Just as I can't understand Christian women, I can't understand Christian LGBT either.
I have been told by some Christians that, actually, the Bible does not say anything wrong about homosexuality, but maybe they misunderstood me and thought I was talking only about lesbianism. Bible does not care much about women's sexual preferences, probably because it doesn't care too much about women's sexuality in general - as long as they're caste.
Anyway, on with the "Bible says nothing about gays" thing.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22
I think it's pretty clear, isn't it? By the way, have you realized that it's written as if addressed to men, not men and women? Almost like the speaker - supposedly, God Himself - didn't care who women lie with.
I have seen people saying that Leviticus is "about classifying things" and that this verse is not about sex. Well, actually this whole chapter is about sex. I invite everyone to go and see it. Leviticus is God telling rules to Moses, and this chapter starts defining what's incest - unless you want to be literal and think it's about seeing people naked. And just after the gay part, it forbids to lie and defile yourselves with beasts...
Maybe this one is clearer:
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. Leviticus 20:13
Death. Just like that.
What could we expect, if cross dressing is also an abomination
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5
Just like in Christian Women we would like to believe this is all the Old Testament and that the New one is far more liberal.
What happened with women about the old/new testament lack of differences happens with LGBT too. Let's start with what the apostle Paul says to Timothy
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1 Timothy 9-10
"The law is made for the sinners, such as those who defile themselves with mankind." The apostle Paul also writes letters to the church of Corinth:
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, 1 Corinthians 6:9
In the letter to Romans, he complains that
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. Romans 1:27
I love when I see a verse I don't know where to start with. On one hand we got that "men burned in their lust one toward another", and just before, the "leaving the natural use of the woman", as if the natural use is to satisfy men's lust.
In the next verses Paul goes on a rant
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:28-32
The last verse is specially funny: knowing that to God, that kind of people is worthy of dead, not only they do, but they like it.
So, I hope it was brief enough what reasons have the Bible for LGBT not to be Christian. Please, to all LGBT people and all who respect them: do you see why you shouldn't claim to be Christian?
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta faith. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta faith. Mostrar todas las entradas
sábado, 9 de mayo de 2015
viernes, 24 de abril de 2015
Christian women
In general, when I see otherwise intelligent people declare themselves christians I just could not understand if not with the child-indoctrinating and cognitive dissonance thing. However, it is more strange when the person in question is from a few particular groups. Today I would like to focus on the "womens" group, about half the world population, and I am going to focus only in the "serve the man" thing included in the bible, from old to new testament, and then in Judaism and Islam too. Today I am not going to even bother about the poligamy, rape and those other Christian pearls. And to the people saying those are frowned upon in the Bible I ask them to come back when I adress that topic. To the ones saying "that were different times" I say as always, that Ill stop relating it to your alleged beliefs the day bibles don't include those bits.
But on for today's topic.
Probably the first hint is this: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16
By the way, that's part of women's punishment due to original sin.
Of course, the Old Testament is always a bit old, when considering gender equality (or race equality, or a lot of other equalities, to that matter), so maybe we should point to a few New Testament bits - the kindest half of Bible -
The Pauline epistles are thirteen New Testament books attributed to Paul, the apostle. That is, one of the persons that, as Christians, you should believe received Christ's teachings as directly as possible.
In particular, the first letter to the Corinthians includes this nice bit:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3
This is a couple lines after saying that, since he (Paul) was follower of Christ, you should be followers of Paul, but back to topic, this is quite mild, right? It's not as hard as in Genesis and ruling, is it? In his letter to the Ephesians, he elaborates and generalizes the "Christ head of man, man head of women" thing
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24
Now here is present the Genesis' idea of wife serve husband, submissive and all. And just to avoid giving the impression it's a temporal rant, he says again:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18
As we'll see below, Paul has a nice record of gender in-equality fighting, but then again, he only was one of the twelve favorites of Christ, but not the favorite, as Peter was. Speaking of which...
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 1 Peter 3:1
So, Peter's too. Now that it's being shown this is a bit of a general feeling in bible, I would like to point to why there's not too many women preaching and why, Bible in hand, there shouldn't be any:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 34-35
That's it, women are not allowed to even speak in church, and they can only learn - about religion, I guess - from their own husbands, not any man. I've seen this bit downplayed, interpreting that Paul wasn't saying this himself, but quoting a previous letter from the Corinthians, but then he wrote this to Timothy:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:11-14
In the first two verses, he just repeats that women must learn in silence and servitude, and that a woman shouldn't teach or command a man. By itself, it could be outrageous, but that's why I copied the other two verses, in which the "logic" behind the silence command is based: Adam was first, Eve was after him. That kind of "reasoning" makes this bit laughable, doesn't it? And, by the way, the author blames the whole original sin in Eve. He don't think Adam should have gone Where that fruit came from? The Forbidden Tree? And you expect me to eat too?
