Monday, December 15, 2008

Bible Morons

(note: I broke down and took muscle relaxants, so some of this could be confused, mispelled, etc. Trust me, it hurts me more than it hurst you.)

I would define "bible moron" as (a) anyone who believes that the bible is literally true; (b) anyone who cherry picks the parts they like- homosexual bad!- and ignores the rest -eating shrimp just as bad!; (c) anyone who believes that the King James Version of the bible is god's preferred translation; (d) anyone who uses the bible to justify their small-minded bigotry and fear.

It turns out that I'm wrong. I'm the bible moron. (Apparently, I'm just not good enough at the hating.)

Newsweek and Bush: Bible Morons by Joe Kovacs

Holy moly! Really? Are we reading a script for Leave it to Beaver?

What in the name of all that is good and godly is going on? See that? It's subtle. "Good and godly" In literature, when you combine two things with "and", you are equating them, holding them up to be equal, to be connected. Good and godly. Good must be combined with godly. It cannot exist without godly. mmmm-hmmmmm.

In a season supposed to be filled with glad tidings of God echoing throughout the land I thought that was "comfort and joy". Whatever. , we have the president of the United States questioning the Bible's literal content and? is the President of the United States supposed to be a theologist? Is he really supposed to be commenting on religion at all? and a major newsmagazine suggesting the Good Book has no problem with same-sex marriage. I liked that one.

In case you missed it, President George W. Bush was asked this week if the bible is literally true. I don't even know why anyone would ask the President of the US this question. It strikes me as being wildly inappropriate to ask this question. You know why? The US government is specifically forbidden to prefer one religion over the other. Bible literalness (literality?) is specific to certain sects of Christianity, and certainly not common to all. In fact, the vast majority of Christians do not believe that the bible is literally true. For the President to say anything about this at all necessarily has him picking one religion over the other. Admittedly, the President is free to attend any church of his choosing, and therefore pick one religion over the other, but this question makes it so much more . . . open.

"You know. Probably not," Bush told ABC's Cynthia McFadden Oh my nonexistent being! W said something clear, concise and intelligent. The apocalypse is nigh! . "No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son."' Oh, he lost it. Well, what did I expect? I personally do find a great deal to learn from the bible, aside from the obvious historical data. Most of what Jesus said, when you remove the worshipping stuff, was wonderful humanism. Do unto others. Judge not. Turn the other cheek. Comfort the lonely, feed the hungry, give to the poor. Who can argue with the wisdom of that?

He also said he thinks God's creation of the Earth could have taken place along with human evolution. See, I can buy this, even being an atheist. If you believe that God is omnipotent, and you believe that God gave us free will, why is it so hard to believe that God started the ball rolling with something simple, and let everything evolve as it will? Because, if you believe the bible is literal and innerrant, then you believe that all of creation is only about 6,000 years old. Carbon dating? A lie. Fossil proof? A lie. The amount of denial necessary to believe in bible literalness/innerrancy is astounding.

"I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution," he said.

And then there are the morons at Newsweek. The morons with college degrees and years of experience!

Next week's cover story titled "Our Mutual Joy" actually suggests the bible argues in favor of homosexual marriage.


What Bible are these doofuses I prefer "asshole" or "motherfucker", but I tend toward pithy. reading? I can't figure out which bible the hatemongers like Kovacs are reading, so the confusion is mutual.

I don't know about you, but I am absolutely fed up with idiocy like this. Funny, I feel the same way about you, Mr. Kovacs.

Forget Newsweek and Bush. Be a champion for Bible truth and get "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" personally signed by author Joe Kovacs! I took out the link in the interests of safety, but that is indeed an advertisement for his book. What's astonishing is Mr. Kovacs use of the word "facts".

First, regarding Bush's statements, I don't know why he has such a problem with believing the literal truth of Scripture. I do. Has Mr. Kovacs actually read the bible?
If he agrees a supernatural event took place when God the Father sent His Son to Earth by miraculously impregnating a young woman who never had sex, then why is it so hard to believe the rest? Ummm . . . there is a serious difference between believing that parthenogenesis occurred once in human history and believing that the universe, contrary to all the evidence surrounding us, is 6,000 years old.

