Commenting Media, English

Satan’s 10 commandments to the homosexual lobby – reviewed

I’ve been writing about atheist criticism of religion or christianity recently, which could lead to the conclsion that I consider anything that comes from nonblelievers wrong, and anything that comes from believers right. Which is not so. I just ran across „Satan’s 10 commandments to the homosexual lobby“ (via). And I think this is a good opportunity, that I critisise bullshit, no matter where from. Note that this criticism comes from a fellow christian. Yes, I do believe in Christ, no less than you, and I still strongly disagree with the whole anti-gay movement, which in my opinion just hijacked religion to better fulfill their agenda. And it’s a pity that people (strong believing christians I might add) don’t read their bibles enough to see what bullshit they bought into. For a foreigner like me it is shocking to see what’s going on with a great part of christianity in the USA. But enough about that, let’s turn to the „commandments“, I’ll comment them one by one:

1) Always see your sexual opponent (anyone who rejects homosexual acts) as the enemy. Project what they see as your sexual disorder onto them by repetitiously calling them „homophobes“;

Now this appears to be just name calling back and forth. Both sides consider the other as the enemy as far as I can see. So it’s hard to decide whom to believe that the other had a sexual disorder. I wonder though how christians can take part in such name calling. Love thy neighbour anyone? And even start an article on the issue with such name calling. Love conquers all, but hate will be defeated!

2) Separate the act of sex from its natural purpose of procreation by referring to all homosexual relationships as expressions of „love“ rather than „lust“;

I wonder. If sex has the purpose of procreation, then homosexual sex isn’t sex, because no matter how har you try, you won’t procreate. So what is all the fuss about? And another question: What does all this love and lust have to do with it? Is lust evil and love okay? So it would be for homos and heteros alike, wouldn’t it? „God is no respecter of persons“ (Acts 10,34 – yeah, it’s fun tossing bible verses at fundamentalists, like defeating atheists with science;)). But then loveful homo(sexual) relationships would be okay, too. What about a married heterosexual couple being in bed together doing al but the one thing that leads to procreation. You know, tenderness and all that, because they love one another. Sin or not? And now what is different if it was a homosexual couple?

3) Fight to deny those who oppose homosexual acts their right to free of speech.

Okay, this must be an insider for US Americans. I don’t know what is referred here.

At the same time enforce your own right to free speech on others by copiously using the liberal media and other outlets to label your opponents every unsavory thing from „bigot“ to „idiot.“

I could be missing another point, but in how far is this different from using conservative media and other outlets to label opponents every unsavory thing from pervert to disgust?

Use the words „equality“ and „hate“ often and unrelentingly as if only you – the homosexual – understand their meaning.

Yeah, right. But only the fundamentalist right knows God’s will and how to read the bible…

If anyone objects, accuse them of discrimination.

Somehow reminds me on the deny of free speech part above…

Keep in mind that politicians and judges are your friends.

Who could forget that the liberals hold the majority in the house and the supreme court. Now, wait…

Many of them are openly practicing homosexuals and the rest, swayed by power and the almighty dollar, will do anything for your vote.

Like there was no practising fundamentalist among politicians and the GOP had never used the fundamentalist right to get their vote…

Remember, too, that in today’s politically correct and morally relativistic society there is no objective moral order and that it often takes only one civil judge to side in your favor for you to achieve your ends;

Okay, I know too little about the juridical system of the states to undertsand what that is supposed to mean…

4) Use the „race card“ unceasingly against your enemy by equating homosexual behaviour (which can change) with a person’s color (which, by one’s will alone, cannot). Most people don’t know the difference;

It’s right that colour don’t change, while everybody can refrain from sexual deeds of any form. But talking about the race card: Colour wasn’t the problem. If the „niggers“ had stayed in the place the racist society had for them, all would have been fine. Well, at least the whites. The problem with racism was that the black people wouldn’t refrain from complaining about their place in society, about all the lynchings that were bound to this very place in society, and about risking your life when speaking your mind. So, the problem about racism was all about changeable deeds as well. So if the gay people won’t just shut up and behave the way you want them to, they are not too far from the black people back then. By the way: In both cases their opponents used the bible to justify their racism/homophobia, didn’t they?

