Iiiinteresting

Ok.. this is about the Bible and homosexuality.

The more I discover about this kind of thing, the more it really bothers me.

I have already spoken out about the writings of Saul (Paul, I refuse to call him a saint).. and how they are used as justification for all kinds of nasty things, including persecution of women, homosexuals, and condoning of slavery, so that should be well known by now.

One person responded to me by saying that homosexuality is mentioned in the story of Sodom and Gomorrha. Where? I just read the King James version of this. The line in question is this one:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Now, the justification for this is found in the word "know" which some suppose to mean "have sex". WHAT??? Ok.. let's look at the same verse in the New International version of the Bible:

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

This is a FUCKING STRETCH if I've ever heard one. How do we get from "know" to "have sex"? This is why I believe strongly that each subsequent translation of the bible is slanted even more than the last towards a certain point of view. The first version of the verse is questionable. It *might* have meant sex, or it most likely meant that the men wanted to see the strange men to determine if they were a threat or not. I realize that lot offered up his daughters in their stead, but this proves nothing.

Does this mean that the following verses can also be construed as meaning "have sex"?

²And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.

¹⁵And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

¹⁶But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

⁴And Jacob said unto them, My brethren, whence be ye? And they said, Of Haran are we.

⁵And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And they said, We know him.

⁶And he said unto them, Is he well? And they said, He is well: and, behold, Rachel his daughter cometh with the sheep.

Aha! There seems to be much nasty buggery and sex either going on, or being thought about all over the Bible. HOW can people infer that the word "know" is absolutely about "have sex"?

It seems this is a pretty weak argument for God being against homosexuality. For the record, I don't condone it one way or the other, and the thought of men having sex is kinda gross, but it's not up to me to tell others they can't do it, and it's not up to me (or anyone) to say that "God hates it".

Excerpts

[This post copied from my other blog. It was originally written July 19, 2005.]

***WARNING***

The following views are my own, and are very controversial. If you are not open-minded, or are devoutly religious, this may offend you. I don't wish to offend anybody at all. I am simply seeking truth, and this is just part of that journey.

These are comments I made a while back on a blog that was talking about fundamentalist Christians speaking out against Harry Potter, Disney, and even Santa Claus. I have copied and pasted my own words here, but because other comments (some directed at me) are not my own words, I don't feel right to reproduce them here. Normally I don't comment in such a forum, but some other comments had bugged me. If you want to see the entire thing, the blog is at:

http://divinetalk.blogspot.com/2005/07/god-hates-harry-potter.html

Here is what I wrote:

Comment #1:

Re: the rev's comment, and the original post.

God help us all if this kind of closed minded view persists among people:

"The grace of God is only extended to those who truly are followers of Jesus Christ."

Is this supposed to mean that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are all condemned to hell? This is the same thing that many fundamentalist Muslim extremists think as well. If you believe this, it puts you in the same class. The "We are right, you are wrong" philosophy is what is currently dooming the world in which we live in.

Wake up.

The Bible is imperfect. *gasp* Yes, it's true. There were many other books that were left out of the Bible, and are now apocrypha. Have you ever read these? They are just as relevant as the books in the Bible. What about the gospel of Thomas (Nag Hamadi scrolls)? The Dead Sea scrolls? These, if studied, will all point out inconsistancies with the current version of the "Bible". You can't follow only this one book, which is a collection of works that the council of Nicea decided were the "proper" ones at that time. Read the Koran. Read the Torah. Study Buddhism. Only then will someone be closer to God, and "spiritual health".

True spirituality is a lost art. Condemning harmless fiction like potter, which by the way STILL comes with good morality tales, is a waste of energy that could be spent finding REAL spirituality, which can never be found in any religion.

And at the root of all this: "Witch". What's a witch exactly? It's a term given to followers of the Wiccan religion, (yes, religion) in the early days of the church. The early church systematically branded wiccans as evil, and followers of the devil. Why the devil? Simply because the male version of their god was a "half man, half beast" with horns and hoofs. This being was associated with the devil in a masterful use of propaganda over the centuries. We still picture the devil looking this way. Here's a challenge: Find for me ANY physical description of the devil in the Bible that corresponds to this. Good luck with that. Not that there isn't a Satan, because there may very well be. I think he may be controlling religious fundamentalists around the world. Many innocent peaceful people were burned as "witches" in the middle ages. This is one of many crimes commited by the "church".

