Sunday, July 04, 2004

Fundamentalist Christians Hatred Towards Gays, and What the Bible Says About Homosexuality

Today, I was going to post about something other than what follows. However, in my morning internet browsing, I stumbled upon this page. Simply disgusting. I felt I had to say something about it here. The answer is so obvious, and it just goes to show that Christians know nothing about biology, sex, or any other form of science for that matter. They simply take statistics and use them as evidence to support their hate. Funny how they can use one science (statistics) to push their case, but ignore another (biology) that explains the statistics.

It's quite obvious to me that the reason that the majority of HIV patients are homosexual. You see, it is a well known fact that sexual transmission of the HIV virus is much more "successful" from a male partner. Men pass HIV to women much more frequently than women pass it to men. I can hear the Johnston family saying, "Well that just proves HIV was designed to destroy homosexuals!" Hardly. I'm sure they realize, as I do, that lesbians are homosexuals also right? Why would god design the plague to kill off homosexuals and not make it easily transferable from women to women? Perhaps god is just as infatuated with some hot girl on girl action as the rest of males are. Maybe the Johnston family would just say this is more proof that god is a man?

I have to take an aside here also to wonder about something. I wonder exactly what it is that the peoples of Africa have done to piss off god so much. I mean, they represent about ten percent of the world's population, but posses roughly seventee percent of the world's HIV cases. This is even more extreme than homosexuals with their ten to sixty percent ratio!

Next up in the article we see the silly argument about digging ditches or eating pudding. Of course, we all know you could eat pudding off of a shovel and not be harmed, or dig a ditch (while it may take some time) with a spoon while avoiding bodily injury. These are just more of the whacked-out analogies that Christians often use.

Next we see the invariable proof that the penis was designed for procreation. The article says that you don't need to read the bible to know this. They say the penis's only purpose is urination and procreation. Well, I've had some very fun times with my penis, and they didn't involve urination or procreation. The fact that the penis is used for sexual pleasure is missed by Christians I guess. Who would have imagined that? Oh let's not forget the obligatory, "We're talking about gays so let's not forget our witty Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve line"

Following, we see the argument about gays not being born gay. The Christians always say that gays choose to be gay. This argument is fallible on two accounts. One, when does a straight person choose to be straight? I know that I never did. It was just natural for me, as I'm sure it is for most homosexuals. The proof that people can be born with mis-matched wiring between mind and sex-organ is evident in the fact that there are people born with both sex organs. Doctor's usually end up amputating one and leaving the other. How do they know which one the infant's brain is wired for? This person may grow up with a female brain, but male sex organs. Two, why, in this world of bigotry against homosexuals, would someone choose to be gay? They are simply exposing themselves to discrimination, hardship, and hate. This makes no sense.

The article continues to site how violent the homosexual lifestyle is. It lists how high the suicide rate is among homosexuals. I wonder why this is? Could it be due to the fact that generally, homosexuals are hated, vilified, crucified and demonized by a large portion of the population? Could it be sites and propaganda such as the Johnston family's website that make the homosexual life incredibly difficult, when it needs not be?

The percentages on gay drug use are so varied and in such a wide range that it seems obvious these statistics are probably made up, and if not made up, these survey are completely invalid due to the huge range of difference between them.

The section on serial killers being gay as evidence how evil homosexuals are is completely ridiculous. The site even says that "Leading serial killers are all homosexual!!!" The emphasis on "all" is their own. This statement is completely false. Just type "serial killers" into google and you'll see that the dozen or so killers listed on the ministry's site are no where near the leading killers. Some I found are Pedro Alonso Lopez (three hundred plus murders), H.H.Holmes (two hundred-plus murders), Hu Wanlin (one hundred plus murders), Richard "Iceman" Kuklinski (forty or more murders), and Moses Sithole (at least thirty eight murders), were all heterosexual serial killers. In fact, the majority are. I would say that Pedro Alonso Lopez, with at least three hundred murders would be much more of a "leading serial killer" than the ones listed on that page with a meager thirty or forty murders. Why, Jefferey Dahmer only killed seventeen people, while the very heterosexual Ted Bundy managed at least twenty-two! According to their logic that homosexuals are more likely to be serial killers because some were, Moses should be a serial killer, because a serial killer is named Moses! Well we all know Moses wasn't a serial killer...well, not counting leading a nation to commit genocide against a number of peoples and all that.

