Christianity is a nice religion. It is a great pity that so few people follow it.

 

I should say at the outset that I am an historian, not a Biblical scholar, but then it seems that credentials are not of much value these days.  Conservative politicians are not scientists, but make policy rulings on scientific matters that they clearly do not comprehend.  Neither are these politicians members of the medical profession nor are they experts on female anatomy and psychology, but that has not stopped them from intruding on decisions that affect a woman's most intimate parts and all-important life decisions.   So I feel confident that I can offer my Biblical interpretations that are at least as competent as those made by others.  For those who actually care about such things for my purposes here I am using the King James Version.

So before I could publish this we had yet another Rapture Hoax.  A South African preacher called Brother Joshua had predicted via TikTok the Rapture for 23 September.  And lo! the dawn came and --- yep, burned again.  Who are these people who keeping falling for the same shtick?  Some of them were old enough to remember the Harold Camping disaster in May 2011.  Suddenly this article started to make some sense for me to share.

If there ever is a Rapture (a concept I utterly reject) it is likely that those who assumed they were going are doomed to disappointment.  Here are some of my observations.

HUMILITY

When it comes to humility, today's evangelicals have really lost their way.  They demand the right to witness, to proselytize, and to pronounce God's judgment on the wicked as determined by them.  But the Bible says

¹ Judge not, that ye be not judged.

² For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

³ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  [Matthew 7:1-3]

As for public religious ranting -- a cherished right under the US Constitution's First Amendment as claimed by evangelicals -- is also forbidden by the Bible in what is one of my favorite passages:

¹ Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

² Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

³ But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

⁴ That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

⁵ And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

⁶ But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

⁷ But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

⁸ Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.  [Matthew 6: 1-8]

Bragging about your own righteousness does not make you righteous in the eyes of God.  How hard is that to understand?   If the Christians would just do what Christ asked them to do it would make this a much nicer world.  

LGBTQ et al

You would think the way conservatives go on about homosexuality that it is the ONLY sin mentioned in the Bible. Yes, the admonition against male homosexuality is very clear

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]

Again I struggle with the text because I haven't a clue where it came from or how many iterations of this command have existed since the Bronze Age.  One researcher has suggested that the word "mankind" was originally translated as "young boys," making this about pederasty (a common practice amongst many peoples, including the Greeks and the Romans).  

Bear in mind that homosexuality was not deemed sinful enough to make it into the Big Ten, but when it comes to deciding which customers a religious business chooses to serve, they have no concerns at all about serving adulterers, blasphemers, idolators, thieves, murderers,  liars, the covetous and children who curse their parents.  Those sinners get their cakes, but a gay couple wanting to make a loving life commitment to one another are just too vile for the delicate Christian's sense of righteousness.  

Along with declaring male homosexuality an abomination Old Testament laws also forbid wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, shaving, eating cheeseburgers, seafood gumbo and pork barbecue.  In my life I have never seen a Baptist pass up pork barbecue and Louisiana Catholics love their gumbo.  Usually the explanation is that the New Testament gave followers of the burgeoning Christian movement latitude on the dietary and other restrictions from the Old Testament.  But today's Christians become myopic on this issue of New Testament changes to Old Testament restrictions.  Most obviously in the following

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.  [John 13:34]

This is not a new "hint" nor a new "suggestion."  This new commandment was offered without caveats, exceptions or exemptions.  Christ did not stutter.  He did not wink wink nudge nudge -- you know like He didn't really mean it.  Why is this so difficult for today's Christians to accept?

I am making this argument on Christianity's own turf.  The fact is there is no need for any religious explanation to be offered at all.  Our nation has a SECULAR basis for laws.  In order to continue the traditional discrimination against the LGBT community those who oppose their fundamental right of equality have to offer a secular argument.  So far their efforts have been lame at best.  Consider the following proposed secular reasons to  ban same sex marriage:

(*)  Marriage is for the procreation of children.  And yet many marriages do not produce children.  We do not demand children from those who get married nor do we refuse marriage to those who are unable to have children.   And many LGBTQ couples do have children, both adopted and biological.

(*)   Homosexuality is a choice, therefore not entitled to special treatment.  While science has not yet made a definitive ruling on this question, it has become increasingly clear that sexual identity is far more complex than originally believed.  While very young children may not have the words for it, they are aware of gender -- theirs and others' -- and they know if they are different.  That does not sound like a choice.