5) Build yourself up in the eyes of the indifferent masses – who are mere sheep – by claiming to be a modern person of tolerance and peace – one who is accepting of all. The people will believe you because in today’s materialistic word people are focused primarily on themselves and their own gain.

So this is accusing the people, right? Not the homosexuals. I wonder, if you think thus of the people, in how far you can support all those ideas of liberty and freedom in the US constitution (I heard there is at least some of it in there). If the peope are mere sheep and only focused on themselves, wouldn’t it be better to take the greater part of civil freedoms from them. Like speaking their egoistic sheep mind and such? And why let them vote anyways? Doesn’t this necessarily lead to decadence, chaos and decline? I really wonder how fundamentalists can support all those freedoms for the materialistic sheep masses. If they were consequent, they’d support dictatorship. Or at least some form of fundamentalist controlled oligarchy. What does it tell us about the honesty of fundamentalists when they pretend support of democracy while at the same time considering the people incapable of meeting the right decisions. By the way: Who has the majority in the house…?

Ridicule and undermine the intelligence of your more worthy opponents by resorting to ambiguity and sarcasm. Never resist a chance to claim that they are living in the „Dark Ages“;

Yes, this talk of the dark ages just does no justice – to the middle ages. I do consider all this fundamentalism a rather modern phenomenon. And it isn’t only there in christianity, you have it everywhere. But I agree that doing sarcasm is just unfair. Because you need some sense of humour for it, which most opponents of homosexuality just plain lack.

6) Act and speak as if homosexuals have a corner on the truth and that they alone – not their opponents – can demand of society what is right and wrong.

Gottfried Bernhard Göz: Jonathan greeting David after David killed Goliath
Gottfried Bernhard Göz: Jonathan greeting David after David killed Goliath

Okay, okay. Now I get it. The whole text is satire. It’s aimed against the fundamentalists themselves. Why else would they write down this while their fellow homophobes wave bibles and do tell society that only their way to read the bible will tell what’s right and wrong? Either it’s a satire, or they don’t listen to their own words. But well, the high priest of Jerusalem was prophetising about Jesus and not realizsing what he was saying, too. God works in mysterious ways sometimes…

Use every form of deceit imaginable including the use of straw man arguments and false scientific studies – anything that will appeal to the simpleton. Lie, deceive, put on a false front.

Anyone else thinking „Fox News“ now?

Pretend you are a friend. Talk of peace and brotherhood. Make pledges of co-operation and mutual assistance. In short, destroy your opponent with a kiss;

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Oh, wait…

7) Confuse the distinction between „hating the sin“ and „loving the sinner.“ This is an absolute must since everyone – especially parents – know the time-honored value of disciple and „tough love.“

Isn’t it more confusing when this love for the sinner is expressed by attacking them all the time for their sexualities, by not looking at them personally, but reducing them to this one part of their personality, what they do in bed? Is this the way you love the sinners in former administrations, who lied (God hates lies!) about weapons of mass destruction, which led to the death of thousands? Why those double standards? I mean, we are talking about love, right? Should there not be just one standard?

This can be effectively achieved by introducing special „anti-bullying“ laws into schools that aim at protecting homosexuals from the enemy. If you find that someone suspects your true motives and resists on the grounds that homosexuals should not be given special status in this regard or that such laws are merely an attempt to normalize homosexuality in society, use both the „equality“ and the „separation of church and state“ card against them;

Yeah, right, if homosexuals are being bullied, they do not deserve a special status, but if „christians“ are bullied, it’s at least christian persecution and the end of the world as we know it. I don’t know what’s wrong about equality. And speaking of the seperation of church and state over there: You have this law, like it or not. So before you complain, why not try to tear the wall of seperation down? Ah, right, because you don’t want the state to interfere in your religious groups. Well, tough luck.

