GenQ - For the not so straight individual

Religious conservatives meeting in Washington, D.C., lashed out at homosexual advocacy groups and organizations catering to the political Left on Monday.

One participant criticized the "gay agenda," which he said calls for not only acceptance, but also "affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal and even desirable."
"We believe what makes a family is one man and one woman uniting in marriage for a lifetime and bearing children from that union," said Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council's vice president for policy "We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that idea," including pre-marital sex, pornography, adultery and prostitution.

"And yes, we are also against the practice of homosexuality," he added.

Sprigg said Christians do not hate homosexuals. "On the contrary, we desire the best for them. However, we believe engaging in behavior that is unnatural, immoral and dangerous to the public health and their own health is not the best thing for people with same-sex attractions."

He noted that the FRC and similar organizations also oppose the "gay agenda," which "demands full acceptance of the practice of homosexuality -- morally, socially, legally, religiously, politically and financially.

"Indeed, it calls for not only acceptance, but affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal and even desirable," Sprigg said. While most speakers said they prefer using the word "homosexual" instead of "gay," he said usually sticks with the term's original meaning: "sodomite."

I recently finished reading a book by Tom Harpur , a former Anglican priest and Rhodes scholar entitled "The Pagan Christ".

It's a rather in your face title and a little misleading too. He asserts that the bible is actually a series of myths taken from antiquity and Harpur goes on to provide pages of evidence to support his arguments. In it he states and proves that Jesus and all the "miracles" can be traced back to ancient Egypt, that the Egyptian Jesus named Iusa (or Horus) are one in the same. The both had a virgin birth, they both resurrected a dead man, they both healed , they both ministered for one year, they both walked on water and healed the sick, Horus was even called "KRST" or the anointed one. they both were accompanied by 12 disciples (as were Mithras and Dionysus) and they were both put to death and "rose" after three days. The similarities go on and on. the difference between the ancient Egyptian myths (and greek and persian) is that they weren't ever meant to be taken as a literal history, they were lessons to guide people in their spiritual development. Modern Christianity however has taken the same spiritual lessons and presented them as a factual history of a real man. Now I am not going to get into whether or not there was a real man named Jesus, although after reading the evidence I doubt there was, I am disturbed because our spiritual leaders are telling us this is a true and factual history even though there are blatant contradictions and glaring inaccuracies in the gospels, there is also not one single shred of proof or archeological evidence that the man actually did exists where and when he was supposed to. Not even a crucifixion record made by the most anal records keepers since modern day bureaucrats. In fact it is acknowledged that most of the modern bible was written in the third century by the Emperor Constantine, an interesting fellow who had most of the members of his immediate family [put] to death by various means and had anyone who didn't believe in his version of the bible put to death and all their works destroyed. A frightening beginning for any religion that professes love and compassion. In fact if this happened today the police would be in locking everyone up.

So why did the early church decide on a literal interpretation of the bible stories? Because in the original myths it was us, man and woman-kind that held their own spiritual development. Literally "the Christ" or spirit is within us all. If you take all the bible stories in the context of our own internal spiritual development and not as a history lesson, it takes on a whole new meaning. We are each responsible for our own spiritual development and have the ability to become "God-like" ourselves because God (or Spirit) is what is in each and everyone of us. Now for an Emperor in the third century and for a church looking for power, this lack of centralisation is unacceptable. If people are taking their own spiritual paths based on legends and teachings and not on fear, then their is no way to control them. It is the perfect control mechanism for the masses, putting the fear of God in them to stay in line. We can see this today with President Bush's constant fear mongering about terrorism and attacks on the US. It keeps people scared and in line and not worrying about the awful state of our country. It also has us doing whatever he wants (invading Iraq for example for no real reason).

The earliest bible writing by Paul has virtually nothing on the man, Jesus of Nazareth at all, it is closest to the original ancient texts than any other part of the bible. If Jesus really lived, then why did Paul (who really did live) totally leave the man Jesus of Nazareth out of his writings'He was the closest in time to when Jesus supposedly lived and yet never never mentions the man.

By taking the literalism out of the bible then the churches habit of targeting certain groups within the community loses all it's power. They cannot quote us "proof texts" from the bible because it no longer has any authority. Most of the atrocities carried out by the church throughout history have been directly inspired by this literalist thinking. It is this type of simplistic thinking that shows spiritual immaturity. It is not good enough to go to church and take mass and expect automatic spiritual development- won't happen people. Just as the Jesus in the bible went out in the wilderness and faced his demons alone, that what our own spiritual development is about and no church or spiritual leader can tell us otherwise. We are all different, all have different lessons to learn and paths to follow, one size does not fit all in this case.

So we come back to the Christian church declaring war on homosexuality.

The only solution is to see the bible for it is, Jesus said we are all like we are asleep and need awakening, it seems that the church needs to wake up to the consequences of it's literalist view on the bible and the violence and bigotry it causes. Is this spiritual development teaching non acceptance of certain people of spreading hatred and violence? When you read the bible as a series of lessons taught in metaphors and myths then it totally takes on a new meaning and context. Gone are all the in consistencies and contradictions and gone are also all the excuses for bigotry and hatred. When you see the bible like that your eyes are suddenly opened to how scary this whole thing is and how much stupidity there is going on in the world right now over this.

Taking the bible as a literal truth is for the spiritually immature. Back in the 12th century, in France there was a group of people called the Cathars (also known as the Good Men), they were Gnostics (from the greek word for knowledge). In March, 1244, 205 Cathars were burned alive by the Catholic Church, rather than renounce their creed. What did the Cathars believe? They took the spiritual path of the bible, not the literalist one and this meant that there was no hierarchy in their church structure, because it says no where in the bible that only men can be priests or that there even should be a hierarchy. They believed that as we all have God within us, no one was closer or further away from God than anyone else. Religious ceremonies were shared as were individual insights and women could lead these as well as men equally. They worshipped in forests and on mountain tops, utilizing the strong tellurgic currents of the region. They held to the tenet that Christ was cosmic, (and so could not have been crucified or even lived as a person) and that the role of woman was equal to that of man. Marriage, baptism, and communion were not recognized as valid rituals. They believed that God was both male and female and therefore one gender could not be superior to the other. This became very popular in Southern France because of it's equality of every person and became a very fast growing religion there. It could not be tolerated by the Catholics because it completely removed their grip on power and authority. So how do you take your power back? According to the church, with force and so they killed all the Cathars rather than let people be free.

It is very clear the difference between the literalist and the spiritual view of the bible. Literalists are violent, bigoted and hold onto power with a vice-like grip, just look at what the Christian church has done in the name of their church right up until today. Spiritualists are peaceful, accepting, not concerned with power and understand the true meaning of the words in the bible. Life is hard enough, so why does a group of men bent on power and control think they are making it any easier, they are in fact making it harder for all of us including themselves. We can never have peace while these people force their literalist views upon us. People are all born differently and all have their own lessons to learn we will never all be what the church wants us to be- the same. Only the spiritual view on the bible accepts us all and allows us to grow.

Enough of my rant...the truth is out there...

Got something to say to me? Click on my name above to email me.