Tags

, ,

Now before I begin, please allow me to preface this with I AM NOT A GAY BASHER. I’m an ex-gay basher. I used to be a Christian (note the big C as opposed to the little c. That becomes a thing in this blog post) and as a Christian I was taught “homosexuality is an abomination.” So that’s how I behaved. I have since abandoned all Abrahamics as a cultural Long Con which has shackled the minds of billions of people throughout history and humanity should “put away such childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13:11) I’m but a lone voice in the wilderness, and the voices to perpetuate these illusions, and the illusions that surround them, are far louder than my own.

colbertandjesusI’m somewhere between amused and frustrated by the realization that many gay people are also Christian. Note the big C. They are also christian. little c. Some of them. Many of them, maybe? I find no correlation personally, but there are Christians who think being gay isn’t christian. And why do they think that? Why are there millions if not billions of Christians who think homosexuality is an abomination, yet there are christian people, both Christian and non-Christian (?), of both gay and straight persuasions, who believe their JESUS loves gay people and only has a misunderstanding somehow when it comes to the actual act of sodomy. For some this is both complex and simple at the same time. Jesus loves you as God made you, and since God and Jesus are one and the same, Jesus loves you even if he made you gay. Why would anyone argue with this idea? I think it’s beautiful. I also think it’s mental.

The other day on Twitter I had a brief communique with John Fugelsang.. who’s he? Oh uh… I think he’s somewhere between serious comedian and serious journalist? A great gig if you can get it. I wish I had that job, though the Frequent Flyer miles would be a bitch. Frankly, the grass is not always greener, but his looks far better groomed than mine. Anyway, he’s more important than me, let’s put it that way. Where was I? Oh yes. A brief Twitter communique..

Fuselang01

Fugelsang says gay hate isn’t Christian etc

Notice that he got over a hundred retweets and faves in that public discourse and I got bupkus. Not that I’m bitter. This is not a competition. More people simply heard what he had to say and no one is ever listening to me. Well. Except for you, and thank the Verse for you cuz otherwise I’d be typing to myself.

Now, what I was trying to convey here is that there is a difference between the adjective “christian” with a lower case C and the noun “Christian.” In the common tongue or vernacular, to describe something as “christian” we are espousing that something to be like the best possible traits that are often ascribed to The Christian Faith. Charity. Kindness. Helpful. Whatever things about The Christian Faith that no one seems to dispute, that’s “christian” ..i think. I don’t honestly know, but let’s run with this anyway. Sometimes a non-Christian can have “christian” traits. There are however people who would have you believe being “christian” can only happen if you are a Christian (upper case C). This is demonstrably false.

The term “Christian” with the Big C wants everyone to believe it is always “christian” with the little C. This is also demonstrably false.

By the way I attempted to respond to John Fugelsang:

Fuselang02

Zach says gay hate is in Pauline letters etc

However my response was largely ignored by the masses. John has the bigger mouth. He wins all discourse. That’s the democracy of Twitter for you.

Thousands of people in this world believe this. You can’t find anywhere in the Bible a place where Jesus himself denounces homosexuality or refers to it as a sin or a bane or unnatural or unclean. Because there is an absence of Jesus’ opinion on the subject, many choose to believe he is okay with it. This is in spite of the fact that Saul of Tarsus, who reputedly has (although it has been disputed) written over a third of the New Testament, makes his stance on homosexuality very clear.  Well.. as clear as mud. For example, in 1 Corinthians 6, Saul dumps those who commit sodomy in a pile with idolaters and adulterers and fornicators. Oh, and thieves and liars and drunks and greedy people. Pretty much anyone having more fun than Saul is having, frankly. None of these people “will inherit the Kingdom of God.” By the way just before this in the same chapter he says unpleasant things specifically about “unbelievers.” Saul hates me more than he hates gay people. I just wanna underline that. I’m on your side, sodomites. I don’t lean your way but I applaud the right for each of us to explore our less than straight tendencies, whichever way they take us.

ghf_rw01By the way at the risk of derailing myself, notice I don’t refer to Saul of Tarsus as “Saint Paul.” That’s cuz he changed his name when he became a Christian and I think he’s full of crap. I also prefer to refer to “Pope Benedict” as “Joseph Ratzinger” or more affectionately as “Joey the Rat.” This is my inclination. Your Mileage May Vary. This is of course hypocritical of me cuz I chose the name Zach when I became a SubGenius some thirty years ago now, but I digress.

