Another Crazy Catholic is Smug

[SOURCE] Sacerdotus left a message on my blog on Christmas day, I only just read it today, and then went off to visit the website of said Sacerdotus. The blogger is catholic and seems to have the jesus virus bad, and loves the pope.  Lots. One of the recent entries is about LGBT.  Let’s have a read!

“LGBT” is an acronym that lists the different categories of identities within the homosexual umbrella – Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transsexual.  However, I want to transform it into something better. LET GOD BE THERE.

Oh, I see what you did there, I suppose you think you’re clever!

I invite my brothers and sisters in the homosexual community to allow God to work in their lives.

I’m not your brother and I dismiss your faith as irrelevant.  There is no god to work in your life or my life.

Unfortunately, there is a bit of animosity between the LGBT community and what they are told God is.  The Old Testament does have harsh words regarding homosexual behavior.  Catholicism and other Christians speak out against homosexuality with such fervor that we are sometimes looked upon as bigots of hateful people.

You are bigots and hateful people. All the way up to your pope who blames gay people for all sorts of things wrong with the world.  And the old testament doesn’t just have harsh words, it wants to put gay people to death.  Go check.

In reality, we are neither   We are merely calling all to live in accordance with the natural law which is ordained by God.

Well good for you, now fuck off and keep it to yourself.  You are in no position to ‘merely call’ anyone to live in accordance with the natural law.  God and natural law have no right being in the same sentence.

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual feelings are not a sin.  It is a sin when they are acted upon.

Sin is such a christian thing.  There is nothing wrong with having sex and there is no such thing as sin.

We still do not know what exactly causes some to be homosexuals.

Causes?  Who cares, the reality is that we have people from all over the world and all through time who are gay.  The cause is of no importance to those people.  Being able to live without fear is important.

 Psychologists are stuck on the issue and feel it is a combination of nature and nurture.  No homosexual gene has been discovered and for the most part, a homosexual’s brain is pretty much the same as a heterosexual’s in regards to function.

No heterosexual gene has been discovered either.  Nor a gene for being a douche.  Your quip about people’s brains sort of borders on saying that there is something wrong with the brain of a homosexual person.  How rude!

In any event, homosexuals are not strange or evil people.  Yes, some may act a big strange or may be different – we all are different.  This does not give anyone the right to bully them or attack them in any shape or form.  They are God’s children.  Jesus died for them and opens His heart to them as He would anyone else.

And here you are, allowing your pope to blame us for the destruction of the family.  Here you are suggesting that if we so much as touch the wobbly bits of a same-sex partner we are doomed to burn for all eternity in a hell created by your god who supposedly loves us.  We are attacked, vilified and harassed by well meaning catholics and you still don’t get it.

We as believers in God must attack the behavior, not the people.   Homosexuality is not a sentence to hell, but can be an opportunity for grace.  The Catholic Church calls all to chastity, including married couples.  This may seem hard, but it is not impossible.  One of our greatest minds and saints, St. Augustine of Hippo said in his Confessions, “Lord make me chaste – but not yet!”

Chaste?  Why should I give up sex?  I’m simply not going to, and a whole bunch of people, gay and otherwise see through this sort of control.  Then there is the loving threat that we get from catholics.  Homosexuality is not a sentence to hell!  but mind you, if you don’t accept grace and turn from your sinful ways then that’s where you’ll end up.  In hell, and you’ll only have yourself to blame.

JesusGayOur sexuality is important and is very powerful.  How else can human beings reproduce if they cannot even get close to a partner?  This is why sexual drive is so powerful in us.  It stems from the “be fruitful and multiply” command of God.  However, we should not be the sum of our sexuality.  Our sexual drive should not define us or control us.  This is why we have intellect, conscience, will and reason.

You’ll be pleased to know that sexual drive does not define most of us.  You’ll be delighted to know that it has been like forever since sex was only about reproducing.  In fact, humanity has gone out of its way to find ways to prevent the sperm and egg from coming together to make a baby!  People have sex because it’s fun.  It has very little to do with the actual breeding.  Even the catholics have been smart enough to work that out and they too have found ways to cheat the falling pregnant thing.  (Think rhythm  method or the Billings method).  Gay people are not the sum of their sexuality.  They too have jobs, families and hobbies, they don’t just fuck all day long.

God is the designer of our bodies.  Only He knows how to work them and control them that is why we must pray to God to help us whenever we are tempted to do unchaste things.

We the people more and more understand how the body works.  The designer of the bodies that you claim is one fucked up designer.  Why put nails on toes that can be ingrown?  Why allow teeth to rot and hurt?  Why make sex so good and then insist that people not do it?  Your god seems to have fallen asleep during the design meetings.

Unfortunately, those homosexuals who “come out” and show no remorse for their actions become slaves to their sexuality.  They categorize each other as “tops, bottoms, versatiles.”  They are no longer persons, but instruments of sexual gratification.  They categorize themselves as “fems, butch, twinks, bears.”  They are no longer persons, but objects that one can pick and choose based on one’s desires.

Sex is sex.  It’s good, you should try it.  There is no reason for gay people not to come out.  Why would there be a need for any remorse?  It helps to know the type of person you’re having sex with, what do they like?  Saves a lot of hassle later on.  And whether you like it or not, sex is about gratification.  Sure, sometimes it’s about love, I love my love llama, we have gratification sex and we have lovely sex too, quite often at the same time.  What’s important is that we want to share the good times together.  Sounds mighty fine to me.

God intended more for homosexuals than what they do among themselves.  Unfortunately, sexual desires can be so strong that it can blind one from seeing God’s plan and the dignity of oneself and of others.

How would you know what your god intends?  And the sexual desire, regardless of sexuality, is strong in some people.  However, this particular catholic seems to be suggesting gays are so sex-crazed that they do nothing else.

It is not the end of the world.  Prayer can help.  Let God Be There my gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transsexual brothers and sisters.  He will help you in life.  He will answer your question: Why am I this way? He will help you to discover your true self so that you can take charge of your life and not be the sum of your sexuality. Gay people are not “tops, bottoms, versatiles, fems, butch, twinks or bears;”  they are not objects for others to enjoy sexually.  They are human beings worthy of love, respect and dignity.  They are God’s children who are in the same struggle as everyone else. The LGBT might seem to be a lost sinful case, but that is not so:  “…where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” Romans 5:20

The only person prayer helps is you.  It helps you think you’re doing something useful while being completely useless.  Sexuality for most people is actually a very minor part of their whole being.  It’s only the people on the outside that have a perception of gay people being obsessed by it.  It’s possible to be a sex object and be a worthwhile human while showing love, respect and dignity for your ‘sex object’.  It really is. This ongoing self-righteous crap that religious people embark upon with an air of ‘truth’ is what’s wrong with the world.  It’s the catholics who think they are the ones with the truth who show no humility and parade themselves around like a prostitute in an Amsterdam brothel.  They no more have the truth or the answers to the universe than I do. The arrogance of non-gay catholics to attempt to impose their world view on others is staggering.  They pretend to do it with love and grace from god, but the reality is that they do it from some deep-seated need to feel superior and ‘saved’. The lot of them can take their religion and shove it up the pope’s clacker with a pointy stick and a flagon of altar wine.