I believe that God loves all his/her people, and would NOT favour one people over another. Everyone has recieved some sort of message. The real truth can be found in the commonalities between these messages. Although most messages have been gravely distorted over the years, I believe some truth can be found if you look hard enough.

Seek the truth above all else.

'nuff said.

---

Comment #2:

Gwhiz2k said:

"...I encourage you to actually pick up a bible and read it."

Why do you people always assume that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't read the Bible? Did you NOT read my comment Mr. Beck? I am very familiar with the Bible. I grew up a Christian. A very devout one at that. If you are going to debate me, (and I believe this blog is encouraging such debate) then debate me point for point, not with the standard Christian party line.

Yes, I do believe that Yehoshua (The person you call "Jesus") did exist. I believe he was an extremely extraordinary individual. However, I believe, after years of searching that much of his original message has been lost, or twisted purposefully by those who use religion as a way to control people.

The current translation of the Bible IS flawed. Badly. Just one small example, (and one relevant to this discussion) is the fact that many people quote a certain deuteronomy verse as containing the word "Witch" or "Witchcraft". This page points out that none of the ORIGINAL Hebrew words used in that verse actually have anything to do with Wiccans. It is also easy to see how the many different translations of a single verse can have different meanings. The version that contains the word "witch" is actually targeting all followers of a specific religion, and was not the intent of the original verse. (Not to mention that the term "Witch" would not have been known to the author of the verse.)

The history of the Bible is rife with controversy.

Read up on it, and you will discover that the early church was split between followers of James (Brother of Christ) and Paul (Saul of Tarsis). They violently disagreed on the direction of the early church. We are led to believe by religious leaders and people like Mr. Beck that the Bible is the one and only word of God. How convenient.

History shows that Paul's version of Christianity is the one that prevailed, not James'.

Paul (Saul of Tarsus) never actually even met Christ. He had a "vision". How many people who have "visions" today are taken seriously? Paul was very prolific, and spread his word far and wide. James was not so prolific, and his version of Christianity is largely buried. Who would have been more credible, the man who spent his LIFE with Christ, or the person who simply had a vision? What does it say of Paul when he can disagree with a man about his own brother's teachings?

In fact, many people believe that Paul infiltrated the Church, and deliberately spread doctrine that was actually in opposition to many of Christ's teachings, in order to make them more friendly to Rome. I can't say for sure if this happened (no-one can) but there is ample historical support for this view. Either way, I cannot trust Pauline doctrine.

Paul's doctrines were still dominant when the Roman emporer Constantine ordered the Council of Nicea. The council decided on the books that would be included in the canon (Bible). Understand that Christianity had been around for over 300 years at that point, and many were preaching different doctrines, and versions of events. The council decided which books were valid and which were not. People believed as absolute truth anything that was told to them by religious leaders, mainly because most people were illiterate. Thus, religious leaders held great power over their people. A sudden change in their doctrine would have threatened their credibility. The council held, by and large, to doctrines that were already in place before the Bible existed. Anything considered contradictory, or irrelevant to those doctrines, was LEFT OUT of the Bible. Add to this all the bad subsequent translations of scripture, and it becomes less credible. There was great controversy over key points within the council as well. How can you accept such a thing to be infallible? Does faith blind you to logic? If so, that is a sad waste of an otherwise intelligent mind.

I cannot accept the Bible as the absolute word of God. Sorry. I don't know how anyone can, knowing how it came to be. I believe that saying that you believe the Bible, and ONLY the Bible, blinds you to finding truth.

I do believe in Yehoshua (Yeshua, Iesu, Jesus), and I someday hope to learn what his REAL message was. I believe that the more I search, the closer I come to him, God, and to REAL TRUTH. If you search, you will find many more amazing stories about Christ than are in the Bible. However, it requires you to have an open mind, which unfortunately very few fundamentalists have.

Seek and you will find.

The truth is NOT easily contained in a convenient book. It MUST be SOUGHT to be found. This is the information age. Information is more available than EVER BEFORE in history. Now is the time when humanity can awaken from its oppressed slumber, learn truth, and hopefully find God. Only then will we as a planet have true peace. A peace without war, discrimination and racism. Religion is often at the heart of ALL these things. Once again, WAKE UP!

And leave Harry, Mickey, and Santa alone for everone's sake.

