Tag: Christianity

By on 1 Comment

When I first saw the tableau of the Bacchanalian Feast at the Paris Olympics, my first thought was they are making fun of the Last Supper. It popped into my mind almost at first sight. Millions of other people had exactly the same thought which leads me to question the official explanation that it had nothing to do with da Vinci’s the Last Supper and was merely showing a Bacchanalian Feast with Greek Gods.

This explanation might fly a bit better if a good portion of the world wasn’t so familiar with the Da Vinci painting. It is also a little insulting to your critics to say you idiots can’t you see this has nothing to do with the Last Supper. These are Greek Gods sitting there at the table. This is all Bacchanalian Feast and no Last Supper. It isn’t our fault that you ingrates can’t tell the difference.

Isn’t art a personal experience? So even though your intention was to show a Bacchanalian Feast, I saw the Last Supper. And, if you were to show it to me again. I am pretty sure I would still see the Last Supper because my familiarity with Greek Gods is minimal while I know a great deal about Jesus and Christianity. It isn’t likely that I will ever see what you are intending me to see, so your vehicle might not be the best one to convey a Bacchanalian Feast if, indeed, it was your intention not to make fun of the Last Supper. To be clear, I was amused when I first saw it. But I was amused because I thought they were making fun of the Last Supper with drag queens. Since I am not a Christian, I can enjoy the joke.

On the other hand, if I were a Christian, I might have other feelings which, I would think, people who were putting together such a show for a large and diverse audience might take into consideration. I seriously doubt that the smart and cultured people putting the Olympic show together are unfamiliar with the Last Supper. It is, after all, one of da Vinci’s most famous paintings, one that a large portion of the Olympic audience might be familiar with. So, the Bacchanalian Feast response to the uproar this performance caused is more than a little disingenuous. They knew what they were doing and they maybe were even a little suspicious of the reaction they would receive and they went ahead any way.

So, yeah, obviously a Bacchanalian Feast, can’t understand why people are making such a big deal about it.

By on

Harrison Butker recently kicked up a shit storm over the role of women in modern society. If he and his wife want to live that way, I am OK. I am also OK with him telling people that is what he believes. So I didn’t pay much attention to the whole falderal because it seemed like just another controversy de jour. People getting upset because someone wanted to upset people so he found a way to upset them.

But then I stumbled upon an article from conservative columnist Peachy Keenan where I discovered Butker liked the Latin (Traditional) Mass. Now that is interesting and amazing. I have given up on the Catholic Church long ago and I couldn’t imagine why anyone would prefer the old Latin Mass. I had a few years of Latin Mass in my pre-Vatican II childhood. I even had to train as an alter boy with the old Latin Mass. My opinion was it was a pain in the ass.

Apparently, I am wrong. It is a thing that has caught on with modern Catholics. I checked up on the mystery of the Latin Mass here and here. I could have gone on as Google directed to me to numerous links on the topic but, after reading the two above, I can say I still have no idea why anyone would like the old Latin Mass. It is a lot of gobbledygook about the mystery of the Eucharist, reverence and tradition.

Even after 12 years of Catholic education, Communion is a mystery to me. Why I have to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ is beyond me. It sounds cannibalistic and I avoided this sacrament as much as humanly possible. So, I missed the transcendent experience of Communion at a Latin Mass. So I will give the Latin Mass lovers this one because Communion stumps me in Latin or in English.

Then, how is the modern mass irreverent? Standing when receiving communion as opposed to kneeling when receiving communion is one explanation. God would rather us be on our knees than on our feet. People dress too casually for the modern mass which has nothing to do with the Latin Mass. The Latin Mass doesn’t have a dress code. It is their own personal prejudice of what reverence is because God has advised them about the importance of kneeling before him in a three-piece suit.

