Dumbasses...
4. Beautiful weather. I love spring. It is the only time of year I truly enjoy. Yeah, summer's nice, fall is pretty, and winter just bites the big one, but spring? Love, love, love...
I'll try to get some of my drafts finished up and posted in the next few days, but no guarantees, okay?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the sole reason for fundamentalist existence on this planet. The Plan. Yes, it's a bit simplistic. A bit silly. A lot stupid. And very small-minded. For one example of many, you can read circus-like circular argument, or even this hilarious example. (Trust me, like Visa, they're everywhere you want to be... and wish they weren't...)
The fundamentalists reasoning follows something along these lines (in simplistic form):
Fundie: But, how can you not believe in God? Look all around you!
Joe Atheist: I see trees. A dog taking a shit. Some grass. Birds... And?
Fundie: The great book says that evidence of GAWD is all around you! This is proof of GAWD!!
Joe: Uh... No, it's proof that there's a dog, there's a bird, there's a tree...
Fundie: That GAWD made! You think these things just popped out of mud and algae?
Joe: Mud and algae? Seriously, that's what you think the evolutionary theory states? But even so, why is that more unbelievable than an invisible god? At least there's the common threads of DNA, molecules, chemical reactions, shared traits, a long line of ancestral fossils and remnants...
Fundie: Poppycock! You made all that up! That's all science exists for! To disprove GAWD!
Joe: Er... No, science exists to tell us how things work, why they work... You know, pursuit of knowledge and truth.
Fundie: GAWD is truth! All you need is the Great Book! It has everything you need to know!
Joe: Can it pay my bills?
Fundie: Er... what was that?
Joe: Can it pay my bills? Can it explain how to cure cancer, or have a remedy as such?
Fundie: GAWD can cure your sickness of sin and cancer! Just believe and pray...
Joe: I know believers who have died from cancer...
Fundie: Er... It wasn't in GAWD's plan.
Joe: So it lays out what god's plan is?
Fundie: Yes!
Joe: Okay, what's his plan?
Fundie: To save the world!
Joe: Even though I just told you I know people who have died from cancer...
Fundie: Oh, no, no, no... Not save you from cancer, but to save you from sin and HELL!
Joe: Didn't god both create hell, and introduce sin into the world?
Fundie: No! You blaspheme! GAWD created hell for Satan and his evil cohorts! Eve and the Serpent introduced sin!
Joe: Did not god create Eve? And the Serpent?
Fundie: Er... yes...
Joe: And do you not claim your god has all knowledge and all power?
Fundie: Er... yes...
Joe: And wouldn't you agree that god--the all-powerful, all-knowing--could have changed the course of history by... Let's say, not creating Satan? Or the serpent? Or Eve?
Fundie: Well, I... uh...
Joe: And could not your god, if he does exist and is as powerful as you claim, come up with a better plan than death, sickness, disease, starvation--let alone serpents--and skip this whole thing all together?
Fundie: It's not part of The Plan.
Joe: So, let's see if I got you straight here. God has "a plan." Right?
Fundie: Yes.
Joe: And God, in his "plan," makes a place called hell, but not for people, for his first round of creation, the fallen angels, right?
Fundie: Right.
Joe: And so, during round two, he creates humans and serpents even though he hasn't even perfected the art of creating as evident through the fact that "a third" of these angels revolted...
Fundie: Um, not... I mean... The Plan is...
Joe: And instead of saying, "Yep, I fucked up," God decides to kill his kid, send people who don't give him props to hell, the place for Batch 1 of the failed experiment of "creation," and we're supposed to get all this because of a tree? A dog? Some grass?
Fundie: It's evidence of GAWD!! It is!!
Joe: Uh-huh. I suppose writing it in the clouds was a bit too much to ask, eh?
Fundie: The Plan...
Joe: Ah, yes... "the plan"...
So there you are, people. Believe in god because there's a tree in your yard.
It's that simple. Ignore the Evidence because there's "a plan," and it involves believing in GAWD because you saw a tree. I know the first thing I think when I look out my windows (should windows also be a sign of GAWD?) and look at the apple tree is: "Damn! There's that damn christian god again! Oh, and look--a squirrel eating of his fruits."
Just classic.
Speaking of squirrels, I suppose the little varmints are also proof of "a plan" and sky god in general, right? Of course, you'd also have to ignore more Evidence that I suppose Batch 1 of creation went sprinkling all over the earth like Devil Dust (because it wouldn't be fairy dust if it was from the devil, right?) just so we could join the block party in hell for ignoring how much the squirrel resembles an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing sky god...
Yeah. Sure.
Better than that, of course, is the following logic: That, since science does not know what came before life, before the universe, since we have yet to know exactly when this universe started (i.e., a "creation point") and therefore cannot yet answer the question of where and what for and how come, there must have been--DA DA DA DUMMMMMMMMM!!!!!--a Creator.