---

Comment #3:

gwhiz2k said:

Please understand.

I am not against Christ at all. I am against the current version of Christianity, which has been heavily influenced by Saul. The Bible, in its current form, contains many writings by this person.

Bottom line: The statement "Either the Bible is all true OR it is all false" is illogical on many fronts. It would make a little more sense if it was all penned by one author, but it is not. It was penned by many different authors in many different periods. I believe many parts of it are true, but I also believe it's possible that some these parts may have been edited as well to suit the "church" dogma.

I have done a fair amount of digging in the last few days, and am now convinced more than ever that Saul's purpose was to subvert Christ's message, possibly in order to make it more palatable for Rome. He introduces concepts that are contradictory to Christ's teachings.

Inequality of women, sanctioning of slavery, condemning of homosexuality, and a host of other such things have all found justification quoting works of Saul. Just think of what kind of effect he has had on history, notably Christian/European domination of the world...

There are some who even consider Saul the first "antichrist". I don't know if I agree with this, but it certainly seems plausible considering what I have read over the years. How would Christians react to that? I personally am starting to believe that he was possibly the most notorious liar in history. There are many contradictions that Saul makes against Jesus' own teachings. Especially concerning a MAJOR pillar of Christian belief. Faith VS. works.

Rather than go on and on here, I will refer to a couple of pages that are pretty much along the same lines, and seem to be backed up with ample evidence.

Here is a page with a good history of how the Bible came to be:
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/BibleStats.html

This site outlines the contradictions between Paul and everyone else. His Q and A forum is quite informative (if not long) as well.
http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

This page supports Jesus as an Essene, but has some more good info about Saul's activities.
http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm

More info about Paul/Saul
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/paulvsall.html

I am not condoning any of these pages, only referring to them as sources for more info about paul.

My current stance is that we need to rethink the history of Christianity, and strip away the influence of Saul completely. I believe that a different and more tolerant view of Christ's actual message can then be extracted from the confusion.

Also, the "church" is very quick to condemn modern day revelations such as the dead sea scrolls, and the Nag Hamadi library as heresy. I believe these to be clues to the truth, and they should be regarded as such.

You are right Unchained Slave... Oppression DOES come from Satan and sin.. what better way to oppress than to subvert that very thing which many believe to be absolute truth? Much oppression has been and continues to be inflicted on Human beings in the name of religion, including "Christianity", using the Bible as the "absolute and authoritative word of God". Thanks, you have opened my eyes yet a little more.

Seek the Truth

[This post copied and pasted from my original blog. It was originally created on June 2, 2005]

*** Warning: Fundamentalist Christians and people with closed minds may find this blog offensive***

Disclaimer: Any opinion expressed is mine, no matter where I got it from, and I retain all rights
to it, should it actually prove to be of any value.

*****

If I was to try to sum up my life's directive, this would probably have to be it.

Seek the truth.

Truth is what I look for above all else. In my relationships, nothing bothers me more than being lied to. I want the truth, painful or not. I want truth in business dealings, friendships, everything.

Not only this, but I want to know the truth about other things. Let's take spirituality for example. (This is something you may find me writing about more often once I clear all the anxiety-filled female-related depression-induced crap out of my head)

There are 2 ideas out of the Bible that are very important to me. The first, "Seek and you will find". (Sorry, no King James olde Englishe here). The second is the idea of taking the road less travelled. The "high" road.

These ideas are important. The first says to me that truth can be found. God/the truth can be found. But you must search. The word "seek" implies a search. Going to a church and listening to a sermon is not a search. Maybe for some people, but not me. The second idea, taking the road less travelled (a theme that repeats itself throughout), is also important. Together, these ideas lend creedence to my beliefs that the truth will not be found through conventional religions. Believe me, I have looked there.

At one point, I was a really messed up little kid who would never swear, gasp if anyone swore, and clasp his hands tightly over his ears if someone played AC/DC of Iron Maiden.

I spent the better part of my childhood and early teens following conventional religion. My parents didn't even push me into it. I went of my own free will. But it was always there, just under the surface:

Something was bugging me.

