SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

U.S. | LGBTI / Queer

Christian Right Places Marriage Institition Above Love
by Jesus Christ the Anarchist
Monday Jan 23rd, 2012 2:54 PM
Why do Christians who claim to be for peace love and understanding as practiced by the man they claim to follow, Jesus Christ. However, when looking at the details we discover that Jesus Christ in his actions and lifestyle was more like a homelss anarchist than a wealthy televangelist preaching "prosperity gospel".
Christians from the right wing perspective place a great deal of emphasis on the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. They spend a great deal of energy attacking the homosexuals for wanting to get married. Then someone who may be in love with a Christian is expected to suffer in isolation because their faith requires the institution of marriage to validate their love, no matter how strong it is. If someone is wounded emotionally that is not the concern of these Christians, provided that the lovers are not "living in sin".

As someone with personal experience in mental institutions, the thought of forced marriage into a religion i don't believe sounds like a trip back to psych central. Yes, we also fall in love with Christians despite all logical warnings and we are capable of experiencing genuine emotional pain after being dumped for another who is able to get married. Our pain and suffering is ignored by these so-called Christians who are more concerned with their public appearance than the feelings of the less fortunate.

We do not like to level the term "hypocrite" with a broad brush against all Christians, as there are a few good ones out there. However, the right wing version of Christianity that preaches hatred against homosexuality and marriage uber alles is destined for a rude awakening. We will no longer tolerate hateful Christianity to contaminate the teachings of Jesus Christ the Anarchist (NOT ANTI-Christ, as there are plenty of these preaching from the evangelical pulpits).

Jesus Christ the Anarchist is coming soon to turn the Christian church upside down on it's head and shake out all the hypocrites, liars and hateful bigots that cloud the name of the righteous truth warrior Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was the original anarchist who died trying to overthrow the tyranny of the Roman Empire that occupied his home by claiming to be divine (metaphysics?). Today the Christian Anarchist tries to overthrow the U.S. Empire and their unlimited overseas military occupations using direct action and activism. Martyrs like Rachel Corrie and Brad Will have died trying to accomplish this task, though they were not claiming to be Christians, as anarchist activists they sacrificed their lives to the same end; justice against tyranny.


Authority redefined: Christ Calls for Anarchy

In Matthew 23 Jesus utters probably the most profoundly offensive rebuke against a group of people than that of the entire New Testament. An entire chapter is devoted to this sharp judgment against the pharisaical religious authority system. In verse 8 he says: 
"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your [Leader], and you are all brothers …Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. (NASB)”

What a radical thought! Essentially Jesus said “You are all brothers and you have no leadership authority over you except for me!” If taken literally, almost 100% of our current Christian congregations are disobeying this command! Let us attempt to see what Jesus was teaching about leadership by looking at another passage. Matthew 20:25-26 says “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you!” Here Jesus is issuing another painful attack on authority. The most honest interpretation of the passage (both from the words used and the grammatical structure of the Greek) is that Jesus is not only condemning the misuse of evil authority here but simply the act of “exercising authority over” people! So what is the answer? In Matthew 5 Jesus seems to demand recognition of all authority, and here he openly condemns the use of authority! Jesus provides the answer in the verse directly following his statement in Matthew chapter 20. It all has to do with our understanding of submission. 



http://christiananarchy.com/



To the Christian right; try to stop being hypocrites. Nobody is claiming perfection, even Christian anarchists admit they are sometimes hypocrites. At least we can admit to our failings, while the Christian right seems to feel that they are beyond error.


Christians are hypocrites



Christians, they love to talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate they are, yet I have yet to meet ONE who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree. Their willful ignorance of the Bible combined with their two faced idealism to preach it, has made us sick, hasn’t it? For nearly two thousand years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralism. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft- noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Christians practice what can only be described as “selective morality”. What they like, they cling to and shove down other’s throats; what they don’t like, they ignore vehemently. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago. Their hypocrisy is so rampant that even the validity of calling oneself “Christian” is in question. I see so many people enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul’s sermons, but don’t even PRETEND to heed other, equally valid, maxims. I’ve mentioned pro-life and conservatism in other sermons. This one is going to sum up the rest of my beefs.

Hypocrisy of Marital Relationships: So many Christians try to rationalize this but it is clear that a true follower of Jesus can neither divorce someone nor marry someone who is divorced. There is an exception to the rule, however. If spouse commits adultery, divorce is permissible. On the same token, the Bible also says that anyone who obtains a divorce and marries another is in adulterer. Remember that 80% of this country is Christian yet we have a 50% divorce rate. A majority of divorces are a result of irreconcilable differences, not adultery, which implies that Christians are again practicing selective morality. How many Christians are working on a second, third or fourth marriage?

