Friday, February 27, 2009

This is a new level of awful

(From BBC News)

A former Rwandan priest has been given a 25-year jail sentence for committing genocide, sexual assault and kidnapping during the 1994 killings in Rwanda.

Emmanuel Rukundo, a former army chaplain, took part in the abduction of Tutsis who sought refuge at a seminary, many of whom were later killed.

...He is the second Roman Catholic priest to have been convicted of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Now obviously this is something that was not condoned on any level by the Catholic Church. This man (and the other guy. I can't believe there were two...) is an outlier. Knowing that, however, doesn't diminish the horror of Rukundo's actions. This is a man who studied the Scripture, and who not only believes in Jesus Christ, but who teaches the Gospels to others. And yet he has participated in a great atrocity against humanity. Not very Christ-like, Rukundo.

Malachi 2:10 (NIV) says:
Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
Racism is not consistent with Christianity, Rukundo. Nor is killing. Nor rape, nor betrayal. You have betrayed not only the people who came to you for protection, but the God to whom you profess allegiance. Way to suck, Rukundo. WTFWJD?

David Plotz - Blogging the Bible

(From JTA)

Like many lax but well-educated Jews (and Christians), I have long assumed I knew what was in the Bible—more or less. I read parts of the Torah as a child in Hebrew school, then attended a rigorous Christian high school where I had to study the Old and New Testaments. Many of the highlights stuck in my head—Adam and Eve, Cain vs., Abel, Jacob vs. Esau, Jonah vs. whale, 40 days and nights, 10 plagues and Commandments, 12 tribes and apostles, Red Sea walked under, Galilee Sea walked on, bush into fire, rock into water, water into wine. And, of course, I absorbed other bits of Bible everywhere—from stories I heard in churches and synagogues, movies and TV shows, tidbits my parents and teachers told me. All this left me with a general sense that I knew the Good Book well enough, and that it was a font of crackling stories, Jewish heroes, and moral lessons.

So, the tale of Dinah unsettled me, to say the least. If this story was strutting cheerfully through the back half of Genesis, what else had I forgotten or never learned? I decided I would, for the first time as an adult, read the Bible. And I would blog about it as I went along.

This is such a great idea. I know that I'm not as well educated about the Bible as I'd previously assumed I was. I find new stuff in there every day, even in the Gospels, which I thought I had down. Reading it straight through would be something. I mean, time-consuming and tedious but also probably really fascinating and enlightening.

Plotz says something else in this interview that I found really fascinating:
Christians have the New Testament, which softens and explains and cleans up a lot of the messiness of the Hebrew Bible. Jews don't have Jesus to fall back on. The result, I think, is our amazing tradition of argument. We have a holy book that is full of immoral heroes and an erratic, vindictive God. How do we grapple with that? My Bible reading, though deeply ignorant and naïve, is very much in that Jewish tradition of addressing the holy book by arguing with it, rather than simply accepting it, sheep-like.
I've often wondered how the Jews could seem to be such reasonable, intelligent, hilarious, nice people when their God is the same God that those fundies running around quoting the Old Testament pray to. I mean, Leviticus is a Jewish book. The Hasidic Jews (like my cousin the Rabbi) pretty much follow it to the letter. But this idea of arguing with the Bible... I have to confess, I love it. Not only that, but I totally do that. Just as much as I take my morality from the words of Jesus Christ, I often try to make the words of Jesus Christ fit with my morality. Who knew there was an entire religion full of people who do the same thing (only, you know, without the Jesus part).

And speaking of Jesus, wasn't he Jewish? Wasn't what he did while he was preaching just arguing with the Old Testament? His words were simultaneously steeped in the Jewish tradition yet completely opposed to so much of it. Who's to say that we can't do the same thing today? I think this idea is certainly food for thought. If we see the Bible not as a dead set of laws that we must follow or perish, but a living organism with which we can have a conversation, then we can find ways to make our faith work in this new world. Oh, and we can also stop giving gay people shit all the time. Just sayin'.

More Catholic Politics

Remember when I said that Pope Nazipants was totally going to cause the Church to split... again?

Looks like he thinks I might be right.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Why do we need guns in church?

(From the New York Times)

A Senate panel rejected a bill that would have allowed concealed handguns in churches after opponents complained that allowing firearms defies the notion that religious buildings are sanctuaries. The Senate Judiciary Committee stalled the bill on a voice vote. The measure would have removed churches and other houses of worship from the list of places where concealed handguns are banned in Arkansas. Only churches and bars are on that list.

Seriously, Fred Phelps, WTF?

From On Top Magazine:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps does not have the First Amendment right to have his monument against Matthew Shepard – and more precisely against being gay – displayed on government property, reports the Casper Star-Tribune.... Phelp's monument stated: “Matthew Shepard Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning 'thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22.”

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. This guy is like 10,000,000 Santorums. WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?!?!?! Why, Fred Phelps, why do you do these things? Why do you present them as though they are the Christian thing to do? WHY?!

Jesus Christ told us not to judge. He said that. A few times, as I've pointed out on several of my previous posts. Why on Earth did you decide that Leviticus is more important to Christianity than the message of Christ? And why, out of all of Leviticus, do you pick homosexuality as the single worst thing ever? WHY?

I don't get it. I do not understand this man. I do not understand his position. I do not understand how he can read the Bible and think "God hates fags" is not only in there, but is the central message.

Anyway, good thing the Supreme Court has some sense. And I won't even bother asking Phelps WTF Jesus would do, because he clearly doesn't know.

Rick Santorum: Where Are They Now?