Recently, one person said to me, and I quote: "Everything/everyone has a maker. Cars? Made by machines in Detroit. Houses? Made by construction workers. Milk? Made by cows. The earth? Made by an Intelligent Designer. It doesn't take much faith to believe that everything we see was made by someone. It does however take a lot of faith to believe everything we see was formed from tiny bubbles." In defense of this individual, she was not referencing the song Tiny Bubbles, but a recent article about the eminent Stephen Hawking, in which the article stated: "According to Hawking, the origin of the universe can be depicted as bubbles in a steam in boiling water. Small bubbles that appear and then collapse represent mini universes that expand only to disintegrate. A few 'bubbles,' Hawking said, will grow to a certain size until they are safe from collapse, and will begin to develop galaxies, stars and eventually human life." (You can read the article here. Thanks to A Worshipping Christian for the link, even if I disagree with their position... :D)
Notice the examples given: Cars are man-made. No one has ever found a car spontaneously growing in the wild; they are not harvested; they are not created in the sense that we made them "out of nothing." Houses? Same thing: obvious man-made creations that nature couldn't make on her own. Milk? A lot of creatures make milk (not create)--and this isn't because sky god couldn't think of 132 flavors either (and it couldn't possibly be because of a common ancestor, right?). Milk is a by-product of many mammals bodies for the nourishment of their young. But "Everything/everyone has a maker" is a huge claim to make considering we didn't come with a receipt, return policy, or warranty, let alone directions in the four major languages of sky godian! Cows don't make things. They have natural bodily functions. If I make bread, does that mean the bread in turn will "create" something? Perhaps a Empire Rye Building? A Super-Wheatgerm Dome? No? I wonder why... Man makes things due to the evolutionary track we're on--and just because we make things (not "create," but perhaps I'm being to much of a stickler for words and their meanings, eh?) doesn't mean god made us! How ludicrous! And if "Everything/everyone has a maker," I'm wondering who, then, is god's maker? Or is he the exception to the rule?
Ah, there's always an exception, isn't there? Or, wait--is that the exception? That there's always an exception--isn't that statement in and of itself an exception to the rule? And therefore proof of a god? I mean, if a tree and some dog shit are proof, than I'm not so sure sky god is necessarily the one that should be in charge of The Plan.
This falls within the realm of "Things That Make You Go What the Fuck?"
The White House threatened on Wednesday to veto a proposed House bill that would pay for the Iraq war only through July — a limit Defense Secretary Robert Gates said would be disastrous.
Why would that be disastrous? It only means that Bush would have to ask again in two months--and god forbid that he have to ask for money, right? As if accountability and responsibility were foreign concepts and setting up his "legacy" and "victory" were the only things that truly counted in the big picture...
This would be a record THIRD veto for the residential dunce of the White House--one imagines his hand getting cramps from holding the pen from lack of exercise! (I wonder if he's checked his health plan for possible carpal tunnel therapy from all this vetoing his doing of late...) It's funny how, though, that "pork" suddenly became an issue for the poor president when 6 years of Republican pork was a-okay... But that could just be coincidence, right? Right...
The stern White House response reflected the high stakes involved for Bush, who is struggling to beat back congressional skepticism about his Iraq strategy. In recent days, Bush has tried to shore up support by personally reaching out to moderate Republicans and Democrats.
This is personally reaching out? This is how he expects to get things done? I think someone should inform the chimp-in-chief that threatening a veto is not the equivalent of a Friendly's sundae, or even a piece of Bubble-Yum. Not only is he apparently still learning how to run our country, his 6 years of Republican "don't ask, don't tell" spending on the war has made him forget how our country's government works! (Of course, this implies he had a clue to begin with, but I digress...)
Gates, the newest puppet Bush has placed in charge of this fiasco, was reported to have reacted thus:
"In essence, the bill asks me to run the Department of Defense like a skiff, and I'm trying to drive the biggest supertanker in the world," Gates told senators Wednesday. "And we just don't have the agility to be able to manage a two-month appropriation very well."
Let's look at that again: "... we just don't have the agility to be able to manage a two-month appropriation very well..." Well, beat me like a red-headed stepchild! If we can't even have the "agility" to handle money (I'm now picturing a few dollar bills going through boot camp to make them more "agile")--two months worth of money--what makes us think he has the "agility" to govern on a day-to-day basis where our troops should be fighting and positioned? And you're supposed to be in charge of "turning Iraq around"? What is it going to take?
House Democratic leaders are pushing legislation that would provide the military $42.8 billion to keep operations going through July, buy new equipment and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces. Congress would decide shortly before its August recess whether to release an additional $52.8 billion to fund the war through September.
That's $42.8 BILLION DOLLARS. I can't even fathom that kind of money! I have a hard time imagining more than a few hundred at a time, let alone $42.8 BILLION. And we're not sure if that's enough for two months?! This speaks of so many issues, bureaucracy and red-tape just being the tippity-tip-top of this iceberg. And it's already slated that they would reconvene to give an additional $52.8 BILLION DOLLARS depending on how things are progressing (and progression should be viewed tongue-in-cheek... I mean, after three years, you'd think they'd have a clue, wouldn't you?) If I took three years to figure out how to run my household, I would have lost my household long before "agility" became an issue...
So, in I suppose what Bush feels is a spirit of cooperation (when exactly did cooperation come to be defined as "My way or the highway"?), he says he will now veto this spending bill...
"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," Snow said.
Can someone please get on the White House phone and explain to this dumb asses what COMPROMISE means? Of course there will be SOME of the previous language in this new bill--COMPROMISE means you give and take! And they took SOME things out!!
Mind you, this is the same president that thinks evolution is just a shot in the dark... And, of course, 30 percent of our country thinks Bush is doing a "heck of a job." This is the 30 percent that also believe everything their hate group leaders preach at them on Sundays, and also think evolution is a hot in the dark... Idiocy begets idiocy...
But being idiots, they simply don't get it...
More about "victory in Iraq" this weekend... When Rich is home in the evenings, it's hard to get quality time on the computer... :D
You've heard it before, haven't you? "If I hadn't forgotten ____ and turned around..."; or "If I hadn't let little Jimmy back out of the car to go potty after I had him all strapped in and ready to go..."; or the best one: "If I had been going just a little faster, breaking the law by speeding, I could have..."
