A couple of headlines drew my attention recently. One was “In Europe, Islam rises, Christianity falls” in the Detroit Free Press and “Pope Visits Spain, Flash Point for Church-State Tensions” in the New York Times.
I have been reading more and more about how secular Europe has become. We have to specify Western Europe because on my many visits to Poland, I saw that the country was actually Catholic to an extreme where the Church WAS the government.
Anyway, what intrigues me is that Europeans are becoming more secular and the Americans are becoming more religious – what gives?
In Spain, the secular premier declined to attend a papal mass during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit; even Castro attended a mass during the late Pope’s visit to Cuba.
Spain has always been VERY Catholic. Today 80% of Spaniards call themselves Catholic yet only 18% attend mass regularly – probably old ladies.
Spain just passed a gay marriage law and has loosened laws governing divorce.
In France the statistics are even worst. Eighty eight (88%) percent of the French call themselves Catholic but only 5% attend mass on a regular basis – those darn old ladies I presume.
In the United States, religion seems on the rise, or does it only seem that way to me because the fundamentalists are always in the news.
Polls show that the U.S. is also heading more to the secular side but a lot more slowly. 14% claim no religious affiliation, up from 8% in 1990. 23% of men and 18% of women under the age of 35 claim they do not follow any organized religion. 43% of the unaffiliated were former Catholics.
The survey also found that 19% of baptized Catholics leave the church compared to 16% of Americans of other faiths. 28% of Catholics who leave the church do not join another religion.
Pope Benedict XVI is concerned about his religion. It appears Catholicism is doing OK in the poorer regions of Latin America and Africa but is losing big time in Europe where it used to be on top. Is that the problem; the Church was too dominant in the past and people rebelled and are rebelling? Why are we going in the opposite direction; have we not learned from history or our Founding Fathers?
What about the prediction that Europe will be mostly Muslim by the end of the century – more on this later.
Janusz
Sunday, July 09, 2006
FEMALE BISHOPS IT IS!
Here is a little update on the Episcopalian saga. Remember how the Vatican official spoke at the gathering in London of the governing body of the Church of England (Anglicans) and told them that IF they decide to allow female bishops to be ordained that any hope of a Catholic / Anglican union would be doomed.
Well the governing body voted after a three (3) hour debate. They voted 288 to 110 to allow female bishops – take that to the Vatican and stuff it! That is a more than two-thirds majority.
Well, at least they agree on female bishops. They do have other matters that may cause a schism in the 77 million member Anglican Communion; more on that later.
Janusz
Saturday, July 08, 2006
THE FEMALE BISHOP AND THE VATICAN
Continuing in my Episcopalian mode, a recent article in our paper’s religion section was titled “Female Episcopal bishop could strain Catholic ties”.
I mentioned before that as soon as the Episcopal Church in the United States elected Katherine Jefferts Schori to be presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Vatican said forgetaboutit to talks of uniting the two churches.
Now just to be clear, the Vatican did not seem to have any problems with female Episcopal priests, gay priests or gay bishops, the problem is specifically a female bishop or any female that is placed in an “in charge” position within the Episcopal Church – interesting?
The Vatican’s top dude in charge of liaison with non-Catholic Christians, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to the Church of England’s bishops (Anglicans) about the four decades of work trying to bring both churches to “shared communion” – union?
He said that the goal of restoring full relations would no longer exist if the Anglican mother church in England were to consecrate a female bishop. He said nothing about a gay bishop!
Here is the kicker – Kasper defended his views and that of the Vatican on “theological convictions”.
It appears that the Vatican first explained its opposition to female priests when Canadian Episcopalians authorized female priests in 1975 and the U.S. in 1976.
Pope Paul VI said the ban honors “the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held” this fits “God’s plan for his church”.
Aha! It appears that this old reason, which many in the church have abandoned as silly, has resurrected and still holds as the official Vatican rationale.
Well using the Vatican’s own “Historical Critical Method” of reading the Gospels / Scripture exactly how and why they were written IN THE EXACT TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN IN, not as if they were written today to today’s population; Jesus had to choose men because women were total crap in their society and were treated as such! Obviously the Catholic Church still maintains that tradition along with the Muslims and a few others.
In fact, Jesus made it a point to associate with women and had women followers AND WAS CRITICIZED FOR DOING SO.
Here is the BIG POINT that the Vatican obviously refuses to recognize. The Gospels state that after Jesus died and resurrected, who did he appear to first? Who did the Angel appear to? Who was told to “tell the others what you have seen”? Who was deemed to be “the Apostle to the Apostles”? I can keep going but you know the answer – it was a woman or women depending which Gospel you read.
If the resurrection is so bloody important to the Catholic faith, you would think GOD would want to
present such an important and religion defining act to the leader of his chosen MEN – no, He chose to
reveal this most sacred of acts to a woman / women!
As far as I am concerned the Vatican does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to their argument against female priests, in fact, the Vatican insults all our intelligences by their stubborn and silly stance.
I will have more on this when I calm down.
Janusz
ps. What did you think of Paul VI's statement that this fits "God's plan for his church"?
Don't you just hate people who know what God is thinking and what His plans are?
I mentioned before that as soon as the Episcopal Church in the United States elected Katherine Jefferts Schori to be presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Vatican said forgetaboutit to talks of uniting the two churches.
Now just to be clear, the Vatican did not seem to have any problems with female Episcopal priests, gay priests or gay bishops, the problem is specifically a female bishop or any female that is placed in an “in charge” position within the Episcopal Church – interesting?
The Vatican’s top dude in charge of liaison with non-Catholic Christians, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to the Church of England’s bishops (Anglicans) about the four decades of work trying to bring both churches to “shared communion” – union?
He said that the goal of restoring full relations would no longer exist if the Anglican mother church in England were to consecrate a female bishop. He said nothing about a gay bishop!
Here is the kicker – Kasper defended his views and that of the Vatican on “theological convictions”.
It appears that the Vatican first explained its opposition to female priests when Canadian Episcopalians authorized female priests in 1975 and the U.S. in 1976.
Pope Paul VI said the ban honors “the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held” this fits “God’s plan for his church”.
Aha! It appears that this old reason, which many in the church have abandoned as silly, has resurrected and still holds as the official Vatican rationale.
Well using the Vatican’s own “Historical Critical Method” of reading the Gospels / Scripture exactly how and why they were written IN THE EXACT TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN IN, not as if they were written today to today’s population; Jesus had to choose men because women were total crap in their society and were treated as such! Obviously the Catholic Church still maintains that tradition along with the Muslims and a few others.
In fact, Jesus made it a point to associate with women and had women followers AND WAS CRITICIZED FOR DOING SO.
Here is the BIG POINT that the Vatican obviously refuses to recognize. The Gospels state that after Jesus died and resurrected, who did he appear to first? Who did the Angel appear to? Who was told to “tell the others what you have seen”? Who was deemed to be “the Apostle to the Apostles”? I can keep going but you know the answer – it was a woman or women depending which Gospel you read.
If the resurrection is so bloody important to the Catholic faith, you would think GOD would want to
present such an important and religion defining act to the leader of his chosen MEN – no, He chose to
reveal this most sacred of acts to a woman / women!
As far as I am concerned the Vatican does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to their argument against female priests, in fact, the Vatican insults all our intelligences by their stubborn and silly stance.
I will have more on this when I calm down.
Janusz
ps. What did you think of Paul VI's statement that this fits "God's plan for his church"?
Don't you just hate people who know what God is thinking and what His plans are?
DEMOCRATS AND BLACKS Letter
Saturday, July 08, 2006
To: The Detroit News
Re: “Anti-Granholm ad taps Nazi images”, July 7.
The anti-Granholm ad in the Michigan Chronicle had a confusing presentation but I feel the main message is valid, “Anti-Granholm ad taps Nazi images”, July 7.
Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s well intentioned “War on Poverty” is seen by historians as being ultimately detrimental to African-Americans by being a contributing factor to dependency on welfare, unemployment and high criminal involvement.
Blaming the Democrats for some of the problems facing the Black community today is not all that far-fetched.
Janusz M. Szyszko
HITLER, BLACKS AND DEMOCRATS?
Michigan is in the midst of a gubernatorial campaign. We have two very strong candidates for the office, Jennifer Granholm and Dick DeVos of Amway fame and money.
What caught my eye this week was a report of an ad placed in the Michigan Chronicle, a mostly African-American journal, featuring our Democratic Governor Granholm along side a picture of Adolf Hitler and the image of a Nazi swastika.
The message was that blacks have been used and abused by the Democratic Party. The Democrats have used blacks as “foot soldiers”, whatever that means, and that their reward has been a dependency on welfare, high unemployment and a disproportionate number of black men locked up in prison.
The ad called on blacks to abandon the Democratic Party and their candidates or demand respect from the party in exchange for their vote. The Republican candidate DeVos condemned the ad.
OK, what do it all mean? Well, in the first place, I kind of agree with the ad or at least part of it. I have always blamed the problems blacks face in our society on President Lyndon B. Johnson and his “War on Poverty”. I believe it was his good-willed program created the welfare society which rewarded unemployment and promoted out of wedlock childbearing. Those children now make up most of our prison population.
So in essence, it was the socialist ways of our Democratic Party that has harmed our African-American population.
Let me give you one example from our personal history. My wife went to a high school with a large black student population in the early 60s. The blacks in her school were not rich, nobody was, but they had two parents who were employed, lived in small, single-family homes, were well behaved and had plans for their futures. What the hell happened? The war on poverty happened and that is the Democrat’s doing!
The ad was pretty crude supposedly done by Adolph Mongo & Associates – get the “Adolph” connection?
Despite its jumbled presentation, it somehow had Jesse Owens / Hitler and the Munich Olympics as examples of disrespecting blacks, the main point was clear; Democrats have hurt African-Americans despite their well-meaning intentions.
What to do? Well, we can’t go back in history and change things so we have to look at what can be done today. Bush Republicans are not real Republicans when it comes to economic policies; they are more interested in religion. But if you find a real Republican, one that believes in separation of Church and State, vote for him because his economic principles are better for the American black than those of a Democrat.
Janusz
What caught my eye this week was a report of an ad placed in the Michigan Chronicle, a mostly African-American journal, featuring our Democratic Governor Granholm along side a picture of Adolf Hitler and the image of a Nazi swastika.
The message was that blacks have been used and abused by the Democratic Party. The Democrats have used blacks as “foot soldiers”, whatever that means, and that their reward has been a dependency on welfare, high unemployment and a disproportionate number of black men locked up in prison.
The ad called on blacks to abandon the Democratic Party and their candidates or demand respect from the party in exchange for their vote. The Republican candidate DeVos condemned the ad.