Not to be able to learn anything but from men should be hard, that's why I guessed he was speaking only about religion. It seems I understood correctly, because in the letter to Titus he allows women to teach. Not over a man, of course - that would be having authority over him - but they can teach younger women:
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:3-5
As I said before, I guess it requires a lot of simple-mindedness to start believing this things and resistance to learning to keep believing them, for any person, but when considering women? I don't understand how can a woman declare herself a Christian, considering these few Bible bits, declare that she is equal to other persons, and still don't get the incoherence of that thought.
So, women, I hope you see you shouldn't claim to be Christian.
Unless you like to be considered servants, of course.
But on for today's topic.
Probably the first hint is this: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16
By the way, that's part of women's punishment due to original sin.
Of course, the Old Testament is always a bit old, when considering gender equality (or race equality, or a lot of other equalities, to that matter), so maybe we should point to a few New Testament bits - the kindest half of Bible -
The Pauline epistles are thirteen New Testament books attributed to Paul, the apostle. That is, one of the persons that, as Christians, you should believe received Christ's teachings as directly as possible.
In particular, the first letter to the Corinthians includes this nice bit:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3
This is a couple lines after saying that, since he (Paul) was follower of Christ, you should be followers of Paul, but back to topic, this is quite mild, right? It's not as hard as in Genesis and ruling, is it? In his letter to the Ephesians, he elaborates and generalizes the "Christ head of man, man head of women" thing
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24
Now here is present the Genesis' idea of wife serve husband, submissive and all. And just to avoid giving the impression it's a temporal rant, he says again:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18
As we'll see below, Paul has a nice record of gender in-equality fighting, but then again, he only was one of the twelve favorites of Christ, but not the favorite, as Peter was. Speaking of which...
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 1 Peter 3:1
So, Peter's too. Now that it's being shown this is a bit of a general feeling in bible, I would like to point to why there's not too many women preaching and why, Bible in hand, there shouldn't be any:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 34-35
That's it, women are not allowed to even speak in church, and they can only learn - about religion, I guess - from their own husbands, not any man. I've seen this bit downplayed, interpreting that Paul wasn't saying this himself, but quoting a previous letter from the Corinthians, but then he wrote this to Timothy:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:11-14
In the first two verses, he just repeats that women must learn in silence and servitude, and that a woman shouldn't teach or command a man. By itself, it could be outrageous, but that's why I copied the other two verses, in which the "logic" behind the silence command is based: Adam was first, Eve was after him. That kind of "reasoning" makes this bit laughable, doesn't it? And, by the way, the author blames the whole original sin in Eve. He don't think Adam should have gone Where that fruit came from? The Forbidden Tree? And you expect me to eat too?
Not to be able to learn anything but from men should be hard, that's why I guessed he was speaking only about religion. It seems I understood correctly, because in the letter to Titus he allows women to teach. Not over a man, of course - that would be having authority over him - but they can teach younger women:
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:3-5
As I said before, I guess it requires a lot of simple-mindedness to start believing this things and resistance to learning to keep believing them, for any person, but when considering women? I don't understand how can a woman declare herself a Christian, considering these few Bible bits, declare that she is equal to other persons, and still don't get the incoherence of that thought.
So, women, I hope you see you shouldn't claim to be Christian.
Unless you like to be considered servants, of course.
jueves, 26 de febrero de 2015
Faith healers
This entry's birth is due to stories like this.
A dozen kids's death in four years is not big deal, what makes it a big deal for me is that
The first thing that I think about saying is "Your son. Your daughter.", but that wouldn't make sense because if you feel as horrified as I do towards this, you treat your children more responsibly that this kind of parents. What I'm going to say is "Imagine it's your nephew, and that you sister lets him die. And then you have to put up a smile and tell her she did right letting him die."