Yes, we're talking about The Accident. When you hear about that five car pile-up on the freeway, or the deadly crash that killed four people on a road you normally take. I heard it all the time when I flew in fundamentalist circles: How God had saved their lives by suddenly making little Jimmy have to pee, delaying them and consequently saving them from being in that accident. Or making them remember that they forgot that paper, or that briefcase, or that purse, making them turn around just before they would have been in that accident...
It's yet another manifestation of the egotism that infests religion: That somehow they were worth saving that day as opposed to the other poor saps who ended up injured/dying/dead on the freeway. Not only does one wonder what the given criteria is for any given day and why some are saved by the all-powerful sky god and why some are deemed "expendable" is, of course, easily explained by the everyday fundie: "It's all part of God's plan." As if we were all part of some beautiful afghan God decided to make when he learned how to knit in Sky God U (knitting, of course, being an elective at Sky God U, not a requirement for graduating...), which, while a wonderfully sappy thought that's been overdone in more songs and poems than one cares to recount, but is ultimately just one more little lie people tell themselves to get through the day, to try to make sense of something seemingly random, to try to assert control in some form over the uncontrollable universe which belched us up on the beaches of earth (or, if you prefer, sneezed up out of the nostrils of sky god when he used "the dust of the earth" as a Kleenex...).
We all justify events in our own ways, from the shrug of the shoulders and a "Murphy's Law" quote to the "sky god has a plan" drivel that seems to flow like honey from the fundie's mouth. It's how we cope, how we deal, how we take in and process things that are beyond our control...
With a key difference: When I drive past an accident I was seconds away from being in (while yelling at the freakin' rubber-neckers who do more to clog traffic flow than the accident itself), I think, Wow! Close call! I would never be so presumptuous to think that some cosmic knitting freak thought he needed my True Colors for yet another square but those one, two, or three others were no longer necessary to the great afghan pattern of mankind. It belittles the lives lost while ego boosting the supposedly meek and humble followers of the dastardly fellow letting people die willy-nilly on the highways and byways of the world.
The ego is a central component of the human mind. Whether it came about as an evolutionary quality as we pulled ourselves up from the oceans and down from the trees, or if it is something present in the minds of every creature in the universe we may not know for decades, perhaps never. But it is a central component, especially so, in group-think; and group-think has never been more accepted and rejoiced by society than in a religious context. Whether it be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam--the human capacity for a feeling of specialness, uniqueness, and divine worth has never been more celebrated and more detrimental to the human race.
Christianity itself is based upon human collective ego: the world was created for sky god's glory for us. We as humans are made in sky god's image. Sky god sent his son to die for us. We are that important that not only do we need to have been created by a cosmic superpower in the sky, we need to have been died for by this sky god (the whole "trinity" thing makes this either/or, doesn't it?; did sky god commit suicide, or murder his kid? Only you can decide...) Only we can make the decision to be "saved," only we hold the key to our eternal destiny, only we... We, we, we, we, we...
I think you get the picture. The whole thing is based upon us, what we need, want, don't understand, and want to control. But to keep ourselves humble, we blame sky god in his myriad forms through culture and time so that we as individuals can feel irresponsible but as a collective feel special and wonderful and loved, even in what we perceive to be our darkest moments...
Of course, one of the first major metaphorical earthquakes to rock religions boat came when we realized that the sun--nay, the whole of the cosmos--did not revolve around our little rock in space. The church had a cow about that one for decades!! We were god's creation--in his image, no less! To claim that the whole of the universe wasn't centered around us? Perish the thought--and some did perish for that thought. But then we found out that the planet wasn't a perfect circle--again raining on the whole "perfection" of sky god's creation parade--but was slightly elliptical due to the revolution and rotation of the earth itself and it's path around a insignificant little star on the fringes of a galaxy that was only one of many in the universe... It was almost--almost--too much for the church to bear. But being the evolutionary species that we are, adapted for survival in any type of scenario or situation, we changed our perspective, allowed sky god the ability to make seemingly arbitrary laws for the universe to function around, and we again found ourselves in our own good graces for figuring out once again what of course was sky god's plan all along--or so we thought...
Then Darwin employed his gray matter one day and hit upon a theory that still pokes holes all over the biblical ark of thought--Evolution. Look, no divine intervention. No godly snot. Some cosmic radiation, a few amino acids which are all over the place in the universe and--Wallah! There "life" was in all it's seeming glory. Of course, we see the religions of the world adapting and changing how they interpret whatever holy book or source they subscribe to to reflect what science has told us is the case--while still withholding the right to be special in the eyes of a divine.
One wonders what it will take to open the blind eyes of the "faithful," doesn't one?
I'm sure that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, they thought they were the end-all, be-all of the cosmos. They were everywhere, shaping the earth, killing whatever they wished, eating whatever they wished, going wherever they wished--one imagines a giant T-rex in heaven sending down his only Velociraptor to be sacrificed for the many. Sure, the stegosaurus didn't believe, and the duck-billed dinosaurs thought the rest were just all wet, but all the major meat-eaters were vindicated when the Great T-rex in the sky sent that asteroid to rapture them up to Dino heaven, weren't they?
Or perhaps it was global-warming brought about by all their flatulence? Either way, the majority of them agreed whole-heartedly that the asteroid was their rapture, and the ones left behind could still have repented... By the way, this is the alligators and crocodiles eternal hell for not accepting the Velociraptor of the T-rex God--to be made into fashionable handbags and boots for the "demons" of earth...
Given the ego centrism that seems to characterize the human race, convincing people that the universe was designed with them in mind is as easy as convincing a child that candy is good for him.
--Intelligent Design by Victor J. Stenger
A gentleman over at Bane of Monotheism made up a wonderful list of questions I think everyone should ask themselves when it comes to theism. Here are a few of my favorites:- Which indicates more pride: to believe that the vast and ancient universe has no purpose, or to believe that a universe of 100 billion galaxies was created 14 billion years ago just so that one could grace it with one's presence?