OK, what do it all mean? Well, in the first place, I kind of agree with the ad or at least part of it. I have always blamed the problems blacks face in our society on President Lyndon B. Johnson and his “War on Poverty”. I believe it was his good-willed program created the welfare society which rewarded unemployment and promoted out of wedlock childbearing. Those children now make up most of our prison population.
So in essence, it was the socialist ways of our Democratic Party that has harmed our African-American population.
Let me give you one example from our personal history. My wife went to a high school with a large black student population in the early 60s. The blacks in her school were not rich, nobody was, but they had two parents who were employed, lived in small, single-family homes, were well behaved and had plans for their futures. What the hell happened? The war on poverty happened and that is the Democrat’s doing!
The ad was pretty crude supposedly done by Adolph Mongo & Associates – get the “Adolph” connection?
Despite its jumbled presentation, it somehow had Jesse Owens / Hitler and the Munich Olympics as examples of disrespecting blacks, the main point was clear; Democrats have hurt African-Americans despite their well-meaning intentions.
What to do? Well, we can’t go back in history and change things so we have to look at what can be done today. Bush Republicans are not real Republicans when it comes to economic policies; they are more interested in religion. But if you find a real Republican, one that believes in separation of Church and State, vote for him because his economic principles are better for the American black than those of a Democrat.
Janusz
Friday, July 07, 2006
LETTERS VS GAY EPISCOPALIAN
Following up on the Episcopalian blog, a lesbian reporter (Deb Price) who happens to be an Episcopalian wrote a piece in our local paper titled “Losing my church, but not my faith”.
She wrote that she no longer would attend a church that discriminated against gays. Her faith is still strong and she will return to church once the “Neanderthals” are no longer in power.
As I mentioned previously, the Episcopal leaders pleaded restraint in addressing the gay issues in a bid to keep peace within the Episcopalian community but a number of churches voted to break with the main church specifically over the openly gay bishops and same-sex marriages.
Her article garnered an interesting assortment of letter to the editor.
One letter writer stated that God called homosexuality an abomination and how can you argue with that. This is obviously an example of people thinking the Bible is the word of God. In my previous blogs, I have argued that the belief that the words in the Bible are the actual words of God is totally unsupportable by available evidence. It is even unsupportable by plain common sense. Unfortunately, I do not see how people’s minds can be changed on this issue.
Another letter writer argued that we all receive free will with which we can agree to obey God or go against His will. This person obviously thinks that gays CHOOSE to be gay. I have pointed out in previous blogs that if you use your common sense how you could ever believe that someone would CHOOSE to be gay. That is Neanderthal thinking!
Another letter says that it is nice that Deb still has her faith and believes Jesus loves her BUT she should realize that God hates sin and the scriptures are clear that homosexuality is a sin. That is not the case; they are not clear at all and how could you know what the hell scripture is talking about since was written by someone thousands of years ago to people that existed thousands of years ago.
A statement made fun of Deb suggesting that God made her gay; another imbecilic belief that gays choose their gay lifestyle. More and more evidence is being published that will hopefully, convince these people that God or nature created gays – they are born that way idiots!
Catholics took the stand that their church does not hate gays it just wants them to refrain from acting gay. They remained strong in their condemnation of gay marriage saying that God said marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Historical Critical Textual Criticism of the Bible reveals that the people that wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, did know the concept of homosexuality so how in the hell are we to treat their words as words of meaning to us in 2006.
Janusz
She wrote that she no longer would attend a church that discriminated against gays. Her faith is still strong and she will return to church once the “Neanderthals” are no longer in power.
As I mentioned previously, the Episcopal leaders pleaded restraint in addressing the gay issues in a bid to keep peace within the Episcopalian community but a number of churches voted to break with the main church specifically over the openly gay bishops and same-sex marriages.
Her article garnered an interesting assortment of letter to the editor.
One letter writer stated that God called homosexuality an abomination and how can you argue with that. This is obviously an example of people thinking the Bible is the word of God. In my previous blogs, I have argued that the belief that the words in the Bible are the actual words of God is totally unsupportable by available evidence. It is even unsupportable by plain common sense. Unfortunately, I do not see how people’s minds can be changed on this issue.
Another letter writer argued that we all receive free will with which we can agree to obey God or go against His will. This person obviously thinks that gays CHOOSE to be gay. I have pointed out in previous blogs that if you use your common sense how you could ever believe that someone would CHOOSE to be gay. That is Neanderthal thinking!
Another letter says that it is nice that Deb still has her faith and believes Jesus loves her BUT she should realize that God hates sin and the scriptures are clear that homosexuality is a sin. That is not the case; they are not clear at all and how could you know what the hell scripture is talking about since was written by someone thousands of years ago to people that existed thousands of years ago.
A statement made fun of Deb suggesting that God made her gay; another imbecilic belief that gays choose their gay lifestyle. More and more evidence is being published that will hopefully, convince these people that God or nature created gays – they are born that way idiots!
Catholics took the stand that their church does not hate gays it just wants them to refrain from acting gay. They remained strong in their condemnation of gay marriage saying that God said marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Historical Critical Textual Criticism of the Bible reveals that the people that wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, did know the concept of homosexuality so how in the hell are we to treat their words as words of meaning to us in 2006.
Janusz
THE EPISCOPALIAN DILEMMA
Another recent religious headline was “Episcopalians Shaken by Division in Church”. Episcopalians, you may recall, are the liberal ones; the ones that elected a gay Bishop, a woman leader and perform gay marriages. Well I guess not all of them are that happy with the direction the Church is taking and has been taking.
Historically, the Episcopalians in the United States are the same, or at least similar to the Anglicans in England. Their nominal spiritual leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury (London). Anglicans exist all over the world, mainly where the British Empire once reigned supreme but are concentrated in Africa – remember Desmond Tutu, the Anglican Bishop that helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Going back even further in history, England was Roman Catholic under the Pope in Rome during the reign of King Henry VIII. You remember him as the king that could not seem to get a male heir so he kept either divorcing or beheading his wives until he got one that would produce a prince.
Henry wanted to do all this according to Catholic law and asked the Pope at that time for an annulment (divorce). The Pope was feeling his oats and wanting to show how he is more powerful than some mere king, denied Henry.
Henry told the Pope to shove it and took over the Catholic Church in England making himself the head of the new Anglican Church. Henry also took over all the Church property and the property of all the monasteries in England; a tidy some of money.
I am of course simplifying everything as you may gather. The Anglicans were called Catholics without a Roman Pope as their head but actually their religion is not identical to Catholicism even though there has been a Vatican Commission trying to unite the two faiths together for quite a few years. When the Vatican heard they elected a woman as Bishop they told the Anglicans forgetaboutit.
American Episcopalians are divided on the issue of homosexuality, homosexual priests and bishops and the sanctioning of gay marriage; basically conservatives against the liberals with the liberals being in the majority.
To complicate things a little further let me add the African Anglicans. These are definitely arch conservatives who oppose homosexuality but on the other hand they believe each male can have sex with any female he meets and that condoms do not prevent AIDS and debase a man’s masculinity if he has to wear one.
So you have this world Anglican Communion which the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to keep together. He recently issued a “theological reflection” where he will try to find a theological path to bring both sides together. This, all sides agree, will not happen because a bridge that both sides can live with does not exist and cannot exist.
I don’t pretend to know everything about the Episcopalian / Anglican religion but I know that I have always admired their liberalism, flexibility and dedication to social issues and social ills. They were a truly progressive religion, to me, that also truly represented the essence of Christianity and of Jesus in their treatment of people, no matter whom they were or where they came from (Christian love and Christian justice).
Obviously, these American Christians found a way to practice their religion in a compassionate manner without some of the fundamentalist, discriminatory views of other Christians in this country. I have to believe that the way they treat the Bible has to play a role. I know they consider scripture as the foundation of their religion but why do they not read the Bible in the same way that homophobic fundamentalists do?
The story with the Episcopalians is unfolding just like our entire society is. We are being divided into Right and Left with no apparent room in the middle – why?
I think a good start on the road to recovery would be to tell the African Anglicans and the American Episcopalian Conservatives to form their own religion because clearly they are not true followers of Jesus; more on this later.
Janusz
Historically, the Episcopalians in the United States are the same, or at least similar to the Anglicans in England. Their nominal spiritual leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury (London). Anglicans exist all over the world, mainly where the British Empire once reigned supreme but are concentrated in Africa – remember Desmond Tutu, the Anglican Bishop that helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Going back even further in history, England was Roman Catholic under the Pope in Rome during the reign of King Henry VIII. You remember him as the king that could not seem to get a male heir so he kept either divorcing or beheading his wives until he got one that would produce a prince.
Henry wanted to do all this according to Catholic law and asked the Pope at that time for an annulment (divorce). The Pope was feeling his oats and wanting to show how he is more powerful than some mere king, denied Henry.
Henry told the Pope to shove it and took over the Catholic Church in England making himself the head of the new Anglican Church. Henry also took over all the Church property and the property of all the monasteries in England; a tidy some of money.
I am of course simplifying everything as you may gather. The Anglicans were called Catholics without a Roman Pope as their head but actually their religion is not identical to Catholicism even though there has been a Vatican Commission trying to unite the two faiths together for quite a few years. When the Vatican heard they elected a woman as Bishop they told the Anglicans forgetaboutit.
American Episcopalians are divided on the issue of homosexuality, homosexual priests and bishops and the sanctioning of gay marriage; basically conservatives against the liberals with the liberals being in the majority.
To complicate things a little further let me add the African Anglicans. These are definitely arch conservatives who oppose homosexuality but on the other hand they believe each male can have sex with any female he meets and that condoms do not prevent AIDS and debase a man’s masculinity if he has to wear one.
So you have this world Anglican Communion which the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to keep together. He recently issued a “theological reflection” where he will try to find a theological path to bring both sides together. This, all sides agree, will not happen because a bridge that both sides can live with does not exist and cannot exist.
I don’t pretend to know everything about the Episcopalian / Anglican religion but I know that I have always admired their liberalism, flexibility and dedication to social issues and social ills. They were a truly progressive religion, to me, that also truly represented the essence of Christianity and of Jesus in their treatment of people, no matter whom they were or where they came from (Christian love and Christian justice).
Obviously, these American Christians found a way to practice their religion in a compassionate manner without some of the fundamentalist, discriminatory views of other Christians in this country. I have to believe that the way they treat the Bible has to play a role. I know they consider scripture as the foundation of their religion but why do they not read the Bible in the same way that homophobic fundamentalists do?
The story with the Episcopalians is unfolding just like our entire society is. We are being divided into Right and Left with no apparent room in the middle – why?
I think a good start on the road to recovery would be to tell the African Anglicans and the American Episcopalian Conservatives to form their own religion because clearly they are not true followers of Jesus; more on this later.