Remember Rick Santorum? I'd imagine most of you do, seeing as those of you whom I don't know personally pretty much ALL found me through Dan Savage's blog. At least, you know that he so offended the left that we can't look at his name without thinking about this. Well, I have to confess that I was a bit curious about what our old friend's been doing since he was unceremoniously not re-elected to the United States Senate. But now I no longer need to wonder, because it seems like old Ricky's been keeping himself busy with such stimulating activities as writing bigoted opinion letters to fine publications like The Philidelphia Inquirer. Let's take a look:

It appears that the pope used the visit to educate a confused Pelosi about the Roman Catholic Church's long-held position on the life issue.

Appearing on Meet the Press just prior to the Democratic National Convention, Pelosi told the country that, over the centuries, the Catholic Church had been unable to define when life begins. "We just don't know," she chirped.

The Vatican's statement after last week's meeting between Pelosi and the pope began: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death."

Pope Benedict did not allow any photos of the meeting, making a second and equally bracing instructional point: Dissenting Catholic politicians who deliberately mislead others about the church's core teachings will not be given another chance to do so by having their picture taken with the vicar of Christ.

Ugh. It gets worse:
Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino got so much national attention last fall. Martino, formerly the auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia, made the welcome decision to publicly bar then Sen. Joe Biden and other abortion advocates from receiving Communion in the Scranton Diocese. Then, after the November election, he admonished his brother bishops for their reluctance to deal with the issue faithfully.

Last month, Martino took on the most influential family in his diocese, the Caseys. He excoriated Sen. Bob Casey, who claims to be pro-life, for voting to give taxpayer dollars to overseas organizations that perform abortions. He warned that Casey was "formally cooperating with evil."

Martino was not done. Two weeks ago, the Philadelphia native and St. Joseph's Prep graduate issued a strong statement of disapproval to a local, nominally Catholic college, Misericordia University, that had scheduled a speech on campus by someone advocating same-sex marriage. "The faithful of the Diocese of Scranton should be in no doubt," Martino said, "that Misericordia University in this instance is seriously failing in maintaining its Catholic identity."

Then, last week, Martino took on some more of the biggest guns in the diocese: the Irish clubs that organize the largest public Catholic event of the year, the St. Patrick's Day festivities. Through a letter from his Irish auxiliary bishop, Martino warned that if any of these groups went ahead with plans that in any way honor politicians who are not pro-life, he would close the cathedral where Mass is usually held prior to the parade, as well as other diocesan churches. He said he would not countenance anything that created confusion about the teachings of the church.

The reason for the letter: Scranton's St. Patrick's Day parade last year featured Hillary Clinton.

Leave it to Rick Santorum to talk up this guy. He also says that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if the people who are pissed off about this left the church, and I have to say I'm starting to agree. But forget about Santorum. He has been marginalized. His political career is over because of his hateful views on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Martino, however, is a problem. Who the hell does he think he is? What gives him, and by extension the Catholic Church, the right to decide who is Catholic enough to join the party? What gives him the right to blackmail people into following his petty rules? What gives him the right to advocate that Catholic politicians allow their personal beliefs to interfere with they way they govern? You don't like abortion, Martino? Then don't get one. How about that?

This man is denying Christians the right to attend Mass in their places of worship. The people he attacks are his own parishioners. They attend Mass regularly, and donate their money to the diocese. Basically, they pay Martino's salary. I'm not saying that anyone should allow their morals to be bought. I am saying, however, that the people Martino is denying are people who support him. He is turning away would-be followers because of petty political differences.

Matthew 23:23-24 (NIV) says:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
It's not the letter of the law that's important. The Church, and Christians everywhere, should not allow themselves to be bogged down by petty rules, and in doing so miss the spirit of Christ's message. We are not here to judge, Bishop Martino. We are here to make things better in this world. To lessen suffering, not to create more of it. If you really believe that God will be weeding out the wicked from the good at the end of days, why do you see the need to try to do it for Him now with your own twisted morality? WTFWJD?

Brazilian priest suspended for support of condoms

(From the Associated Press)

A Catholic priest (Rev. Luiz Couto) serving in the Brazilian congress has been temporarily suspended from his priestly duties for supporting the free distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.
I guess to a Catholic, this is kind of the same sort of deal as a safe-injection site. We know they're going to do it anyway, but should we make sure they do it safely? Or is that encouraging them?

Well, yeah, Catholics. It is encouraging them. Encouraging them to use condoms, which is a pretty good idea, particularly if you don't want them to get AIDS. You will never, ever convince everyone to be abstinent. Ever. It will not happen. Ever. What you can do, if you want to prevent this horrible, horrible disease that only rich people can afford to treat, is make sure that if they're going to have sex (which they are), they wrap it up. Seriously, Catholics. It's a good idea.

So, good for this Priest, being all pragmatic and everything, but bad for the Archdiocese responsible for suspending him. This is just further evidence that the Catholic church is priming itself for another split. Either they get their shit together, or the Catholic church we know today with be the Society of St. Pius X compared to the Catholic church that will split off from them. Actually, I'd probably go to mass more often if that happened. You know, with the liberal ones... obviously.