1) “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6 & Mark 10:9).

2) “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32, 19:9 & Luke 16:18).

3) "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery" (Matthew 5:32).

4) "...whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11 & Luke 16:18), which applies to women as well (Mark 10:12).

On to another beef: The Christian attempts to put prayer into schools run directly counter to biblical teachings. Jesus said prayer should be a private affair devoid of public display: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV). Biblicists violate this on a regular basis and have no intention of correcting their behavior. They demand that evolution be taken out of the curriculum. They demand parochial school receive voucher programs so that they may collect public funding. Christians continuously pray in public, IE: churches, street corners, schools, courts, etc. yet all the while they never stop to think this is in direct violation to the god they pray to.

I, of course, know why this is voluntarily ignored. Public prayer forces the peers of school children to jump on the band wagon and pray. We are all aware that the church is simply a business which employs tactics similar to that of tobacco industries in recruiting consumers. Get the kids while they are young and vulnerable so that they become donating members of the church when they reach adulthood. I find it humorous that other businesses warn their consumers on the package that it is dangerous to one’s health while Churches don’t put warning labels on the bible for the pornography and immorality it contains. The psychological damage organized religion causes is notably prevalent. Cancer from smoking and cirrhosis from drinking is JUST AS HARMFUL as the psychosis believers develop concerning reality. The “I see demons” complex is more rampant in Christians then it is in acid dropping space cadets. I am not saying this as a joke. There are literal studies done on this topic and they are in accordance to what I am conveying here.

Christians always use the excuse that the above mentioned verse is some how “metaphorical” yet they take Paul’s maxim that men should pray with their heads uncovered very seriously. I assume this is generally followed because removing one’s hat isn’t particularly inconvenient. "Any man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head…" (1 Corinthians 11:4 RSV). On the other hand, Paul’s tenet that women must keep their heads covered with a veil during prayer is quite inconvenient and, for this reason, has either been rationalized away or ignored, although it is no less binding than any other moral law in the New Testament: “…but any woman who prays or prophecies with her head unveiled dishonors her head… For if a woman will not veil herself, then we should cut off her hair: but if it be disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil… Judge for yourself; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?” (1 Corinthians 11:5-13 RSV) The selectivity in which these verses are followed SCREAMS hypocrisy.



More Commonly Ignored Teachings:

1) "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (l Corinthians 11:14). How many freaked out long-haired, bible thumping Jesus freaks do you know? Perhaps this is just my experience, but I can name 12 such individuals off the top of my head. Surely, you can recall at least ONE LONG-HAIRED CHRISTIAN. The stereotypical version of CHRIST HIMSELF! Think of the numerous statues and pictures Christians adore depicting the lord appearing as that which he detests. One can not stop and wonder at the absurdity of this.

2) Another tenet clearly prohibits women from being ministers or otherwise speaking in church (“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”-- 1 Corinthians 14:34). It’s difficult to see how Paul could support the current movement to ordain women. Why, Jesus would shit himself knowing that even I, an ATHEIST WOMAN, has managed to get herself legally ordained.

3) A third tenet prohibits men and women from wearing each other’s clothing (“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). Funny thing, two female Jehovah Witnesses came over this morning, they coffee clutched with my neighbor Jenny, a fellow Christian and ALL THREE of these women were wearing pant suits!

4) Ever watch these Christians on television and notice how their bowed heads uniformly shake amen while some evangelist goes on and on in prayer for a fucking hour? Well, repetitious and monotonous praying is in violation of Matthew 6:7. “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

5) Christians are not supposed to take their disputes before non-Christian courts or judges. (“If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” -- 1 Corinthians 6:1 NIV) How interesting! Considering that state is separate from church all courts are supposedly “ungodly”. Does this stop Christians from tying up the supreme court with law suits concerning school prayer, abortion, or numerous other absurdities? Hell no it doesn’t, and my taxes are paying the fucking bill for their hypocrisy!

6) Christian women are supposed to dress discreetly (“...that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire”--l Timothy 2:9 RSV; and “Let not yours be the outward adorning of braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing”-- 1 Peter 3 :3). Violations of these rules are too numerous to mention. Just visualize Tammy Faye Baker’s mascara laden eyes and gold encrusted wrists.

7) Here is perhaps the mother of verses ignored: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1) and “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37). I have yet to meet a Christian who has not judged my atheism. The whole world is chalk full of judges, juries, voters, employers, teachers, etc. which are all constantly judging others.