Janusz
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
CATHOLICS AND THE BIBLE
The newspapers are filled with religion related stories which I will comment on shortly but first I need to get in one Catholic issue from my childhood.
My religious education was Catholic. I was taught primarily by nuns from grade school all the way through high school. We had regular “religion” classes which were sometimes attended by the local priest and “Catechism” classes where we studied the latest edition of our Catechism book.
Early on in my education, I was told NOT to read the BIBLE because I may become confused. I was told to rely on the Catholic Church and my Catholic teachers to convey everything about religion I needed to know.
Obviously, I went and got a Bible and started reading it but they were right, it did not make much sense to me even though I enjoyed some of the “dirty” stories.
The instructions to NOT read the Bible puzzled me. My Protestant friends would tell me that in their religion SCRIPTURE was paramount. In my study of religious history I saw how the words in the Bible not only dictated what people believed about God but influenced their views about a variety of subjects.
Today Christian Fundamentalists, who believe EVERY WORD in the Bible came from God himself, play an influential role in our government and therefore in our society which means a direct affect on us as individuals.
As you know, I have been studying religion and the history surrounding religion for most of my life. I credit my Catholic education for inspiring me to search for answers my Catholic education did not provide.
Anyway, the Bible is a study topic all by itself and the most interesting part of Bible study to me is how it came to be written and by whom. Most books are about the words in the Bible and what they all mean but I needed to know how the Bible itself came to be.
A great new book by Bart D. Ehrman, my favorite religion professor and author, called “MISQUOTING JESUS; The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”, 2005, came on the market recently. It not only talked about how the Bible became what it is today but also touched on why the Catholic Church, at one time, discouraged its members from reading it.
I am referring mostly to the New Testament Books.
Now I am not going to detail all that has happened with the Bible throughout history but kind of summarize what scholars have found. We do not have the originals of any of the Books found in the New Testament (NT). We don’t even have the first copies of the originals. What we have are a hell of a lot of translations of copies of copies……………………………………………….etc.
In 1707 a book was published that is considered a classic in New Testament textual criticism. This particular book compelled scholars to take the “textual situation of our NT manuscripts seriously”.
John Mills, a fellow at Queens College, Oxford, England spent 30 years researching his Greek New Testament edition.
He compared ALL available translations of the NT in all languages. In his “critical apparatus” notes he indicated places of variation among all the surviving material available to him. He listed thirty thousand (30,000) variations.
His work prompted the BIG question IF ONE DID NOT KNOW WHICH WORDS WERE ORIGINAL TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, HOW CAN ONE USE THESE WORDS DECIDING CORRECT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND TEACHING.
Protestant scholars quickly argued that God would never allow the holy text to be so corrupted as to render the standard of faith insecure. They accused the “Papists” (Roman Catholics) of trying to undermine the basis for Protestantism.
This was 1707 but today we have discovered and catalogued 5,700 Greek manuscripts. We also know of 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate plus versions of Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Georgian, Church Slavonic and the like. The number of variations has now grown to 400,000 or more.
Not all the variations are earth shattering. Many are accidental but many are intentional and those should give us pause.
The Catholic Church knew about the variations and the unreliability of any one text from the very beginning. They continued to teach that true faith required the “Apostolic Traditions” preserved within the Church itself and that true faith cannot be based solely on scripture (Sola Scriptura) as the Protestant Reformation maintained because the scripture is unstable and unreliable.
The Protestants then set upon devising methods of textual criticism that would enable modern scholars to reconstruct the original words of the NT.
Many, many books have been published on the subject and continue to be published but in my opinion it is virtually impossible to reconstruct the original words of the N.T.
Today, the Protestants have their version of the Bible and so do the Catholics. Each version tends to reflect the specific theology of each Christian sect.
But to me, the early admonition not to read the Bible makes perfect sense when trying to mold young minds into the “correct” religious thinking. It is easier to study “stories” from the Bible instead of the actual words of the Bible which may or may not be correct.
On a deeper level, religion scholars cannot guarantee that the words in the N.T. are the ones originally written and because such a guarantee cannot be made, the idea that the “words” were / are “divinely” inspired cannot be supported either.
This obviously wreaks havoc with the people that use Biblical “words” to support their way of thinking about matters.
Janusz
My religious education was Catholic. I was taught primarily by nuns from grade school all the way through high school. We had regular “religion” classes which were sometimes attended by the local priest and “Catechism” classes where we studied the latest edition of our Catechism book.
Early on in my education, I was told NOT to read the BIBLE because I may become confused. I was told to rely on the Catholic Church and my Catholic teachers to convey everything about religion I needed to know.
Obviously, I went and got a Bible and started reading it but they were right, it did not make much sense to me even though I enjoyed some of the “dirty” stories.
The instructions to NOT read the Bible puzzled me. My Protestant friends would tell me that in their religion SCRIPTURE was paramount. In my study of religious history I saw how the words in the Bible not only dictated what people believed about God but influenced their views about a variety of subjects.
Today Christian Fundamentalists, who believe EVERY WORD in the Bible came from God himself, play an influential role in our government and therefore in our society which means a direct affect on us as individuals.
As you know, I have been studying religion and the history surrounding religion for most of my life. I credit my Catholic education for inspiring me to search for answers my Catholic education did not provide.
Anyway, the Bible is a study topic all by itself and the most interesting part of Bible study to me is how it came to be written and by whom. Most books are about the words in the Bible and what they all mean but I needed to know how the Bible itself came to be.
A great new book by Bart D. Ehrman, my favorite religion professor and author, called “MISQUOTING JESUS; The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”, 2005, came on the market recently. It not only talked about how the Bible became what it is today but also touched on why the Catholic Church, at one time, discouraged its members from reading it.
I am referring mostly to the New Testament Books.
Now I am not going to detail all that has happened with the Bible throughout history but kind of summarize what scholars have found. We do not have the originals of any of the Books found in the New Testament (NT). We don’t even have the first copies of the originals. What we have are a hell of a lot of translations of copies of copies……………………………………………….etc.
In 1707 a book was published that is considered a classic in New Testament textual criticism. This particular book compelled scholars to take the “textual situation of our NT manuscripts seriously”.
John Mills, a fellow at Queens College, Oxford, England spent 30 years researching his Greek New Testament edition.
He compared ALL available translations of the NT in all languages. In his “critical apparatus” notes he indicated places of variation among all the surviving material available to him. He listed thirty thousand (30,000) variations.
His work prompted the BIG question IF ONE DID NOT KNOW WHICH WORDS WERE ORIGINAL TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, HOW CAN ONE USE THESE WORDS DECIDING CORRECT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND TEACHING.
Protestant scholars quickly argued that God would never allow the holy text to be so corrupted as to render the standard of faith insecure. They accused the “Papists” (Roman Catholics) of trying to undermine the basis for Protestantism.
This was 1707 but today we have discovered and catalogued 5,700 Greek manuscripts. We also know of 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate plus versions of Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Georgian, Church Slavonic and the like. The number of variations has now grown to 400,000 or more.
Not all the variations are earth shattering. Many are accidental but many are intentional and those should give us pause.
The Catholic Church knew about the variations and the unreliability of any one text from the very beginning. They continued to teach that true faith required the “Apostolic Traditions” preserved within the Church itself and that true faith cannot be based solely on scripture (Sola Scriptura) as the Protestant Reformation maintained because the scripture is unstable and unreliable.
The Protestants then set upon devising methods of textual criticism that would enable modern scholars to reconstruct the original words of the NT.
Many, many books have been published on the subject and continue to be published but in my opinion it is virtually impossible to reconstruct the original words of the N.T.
Today, the Protestants have their version of the Bible and so do the Catholics. Each version tends to reflect the specific theology of each Christian sect.
But to me, the early admonition not to read the Bible makes perfect sense when trying to mold young minds into the “correct” religious thinking. It is easier to study “stories” from the Bible instead of the actual words of the Bible which may or may not be correct.
On a deeper level, religion scholars cannot guarantee that the words in the N.T. are the ones originally written and because such a guarantee cannot be made, the idea that the “words” were / are “divinely” inspired cannot be supported either.
This obviously wreaks havoc with the people that use Biblical “words” to support their way of thinking about matters.
Janusz
Friday, June 30, 2006
BUSH IN HUNGARY
Recently, President Bush went to Budapest, Hungary and gave a speech commemorating the fifty (50) years since the 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION. This uprising was by the Hungarian people against their Soviet masters.
Our headlines read, “Bush compares Iraq to Hungary uprising”. In his speech, President Bush said that “…when people stand up for their freedom, America will stand with them”.
Again, I have to set the record straight because obviously neither President Bush nor his administration give a shit about history and just make up stuff as they go along.
After World War II President Franklin Delano Roosevelt handed Eastern Europe to his buddy Joe Stalin. Roosevelt just basically placed millions of Eastern Europeans into Soviet slavery, a whole generation, just like that. I should include Churchill in the decision to hand over Eastern Europe but it really was mostly Roosevelt’s call.
When the Hungarians rose up in revolt against the Soviets in 1956, the boys in Moscow sent over a few thousand tanks and took care of those upstarts. The United States just watched. We may have stood with them but only in our imagination. To our credit, we did allow many Hungarians who escaped Hungary to emigrate here under “political asylum”. Some of my Hungarian friends are here because of that move.
Now Bush wants to compare the Hungarian uprising to the situation in Iraq. I don’t see the similarity.
The Hungarians were invaded by the Soviets and occupied by them. They wanted to rid themselves of the Soviets, they wanted out of the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets could not let that happen – at that particular time in history and so they used overpowering force to quell the rebellion.
The Iraqis were not engaged in a revolution or uprising. The Sunnis in the South did try to revolt after Desert Storm but we allowed Saddam to quell that uprising with brutal force.
We invaded Iraq so we can make them into a democracy and thus start changing the world order in our favor. Invading Iraq to set the Iraqi people free of Saddam was good propaganda but not our reason for invading Iraq.
I understand that Bush needs to apply as much spin to events as he possibly can. The Hungarian anniversary was an opportunity but as evidenced by the blank stares of the Hungarians at his speech, they were wondering what the hell he was talking about.
Janusz
Our headlines read, “Bush compares Iraq to Hungary uprising”. In his speech, President Bush said that “…when people stand up for their freedom, America will stand with them”.
Again, I have to set the record straight because obviously neither President Bush nor his administration give a shit about history and just make up stuff as they go along.
After World War II President Franklin Delano Roosevelt handed Eastern Europe to his buddy Joe Stalin. Roosevelt just basically placed millions of Eastern Europeans into Soviet slavery, a whole generation, just like that. I should include Churchill in the decision to hand over Eastern Europe but it really was mostly Roosevelt’s call.
