Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


BISHOP HUONDER - GOD'S VIOLENTLY ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL TEXTS PROVE THAT GOD FORBIDS GAY SEX AS A SERIOUS SIN

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/church-criticism_lawsuit-filed-against--homophobic--bishop/41594920

God according to the book of Leviticus ordered that the people must stone gay men to death. Bishops cite that verse to oppose gay sexuality. We must remember that God threatened the people with horrendous disasters including plague if they did not comply with his laws. That shows how much "God" wanted gay men murdered.
 
The bishop, Huonder, cited the bloodstained Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 with approval. He said, “These two parts would be sufficient to give us the right direction with regard to homosexuality, in the light of our Faith.” He will not take responsibility if somebody goes out and kills gay people because of the quotes from the Bible. If the bishop says he does not believe in killing gays today and that it was a law for the past that does not get him off the hook for he is saying, "Its only my opinion". That opens the door to people to disagree and think the killings would be endorsed by God at best or understandable at worst.
 
If somebody hears the bishop quote the Bible and approve of the murders that were carried out, that he may not advocate murder now, the Bible is not going to discourage that person much if the person wants to kill gay people.
 
While it is good that decent people oppose the Church saying that gay sex is a serious sin, the problem is that Jesus said it - that is the main one.
 
If Jesus really set up Roman Catholicism to teach the "truth and be the only right religion" (as the Church claims) then he is to blame for the pope's anti-gay teaching.
 
The Old Testament teaches that God commanded that certain sinners must be stoned to death without mercy.
 
Jesus stated that he had no intention of relaxing any law of God in the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not - not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".
 
Jesus told the Jews off for giving people who cursed their parents a light penalty and not the death penalty as required by God's law (Mark 7).
 
Jesus did not say that it was wrong to stone the adulteress to death. He said if you were any better than her it was okay to cast the first stone. That is saying the death penalty is right in principle even if not always practical or possible. Obviously if it is not wrong in principle it is not the worst sin if you go out and murder an adulteress!
 
The Jews brought the woman to him to test him if he would obey the law of God to have her stoned. They expected him to tell them to stone her and probably participate himself. It is believed that if Jesus permitted it he would have been breaking the law of Rome which banned Jews from carrying executions. It was a trap. The Jews were definitely very convinced Jesus would say yes. They were willing to implicate themselves as they were so sure. Clearly, Jesus must have been involved in stonings previously and the authorities did not know about it. Or Jesus had been heard endorsing stoning. He could have been complaining against Rome's interference with the divine law that such women are to be stoned.
 
Jesus said he advocated love your neighbour as it was in the law of God - the law is clear that this law does not exclude killing adulterers or homosexuals. He was not taking the command out of context. He said he was using the commandment as the law gave it. The command comes from Leviticus 19 the most murderous book God ever allegedly wrote. The rule is about how people should act from day to day not about how the law should be applied. So the commandment in essence means, "Be good to your neighbour except when the law tells you."
 
Jesus did not say, "I abolish the laws of the Old Testament commanding that homosexuals be put to death." You need that in such a serious matter and if you want to say Jesus was all about peace and love.
 
Jesus never apologised for the deaths.
 
It is an insult to the people murdered as a result of the Leviticus law to say, "We don't do that now so it is okay". That is saying killing gay people isn't wrong - its just not done any more. Talking like that is really saying, "They deserve to be killed but I am too good and too superior to slaughter them." It is a smug boast. It is using death to glorify yourself.
 
Jesus even if he did not demand stoning to death of people made it clear that he is going to murder them himself. Vengeance is mine I will repay - Romans 12:19. Jesus keeping the law for us means the law is still in force. See also Romans 1:31 "God’s righteous decree is that those who do such things deserve death". The decree refers to the death penalty in the law of Moses.
 
Jesus authorised Paul's teaching and Paul taught that gay sex is a serious sin and results in everlasting damnation.
 
Jesus claimed to have inspired the Old Testament. The Bible claims to have two authors, God wrote it as much as man did. Christian teaching is that the Bible's words even if not dictated by God as as good something that is dictated and as authorative.
 
Christians who cherry-pick the Bible are giving the message: "My opinions are as good as God's. If I don't honour the whole Bible why do I honour any of it? Because it is sacred and I am just too stubborn, inconsistent and naughty to obey it all". Cherry-picking is paying homage to the Bible and the Bible should get no homage at all. It is bad advertising for the goodness of the Bible but still advertising.
 
Christians accepting the Jesus of the Bible and the Church that preaches the Bible as true and from God are indirectly and implicitly approving of their violent spirit and the barbaric deaths of those who faced that spirit.
 
If your empathy and decency are not tainted by faith, you will abandon faith in the Bible and in Jesus without hesitation. No religion with violent revelations from God should be adhered to.
 
And why did Catholic countries that took their rules from bishops such as Ireland put gay men in jail until relatively recently? Because of the influence of the Church. And it is a fact that the Church regards God as the author of the Bible not in spite of the fact that it demands in God's name that gays be stoned to death but because of it. The Church still teaches that homosexuality is bad for society - that implies support for the law banning it. A vote for Jesus who claimed responsibility for writing the murderous laws of the Bible through men is a vote for homophobia.
 
Pink Cross perceived the bishop to be calling for a restoration of the death penalty for gays. This is the reason why it is suing him for hate speech. They are right to say that if he wanted gays executed that this would be hate even if it were legalised again. But problems will arise. What if people argue, he is still not arguing for anything illegal. He wants them dead if the law allows it. It would be odd if anybody reasoned, "It is not hate to approve of the people being murdered by the Leviticus law. He does not hate today's gays if he does not want this law applied today." If a person said they wanted black people killed but only if it is legal that would be obeisance to law but still murderous.
 
The bishop is a disgrace. And those who applauded at his sermon are no better.
 
APPENDIX
 
It is alarming how somebody can quote a murderous law as having been given by God and half the world says it is fine for God doesn't ask for gays to be stoned any more. It is a callous insult against the gay men who died. If you would be okay with such a law and such a God what will you be okay with next? Jesus did not apologise for those laws and indeed stated they were correct. If it is true he does not require stoning any more it could be a matter of seeing the laws as out of date rather than wrong. He did not apologise for the murders which would have taken place in his own day. For all we know Jesus could have stoned gay men to death before he decided the law had had its day. Christianity is man made which is why man's flawed and bloody handprints are all over it.