1 Comment

Spink Thinks Satan Plays Football

[SOURCE]

Cameron Spink, born again christian, sole author of the Resistance Thinking website and a married man who protests way to much about gay people has been at it again, blogging about stuff that he really should keep quiet about least people seriously question his own sexuality.

The AFL has always attempted to be the more progressive of the football codes. It is like the hipster who tries so hard to be popular. So in a new attempt to show how progressive and inclusive they are on a social issue a “gay pride game” is being suggested. Sydney v Hawthorn (the two grand finalist’s from this year) is being touted as a “gay pride game”

This is a good thing.  It’ll help some young people come to terms with their sexuality and might even help some people understand that sexuality is diverse and be should be treated with respect.

One might be forgiven in thinking that the AFL is overcompensating for the fact that not one single player has ever “come out of the closet” and admitted to being a homosexual. Being that there are over six-hundred players in the AFL it is entirely possible that a few players are homosexual. Yet not one has put up their hand and outed themselves. If the AFL is so inclusive surely there should be somebody who’d be willing to tell the truth. After all, the other football codes have had players revealed to be homosexual of their own volition, why not the AFL?

That’s a good question.  Of course there are players who are gay.  Why don’t they declare this publicly?  Could it possibly be that the environment is not conducive to being gay.  It’d be great if the AFL made attempts to discuss that issue, much like they do with other forms of vilification.  The fact that not a single AFL player has declared their sexuality shows that the AFL needs to do more work.

It may be that there still is some animosity against homosexual players in the AFL. So despite the organizations attempts against “homophobia” they are failing to make an impact. Of course my hope is not that they succeed in such a venture but that they reassess their ignorant encouragement of something that they obviously have very little knowledge about.

Ignorant encouragement? Little knowledge about?  This coming from a christian who bases his life on a book written over 2,000 years ago about imaginary figures.  Spinksy thinks that it’s ok to hate gay people because that book says so.

Indeed, it is disturbing how the AFL is getting involved in a social issue (even more disturbing that they have got this issue so blatantly wrong) of which they have no right to have an opinion about. Furthermore they are propagating a destitute lifestyle through aggressive tolerance.

The AFL is in a strong position to be involved in social issues.  They have the opportunity to be great role models to young people.  To show acceptance and inclusion for people from all walks of life.  Of course they should have an opinion.

I’m pleased to report that my lifestyle is not destitute, far from it.  Aggressive tolerance?  Whatever that means.  What is important is that I’m able to move around the community, participate and enjoy life without fear.  There is nothing wrong with having sex with someone of the same-sex.  There really isn’t.  To say that it’s a destitute lifestyle is a clear indication of internalised homophobia that Spinksy should be seriously looking at with the assistance of some professionals.

There are a group of advocates behind these changes in the AFL (beyond Demetriou and his staff). One such person is Jason Ball, a player in the Yarra Glen Football Club, who has been campaigning for change. No surprises why he is one of the instigators of change. Ball is a homosexual who believes players at AFL level need more support if they are going to announce their same-sex attraction.

Ball has done a fantastic job by role modelling his own experience in coming out.  You know what?  His team mates at the Yarra Glen Football Club didn’t care, they did change the way they use vilifying terms about gay people as suddenly they had a bit of empathy.  They understood the impact of their words.

Apparently it is not enough that the AFL is openly hostile against anybody who questions their inclusive policies. I remember when doing a coaching course a couple of years ago there were sections outlined in the brochure that specified that coaches must remain impartial and make no comment regarding the sexuality of any player.

The AFL is not openly hostile at all.  They are insistent that players, coaches and administrators follow their policies, but they don’t simply toss out those that question.  They encourage them to change.  Not hostile at all.  It also makes sense to remain impartial.  It’s about playing football, and people should respect each other for their ability to play the game, not use race, sexuality or religion as a form of abuse.

It must be said that there are issues at club level regarding derogatory terms. The use of the word “gay” is abused. Yet since the “gay rights” movement has contorted and abused it already I feel no sympathy towards those who argue for the “homophobic” comments like “that’s so gay” to stop at club level. If they are offended by hearing these comments then I am offended by their very offence.

Spinksy has no issue with verbal abuse levelled at gay people.  A complete lack of empathy on his part.  In fact, he says that he’s offended because people object to vilification based on sexual orientation.  How very christian of him.

Yet for some this is not enough, they seek to for the full acceptance which would be established by AFL players being open about their sexuality. Much like the same-sex marriage debate it is not equality that is at stake for these people but acceptance.

Yes, acceptance.  The ability to take your same-sex partner to the Brownlow medal thingy, acceptance to hug and kiss your same-sex partner in public, and then acceptance for the supporters to bring their partners to games to enjoy each other by doing what couples do.  Kiss, hug and share the love.

I am convinced that a complete acceptance will be forthcoming in the AFL very soon. They went astray so long ago that their progressive-leaning has become obvious to all. If we are to look at Paul’s condemnatory comments in Romans 1 one can’t help but feel that the AFL are breeding supporters and administrators who are “approving”. We must not be complicit in the encouragement of sin.

Does this mean that Spinksy will be giving up football?  He’s a big footy fan you know. On his personal blog he posts lots of  football stuff.

 

We must pray without ceasing that God will shine through the lies of Satan and touch those enslaved by sin, as we once were.

Melbourne80sThat’s it.  Pray.  Pray the gays away.  It makes him feel better to pray and not do something practical  like take his support away.  Remove all AFL blogs, start a Facebook page to force the AFL to stop what they’re doing.  Why doesn’t he? Because he doesn’t want to give up football.

There are people within the AFL fraternity who believe that it is an imperative to quash all “homophobia” and “bigotry”.

It’s not limited to the AFL, people the world over want to stop homophobia and bigotry.  Spink shows exactly the sort of hatred that needs to stop.  He is suggesting that gay people are ‘enslaved by sin’ and that satan is responsible for that.  He is actually suggesting that satan is behind this push at the AFL to address homophobia in sport.  What’s his answer?  Pray.

The signs point to a more aggressive push to normalise homosexuality. We must speak clearly that we were designed as heterosexuals and this is a very powerful thing. Let none diminish its significance.

I’m not designed as a heterosexual.  I’m not designed as a homosexual either.  My sexuality is but a small part of me.  There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to be more accepting of others.  Sexuality has a big range of ‘normal’. What isn’t normal is pretending that somebody (or something) designed you.