When the Hungarians rose up in revolt against the Soviets in 1956, the boys in Moscow sent over a few thousand tanks and took care of those upstarts. The United States just watched. We may have stood with them but only in our imagination. To our credit, we did allow many Hungarians who escaped Hungary to emigrate here under “political asylum”. Some of my Hungarian friends are here because of that move.
Now Bush wants to compare the Hungarian uprising to the situation in Iraq. I don’t see the similarity.
The Hungarians were invaded by the Soviets and occupied by them. They wanted to rid themselves of the Soviets, they wanted out of the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets could not let that happen – at that particular time in history and so they used overpowering force to quell the rebellion.
The Iraqis were not engaged in a revolution or uprising. The Sunnis in the South did try to revolt after Desert Storm but we allowed Saddam to quell that uprising with brutal force.
We invaded Iraq so we can make them into a democracy and thus start changing the world order in our favor. Invading Iraq to set the Iraqi people free of Saddam was good propaganda but not our reason for invading Iraq.
I understand that Bush needs to apply as much spin to events as he possibly can. The Hungarian anniversary was an opportunity but as evidenced by the blank stares of the Hungarians at his speech, they were wondering what the hell he was talking about.
Janusz
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
MI SENATOR VOTES AGAINST FREEDOM!
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “By 1 vote, Senate rejects ban on flag burning”, June 28.
Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, voted in favor of amending our Constitution to ban the burning of our flag, “By 1 vote, Senate rejects ban on flag burning”, June 28.
Senator Stabenow thought it more important to protect a piece of cloth than to protect our Constitutional right to free speech.
She is up for re-election this November and obviously thinks that most Michigan voters care more for a piece of cloth than for their freedoms.
Good luck in November.
Janusz M Szyszko
FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY ONE VOTE!
The “Flag Burning” Constitutional Amendment failed in the Senate by one (1) vote. One of the Michigan Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow, actually voted for the Constitutional Amendment because she felt our flag needed protection like that statement makes any sense whatsoever!
I wrote my senator and told her she was a political whore with no principals.
More importantly I told her she cannot be relied on to protect my and my family’s freedoms from jackasses that would take them away from us – and this is where I would like to make my final point since I realize I have been raving about this issue for some time.
Our Founding Fathers, the guys that started this great nation and fashioned our Constitution which has guided us safely for all these years, made sure certain freedoms were guaranteed. One of them is the FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
These guys studied history and knew what to avoid in forming a brand new nation. They were wise and what they formed then is now history. We are the envy of the world. People flock to our shores to taste some of those freedoms they longed for but could never realize in their own countries.
And here comes the flag burning issue that wants to reverse what the Founding Fathers created by doing away with our guaranteed freedoms. Don’t understand? Let me explain.
When the flag burning issue first came up some time ago the Supreme Court said that flag burning (in this country – it cannot pertain anywhere else) is a form of speech / protest. You see the flag is not usually burned as fuel or to keep warm or to cook hot dogs. When it is burned (practically never) it is burned as a protest against this nation or more likely the policies of the nation / administration. The Court saw this as a freedom of speech issue and declared it UNCONSTITUIONAL; against the guarantees afforded by our Constitution.
So the only way these morons could get around it is by including an amendment in the actual Constitution at which time the Supreme Court cannot declare it unconstitutional because it is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In amending our Constitution they are basically telling our Founding Fathers that they were stupid and wrong to insist that Americans need guaranteed freedom of speech. These political twits are willing to compromise our freedoms for political gain. Let me put it this way, they are willing to deny Americans their freedom of speech for a piece of cloth, cloth that is worn by Kid Rock as a poncho at his rock concerts, shapely women wear as short, shorts, fisherman wear as hats, etc……………………………………………………………………………………… give me a bloody break!
THE CONSTITUTION IS OUR SACRED DOCUMENT – DON’T FUCK WITH IT!
Janusz
I wrote my senator and told her she was a political whore with no principals.
More importantly I told her she cannot be relied on to protect my and my family’s freedoms from jackasses that would take them away from us – and this is where I would like to make my final point since I realize I have been raving about this issue for some time.
Our Founding Fathers, the guys that started this great nation and fashioned our Constitution which has guided us safely for all these years, made sure certain freedoms were guaranteed. One of them is the FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
These guys studied history and knew what to avoid in forming a brand new nation. They were wise and what they formed then is now history. We are the envy of the world. People flock to our shores to taste some of those freedoms they longed for but could never realize in their own countries.
And here comes the flag burning issue that wants to reverse what the Founding Fathers created by doing away with our guaranteed freedoms. Don’t understand? Let me explain.
When the flag burning issue first came up some time ago the Supreme Court said that flag burning (in this country – it cannot pertain anywhere else) is a form of speech / protest. You see the flag is not usually burned as fuel or to keep warm or to cook hot dogs. When it is burned (practically never) it is burned as a protest against this nation or more likely the policies of the nation / administration. The Court saw this as a freedom of speech issue and declared it UNCONSTITUIONAL; against the guarantees afforded by our Constitution.
So the only way these morons could get around it is by including an amendment in the actual Constitution at which time the Supreme Court cannot declare it unconstitutional because it is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In amending our Constitution they are basically telling our Founding Fathers that they were stupid and wrong to insist that Americans need guaranteed freedom of speech. These political twits are willing to compromise our freedoms for political gain. Let me put it this way, they are willing to deny Americans their freedom of speech for a piece of cloth, cloth that is worn by Kid Rock as a poncho at his rock concerts, shapely women wear as short, shorts, fisherman wear as hats, etc……………………………………………………………………………………… give me a bloody break!
THE CONSTITUTION IS OUR SACRED DOCUMENT – DON’T FUCK WITH IT!
Janusz
Monday, June 26, 2006
THANK YOU MR. BUSH?
House Resolution 861 declared the “war in Iraq as the central struggle in our war on terror” and should be wholeheartedly supported by one and all. My Republican Congressman, Thaddeus McCotter, voted “present” instead of yes or no. The resolution was non binding but I considered it as an insult to the intelligence of all Americans and I told him so and thanked him for not voting in support of the Republican resolution.
Mr. McCotter replied in pure political fashion saying he did not support the specific resolution BUT he still supported the President and our efforts in Iraq – playing both sides of the issue.
My objection to the resolution and the Republican and Democratic support for the war in Iraq is that we are conveniently trying to erase history and in a sense, re-write it and make President Bush and the Republican Party look like our saviors. Family members ask me how I can attack Bush when he is protecting us from the terrorists – I say bullshit!
I don’t believe we should arbitrarily leave or abandon Iraq at this very moment but I want people to realize that we are embroiled in the Iraq war and our soldiers are dying every day because Bush screwed up big time!
Bush planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11; long before there was a war on terror. After the 9/11 attack Bush basically ignored the terrorists that attacked us (Bin Laden and the Taliban are still alive and getting stronger) and pursued his original plan of attacking Iraq EVEN though Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists.
Now the terrorists are in Iraq because Bush created a haven there for them and a perfect place for them to gather terrorists from all over the world.
For Congress to pass a resolution praising Bush for protecting us against terrorism is a total insult to our collective intelligence. He fucked up big time and now he is using the bad situation he created to his own advantage? I don’t think we should allow him or the Republicans to put that spin on it. I think we should hold their feet to the fire and remind them every day THAT THEY CREATED THE SITUATION WE ARE IN – ENDANGERED THIS COUNTRY AND EVERY ONE OF US UNNECESSARILY AND HAVE MADE THE ENTIRE WORLD A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE.
The next president and Congress will have to spend years fixing the mess Bush and his Republicans have created and our children and grandchildren will have to spend their lives paying for it. Do you think we should praise Bush and the Republicans?
Janusz
Mr. McCotter replied in pure political fashion saying he did not support the specific resolution BUT he still supported the President and our efforts in Iraq – playing both sides of the issue.
My objection to the resolution and the Republican and Democratic support for the war in Iraq is that we are conveniently trying to erase history and in a sense, re-write it and make President Bush and the Republican Party look like our saviors. Family members ask me how I can attack Bush when he is protecting us from the terrorists – I say bullshit!
I don’t believe we should arbitrarily leave or abandon Iraq at this very moment but I want people to realize that we are embroiled in the Iraq war and our soldiers are dying every day because Bush screwed up big time!
Bush planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11; long before there was a war on terror. After the 9/11 attack Bush basically ignored the terrorists that attacked us (Bin Laden and the Taliban are still alive and getting stronger) and pursued his original plan of attacking Iraq EVEN though Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists.
Now the terrorists are in Iraq because Bush created a haven there for them and a perfect place for them to gather terrorists from all over the world.
For Congress to pass a resolution praising Bush for protecting us against terrorism is a total insult to our collective intelligence. He fucked up big time and now he is using the bad situation he created to his own advantage? I don’t think we should allow him or the Republicans to put that spin on it. I think we should hold their feet to the fire and remind them every day THAT THEY CREATED THE SITUATION WE ARE IN – ENDANGERED THIS COUNTRY AND EVERY ONE OF US UNNECESSARILY AND HAVE MADE THE ENTIRE WORLD A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE.
The next president and Congress will have to spend years fixing the mess Bush and his Republicans have created and our children and grandchildren will have to spend their lives paying for it. Do you think we should praise Bush and the Republicans?
Janusz
MICHIGAN VOTES AGAINST DISCRIMINATION!
This November, we in Michigan will be voting for or against MCRI, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
This is a proposed constitutional amendment. I am usually against tampering with constitutions in general, especially our Federal Constitution but this is a State Constitution which I do not hold in the same reverence as I do the federal one.
Anyway, this proposed (State) amendment wants to ban affirmative action programs based on RACE, GENDER & ETHNICITY for purposes of public employment, education or contracting purposes.
This whole initiative stemmed from the University of Michigan’s program to give preferential treatment to blacks as part of an admissions policy. The matter went to the Supreme Court where the policy was judged unconstitutional with stipulations. Some people wanted the policy to be very plain and simple (black & white) and therefore they suggested amending the state constitution to say – NO DISCRIMINATION – PERIOD!
We are all painfully aware of our nation’s discriminatory past. It has been a long and tumultuous road to legally end racial and gender discrimination. We have also gone through a period of adjustment where those who were discriminated against were given preferential treatment to make up for passed discriminatory treatment. Some say the adjustment period is over, some say it needs to continue for quite some time.
I am basically a realist so I don’t look at things only philosophically or based only on principal but on the actual situation at hand – today! I personally think we have come a long way and even though I personally know some diehard racists, I believe they are in a rapidly dieing minority.
As an employer, I don’t see color, sex or ethnicity when I hire and my management does not either. I believe we have reached a stage where talent and skills prevail. I am not so naïve as to believe everyone acts like me but I truly believe that a majority of businesses and institutions do. I feel people who want to prolong the period of adjustment (affirmative action) are just freeloading on society’s guilt trip or are not realists.
