This topic has been on my mind ever since I wrote my little rant about Straight White Males. I know much of what I am about to say is going to boil the blood of the faithful but please take a moment before reacting to truly try to understand what I am saying. This is not just some mean-spirited attack on Christianity. This is an appeal to the humanity of those who use religion to justify hatred of others because of thier race, religion or sexual orientation and those who use it to justify hating themselves. A few days after sparking off that last controversial debate I was on Maurice Broaddus' messageboard discussing racism and discrimination in general when the discussion turned towards gays in the church. My comments went like this:
"... I will try my best to be diplomatic here, but the Christian church is one of the biggest culprits when it comes to the oppression of sexual minorities. And I mean even the most liberal of them. How would you feel if you went to church and they said "We accept you and welcome you even though we think that your very nature is a sin against God and nature."
I remember visiting my mother's church to see a play. The basic idea of the play was that faith can cure anything. Positive message. Except what was it that faith was supposed to be curing in this play? One man's drug abuse. That's positive. Another woman's partying and promiscuity. That's positive. And then one young girl's homosexuality. What? My mother didn't get why I was so offended by this. She kept telling me that her church welcomes gays and wants to help them. "Why does the church assume that gays are in need of help?" I asked. "Because homosexuality is a sin." She replied. "I see, so your church is not accepting of gays." I replied. "Oh yes we are," she said, "We want to help them." "By telling them that they are diseased and in need of a cure? That's real accepting." And round and round we went.
What if you were a young kid who was already feeling terrible because he had just realized he was gay with all the social stigma that comes along with that. You go to church and they keep telling you that you are sinning against God and that you were suffering from some type of mental disease that you could cure through faith. You watch a play that shows a sinful young homosexual finding God and getting cured. So you pray and pray and ask God to take your sinful nature away but nothing happens because you are what you are. So you start feeling even worse about yourself. Your friends ridicule you, society ostracizes you, and now even your church has told you that you are fucked up. Is there any wonder why the suicide rate among gay teens is so high?"
And remember this is just about those congregations that do welcome gays, many do not. Most cast homosexuals out of the flock as soon as they are discovered. Most churches preach fiery sermons blaming homosexuality for the fall of the entire moral fiber of America and a sign that Armaggedon is near. Basically, telling everyone that God is about to destroy the world because your neighbor sleeps with another man.
It is no secret that I have no love for religion for many reason. The biggest is because of my undying love of truth and reason. The other is because I can never understand how my people who have been enslaved for centuries could so willingly adopt their slavemaster's God and willingly bow before yet another master, the great overseer in the sky. Sorry, I bow to no one. The other is because I think it impedes people's ability to reason clearly and it has turned my mother into yet another mindless zombie. And the biggest is because the religion I grew up with, Christianity, is filled with hate and intolerance which has spawned millions of hateful intolerant people who justify their hatred with the bible. And before you say that these people are misinterpreting the bible please read it. I think you'd be surprised.
In Leviticus 20:11 the Lord says unto Moses: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
How can a religion that on its surface professes to be so peaceful and loving contain such hate? But more importantly how can genuinely sweet and loving people accept it? How can the very people this hatred is aimed at still accept it?
I have never understood how people can read such hateful intolerant crap in the bible and say "Well, I don't believe that part." or, "I don't accept everything the bible says." or, "I choose to interpret it differently." How many different ways can you interpret hate? How many different ways can you interpret the fact that the bible says all homosexuals should be put to death? How then can we continue to call this wrathful intolerant deity the God of love? Remember the laws governing chain of evidence? Garbage in. Garbage out. If you can admit that there are things in the bible that are contrary to your beliefs, thing that you believe to be false, vicious, nasty, and hateful, things you do not accept, how then can you believe any of it? Garbage in. Garbage out.
There seems to me to be no ambiguity about it, no room for interpretation. It says quite clearly that God is a homophobe who thinks all homosexuals should be put to death despite the fact that he created their very nature. Yet, we have gays who flock to the Christian church, struggling to hold onto a faith that has clearly expressed hatred for their very existence. What sense does this make? The Pope is against gay marriage yet we have gay priests, bishops, and cardinals and I would not doubt that there has been a gay pope or two. How can they rectify thier faith with the fact that their own religion has commanded their extinction?
