Thursday, April 7, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
WHEEW!! What a day!
Employees who work with computers must have an eye medical visit every few years. OK, I suppose it is good that they worry about
our health. But the doctor who examined me is a fool. Since they could not see
well at the bottom of my pupils that shrink when hit with a bright light (I would like to see theirs) gave me a massive dose of ATHROPINE in the eyes to freeze my pupils open. I
say, Athropine is poisonous. Just one dose just a bit too strong and you're in the arms of Jesus
Now, as I got back to work I saw all suffused in a halo of light, as if I were in
Paradise-but it was not at all pleasant. I was sick. I more or less managed to return
to work and do something . But, guys, I thought of dying. Isn't there an episode of Columbo where a doctor kills
someone with atropine? Well, I felt as the victim in that episode. I felt like I escaped from
an assassination attempt. The next time you know what I'll tell the girls of Medical Surveillance? If some problem should arise, I let you know.
our health. But the doctor who examined me is a fool. Since they could not see
well at the bottom of my pupils that shrink when hit with a bright light (I would like to see theirs) gave me a massive dose of ATHROPINE in the eyes to freeze my pupils open. I
say, Athropine is poisonous. Just one dose just a bit too strong and you're in the arms of Jesus
Now, as I got back to work I saw all suffused in a halo of light, as if I were in
Paradise-but it was not at all pleasant. I was sick. I more or less managed to return
to work and do something . But, guys, I thought of dying. Isn't there an episode of Columbo where a doctor kills
someone with atropine? Well, I felt as the victim in that episode. I felt like I escaped from
an assassination attempt. The next time you know what I'll tell the girls of Medical Surveillance? If some problem should arise, I let you know.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Jesus as an openly gay man What if the newly found codices provided evidence of Jesus's same-sex activity?
* Comment is free
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2Frss+%28Comment+is+free%29
The question: What would you add to the Bible?
The most astounding finding from the newly discovered lead codices is that Jesus Christ was unambiguously and openly gay. He and his disciples formed a same-sex coterie, bound by feelings of love and mutual support. There are recorded instances of same-sex activity – the "beloved disciple" plays a significant role – and there is affirmation of the joys of friendship and of living and loving together.
A whole new complexion is given to that rather puzzling passage where Jesus exhorts his followers to break family ties: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14, 26). It seems clear now that this is less a negative repudiation of family and more a positive exhortation to join in affirmation of a gay lifestyle and love.
There is at least one new parable, that of the two young men. There are clear echoes of the relationship between David and Jonathan, for Jesus speaks of one young man having his soul "knit with the soul" of the other, and loving him "as his own soul". Intriguing is evidence that the Catholics might be closer to the truth about the status of Mary, the mother of Jesus, than are the Protestants. She has a much bigger role in the life of Jesus than many hitherto expected, with Jesus frequently returning home and making much of her.
Conversely, there is at least one incident when Jesus quarrels violently with Joseph, who shows great hostility and makes wild claims about "manliness". Before, one might have thought that, given Mary's virginity, Joseph's attitude was reflecting the ambiguities of his status in the family; but now it seems more probable that we have here a classic example of the Freudian triangle: over-possessive mother, hostile father, gay son.
Why have we known so little about all of this before? A newly discovered Pauline epistle, appropriately to the Athenians, suggests a major Platonic influence, particularly of the Republic. The classically educated Paul, who was himself gay, saw that same-sex activity was inimical to the success of Christianity in the highly homophobic societies in which he lived. Hence, same-sex affections and activity were concealed, to be known to and practised by only the leaders in secret – the guardians of Christianity as one might say. Obviously, this is a tradition that has flourished and lasted. It is not by chance that John Henry Newman is being made a saint.
Finally, the most important news is that nothing in the newly discovered codices challenges in any way the essential message of Christianity. Jesus was the messiah; he died on the cross for our sins; and through his death and resurrection made possible our eternal salvation. Our overriding obligation is to love God and we do this by loving our neighbours as ourselves. Christianity will never be the same again. Christianity will go on completely unchanged.