Near the end of this article, we find more statistics about how homosexuals are more likely to be murdered and commit suicide. We've already gone over this. With all the hate the Christians foster against homosexuals, is it any surprise?

We end the article with quotes from the book of god's love, the bible. Here it tells us how much god hates gays. It says, "If you are not compliant with the moral law of God, which forbids ALL lust, including masturbation and homosexuality, you are headed for HELL!!!" Sure, the bible says that a sodomite is " abomination unto the Lord" in Deuteronomy 23:17-18, but it also says in Deutoronomy 22:5 that women that wear men's clothing (pants, anyone?) are " abomination unto the Lord" I wonder if most Christians women who wear pants are aware that they are just as an abomination in god's eyes as homosexuals? Paul even writes in Romans 1:32-33 that homosexuals are "worthy of death". So remember this next time you need someone to kill. No need to seek out a homosexual, just find a woman wearing pants!

What about homosexuality in the bible? It is all condemned, is it not?

If you read 1 Samuel 18:1 in the bible, it would seem that David ( one of the most respected old testament kings ), and Jonathan, had a sexual relationship, "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." I think we can all agree that loving yourself could have a wide range of meanings. In 1 Samuel 18:2 the bible says, "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." Sounds like kidnapping and forced sex to me. It gets hotter, with 1 Samuel 18:3-4 being almost explicit, "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." People back then didn't wear undergarments, so this means Jonathan stripped naked in front of David. In 1 Samuel 20:41 the bible says, "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." These quotes are from the New International Version, and it's funny to note that in every translation save The Living Bible translation, it says they kissed. In the Living bible, it says here, "...and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." The translators couldn't stand the thought of two men kissing to such an extent that they mistranslated the Hebrew text! Later, in 2 Samuel 1:26 the bible says, "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." It's obvious that David valued the love and companionship of Jonathan more than women from this statement alone! It was not proper for a man to have a platonic relationship with a woman, so the only relationship, or "love" David would be referring to here would be sexual love. It would seem strange for David to be comparing platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman.

Another possible sexual relationship exists between one of the most well known prophets, Daniel, and Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, who was the King of Babylon. It is in Daniel 1:9, and the New International Version of the bible translates the ancient texts to say, "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel.", the King James Version says, "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.", while the Revised Standard Edition says, "And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs." The original Hebrew language used here to describe the nature of their relationship is "chesed v'rachamim". "Chesed" means "mercy", and "v'rachamim" means "mercy" or "physical love". It seems unlikely that the bible would say that Daniel had "mercy and mercy" for Ashpenaz, as it is redundant. It seems to make more sense that it says "mercy and physical love", does it not?

In conclusion, I think it's safe to say that Christians really don't follow the entire bible. There are references to homosexual relationships between well known biblical figures, not to mention the fact that Jesus said that anyone who believes and has faith in him would go to heaven. I think it's safe to say that everyone includes homosexuals.

Center for Disease Control
National Public Radio News
She Comes First by Iam Kerner, Ph.D.
Serial Killer Hit List

Read more!

A Bit of Biblical History

Christianity is based solely on the book known as the bible. It is the best selling book of all time, but ironically it is probably one of the least read books around. Roughly eighty percent of the U.S. population claims to be Christian. Despite this, if you ask the average person on the streets of America to name five commandments, I can almost guarantee you that they will not be able to do so successfully without mentioning the sixth or eighth. A sad state of affairs I would say for a nation that is mostly Christian.

There are more than two hundred and fifty complete Judeo-Christian writings that have been found from the early parts of this past millennium. All are stories, teachings, and other messages from "god", and all are similar in style to the ones found in the modern bible. Only sixty-six of these are contained in the bible (seventy seven in the roman catholic bible). How was the decision made to put certain writings in and not others? Was it inspiration from god? Hardly.

