Tag: Christianity

By on

One of the more mystifying things about sex is we expect 13 year olds to make the right decisions when 40 year old adults are still making bad decisions about sex.

I came out in the midst of the AIDS crisis. At the time, getting HIV was a death sentence. I knew it. I knew I needed to take precautions if I wanted to have sex. I also remember that sometimes I screwed up and had unsafe sex anyway. I was in my early 30’s at the time. Way to old to being making a mistake like that, but I still, embarrassingly, did.

Everyone, and I do mean everyone here, makes mistakes. It is a normal part of life. Some of these mistakes, say lending a friend a hundred dollars who promises to pay you back on pay day, are sad lessons but not particularly life altering. Pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are.

Given the siren call of sex, making a mistake about sex is pretty much par for the course for most people. Sex is mighty tempting and the chances that you will make the right decision 100% of the time is fairly remote. People make mistakes.

Which leads me to this idea that allowing a young woman to have birth control is giving her permission to have sex. Maybe. The trouble is she doesn’t need your permission to have sex. The decision to have or not have sex is in her hands. The idea that she will never give into temptation is wishful thinking at best.

Christian doctrine will save her. Probably not. I went to Catholic schools for twelve years. I heard the word of God on a fairly regular basis and I still wanted to have sex. I wanted it so badly that any rational precautions I could have taken, weren’t taken — mostly because I was too terrified to ask the pharmacists for condoms. Think about that I was more afraid of the pharmacist than the wrath of God. This is a challenging theological problem for Christians.

So pontificate all you want on how giving Birth Control to young women is giving them permission to have sex. But it is cruel to expect young women to never error and crueler still to saddle her with a 18 year project of raising a child for making a mistake.

What is irritating me most about this stand is that the good Christians here are more interested in punishing the young woman for her mistake than giving her assistance to sort through the tumultuous time of raging hormones and sexual temptation. Expecting her to make mistakes should be a given, and this why birth control is a God send.

By on

Sometimes I read these posts where someone will make the point — all you have to do is read the Bible and you will have your answer. This would be great but if it is so clear why do so many people disagree with what is being said in the Bible.

A recent example of these different views regarding the Bible can be found with the recent dispute between Donald Trump and Pope Leo. These two Bible reading gentlemen, using the same Bible, are coming up with different understanding of what God really wants.

If two people can use the same text and come up with diametrically opposed positions, what does this say about the actual text. Now, if it happens once or twice, maybe I could still buy that the Bible is clear and any answers you want are found there but this isn’t the case with the Bible. The Bible has been around for a couple of thousand years, give or take a year or two, and for about as long people have been disagreeing about what the Bible actually says.

Thousands of years and thousands of disagreements would suggest that reading the Bible isn’t going to give me all the answers I need. This means that I have to evaluate the Bible based on my reading with some additional input from such Biblical scholars like Donald Trump and Pope Leo.

And Donald Trump and Pope Leo aren’t the only two people talking about the Bible. I googled it and the answer was somewhere in the millions. Millions of people talking about the same document and coming up with different answers from a document that supposedly needs no interpretation.

This leaves you in the unenviable position of having to decide who understands the Bible better — Donald Trump or Pope Leo?

I am thinking.

By on

Spoiler Alerts: Don’t read further if you plan to read The Song of the Blue Bottle Tree.

My book club was reading a book called The Song of the Blue Bottle Tree by India Hayford. Hayford is a good writer and it was an engaging enough story but John Calvin, the villain, irritated me. He might as well been twirling his mustache every time he appears in the book just so you remembered he was the bad guy. He was just evil. Bad to the bone, a bully that nobody likes but everyone kowtows too. It also makes the more dubious actions of the heroes a lot easier to stomach. You can do anything to stop evil after all, right?

That is precisely the problem though. It drains the story of any moral ambiguity. Should she or shouldn’t she isn’t the question.We are rooting for Genevieve, the heroine, to do whatever she has to do to stop the dastardly John Calvin. The reader gives her the license to kill because they hate her nemesis. But shouldn’t murder give one pause. Is this the only way the villain can be stopped?