- Which indicates more pride: to believe that no higher power cares about humanity, or to believe that the Creator of 100 billion galaxies came to Earth and suffered just for the benefit of its human inhabitants?
I suggest you all go over and check it out. Who knows? It may lead some of you to even greater heights of egotism...
I was accused recently of turning a blind eye to the "truth" of Christianity, and how there was no way that Islam and Christianity could even be remotely compared as similar, because Islam is such a greater "danger" to humanity than Christianity could ever be. Of course, realizing that this individual takes great pride (yet humility) in their faith, and is staring at the world through a Jesus View Master filled with cartoon images of demons, angels and the like floating around all the time in a fight for their eternal destiny (because, you know, they have nothing better to do, having dropped out of Sky God U and must now be the worker bees for those that have graduated...), it's amazing how one can't see that both are equally dangerous, egotistical mindsets that would sooner turn the world upside down for their gods and beliefs than even entertain the notion that maybe they aren't nearly as important as they think they are in this universe.
I suppose I could see how people are scared at the fact that they are small and insignificant when it comes to reality as a whole. That there isn't someone always watching their backs, ready to save them and care for them when danger and uncertainty rear their heads and invade our egos and perceptions...
Let's look at this comparison over at The People's Media Company of some of the major world religions:
The Islamic religion was founded by the Prophet Muhammad. Being the husband of a rich widow, Muhammad had a lot of free time on his hands, which he decided to spend meditating in a cave for days on end. During these periods of meditation Muhammad would often fast and avoid sleep. Eventually, Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel who informed Muhammad that he was the prophet of God, revealing the Qur'an to him. With that said, I want you to take a week off from work or school and find yourself a nice secluded cave, free of any dangerous animals. Feel free to bring a small mat and hunker down in an area of the cave where light is minimal. Do not sleep or eat for 5 days. By the end of 5 days you will emerge from the cave with a new religion as well as some form of mental instability.
In regards to Christianity, the story begins with Judaism, which contends that God (Yahweh) established a covenant (contract/oath) with the Jewish people. The covenant is essentially a set of agreements between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) who must honor the covenant by worshipping God and obeying his laws. In fact, most Abrahamic based religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam share this covenant. Christianity developed from the teachings of Jesus Christ who was believed to be the son of God and the messiah sent to cleanse the world of evil, thus creating a kingdom of peace.
Not that ego could have played a part in either of their lives, right? Mental instability perhaps? Ever hear of a god complex? Martyr complex?
Of course, ask any American fundie, and they'll squeal and scream about how the Quran justifies killing people and the Bible doesn't (never mind that both sides take each other's holy books out of context to justify their ideological struggle for souls), but ask any true fundie if they'd fight, kill, and/or die for their religion, and nine times out of ten they'll say that yes, they would. Why? Because they are right, they are special, and dammit, Jesus loves them!
But they are nothing like those dastardly Muslims, right? Right...
But as has been observed through all of time in the human culture, god(s) have evolved along with ourselves and our perceptions of our surroundings. And as we continue to find knowledge, facts, and answers to some of the more basic questions (Where did we come from? Why are we here? What is our purpose, or what should be our purpose, if we need one at all?), perhaps there may come a time when god, or the idea of invisible care takers, will vanish. I doubt it will be in my lifetime, or my great grandchild's lifetime, but perhaps one day... And then, only then, do I think we have a chance of being deserving of a collective ego. Until then, we will continue in our false sense of importance, significance, and worth...
And keep making sky god so proud... as he "saves" little ol' important us from an accident on the highway...
Between the Mormons and the Catholics, I don't know which one is truly nuttier. Both sects have about a billion dogmas and doctrines that have no basis in the God & Grimm Bible they claim to hold so dear, but purgatory and limbo have to be all-time classics.
Recently, however, limbo has become "problematic." One wonders how a dogma becomes "problematic." Not enough vegetables? So after much study, they (... a Vatican-appointed panel of theologians... HA!) decided that "limbo is a "problematic" concept that Catholics are free to reject." How about them apples?
This movement mostly came about because, as it turns out, humans are hate the thought of innocent babies and potential human life being forever in "limbo," which is where (supposedly) unborn, stillborn, and aborted children end up, never reaching heaven or hell. It seems the Catholic "leadership" has found it in their hearts to say, "Well, if you don't like what we've been teaching, you can ignore us." Because they weren't anyway? Okay, okay, so there are a few people who take this shit seriously and have been agonizing over the thought of their unborn children being in limbo for sky god knows how long.
But I'm wondering what in the hell these so-called theologians were studying? Can you imagine that conversation?
Theo #1: So, we're here to discuss whether limbo daycare has become cost-ineffective.
Theo #2: I don't see how. The more they come to church to pray for the souls in limbo, the more they drop in the collection box!
Theo #3: Yes, but some are starting to find other Jesus franchises that teach more fuzzy-warm things... like "babies go straight to heaven," and all that...
Theo #2: Really?
Theo #1: True enough. So, shall we turn to our bibles?
Theo #3: Where is that passage on limbo again?
Theo #2: Ha! Gotcha!
Theo #1: Listen, order! Limbo daycare--keep it or not?
Theo #3: What would Dr. Spock say, do you think? Keeping an unborn child in limbo might harm its psyche...
Theo #1: This is a bible issue, not a psychological one!
Theo #2: Tell that to the children you molested--
Theo #1: Shut up! God forgave me! I said four hundred Hail Mary's for that!
Theo #3: I heard Father Paul said six hundred...
Theo #2: He's a pervert--he had to.