I don’t care whether Spinksy thinks he’s designed.  He believe what he likes.  I do object to christians like him that pretend that they have all the answers, but more specifically I object to their attempts to force their beliefs on the rest of the world.  A world which simply doesn’t agree with their mindset.  Spink and his ilk attempt to control others by forcing their world view on us.  They do this by pretending that they alone have the truth.  No amount of common sense approach will work with them.  The radical fundamentalists think that being gay is the work of satan.  How bad is that?  From this work of satan, they then extend that to block any attempt to treat GLBTQI people as evil that must be saved.  When you tell them every so politely to fuck off they get offended and claim that their right to practice their religion is being infringed.

I don’t care who Spink has sex with, nor do I want to change that.  I don’t want him to marry a man.  I don’t care that he might have some internal dilemma about his god and his sexuality. What I do care about is the impact homophobia and bigotry has on me, my love llama, my friends, Jason Ball and every man at the AFL that may not be freely able to fully be part of the team. As role models, the AFL players can have an impact on young people, and if through their actions a Pride Match helps, then even the likes of me that hates football will get behind it.

Communicating with Spink is difficult.  He doesn’t allow comments on his blog, but you could shoot him an email at admin@resistancethinking.com.  Maybe you can leave a comment on his personal blog at http://cameronspink.com/.  Let him know that you don’t care too much for his attitude.

The time for fairy tales has come to an end.  There is no god, there is no satan.  There are however people with a huge diversity.  They deserve respect.  We must speak clearly that we get one life and we need to share widely how powerful acceptance is.  Let none diminish another’s significance.

3 Comments

Leeds likes Cocks that Crow

[SOURCE]

Leeds is a homophobic twat who actually thinks there is such a thing as gods.  Here’s a really good example from some of her recent blogs that shows how easy it is to look stupid when carrying on about the god bullshit stuff.

Her blog starts with this blessing:

Blessed are you G-D King of the World Who Gives the Rooster to understand the difference between day and night

Quaint.

B”H

She always starts her blog with the letter b and h, it means ‘with gods help’.  It would seem that her god isn’t helping, that would be because there is no god.

This is one of the first brachot (blessings) we say in the morning. Why you might ask would we thank and bless Hashem for giving a rooster the understanding to herald the break of day after the night? On a very simple level it is an allegory for light and darkness and the eternal struggle between the two conflicting elements. If such a simple creature as a rooster can understand the difference between night and day and vice versa, how much more so can the human who is of a far superior intellect – an intellect that is more complex and rational as well as emotional, understand the fine lines between right and wrong.

On a very simple level, I don’t know what she means by the eternal struggle between two conflicting elements.  Light and dark?  I think she’s probably suggesting something more along the lines of good and evil.  However, there is no ‘struggle’ between them.  It’s only us humans that ascribe the terms good and evil to things that happen around us.  Nature and even roosters have no concept of good and evil.

Roosters, I suspect have no idea about the difference between night and day, not even if they are vice versa. To then attempt to connect the instinct of hens and roosters to that of people knowing the difference between right and wrong is stupid.  It’s a bit like saying the door is open therefore windows are evil.

Some of my blog posts are controversial and extremely confronting. They are meant to be. If it makes some people re examine their whole emotional and psychological paradigm and think about consequences of their life styles it is worthwhile.

Her blogs are crazy.  The only person that should be doing the ‘re examine’ is Leeds.

Many people have and do call me ignorant and stupid. They have suggested all sorts of physical abuse should be coming my way in order to enforce their viewpoints as right. I find that very ironic and indeed a little frightening that such violence without reason be directed towards me and my son.

There may be something in it if people tell you that you are ignorant and stupid.  Perhaps you should do some reflection on that.  Threats of violence are not laughing matters.  Everyone should feel able to express themselves without fear of violence.  Whoever does such a thing needs to be told to stop.  On the other hand, I note that no harm has come to her.

We have never threatened you or any person of gay or lesbian lifestyle. I find ironic that my lifestyle is so threatening to you. I, for one, find violence is an extremely simple and primitive response to any sort of stimuli.

sucking-cock-youre-doing-it-wrongWhile there may not be any threat of physical violence from Leeds, she certainly goes out of her way to antagonise those who are not straight.  She’s great at vilifying others for their sexuality.  Just look at her recent blog about goats.  She actually suggests that a way to ‘cure’  homosexuality is to let gay people roll around in goat shit.  She uses the word ‘pish’  as a way to hide her vulgarity, as if to make it sound nicer.  Her idea is that because two gay guys smell like goat shit they’ll be sworn off wanting sex with each other, then she would introduce them to a luxury hotel room with perfume and chocolates, every time they see a woman they would then be rewarded with a chocolate.  This would re-enforce that sex with women is good.  It’s really a very vilifying blog that, even if it is a joke, shows the underlying intolerance she has to think that people’s sexuality needs curing and it can be cured by doing horrible things.  Like rolling gay people around in goat shit.  If Leeds could she would introduce aversion therapy.  She would force people to ‘change’ their orientation.  She makes a threat to the well-being of gay people.  Very clearly she does that.  Aversion therapy has been discredited around the world, and here she is making light of it.  Yes, how funny to suggest rolling people around in shit, that’s really funny.

Or look at this blog to get an idea on her contempt and intolerance of gay people.

A certain Michael Barnett offered his nether regions to Michael Danby a politician to ‘kiss’ and then stated the pleasure is reserved for his male partner. Gross. I am sure Michael Danby would not be in a hurry to take up the offer. It just shows how crude and the inelegant depths our social interactions have sunk to in these days of anything goes.

Barnett actually said this:

I wish Danby would just say that he doesn’t give a rats arse about gays, that they can go to hell and that his political career, fueled by the Jewish vote, is the only thing important to his overgrown ego.

Danby, I’d tell you to kiss my hairy arse, but that pleasure is saved for my partner.

He’s talking about Danby and the way he supports Israel and not gay issues.  He also is not offering or even asking Danby to kiss his hairy arse. The expression is a not so polite way of expressing displeasure and telling Danby to go away.  She’s not being asked to kiss the hairy arse, and while it may not be for her each to their own.  Whether or not Danby likes his arse being kissed, or if he likes kissing arse, we don’t know.  Nor does it matter.  To re-write this in a language for Leeds to comprehend…. “Danby, I’d tell you that your attitude is wrong and I’d wish you’d take it and go away.  Pleasures in life are reserved for my partner and you should respect and support that, just like you do the rights of Jewish people to support Israel.”

The stark contrast between Barnett not offering his arse for kissing and Leeds suggestion that he be rolled in goat shit shows her level of inelegant depths she is prepared to sink to

Michael is certainly no Oscar Wilde and never will be. He is too crude, too unintelligent and frankly vulgar. Such a person cannot discern the subtleties of elegant and proper living.

This from a woman who wants to spread shit over gay people, that’s not crude and vulgar?  To actually suggest it’s a way to ‘cure’ gay people is unintelligent and intolerant   It’s also fair to ask how intelligent you have to be to suggest that roosters crow when the sunrises and that they display some sort of chicken intelligence.