For the first one hundred and fifty years after Jesus's birth (the reality/unreality of which will be discussed at a later time), there was no bible. The people of that time, to include the apostles, twelve disciples (well if you add the names of the disciples listed in the gospels, you get thirteen even though Matthew 10:1 says Jesus had twelve), and early christians used the Jewish books of the Old Testament for their bible. In fact, there were over one hundred books that were written as gospels: stories relating the life of Jesus. This number was trimmed down to four in the latter half of the second century by St.Irenaeus. Did he do this because god told him to do so? Here is the reason St.Irenaeus himself gave, "There are four quarters of the earth in which we live and four universal winds." Sounds a bit more like the reasoning of a pagan than a christian, doesn't it? It is also important to remember that St.Irenaeus did not canonize these gospels until the last half of the second century. There were no "gospels" for the disciples, or even for Paul who is the most prolific author in the new testament.

Well what about the men who wrote these gospels? Well it is impossible that they even came from the area of Palestine considering the many geographical and legal errors that exist in the Bible. The gospels speak numerous times about incorrect travel routes, cities, and other such geographical items. In Mark 10:12, Jesus speaks of a woman divorcing her husband, and that her act is considered adultery. This was a legal impossibility at the time, something a person living there would have known. Why would Jesus teach the people this, when the only known divorce was that of a husband divorcing the wife? It is obvious that the person writing this was not very aware of well known laws regarding marriage. Also take into account that there is very little originality from one gospel to another, and it's hard to believe that these were eye witnesses, as bible scholars claim. Had they witnessed Jesus's life, wouldn't there be a number of things said in one gospel that weren't said in the others? It seems likely. Instead, we find roughly the same miracles and parables, rife with inter-gospel discrepancies in contradictions. There are so many I will not go into them all there, but as an example, compare Matthew 28:1-8 to John 20:1-18. In Matthew we have Mary Magdalene and the other Mary going to Jesus's tomb. There an angel tell them that Jesus has risen and where to find him. The women run away with great joy to tell the disciples. In John, we have Mary Magdalene running to the disciples, yelling about how somebody stole Jesus's body and that she doesn't know where he is. As the disciples were in the tomb looking around, Mary stood outside crying. Jesus appears to her and talks to her. There are a number of discrepancies between these two account alone. How did Mary Magdalene find out Jesus had risen? Was it an angel, or Jesus himself that told her? I will delve more into the contradiction that is the bible at a later date. Suffice to say that these people did not have their stories straight.

I suppose this is acceptable as they were written between a few decades and an entire century or more after Jesus lived! It would be very hard I'm sure for an old man to remember, in perfect detail, things he saw when he was a young boy. Alas, we are talking about the bible here, and it is inspired by god. Why would god purposefully put discrepancies and blatant contradictions in the only thing teaching us how to avoid the fires of the hell he has prepared for us? It's simple. He didn't. The bible is nothing more than ancient Judeo-Christian writings, that were slapped together by men as fallible as you and I centuries ago.

The bible has changed so much over the thousands of years since Jesus's life that it is hard to take it seriously. It has had dozens of iterations, translations, and interpretations. Why, the modern bible with sixty six books wasn't even put together until as recently as 1647, almost two millennia after Jesus lived!

Who Wrote the Bible - And When?
The Skeptics Annotated Bible
American Atheists
New Advent

Read more!

Why Atheism?

Atheism literally means "without theology". It is not the hatred of god, nor is it a religion or set of rules.I am an atheist because I have no religious beliefs. Atheists are only united in their lack of religious belief, and come from all walks of life including doctors, lawyers, truck drivers, homeless, teachers, etc. I don't believe the bible is the inspired word of god, I don't believe that Jesus was the saviour of mankind, and find it doubtful that he even lived.

I am not an atheist because no one has ever "witnessed" to me, or told me about Jesus or any other religion and their leaders. In fact, if you read this, you will see that I was a pretty much hardcore, fundamentalist baptist for a number of years. I think it's important to point out that this was not taught to me by my parents, so I do fall into what some think to be the common stereotype. This stereotype is that atheists are usually only atheists in rebellion to religion being forced down their throats while growing up.

I made this site to expose the many lies, hypocrasies, and contradictions that are supposed "truths" in the bible. I was an avid bible studier, and still read the bible on occasion, mainly when I'm doing research, so I know the bible to a fair degree. It is safe to say, in my opinion, that I probably know the bible much better than most of the roughly 80% of americans that declare themselves "christian".

Here are some great quotes by Madalyn O'Hair, a prolific atheist activist. They sum up my feelings quite well.

Read more!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Add this blog to your My AOL, My Yahoo, Google Homepage, or other reader! Add to Google