I knew a gay priest back when I was twenty and a tad more naive than I am today. He was no longer working for the church but he was still officially a priest. He started a business managing gay pornstars which I found out one day at a party when I asked why every time I went over his house there was a naked guy lying on the couch with a guitar between his legs. Everyone laughed and informed me that the naked guy was one of the hottest gay pornstars around at that time and that Vince was his manager. Once the cat was out of the bag Vince opened up and started telling me all about what he does and why he left the church. He had left the Catholic church because he didn't feel right telling young gay kids that they were sinning against God when he was gay himself and he was against the church's entire policy against homosexuals. So, he left to do what he wanted to do. It seemed like Vince had everything he wanted. He even tried to talk me into doing a movie. I respectfully declined. Then, a year after I left Hollywood and moved to San Francisco, I found out that Vince had returned to the priesthood. What? He went back to the very church who's edict is that a man who "also lie down with mankind as he lieth with a woman" should be slain? This makes about as much sense to me as women returning to the men who beat them.
The church's hatred of gays isn't the only twisted morality in the bible, however. For those who cling to Leviticus as their excuse to hate all homosexuals please read the rest of that lovely little chapter. It also says that eating pork and rabbit and lobster and crab is a sin. Getting a tattoo is a sin. A woman on her period should be kept in isolation for seven days when she is menstruating and whoever touches anything she sits or lays upon will be unclean. And if a man has sex with a woman who is menstruating then both of them should be exiled from their people. And if a woman is the daughter of a priest and she becomes promiscuous than she should be burnt to death. If a man masturbates he should be put to death. It also condones making slaves of heathens and buying and selling their children. That's right. The King James Bible condones slavery. So, if you believe that homosexuals are sinners do you also believe all the rest of this crap and if not then why not? You want your pork and lobster and tattoos but lets stone all the gays? Is your faith so arbitrary that you can pick and choose what of it to believe and what of it to reject? Is the bible the infallible word of God or is it not? Is it merely a matter of fashion and convenience?
I apologize if I sound hostile but all the people who talk about "True Christianity" and call the extremists and hate mongers who burn crosses on lawns and blow up abortion clinics and perform exorcisms on thier gay children "false Christians" should perhaps read the bible again and not just the user-friendly New Testament. Read the whole damn thing. Apparently the KKK has got it more right than most.
I have never understood how Black people could be Christians when it was a religion that was force fed to us by our slave owners. When our enslavement is condoned in the bible, since we were then those heathens Leviticus talks about making "bondsmen and bondsmaids" out of and giving our children to their children as "possessions". Now the bible is used by racists to condemn "The children of Ham". Another excuse to hate. I have never understood how Mexicans could be some of the most devout Christians on the planet when Conquistadors murdered Mexicans by the tens of thousands and stole their gold while missionaries of the Christian church, baptizing Mexican babies before smashing their heads with stones. And I certainly cannot understand how homosexuals can be Christians when it is the Christian right that opposes gay marriage, gay rights, gay existence and even some of the most liberal Christians, like my loving mother, still believe that you are all mentally disturbed.
There are many good Christians who love all of humanity and are tolerant of everyone's differences. There are many that are not. That's really not the question here. The question is of the religion itself, the bible itself. Is it homophobic? I don't see how you can read it and think otherwise. Are the churches who say to homosexuals, "Come on in! We welcome you and we are here to help you to stop being an abomination against our God with your sinful lifestyle," really what you consider to be loving and accepting? Or are they destructive to impressionable youths who might be gay and scared and confused and probably depressed and suicidal or who might have gay classmates they are thinking about bashing the hell out of. And if God is a homophobe can we still call him the god of love? Should good, loving people still worship him? Can you call yourself a good person even while you are voting against another human being's right to marry the person they love just because your religion tells you to? Isn't that like the Nazi's who claimed they were just following orders? Isn't it your duty as a good person, Christian or not, to stand up for what you know to be right regardless of what it says in the bible, just like you did against slavery and locking women away during their menstrual cycles and murdering men who "giveth his seed unto Molech"? Does being a good Christian inhibit you from being a good human being? All I'm asking is that you think about it. Put your faith aside for one moment and use your heart and mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Right on brother, I couldn’t agree more with what you said.
It pains me to see till this day how the churches treat different people just because their lifestyles. How dare they criticize their life style when history doesn't speak to well of religion in General.
I believe that the only people that have a right to complain how this world treats them its women, gays, Indians and Blacks. I could say Asians and Hispanics but give us a few years and we'll be running things. Hahaha.
EDIT:
The bible also condemns adultery and a whole bunch of other things. The punishment for a lot of these things is death. Yet modern society doesn't even blink an eye when someone commits a sin, let alone put them to death. Mostly because of Jesus, who preached love rather than hate. The people today who are hating homosexuals, or anyone else, are not following Jesus.
Along with that, the bible doesn't say anything about _being_ homosexual - only about engaging in homosexual acts. And scholars can't agree on that, either.
As a bible, the KJV is essentially worthless. It is notoriously mistranslated, mostly on purpose.