I think in this case, maybe another method could have worked. When your whole family hates you and you are raping your own daughters, I would think revealing the monster might have worked just as well. But no, John Calvin is too evil. He deserves death. Oddly enough, Hayford pulls her punch at the end because Genevieve isn’t the one to exact revenge on John Calvin, it is another character which may give the book a bit more mystery but, again, it is distracting. The book’s lead character is Genevieve. Her trials and tribulations are the main focus. The reader knows the most about her life and her motivations — yet she turns over the satisfaction of killing John Calvin to someone else.

So, even though John Calvin is evil and deserves to die, Genevieve is too good to kill him. So all of Genevieve’s rather sparse moral dilemma about killing John Calvin is for naught as she ultimately doesn’t have to pull the trigger or, in this case, release the snakes. It is strangely unsatisfying and disappointing ending for a readable and page turning book.

By on

As I get older, I have been thinking more of death and subsequently the afterlife. I have to say the afterlife really has little appeal to me. I mean it is eternity, for Christ’s sakes, what could I have against eternity. First, it is an awfully long time. Forever. It is kind of overwhelming.

Then there is the meeting all dead friends and relatives. This sounds good in theory but I a not sure the practice would meet my expectations. For example, my parents have been dead for over 20 years. Knowing them, they are already established in their afterlife and here I come along expecting to hang with them. Why would they want to raise me yet again? I was a lot of trouble the first time around and they have to show me the ropes yet again.

Or worse still, I will be met my Grandmother Schnell. She was a terribly unhappy woman on Earth and I can’t imagine that heaven would change her much. You are talking an eternity with a woman I avoided when she was alive. Sorry but I am not interested in an eternity with her.

Finally there is the eternity of church services. Praising God all day long 24/7/365. I could barely tolerate once a week when I was forced to attend services when I was a kid. Imagine an eternity of Sunday church services — bad singing, empty rituals, and haranguing sermons. Sounds very much like Hell to me. Maybe, just maybe, this is Hell especially for all those people who hated Church services. Think about it. What better way to punish these malcontents for an eternity.

But mostly it is the idea of having to learn everything all over again. Starting out all over again and learning a whole new system which doesn’t involve activities that I am particularly interested in. Things like drinking, sex, and goofing off with friends. Now that I could manage for an eternity but that isn’t what the brochure says about Heaven. Sorry, I just don’t think I have it in me.

By on

My parents were Catholic and so they took it up themselves to raise their five children as Catholics. In order to make this happen, I endured 12 years of Catholic schools. I am afraid the Catholic school system let them down terribly. On the plus side I acquired a pretty good working knowledge of the Bible and religious doctrines, at least, as understood by the Roman Catholic Church.

The first big roadblock to me continuing as a Catholic was I could never understand why Jesus Christ had to die for our sins. Nobody could really explain the reasoning. It hardly seems fair to have an innocent man die an incredibly violent death in order to save the souls of the worlds’ sinners.

Now, I get that something had to be done. The sinners were doomed for Hell but why God determined that the only way this could happen is for Jesus to die. Wait, I take it back, I really don’t understand why God created a world of sinners that needed Jesus to die in order to save them. Jesus whole death sentence is based in the failure of humanity to uphold God’s laws. Something he knew was going to happen when he created Adam and Eve.

Why does God need to have such suffering in order to say, well OK, Jesus died a horrible death, by dying, Jesus showed how much he loved human beings so I will give all human beings a second chance to get into Heaven. Even more troubling to me is that God knew Jesus would willingly die on the cross so even before He set all of this in motion, why bother?

I was in a Spanish Church with a Christian friend. We were marveling at the artwork which depicted Jesus on the cross when she said “you know he would do all again. Die for our sins.” Which,OK, given Christian Myth, true. But why? This wonderment that Jesus would willingly suffer death to redeem man leaves out the important question, at least for me. God could ask anything, certainly less painful methods of execution, yet he demanded death, a rather unpleasant death at that. Why?

Based on this fundamental tenant of Christian faith, why would I believe that God is a loving God. He sounds more like a sadist to me. Pain and suffering is a part of the plan. Dear God, why?

By on

Texas wants to bring back religious training back to the public schools. The idea here is that the majority religion is Christianity and, given this fact, Texas’ children will learn a little bit about it and become model citizens.