In Romans Chapter 1, Saul instructs his followers to accept that they already know what’s right, but choose to not listen to Saul’s One True God.. “what can be known about God is evident, for God has made it evident to them.” This is the Look Around You defense. How does Kirk Cameron know his god made everything? Well look around you! Isn’t it obvious? I don’t need to look in a microscope or a telescope. I got my-own-eyes-o-scope. So I can stop looking cuz I already seen everything, and GOD GOD GOD GOD etc. If you shut up and listen, the truth of your god is everywhere you look. That’s what Saul is saying. You just have to blindly believe in it, and listen to someone like Saul who will interpret the world for you so that you know what they know your god is trying to say to you. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? If you’re a cow. Moo! Go over here to be slaughtered? Okay fine. Moo!

Bn76ViHIcAEB46UNotice Jesus isn’t in this at all, but I’ll try to come back to that later. Saul goes on to say, “although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.. while claiming to be wise, they became fools.” So though these people allegedly accepted that Saul’s god must be real, they didn’t place Saul’s god up on a pedestal and give their will over to it. Saul thinks anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. He doesn’t demonstrate how or why. He just believes this without evidence, and that’s enough for him. Saul then goes on to say these people exchanged the currency of Saul’s god for that of other lesser gods (in Saul’s eyes) and he describes animal idolatry. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator.” I think this part’s important but it’s usually glossed over by others. Saul of Tarsus is saying here that if you get your knowledge from observing the Natural World without assuming Saul’s god made everything (without putting his god first before you start thinking) then you are worshipping the creature and ignoring Saul’s Creator. So naturally, you’re going to come to the wrong conclusion. You are going to see things as they are, rather than how Saul wants you to see them.

Did you catch that? This is the evolution creation debate in a nutshell. If you don’t first have the overlay in your head that The Christian God Comes First, then naturally when you look at The Natural World, you are not going to see that The Christian God Comes First. Cuz he don’t. You are going to see the creatures but not the creation. That’s cuz there’s no creator, unless that creator is put there artificially by the con which is Abrahamics teachings. You have to be taught there is a god before you look at “creation.” Otherwise you might come to the conclusion that duh, we didn’t have to have been created by the Abrahamic God. That’s NOT the only possible answer. In fact the actual evidence in reality points away from the assumptions made by Abrahamics.

If you see things as they actually are, Saul hates you and won’t play with you anymore at recess. And he’ll tell all the other kids at school that you wet your pants. Now this is where it gets fun. Saul really lets go the waterworks now. Romans Chapter 1 continues..

26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.x

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

29y They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips

30 and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.

31They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32 Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.z

holy-bible-warningSo. Disagree with Saul, and you’re a gaywad. Perhaps this shouldn’t be “gospel” but Saul of Tarsus aka “Saint Paul” said it so millions of people world wide give this weight. Frankly, the last few verses he just resorts to name calling, like he’s a grammar school crybaby at recess. It’s really rather ugly. Disagree with Saul, and you’re the worst possible things Saul can imagine in his tiny brain, and that just happens to include once again, sodomy. Cuz Saul was homophobic. Not Jesus. Saul. In fact some argue Saul was actually a homosexual himself, but that’s for other people to dispute. I’m talking about what’s in the New Testament. It’s childish. It’s Saul of Tarsus being a crybaby when people disagree with him, but it’s in the bible. It’s in the New Testament. It’s very clearly “Christian” even if you may not think it’s “christian.”

Jesus didn’t say these things. I get that. However, Saul of Tarsus did. One of the first apostles of the Christian church did. In fact, most historians agree that The Pauline Letters, written (probably) by Saul of Tarsus, predate the gospels themselves by decades. Saul wrote his letters to churches in many communities first, and then later on other people came along and wrote The Gospels.

Yet people (like John Fugelsang) equate the words of Jesus as quoted in The Gospels as more important than the words of Saul who helped invent Christianity. These quotes are not really from Jesus directly. These stories were allegedly passed around from church to church via word of mouth. There are no first hand accounts anywhere in the Gospels that we can ascertain. Its all written in the third person, a generation or more after the alleged events took place. AND we can’t find historical evidence that corroborates many of the details in The Gospels.

Oh, but it’s gospel. You can believe that. Can you?