Anywayz, I leave you with this:

Matthew 13:52 (NIV) says:
He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."
Faith and dogma are not stagnant. They do not stop at 2000-year-old wisdom. This is not the same world it used to be, and many of the old rules no longer apply. It is men like Cuoto - who are able to take the message of Christ and adapt it to a new age - who are the future of the Church, not the men who would stop him from preventing disease. I'm pretty sure that what Cuoto has done is WTF Jesus would do.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Scott Renfroe: Yet Another Republican Using the Bible as an Excuse to be a Douche

(via Queerty)

Scott Renfroe, Scott Renfroe. Quite the publicity stunt you've pulled here, buddy. Two days ago you were just a Colorado State Senator, probably not even widely known in your own state. Now, however, all them pesky gays and their friends are mad at you. It's an interesting political choice you've made, seeing as the gay rights movement has gained unprecedented momentum since the (narrow) passing of Prop 8 in California. Them pesky gays aren't taking America's shit anymore, but you're going to try to give it to them anyway. I don't know much about Colorado, but it seems like a weird decision to me.

Anywayz, in regard to your little speech we all just heard, there are a few points I'd like to touch on:

I know I don't always succeed, but I do try not to tell people how to interpret the Bible. As I've said before, it's inherently a pick-and-choose kind of book, and different people will read it different ways. That said, I'm no fan of literal interpretation, particularly when it comes to Genesis. All conventional science and much of Christendom has come to accept the creation story from the Bible as something that is, as the Catholics put it, "spiritually true, but not historically true." And honestly, I do think it is ultimately a story. Every religion ever to exist on Earth ever has had a creation myth. It's natural for human beings to seek out an explanation as to where we come from. We're still looking for answers to that question today, but mainly through science. We've managed to figure out how species evolved (more or less), but we still don't know how life started in the first place.

See? There's your chance right there. We don't know how life started. So, if you take Genesis as a symbolic myth and not as something to be interpreted literally, you can say that that first spark of life was put there by God, and that He set in motion the sequence of events that would lead to life on Earth as it is today. If you open up your mind a little bit, you can make science and religion compatible (this goes for you too, people who say that you have to be an atheist to believe in evolution).

Now, I'm assuming that you're a creationist because it would be consistent with your speech. In retrospect, it's a poor assumption to make that you would be consistent about anything regarding faith (or anything else for that matter), but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason I bring up the creation story is because you seem to take other parts of Genesis pretty literally. Specifically, you cite Genesis as proof that God meant man to be with woman. Period.

(Oh, and by the way, I take offense at being referred to as man's "helper." Thanks.)

As I said, it would be much easier for you to exist in the modern world if you could find it in your heart to see not only the symbolism in this story, but the way it likely evolved. The story fits with a nomadic desert tribe thousands of years ago. It fits with ancient oral tradition. It does not fit with life as we know it today. If you look at the evolution of the story, actually, you can see in earlier versions, the serpent was a god (that is, one of many), and the monotheists changed it to make him the villain. Just sayin'.

On to my favourite book of the Bible... Leviticus (imagine ominous music in the background). Leviticus? Again? Really?! What is with people and Leviticus? Since when did an ancient Jewish public health code (thanks, Chris) become the ultimate authority on Christian (and, by extension, American) life? I know all you gay-hater types like to throw Leviticus 18:22 around as though it's the ultimate proof that homosexuality is the worse sin ever and everything. But, as I've said before and will say again, it's pretty lame of you to throw that part of Leviticus around without holding the rest of it to the same standard (see this post). Where's your beard and curls, Scott? How do you feel about bacon?

To be fair, you've thrown another verse from Leviticus into your argument. Leviticus 20:13 says:
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.
Nice one. I've heard it suggested that more literal translations of both these passages are referring to women sleeping with two different men, thus making it difficult (if not impossible) to determine the paternal line of her possible children (thank you, anonymous commentor), but that's neither here nor there. It's still Leviticus, and I still say Leviticus is an all-or-nothing deal. If you don't think it's kosh to sell your daughters into slavery, then you can't cite Leviticus as evidence that gays are an "abomination." Kay? Kay. Moving on...

The last verse you cited, Romans 1:18, says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness
Not bad, Scott. Very ambiguous. It's a nice trick to pull. But Romans, as in The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, was written by Paul. Why don't we instead cite some verses that were actually (apparently) spoken by Christ? There is a recurring theme I think we should examine.

Matthew 23:29-31 (NIV):
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
Matthew 5:11-12 (NIV):
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 15:1-9 (NIV):
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
The theme, of course, in these three passages is that it is the apparently righteous who are corrupt. They hold strong to tradition and therefore persecute the prophets, the new ideas, that end up being the catalyst for change. This is a theme we see throughout history. Those willing to stand up against the institution and say, "Times have changed. What you are doing is no longer the right thing to do," are often persecuted, and often murdered. Look at Martin Luther King Jr, look at the Kennedys, look at Ghandi... these people spoke for change, and for civil rights, and they were killed because of worn-out dogmas and exhausted ideals. Jesus Christ warned against people like you, Scott Renfroe. Do you really want to be the kind of person who, in the time of Christ, would have killed the very man to whom you pray every night? Is that what it means to be Christian?

And since you are not only Christian, but also American, I leave you with this, from the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
In the end, it doesn't matter which parts of the Bible you believe, so long as you are able to do your job as a state senator in an appropriate manner. The job of the American government is not to outlaw sin. It is not to prevent "abomination according to the scripture". The job of the American government is to protect and take care of its citizens so that they may have all the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to which they are entitled. If you stand in the way of allowing that to happen, for all citizens, then you will find yourself on the wrong side of history, my friend. WTFWJD?

GMail was Down This Morning, Therefore it is the Apocalypse

This is very funny.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

People are Amazing

From the Associated Press:

Police said a 58-year-old man stabbed his teenage son after he refused to take off his hat at church earlier in the day. The father and his 19-year-old son got into an argument on Sunday afternoon. That's when police said the father went to a car, got a knife and stabbed his son in the left buttock and fled.
I think it's safe to assume that there was more going on between these two than who wears what to where, but still, seriously?! Wearing a hat to church? I don't even know where this rule comes from, actually. Perhaps one of my readers can enlighten me. It can't be the Old Testament, seeing at the men have to wear yarmulkes, can it? Anyway, it's a stupid and irrelevant rule. Certainly no reason to stab your damn son, d-bag.