I am probably more blase about religious education than the typical non-religious person. It doesn’t bother me in the least because I know after 12 years of Catholic education, religious training only increased my antagonism towards religion. Add forced Sunday church services like my parents did and Texas will probably get the same share of non-religious people as before Texas began religious education. Really if kids are already having problems with math, history, English and science what makes Texas think that educators will be any better with teaching religion?

But that is not that question before us — the question is can Texas government make children learn about Christianity. I would unequivocally say yes if it weren’t for one important factor. The assumption here is that Christians will sit down and agree on what is to be taught.

Given the past 2,000 years of Christians bitter and brutal quarreling about Christian doctrine, this assumption is a lot of wishful thinking (See Savonarola, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, 1970’s Northern Ireland if you need some refresher on this). The primary reason the founding fathers separated the Church from the State is that European Christians had spent the last thousand years or so killing one another over religion. All of whom claimed, by the way, they were Christians.

The Founding Fathers thought that any preference to any religion would cause trouble with the other religions — especially within the various Christian groups. Better to leave religion to the individual who can practice as they wish without government interference or, and this is important, government giving a preference to any one belief.

The public schools are already a cultural battleground. Texas will only make it worse with the introduction of religion. Part of me, would love to see the various Christian groups attacking one another about the right Christian doctrine to teach. Particularly since they also claim that the Bible is clear cut about doctrine. Not. Only my sympathy for teachers and students who face an already difficult struggle with non-religious education and, of course, the fear of bloody sectarian warfare keeps me from fully supporting religious education in the public schools.

But Texas is going do what Texas is going to do, so we shall see. Have your bandages ready.

By on

I know a Christian who, on occasion, posts about the coming of judgment day. She thinks it is  imminent. She usually adds a little jibe about how an awful lot of people are going to be going to Hell if they don’t get right with the Lord now. I am sure she would see this as a gentle reminder about finding Jesus before it is too late but it reeks with delight that a bunch of sinners will finally get what they deserve. I wish I believed her good intentions story but there is too much condescension in her tone to ignore. She is trying to save us from Hell but people are ignoring her.

This nasty superiority, more than anything else, detracts from what passes as Christianity in the modern world. So I wasn’t much surprised that Pope Francis was criticized for wanting to find Hell empty if he ever happened to visit. Of course, these Christians felt Pope Francis was missing Jesus’ whole point (see here, here and here) which is sending non-believers and miscreants to Hell.

It isn’t that Jesus wants us to be good so we can join Him in Heaven. The important thing here is that sinners must be punished. What is the point of being a good Christian if everyone gets to Heaven later?

The more I hear about these Christians, the more I prefer Hell than their version of Heaven. Besides most everyone I know and like will be in Hell so I much rather spend an eternity with people I like than with those assholes.

By on

Yeah, the Texas legislature is making sure that the Ten Commandments are on display in all Texas classrooms. How this might help improve Texas education is still a mystery but never mind children need to see the Ten Commandments because it is a foundational document for the American Constitution.

There are numerous foundational documents to the Constitution, why stop at the Ten Commandments?You could throw in the Magna Carta and English Common law if you wanted to give them a thorough knowledge of the basis for American Law. You might even post the Constitution if you really wanted to show them the basis of American law. But the Republicans are only interested in the Ten Commandments.

What now is going to happen for Texas students? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The problem here is that posting something doesn’t mean anyone is going to read it. Just one more of the numerous postings that go up in a classroom that most students will ignore. Furthermore posting the Ten Commandments without context is pointless particularly if the child is being raised by heathens. What do the authors of this law think is going to happen? If any child is so bold as to read the post that the child will be struck by a bolt of lightening and have a come-to-Jesus moment. Good luck with that.

Since Texas is a big state with lots of people, there are a lot of classrooms which need the Ten Commandments posted. This will cost a lot of money. For nothing. Absolutely nothing. It isn’t going to make heathens Christians and it isn’t going to give anyone a better understanding of American law. But lots and lots of money will be spent to make it happen. Money spent on getting the law passed. Money spent on the actual posters. Money spent on seeing that the law is being followed. Money spent on law suits defending the posters. All money that could have been spent on making Texas education better. What program that helps the poor will lose funding to promote this law?