Theo #1: Limbo daycare? Up or down vote.
Theo #3: I say keep it--it keeps us in business if we keep interceding for them, you know.
Theo #2: How about we do what most Americans do with our teachings anyway?
Theo #1: What do you mean?
Theo #2: You know--let them pick and choose? It'll give them a sense of freedom...
Theo #3: Like perhaps they're in control of their destiny? Perish the thought!
Theo #2: Let's see what the big cheese thinks...
Theo #1: [Sigh.] Fine...
Theo #2: Hello, Pizza Hut? You deliver? I'll take four cheese pizza's...
But the best part--the BEST part, I say, is this whole "original sin" issue. You know the one I mean: When Eve's dumb ass believed a talking snake and ate a "fruit" (Perhaps she would have known that talking snakes were a perversion of nature if she had known right and wrong to begin with? Silly sky god, silly silly sky god!! Can't do anything right!). We're all "born" with original sin (or so I was taught [lied to?]), but then again, aborted fetus and still born babies aren't "born" in the traditional sense, so...
Where does that leave us? Is that why Catholics can now have a buffet style belief? Because no one knows when sin actually enters the equation? This will eventually lead to a whole host of other issues with fundies worldwide, I believe... But if you are conceived with a sin nature, but you die before you are "born," and you go straight to heaven, then you have allowed sin to enter the precious kingdom of heaven...
And if you don't have a "sin nature" until you are born, but are not "accountable" until a certain age, then you still allow for sin to stain the presence of sky god, and then brought up yet another thorny issue for religious persons (age of accountability). But then, if you don't have your sin nature until you can be held accountable, you haven't been born sinful at all, have you? Which changes a whole host of other dogmas and doctrines of the God & Grimm Fairy Tales collection...
The "commission for limbo" tried to clarify their reasoning:
...there are good reasons to believe instead that unbaptized babies go to heaven, because God is merciful and "wants all human beings to be saved."
"We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge," said the commission's report, published last week with the pope's approval.
Yeah, because everything else about sky god and his policies are so clearly grounded in fact, right? And I still stand by this statement: If sky god truly wanted "no man to perish," he would have changed the rules this world operates under, and no one would perish and still retain their free will... But sky god's ego (and drive to murder his kid) were apparently much stronger than his desire for "none perishing," so there goes that brilliant idea by one of his supposed creation that he'll ignore... But they didn't have Standardized Testing back when sky god's god created him, so we'll just have to assume that our particular brand of sky god slipped under the radar before the "No Sky God Left Behind" Act came into being...
The commission continued:
The Vatican commission stressed that there is no mention of limbo in the Bible and that it was never a part of church dogma.
Then what the hell were they "studying" when they decided to let limbo be pick and choose? And why have they been teaching this since the thirteenth century? Could it be...
Could it be...?
Nah... Too many of you would lose your purpose in life if you realized all of it was made up to begin with...
To read earlier parts of this series, please click on the following links:
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 1:
Sodom & Gomorrah
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 2:
Levitical Law
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 3:
David & Jonathan
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 4:
The Words of Christ
Homosexuality & The Bible: The Truth, Part 5:
Paul's Letter to the Romans
So Paul... Paul, Paul, Paul... Probably the only man more worshipped by the "dead in Christ" than the son of the Big Cheese himself. He was quite a verbose person with an opinion on everything, least of all the issues in the young church back in the day. He appeared quite suddenly in the church's good graces after being one of the biggest Christ-bashers of his day after a "conversion" in which he fell off his ass, hit his head, and heard sky god speaking to him (Acts 9:1-9; remember that if someone claimed this had happened today, they'd be on Zoloft and in a rubber-suit so fast even sky god would be blind-sided...).
Yes, Paul "Concussions Saul" is quite a favorite among the fundies of today's day and age, mostly because he said all the things back then that most white males of fundism wish they could say today (the least of which telling women to be silent...)
But our little expose revolves around a singular passage that fundies oft-quote as "irrefutable evidence" that sky god doesn't like homosexuals (or wait: lest we forget, it's the act of homosexuality, right?). It reads as follows:
Romans 1:17 through 2:11: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.
First, there's the obvious conundrum--why are their gays who believe in god? Who worship god? If we follow the translation as read by fundamentalists and right-wingers which they claim to be literal (which in actuality is a metaphorical translation in English of the literal Greek which has been mistranslated into English, explained below), rejecting god leads you to being gay, which in turn leads to a whole host of other "sins." But there are plenty of homosexual persons who pray to the same god they do, believe in the same Jesus they do, go to the same churches and hold to the same doctrines they do. It creates a fallacy which can mean only two things:- Fundamentalists are wrong in their interpretation of the passage, or
- Scripture is wrong
both of which lead to the conclusion that homosexuality in general is not a sin and does not lead one away from their god. Paul states quite clearly that only homosexuality in regards to the worship of a graven image leads one away from god and is not a result of having turned away from god.
Now keep in mind two things:- Most fundies stop with chapter 1's verses, content that they have made their point, and
- ignore where Paul rebukes them for judging people in chapter two.
It's all a matter of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) and an understanding of the Greek language in which Paul was writing. Being the "literal interpreters" of the Bible that fundamentalists are, they fail not only to take into account the translational issues from a very specific language to the more malleable English language, but cultural influences, contextual grammar, and linguistic subtleties.
Being that this passage if the main tour de force of the right-wing Christian argument against homosexuality, this only reinforces the need for a complete all-encompassing interpretation in regards to what Paul was actually trying to communicate to the Roman church, especially in light of the "Paul said, I believe it, that settles it" mentality that runs rampant in the United States religious arena.