Colossians 3:21 says:
Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.
That's probably more important than the hat thing. Just sayin'.

Catholic Politics

Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston had to meet with Jewish community leaders to smooth over this whole Holocaust-denying bishop thing. While I'm glad that he did that, I think it's sad that he had to. Here's what he had to say about it (from

I think it was a very positive meeting. Stuart Rossman, the president of the Jewish Community Relations Council, organized us, and we had the opportunity to listen to two Holocaust survivors, Israel Arbeiter and Stephan Ross, who shared with us, in very moving terms, their firsthand experience of the horrors of the Holocaust. It was an opportunity, for myself and other members of the Catholic community there, to assure the leadership that was present that the Catholic Church repudiates this denial of the Holocaust, and to restate that we see the Holocaust as the worst crime in the history of humanity. We were happy to hear it stated, once again, the wonderful relationship that we’ve had historically between our two communities here in Boston.

I announced that we will be hosting a Holocaust memorial service around the transfer of the menorah from the old chancery to our new pastoral center, and immediately Stuart Rossman and others volunteered to participate with us. We also mentioned that we’re very hopeful that the Holy Father’s visit to Israel will be a wonderful occasion for him to be able to clarify before the world the church’s strong feelings about the Holocaust, and our special friendship with the Jewish community. I also mentioned to them that on Thursday I will be going to Washington for a memorial service for my friend Rabbi Leon Klenicki, hosted by the ADL and the Pope John Paul II Center, and after the memorial service I’ve been invited to a working lunch with leaders from the ADL and other Jewish organizations and the Bishops’ Conference to discuss ways, moving forward, to improve communications between our communities.
Now here's where it gets interesting:
The Holy Father lifted this excommunication unaware of the statements that Bishop Williamson had made, and that his intention was to try and begin a dialogue that might lead to reconciliation with this group. The alternative is that this group is going to evolve farther and farther away from the Catholic church and probably embrace more and more an anti-Semitic agenda. I think some of the leadership that is there does exhibit some very disturbing theories, and some of these things have been exhibited on the web sites. I sincerely believe that many of the Catholics who have gravitated towards this movement have done so because of nostalgia, and a desire to participate in the old Mass, but in some of their leadership there’s a broader agenda that’s very poisonous, so it’s in everyone’s interest for the Holy Father to be successful.
So what he's saying is that the Society of St. Pius X is dangerous if left outside of the Roman Catholic fold. By trying to bring them back in, the Vatican can control some of their anti-Semitic views. It's an interesting theory, Cardinal, but come on. How can you say in the same breath that Pope Nazipants didn't know Richard Williamson was a Holocaust denier and then say not only that the Pope re-communicated him in the interest of controlling anti-Semitism, but that the Society of St. Pius X's anti-Semitic leadership is well known? I'd like to believe you, but I think it's foolish to think anything but the obvious about this situation: the Pope is making a deliberate effort to push the Roman Catholic Church further to the right. And honestly, fuck that shit. WTF?

"Hollywood Denounces God and Applauds Pedophilia"

Americans for Truth:

“I think it’s a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame, and their shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that support,” said Oscar-winner Sean Penn. star of “Milk,” in his Academy Award night rant against Prop 8 supporters. Hollywood also gave its top award to “The Reader,” a film about a woman who seduces a 15-year-old boy.

So now it’s come to this: one of the leading men in Hollywood, which has no shame, says Californians who supported traditional marriage by voting in Proposition 8 should have “great shame.” Sorry, Sean Penn: the shame is on you: every Californian who helped Prop 8 pass — overcoming millions of dollars worth of free PR from pro-homosexual-”marriage” Hollywood bigshots like you — should feel tremendous pride, not guilt, in defending and preserving marriage as God ordained it. As usual, the elitists in Hollywood have it completely backwards: it is homosexual behavior that is shameful, not traditional mores. I finally saw “Milk” over the weekend and will have more to say on that later. Ted Baehr of MovieGuide is right on below. — Peter LaBarbera

I can only assume that the "Truth" in Americans for Truth is meant to be ironic. Not to demean the ridiculousness of any of Peter LaBarbera's other arguments (like when he said that families with adopted children are OK because they're "imitating a real family"), but this is really fucking ridiculous. First of all, HOW these people find it appropriate to be bigoted douche-wipes in the name of Jesus Christ is beyond me. But that's irrelevant, really. We all know they are on the wrong side of history. The fight for gay rights is a fight we will eventually win. That said, I'm surprised that he thinks The Reader was promoting pedophilia just by dealing with the subject. I can think of something else that deals with pedophilia in a not-very-condemning way. What was that? Oh yeah...

Genesis 19:30-38 (NIV) says:
Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."

That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Pedophelia AND incest AND adultery! Well, shit. And it's not even condemned. Looks like the Bible is denouncing God and applauding all kinds of sin, LaBarbera. WTF?

Cristians vs. Gays: Part 907

From the Hawaii Reporter:

I am an evangelical Christian who attends church regularly, so I was surprised to see a worship service on the grounds of the Hawaii state capitol this past Sunday. What struck me even more was the purpose for the service itself: to attempt to prevent the state of Hawaii from granting equal civil rights to members of our society by placing conditions upon the application of such rights.