As you notice the amendment talks about discrimination only according to race, gender and ethnicity and that the areas it is concerned about is public employment, education and contracting purposes although education is what started this whole thing in motion.
Institutions can still give certain groups special considerations but not based on race, sex or ethnicity. Schools still can give preferential treatment to, let’s say, students that are poor or the first ones in their families to attend college. Cities may look at giving a certain amount of contracts to locally owned companies – see, no race, sex or ethnicity involved.
I think MCRI makes sense. What does not make sense to me was to give a black kid from Detroit admission to UofM over all other qualified applicants because he is black and from Detroit. That kid, statistically, would not make it past the second year. It would make more sense to fix grade schools and high schools in Detroit to give that black kid from Detroit the same academic chance at admission to UofM as everybody else.
I read all of the opposing views and I feel they just don’t hold water even though many, many serious groups are actively trying to defeat this proposal.
Let diversity happen naturally; don’t force it. Women are already the majority at universities and taking science and math classes so don’t despair for them; they will be your bosses in no time.
A vote for MCRI is a vote against discrimination and I think this is a good thing for our society.
Janusz
This is a proposed constitutional amendment. I am usually against tampering with constitutions in general, especially our Federal Constitution but this is a State Constitution which I do not hold in the same reverence as I do the federal one.
Anyway, this proposed (State) amendment wants to ban affirmative action programs based on RACE, GENDER & ETHNICITY for purposes of public employment, education or contracting purposes.
This whole initiative stemmed from the University of Michigan’s program to give preferential treatment to blacks as part of an admissions policy. The matter went to the Supreme Court where the policy was judged unconstitutional with stipulations. Some people wanted the policy to be very plain and simple (black & white) and therefore they suggested amending the state constitution to say – NO DISCRIMINATION – PERIOD!
We are all painfully aware of our nation’s discriminatory past. It has been a long and tumultuous road to legally end racial and gender discrimination. We have also gone through a period of adjustment where those who were discriminated against were given preferential treatment to make up for passed discriminatory treatment. Some say the adjustment period is over, some say it needs to continue for quite some time.
I am basically a realist so I don’t look at things only philosophically or based only on principal but on the actual situation at hand – today! I personally think we have come a long way and even though I personally know some diehard racists, I believe they are in a rapidly dieing minority.
As an employer, I don’t see color, sex or ethnicity when I hire and my management does not either. I believe we have reached a stage where talent and skills prevail. I am not so naïve as to believe everyone acts like me but I truly believe that a majority of businesses and institutions do. I feel people who want to prolong the period of adjustment (affirmative action) are just freeloading on society’s guilt trip or are not realists.
As you notice the amendment talks about discrimination only according to race, gender and ethnicity and that the areas it is concerned about is public employment, education and contracting purposes although education is what started this whole thing in motion.
Institutions can still give certain groups special considerations but not based on race, sex or ethnicity. Schools still can give preferential treatment to, let’s say, students that are poor or the first ones in their families to attend college. Cities may look at giving a certain amount of contracts to locally owned companies – see, no race, sex or ethnicity involved.
I think MCRI makes sense. What does not make sense to me was to give a black kid from Detroit admission to UofM over all other qualified applicants because he is black and from Detroit. That kid, statistically, would not make it past the second year. It would make more sense to fix grade schools and high schools in Detroit to give that black kid from Detroit the same academic chance at admission to UofM as everybody else.
I read all of the opposing views and I feel they just don’t hold water even though many, many serious groups are actively trying to defeat this proposal.
Let diversity happen naturally; don’t force it. Women are already the majority at universities and taking science and math classes so don’t despair for them; they will be your bosses in no time.
A vote for MCRI is a vote against discrimination and I think this is a good thing for our society.
Janusz
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
HOPE IN SOUTH DAKOTA?
South Dakota recently passed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in this country since Roe vs. Wade. The law disallowed abortions in cases of rape and incest. The law allowed abortions only when the mother’s life was in danger. Overnight, South Dakota and the people that live there became symbols of backwardness. My wife refused to go on vacation to S. Dakota for this very reason; not want to spend her vacation dollars to bolster the economy of THOSE people. The law was slated to go into affect on July 1, 2006.
But wait, a ray of light appeared. There were actually some righteous people left in South Dakota that did not subscribe to the beliefs of the dark side. They actually were progressives that were able to rid themselves of centuries old religious superstitions and think in humanist ways which places humans before superstition.
I must admit I don’t know how they did this but they actually managed to collect enough signatures in that seemingly backward state to have the issue placed on a ballot. Think about it; the people of South Dakota will actually get a chance to vote on it instead of a renegade legislature forcing it down their throats.
Now make no mistake about it, the law will probably be approved because the so called progressives are in a minority but just to see that minority fight for their rights does my heart good and keeps me from thinking the whole country has converted to the dark side.
Now I realize that a debate about choice/abortion cannot be held between people representing the competing sides; it has not worked for me so far. But let me try a little reasoning and see where it gets me.
The South Dakota law prohibited abortion in cases of rape and/or incest. I am not a woman but I try to understand how it would feel to get raped. I guess I can try to imagine if I was raped by another male. I can try but I cannot even imagine the horror. To me the violator/rapist would be a criminal monster of the worst kind; Satan himself.
If you’re a woman, the devil can impregnate you with his seed; Satan’s child. What kind of a person would force you to carry Satan’s seed for nine months and then give birth to it even if the child is blameless – just think of the psychological torture to the woman – unimaginable?
What if the rapist was your perverted father? What type of person would force a child to carry the incest seed (her brother or sister) for nine months and then give birth to it? The child will be scarred for life as it is but forcing her to go through a pregnancy is plain barbaric.
What of the unwanted and hated child that is produced (even though innocent)? What kind of life can that child expect and don’t tell me – at least their alive.
If none of this fazes you in the least then you are a cold-blooded, brainwashed worshiper of fetuses with no feelings for your fellow human beings.
Janusz
But wait, a ray of light appeared. There were actually some righteous people left in South Dakota that did not subscribe to the beliefs of the dark side. They actually were progressives that were able to rid themselves of centuries old religious superstitions and think in humanist ways which places humans before superstition.
I must admit I don’t know how they did this but they actually managed to collect enough signatures in that seemingly backward state to have the issue placed on a ballot. Think about it; the people of South Dakota will actually get a chance to vote on it instead of a renegade legislature forcing it down their throats.
Now make no mistake about it, the law will probably be approved because the so called progressives are in a minority but just to see that minority fight for their rights does my heart good and keeps me from thinking the whole country has converted to the dark side.
Now I realize that a debate about choice/abortion cannot be held between people representing the competing sides; it has not worked for me so far. But let me try a little reasoning and see where it gets me.
The South Dakota law prohibited abortion in cases of rape and/or incest. I am not a woman but I try to understand how it would feel to get raped. I guess I can try to imagine if I was raped by another male. I can try but I cannot even imagine the horror. To me the violator/rapist would be a criminal monster of the worst kind; Satan himself.
If you’re a woman, the devil can impregnate you with his seed; Satan’s child. What kind of a person would force you to carry Satan’s seed for nine months and then give birth to it even if the child is blameless – just think of the psychological torture to the woman – unimaginable?
What if the rapist was your perverted father? What type of person would force a child to carry the incest seed (her brother or sister) for nine months and then give birth to it? The child will be scarred for life as it is but forcing her to go through a pregnancy is plain barbaric.
What of the unwanted and hated child that is produced (even though innocent)? What kind of life can that child expect and don’t tell me – at least their alive.
If none of this fazes you in the least then you are a cold-blooded, brainwashed worshiper of fetuses with no feelings for your fellow human beings.
Janusz
Saturday, June 17, 2006
CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A CHANGING!
Hey the Catholics are at it again and I just love it. My profile reads “raised a Catholic” so I have a lot of Catholic upbringing in me. That upbringing (sometimes forced) has inspired me to research Christianity and especially the role the Catholic Church has played in the history of the world. Another point about Catholicism that still fascinates me is the influence it has had and continues to have on our society and us as individuals.
What brings me to the subject of Catholicism is that it is making NEWS and waves at the same time.
You have read that the “words” of the Mass are being changed. It appears that the late Pope John Paul wanted the secular words of the mass today to reflect, more closely, the words of the original LATIN mass; the words I grew up with. The late Pope thought the secularization of the mass got a little out of hand and he was a BIT CONSERVATIVE if you know what I mean.
The problem, as I see it, is that people (like my mother) who finally accepted English instead of Latin and grew to learn those English words will now be asked to RE-LEARN NEW ONES. These old Catholics just hate to change even if the changes will bring the mass closer to the older version of the mass.
How about the headlines “PASTOR DECLARES KNEELING A SIN” – WOW!
Now this gets a little more tricky to explain but in essence the late Pope was still trying to “go back” in time and try to replicate the original meaning of the mass and get rid of the changes that have occurred throughout the centuries – now that is meaty stuff for a history nut case.
In previous blogs you have heard me explain the beliefs of early Christians and that there were MANY Christianities with a VARIETY of beliefs, especially about Jesus and the man /God thing.
When the Christianities finally coalesced into somewhat of a unified group in Rome under the Roman Catholic banner, the beliefs were centered on the fact that Jesus was BOTH MAN AND GOD / HUMAN AND DIVINE.
It is for this reason, out of respect for both his natures, that Catholics STOOD at mass during the AGNUS DEI or the time the priest raises the chalice and when the wine and bread (communion) turns into the body and blood of Jesus.
Through the centuries, the Catholic Church placed greater emphasis on Jesus’ divine nature and minimized his human nature. In fact, Jesus’ humanness really took a back seat and he was “only” worshipped as a God. For this reason, Catholics started (seventh century on) kneeling during this part of the mass – only apropos for worshipping a God – no?
Again, the late Pope was trying to go back to the origins of the faith – cool! I really like this plan only if the Church really explains the reasons to its parishioners. I know that they will follow like lambs or goats or whatever but I always hope some of them will actually give it some thought.
As to the headline about making kneeling a sin well it is Catholicism at its best; to make people change, declare them sinners if they do not. Growing up I was scared to death to eat meat on Friday ‘cause’ I would burn in hell. Later I was told that if a baby died on the way to getting baptized it would burn in hell forever! These are just some of the hard held beliefs that were reversed when the Church could no longer intelligently support such bullshit.
I am eagerly waiting to see my 84 year-old mother’s response once I tell her about the changes – great fun!
Janusz
What brings me to the subject of Catholicism is that it is making NEWS and waves at the same time.