I have far more respect for people who can make their point without having putting it in the most vile and filthily perverse terms. I prefer funny people, people with a sense of humor that is not based around certain bodily functions or is at least sharply observant and funny at the same time.

Make your own comments about that statement.  Think about pots and kettles.

Back to the rooster blog.

No one has put forth a rational and well thought out argument for same sex marriage. It is all emotive BS. That descends into the depths of personal abuse and ad homenim attacks that do not argue rationally or coherently before the above.

What a load of rubbish.  There are plenty of good solid arguments out there for marriage equality.  It may not be for everyone, but to continue to deny marriage is to ignore the real desire of people to have their relationships valued and endorsed by society.

If a rooster, an instinctive creature is aware of the of the exact boundary of day and night, how much more so should we not be tuned to what is appropriate behaviour and what is not.

And there we have the final stupid statement that had be laughing out loud.

The first bit is right, the rooster is an instinctive creature.  It’s all outright dumbness afterwards.  A rooster is not aware of the passage of time.  It has no concept of the boundary of day and night.  The boundary of day and night is elusive even to humans.  When does day start?  When the sun rises?  When is that?  Is it when the first part of the sun touches the horizon  or is it when the first part of daylight starts an hour before we seen the sun?  Is it when the last star disappears?  Where is the exact boundary?  A rooster certainly doesn’t know the exact time of sunrise.  To suggest that a chook crows when the sun is up at the exact moment is to simply ignore the fact that roosters crow all the time for a whole range of reasons.  Sometimes the chook might not crow at all.  Does that mean it’s still dark? Cocks crowing at dawn is not because the sun has come up, unless you happen to be doing bad TV cartoons.

Leeds is not as smart as a cock as she doesn’t know what appropriate behaviour is.  She needs to study cocks more.

Comments Off on Leeds likes Cocks that Crow

What war on christmas?

[SOURCE]

In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s Christmas time again.

Christmas is a sort of two state affair.  One state is the religious side, where the worlds christians treat the day as the birth of their god.  For them it’s a holy day.  The other state is that of getting together and celebrating with your families.

Plenty of Llamas like me are clearly not christian and attach no religious significance to the day.  And yes, I’d be happy if I didn’t have to listen to “Joy to the World, The Lord has Come!” or “Come all ye faithful” or “Silent Fucking Night”  I’d also be happy if less money was spent on presents and more attention paid to those in need.

I do enjoy the day, being with my family, eating and drinking.  That’s the way most Australian celebrate it.

Unless you’re Uncle Billy, he’s never happy.

You can always tell when it is Christmas – or Easter, or other major Christian events – because the militant God-haters come out in force, seeking to make life miserable for everyone.

I can tell its christmas when theists like Billy declare that the war on christmas is on!  I can also tell the season is upon us by the calendar.  Right after Melbourne Cup Day, up go the christmas decorations in stores around the country.  The calendar is another good way to tell, because christmas happens on the same day every year.

In true Scrooge fashion some of these folks have decided it is their mission in life to destroy Christmas, or at least attack anyone who dares to enjoy it.

I guess there are plenty of people who may want to pull it down.  I also think for most people we’re just happy to live and let live.

nativity-scenesThe first one comes from the US state of Montana. It goes like this: “A group of parents upset over a Montana elementary school’s Christmas program claim the presentation is unfair, unconstitutional and is a form of bullying. The parents — whose children attend Chief Charlo Elementary School in Missoula, Mont. — outlined their concerns in a letter last week to the superintendent of the Missoula County Public Schools (MCPS) district.

“The school’s program is completely legal, said Matt Sharp, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal counsel. ‘Courts have responded in favor of schools playing Christmas music, as long as it serves an overall educational purpose,’ Sharp said, adding that it would ‘give students a truncated view of our culture to remove these songs. From what we’ve seen, the school appears to have chosen a perfectly reasonable, balanced mix of songs like “Up On a House Top” and “Joy to the World” and has correctly emphasized that the musical program serves an educational purpose, reflecting long-standing, nationwide traditions,’ said Candi Cushman, CitizenLink’s education analyst.”

Boy, what a bunch of grumps. But the misotheists usually are. You’d be grumpy too if you spent your entire life raging against someone you don’t even believe is there.

Grumps?  Why is he calling them grumps?  They’re probably not even misotheists.  It takes nothing to dig a big further to find a more balanced report of the incident:

A group of parents at Chief Charlo Elementary School are so upset over the selection of songs for the school’s holiday music program they are considering legal counsel.

The parents outlined their concerns in a letter sent to the superintendent of the Missoula County Public Schools district, stating, among many issues, they feel the programming is unfair, unconstitutional and is a form of bullying.

“With many of the children in our neighborhood up here being Jewish and Buddhist, as well as a few Muslim and atheist students, we were assured that this year it would be a secular program,” said the letter, which was signed by “concerned parents” but listed no individual names.

A group of parents, not militant secularists.  They’re upset because the school community is made up of different religions, and the program has a high christian content.  They’re not trying to stop the program, they just want the god crap removed.  That’s all.

We have no problem with it being called a Christmas concert, it’s just the fact the material should be secular. Frosty the Snowman, Santa Claus, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer. These are things that offend no one, but when the children are singing about their lord and savior, Jesus Christ … public school is not the place.

That to my ‘militant secularist’ mind seems very sensible.  A storm in a tea-cup that Billy blows up into a big god-hating tale of woe.

The second case comes from Canada: “Ashu M.G. Solo, a Saskatoon atheist, has issued a complaint to the city after he was apparently offended by a ‘Merry Christmas’ message that appeared on electronic displays on Saskatoon Transit buses. Solo explained in his letter that Christmas wishes are offensive and discriminatory because it not only gives preferential treatment of one group over another, but it also violates the separation of state and religion.”

So an angry misotheist is now claiming a cheerful Christmas message is offensive and discriminatory. Go figure! Even Scrooge did not come up with something that stupid and reckless.

Again, dig just a bit further you find this little gem:

In the end, Ward 1 Councillor Darren Hill thinks the executive committee will vote to keep the message and believes city council will not change the positive messages for its transit riders because “Christmas means different things to different people.”

So, an atheist thinks his tax money shouldn’t promote religion on city owned buses. He has a point.  But the Council seems to have it’s head on right.  The complaint was made, as is the right of a citizen, the council will respond and make a decision.  No blood will be split, and it’s not likely that there will be a mass protest by the militant secularists.  Again, it’s a nothing story.  His complaint is legitimate, but probably frivolous,  the man is not stupid or reckless, that’s the man making the complaint, not Billy.

A third, and quite incredible, example is from Arkansas: “A church in Little Rock, Ark., canceled one performance of ‘Merry Christmas Charlie Brown’ after an atheist organization complained and said students should not be exposed to a show with Christian themes as part of a school field trip.