8) Believers are supposed to hate their parents when they follow Jesus (“If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Well, considering that Christians do not abandon their families but usually attempt to brainwash them they are all guilty of not following this verse. “It’s symbolic”, yeah, I know your lame ass defense to this one already.

9) They are not to oppose evil (“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”-- Matthew 5:39). If this were followed one might just as well abolish law enforcement.

10) Biblicists are not allowed to call anyone “father” (“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). Not only is this rule ignored on a DAILY BASIS, but Catholicism uses “father” as a specific title.

11) Christians are not supposed to plan or prepare. God will provide (“Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on... Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?” --Matthew 6:25-34 & Luke 12:22-31 inclusive). I see Christian conservatives plot on a daily basis how to screw their employees so they can reap more profits.

12) Lastly, Jesus, who clearly is of greater importance than Paul, said the Old Law was to remain in force until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”-Matthew 5:18-19 RSV). Heaven and earth still exist and many prophecies are not yet fulfilled. How many times have you heard some lame ass Christian say “the Old testament doesn’t matter, Jesus was the lamb and abolished it”? Don’t let them get away with this shit for even the bible says that they should still be following the Old Law.

This verse leads me into an observation of how clear their selective morality can be exposed. Take for instance how Biblicists approach the Old Testament. They leap in and out of the Old Law like a porpoise in a ship’s wake. If they like it, they quote it; if they don’t, they won’t. Among the scores of verses they enjoy and employ are those which teach the following:

13) Contact with mediums or wizards is forbidden (“Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God”-- Leviticus 19:3 1 RSV, see also: Leviticus 20:6 & Deuteronomy 18: 10-12). Here’s an interesting little stat; Christians more then any other faith consult mystics and self-proclaimed oracles.

14) People should give one-tenth of their income to the Lord, which Biblicists equate with church (“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s...And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord”--Leviticus 27:30-32)

15) Tattoos are anathema: (“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you. I am the Lord”--Leviticus 19:28) Despite this teaching I manage to see Mexican Catholics daily with tattoos of the Virgin Mary, Jesus or a set of praying hands on their forearms and shoulder blades.

16) Money cannot be lent at interest to your brother, only to foreigners (Deuteronomy 23: 19-20) Ahhh, I’m recalling all the Christian banking corporations....

17) Eating pork is forbidden (Deuteronomy 14:8). Hmm, I’ve never met a Christian who DIDN’T enjoy bacon and eggs.

18) A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother’s wife (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). This goes without explaining of course.

19) A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Exodus 22:16-17)

20) A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). What justice the “moral majority” advocates!

21) There are several petty and silly little verses in the O.T., but none the less, they are to be followed. I guess it’s okay to disobey the lord for fashion’s sake. Beards can’t be rounded (Leviticus 19:27); A garment composed of wool and linen can’t be worn (Deuteronomy 22:11); Note: this explains why you will commonly see orthodox Jews with the long beards and black clothing. I say Christians should do this too so we can identify their stupidity upon first impression.

22) Bastards can’t enter the Lord’s congregation. (Deuteronomy 23:2) Hey, I know this is harsh, but God commands it, hence it must be “just”.

All of these rules are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import. Why quote the Ten Commandments and ignore other tenets? A believer’s obligation to one is no less than his obligation to all. In fact, if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office. They seem to want the former but not the latter. Biblicists teach, preach, and attempt to reach others with moralism, but are not averse to selectively using that which suits their interests.

I’d like to close this essay with how to catch a Christian in the act. When you see them expounding a verse and ignoring another, call them on it. I know what you’ll hear. They’ll say, “that’s from the Old Law and we aren’t under the Old Law anymore”. Trip them with this: “But aren’t the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law?” “Yes, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT” (Matthew 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19 & Luke 18:18-22). Immediately point out to them that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, “though shall not defraud” ! Before they can get a word in edge wise finish them off with: “According to scripture it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail” (Luke 16:17 & Matthew 5:18-19). If sin is transgression of the law, as 1 John 3:4 says, then you should be following all of the Old Law. This, from experience, is the best way to shoot down these idiots and bar them from getting away with their hypocrisy.


http://www.evilbible.com/christians_are_hypocrites.htm


Reach out and touch faith!

http://soundcloud.com/phat-salmon/personal-jesus-depeche-mode
by Got help from Alaric and the Visogoths
Monday Jan 23rd, 2012 3:59 PM
It is misleading to claim that Jesus himself caused the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire had overextended themselves with too many military occupations and pissed off too many tribal people. What began with Jesus protesting the Roman occupation of Judea continued as other neighboring tribes dealt with the hypocrisy and deception of the Roman Empire.

