Daily Archives: November 26, 2012
The Sinead O’Connor reblog
One of the most salient traits of modern society is the fact that people claim – and are given – credibility just because they happen to be famous.
A beautiful example of this is Sinead O’Connor. I can’t imagine any other age in which an unstable lesbian with rather hysteric ideas, a penchant for suicide and in general rather fit for a specialised establishment for mental illnesses can ordain herself – or be ordained by some other clown – a “priestess” and be taken seriously. In every other age, people would say to her “yes, dear” and care that there are no knives lying about.
Not with this lady (boy?), though. We are here in front of a person who married four times – showing an admirable ability to stick to her own decisions – threw in some lesbianism just for the fun of it, and made other rather extraordinary…
View original post 277 more words
I have stumbled upon an interesting commentary on the Bible concerning the strange way some wannabe Christians – not believing what they say themselves, and not taken seriously by anyone else – want to interpret the destruction of Sodom as the punishment for – incredibile dictu – not being “hospitable”.
I invite you to click on the article and to absorb its content; it does not deal only with the obvious condemnation of Sodom made by Jesus, but also with other excuses taken by the perverts to attempt to re-invent Christianity.
I will limit myself to one or two additional considerations, worth perhaps a second or two of your time.
1) It cannot be that 2,000 years of Christianity have been completely and utterly wrong. The idea of starting to quibble about the meaning of words written thousands of years ago cannot conceal the fact that thousands of years ago everyone knew what they meant, and their meaning is exactly what has been transmitted. That nowadays fewer people are able to understand the meaning of old expressions does not mean that those expressions should now magically mean something else.
Say, the word “wicked” has always meant something like “evil”, but nowadays some (not very smart) people use it to say “cool”. It can be argued that as I write “wicked” is used to express both, but there can be no uncertainty concerning the fact that everyone knows what it means in the context, and there’s no way to misinterpret it when you hear or read the word. But now imagine a sodomite coming up in 2000 years’ time and reading XXI Century texts saying that sodomy is wicked. “Hey”, he would say, “wicked actually also meant cool, so here it means that sodomy is cool!”.
I know the argument is stupid, but so are they. They are, in fact, so stupid to think the contemporaries and the following generations didn’t know what the Bible says, but they do.
2) Everyone who is not entirely stupid understands that Jesus is making an extreme example, meaning that those who refuse to accept his teaching are going to be punished so severely, that not even (insert here the worst wickedness known to humanity) will be punished so harshly as them. This is the only logical way to read the episode, and in fact it is the only way the episode was read as long as people took Christianity seriously.
But now imagine that Jesus would have said that not even those who don’t say “good morning” are going to be punished as harshly as those who do not accept His teaching; or those who don’t mown the lawn; or those who aren’t hospitable. Where’s the logic in that? Obviously hospitality was important in biblical times, but this still does not come even near to a justification for the bizarre argument made. Apart from the fact that the Sodomites seem to have been very hospitable, in their own pervert way…
Seriously, some people seem to think with their genitals…
Enjoy the linked article and perhaps try to memorise, if you can, the main points. It might be useful with the next smartass acquaintance wanting to show off his “alternative” knowledge…