“Happy Caldwell, pastor of Agape Church, issued a statement on the church’s website on Wednesday, stating that while he believes the school was within its constitutional rights to bring students to the production, the church has nevertheless decided to cancel a Friday showing for students.

“‘It is not our desire to put hard working, sacrificial teachers and cast members in harm’s way,’ wrote Caldwell. ‘What we want said is that we love our city, our schools, parents and families. People are at the heart of the matter to us.’ He also said Principal Sandra Register of Terry Elementary School took a ‘courageous stand’ when she decided not to cancel the trip after learning that someone had complained about it.”

Unbelievable. Those ornery God-haters sure are good at wrecking the joy of everyone else. Scrooge would be so proud of them.

Again, a complete over reaction to the reality of the situation.  Public schools are made up of a variety of cultures, parents should know that when their child goes to school that they won’t be subjected to attempts to convert or change their children’s faith or lack of it.  The school in this case was making a field trip to a church to watch a play about christmas. The play was very heavy on the jesus myth.  Parents could opt to keep their kids at school, where they would be required to sit in a different classroom while the rest of the students went to a play.  Do you know how bad that is for a child to be singled out as different?  Exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided by a public school.

Dig a little deeper Billy and we uncover the truth.

ASF President Susan Heffington added that “anyone who wants to see this play can attend outside of school hours, but religion does not belong in our public schools.”

Caldwell said that anyone who wishes to see the production can catch the public performance on Dec. 15 and 16, adding, “While we regret the loss of students who will not get this particular opportunity right now, we have taken the school matinees off the table, and welcome parents to bring their children to our public performance.”

The ‘joy of everyone else’ is not being wrecked as Billy suggests.  A matinée performance was cancelled, there were other showings.  Those wanting the joy of this play can see it in their own time.

Finally, this from New York: “A group called American Atheists has posted a high-profile billboard in New York City’s Times Square depicting Christianity as a ‘myth,’ apparently mocking Jesus Christ on the cross. The group, which first launched its Christmas ‘myth’ campaign in 2010, ramped up its campaign with a giant sign that features an image of Santa Claus, an equally large picture portraying a suffering Jesus on the cross, along with the phrase, ‘Keep the Merry — Dump the Myth!’

“David Silverman, president of the atheist club, claimed in a press release that his group thinks ‘a large population of Christians are actually “atheists” who feel trapped in their family’s religion.’ He declared that ‘you do not have to lie and call yourself Christian in order to have a festive holiday season. You can be merry without the myth, and indeed, you should’.”

Wow, for a bunch of folks who deny that there even is such a thing as God, they sure do put a lot of time, effort and attention into his supposed nonexistence.

Talk about the misotheists who stole Christmas. It seems that these guys really need to get a life. If they hate Christmas, fine, but their obsession to destroy it for everyone else really does reveal their true colours. They not only hate God, but they hate everyone who dares to enjoy a life lived in relationship with him.

The American Atheists are not trying to steal christmas.  Their message, that I blogged about here, is about keeping christmas and ditching the myth.  It’s not demanding you do it, it’s simply putting it out there for those who want to get rid of jesus in their lives.

I think you’ll find Billy, that most atheist type people don’t give your god a second thought.  There certainly is no hatred of god, as there is no god to hate.  It’ a simple concept.  It’s just outrageous to even suggest that atheist want to hate people who celebrate christmas, that’s just not true.

We all reserve the right to tell you want we think.  I think the whole jesus thing is a crock of shit.  Christmas as his birthday is a crock of shit.  You celebrate it, feel free. I’ll celebrate it with my family.  We’ll do it our way.  You do it your way, nobody is telling you not to.

Billy’s examples only show a small one-sided view.  He creates a crisis where there is really none.  He attempts to big note himself by overstating the stories and pretending that all christians are about to be hauled off and crucified.  There is no doubt that  christianity is still the predominant faith in both America and Australia, the religion shows no signs of being retired, rejected or outlawed.  It simply isn’t going to happen.

And I can’t help but notice that Billy is using Scrooge through his story.  Scrooge is a reference to “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens.  It’s a work of fiction, the story never changes.  Billy likes to use fictional characters to bolster his arguments.  Whether it’s to quote Dickens character or something out of Orwell’s 1984 or even something from the bible.  He relies heavily on the fictional writings of others and rarely has an original thought.

But we can keep praying for them. Some of them may yet have a radical turnaround, just as Scrooge eventually did.

I haven’t said it in a while – so here goes – you can do something useful with your time, or you could pray.

To all of you, Happy Christmas!  May you celebrate yours in the style fit for you.  If you don’t then good for you.  If you do, then good for you.

If I’ve offended anyone during the course of the year then get an alpaca up ya.

 

1 Comment

Pope claims catholics have the truth

[SOURCE]

Pope Bendydick in his christmas message had two points, one about families and the other about interfaith dialogue.  I wrote about his version of family earlier, and now it’s worth having a look at his other contribution to the ongoing need for religion in the world.

In his rambling talk about inter-faith relationships Bendydick narrows it down to two rules.  Rules are important to catholics.

Two rules are generally regarded nowadays as fundamental for interreligious dialogue:

1. Dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at understanding. In this respect it differs from evangelization, from mission;

2. Accordingly, both parties to the dialogue remain consciously within their identity, which the dialogue does not place in question either for themselves or for the other.

These rules are correct, but in the way they are formulated here I still find them too superficial. True, dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at better mutual understanding – that is correct.

That’s right.  Dialogue is about listening too and respecting the rights and beliefs of others.  It’s about suspending judgement and being curious about the other point of view.

But all the same, the search for knowledge and understanding always has to involve drawing closer to the truth. Both sides in this piece-by-piece approach to truth are therefore on the path that leads forward and towards greater commonality, brought about by the oneness of the truth.

The trouble with religion and with the catholics is that they think they have the truth.  Judgement is never suspended on this idea.  There is no doubt in the mind of the catholic that they are just plain and simply right.

As far as preserving identity is concerned, it would be too little for the Christian, so to speak, to assert his identity in a such a way that he effectively blocks the path to truth. Then his Christianity would appear as something arbitrary, merely propositional. He would seem not to reckon with the possibility that religion has to do with truth.

See that, have us much dialogue as you like, but don’t expect the christian to give up their truth.  Bendydick gives us the ultimate reason as to why inter-faith dialogue will never work.  Christianity can not appear arbitrary in any way according to Bendydick. And this I’m sure is the same for all deeply held faiths.

noreligionOn the contrary, I would say that the Christian can afford to be supremely confident, yes, fundamentally certain that he can venture freely into the open sea of the truth, without having to fear for his Christian identity. To be sure, we do not possess the truth, the truth possesses us: Christ, who is the truth, has taken us by the hand, and we know that his hand is holding us securely on the path of our quest for knowledge. Being inwardly held by the hand of Christ makes us free and keeps us safe: free – because if we are held by him, we can enter openly and fearlessly into any dialogue; safe – because he does not let go of us, unless we cut ourselves off from him. At one with him, we stand in the light of truth.