Tell that to the "God Hates this and that" Phelps' Roadside Freakshow...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2Frss+%28Comment+is+free%29
The question: What would you add to the Bible?
The most astounding finding from the newly discovered lead codices is that Jesus Christ was unambiguously and openly gay. He and his disciples formed a same-sex coterie, bound by feelings of love and mutual support. There are recorded instances of same-sex activity – the "beloved disciple" plays a significant role – and there is affirmation of the joys of friendship and of living and loving together.
A whole new complexion is given to that rather puzzling passage where Jesus exhorts his followers to break family ties: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14, 26). It seems clear now that this is less a negative repudiation of family and more a positive exhortation to join in affirmation of a gay lifestyle and love.
There is at least one new parable, that of the two young men. There are clear echoes of the relationship between David and Jonathan, for Jesus speaks of one young man having his soul "knit with the soul" of the other, and loving him "as his own soul". Intriguing is evidence that the Catholics might be closer to the truth about the status of Mary, the mother of Jesus, than are the Protestants. She has a much bigger role in the life of Jesus than many hitherto expected, with Jesus frequently returning home and making much of her.
Conversely, there is at least one incident when Jesus quarrels violently with Joseph, who shows great hostility and makes wild claims about "manliness". Before, one might have thought that, given Mary's virginity, Joseph's attitude was reflecting the ambiguities of his status in the family; but now it seems more probable that we have here a classic example of the Freudian triangle: over-possessive mother, hostile father, gay son.
Why have we known so little about all of this before? A newly discovered Pauline epistle, appropriately to the Athenians, suggests a major Platonic influence, particularly of the Republic. The classically educated Paul, who was himself gay, saw that same-sex activity was inimical to the success of Christianity in the highly homophobic societies in which he lived. Hence, same-sex affections and activity were concealed, to be known to and practised by only the leaders in secret – the guardians of Christianity as one might say. Obviously, this is a tradition that has flourished and lasted. It is not by chance that John Henry Newman is being made a saint.
Finally, the most important news is that nothing in the newly discovered codices challenges in any way the essential message of Christianity. Jesus was the messiah; he died on the cross for our sins; and through his death and resurrection made possible our eternal salvation. Our overriding obligation is to love God and we do this by loving our neighbours as ourselves. Christianity will never be the same again. Christianity will go on completely unchanged.
Tell that to the "God Hates this and that" Phelps' Roadside Freakshow...
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Bogus "Religious Freedom" Ruse of Modern Day Pharisee Christians
From the Blog of Michael in Norfolk
Yesterday afternoon the boyfriend and I attended the funeral of one of his elderly clients in a beautiful old church in downtown Hampton. One of the banners hanging in the sanctuary had the statement "Love One Another as I Have Loved You." From what I know of this church, many of its members do indeed work to follow this motto which, if applied universally would transform society. Sadly, the professional Christian set and modern day Pharisees among conservative denominations - the Christianists if you will - act as if they have never heard the passage. Instead, their public pronouncements are almost without exception focused on hatred. Hatred towards gays. Hatred towards minorities. Hatred towards non-Christians. Hatred towards Hispanics and immigrants. It truly is all about who and what they hate. Closely tied to this underlying theme of hatred is a contempt for the right of others to hold different religious beliefs. Or - God forbid - wish to live their lives as they decide and not as the Christianists would dictate. This contempt carries over into the disingenuous mantra that gay rights is a threat to religious freedom. If anyone threatens religious freedom, its the ever lying Christianists. Alex Blaze at The Bilerico Project looks at this devious and knowingly disingenuous refrain. Here are some highlights:
*
The point, time and time again, isn't about increasing freedom for everyone or even increasing religious freedom for everyone, but making sure that people deemed sufficiently Real American can't be criticized or forced to act with any decency to people deemed less American.