This is a problem not only of basic civic literacy, by obstructing the exercise of justice and misappropriating our system of government, but also in that it attacks the very context of the Bible itself while defaming and tarnishing the character of the Church.

To be clear, the government is commissioned to administer the law of the land, not regulate the morality of its people. Furthermore, it is to ensure equity and justice for all, based primarily on the merit of citizenship. In our society, we grant certain privileges to citizens who enter into an intimate relationship.

This just gets better and better, actually:
To enter into the political landscape in order to assert a legal agenda is bad for the Church as a whole. It goes against the very message of the Bible and it reflects a faith and a god that is both selective and superficial.

Christians must, as a community, repent of our own air of moral superiority and allow the universe to bend to its natural arch, which Dr. King reminds us is toward justice. For those who have succumbed to the misconception that Sodom and Gomorrah's downfall (or any civilization's for that matter) was or may be caused by homosexuals, I must turn your attention beyond Genesis 18 and 19 (which indicates only that ten righteous people could not be found), to Ezekiel 16:49, where we find that Sodom's sin was actually arrogance, obesity, and lack of concern for the poor.
I highly suggest you read the whole thing. I also have to admit that it's really encouraging to see people being vocal about this weird, revolutionary branch of Christianity that I like to call "being a good person like Jesus said to." Is that a dangling participle? Whatever. The point is, Logan Lutari, who wrote this story, is fighting the good fight. And he's doing it with a lot less bad fucking language than I am, so that's probably pretty pragmatic (alliteration!) of him. Good job, Logan. That's WTF Jesus would do.

Mmmmmm... Pancakes


Sorry, I meant HAPPY SHROVE TUESDAY!!!!!

I Don't Know About This Archbishop Dolan Character...

So I heard about Archbishop Dolan's appointment on Facebook of all places, and I have to confess that I did not assume I'd be writing about him here. Then I saw this headline:

Which, I have to admit, is mostly hilarious. I mean come on, you guys are just picking on the poor archbishop because his name's in the paper already anyway, right?
Also according to The Journal, Dan Maguire, a Marquette University professor of moral theology and former priest was rebuked by Dolan for suggesting that Catholics "may rightfully dissent on issues of abortion and same-sex unions, and that bishops don't have the last word on moral debate."

(Hilarious picture.)

I still think they're being a bit whiney. So the guy "rebuked" you, so what. That's the nature of discussion, right? It's not like he punched you in the face (just once in my life I would fucking LOVE to see an archbishop punch somebody in the face. Srsly). So I'm still reluctant to get pissed off, until I see this article:

A Genial Conservative for New York’s Archdiocese
It was 2003, and (Rev. David Cooper) had opined to a reporter that women should be ordained. Faraway bishops rumbled about censure. Then he picked up the telephone and heard the baritone of Milwaukee’s archbishop, Timothy M. Dolan. Father Cooper immediately offered to resign.

No, no, the archbishop replied, we just need to repair the damage. “He was very pastoral and caring,” Father Cooper recalled.

And how was it resolved? “Oh, I agreed to recant,” he said. “He effectively silenced me.”
If you look at these two incidents, neither of them seems very substantial. Dolan was merely behaving the way most Catholics do. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in abortion, same sex marriage, or the idea that women can be ordained, so what's so bad about Dolan in comparison?

Let's think about the U.S. Supreme Court. You know how when you're appointed, you pretty much get to serve on the Supreme Court for the rest of your life? And you know how that means that every Supreme Court Justice's personal politics have a real and lasting effect on the United States of America? (It does mean that, for those of you who don't pay attention to this stuff. That's why everyone was so mad about Alito.) Anyway, the Catholic Church is a similar sort of institution. It is in many ways a political body, which is sometimes really bad and sometimes kind of good. The bad part, of course, being that there's often more politics than religion in half the shit the Catholic Church does. The good part, however, is that within the Church there is a whole network of clergy with all kinds of opinions, many of which do not mesh well with the Pope's. There are always priests pushing the envelope (usually I'd talk up the Jesuits now, but I'm mad at them for sending their known pedophiles up to Alaska to rape native kids, who they figured would never tell. Guess what? They did), and there are priests, like Archbishop Dolan, who tow the line. So what's the big issue?

The big issue, of course, is that the Pope trying, not always successfully, to do things like re-communicate Holocaust-deniers and promote d-bags who think like Fred Phelps and say that Katrina was God's way of punishing New Orleans for being too gay friendly. In other words, he's sticking people who think like him in strategic places in order to ensure that the Catholic Church continues in the more conservative direction in which it's been headed since Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope.

Matthew 26:3-4 says:
Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
No, I'm not accusing the Catholic Church of murder (not this time, anyway), but I think it's important to remember who killed Jesus. No, not the Jews, not the Romans, not Pilate, not Herod... it was the Church. The rest of them were really just pawns, because the priests had a pretty good political network set up. The moral here, I think, is that when religion becomes more institution than faith, there is no room for change. When everything is about safety and tradition, there are no new ideas. If the Catholic Church really does manage to move so far to the right, it will alienate its more moderate and liberal members and clergy, causing them to leave. It's not like it hasn't happened before. Ask the Lutherans, they'll tell you about it. The Catholic Church, however, can't expect to continue to be a major player on the world religious scene if it loses all its members. So either these guys need to stop being closed-minded pricks with no vision for the future and no memory of the past, or Catholicism is going to be totally marginalized.

Which, by the way, would make me kind of sad, despite all my bitching. Catholics is my peeps. Peace out.