You have read that the “words” of the Mass are being changed. It appears that the late Pope John Paul wanted the secular words of the mass today to reflect, more closely, the words of the original LATIN mass; the words I grew up with. The late Pope thought the secularization of the mass got a little out of hand and he was a BIT CONSERVATIVE if you know what I mean.
The problem, as I see it, is that people (like my mother) who finally accepted English instead of Latin and grew to learn those English words will now be asked to RE-LEARN NEW ONES. These old Catholics just hate to change even if the changes will bring the mass closer to the older version of the mass.
How about the headlines “PASTOR DECLARES KNEELING A SIN” – WOW!
Now this gets a little more tricky to explain but in essence the late Pope was still trying to “go back” in time and try to replicate the original meaning of the mass and get rid of the changes that have occurred throughout the centuries – now that is meaty stuff for a history nut case.
In previous blogs you have heard me explain the beliefs of early Christians and that there were MANY Christianities with a VARIETY of beliefs, especially about Jesus and the man /God thing.
When the Christianities finally coalesced into somewhat of a unified group in Rome under the Roman Catholic banner, the beliefs were centered on the fact that Jesus was BOTH MAN AND GOD / HUMAN AND DIVINE.
It is for this reason, out of respect for both his natures, that Catholics STOOD at mass during the AGNUS DEI or the time the priest raises the chalice and when the wine and bread (communion) turns into the body and blood of Jesus.
Through the centuries, the Catholic Church placed greater emphasis on Jesus’ divine nature and minimized his human nature. In fact, Jesus’ humanness really took a back seat and he was “only” worshipped as a God. For this reason, Catholics started (seventh century on) kneeling during this part of the mass – only apropos for worshipping a God – no?
Again, the late Pope was trying to go back to the origins of the faith – cool! I really like this plan only if the Church really explains the reasons to its parishioners. I know that they will follow like lambs or goats or whatever but I always hope some of them will actually give it some thought.
As to the headline about making kneeling a sin well it is Catholicism at its best; to make people change, declare them sinners if they do not. Growing up I was scared to death to eat meat on Friday ‘cause’ I would burn in hell. Later I was told that if a baby died on the way to getting baptized it would burn in hell forever! These are just some of the hard held beliefs that were reversed when the Church could no longer intelligently support such bullshit.
I am eagerly waiting to see my 84 year-old mother’s response once I tell her about the changes – great fun!
Janusz
INVASION OF IRAQ LIE!
Saturday, June 17, 2006
To: The Free Press
Re: “House resolution supports mission in Iraq”, June 17.
The invasion of Iraq was never a part of the war on terrorism and historical facts bear that out. The resolution passed by the House of Representatives, “House resolution supports mission in Iraq”, June 17, just promulgates a lie. I know why the Republicans voted for the resolution but the 42 Democrats that did should be ashamed of themselves.
Janusz M. Szyszko
Friday, June 16, 2006
A BURNING ISSUE; OUR FLAG!
In my previous blog about Republicans trying to divert our attention from the shitty job they are doing for us and this country, will again bring up hot-button, emotional issues in the hope Americans will somehow forget reality. This has worked for them in the past and they expect to work for them again. We will see in November when Americans actually have an opinion that counts – elections.
Recently they brought up the Gay Marriage issue and tried to change our Constitution to prohibit Gay Marriage. It failed but they hope voters will remember where they stand on this very important issue.
Today it is another “Constitutional Amendment”, this time a ban against burning our flag; another vital, very important issue that has to be addressed or the country will collapse.
Newspapers tell us that this time, they have been bringing this issue up every year; they have a chance of passing it out of the Senate (even if by one vote).
Some Democrats fear that if they vote against it they may be perceived as unpatriotic or somehow un-American and I can see why they have this fear. Our Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow feels the heat since she is up for elections this November so she will vote to amend our Constitution but maybe she actually believes it is needed – well I am starting to think less and less of her and not only because of her stance on this issue.
The issue is nothing if not EMOTIONAL. Obviously, no red-blooded American likes to see his flag burned. Hell, we have strict rules about how the flag can be displayed and even folded. When you burn our flag you burn us as a people, as a nation and that makes us feel very bad.
But basically and realistically the issue is a BULLSHIT issue being used by Republicans for political purposes. It is bullshit because the flag is not burned on a daily basis. In fact, I don’t remember the last time our flag was burned in the United States period – maybe during the Vietnam protests? Yes, it is burned overseas on a regular basis by whoever is against us but this Constitutional Amendment cannot stop them!
SO IF THERE IS NO PROBLEM, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO FIX.
Another objection I have to this issue even being discussed is the fact that it is messing with our CONSTITUTION. I happen, as an American and history nut, to value this document. It has served us well over the years even though MORONS from time to time, try to change it for dubious reasons. I am not saying the Constitution should never have been changed or needs to be changed in the future. Certain Amendments were obviously needed but “Prohibition” – give me a bloody break and this is in the same category of totally worthless and stupid.
Another objection is more about reason and common sense. If this country is all about freedom including freedom of speech and expression, what the hell are you doing by prohibiting the burning of the flag as a form of free speech and free expression; you are a hypocrite, a liar and this country is not really based on principles of freedom!
I do not want to disparage the people that want an amendment banning the burning of our flag because I understand the deep emotions associated with that act BUT there comes a time when you have got to use your brains and realize that this is NOT an issue we should be even talking about. It has NO meaning and will not affect diddly-shit and is just a Republican ploy to get votes BUT is speaks volumes about the mentality of people in this country (I guess I am disparaging) and the ease with which they can be manipulated.
Janusz
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
MI DEMOCRATS AND HEALTHCARE REFORM?
Recently, the U.S. Senate was considering a bill named HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE MODERNIZATION AND AFFORDABILITY ACT (S. 1955).
Most business people like me supported the bill wholeheartedly. The bill, for the first time, would allow health insurance providers to offer many different kinds or types of health coverage policies that would be suited in price and coverage to basically every person’s life situation. Currently, state laws mandate what health policies MUST cover and that makes the policies very expensive and thus unaffordable to many people who prefer to remain UNINSURED!
Being able to offer a variety of health insurance policies would help eliminate the uninsured; the people responsible for our ever rising health care costs (see previous blogs on this subject).
I wrote to Michigan’s Democratic Senators for support but I should have known better. Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow voted against the bill that would bring us a step closer to solving our healthcare dilemma. Why did they refuse to back this common sense bill?
Both Senators had similar responses to my emails. Their first objection was that the new law would allow insurers and businesses to offer “basic” coverage which would not include all the current state-mandated benefits. @#$%^&* that’s the point of this bill – currently some businesses offer NO coverage because the state-mandated coverage is too expensive. By being able to offer AT LEAST basic coverage, their workers would not have to be uninsured.
The Senators mentioned specific areas that would not have required coverage. They included hospice care, newborn coverage, access to Ob/Gyn docs and Pediatricians, diabetic drugs and prevention of diabetes programs. Excuse me but a healthy; 19-25 year old male would not need any of that. Why should he pay exorbitant premiums for something he does not need?
The whole point of this law is to make available policies that fit the specific needs of specific people and their families. If you expect to need the services of a pediatrician, you would buy a policy that included that coverage or you would ask your employer to include it even though you as the employee may have to pay the extra amounts for that coverage – AT LEAST YOU WOULD NOT BE UNINSURED!
The second objection and probably the biggest one since whole page newspaper ads were taken out protesting this point, was that insurers could discriminate. This means the insurers could set their fees according to certain factors like current health status, age, smoking habits, drinking habits, being a female, overweight or working at a high-risk job, to name a few.
Well I hate to be a hard ass but you know Americans need to start taking some responsibility for their health and well being. People that DO take care of themselves should not have to pay higher premiums just to cover people that don’t give a shit about their own health. I would exclude any and all discrimination against diseases and conditions that are beyond the control of any individual.
Even today, life and disability insurance companies run tests on you before they issue a policy. That policy is priced according to the tests and exam results; that only make business sense, so why not use the same factors for health insurance? I would also insist that as you improve your life style (quit smoking, etc.) that your premiums or the premiums of your employer, go down accordingly.
The Senators also objected to the lack of state oversight of insurance plans and elimination of consumer protection for internal grievance procedures. Well, if that bothers you so much why not add it to the bill?
The Senators are SO sympathetic to the plight of small businesses and their problems with annual double digit health premium increases but the proposed plan just did not agree with their views of how things should be. Did they propose an alternative – NO - but I bet I know what it would be – NATIONAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE run by our just so efficient federal government (remember Katrina) and paid for by our middle class (poor people should not have to pay for anything in their lives).
I am not naïve to the point where I expect my Michigan Senators to give a crap about my small business or for that matter any business in Michigan that is trying to control its healthcare quandary. My senators are old DEMOCRATS which means they are really SOCIALISTS and we all know how their thinking runs.
So what does all this mean for me and Michigan, we are screwed! Socialism will not solve our economic issues so we should not elect Democrats but Bush Republicans have become weird religious nut cases that have lost their Republican economic principles. So who do we have to vote for? Like I said, we are screwed!
Janusz
Most business people like me supported the bill wholeheartedly. The bill, for the first time, would allow health insurance providers to offer many different kinds or types of health coverage policies that would be suited in price and coverage to basically every person’s life situation. Currently, state laws mandate what health policies MUST cover and that makes the policies very expensive and thus unaffordable to many people who prefer to remain UNINSURED!
Being able to offer a variety of health insurance policies would help eliminate the uninsured; the people responsible for our ever rising health care costs (see previous blogs on this subject).
I wrote to Michigan’s Democratic Senators for support but I should have known better. Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow voted against the bill that would bring us a step closer to solving our healthcare dilemma. Why did they refuse to back this common sense bill?
Both Senators had similar responses to my emails. Their first objection was that the new law would allow insurers and businesses to offer “basic” coverage which would not include all the current state-mandated benefits. @#$%^&* that’s the point of this bill – currently some businesses offer NO coverage because the state-mandated coverage is too expensive. By being able to offer AT LEAST basic coverage, their workers would not have to be uninsured.
The Senators mentioned specific areas that would not have required coverage. They included hospice care, newborn coverage, access to Ob/Gyn docs and Pediatricians, diabetic drugs and prevention of diabetes programs. Excuse me but a healthy; 19-25 year old male would not need any of that. Why should he pay exorbitant premiums for something he does not need?
The whole point of this law is to make available policies that fit the specific needs of specific people and their families. If you expect to need the services of a pediatrician, you would buy a policy that included that coverage or you would ask your employer to include it even though you as the employee may have to pay the extra amounts for that coverage – AT LEAST YOU WOULD NOT BE UNINSURED!
The second objection and probably the biggest one since whole page newspaper ads were taken out protesting this point, was that insurers could discriminate. This means the insurers could set their fees according to certain factors like current health status, age, smoking habits, drinking habits, being a female, overweight or working at a high-risk job, to name a few.