Such supreme arrogance.  Really, it is.  To think that of all the religions on the face of the planet you are the ones with the truth.  This instantly says that regardless of all other claims made by others, only you have the truth.  This is no way to peace and prosperity.  It actually encourages believers to think that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.  It also means that when you come to the discussion table have no humility.  When things go pear-shaped the scapegoat isn’t those who have faith, but those that have a different faith.  It makes perfect sense.  The reason the middle east is in uproar is because they don’t accept jesus.  The reason Ireland is split – jesus. The reason marriage equality is wrong, jesus.

Until the religions of the world accept that if they consider other faiths to be wrong and other faiths consider your beliefs to be wrong, then it would be fair to say that all religions are wrong.

I can say that, because I think all religions are just wrong.  They don’t hold the truth.  I don’t hold the truth.  Nobody does, there is no ‘truth’ as religion would have you think.

Comments Off on Pope claims catholics have the truth

Pope Confused about his Gender

[SOURCE]

It’s that time of the year when all the christians get excited about celebrating the birth of their god, that’s the god who has always existed.  Christmas is about his birth apparently.

Pope Bendydick, head of the catholics, addresses his cardinals with a christmas message, and has a bit to say about family.

The great joy with which families from all over the world congregated in Milan indicates that, despite all impressions to the contrary, the family is still strong and vibrant today.

What impression? I don’t think that families are going anywhere.  Sure there are families that struggle, but generally society still has strong and vibrant families.

But there is no denying the crisis that threatens it to its foundations – especially in the western world….So it became clear that the question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself – about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human.

Crisis?  The ‘crisis’ isn’t named, it’s assumed that you know what it is. In the ‘western world’  he’s talking about marriage equality.  You know, letting those gay people call themselves married and raising families.  Bendydick overlooks the important piece of information that gay couples with children already call themselves families and some of those couples refer to each other as husband or wife.  It’s been going on for years, and guess what, the world hasn’t ended. I also can’t help but notice the use of the word man, of course, Bendydick is German, speaking Latin, translated to English, so perhaps it gets lost in translation, but to talk about humanity as man is very rude.

The challenges involved are manifold. First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment. Can one bind oneself for a lifetime? Does this correspond to man’s nature? Does it not contradict his freedom and the scope of his self-realization? Does man become himself by living for himself alone and only entering into relationships with others when he can break them off again at any time? Is lifelong commitment antithetical to freedom? Is commitment also worth suffering for?

Unless you’re asleep at the wheel Bendydick, people do indeed make commitments, they do so because they want to.  People all over the world come together, have children, live and die.  Some of them stay together, some of them break up.  Contrary to popular papal crap, women too make commitments.  And yeah, we all should be able to leave a relationship.  Much better to be happy out of a relationship than unhappy in the relationship.  Nobody wins when unhappiness abounds.  I’m not suggesting   that couples don’t try to maintain and nurture their relationships, one should never just give up.

Man’s refusal to make any commitment – which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering – means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his “I” ultimately for himself, without really rising above it.

Talk about make a crisis where none exists. People make commitments everyday.  And I’m not sure what you mean by the desire to escape suffering, are you saying that if you make a commitment you will suffer?  Who would willingly do that?  If you mean that getting married means making some personal sacrifice, then that’s different to suffering.

The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question.

Things must be tough when a catholic has to quote a jew on these matters.  Where does this persecution complex come from?  There is no ‘attack on the true structure of family’ as far as I can tell no-one is trying to rip apart families.  The only notion being called into question here is the question of what happens when people don’t fit the mum, dad, child scenario.  And rightly so.  The way the church thinks things should be is not based in reality but in a false assumption that all was created by god and written in the bible.  We’ve moved on.

He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society.

By sex you mean male or female.  It has never been an element given by nature.  Gender identity has been around for as long as humans, we may have lacked the understanding and society has given gender roles, now we understand that someone’s gender identity may not be as black and white as previously thought.

The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.

bottomsIf the theory of gender identity is false, science will sort it out with more research.  I don’t think that people dispute the idea that they have a natural gender identity.  It’s not given, its innate.  While some of us don’t understand how you can be born with one set of equipment but feel like you should have the other set, that doesn’t mean that it’s any less real.  I have no desire to have sex with lady llamas, my straight friends don’t understand why that’s the case, but they don’t try to deny me my innate nature.  Why would they?  I’m not denying my nature any more than someone who is finding their gender identity is denying theirs.  In fact, I would say that they are trying to throw off the societal expectation that they behave the way society expects based purely on the parts that dangle off their body.

According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed.

Stop taking everything the bible says as gospel.  Wait…never mind.  Brace yourself, Bendydick.  The bible isn’t to be used to describe the nature of man.  It was written so long ago, long before people began to seriously look at the world.  It’s just out of date and wrong.  You can no longer claim things as being ordained by god without providing some research or evidence to back that up.  The duality of male and female is what you expect, it’s not what being human is all about.  And yes, that duality is disputed, and it’s disputed because the one size fits all no longer fits, we know this for two reason, science indicates it and people are better able to articulate who they are.

The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply.

They never applied in the first place.  Gay people, transgender people, intersex people have always been part of our genetic make up as a species.  At last we recognise the diversity of our nature.

No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question.

You’ve got it the wrong way around.  Society created them male and female.  Now people are free enough to face the reality of their being.  For me, my reality is how much I love my love llama.  I didn’t create that reality.  I accepted it.

From now on he is merely spirit and will.

Yeah, whatever.

The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed.

Around the wrong way again, it is the duality that was the manipulation of nature.  Trying to get people to play the role of male or female based purely on the expectations of society and the bits of a person when they are born.  Some men and women are ‘complementary’, some men and men are ‘complementary’… you get the picture.  Again, the thing in dispute here is your expectation that humans should conform to your duality because it says so in the bible.

But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation.

At last, a sentence that makes sense.  Duality of gender identity and the notion of family are all human constructs.  Nature, if it could care, doesn’t give a flying duck fat crap about you, me or anything else.

Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him.

Some children are also girls.  And this is such rubbish.  A vast, overwhelming majority of births result in the love of one and sometimes two parents.  Without question, because of our nature, we protect and care for our offspring.  We do.  We would do anything to protect them, to suggest otherwise is to miss the point of evolution.  We are ‘made’ to breed, to continue the line of humanity.  We are indeed driven by our innate desire to breed.

Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

Families don’t need defending.  Families are what people make them out to be, not some pre-conceived notion derived from your insanity.  People will continue to bring children into the world, we will continue to love and protect them, to nurture them.  If your god is denied then so be it, perhaps finally it will be relegated to the pile of useless human endeavours, and in true papal authority we are told that defending god is defending man, not woman, but man.

For us to survive, we need to ditch the god rubbish.  It’s had it’s day and it’s holding us back.  Having ageing virgins, who live only in communities surrounded by other virgin men isn’t at all healthy.