One of the principal fundamentals of hermeneutics is this: Do not ground a theological belief on only one passage. And being that fundies themselves preach that people no longer live under the "law" of the old testament (despite their love for quoting levitical passages, most of the others of which they break) takes anything in the old testament out of the running for a total hermeneutically correct theological approach to the issue. And since even this passage isn't even regards to such (as shall be explained), and other new testament passages are "iffy" at best, to say that this is THE answer, and THE reason the church opposes homosexual behavior is ludicrous. One wouldn't say "snakes talk only to women in temptation" is a biblical truth based solely on the Genesis account, would they? Fundies won't even go so strong as to proclaim that women keep silent in church under all circumstances, even though Paul himself said as much quite clearly in a separate letter--and why? For those passages, they take into account cultural standing (despite the fact that women were quite active and vocal in the early church) and (in regards to the talking serpent) perhaps a bit of the allegorical phenomenon that early Jewish writers were fond of (although, I'm frightened to say, we may yet get a fundie or two on this site who will state unequivocally for the record that they do believe that Eve was real and had a conversation with a snake...). But, as stated, one passage (incorrectly interpreted) does not a theological stance make.
The second issue in regards to this passage comes in contextually in regards to Greek grammar: I'll try to break this down as simply as possible, but no guarantees, okay?
The overarching pattern in this chapter is the repeated use of two key phrases: "they exchanged" (kai/allasso; verses 23, 25, and 26) and "God gave them over" (paradidomi; verses 24, 26, and 28), which encompasses three parallel trains of thought in verses 23 through 28. The use of parallels was common practice in both the Jewish and Greek writings, which involved the repetition of key phrases and thoughts in an attempt to get across the importance that lies within them. Paul, a product of these cultures, used this "parallelism" quite a bit in his letters, and in this case, he is trying to emphasize the tremendous weight that the sin of idolatry has in Paul's interpretation in the mind of god (two of the top ten in the almighty "ten commandments"...)
This parallelism can be seen as such:
And changed (allasso) the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up (paradidomi) to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed (kai/allasso) the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up (paradidomi) unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving (kai/allasso) the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over (paradidomi) to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Paul actually begins to set this up in verses 18 through 20, in which he speaks about how the Greeks do know god through his creation alone, so that therefore they are "without excuse" in not knowing about god (yeah, it's that simplistic "It's all about me" approach god is fond of...). But since the Greeks have decided to ignore him (and here, Paul is referring to all non-Jewish persons, not just the Greek folk...) and tried to, in Paul's view of things, to understand the world "apart from god," god let them go and revert to "unnatural states" (an oxymoron). The basic premise being this: The sequence of events that happen if you don't worship god simply for who he is, you end up being a very bad person, whose major character flaws will consist of anything as listed near the end of chapter one. And even though Paul had yet to make this list of "character flaws" public (as the printing press hadn't been invented yet), apparently they were supposed to somehow "know" these laws and abide by them (having "known" god by his creation alone), and know that in their engagement and approval of these behaviors, they would die...
Paul apparently thought the Greeks were mind-readers.
The passages of both verses 23-24 and 25-26 are inextricably bound by the Greek words kai/allasso and paradidomi, which very clearly describe idol worship in Greek religions, specifically graven images. But the main message Paul is trying to get across is about Gentiles who stopped worshipping god, and who "exchanged" (kai/allasso) the worship of God for the worship of idols. Of course, though one could surmise that anything that takes up time that could be "better spent" in a house of worship is indeed an "idol" in the lives of people (work, television, kickball practice...), Paul's language is clearly in regards to graven images ("changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things"...), "other gods" that were prevalent in the Greek culture.
(Yeah, I've looked over this many times now and can't think of a way to make it any clearer...)
You will, however, note a change from the first two uses of the Greek words to the third usage: when Paul switches the parallelism from clear idolatry to a more sexually-natured type of idolatry (so it seems). The difficulty in how these relate comes from a more cultural standpoint and less of a universal understanding of what idolatry is; in essence, Paul was making a very direct connection from the overall idolatry across all cultures to specifically the idolatrous practices of the Greek religions to drive home his point to the Romans about idolatry. If you allow metaphorical derivatives from verses 23 to 25 (in that idolatry can be anything that keeps you from worship of god), then one would easily surmise that homosexuality is indeed the ultimate in idolatry, the ultimate in turning your back on god, and therefore concrete proof of the "sin" nature of homosexuality (of course, then, denying the very "literalness" with which fundies claim to hold the bible to...) This is a complete reversal from the intent which Paul established earlier when speaking in concrete terms of graven image idolatry as stated in "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things." This is a very specific type of idolatry to which Paul refers, and to allow the metaphorical interpretation to insert itself at this point does a grave disservice to Paul's intent. But when placed within the context, we find that the continuity is preserved when these specific homosexual acts are viewed culturally as the temple worship practice of the Greek culture that it was. Homosexual prostitution was a religious action in certain "graven images," most notably the Cybelean cult, the most prominent cult in Rome at the time (not counting, of course, the rise in popularity of the Christian cult). It had been around for hundreds of years by this time, and the priests and priestesses (the galli) were constantly trying to achieve gender neutrality in order to be more like their goddess:
Cybele's religion was a bloody cult that required its priests and priestesses as well as followers to cut themselves during some rituals. The priests castrated themselves at their initiation; there was wild music, chanting, and frenzied dancing. During the Republic and early Empire, festival days were celebrated with eunuchs preceding the goddess through the streets, banging cymbals and drums, wearing bright attire and heavy jewelry, their hair long and 'greased'. (Source.)