Well I hate to be a hard ass but you know Americans need to start taking some responsibility for their health and well being. People that DO take care of themselves should not have to pay higher premiums just to cover people that don’t give a shit about their own health. I would exclude any and all discrimination against diseases and conditions that are beyond the control of any individual.
Even today, life and disability insurance companies run tests on you before they issue a policy. That policy is priced according to the tests and exam results; that only make business sense, so why not use the same factors for health insurance? I would also insist that as you improve your life style (quit smoking, etc.) that your premiums or the premiums of your employer, go down accordingly.
The Senators also objected to the lack of state oversight of insurance plans and elimination of consumer protection for internal grievance procedures. Well, if that bothers you so much why not add it to the bill?
The Senators are SO sympathetic to the plight of small businesses and their problems with annual double digit health premium increases but the proposed plan just did not agree with their views of how things should be. Did they propose an alternative – NO - but I bet I know what it would be – NATIONAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE run by our just so efficient federal government (remember Katrina) and paid for by our middle class (poor people should not have to pay for anything in their lives).
I am not naïve to the point where I expect my Michigan Senators to give a crap about my small business or for that matter any business in Michigan that is trying to control its healthcare quandary. My senators are old DEMOCRATS which means they are really SOCIALISTS and we all know how their thinking runs.
So what does all this mean for me and Michigan, we are screwed! Socialism will not solve our economic issues so we should not elect Democrats but Bush Republicans have become weird religious nut cases that have lost their Republican economic principles. So who do we have to vote for? Like I said, we are screwed!
Janusz
Saturday, June 10, 2006
I SAW THE DA VINCI CODE MOVIE!
Well we finally went to see the movie THE DA VINCI CODE. We both read the book some time ago and enjoyed the book because it was fast paced, interesting and had you going till the end.
The movie by director Ron Howard was made “true to the book”. It followed the book exactly and I think for that reason, we were both very bored. My wife nearly fell asleep.
For people that have not read the book, the movie may prove quite exiting but for us quite the opposite.
It did though, give me a chance to revisit some of the premises the book and movie were based on. It has been, after all, some time ago and has spawned and continues to spawn much debate and quite a number of books. It certainly has hit a nerve in Christian circles.
The whole thing about the PRIORY OF SCION has been pretty much debunked. Even “60 Minutes” had a story about it and how some nut case in the near past invented the whole thing – this was a FICTION after all.
The book and the movie did posit some ideas in the guise of factual history that I found quite interesting. The first one was about the Emperor Constantine (272-337 CE /AD).
To say he was instrumental in the rise of Christianity is an understatement; he was THE MAN even though the importance of his role in the whole scheme of things has not been really promoted as I feel it should have been.
Let me put it this way, Christianity as a religion, would probably have died out if it was not for Constantine. I am not saying ole’ Constantine was such a great Christian. Let us just say he was an astute ruler / politician who saw the value in Christianity as a tool of governance. Once he backed Christianity, it became the de facto religion of the empire, people converted in droves and money started flowing into churches and to the leaders of those churches – whoa-la!
The movie made a big deal about the war between the pagans and the Christians and Constantine’s role in that conflict. Wee that was not really true. Pagans and Christians did not actually fight each other as in battles, etc. Paganism is not really a religion; there is no theology or religious philosophy. Pagans had state gods that they serviced (festivals, temples, sacrifices, etc.). Pagans did not care who the Christians worshipped or how they conducted their lives, as long as they did their state duty by sacrificing to the state gods on the official days designated by the state as state god sacrificing days – that’s all.
When the Christians refused to do their state duty, they were called unpatriotic and spat upon (my words).
Constantine did not bring peace between the pagans and Christians. He just allowed freedom of religious practice in the empire through his Edict of Milan (edict of toleration) 313 C.E.
Constantine tried to bring peace among the Christians because for him to use a unified religion to rule an empire, he had to unify that religion. What a lot of people do not realize and have never been taught was that Christianity and Christians were anything but unified – they were at each others throats! The reasons for their disunity are many and profound. Christianity today is a result of that battle between Christians. The winners wanted us to believe that there was never any dissention and did a great job of hiding that fact, even to this very day. For this reason I am not surprised that Christians know so little about the history of their religion.
There is a great book about this very struggle called “When Jesus became GOD; the struggle to define Christianity during the last days of Rome” by Richard E. Rubenstein (1999).
Anyway, the movie emphasizes the COUNCIL OF NICEA (325 C.E.) as a gathering of some 300 church leaders convened by Constantine in the town of Nicaea for the express purpose of uniting all the divergent Christian beliefs. Yes they were voting on which beliefs to adopt and which to throw away and yes, one of the votes was to decide once and for all, Jesus’ divinity.
Actually, the movie made you think that the council voted on whether Jesus was divine or not but that was not exactly correct. Most Christians (not all – another blog?) at that time believed Jesus was divine. The problem was in defining “divine”.
This may be a minor point to some but the movie would have us believe that Jesus’ divinity was a matter of a majority vote and therefore somehow artificially determined. This gave the story in the movie a lot of credence about Jesus as a human with a wife and children and therefore a line of descendants. Hey, that may be possible but I don’t like people manipulating history to fit their suppositions or in this case, their story line.
The Council of Nicaea was called to define Jesus’ divinity among other questions. By the way, the council did not resolve everything and the battles between Christians continued with future emperors taking one side or the other.
Since I started this theme, I may as well explain it to some kind of conclusion. OK, most Christians believed Jesus to be divine and the son of God but he also was human. How can He be human and divine? If there is only one God how can he be the son of God and a God also?
I would like to point out a timeline here because it is easy to get confused with all these dates. I usually use a general years (not exact or historical) to keep track of the time here. I use “0” C.E. as the date Jesus was born (historians say 5 B.C.E.), 30 C.E. as the date he died. Paul’s letters were ~ 50-60 C.E. and the first Gospel (Mark) was ~ 70 C.E. and the last (John) was ~ 110 C.E. The actual Bible (Canon) was not agreed on till 367 C.E so Christians used a variety of so called holy “scriptures”.
As you can see, a lot of Christian beliefs had developed before the Council of Nicaea was called in 325 C.E. – we are talking hundreds of years. During these years, many Christianities developed usually following the beliefs of a charismatic church leader. Eventually, hundreds of Christianities coalesced into a few definitive camps with their specific belief structures and this is where in 325 C.E. we find ourselves.
Please keep in mind that the struggles between competing Christian camps were also between competing church leaders who also had big egos. These leaders had followers who would kill for their heroes and some did. I don’t have room or time to discuss ALL the different Christianities so I will concentrate on the major ones.
Arius of Alexandria, Egypt believed God the Father created God the Son (Jesus). Jesus was divine but subordinate to the Father and he became human. In this belief Jesus was not truly GOD but was divine.
Athanasius, also of Alexandria, believed that Jesus had always existed and was of the same essence as God the Father?
Well, we all know now what happened. We received this gem of logic from the winners of this debate: the Trinity. This belief maintains that there are three (3) divine beings that make up the one God. All three are equal and co-eternal but the three do not make three (3) Gods. God is one, manifest in three (3) beings.
I can just imagine being at this council and listening to the debate. Actually I really wish someone took notes because to come up with the Trinity explanation one would have to be pretty high on something.
More notes on the movie in later blogs.
Janusz
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
PROSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLICAN WAY!
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “U.S. warns Germany of likely abuses in sex trade”, June 6.
The chairman of the U.S. House subcommittee on global human rights, Christopher Smith R-NJ, urged Germany to re-criminalize prostitution, “U.S. warns Germany of likely abuses in sex trade”, June 6.
Prostitution is legal in Germany. The article mentions that some prostitutes are registered there which means they pay taxes, get a pension and health care benefits. Forced prostitution is not tolerated in Germany.
Rep. Smith, in asking Germany to re-criminalize prostitution, wants them to mimic prostitution in this country where prostitutes are usually drug addicts, disease ridden and brutalized by their pimps. Yes, the American way is always better.
Janusz M Szyszko
CHRISTIANS AND GAYS, Part 5
Well let’s make this the fifth installment of my “Christians and Gays” series and the last one for the time being. I promised to go through all the Biblical so-called references to homosexuality but I think I have the patience for only one.
Recently, when I asked a anti-gay Christian for the Bible reference that demanded or instructed him to persecute gays or risk the wrath of the Biblical God, he threw out Romans 1:18.
This is a letter (Epistle) written by Paul to the Romans. This is a New Testament reference and was written after Jesus was put to death.
Paul was not an apostle, even though he called himself that. Paul never met Jesus and was not part of his famous twelve (12). He was a Johnny-come-lately and actually pissed off the apostles by preaching something that they felt Jesus never wanted – a new religion. Jesus was all about reforming Judaism.
Paul claimed he saw Jesus in a vision but hell; he could have been drunk or suffered a concussion when he fell off his ass. Paul is a real enigma. He is basically the founder of Christianity but did not pay too much attention to what Jesus taught; he kind of made up his religion as he went along.
He went from “the world will end soon so prepare” to, “well maybe it won’t end right now but someday so let’s wait and see”. He was a bit confused and at the end probably doubted his own sanity.
Paul’s letters in the New Testament are not all written by him. Historians tell us that it was quite common in those days to write something LIKE someone else and sign it with that person’s name. A number of Paul’s letters were not written by him but by people who wanted to write something with the force and believability of Paul the so called Apostle.
The Letter to the Romans was written by Paul according to scholars. The part cited by the anti-gay Christian (1:18) basically says “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. OK what the hell does that mean? Sounds pretty general to me!
What I think comes closer to saying something about homosexuality or homosexual acts at least is Romans 1:26-27: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural” and “And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error”. Now that is more like it!
To be fair, you need to read the whole letter so as not to take things out of context and you need to read the letter in Greek because the English translators and copyist throughout the centuries have really drifted away from the original Greek copies of the original letter Paul wrote in Greek – whew!
Sure sounds like a condemnation of homosexual acts to me. Some even say that the words “…due penalty of their error” refers to the AIDS epidemic, originally started by homosexuals infecting other homosexuals but now infecting and affecting many heterosexuals.
This is where the “HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD” of reading and interpreting the Bible comes in handy. What did Paul mean? What was he talking about and to whom? Greek society at that time accepted homosexual acts as normal. He thought they were unnatural because Jews thought they were unnatural. Logic tells us that they WERE against nature. What is Paul telling his audience in the first century AD?
Paul’s Letter to the Romans is historically, the most influential of any of his letters. St. Augustine based his theology on it, Martin Luther and John Calvin based their “Protestant Reformation” on what they thought the Letter said. But for all the above, the Letter meant an exposition of the road to salvation, it did not have a homosexual reference to them at all or at least they did not indicate that it did – don’t forget homosexuality as we know it today did not exist then.