Monday, February 23, 2009


Ephesians 6:10-18 says:

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
raying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints
I think it's pretty obvious that reading passages like this to little children on a regular basis is the reason there are so many crazy Christians running around. Were I to read a bible passage to my children, I think it would be this (Matthew 5:3-17):
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
I know it's a bit on the preachy side, and I don't think the point of being a good person is to convince people that your idea of God is the best, but I'd rather read my kids something about letting their light shine than having to fight with the devil all the time. Srsly.

Literal Interpretation is Pretty Much Impossible, Guys

From a letter to the editor in The Observer:

Ms. Arseneault (letter to the editor, "Bible and science can actually co-exist," The Observer, Feb. 9, 2009) may believe in her Bible literally, but believing literally in the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is a poor foundation upon which to build an understanding of our world.

Any objective reading of the Bible reveals it to be a cobbled together mess of contradictions and inconsistencies. Literally interpreted, we start out with only Adam, Eve and two sons. But shortly, we're into a long and detailed episode of begatting, without any explanation of how all those generations of begatters and beattees could result from a mother, father and two sons.

All we can say with historical certainty about the Bible is that it selectively reflects only those writings and beliefs in accordance with the prevailing orthodoxy at the time, when Christian power was being consolidated in Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries AD, ignoring or suppressing other threads of early Christian thought or belief.

And we can somewhat excuse the confusing nature of the Bible as it is the "template" for a religion whose god, like the god of the other two main monotheistic religions, revealed himself or herself primarily to members of illiterate nomadic desert tribes in the Middle East, in an era when accurate record-keeping was problematical at best.
You can read the rest here.

And since we're on the subject, the question of whether or not to take the Bible literally is one of the great dividing forces among Christians. The irony, of course, being that nobody actually literally follows the Bible (except this guy), not even those who claim that literal interpretation is the only way to salvation. Thus the existence of this blog.

I do find it really offensive that fundamentalists have hijacked Christianity. With their behaviour and archaic rhetoric, they not only make the rest of us look bad, but they make Jesus Christ look bad, which really pisses me off. I know that the Bible is a flawed document; I know that it is not literally true; and I know that in order to have the Bible in your life, you really do HAVE to pick and choose which parts of it you're going to follow. But even with all that in mind, I really do believe that the underlying message of Jesus Christ was one of love. Two thousand years after this man lived (let's assume he actually did, even though I do think it's ultimately irrelevant), we still know that the message he spread around for the few short years he was preaching was "love your enemies, treat others as you'd like to be treated, and don't judge people." To me, that is the spirit of Christianity; that is what it means to strive to be Christ-like; and that is why people like Fred Phelps are douche-tards.

Rather than a quote from the Bible, I'm going to leave you with a conversation my grandma had with her sister when my grandpa's wife (on my other side) died.
Grandma: "I don't know what to say to him to make him feel better. Normally I'd say that she's in a better place now, but they're both atheists so he won't believe me."
Grandma's sister: "I don't know what you say to him either, but boy is she in for a surprise because God loves everybody."

This is Just Funny

Bible Stories Translated into Cockney Rhyming Slang


Keith Park was struggling to get his pupils interested in the Bible stories, the Daily Mail reported.

He translated stories about Adam and Eve, the Nativity and Cain and when he read them out in class the previously bored and restless youngsters were entranced, the newspaper said.
Well, why the hell not?

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Fred Phelps is a Douche... again

Fred Phelps is looking pretty old these days, so he'll probably kick it any minute. I want to say that I am NOT in favour of picketing his funeral, because then we'd be no better than him and the hate he spews all over... everything. That said, it would be poetic justice if someone were to picket his funeral, amirite? So yeah, don't do it. It would be wrong. And satisfying.

Anywayz, so apparently now that he can't get in to England, Fred Phelps is taking it out on Australia. WTF, Fred Phelps?! You never cease to amaze me with your anti-everything rhetoric. I can't think of a single person claiming to be Christian whose words and actions are further from the message of Christ than you, sir. You are an abomination. If God hated, He would hate you. But that's not the deal, is it? God doesn't hate you Fred Phelps and, much though I'd like to, neither do I. Why? Because of this (John 13:34-35):
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Christians + Gays = Lurve

Seeing as WTFWJD has now been plugged by Dan Savage and is therefore the most popular blog ever, I thought it would only be fair to discuss some positive things going on in Christianity. Here's what came up on my news feed today:

Catholic Denomination says Gay Priests are OK

“We walked away from the papacy in 1870,” Michael Seneco, the Archbishop of the NAOCC, said to the New Haven Advocate. Seneco, who is openly gay, said he and his colleagues belive the stances that the Roman Catholic Church has taken on homosexuality and women as priests don’t gibe with Jesus’ teachings. “Jesus was a radical and the church has forgotten that,” Seneco said.
THAT'S the Jesus I'm talking about. Good job, pseudo-Catholics.

Rebel Australian Priest Defies Sacking
A rebel Catholic priest sacked for blessing gay couples and allowing women to preach has vowed to defy his archbishop and lead mass on Sunday.
Father Peter Kennedy of St Mary's parish in the east coast city of Brisbane said he expected a "packed church" to show support against his dismissal this week by Archbishop John Bathersby.
You know, I make fun of Australians a lot. Mostly because I am a horrible person and I make fun of everyone a lot, but you've really got to hand it to a country that will use the word "Sacking" in a newspaper headline. Pretty dope, Australia. You've also got to hand it to Father Peter Kennedy for having the balls to defy the Catholic Church from the inside. Way to stand up for what's right, Padre. Amen.

US Lutheran task force suggests 'structured flexibility' on gay pastors
The long-awaited position on ordaining gay clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America isn't a clear yes or no.