Regarding masturbation, the bible says NOTHING about it directly. The oft-referenced "sin of Onan" was not masturbation at all. When his brother died without an heir, he was to give the widow a baby. This baby would not be Onan's, legally, so when Onan screwed the widow, he pulled out. His sin was being an asshole.
This all happened before Jesus came along anyway, so it's a moot point.
As for Christianity being the religion of white slavers, that's not the whole story. The slavery in the bible is more of an indentured servitude practiced among the Jews themselves. The only time the slavery of an entire race is mentioned is when the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians.
Jesus himself was not white either, although he's usually - and wrongly - portrayed as such. And, yes, the reason for the misportrayal is certainly racism.
Religion in general, and not just Christianity, has been used to justify the worst crimes in the history of mankind. That doesn't mean it's flawed at its core.
If you reject Jesus, that's your business. But if your reasons for doing so are because you think it's a religion of hate, you need to reevaluate.
Welcome Joel. Thanks for your comments. Its always a pleasure.
Admittedly I have not read the catholic bible. And as much as I'd love to dismiss the King James Bible I cannot because so many people follow it. I'll have to grab a catholic bible and look all of this up again but the King James bible does clearly say "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination: They shall surely be put to death."
True all of this is in the Old Testament but it is the word of God, Jesus' father. The God Jesus came down to spread the word about. This is his opinion. Jesus did not change this. He may have kept God's wrath from us but he did not change his mind. He made God excuse our sins he did not alter what God considers sinful. That's why people still find relevance in the Old Testament because it talks about God's concept of good and evil, right and wrong. It is this at the core of Christianity which so many use to justify hate. It is more than a coincidence that every major branch of Christianity has marked homosexuality a sin.
As for the bible's conding of slavery Leviticus 26:44 "Both thy bondsmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
Leviticus 26:45 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."
"Possession" sounds a little deeper to me than indentured servitude.
Thanks, Wrath.
Well, I'm not Catholic, so I have no idea what's in the Catholic bible. There's not simply two Christian bibles, of course - there's a whole mess of them, with varying degrees of accuracy in the translations. The more accurate ones, of course, are not associated with any particular church or denomination.
As with anything beyond the scope of common interest, it is valid to see what scholars are saying. And what biblical scholars are saying on the issue of homosexuality is, "we can't agree". There are no less than five different ways of interpreting the scripture you quoted. For example, one way is that it only refers to a Pagan ritual. Another way is that it refers only to men having sex in a woman's bed. The exact wording of the original text is very vague. As a result, an accurate English translation can only be vague, at best. The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman". You're welcome to fill in the blanks - your guess is as good as anyones. While most agree this concerns homosexual activity, but what it actually means remains unclear. Another verse, just two chapters away, is literally "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them." It seems to only be condemning male homosexual acts in a woman's bed, which was considered sacred.
The most interesting word is "abomination", which appears to strictly refer to violations of ritual.
Given that THE authority on the Old Testament would be Jewish Rabbis, it is only fair to quote one. Rabbi Gershon Caudill: "Like all indigenous peoples, the Jews were not overly concerned about male homosexuality, where two men lived together in a monogamous, sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any notice....The Talmud does not record a single instance of a person being brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of homosexual activity."
Of further note, the Old Testament does not condemn female homosexual behavior _anywhere_. This strongly suggests that Leviticus refers only to a ritual offense. Additionally, Leviticus is the only scripture in the Old Testament that refers to consensual sex between two male homosexuals.
Much of the New Testament that is used to condemn homosexuality is found in the writings of Paul. First, let's make one thing clear: Paul was a fucking asshole before he became Christian, and then he became a fucking asshole with a conscious. In his most-quoted condemnation of homosexuality, where he refers to "effeminate" men, he may not be referring to sexual activity at all, let alone homosexuality. What would he be condemning? Wimps, not necessarily homosexuals. Remember, I did say he was a fucking asshole. And where it does certainly refer to sexual activity, he is referring to _all_ sexual promiscuity. Whereas he is unclear regarding homosexuality, he is very clear in condemning rape, child sex abuse, and bestiality.
As for the slavery thing, we are both wrong. Exodus talks at great length on the treatment - and releasing - of slaves. Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." However, the type of slavery practiced upon Africans would have been condemned. Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." The slavery practiced in biblical times was more related to debt - thus my indentured servitude statement. Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
Moreover, Jesus put an end to the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament. To a Christian, the whole importance of the Old Testament is in it being part history lesson and part prophecy, which was fulfilled by the coming of Christ.
Oh, regarding the sons of Ham. There is no biblical evidence supporting the belief that the sons of Ham were the ancestors of Africans, or even dark-skinned.
It's pretty much academic anyway, because only Canaan was cursed, not Ham. And the bible cleary indicates what became of the Canaanites - they remained in the middle-east until the Jews wiped them out. On top of that, a curse only lasts three or four generations.