A lot of things didn't make sense. I found myself at the age of 7 or 8 wondering things like "If Cain wandered off after killing Abel and went to live with the people in the 'Land of Nod', where did THEY come from?" Also, my scientifically inclined mind had a hard time believing that the world was created in 6 days. "Where did the dinosaurs come from then?". I had asked this question many times to the other religious people around me, and never got a satisfactory answer. I got a lot of nebulous answers like: "The dinosaurs were demons" or "They coexisted with people" or "It's all just a trick of Satan to make you doubt the Bible." Ok.. riiiiight. I still pose this question to people who believe in the literal 6 day thing, and I still never get a logical answer. Answers yes, logical ones, no.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a very spiritual person, and I DO believe in God. However, it seems that everone thinks that your should believe in THEIR version of God. If you don't, you're wrong, and you're going to hell. (Hell... What a convenient dogmatic device. More on this some other time)

To quote George Carlin (one of my favourites):

Q: "You believe in God?"
A: "No"

"Bang - Dead"

Q: "You believe in God?"
A: "Yes"
Q: "You believe in MY God?"
A: No

"Bang - Dead"

"My God has a bigger dick than your God"

Sums it most of the wars in early history (and some of the current ones) don't it?

Religion is so convenient isn't it? These days, people always take the low road. It's easier. People always want to do what is easier. It's just the way they are. They will spend more money if something can be done easier, or better yet, if it saves time. Yes, the all-important time. Why do we want to save it? What the fuck are we saving it for?

Anyway, people weren't always like that.. time wasn't always as precious as it is now. I think, historically, there was a much more important reason to accept what the church was telling you. Up until a few centuries ago, the vast majority of people were illiterate. Going to church and listening to someone else telling you about God was not just the easy way, it was the ONLY way.

Think of the power the early church fathers had. And we are supposed to believe that with that kind of power, they never abused it, always told only the absolute truth, and never did anything untoward with their power.

Bullshit.

Absolute power corrupts. Absolutely.

Most religions have some sort of mechanism that keeps everything intact. "The Bible is the absolute word of God." "It has been untainted by men." Right. See above. There are a lot of good things in the Bible, and there is a lot of good advice that can make your life much better. But to assume that everything in there is EXACTLY as intended, that NOTHING has been lost in the various translations, and here's the most important part: THAT ALL THE ORIGINAL BOOKS WERE INCLUDED IN IT is, in my opinion, taking the low road.

Another convenient mechanism is Hell, and the Devil. Don't do as we say? Well then, you're going to HELL. Have a difference in opinion with our teachings? The Devil is making you say that.

Easy. Just blame everything on the devil. That way, they can squash anything that opposed their religious teachings in one fell swoop. "It's the devil". Convenient isn't he?

I have done a LOT of reading and thinking on these subjects. Earlier on, it was books and talking to various people. Later on, the Internet proved very useful. I have learned a lot. I could literally go on and on for days here, so I'll stop now. But here's a couple of little gems from my days at bible camp.

My camp counsellors had me believing that pretty much all music was satanic. (This is back in the days of the "backwards satanic messages in rock music" bullshit) As we all lay in our bunks in the cabin, talking about what was ok to listen to, the other campers kept bringing up different artists: (Obviously not the blatant ones like Ozzy Osbourne or Judas Priest)

"What about Kenny Rogers?"
"Nope. He sings about gambling"

"The Eagles?"
"Nope, they have a coven of witches singing backup" (I don't know WHERE they got that one..)

"Simon and Garfunkel?"
"Nope, they sing about a 'Bridge over troubled water', instead of God".

So I said, "What kind of music IS ok to listen to?"
"Gospel and Christian music"

DO YOU SEE HOW THIS WORKS??????

And another thing that I remember clearly. For some reason that I can't recall (early rebellion?), I said "shit" but in french. One of the counsellors said "What does that mean?" I said "It's french for the 'S-word'" (Foolishly thinking he might find it funny). "You shouldn't say things like that." "Why not? Know one knows what I'm talking about..."

"The Lord knows..."

Gimme a break.

I ask you this: Why would God care whether or not I use the word "poo", which means human excrement, or if I use the word "shit" (in any language) which means, human excrement? "Shit" has been around for centuries. It literally comes from the same root as "schizm". It hasn't always been a swear word.

To summarize, I'm seeking the truth. I don't know if I'll ever find it, but I have known for some time that it will not be easy to find. The clues are right in front of me. At least I have a better understanding of what is NOT the truth. That's a step forward.

That's enough of my religion rant for now. If I offended, I'm sorry. These are my thoughts. If you liked it, there's a lot more where THAT came from.

B