If God can create the planet I find the creation of the universe a little more exciting than the creation of the earth, but whatever?, then why can't He scoop up some dirt, shape it in the image of Himself and then breathe the breath of life into the first man? Why shape it out of dirt? Why not just wave a hand and bam! there's man? He made the dirt out of nothing. It's all very confusing.

Is it impossible? For us, yes. But obviously, not for the eternal Creator. What an interesting use of the word "obviously".

Why believe one miracle, and not any other? Are we supposed to just pick and choose which fantastic miracle to believe? Or, you can believe in none at all, like me.

On Newsweek's ludicrous claim, here's the real truth. The Bible never mentions any case of same-sex marriage, but it soundly condemns homosexuality. and eating shrimp! Lev 11:9-12

I know some people hear conflicting messages these days and rarely crack open their Bibles, I'm guessing Mr. Kovacs never does either, or he'd know about the shrimp thing. so here's a quick lesson.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22, King James Version)

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." (Leviticus 18:22, New Living Translation)

Why the two different translations of the same passage? Because there is no word for "homosexuality" in biblical Hebrew. "Lying with mankind as with womankind" is as close as you can get. In fact, there are scholars (with real PhDs!) who believe, based on actual research, that Lev 18:22 is referring to ritual religious sex with temple acolytes practiced by the Babylonians worshipping Baal. This actually makes sense because there is a great deal in the old testament about Baal worshipping. God really had a thing about that back in the day.

Speaking of cherrypicking, here are some other things forbidden in Leviticus.

Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard I found a picture of Mr. Kovacs: he does exactly that.

Lev 15:19 - 23 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, (menstruation) she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

I bet Mr. Kovacs doesn't make his wife sit in a certain chair or sleep in a separate bed during her period. I'm certain that if he touches the bed she sleeps on during her period, he doesn't bathe himself in water and hold himself unclean until the evening. So saith the Lord, Mr. Kovacs!

In fact, God finds homosexual activity so abhorrent, He called for the death penalty for it.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13, KJV)

Other acts that called for the death penalty in Leviticus:

Lev 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. No more mouthy teenagers!

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Adulterers get put to death, too!

Lev 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Stone the witches!

My point? Leviticus condemns A LOT of things that you, me and Mr. Kovacs do every day. Leviticus calls for the death penalty for all kinds of things that we don't even consider a crime anymore. If you are going to pick one thing from Leviticus to follow, you need to follow them all, or admit that you're picking that one thing because you hated it to begin with and want a moral justification.

Newsweek's Lisa Miller calls such verses "throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world ... ." I wouldn't call them "throwaway lines" and I wouldn't call the text "peculiar". Thousands of years ago, in an entirely different world and culture, Leviticus may have made sense. Actually, a lot of Leviticus does make sense. It forbids incest, which causes genetic disorders. It forbids the eating of certain foods likely to cause disease. It allows woman who have given birth 4-6 weeks off from sex, which is good medical advice. However, Leviticus just isn't relevant to the modern world, anymore than a cookbook written 2,000 years ago in Africa would be particularly useful to me, in the US, today.

What kind of psychobabble is that? Ah, the psychobabble. Actually, it's not "psychobabble", it's a review of historical relevance.

The very next Bible verse after Leviticus 18:22 tells us not to have sex with animals. Is Newsweek suggesting that's a "throwaway line" as well? Sex with animals is really gross. What about the shrimp eating? I know you throw that one away, Mr. Kovacs.

Meet Joe Kovacs in person! The author of "Shocked by the Bible" will be championing Bible truth and signing copies of his book Saturday, Dec. 20, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at Borders Books in the Treasure Coast Square Mall in Jensen Beach, Fla. Yet another push to sell the product!

Even the ancient city of Sodom was known for its sexual perversion, and was firebombed by God shortly after the homosexuals there demanded to have sex with two of God's angels who were appearing in the form of men:
"They shouted to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out so we can have sex with them.'" (Genesis 19:5, NLT)

Again, Mr. Kovacs is cherry-picking translations to get the words he wants. That reads And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. in the King James Version.