The only conceivable benefit coming from this law is that Republicans get to gloat about passing a bill that promotes Christianity. All it is is a big middle finger to their opponents and nothing else. This from the Republican party who claim to believe in fiscal responsibility.

So Texas post away.

By on

A Kentucky state representative wants to put a 10 Commandments statue at the Kentucky state capitol. The idea being, I guess, that people reading the 10 commandments will have some magical effect and bring Kentucky to Jesus.

Do it. I could care less. Seriously, if the heathens of Kentucky wanted to come to Jesus there are thousands of churches in the state that will do the trick. If the churches can’t do it, I doubt seriously that a marble block at the state capital is going to have greater success.

In the meantime, let’s not waste our time on this trivial matter. This is a red flag meant to incite an utterly meaningless battle. Sadly, it will work. People on both sides will yell at each other until they are red in the face. There will be some to and froing until some decision is made that will make one side think they have won and the other side think they lost. The media will breathlessly follow because it has emotion and action which makes for great television but, alas, little else. All and all, it will be a big waste of time.

I am weary of these phony cultural battles. Ultimately, they distract from real problems. A block of marble with some words on it will have a limited effect on the people of Kentucky. Very few will bother to look at the statue and even fewer will bother to read it. On the other hand, insufficient health care will have a much greater impact on regular people. As will bad schools, bad fire departments, low wages and a long list of problems facing the people of Kentucky.

I would trade a 10 Commandments statue for universal health care any day of the week. Let’s fight battles that matter and not get sucked into losing battles about things that will cause minimal, if any, harm.

By on

One of the most annoying things about the Christian Right is that they try to reposition Jesus as an angry warrior for Right-Wing causes. Jesus was remarkably silent about the wrath of God although you would never know this from the Jesus these Christians describe. Sean Walsh, in TCW Defending Freedom, reacting to Bishop Budde’s inaugural church service where she reminded Trump of Jesus’ compassionate approach and urging him to consider it when he makes his decisions, says Jesus was a difficult person who would be reviled by liberal Christians because he advocated for adherence to Hebrew laws.

This is a pretty nice trick. He ties Christians to the Old Testament’s angry God, the punishing God, the God that will send you to Hell for any wrong move. But Jesus wasn’t all that much on punishment. Remember the woman who he saved from stoning. He just wanted her to sin no more. He saved her from death which, according to Hebrew law, was the appropriate end for this woman. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Is Jesus then an angry warrior for Hebrew Law when he actively worked to prevent it from happening?

The reason that Jesus urges compassion is that all humans are sinners. The men with stones. The woman being stoned. Even his own apostles, his most trusted friends, would disappoint him. Every last one of us. Jesus realized that people will sin and keep sinning. Some day, we could wind up on the wrong side of the stone thus the reason for compassion when dealing with sinners.

Walsh ignores another big problem with the Old Testament Law. Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These books are chokablock full of things that modern Christians ignore. Forgive your debts every seven years. How many Christians do that? I am betting none. Christians having been picking and choosing what they follow and what they will ignore for centuries. Jesus would want us to follow the entirety of these laws.

No better example can be found than divorce. Jesus actually talked about divorce so I imagining it was important to him while completing ignoring homosexuality which the modern Christian Right want complete adherence. Jesus had a very ancient Hebrew outlook on divorce. He didn’t like it one bit. Given that there are vastly more heterosexuals than homosexuals, divorce should be a bigger problem for Christians than homosexuality.

So, then, where is the outrage with Trump’s marriage history. Well modern Christians have come to terms with divorced Christians. Second marriages involving a divorced person can even be performed in many churches without a second thought. If Jesus is a cultural warrior for values, Jesus, being Jewish, would want adherence to all Judaic Law. This means the laws detailed in the Old Testament.

Walsh is making a big assumption about Jesus here. Jesus would be offended by immigrants and would strive to keep them out. There is little evidence that this is true. Given what we know from the New Testament, we know Jesus spoke repeatedly about compassion and forgiveness. I think it is safer to say this is what Jesus was concerned about and not the Hell and brimstone prophet that Walsh and his compatriots are so wild about.