Finally, there is tradition which is the worst possible reason to use the Latin Mass. The lovers of the Latin Mass say that practicing the mass in this way connects them to the vast majority of saints who worshipped God in exactly the same way. So you can only connect to God by living the way the saints did? The Saints wouldn’t recognize the present mass. So I guess there should be no electricity or central heating in churches. People should skip baths, not brush their teeth, and wear the same clothes they worked the fields in in order to connect with saints of yesteryear. Why go half-assed in your connection with the saints when you can go in for the total traditional experience? Most of what we do is not traditional and for good reason, the past was horrible for most people. Tradition for tradition’s sake is bullshit.

Furthermore, modern people are not peasants. Almost everyone can read, write and a good portion can even think for themselves. The Church has to appeal to a much broader and more educated group of people than in the past. An appeal to tradition is all very nice but unlikely to capture the imagination of all the people searching for God. People usually abandon tradition when it no longer works, so Butker and his ilk can continue to go to the Latin Mass if they want. Vade in pace which is go in peace for you non-Latin speaking hell bound heathens.

By on

Members of a Catholic church in England reported their priest gave a sermon suggesting that, given the way Jesus died, he probably died with an erection. So now it has become big news and a lot of people are talking about it. Which is irritating for the following reasons:

  1. What Jesus’ erection has to do with the crucification is beyond me. It sounds like the priest was giving graphic details of how a man dying on the cross would suffer. The priest was giving way to much data here. Yes, it is important to know Jesus suffered, but I think even a child can figure out that being nailed to a cross is no picnic. Why the priest had to throw in all the gory details which included that in Jesus dying minutes the blood rushed to his penis and caused him to pop a boner seems beyond the pale. It’s irrelevant to the Easter Story.
  2. Since there is no earthly reason for the priest to discuss Jesus’ erection, why did he drop this little bomb into his Easter sermon? He had to know that mentioning the word erection during a church service was going to cause a commotion. The mere mention of anything sexual perks up the ears of the more Puritanical members of any congregation. They heard erection and their knives were drawn and ready. This was professional suicide on a grand level. It says a lot that he decided to kick the chair out from under him during one of the most well attended church days of the year. I can only think that he was sick of his job and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. He succeeded.
  3. It doesn’t really matter because popping a boner while dying is not a sin. Even though the priest has been removed from his position and it looks like he did something wrong, there is absolutely no theological debate regarding men who have erections while dying. Men in their prime often find themselves erect for no apparent reason whatsoever. It just happens. I realize that Jesus’ erection is unimportant and the Pope has way more important things to deal with but he might mention this in a future speech or sermon sometime if he is running short of material — erections are not sinful.
  4. Jesus, up until his death, was a human being subject to the same human temptations as any other human being. Isn’t that an important part of the Jesus story? He struggled with his humanity like any other human while he was here. An erection just humanizes the man. Although, I think, in keeping with the Easter story, that Jesus’s death is a better illustration of his humanity and is very much in keeping with the Easter Story.
  5. Some of the church scolds were worried that children might have heard this story. Let me assure everyone, as a young person who once spent every Sunday in Mass, the children missed it entirely. All I recall about Mass was my eyes would glaze over upon entering church and for the next hour I daydreamed or looked at people or tried to talk to one of my siblings in the pew with me but I rarely, if ever, paid attention to the priest. The only thing I can remember is my parents rousting me out of my slumber in order to get to communion. Mass, as every kid forced to go knows, is a snoozefest.
  6. This is not a free speech issue. The Catholic Church is not a public entity and should be free to police their employees as they wish. They did.
  7. Why is this getting so much press? I can see that it may be an issue for the members of the church, but for the larger world it is nothing but the press stirring a pot to see what kind of controversy they can create with a nothing event. I don’t know why they wasted precious headline space on this when they could be talking about something really important like the Met Gala or Taylor Swift. It’s like the press has lost all sense of what is important.

Finally, on a brighter note, I would recommend the name Jesus’ Erection as a great name for any new band who are looking for a catchy name. It is sure to get noticed, all you have to be is good and the world is your oyster.