8) Never lose sight of the fact that God is your ultimate enemy. Attack God and all religion as something oppressive, hypocritical and evil. This is easily done by take biblical quotes out of context to suit your own purpose and meaning. At the same time avoid all talk of the murderous regimes of atheists like Hitler and Stalin;

Hitler was baptised and never left the church. Just for the records. I wonder anyhow who is the enemy of God really. Because there is a reason why people consider God and religion as oppressive, hypocritical and evil. Maybe it’s because that’s the way His believers behave all day long? Talking about bible quotes out of context: The homosexual lobby, as you call it, does not use Leviticus to justify their homophobia. So who’s taking bible quotes out of context now. And yes, same applies to Romans.

9) Assure everyone that no religion will be made to suffer from societies‘ acceptance of homosexuality. Speak always and often of equality and co-existence. Claim, as a sham, snare, and illusion, that tradition marriage and homosexual marriage can live side-by-side in complete harmony.

I don’t see how this could not be possible. Oh, now I get it. I already hear Peter saying to Paul: „Darling, look at those heteros over there.“ – „Ew, they’re kissing, how disgusting!“ – „Perverts, I wouldn’t wonder they are doing it all the time.“ – „Someone has to call the cops…“

No really, I don’t see why this would not be possible. Actually it is reality in many countries already.

Dismiss as silly and unviable any attempt to show that the „Pill“ – which was introduced to separate and tear asunder the act of sex from the gift of life – has led to the disintegrated of the family.

Like all was harmony before the pill was introduced. Me weren’t beating their wifes and children, there was no cheating and all children were honouring their parents to no end.

At the same time, and wherever possible, work diligently behind the scenes to drag your religious opponent into court whenever his moral values even begin to clash with yours. Test and try every court until you find a judge who is your friend.

So there were no lawsuits about homosexual marriage, the pill and abortions? As I said, I’m not too deep into the US juridical system, but I am deeply impressed, if no one ever sued to stop abortion laws and the like.

Especially work on religious adoption agencies and church ministers who lecture on the evils of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in their sermons. Where this is not possible infiltrate the priesthood so as to corrupt religion from within,

Yes, there is a real problem with unercover ministers, who preach of hellfires nstead of the love of God… oh, wait…

10) Redefine joyful and well-established words and symbols like „marriage,“ „spouse,“ „gay“ and „rainbow“ and attach them to homosexual acts in order to give sin an innocent, natural and pleasing appeal.

Samson and the lion
Samson and the lion
Got some news for you: language is changing. Always. Awful one meant „full of wonder“, a demagogue was a „popular leader“ and a „guy“ was once a „chap“ or a „fellow“. Again: Homosexual acts are not sinful, the bible never says so. There are two verses referring to something we can’t translate properly nowadays, maybe anal intercourse between men is meant, maybe something else. This refers to the act and not the relationship, so if homosexuals practise their love (or lust if you so will) in another way, the verses don’t apply. Then there’s Paul in Romans 1, where he doesn’t write about homosexuality in the first place, but about sinfulness in the world, while he uses homosexuality (which was disapproved of in Rome, unlike Greece) as an example. Now if we follow Paul in his examples, there should also be no long haired men. So, Samson was a sinner like the homosexuals or what? And what about Jesus? Isn’t He depicted with long hair as well?

So, when the author writes in the beginning:

The Bible tells us that Satan has the ability to „appear as an angel of light.“

I’m not sure whom he is really talking about. There is still no one who could point out one harm of homosexuality to anyone. There is no one who could point out one clear bible verse on the issue. All I hear is cultural prejudice: „It’s always been this way, it cannot be different.“ Is that what Jesus preached to the poor and downtrodden?