JCH2OThatsCoolJesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Gospels cuz it wasn’t politically viable at the time these stories were written. The people who wrote the gospels put words in Jesus’ mouth. These are not the actual words Jesus said. They’re what the people in the Gospels wanted you to believe he said. Did I do a flyby? I’ll come back to that. If you want people to believe in your god, you put your best foot forward. You don’t have your god say things that might turn off your audience. Now, I don’t know what Saul was thinking in his letters to the Corinthians or the Romans. How this religion ever got off the ground is beyond me. Cuz Saul was a whiny crybaby about homosexuality and a host of other things. He needed a marketing campaign or “handlers” to make him appear more appealing to a wider audience otherwise this bible was never gonna hit the best seller list. Perhaps it’s that Saul of Tarsus spent a lot of time abroad, or in prison, and the people who carried his letters to these cities were the real unsung heroes of Christianity. Maybe they were the charismatic ones. We don’t know, cuz history is curiously quiet about the messengers. They must have taken what Saul had to say to the masses, and “interpreted” what he said to appease the crowds. I doubt they read Saul’s entire letter to every single person. They’d cite the bits that were relevant and ignored the parts where Saul was being a crybaby in a schoolyard. Thus began a practice of interpreting the bible that’s still traditional routine behavior today (though really its the Jews that invented this shh!) and then later on when it became clear Saint Paul’s words alone were not enough to pacify or convert, someone came along and wrote The Gospel According To Mark, and we were off at the races.

History is a bee-yoo-tiful thang.

What you read in The Gospels isn’t gospel. In fact, sometimes what you read in The Pauline Letters isn’t really from Saul of Tarsus. Some of those letters are questionable in their authorship, but historians agree that Saul of Tarsus did write some of the letters. No one seems to be questioning whether or not Saul of Tarsus existed. However, many historians do question whether or not Jesus of Nazareth existed, and very few historians believe The Gospel According to Mark was written by the disciple Mark that followed Jesus around almost a century before. We used to believe it may have been written by “Mark The Evangelist” who was a follower of Simon Peter aka “Saint Peter” who allegedly actually did know Jesus of Nazareth personally as one of his Twelve Apostles, unlike Saul who never met Jesus personally (except for that drunken mirage he saw on the road to Damascus that one time). Nowadays historians admit we don’t know who wrote The Gospel According To Mark.

We have some Peter Letters. 1st and 2nd Peter are actually in the New Testament towards the back, but the rest of Peter’s works are considered apocryphal by The Church. I find this amusing. There are works attributed to Peter, that people don’t seem to be arguing over whether or not he wrote them, but they didn’t make it into the canonical bible. Crap written by Saul of Tarsus, a crybaby who never met Jesus, takes up over a third of the New Testament, but Peter (again allegedly) actually met Jesus and hung out with him, yet his words are not more canonical?

John Fugelsang “won” his “argument” with me on Twitter by claiming cuz Jesus himself didn’t say it, that means it’s not Christian. That’s utter bullshit. 99% of The New Testament was not attributed to Jesus, and even the stuff attributed aka QUOTED to allegedly come from Jesus’ own lips, did NOT come from Jesus’ own lips. They came from anonymous writers decades after he was already dead. They came from “word of mouth” oral traditions of storytelling that someone later wrote down, and many historians can trace back many of these stories to other stories that had been written down before the Gospels, many of which were not entirely “christian” and certainly were not “Christian.” Greek mythology for example.

horsechainsUnless of course you believe blindly without a need for evidence, in which case why even bother to read the bible? Why even bother to argue with anybody? Just cup your hands over your ears and go LA LA LA LA You are already right! Your god has bequeathed you as the winner of your own little schoolyard. YOU ARE CHARLIE SHEEN WITH THE TIGER BLOOD! #winning! Just close your eyes and ears to actual reality cuz that’s idolotry and open your ears to what you want the god of your mind to tell you, and pretend your Jesus is talking to you right now, and telling you whatever the hell you want to believe without any corroboration of actual reality or even the bullshit found in old Abrahamic texts, cuz if people can win arguments just from popularity and not based on actual research of the source materials that created the stupid religion in the first place?!! Honestly! That’s just some fucked up shit, right there. Christianity didn’t come from Christ. We can barely prove Saul and Peter wrote parts of the New Testament. We can’t even prove your Christ ever existed. The best we got is, “well Jesus may have been a common name in Nazareth two thousand years ago. There were probably people from Nazareth who were named Jesus. One of them might have been a carpenter’s son. We know there was wood back then..” Really.

Attributing an anonymously written “gospel” to “Mark” is, in and of itself, a lie, which is demonstrably not christian. Note the small c.

So Christianity isn’t christian. How’s that for mental?

Advertisements