By on

Jesus said “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In my youth, people rarely, if ever, talked about homosexuality. They did, however, talk a lot about divorce. Divorce was considered a big sin. Politicians who divorced risked being defeated at the next election if they divorced. Elizabeth Taylor was pilloried in the Senate for her many marriages and her seduction of married men. Divorce really meant something.  

But nary a word about homosexuality which, admittedly, was understandable. People didn’t really talk about heterosexuality much either so it makes some sense that I didn’t hear anything about homosexuality. Sexual conversations were taboo. Still, people made a point out of telling me that divorce was wrong and why it was wrong. There was no doubt where the Church stood.

The sexual revolution of the 1960’s opened up the conversation. When gay people started coming out, this new visibility caused a conversation that was largely ignored for much of history. However this doesn’t explain the rather benign treatment of divorce in 21st century Christianity. I rarely hear Christians decrying divorce with the same ferocity as they do about homosexuality. Now Christians have every right to give their opinion on what is and what is not a sin. I have no problem with that.

What is annoying, however, is that divorce, a common mortal sin, has dropped off the radar for Christians while homosexuality has become a burning issue requiring frequent condemnation and correction. Some Christians are adamantly opposed to adapting their doctrines regarding homosexuality but are remarkably flexible when it comes to divorce. Can anyone say that divorced people (henceforth known as adulterers) are subject to the same level of animosity as gay people. Some want homosexuals excluded from civil marriage. Some object to selling wedding cakes to gay people because this somehow supports the gay life style as opposed to a simple business transaction. Why are adulterers allowed to remarry? Would the righteous bakers object to selling a wedding cake to a remarrying adulterer?

The modern Christians emphasis on gay sin, which only a small number of their congregants are committing, over divorce, which makes up a much larger group of their congregants is puzzling. Sin is sin. Well, there has to be redemption in order for there to be forgiveness. The sinner has to stop committing the sin. Is this happening with adulterers? Wouldn’t redemption for an adulterer be not having sex any longer with their new spouse? I think we all know this isn’t happening. Adulterers are welcomed back into many churches with open arms despite the fact that they are continuing to have sex with their new partner. So, why then, does the homosexual have to stop having sex in order to be forgiven while the heterosexual adulterer can continue on his merry way.

Christians lost the cultural battle over divorce. Too many church members are divorced now for them to fight divorce. The churches risk alienating potential members if they were to renew their battle against divorce. Hell, in Protestant churches, the pastor could be divorced. This is how pervasive divorce is. Ministers are committing a grave sin, a sin that Jesus felt particularly important enough that he talked about as a sin, and these same ministers rage on about the sin of homosexuality. How can these people be taken seriously as fundamentalist Christians when they continue to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to believe.

The modern Christian seems to think if he is in a heterosexual marriage, his ticket is punched and all he has to do is to get to heaven. He no longer has to worry about divorce or, for that matter, adultery as long as it is heterosexual. Which is a sad commentary on modern Christianity. A cursory reading of the Bible will show that Jesus had other concerns other than gay sex. Off the top of my head, I can think of feeding the poor, focusing on saving souls as opposed to acquiring cash and turning the other cheek when attacked by an enemy. But, no gay sex is the problem. If that is all Christianity can offer, they are doomed.

By on 1 Comment

One of the things that bothers me about American Christianity is the delight they take in punishing people on earth when they have already decided these sinners are doomed to an eternity in Hell. This vail of tears is relatively short time and, and lets be honest here, there is only a good 20 to 30 years of really good sinning in an average person’s life, giving most people plenty of time for last minute repenting. leaving Christians plenty of opportunity to salvage some of these hell bound souls.