In a conversation with my adult son he told me that he knew what he was at age 4 when he first watched Disney's Little Mermaid.  He took one look at Ariel and decided that whatever that was he wanted more of it.  Turns out he really loves independent minded women.  I suspect the same may be true for most children, even if they can not remember the moment when they understood the role of gender in their lives.

(*)   It is traditional and since every culture in the world has always had a prohibition against homosexuality, we should retain ours.  Sorry, folks, but tradition is no excuse for doing the wrong thing simply because we have always done it that way.  We have outlawed a number of "traditions" -- people as property, for instance.  We no longer allow Negro slavery nor do we permit men to market their women to prospective husbands not of the woman's choosing.  Women are no longer denied the vote nor forbidden from driving a car.  We have outlawed child labor, child prostitution, child marriage.  All those things exist elsewhere in the world, but we count ourselves as superior for having done away with them.

(*) And this recent entry in the silly excuses category -- our laws banning same-sex marriage are NOT discriminatory since we do not allow heterosexuals from marrying members of the same gender.   That a conservative politician managed to say that with a straight face astonishes me.  It completely overlooks the fact that the nation's LGBT population are denied the right to marry for love -- something readily accepted as a right for straight couples.

At least on paper and in policy we have to appear to be ridding ourselves of discrimination, intolerance and bigotry.  It has taken the LGBT a long time to come out of their closets, to be seen and to be accepted as human beings with all the dignity and rights accorded to the rest of us.  It is still a fight with the diehards for the status quo, but in time I hope that a person's sexual orientation will be worthy of no more comment than is eye colour.

ON GUNS

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.  [Matthew 5:39]

So with that in mind we have to ask ourselves -- what firearm would Christ use?   

 

And in recent news we have the assassination of Charlie Kirk on 10 Sep.  The shooter is in custody.  A shooting in Southport, NC on 27 Sep, 3 dead.  The shooter is in custody.  A shooting in Grand Blanc, on 28 Sep, 5 dead, including the shooter.  And that is just in the past month.  Gets repetitious.

 

ON SIN 

One yahoo commenter asked me how I could consider myself a tolerant person if I openly denied Christians the right to be intolerant of behaviors they consider to be sinful and to point out those sins to others.  My answer is that I am tolerant and respectful of other's beliefs provided that they are tolerant and respectful of mine.  Since it is clear that modern Christian fundamentalists are unable to accept any POV but their own we seem to be at an impasse on the issue of tolerance.

 

But when it comes to the matter of sin the Bible-thumpers again have not read what Christ said on the subject.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]

The modern fundamentalist Christian seems to think there is an inalienable right to be cruel to other people based on their perception of sin.  Further many seem to believe that if they don't address the sins they perceive in those around them that somehow God is going to punish the innocent for the sins of others.  It was this tortured logic that led Reverend Pat Robertson to blame the devastating earthquake in Haiti in 2010 on devil worship performed 200 years earlier.

 

[The Haitians] "were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever.  And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' "  

[Reverend Pat Robertson, January 23, 2010]

Robertson, along with fellow crazed Christian Jerry Falwell, also famously linked the 911 terrorist attack with “the pagans, the abortions, the feminists and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, (and) People For the American Way.”  

This sort of thinking was prevalent from early times through 16th century Calvinism when people did not understand how bad things could happen to good people and so blamed our secret sins as the cause of God's wrath.  If smallpox raged through the village, it must be because someone was coveting his neighbor's ass.  Most of us have long abandoned believing there is a correlation between catastrophes (both natural and man-made) with God's wrath.

 

Except for Propaganda Barbie who opined that a recent earthquake in Utah was God's wrath for the death of Charlie Kirk.  No, honey, that was Satan throwing a kegger for the new arrival. The primitive brains of fundamentalists are seemingly incapable of thinking rationally.  

More than that, this mindset truly insults the deity they profess to love and worship.  Their God -- the Old Testament Jehovah -- is petty and vindictive, slaughtering the innocent to punish the guilty.  This is not the loving forgiving deity of the New Testament, the heavenly father of Jesus Christ.  It makes me wonder why they consider themselves to be Christian when their actions run so counter with Christ's words.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. [Matthew 7:20]