If anyone is denying their true humanity, it’s that lot.

Bendydick goes on to talk about interfaith dialogue, I’m going to have a go at that one in my next blog.

 

6 Comments

Cameron Spink on Sex

[SOURCE]

Spinksy, Spinksy, Spinksy, you really need to get out and live a little.

When Emma and I announced our engagement there were friends and family who responded in shock because we weren’t living together and presumably hadn’t slept together (these presumptions were correct). Hence some people raised with Emma their concerns about how ignorant we would be about our sexual compatibility (they never seem to raise these issues with me for some reason).

Poor Mrs Spinksy – she could have married a dud root.

I stumbled across an article today by sex therapist Matty Silver who outlined her thoughts on couples who have “mismatch[ing] libidos”. The idea that both parties should have equal “sex drive” is at the heart of this idea of sexual compatibility. Silver’s solution to unequal “sex drive” is good communication. And she is right, to an extent. However, her work with couples in regards to sexuality presupposes that love is merely “neurotransmitter phenylethylamine….. combined with dopamine and norepinephrine” to create “pleasingly positive feelings towards each other”  We must be aware of our preconceived notions of what love is. It is neither defined by science nor should it be relegated to gushy feelings. Both strip love of its power.

Preconceived ideas, yes, you should be aware of them.  How easy is Spinksy to throw out the science of love and the reality of how we feel love.  He must have a really good basis for doing so! Oh, and you don’t stumble across articles like this, you make a decision to click the link.  The article is from The Age and there is no stumble Spinksy, you used that free will you’re so fond of and clicked the link.   And just so we are clear, Matty Silver knows a thing or two – she’s done training at a university and everything.

Master of Health Science (Sexual Health)
The University of Sydney

Graduate Diploma of Health Science (Sexual Health)
The University of Sydney

Graduate Diploma of Counselling and Communications
Australian College of Applied Psychology (ACAP)

I guess Matty Silver has some good research to back up her article.  What’s Spinksy got?

In fact the Bible paints a completely different picture. Wives are to be “submissive” to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22) and husbands are to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25). These are doing concepts rather than feeling and don’t fit within romantic or scientific notions of being “in love”. If we then move the blowtorch to the idea of sexual compatibility it is clear that the worldly perspective falls a long way short of defining how relationships should be approached in reality. We must be active in doing love not merely hoping to feel love.

Oh, the bible.  Spinksy is basing his ideas of love on the bible?  This is the same bible that claims god so loved the world that he sent his only son to be killed for himself to pay for the wrongs of humanity caused by his own creation.  That sounds loving.

The reason, Spinksy me old mate, that the bible falls a long way short on the perspective of worldly love is because the authors of the bible had a very different understanding of the world, because the  University of Sydney was about 2000 years away.  As they say, we have moved on.

Not only is sexual compatibility a myth but sexual attraction is also a dead end.

I can only assume that Emma and Spinksy are not sexually compatible.  Whether you want to admit it or not, sexual attraction is the reason you got married, it’s the way it works.  Just because you didn’t have pre-martial sex doesn’t mean you aren’t sexually attracted to Emma.  In fact, without that sexual attraction, your relationship would never have started.

There are people who legitimately believe that it is important for couples to be sexually compatible. That sex must be dabbled in before the marriage night just to make sure that you are chaining yourself to the right person. We need to be rid of such immature thought-processes. A marriage commitment does not require sexual compatibility or fornication. In fact, possibly the worst thing you can do for your future marriage is to live together before you tie the knot.

Lions having sex outside marriage

Lions having sex outside marriage

Seriously Spinksy, there are a lot worse things to do in the world than live together and have sex before you get married.  Dabbling in sex is fun, you should try it. Spinksy simply avoids the obvious truth in the world, people have sex outside and inside marriage.  They always have.  I would suggest that it is not all the ‘fornicators’ who have the immature thought-processes.  Spinksy also avoids the issue that people like Matty Silver are successful because there’s a market for them.  There are many relationships that fail, and there are many that succeed.  I would bet that most of those that are success stories had sex a lot before they married.  What planet are you living on Spinksy?

 

We need to stop giving opinions like Silver’s any credence. The world suggests many lies and we are not filtering properly. Instead we continue to play church while believing that it is important to ascertain whether we are sexually compatible with our future spouse. News flash, sexual compatibility is the mouth wash of relationships. Its invention has derailed marriage which, despite the naysayers, is an institution that is very good.

Come on.  You can dismiss whoever you want.  But it’s not like Matty Silver is silly.  Perhaps there is something in her way of operating and it’s the likes of christians that need to have their opinions questioned thoroughly and then discarded like a used tissue after a private session.

Might I then present to you something radically different. Sex outside of marriage rather than helping you in your pursuit of sexual compatibility actually sets you up to fail in regards to commitment. We are being set up to fail. Our sexual desires, if we take our ques from society, will be unfulfilled. We will not get what we seek. And so, people throw their relationship under the bus if the other person in the relationship does not satisfy what cannot be satisfied. Perhaps it is worth turning the disappointment around and looking at our perceptions and how they may well be the part of the cause of the problem. Yet we cannot hope to drag our preconceived notions of sexuality out of the mire without the help of somebody uncorrupted by society. But there is no solutions available except the one who created sexuality in the first place.

FFS – I read and re-read.  That’s just such a load of twaddle crap dipstick duck shit.  You start by asking to present something radically different and then all you really do is rant about how bad things are.  I think, but I’m not sure, that your radical idea is getting the help of someone uncorrupted by society – probably your god.  That’s not radically different, that’s what we expect from religious nutters.  Your preconceived notions are derived from a book that was written so long ago and has never been updated.  You want us to accept sexuality as laid out in that thing?  You seriously think that we need a solution because there is no solution, and the only one available is in the bible?  You need to do a course on sexual health. I hear Sydney Uni has some on offer.

You see, you may believe that you can keep God away from your sex life, or indeed any part of life you may wish but it simply doesn’t work that way.

Yeah, it’s easy to keep him away, there is no god.  And it does work that way.

If we divorce our relationship from the intentional plans of God, from His created intent, we are cheapening, abusing and condemning the relationship.

So, if a plan is intentional it’d be nice to know what it was.  Expecting people to follow your plan when you don’t tell them what it is, is stupid.

We are using the other person, putting them on a pedestal, and when they fail (as they always do) we may call it quits or grow to resent them.

Well yes.  It’s actually ok, good and healthy to get out of a bad relationship.  You’re putting Emma up on the pedestal, I hope she’s secure.

Needless to say the introduction of sexual compatibility for the finding of a “soulmate” is a toxic concoction that has proved to be indigestible. We must throw off this charade, and encourage our friends to do so, if we want to live relationships that glorify God.

I’m not sure that the quest to find a ‘soulmate’ is such a bad thing.  It certainly isn’t toxic, and I don’t see any evidence to prove that it is indigestible, in fact it just feels like you’re making it up as you go along.