The early Christians were determined to destroy the cult and St Augustine condemns Her as a "demon" and a "monster" and the Gallae were "madmen" and "castrated perverts" (hardly an unbiased opinion). In the 4th century CE Valentinian II officially banned the worship of Cybele, and many of her followers perished at the hands of zealous Christians.
Justinian continued the persecution of the cult and the Gallae. Under his reign, transgendered persons, and those indulging in same sex eroticism had their property confiscated, sacred texts burned, temples raised; they were tortured, forced to commit suicide, or burned alive.
By the start of the 6th century CE, the Cult and the ancient Gallae were extinct. Elements of the cult were transferred into Christianity in a manner similar to that of Isis. There is a much of Cybele and Isis in the Virgin Mary. Source.)
Paul himself would have been very aware of this religion, as stated earlier, it had been around for centuries, having spread from parts of Asia to become a mainstream part of the vast Roman empire. And, as he was speaking specifically to a church which was in the heart of an empire which had a great many followers of these "graven images" of Cybele, he would have been very aware of what practices were part of this idol worship. And, as established, he was speaking very specifically about graven image worship (of which homosexual worship acts were a very large part of), not homosexuality (the act of which is not a graven image by definition).
Now a point could be made in light of the fact that Paul goes on to list a whole host of sins, and that this last reference (in the parallelism) to homosexuality is just the beginning of this list, and therefore is just further proof for them that homosexuality in the most general of terms (as opposed to the specific conditions which Paul set forth) is indeed a sin, and therefore condemned as such (and again, taking into account how basically wrong this is on the premise of biblical interpretation alone), it must be again pointed out that linguistically, this is not a case of "homosexuality is a sin is a sin is a sin." Looking at a certain phrase embedded in the text, it separates the three points made above to the list of sins that follows, that phrase being kai kathos. It is located in verse 28, and quite simply, it makes the bridge from saying "Because of this above," to "this is what happens now." In other words, because of this idol practice (which happens to involve this homosexual idol practice), this (list of sins) is what can/will happen to those whom god has left go. Not "homosexuality is chief among them and here's a few more just for good measure." It is quite clear from this hard look at the original Greek that Paul is simply referencing idol worship and not the act of homosexuality as a separate entity unto itself.
So, rewritten a little more clearly, Paul states three times that idolatry separates you from god, even though he's all around you and you have no excuse. Therefore, because of your idolatry, here's what happens when god gives up on you. Note that the homosexuality is part of the idolatry, not a part of what will happen after god leaves you to your idolatry (a very important distinction given how it is commonly referred to in fundie circles as an effect of having given up god and not a cause of worshipping someone other than god). To restate, it was not the homosexuality which caused god to "give them over," but their rejecting a belief in god which caused him to give them over. The homosexual activity was a part of the process of them rejecting belief in god, just as making and worshipping idols was a part of the process in verses 23 to 26.
Which brings us to the list of sins. And only one word in the list is used to again try to bolster the claim that "homosexuality" is a sin, that word being porneia, typically translated as "fornication" in KJV bibles; as more and more fundies have rewritten and retranslated the bible, it has been written as "homosexuality," which does a disservice to the overarching meaning of this word in Greek, which is to say this: it means any type of sexual act deemed "unclean" in the eyes of the old testament law, not just one specific sexual orientation-type of sexual abnormalcy. In fact, in Strong's concordance, this is the list of definitions for porneia: 1. illicit sexual intercourse (a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. (b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 (c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 2. metaph. the worship of idols (a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols Note that it includes sex with a divorcee (how many right-wing Christians just became "depraved" persons who don't worship god? After all, this is a list of things that happen to people who engage in idol worship, not a list of things homosexuals do...).
Lastly, however, there is the beginning of chapter 2. Please remember that Paul himself did not separate his words and letters into tidy chapters and verses. He wrote a letter the same way you or I do--as sentences and paragraphs. It was the church, in an effort to make translating easier (wouldn't an "inerrant" word have come with these in place?) and making locating certain passages easier (mostly for ripping them out of context and misusing them) added them in, breaking them up "logically." Note that after Paul states the list of "sins" and "character flaws" of persons who don't believe in god, he says to the Roman church:
Rom 2:1-4: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
"Who are you to judge those people? You are guilty of the same things!" cries Paul (meaning the list of sins of those who have turned away from god). "You will be judged by the same god who will judge them for what they do!" he reiterates.
This passage is the most damning of all to those who cite this passage as a judgment against homosexuality, no matter how wrong or right they may be in their interpretation of such. To read the same passage in the NIV:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
I'm reminded of when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees:
Mat 23:15: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Fundies mostly miss this, though. In fact, a lot of persons engage in judging something as "wrong" or "bad" through a non-understanding of the reality all the time! If you will recall, there were days in our history when mental retardation, red-heads, left-handed individuals--all of them were branded evil, of the devil, or demon-possessed. Colored people were seen as property, women were inferior, and anyone else was a pagan who should be put to death, if not converted first and then put to death.
One wonders how homosexuality will be viewed by the church after a few more hundred years have passed...
Being as it took forever for me to get around to finishing up this part, it may be another fair bit of time before I get around to Part 6. But I'm sure this as well as other topics of conversation will have you guys with plenty of reading for months.
I was laughing my ass off.
Someone found my blog by doing a Google search for "i have no desire to fuck jessica hahn but i would like to kill jim baker"...
There's a story in there somewhere, I'm sure.
Perhaps Tammy Faye was having a lesbian moment?
Kip: Hey, Jason? Jason?
Me: Yeah? Hey, Kip, what's up?
Kip: Man, you Hughes' are hard to get a hold of! Do any of you answer the phone?
Me: Umm... I just did...
Kip: [Laughter] Yeah, I guess so. Hey, I need you to see something.
Me: Over the phone?