An ELCA task force admitted yesterday that it could not reach a consensus on the issue that has polarised its members for years.

But with the matter expected to dominate this summer's national convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota its position paper offers this suggested solution: The ELCA will allow the ordination of gay pastors but will leave it up to individual congregations and synods whether to ordain or appoint pastors. The term used to describe this compromise is "structured flexibility".
Kay so Lutherans are thinking about it, which is pretty decent of them. I always liked Lutherans. One time when I was a kid, my choir sang at a Lutheran church service. It was just like a Catholic service, except people seemed happy to be there. This is the conversation that happened when I got home:

Me: "Dad, I'm Lutheran now."
Dad: "No you're not. You're Catholic. Go to your room."

A similar thing happened when my choir sang at an Episcopal church service:

Me: "Dad, I'm Episcopalian now."
Dad: "No you're not. You're Catholic. Go to your room."

Anywayz, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty pleased that certain branches of Christianity are at least open to the discussion about accepting gay people as their brothers. Perhaps this means that America will one day follow. Until then, I leave you with this (1 John 2:9-11):
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
Way to walk in the light, guys. That's WTF Jesus would do.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

God May Hate Fags, But England Doesn't

Or at least they've refused entry to members of the Westboro Asshole Church. Check it.

The Westboro Baptist Church, based in Kansas, has been planning to stage a protest against a play being put on by a gay youth group in southeast England on Friday.
But the Home Office said Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper have been told they cannot travel to Britain because of their views.

Fred Phelps & Co. are really amazing people, in my opinion. How ANYONE who professes such love of Jesus Christ can be so full of hatred is just incredible to me. Let's check the Bible, shall we?

1 John 3:14-16 (NIV) says:
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
Hey, Fred "I'm a Horrible Person" Phelps, WTFWJD?

Oh, and good job, England.

Pope Tells Pelosi to Quit Killing Babies

When I hear of someone who is a "Roman Catholic who supports abortion rights,"I get this warm, fuzzy feeling on the inside. Catholics, I think, get a really bum rap, mostly due to the fact that some Catholics are total dipshits. These dipshit Catholics seem to be a lot louder than the rest of them/us (I never know whether or not to include myself since I'm obviously hella lapsed) and make it look like they're/we're all a bunch of dipshits. Not so.

The beauty of Catholicism is that there's a lot of leg room, really. I've got plenty of stories of devout Catholics who don't take the whole Catholic thing too seriously (like the priest who once told my dad that whether or not Jesus actually existed was irrelevant and what mattered was the message). I mean, why not just be yourself when you can just go to confession? Purgatory can't be worse than this stupid life, right? And really, there's no reason to let your belief in God get in the way of logic. Except that lots of people do it. Anyway...

The point is, Pope Nazipants the Dickth told Nancy Pelosi that Catholics in public office should be defending the lives of all those poor little fetuses, and she was all "I'm honoured to meet you, but you can fuck yourself on that one, dickwad*." And that's pretty dope of her. Thanks, Pelosi.

In other news, here's the ONLY quote in the bible that even hints at the idea of life beginning at conception (Exodus 21:22):
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
It's fair, I think, to look at the New International Version of this passage, just so it makes a little more sense:
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
So yeah, you're kicking some dude's ass, and you somehow kick his wife's ass, and she was pregnant but now she's not thanks to you, but she's still totally fine, but you still have to pay her husband whatever he wants, so abortion is wrong. Did I follow that correctly?

I think most people would agree that causing someone to miscarry in an act of violence (I'm looking at you, Rhett Butler) is different from voluntarily getting the big A. Either way, though, I'm inclined to just disregard the whole thing. I mean, just after the verse we just read, we've got Exodus 22:24, which says:
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot
Sound familiar? If you went to Catholic school like I did, it sure as hell will. This is the famous guiding Old Testament principle that Jesus did away with in his sermon on the mount. Observe Matthew 5:38-39:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
So they don't really have a good case for the whole anti-abortion thing there. Of course they do also make the claim that Jesus' life began with the announcement of his conception and therefore all of our lives do the same, but that logic is so flawed I don't know where to begin. First of all, if you're going to insist on believing that that whole thing with God knocking up a virgin really happened, you can easily make the jump to saying it's a special case. I mean, we're not all the spawn of a most holy union between God and woman. We're just douchebags made out of regular old sperm. And while a super-human God baby would obviously have to be born, the rest of us are kind of dispensable. And really, I think whether or not a fetus is a baby is primarily dependent on whether or not whomever it's stuck in plans on giving birth to it. I do, however, think it's fair on the part of Christians to believe that life starts at conception. I just don't think it's fair for them to try to force it on the rest of us. It's a grey area at best, guys, so chill.

Oh, and Pope Nazipants, WTFWJD?

*Not a direct quote.

"They Are Christians and Follow The Scripture"

From The USC Daily Trojan:

On my fifth and final day rushing Alpha Gamma Omega, two AGO brothers confronted me about my sexuality. That is, two AGO brothers confronted, questioned and attacked my sexuality. Although I was honest with them about my being gay, I was made to feel extremely uncomfortable. From these conversations, it became inescapably clear that AGO would not extend a bid to me because I am gay, an instance of blatant homophobia.
This one just gets better and better:
He told me that he entered the fraternity a “broken man” and how the fraternity has helped him to improve. He also said that the fraternity is not affirming of homosexuality, because they are Christians and follow the scripture. He also said that since tomorrow is bid night, they want to know how my relationship with God is.