Once more, with feeling. The story of Sodom (and that other city) is not a story of sexual misconduct, it is a story about the tensions between modern (for the time), city-dwelling Jews and their traditional, nomadic counsins. The sin of the Sodomites wasn't homosexuality, it was inhospitality. In traditional, nomadic cultures, hospitality is hugely important because it is easy to run out of food and water and even shelter in the desert. So, one group of nomads may need another to share with them for survival, and the second group does it knowing they may need the same favor in the future. The city-dwellers wouldn't share, because they didn't need to. For them, sharing was just losing valuable resources, because they wouldn't be getting them back in the future.

In the story of Sodom (and that other city), tradition prevails, and modern metrosexuals are shown to be teh evil. Even 6,000 years ago, the present was sinful and the past was pure.

If you've ever been to or heard of a "gay"-pride parade in recent times, keep in mind that flaunting perversion is not necessarily new. Yeah, I said that nicer.

"They parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves." (Isaiah 3:9, New International Version) How many translations is this guy going to use? (I have 6 at home, but I stick with the KJV for the most part, because people are familiar with it.) The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. Neither verse contains any hint of what the sin was, just that they were flaunting it. Which probably did not mean a parade with floats in ancient Judea.

The New Testament brings up Sodom quite often, with examples such as:
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7, KJV)
Wow! A mention of sex in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. You're thinking that "strange" flesh is homoland, right? Nope! Sex with people outside of the tribes of Israel is strictly forbidden in Leviticus. (Moses was married to an African woman, but that's a whole 'nother story.) So, our modern city-dwellers weren't just abandoning the old traditions, they were doin' it with the shiksas!

And the Apostle Paul addressed the subject, calling homosexuality "shameful desires":
"Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." (Romans 1:26-27, NLT)
Yeah, Paul was a gem.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am fed up with people lying about the Bible. So am I, you don't see me . . . well, yes you do. I just don't have book signings.

I'm fed up with people twisting the words of Holy Scripture to fit some depraved, politically correct, anti-God agenda. I'm sick of people twisting the words of holy scripture to fit some bigoted, hateful, fearmongering agenda. I'm sick of people using the holy scripture to justify violence and oppression. Racists did the same thing during integration. Way to pick your heroes, Mr. Kovacs.

I'm fed up with fables and misconceptions about the Bible that have endured for centuries. Me, too.

I'm fed up with people saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says. I'm sick of people saying the bible says what it doesn't.
It means exactly what it says and it says what it means. true, which is why I find all of this quite frustrating.
And just in case you never heard the Good News, here it is: for all the people who just got out of the box they've been living in and immediately logged onto the internet?
God is coming back to put an end to this nonsense. Hold your breath!
He will raise people out of their graves ewwwww!, granting eternal life to many to administer the kingdom of God – the actual government of God huh? where the fuck is that in the bible? my reward for a life of bigotry and small-mindedness is an eternity as god's secretary? yee-fucking-haw!– here on Earth.

He'll finally oust the unseen reason behind this mess: the devil, the current "god of this world," "prince of the power of the air," "father of lies" and "spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience."
Satan? Shai'tan? Be'el zvuv? Lord of the Flies, baby!

Mr. Bush, I pray you realize one day the message of the New Testament is a lot more than "God sent a son." It is, but not what Mr. Kovacs thinks it is. He thinks the New Testament is a message of hate. Judge not doesn't come up once in this screed. How 'bout this one? Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Yes, change is coming. A regime change the powers that be don't want. yeesh.
The kingdom of God is on its way. coming down the highway!
And God isn't bringing democracy god hates democracy? why do we keep spreading that again? and the American system with Him didn't Mr. Kovacs just say that god hates democracy? The American system is democracy. I can't even follow this one!. The true Messiah doesn't need to be elected. WE"RE A FREAKIN' DEMOCRACY, ASSHAT!

Now that's some real glad tidings. Oh yeah, "democracy is on its way out" is really a glad tiding. First against the wall, buddy.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at