So why can’t they just give us these earthly delights knowing full well that, good Christians that they are, they will have an eternity in Heaven while everyone else is going to Hell. But no, Christians can’t be happy with an eternity in Hell, they want to make us miserable even before we descend into the fiery pit which is downright petty of them. My theory on this is that they are afraid sinning will look like too much fun and they won’t be able to compete with us sinners. Understandable but isn’t it really relevant to God’s decision making process. I mean God knows what is in a person’s heart. So, if in your heart you are a man who wants to dress up in women’s clothing, God knows this and even if you never put on a wig, go go boots and a leather mini skirt, God will punish the you accordingly. Which, on careful consideration, is also a good reason to go ahead and go for the full Drag Queen experience. I mean if you are going to Hell whether you do it or not, you might as well do it.

Here is the thing. God will take care of the sinners. All you need to do is make sure your are right with God and I think God commanded Christians to Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. If you heart has harden to such a point that you delight in seeing sinners go to Hell, you might have some explaining to do when you meet your maker. I would love to hear the explanation but I think I might be suffering from heat exhaustion.

By on

We are all sinners. This is one Christian teaching I have admired as it humbles, or it should humble, Christians when they are tempted to judge other people. Pope, Prince and Pauper — we are all sinners. It is the great equalizer. Christians would be wise to keep this teaching in mind instead of throwing their moral superiority around to influence public thinking. Unfortunately they rarely do. Instead they divide the world into two camps — Christians and everybody else. Moral people versus heathens. This type of American Christian enjoys pointing out everyone else sins and, because heathens continue to sin, these Christians are committed to making sinners lives as miserable as possible.

This divisive thinking among American Christians can be seen on a daily basis but a particularly vivid example of it occurred the other in the Florida Legislature. Republicans there passed a law saying that they don’t have to treat anyone if they disagree with them on moral grounds. The intention, as I understand it, is to enable doctors to refuse treatment of patients who they find morally dubious.

I am confused because aren’t these same Republicans and Christians complaining about cancel culture. They want to be able to be disagree on subjects like transgender treatment for children without fear of retribution from trans activists who would view this as transphobic. Since their stated goal is an open society where anyone can speak their mind freely without fear, its particularly annoying that whenever they get control of a legislature they try to cancel the groups that fails their morality tests. A morality test that is pretty much focused on people Christians view as sexually deviant. They aren’t complaining about treating robbers, rapists, adulterers and con men. Their focus is on doctors being forced to treat gay and trans people.

I didn’t know they were being forced to now. This is the first I heard of it. I would think if this is a widespread problem that the outrage machine at Fox News would have spread the news far and wide. Are any doctors in Florida complaining about being forced to take on Drag Queens and Trans patients? Don’t doctors have a pretty easy way of taking on patients they approve of without making much of a scene. If I call a doctor for an appointment and the receptionist catches my gay lisp, they can just say the doctor isn’t taking new patients and I wouldn’t be the least bit suspicious to hear that. It happens all the time. There is no need to get into a conversation about morality much less a law suit. As with many issues that the Republican Party take on, this isn’t a problem. It is a show tune song to please their constituents and not because there is a problem. Florida Republicans have made a mountain out of no hill. It does give the illusion of movement and that is all these legislators want.

Another big problem with this startling ill-considered law is it is so broadly written that non-Christians can use it too. This will be its undoing. What is to stop a Gay Doctor from saying I believe that Christian Republicans are evil and I refuse to take them on as patients. What happens if there is a mass casualty event and the police bring in the wounded gunman, can a doctor decline to treat him because he disapproves of murder? Would Emergency Rooms across Florida have to staff a cross section of faiths, sexual identities and political persuasions to accommodate all the different political and religious passions that inspire disapproval? Where exactly does this end?

What we have here is a solution to something that isn’t even a problem. Nothing will change. Doctors will carry on doing what doctors do without having any patients forced on them. Nobody will see the difference because nothing needed to change. There will be legal battles because, of course, this is what it is all about. Republicans want somebody to challenge this law so they can point how unreasonable their political opponents are because, of course, some Trans Activists will take the bait and bring suit.