Kip: Yeah, yeah, you guys. No, I mean, ever hear of Vonage? VOIP?
Me: Er...
Kip: Well, listen, I'm in this new business...
You have to know my uncle. Picture Leo from That Seventies Show, add a dash of Howard Stern (without the "K.") and a pinch of Aerosmith, and you've pretty much got him down. He's one of those people that always has a "Get Rich Quick" scheme, or, at least, has been suckered into many "Get Rich Quick" schemes...
Kip: ...wait till you hear about it! It's the wave of the future!
Me: What is?
Kip: It's called ANC. You can look it up, man, this shit is the future! Think about cell phones! Everyone has 'em now! You have to see this!
Me: Well... [Sigh. LOST comes on soon...] Why can't you tell me about it now?
Kip: Danny... you know Danny, right? Megan's Danny?
Me: [Who the fuck doesn't know Danny? He's only been around since I was like, nine!] Yeah?
Kip: Well, he'll be here too, and...
Me: Be where?
Kip: Oh, be at my house on Monday night. At seven! You'll hear all about it...
Me: About what?
Kip: About ANC. It's this great company that... You know these guys are sitting on a beach drinking martini's and...
Me: Who is?
Kip: Whoever invented cell phones, man! And freakin', um, you know, the Internet. I love technology, you've no idea!
Me: Kip, what the hell are you talking about?
Kip: And it's a family thing, but you know my mom and my brother and Penny, well, they're all kind of stubborn...
Me: [Yeah, like you missed that boat...]
Kip: ...well, maybe not Penny so much, but, Scott and Mom, you know, you gotta have an open mind, you know?
Me: [I give up asking questions and grunt non-committally]
Kip: And if you keep an open mind, you know? This is, well, it's great! I love it, and if I love it it has to be great, right?
Me: [Another grunt]
Kip: [Laughter] And it's like satellite radio, man, I can't live without it now! But this opportunity can't be missed, it's freakin' gonna be the future!
Me: Yeah, you said. What is it again?
Kip: Well, you have to see. Hey, call your... Hey, is um.. What's his name?
Me: [For the ten-thousandth time] Rich?
Kip: Yeah, why can't I ever remember that?
Me: [Acid, crack, and heroin, perhaps?] Er...
Kip: Well, bring Rich, and get Tom, and Sylvia, and... What's Mike doing?
Me: I have no idea...
Kip: Well, what about Cindy?
Me: Kip, I have no freakin' clue what anyone's doing. [Will you please get to the fucking point?]
Kip: Well, with this, you'll always know 'cause calling is so cheap--well, you'll see on Monday, right? Right.
Me: Kip. you still haven't--
Kip: And it's great 'cause it's run by Christians, and--
Me: [This is a selling point? Are you kidding me?] So?
Kip: Well, you know they're good people, you know? And...
See? Religion runs rampantly through this family. It's a drug, an opiate. It does more damage than a drunk elephant on a carnival cruise... Anyone in this family could start a conversation about... Oh, septic tanks. Or the mating habits of a ladybug. God will come up nine times out of ten.
Kip: ... save tons of money on calls and everything!
Me: I don't call anyone.
Kip: Yeah, how come you never call, man?
Me: Why would I?
Kip: To say hi?
Me: I just did when you called me.
Kip: [Laughter] Yeah, yeah, I guess you did. You guys, I tell ya...
Me: Listen, Kip, I gotta go.
Kip: Yeah, well, be here Monday, and get Tom and Sylvia to come, and see if you can get a hold of Mike, and bring... Bring... What's his name?
Me: Rich.
Kip: Yeah, him, bring him. It's the wave of the future! You're gonna love it!
Me: I'm sure.
So I do my homework. I hop online and look up this "ANC." It's a telephone service that uses your "broadband DSL/Cable modem" to connect you with the world for pennies on the dollar. This poses quite a few problems for me:- I don't have a DSL or Cable modem
- I don't want to be "connected to the world"; it's filled with dumbasses
- I don't call anyone
So, after taking a few deep breaths, I call Kip back (Irony, eh?)
Kip: Hey, Jason? Jason?
Me: Hey Kip, listen, I was looking at this on the web...
Kip: Doesn't it sound awesome? Wait til the presentation on Monday, man!
Me: It's a "presentation"?
Kip: Well, yeah, man, it's like--
Me: Listen, Kip, it says I need a DSL or Cable modem, and I don't have one.
Kip: Don't worry about that! I'll explain it!
Me: [There goes my easy out...] Well, Kip, I mean--
Kip: Don't worry about it! I'll tell you all about it on Monday, you're going to love it!
Me: Fine, I'll call you Sunday to confirm, okay? [Anyone have a deadly disease I could borrow for Monday night?]
Kip: See you then. And hey, bring--
Me: I know, I know, I'll talk to them--
Kip: --Tom, and Sylvia, and get Mike, and... and...
Me: Goddamn it, Kip, how hard is it? RICH. His name is fucking RICH.
Kip: [Laughter] Yeah, yeah, bring him if you can, okay?
Me: Fine. Bye.
Kip: See ya Jason.
And people wonder why we only get together for holidays, funerals, and weddings... And maybe not always even then!
Don't get me wrong--I love Kip to death. He was a fun uncle to have growing up! But there comes a point when you don't need to hear about yet another "get-rich-quick" scheme that he's gotten into. There's only so many times he can claim the family "doesn't support him" for not falling into these schemes with him. It's exhausting dealing with such emotionally needy people, and when you're related to them, it's a hundred times worse, trust me.
So Sylvia, Tom, Mom, and other genetically-related blog readers--you've all been told. Kip's house, Monday night at seven. We'll all suffer together, okay?