The linked article says that actually most states has some kind of exemption to damage to children. Half a dozen of them have no religious exemption to crimes against children. Six from fifty? The rest go from "you can go to jail, but we can't save your children from your care" to "If it's by your religion, you can do to your children as you want"
The point I keep waiting for anyone to make is that children are their parents' responsibility, not their property. The freedom of religion of the parents is that they can let themselves die, but to allow them to decide whether their children receive proper medical care is to acknowledge children are property.
For a country so proud of Lincoln's anti-slavery (thought there's something to be said about that, too), children are still considered property by having laws as these.
And now, let's widen the scenery, shall we?
Is this too soon to remember that Islam allows marriage as soon as the bride has her first period? She has to give her consent, even when saying nothing is considered consent.
I don't see too many activist saying that is right for parents to punish her 12-year-old daughter (for disobedience) because she doesn't want to be wed - and deflowered - just yet, but exemptions like the ones allowing a couple to let their children die just set right that kind of girl-selling.
I'd like to bring attention to another point: please, look at that map of USA and look for the black states - the ones which exempts criminal and civil penalties from negligent homicide, manslaughter and capital murder: Idaho, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Religious exemption from capital murder. To emphasize what that kind of laws allow, I'd like to point out that, in these states it's legal (you're criminally and civilly exempt), if you're Jewish or Christian:
I think I've let this burn enough, for now, at least.
If you read this you can think that, yeah, all those things should be allowed because there's a religion who let them be. If you thought it wasn't a big deal, maybe now you can help bring some sense on other people by pointing out what is not being said and, just maybe, some day, country's laws will not be bent to forgive people just because.
A dozen kids's death in four years is not big deal, what makes it a big deal for me is that
- They were avoidable deaths
- They weren't avoided not because their parents couldn't get/pay the treatments but because they didn't want them
- They're not being charged with child neglect or murder because their faith tells them to let those children die
The first thing that I think about saying is "Your son. Your daughter.", but that wouldn't make sense because if you feel as horrified as I do towards this, you treat your children more responsibly that this kind of parents. What I'm going to say is "Imagine it's your nephew, and that you sister lets him die. And then you have to put up a smile and tell her she did right letting him die."
The linked article says that actually most states has some kind of exemption to damage to children. Half a dozen of them have no religious exemption to crimes against children. Six from fifty? The rest go from "you can go to jail, but we can't save your children from your care" to "If it's by your religion, you can do to your children as you want"
The point I keep waiting for anyone to make is that children are their parents' responsibility, not their property. The freedom of religion of the parents is that they can let themselves die, but to allow them to decide whether their children receive proper medical care is to acknowledge children are property.
For a country so proud of Lincoln's anti-slavery (thought there's something to be said about that, too), children are still considered property by having laws as these.
And now, let's widen the scenery, shall we?
Is this too soon to remember that Islam allows marriage as soon as the bride has her first period? She has to give her consent, even when saying nothing is considered consent.
I don't see too many activist saying that is right for parents to punish her 12-year-old daughter (for disobedience) because she doesn't want to be wed - and deflowered - just yet, but exemptions like the ones allowing a couple to let their children die just set right that kind of girl-selling.
I'd like to bring attention to another point: please, look at that map of USA and look for the black states - the ones which exempts criminal and civil penalties from negligent homicide, manslaughter and capital murder: Idaho, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Religious exemption from capital murder. To emphasize what that kind of laws allow, I'd like to point out that, in these states it's legal (you're criminally and civilly exempt), if you're Jewish or Christian:
- To kill a gay men just because he's gay (Leviticus)
- To kill Woody Allen and/or Soon-Yin (Leviticus again, she was his son's sister, and since he had sex with her mother, she's his daughter)
- To kill anyone who contradicts your beliefs (Leviticus attacks again, blasphemy) This one's specially ironic because A can kill B for contradicting A, and then B's brother can kill A because A contradicted B and his brother.
- To enslave anyone that doesn't share your faith (Leviticus is a gold mine of this sh*t)
And this is just a handful of (nowadays considered) bad things that some people can get away with by claiming "freedom of religion". Now that I've cleared a few things about Bible, I think I can give a couple more about Islam, because, by those "freedom of religion" laws:
- If I were a Muslim and I met an ex-Muslim, I can kill him (4:89)
- Suicide attacks are legal (4:74) Remember the Twin Towers?
What is really ironic about all this "freedom of religion" stuff is that, if the government can't enforce their laws against religious people, then the most violent religions' followers are free - by the government - to kill everyone, until there's only one sect left. Kind like Iran.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)