It is a lot of fuss for nothing. Most doctors will treat any patient they have without question. If a person wants a gender reassignment, I am pretty certain that most Christian doctors aren’t experts in that particular field and will have to refer them to another doctor any way. Most gay people want a doctor they feel they can talk freely to and will choose someone who is sympathetic to them.

If there is a problem then I suggest these Christian doctors remember the teaching that we are all sinners. Every patient that a doctor treats has sinned and is going to continue sinning every day for the rest of their lives. They will sin because they are human. In the mean time, a body is a body. If you have the power to make someone feel better why not do it? What would Jesus do?

By on

I believe that Christians are so hypersensitive about gay/trans grooming is they do so much grooming of their own that they can’t believe other groups aren’t doing the same. Christian grooming is so pervasive that any attempt to reign in Christianity is seen as hostility towards Christianity. When they are asked to stop their proselytizing, particularly in public spaces, they see this as hostility as opposed to equal treatment of religion. There are now substantial numbers of pagans, Jews, Muslims and Hindus in the mix. With this type of diversity, it is best, in the interest of fairness, to eliminate religion from the public sphere. It is after all the Constitution that binds Americans together and not a specific religion.

The problem, then, is that Christians see this diminution in access to public spaces is somehow hostility to Christianity. But how? Are Christians forbidden from practicing their religion anywhere in the United States? Do they get thrown in prison for going to church services? Are they discriminated against if they apply for jobs? Are they put in large arenas and fed to lions? I am pretty certain that the hostility, in no way, matches these more hostile examples of the treatment of Christians. They just don’t happen in the United States.

A recent Supreme Court case found that it is legal for a football coach (in other words a public school teacher) to lead his team in prayer after the game. The majority opinion was that a little prayer is neutral. It give some comfort to the Christians in the audience and does no harm to the non-believers. All right then if a prayer is neutral, which runs counter to Christian thinking by the way, why worry about it if it isn’t included in a public space. Why argue about it at all then? Nothing is stopping the Christian players from getting together and praying and leaving the non-Christians out of it. But the non-believers aren’t forced to participate? It is up to the individual whether they participate. Well, yes, but when the person in charge of your team is praying, there might be an impetus to participate in the prayer in order to stay in his good graces.

Would the Court feel the same if they coach decided to exercise his first amendment rights to free speech if he decided to talk about Trans Rights. Indeed, we know that many states have curtailed teachers from engaging in this particular form of free speech. So talking about Trans people is grooming and wrong while praying is free speech and positive for Christians and neutral for everyone else. This begs the question who is the prayer for — the Christian children or the pagan children. If for the Christian children, it is hardly necessary. These children should be praying at home it their parents are so devout and, if they aren’t praying at home, why should I think it is so important to make these children pray after the football game? This leaves the pagan children who may not know anything about Christianity and who’s parents don’t want them to know anything about Christianity. Why do they need to see prayer? Because it is good? Because Christians are good? Because Christians don’t encourage transgender children to act on their feelings?

I can hear Christians getting exasperated with my arguments. No one is forcing the non-believers to prayer. The non-believers can keep respectfully silent while the Christians pray. Wait. Why? If you are expressing your first amendment rights to prayer on public property why do I have to respect you for that? If you are praying in your church, sure I have to respect you? But if you are praying on public lands, I owe you nothing. I can scream as loud as I want, interfere with your prayers in any way I see fit because you are actively grooming children to be Christians. You believe it is neutral and harmless, others may not believe the same thing. Why should the non-believers stand idly by while you foist your beliefs on others? What’s the harm in a little prayer? Well, then what is the harm in a little Satanic chant?

If you want to pray, have at it. Pray all you want but if you do it audibly in a public space, know that you are irritating me and thus are harming me. You can’t claim a Christian prayer is both neutral to non-believers and good for believers. Your aim is to influence non-believing children and that, by your own definition, is grooming and wrong. So stop it.