Joel, I do hope I get the chance to meet you some day. I don't drink but I would certainly buy you a beer. That was quite the history lesson. I'll probably quote you on a few of those points the next time someone tries to use the bible to justify their hatred of homosexuals. I agree that it is still unclear. What worries me is that in the mind of so many it is quite cut and dry and they still follow it. And I am not talking just about those people we can all agree are assholes like The Klan. There are many good and loving people who still vote against gay marriage because they believe (erroneously or otherwise) that it says homosexuality is a sin. That there are good and loving people who turn their backs on thier own children, kick their neighbors out of the church, and turn a blind eye towards discrimination, because they believe that the bible says it is an abomination. I just can't see how they can live with themselves.
The slavery issue is kind of the same from my point of view. As the interpretation of an interpretation it is hard to decide what the bible really meant. As you said, we'd have to go back and look at how it was actually practiced in the times the bible was written to get a clue of it's meaning and even then we couldn't be certain. But like the issue of homosexuality it just disturbs me that for hundreds of years it was used as a justification for slavery and that today there are still translations (such as the one I've been quoting from) that make those passages seem cruel and unjust and people still read write through it without batting an eye. There are people I've chatted with on messageboards who have told me that there only objection to gay marriage is that it a sin and they are Christians. And again, I am talking about otherwise good people. I just can't see how someone could accept such hatred into their hearts from God or anyone else and still call themselves good people.
It's always a pleasure talking with you, Wrath. As horror writers, we both move in the same circle (though mine is currently much smaller) and I'm sure we'll eventually meet.
I wish I could take credit for the things I call attention to, but I just try my best to do good research - especially when I get called on a mistake.
Please keep in mind that Chrisianity is all about love and forgiveness. That is what Jesus taught. Sadly, we are all imperfect human beings, and as such we forget this. Hating anyone is not Christian, which has been my whole point in this discussion.
Regarding slavery, I've come across an absolutely fascinating book written in the time of American slavery - A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument You may want to have a look.
Why do people return to the religion of their childhood/family/forefathers, even when this contradicts their current ideals and reason?
Blame it on the meme!
Wrath,
I am not sure that you will see this, given that I am posting on a old thread, but I had to comment on the whole Ham/Canaan thing. I really liked what Joel had to say, but you were wondering about why black folk accept the faith of their oppressors and sence I am black and Christian I guess I should comment.
I will get to the Ham/Canaan thing in a moment, but first I would like to say that I did not accept Jesus because a white guy told me I better or he would whip my black behind. No. I accepted Jesus because I read the NT was intrigued by Him, and when it came a time in my life where I was having difficulty, I found Him (or was found by Him).
Now getting to the whole Ham/Canaan thing, again, I liked what Joel had to say, but I like the strong possibility that Ham actually does represent the African lineage of humanity (in fact, when you see the construct "land of Ham" in the OT, it is always referring to Africa). Further, one of Ham's sons is named Cush, which is an acient name for Ethiopia. Cush is said in chapter 11 of Genesis to be founder of the first civilizations. Now this is one good reason to believe the Bible if you are black imo. ;)
Further, not only does the Bible suggest that the first civilizations were started by black Africans, the NT has blacks present at the very beginning.
There were Africans present at the founding of the church on the day of Pentecost (a Jewish holiday) in Jerusalem in the second chapter of the book of Acts, and Africans helped to launch the ministry to the gentiles in Acts 11 and 13 (in Acts 13, we know for certain that a black African was in leadership because he was called Simon the Black).
Finally, the many if not most of the early church fathers were of African descent: Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, just to name a few.
Y'know, reading this, as well as the entertaining comment-thread, makes me come back with a central thought:
The people who come out in defense of religion (especially Christianity) have wrapped themselves up in rules - 'the punishment for 'x' is 'y''; 'Methuselah was able to live so long because he was closer to the sinless Adam and hence healthier'; 'the behavior of Africans is easy to explain - it's a 'Hamite thing'' - and on it goes.
What really leaps out is this: these people talk as if all this stuff is real.
Ask a Christian why they believe -- and eventually, the answer you'll get is that they got it from a parent, grandparent, or other relative, whom they liked, respected, or admired.
They've never done a lick of research themselves.
They might have taken 'Bible classes' in their church - but they've never actually sat with a Bible, and asked, "Why is this true?"
It's small wonder that one of the first courses of study in a 'Bible college' is Chrisian Apologetics - literally; teaching a future preacher now why their belief is true - but how to defend it.
This alone should tell us something.
--Will
Thank u ;-) look at that emo boy hair on this blog:
http://www.emo--boys.info
Post a Comment