Commenting Media, English

Do you believe in Yahwe?

This is a bit unhandy, as embedding was disabled, but you can look at the video I want to speak about here.

The story is told relatively quick, supposingly more quickly than watching the video:

Person A asks person B about his or her belief in a variety of godhead names: Vishnu, Baal, Shemosh, Thor, you name it. person B keeps saying „no“, to all the questions.

Person A does not react to these answers in any way, just keeps on throwing names of godheads at person B. This goes on for a while until person B answers the same „no“ to the belief in Yahwe.

All of a sudden person A starts cussing and yelling at person B all kind of things, basically saying that person B was very very evil not believing in Yahwe.

The video has a point. In some way. That is insofar as it critizises condemnation of people who do not believe in God (or any other godhead). As for christianity, I wish my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would rather approach people of different or no faith with love then with condemnation, cussing and the like. It should not play a role, what a person believes for how we treat her or him. Christ commanded us to love. Period.

But on the other side, the video also speaks of someone having gotten into a trap. The trap of mixing up god and God. This is why I write „godhead“ above.

The wrong presumption is that there was no real difference between Yahwe, Vishnu or Thor and disbelief in the one was the same as disbelief in the other or any of them or all together. It is not.

And I am not going to tell you that the difference was that Yahwe exists and Baal does not. While I do believe this myself, of course, being a christian, this is not what I am talking about here.

What I am talking about is the difference between a polytheistic godhead and the monotheistic God, like Yahwe, or even Allah, if you like. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster should qualify, f anybody really believed in it, which I do question.

Anyway, what is the difference between God and the godheads. The first way to recognise this would be to see that people did (and do) believe in Thor and Odin at the same time, or Zeus and Poseidon, or Vishnu and Ganesha, but hardly in Yahwe and Mars, or Allah and Baal.

Historical sidenote: Historically seen, there was most supposingly a time when people did indeed believe in Yahwe and Astarte or other godheads. I know this, you don’t need to point this out to me. And while the same name Yahwe is used, the concept behind it is different. The Yahwe besides Astarte, El or Shemesh is not more than a godhead, while the other Yahwe, God Yahwe, is a monotheistic God. Many scholars believe that there was an evolution from polytheism over henotheism to monotheism. What I am referring here to is monotheism, none of its supposed prior forms, whether or not they have existed before (I just don’t want to go into that discussion here).

So what is the difference between monotheism and polytheism? The difference is that polytheistic godheads are weak enough that there can be other godheads beside them, while a monotheistic God does not and will not make it even possible to have other godheads besides Him (or Her if you like).

Understood correctly, this would render the first commandment superfluous, because there would just not b the possibility to have other godheads beside a truly monotheistic God. And from that point of view it would not make a big difference whether you call Him (or Her) Yahwe, Allah or Hank. (the problem is that people do not always keep a strict monotheism, that’s why the first commandment still makes sense).

Monotheism means that there is one God who created everything (I’d like to hear about monotheistic Gods who are not also thought of as creators) and is beyond everything else, not only above. There is a qualitative difference between a monotheistic God and all that belongs to creation. On the other hand are the polytheistic godheads, each one having their own affairs to deal with, none of them is really superior to all the others, fights are possible and we have stories about that. Basically they are closer to modern superheros like Spiderman or Superman, than to a monotheistic God. They are powerful, but not unable to be overcome, be it by some other godhead or some (human) trickster.

So person A would be more sensible asking person B whether he (or she) believed in any system of godheads (pantheon) or whether she (or he) believed in a monotheistic God. Of which there are also many, besides Yahwe also Allah or the FSM and others. So it’s not that all monotheisms would be the same. They have very different ideas of their God.

And one final note: I am not too deep into modern Hindu theology, but I think I heard about all Hindu godheads being only appearances of the same one God. Yes, God, capital letter, because I guess this would then be a monotheism as well.