So what the hell was Paul talking about? I cannot tell you and historians can only guess, albeit more accurately than me. They think he was referring to pederasty and temple prostitution. He was also commenting on Greek culture. He was trying to convey what type of behavior is appropriate for salvation and which is not.
There is no question that he did not think homosexual ACTS were acceptable. So there you have it!
I cannot fault Christians for reading this passage the way they do and coming away with an understanding that Paul condemns homosexual acts. Would he do the same if he knew homosexuals are born that way, well we just don’t know.
My argument against using this particular Biblical text against homosexuality is only general. Since Paul was writing in the first century to first century people, we should not assume that his words apply to us today. Since Paul is not an apostle or a follower of Jesus, we should not take his words as somehow sanctioned by Jesus.
Janusz
Recently, when I asked a anti-gay Christian for the Bible reference that demanded or instructed him to persecute gays or risk the wrath of the Biblical God, he threw out Romans 1:18.
This is a letter (Epistle) written by Paul to the Romans. This is a New Testament reference and was written after Jesus was put to death.
Paul was not an apostle, even though he called himself that. Paul never met Jesus and was not part of his famous twelve (12). He was a Johnny-come-lately and actually pissed off the apostles by preaching something that they felt Jesus never wanted – a new religion. Jesus was all about reforming Judaism.
Paul claimed he saw Jesus in a vision but hell; he could have been drunk or suffered a concussion when he fell off his ass. Paul is a real enigma. He is basically the founder of Christianity but did not pay too much attention to what Jesus taught; he kind of made up his religion as he went along.
He went from “the world will end soon so prepare” to, “well maybe it won’t end right now but someday so let’s wait and see”. He was a bit confused and at the end probably doubted his own sanity.
Paul’s letters in the New Testament are not all written by him. Historians tell us that it was quite common in those days to write something LIKE someone else and sign it with that person’s name. A number of Paul’s letters were not written by him but by people who wanted to write something with the force and believability of Paul the so called Apostle.
The Letter to the Romans was written by Paul according to scholars. The part cited by the anti-gay Christian (1:18) basically says “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. OK what the hell does that mean? Sounds pretty general to me!
What I think comes closer to saying something about homosexuality or homosexual acts at least is Romans 1:26-27: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural” and “And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error”. Now that is more like it!
To be fair, you need to read the whole letter so as not to take things out of context and you need to read the letter in Greek because the English translators and copyist throughout the centuries have really drifted away from the original Greek copies of the original letter Paul wrote in Greek – whew!
Sure sounds like a condemnation of homosexual acts to me. Some even say that the words “…due penalty of their error” refers to the AIDS epidemic, originally started by homosexuals infecting other homosexuals but now infecting and affecting many heterosexuals.
This is where the “HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD” of reading and interpreting the Bible comes in handy. What did Paul mean? What was he talking about and to whom? Greek society at that time accepted homosexual acts as normal. He thought they were unnatural because Jews thought they were unnatural. Logic tells us that they WERE against nature. What is Paul telling his audience in the first century AD?
Paul’s Letter to the Romans is historically, the most influential of any of his letters. St. Augustine based his theology on it, Martin Luther and John Calvin based their “Protestant Reformation” on what they thought the Letter said. But for all the above, the Letter meant an exposition of the road to salvation, it did not have a homosexual reference to them at all or at least they did not indicate that it did – don’t forget homosexuality as we know it today did not exist then.
So what the hell was Paul talking about? I cannot tell you and historians can only guess, albeit more accurately than me. They think he was referring to pederasty and temple prostitution. He was also commenting on Greek culture. He was trying to convey what type of behavior is appropriate for salvation and which is not.
There is no question that he did not think homosexual ACTS were acceptable. So there you have it!
I cannot fault Christians for reading this passage the way they do and coming away with an understanding that Paul condemns homosexual acts. Would he do the same if he knew homosexuals are born that way, well we just don’t know.
My argument against using this particular Biblical text against homosexuality is only general. Since Paul was writing in the first century to first century people, we should not assume that his words apply to us today. Since Paul is not an apostle or a follower of Jesus, we should not take his words as somehow sanctioned by Jesus.
Janusz
MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAW IN MICHIGAN
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
To: The Detroit News
Re: “Helmet law is on road to Granholm”, June 7.
I don’t care if the 496,000 motorcycle riders in Michigan do not have to wear helmets while operating their vehicles, “Helmet law is on road to Granholm”, June 7. I don’t even care if they ride naked but when skin hits the road, make sure the Michigan taxpayer is not liable, in any way, for putting them back together again.
Janusz M Szyszko
Monday, June 05, 2006
GAY MARRIAGE A PRESSING ISSUE?
This is a follow-up to my letter to the editor about Republicans using their tried and true political gambit of resurrecting hot-button, highly emotional bull-shit issues right before the November elections.
So last week, here is ole’ Bush with the war in Iraq going just dandy, American soldiers dieing left and right, Iran ready to make an A-Bomb, Afghanistan reverting back to the Taliban, new hurricane season upon us, Mexicans spilling through our borders and all sorts of horse shit going wrong with this country and he wants to address the most pressing issue facing this nation: Gay Marriage.
The really sad thing is that this tactic has worked in the past and probably will work again. ARE WE THAT FUCKING STUPID? The short answer is that many of us ARE! Many of us think that if gays get married in a legal fashion our society will come to an end or God will rain damnation on us all or some other superstitious nonsense.
The plain fact is that allowing gays to marry under the full protection of the law will NOT affect us one bit. Heterosexuals have totally screwed up the holy institution of marriage to the point where it is a joke and we are worried that the gays will, what – screw it up some more?
It is sad but when I attend a wedding ceremony these days and listen to all those beautiful words of everlasting love and what God has joined together let no man put asunder, I think – WHO ARE WE KIDDING – this marriage has a 50% chance of ending in divorce so why play this game and say all those things we do not really mean – till death do us part?
Gays will say the same things and not really mean them. Fifty percent or more will also end up in divorce or maybe not! We don’t have statistics on legal gay marriages so maybe they will show heterosexuals how to stay married?
I have been married for over 35 years and I do not feel threatened by legalized gay marriage. I say let them experience how easy it is to stay married; why should we have all the fun. Gays want the fun without the responsibility. Let us see what happens when they flit from one guy to another and then get sued for divorce and have to spend big bucks on lawyers and such – what joy!
I think Bush is making an issue where no issue exists. It is all politics and those in politics know that a large segment of this population can be influenced by non-issues like gay marriage – so why not do it.
I guess I just get really pissed off at how easily we as a people can be maneuvered by people that know how to maneuver people and looking at our school system and the products of that school system, this population will be maneuvered for a very long time.
Janusz
Thursday, June 01, 2006
DIXIE CHICKS HAVE BALLS!
I don’t know if you have been following the saga of the singing trio from Texas called the DIXIE CHICKS. I have and it is a story worth telling. I may even buy their album and I don’t usually buy Country & Western Music albums.
On the eve of our invasion of Iraq, one of the Chicks said on a London stage that she was ashamed that President Bush came from Texas. All hell broke lose in the South. Remember that at that time most Americans believed Bush and his reasons for the invasion - now we all know he was and is just a dirty ole’ liar.
The Chicks were called traitors and unpatriotic. Country & Western radio stations banned their music and still do. Fans denounced them and burned their CDs. The only apology was “for disrespecting the office of the president” but that’s all. Their careers were seemingly finished.
This week they released their first album since that fateful day. It is called “Taking the Long Way” and the hit single from that album is “Not Ready to Make Nice” or as I like to translate it: Fuck Y’all! The album and the single are number one on the charts and not because their old fans have forgiven them.
They were on CNN last night and they recounted the whole experience and described their feelings then and now and what they thought of the dramatic reaction to their London statement. Other singers have criticized the President and his war and not a peep about it. But their fans were so called Country & Western music fans and they don’t like people criticizing their president and therefore THEIR country. Many of their recording star cohorts (Toby Keith) denounced them but then they make their money singing patriotic songs and doing truck commercials.
I guess what intrigued me about this whole story is their courageous stand against all odds. They stood up for their beliefs and never wavered even with their careers at stake and now they are saying – see you morons, patriotism without brains is damaging to this country. We need to pay attention to what is going on instead of accepting things blindly. We need to speak up if we disagree, yes, even with the President. That is what Democracy is all about!
The Chicks said that their greatest shock was at how people, even people they thought they knew, could react with such anger and such hatred (and I may add such stupidity and ignorance).
Hooray for the Chicks! May they serve as role models for the new generation of Americans and a lesson to some older ones too?
Janusz
On the eve of our invasion of Iraq, one of the Chicks said on a London stage that she was ashamed that President Bush came from Texas. All hell broke lose in the South. Remember that at that time most Americans believed Bush and his reasons for the invasion - now we all know he was and is just a dirty ole’ liar.
The Chicks were called traitors and unpatriotic. Country & Western radio stations banned their music and still do. Fans denounced them and burned their CDs. The only apology was “for disrespecting the office of the president” but that’s all. Their careers were seemingly finished.
This week they released their first album since that fateful day. It is called “Taking the Long Way” and the hit single from that album is “Not Ready to Make Nice” or as I like to translate it: Fuck Y’all! The album and the single are number one on the charts and not because their old fans have forgiven them.
They were on CNN last night and they recounted the whole experience and described their feelings then and now and what they thought of the dramatic reaction to their London statement. Other singers have criticized the President and his war and not a peep about it. But their fans were so called Country & Western music fans and they don’t like people criticizing their president and therefore THEIR country. Many of their recording star cohorts (Toby Keith) denounced them but then they make their money singing patriotic songs and doing truck commercials.
I guess what intrigued me about this whole story is their courageous stand against all odds. They stood up for their beliefs and never wavered even with their careers at stake and now they are saying – see you morons, patriotism without brains is damaging to this country. We need to pay attention to what is going on instead of accepting things blindly. We need to speak up if we disagree, yes, even with the President. That is what Democracy is all about!
The Chicks said that their greatest shock was at how people, even people they thought they knew, could react with such anger and such hatred (and I may add such stupidity and ignorance).
Hooray for the Chicks! May they serve as role models for the new generation of Americans and a lesson to some older ones too?
Janusz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS: Stay or Go...
Another subject that I feel needs some clarification because it is so divisive among us is the issue of Confederate Monuments, why they ...
-
I know I said I would leave the political campaign we just went through, alone and move on to other things BUT there are some things that ne... -
Image via Wikipedia I am sure you have not been following the FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) funding reauthorization battle betwee...
-
There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Detroit News by Nolan Finley, a conservative columnist. The title of his column was THE...