So, even though this kid professes to be a Christian, he can't join a "Christian" frat because his relationship with God is not so good. Apparently. Let's see what the Bible says.

Matthew 7:1-5 says:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Kay, so kind of a "He who is without sin" deal. Too easy? How about this?

John 12:47 says:
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
So now we're not judging AND Jesus isn't judging. That really should do the trick, but just in case it doesn't, let's talk about what the Bible actually says about them gays. Here you'll find a douchebag website with douchebag Bible verses condemning homosexuality. I figured it'd be fun to pick them all apart. Let's see what transpires...

According to the New American Standard Bible, Leviticus 18:22 says:
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
To be fair, this is pretty similar to what the King James version has to say in that particular verse, but I feel like we should probably take a look at some of the other shit in Leviticus to get a sense of perspecitve

Leviticus opens with:
And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
It goes on and on, actually, describing various sacrifices in great detail. Some are to make amends for various sins and some are just for the hell of it. Either way, I can only assume you guys are all making sacrifices to the Lord in this way, right? Cuz it's totally not archaic or ridiculous or anything, right? That's what I thought. Moving on...

Leviticus 11:1-12 says:
And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
So Christians are all Kosher, right? No bacon? No shrimp cocktail? No?! BUT WHAT ABOUT LEVITICUS?!?! Man, you guys are in so much trouble.

Leviticus 12:1-7 says:
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
Well that's just amazingly offensive, actually.

Leviticus 19:27-28 says:
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

I assume, then, that every good Christian who values the poignant and relevant words of Leviticus walks around looking like my cousin Lippa the Rabbi and doesn't have any tattoos or anything. I mean, cuz Leviticus says so...

I think you get the point. We'll skip the next one because I'm pretty sure we've all had enough of ancient Jewish law that has nothing to do with Jesus (apart from the fact that those dicks at Nicea decided to throw it in the Bible).

According to the NASB version, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

And the King James?
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
"Abusers of themselves with mankind"? has an interesting take on this:
Its meaning is at best questionable. If it refers to homosexuals, the question arises why Paul would have used such an obscure and questionable term when he could have used other much clearer terms to describe what he meant. The Greek culture was filled with homoerotic words used to describe various homosexual relationships, but instead he used a word that does not appear anywhere in Greek homoerotic literature. Transliterated, the word arsenokoitai means “man-active-bed”. It could mean a male prostitute who takes the active role sexually. Modern day male prostitutes are differentiated by their trade, either for women, “gigolos” or for men, “hustlers”. Similarly, the Greeks also may have identified prostitutes by their trade. If Paul had wanted to condemn a group more inclined to be exclusively homosexual, he might have chosen the term arenokoitai (“man-passive-bed”) which would indicate a male prostitute who takes the passive role sexually.

The King James Version avoids a direct translation of this word with the phrase “abusers of themselves with mankind”, but it is interesting to note that even though the word homosexual did not exist at the time and wasn’t even coined until the late 19th century, a word existed in 1611 which if used by the King James translators would have left no question as to what they were talking about. This word is “invert”, which meant homosexual, but they did not use it. More in keeping with the context in both this passage and in 1 Timothy 1:10, a suggested better translation might be “rapist” since it has something to do with someone who takes the active role in the sex act.
So there's another one debunked. They actually pick apart the entire verse, and it's a pretty interesting read.

On to the next one...

According to the NASB version, Romans 1:26-27 says:
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
In the King James version, it's:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Again, it's pretty similar wording. According to, however, there are a few possible interpretations from the original text:
Some interpret the "men...with other men" clause to be a translation of the original Greek word for "pederasty" which was commonly practiced at the time by adult males with male children (often slaves). Thus Paul might have been criticizing child sexual abuse.
Well then, there's another strike against those baby-raping priests we keep hearing about.
Another interpretation:
From Paul's era, until today, many people have believed that the only natural, normal sexual activity was between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Thus "unnatural" sex would include:

Anyone engaging in sex for pure enjoyment
Married couples who engaged in intercourse even though one or both partners were sterile.
Married couples who had sex even though the woman was not in the fertile part of her cycle, or was past childbearing years

Perhaps Paul's use of the phrase "para physin" (unnatural) simply meant that when the people engaged in same-sex practices, there was no procreative function to the behavior. Thus, it was unnatural.

Christians, take heed! Even if you're married, sex that isn't for the purpose of making babies is (possibly) strictly prohibited.

There are several other takes on the verse presented. Apparently, some also interpret "unnatural" acts as dominant/submissive relationships; the Archbishop of Cantebury says the whole passage is not, in fact, about sinning, but about law-abiding; and others claim that it's actually about abandoning Christianity for pagan religions. Either way, it's worth noting that the next chapter opens with:
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
So here we are again, douchebag "ex"-gay frat boys. Judge not lest ye be judged. That's WTF Jesus would do.

Thou Shalt Not Steal


Testimony is underway for a Delray Beach priest accused of stealing thousands from his parish church.
Mark 10:19 says:
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Perhaps the clergy has a special copy of this verse with a footnote exempting them from following such silly layman rules. Probably not though. WTFWJD, motherfucker?

Polish Priest Held After Child Porn Raids

The Associated Press:

Polish police say they have detained 78 people — including a priest and a doctor — suspected of possessing child pornography and spreading it on the Internet.

Matthew 13:3 says:
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I think you may have misread, Polish Priest. Jesus said come as little children, not come on little children. So here's a question for you, you perverted douche-tard: WTFWJD? Yeah, probably not this.

Design by Dzelque Blogger Templates 2008

WTF WOULD JESUS DO? - Design by Dzelque Blogger Templates 2008