It’s you, Spinksy, mate, that need to throw off the charade.  Living in a relationship to glorify a being that doesn’t interact with you in anyway is crazy talk.  Really you should focus on your life with Emma and what makes her happy.  The love you have is to share with her, unhindered by outdated dogma and you should tap into the wealth of knowledge about relationships.  There is so much stuff out there that will make your relationship zing.

Clearly you need more zing, otherwise your zinger will drop off.

Comments Off on Cameron Spink on Sex

The Pope Blames the Gays for Everything!

[SOURCE]

Evil-Pope

That great mind of the 12th century, Pope Bendydick, has taken the chance on World Day of Peace to further vilify and harass gay people.

There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union

There is  nothing natural about marriage, it’s a artificial system.  Get your head out of your arse.

Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society.

That’s just stupid.  Marriage isn’t going away, people still get married, still raise children (regardless of marital status) and still contribute in society.  Allowing gay people to get married won’t change that at all.

These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom.

They’re not principles, they’re doctrine.  They have nothing to do with reality.  You are basing these truths of yours on a myth and a fairy tale.

They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity.

You talk about reason?  And here you are worshipping a jewish boy you think was born of a virgin, you think he’s still alive after 2,000 years and you regularly eat his body and drink his blood and you want to talk about reason?  Pardon me while I barf.

The Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation.

All people who aren’t catholic, and I suspect a lot of people who are catholic, think you’re a silly old fart out of touch with reality that probably really does think he is god’s representative on earth.  Catholic’s and you as their head, have no claim or right to inflict your pathetic religion onto the rest of the world.

Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace

What would you know about the truth of the human person?  You that presides over an organisation that allows children to be abused, people to die of HIV/AIDS, women to die because abortion is frowned upon, homophobic politicians wanting to kill gay people are blessed .

You have the audacity to talk about harming justice and peace.

Your view of the world is perverted and twisted.

The pope is a cunt.

 

1 Comment

Lively wants to Kill the Gays and the Pope Approves

[SOURCE]

Scott Lively is one of those backward christians who really thinks that a god has come to him and saved him.  He’s also one of the christians responsible for going to Uganda in 2009 and ‘inspiring’ the “Kill the Gays Bill”.

Through international opposition the Uganda Parliament have not enacted the legislation.  They did supposedly change their minds and remove the parts of the bill that would see gay people executed for being gay.  However, the updated act would still see gay people locked up for life.  Just for being gay.

It’s a completely unjustifiable penalty.  Locking someone up because of their sexuality.  And yet people such as Lively think it’s a good idea.

First, the Bible has always defined homosexuality as a crime, and not just in the Mosaic Law.  Homosexuality was condemned by God long before Moses declared it a capital crime.

This is such a tired old claim.  I reject outright any notion that the bible has any authority over my life.  How offensive it is to use an old jumble of texts to justify your own hatred and bigotry.

Lively goes on to say:

The fact is that Ugandan law is typical of most African law in that it tends to be very harsh in the letter, but very lenient in the application.  I doubt very much that anyone arrested under the new law (if it passes) will receive anything close to the jail terms allowed for in the bill.

Regardless of whether someone is locked up, having a law on the books that requires imprisonment for life for something between consenting adults is unjustifiable. Even if the jail sentence is one day or even a minute. Nobody should be detained or have the threat of life in prison simply for being gay.

Third, and most importantly, there is one easy, guaranteed method of protecting oneself from ever being subject to the Anti-Homosexuality law in Uganda: Don’t Commit Sodomy!

By sodomy he means don’t have anal sex.  I don’t see why I should stop with the Love Llama – we have such a good time.  I’m not committing anything.  I’m sharing.

  We all seem to forget, in the dense propaganda haze of American popular opinion, that homosexuality is defined by voluntary sexual acts.

Yes, if it wasn’t voluntary on both parts we’d call it rape you dickwad. All sexual acts are voluntary, it’s really not a big deal.  However, for ways of expressing and sharing my love I voluntarily partake in sex acts with my Love Llama who just happens to be of the same-sex.  We love it.  Why should we stop?

Homosexuals are no more compelled to commit sodomy with each other than a married man is compelled to cheat on his wife.

killgaySexual relief is a natural bodily function.  I seek out said relief in many ways.  Nobody is ‘compelled’ to have sex at all.  We do it because it feels good.  Lively is not being asked to partake in something that he doesn’t like, nor are the people of Uganda.

While Lively is rolling around in his own little smug part of the world happy to endorse a bill that will cause great harm to his fellow humans, meanwhile, that other big religious homophobe in Rome has been busy too.

It seems that Pope Bendydick has blessed the speaker of the Uganda Parliamentt.  This is the same Ugandan who promised to pass the kill the gays bill as a christmas present for the people.  How charming.  Now the locking up of gay people is seen as a gift.

We can only see that as tactic approval by Bendydick that the Ugandans have it right in the eyes of the catholics.  Kill all the gays!

She handed over to the Pope a portrait of the Uganda Martyrs Shrine Namugongo, a historical place where Christians were murdered because of their allegiance to their faith.

Let me get this right… In Uganda people have been killed because they were christian.  Faith is something that can be changed, easily.  And yet, somehow, it’s ok to kill gay people because of who they are.  Will there be a shrine for those people?

 

 

 

Comments Off on Lively wants to Kill the Gays and the Pope Approves

‘Tis the Season

[SOURCE]

feeling

Not a big fan of Christmas.

Not a big fan of Santa.

Not a fan of the whole jesus thing.

You know in every single Roman catholic church in the world you’ll find a grotesque figure of a dead man on an implement of torture  he’ll be wearing a crown made out of thorns, he quite often has his side pierced and bleeding, he’s feet and hands are nailed to the cross and his legs are broken.  He’s up there, at the front to make you feel safe.  Or something.  Probably more to make you feel guilty because apparently you’re the reason he’s there.  You sinner.

The American Atheist have put a billboard up in Times Square in New York – you know where that is?

dumpmyth

I think that’s brilliant!  The myth has caused no end of disquiet around the world.  Best we just get rid of it.  But Billy Donohue, head of the Catholic League in the USA doesn’t think much of it.  In fact, he said this:

This is vile. When you depict Jesus on the cross with a crown of thorns, this is exploitative. We as Christians never harass, intimidate, or insult atheists. But they can’t seem to say, ‘We simply disagree with you.’ They have to insult us.”

Letting the whole notion that jesus, tortured to death on a cross is vile and exploitative, he’s whole concept of christians never harassing, intimidating or insulting atheists is just so wrong.  Pope Bendydick himself has blamed Atheist for the Holocaust and global warming.  Christians, including catholics are great at telling the likes of me that I’m bound for hell to be torture by their devil for ever and ever if I don’t change my wicked ways.

How intimidating is that?

 

1 Comment