It was the Visogoths under Alaric's military leadership that brought about the destruction and collapse of the Roman Empire. Maybe some foreign policy lessons for the U.S. and some historical legitimacy to the concept of "non-interventionism"?

Or the barbarians could come to the gates in DC also!!



The Greatest Invasion sweeps across Gaul;
the Visigoths burn Rome





One question is whether it was now too late to save the empire with a revolutionary political strategy -- not a good question. Revolutions don't come from the powers that be; they come from below. A new political strategy that included arming the empire's conquered peoples and those peoples fighting for and defending the empire's central authority was not to be. The Roman Empire was to continue as an empire. Empires are by nature authoritarian, and empires are destined to break apart.

Around 395, bands of Huns invaded Armenia, and they moved into Syria and Cappadocia, where they plundered and killed. The Huns pushed against eastern Germans: Vandals, Suebi (or Suevi) and Burgundians. These Germans crossed the Danube River in great numbers, into the Roman province of Pannonia, and the Roman population there fled westward. The empire was further challenged in 399 when Alaric and his army of Visigoth warriors and civilians moved across the Alps and into Italy. In 402 and 403, a Roman army led by Flavius Stilicho drove Alaric and the Visigoths back to Illyricum.


In 408, the emperor in the eastern half of the empire, Arcadius, suddenly died and was replaced by his year-old son, Theodosius II. Stupidity would now make matters worse for the empire. In the west, an aide to Honorius who was hostile to Stilicho warned Honorius that Stilicho was preparing to put his own son on the eastern throne and was usurping powers that belonged to him, Honorius. The moronic Honorius believed the aide. The aide organized a coup against Stilicho and his supporters, who included the best military officers in the empire. These officers were largely Germans, like Stilicho. Inspired in part by hostility against Germans, Stilicho's supporters were massacred, as were the families of German soldiers serving as auxiliaries to the Roman army in the western empire. Those still alive and attached to Stilicho called on him to rally his supporters and fight back. Instead, Stilicho went to the emperor's court at Ravenna without his bodyguard to meet Honorius. Stilicho was taken prisoner, charged with treason, and without a trial he and his son were executed. The last of the great Roman military commanders was dead, and thirty thousand or so German soldiers fled from Rome's army and joined Alaric and the Visigoths.

Encouraged by the death of Stilicho, in the autumn of 408, Alaric and the Visigoths crossed the Alps and poured into Italy, to Ravenna. After failing to break through Ravenna's walls, Alaric decided to push on to North Africa, believing that grain grew there in great abundance, and he decided that on his way he would attack Rome to gain what he could.

Rome shut its gates as Alaric and his army approached. Alaric and his army besieged the city, and its inhabitants grew hungry. Plague appeared within Rome, and corpses appeared in its streets. Rome's Senate decided to negotiate with Alaric and suggested it was not afraid of a fight. Alaric laughed and demanded gold, silver, moveable property and some three thousand pounds of Indian pepper in exchange for sparing the city and its inhabitants. Alaric gave Germans and slaves in the city safe passage out, some of whom joined his ranks, increasing Alaric's forces to about 40,000.

For more than a year Alaric kept Rome surrounded while waiting for his ransom. Then in August, 410, with assistance from within, his troops slipped into the city. For three days they looted and destroyed the houses of the rich. They killed some people, but being Christians they spared the Christian churches. Then Alaric and the Visigoths left for southern Italy, hoping to cross the Mediterranean Sea to North Africa.

News of the fall of the city of Rome left many across the empire believing that the end of civilization was at hand. In Palestine, the Christian scholar Jerome lamented that in the ruins of Rome the whole world had perished. Many Christians had believed that Rome would last until Armageddon, and when no Armageddon came they were bewildered.

In Rome, pagan survivors saw the sack of their city as the work of Rome's old gods -- those gods whose power had made Rome the most powerful of cities. They blamed the Christians for angering these gods. Hoping to appease their gods, some pagans called for performance of the sacred rites of the past, and the Christian authorities in Rome, wishing help from any source, approved such rites. But, distrusting the Christian authorities, none of the pagans had the courage to attempt their rites in public, where it was thought they had to be performed if they were to be effective.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/rome24.htm
by biblical wisdom
Monday Jun 25th, 2012 1:42 AM
Jesus Christ was not a homeless anarchist. He just wanted us to understand than the earthly things do not matter. What matter is what God`s planning for us in heaven.