*
The jingoism is made obvious by the fact that the people who say that, say, a high school counselor who doesn't want to treat queer students should be allowed to keep their job because of religious freedom are the very same people who oppose the construction of Muslim community centers
*
Their appeal isn't to a higher principle when they say that LGBT rights mean less religious freedom - their appeal is for Americans to stop thinking and support the people who look and act most like them. Bryan Fischer, a rightwing crank and neo-Know Nothing, argued just that last week when he said that the First Amendment doesn't cover Muslims, just Christians.
*
His opinion is, of course, based on faulty data. He cites a fictional story about Thomas Jefferson realizing that Islam was going to destroy America and says that that means the Founders didn't want Islam protected by the First Amendment.
*
But being right or wrong isn't important here since most of Fischer's audience isn't going to look up what Jefferson thought about Islam. The reason I bring this up is that Fischer just plain says what we've been accusing the Religious Right of believing: that religious freedom is important to them insofar as it benefits them, not anyone else.
*
He put it right out there that claims for religious freedom are in fact about promoting Christianity. Last I checked, that was against the Constitution. Maybe someone should tell these folks.
For religious bigot "Religious Freedom means to be able to impose their narrow view on everyone else. Freedom from them to take it away from others. They can shove it!
Yesterday afternoon the boyfriend and I attended the funeral of one of his elderly clients in a beautiful old church in downtown Hampton. One of the banners hanging in the sanctuary had the statement "Love One Another as I Have Loved You." From what I know of this church, many of its members do indeed work to follow this motto which, if applied universally would transform society. Sadly, the professional Christian set and modern day Pharisees among conservative denominations - the Christianists if you will - act as if they have never heard the passage. Instead, their public pronouncements are almost without exception focused on hatred. Hatred towards gays. Hatred towards minorities. Hatred towards non-Christians. Hatred towards Hispanics and immigrants. It truly is all about who and what they hate. Closely tied to this underlying theme of hatred is a contempt for the right of others to hold different religious beliefs. Or - God forbid - wish to live their lives as they decide and not as the Christianists would dictate. This contempt carries over into the disingenuous mantra that gay rights is a threat to religious freedom. If anyone threatens religious freedom, its the ever lying Christianists. Alex Blaze at The Bilerico Project looks at this devious and knowingly disingenuous refrain. Here are some highlights:
*
The point, time and time again, isn't about increasing freedom for everyone or even increasing religious freedom for everyone, but making sure that people deemed sufficiently Real American can't be criticized or forced to act with any decency to people deemed less American.
*
The jingoism is made obvious by the fact that the people who say that, say, a high school counselor who doesn't want to treat queer students should be allowed to keep their job because of religious freedom are the very same people who oppose the construction of Muslim community centers
*
Their appeal isn't to a higher principle when they say that LGBT rights mean less religious freedom - their appeal is for Americans to stop thinking and support the people who look and act most like them. Bryan Fischer, a rightwing crank and neo-Know Nothing, argued just that last week when he said that the First Amendment doesn't cover Muslims, just Christians.
*
His opinion is, of course, based on faulty data. He cites a fictional story about Thomas Jefferson realizing that Islam was going to destroy America and says that that means the Founders didn't want Islam protected by the First Amendment.
*
But being right or wrong isn't important here since most of Fischer's audience isn't going to look up what Jefferson thought about Islam. The reason I bring this up is that Fischer just plain says what we've been accusing the Religious Right of believing: that religious freedom is important to them insofar as it benefits them, not anyone else.
*
He put it right out there that claims for religious freedom are in fact about promoting Christianity. Last I checked, that was against the Constitution. Maybe someone should tell these folks.
For religious bigot "Religious Freedom means to be able to impose their narrow view on everyone else. Freedom from them to take it away from others. They can shove it!
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)