Jesus H

That Jesus died for our sins is a weird story always to me, because why did he have to die? Why did anyone have to die? Where was God’s capacity to forgive? Why couldn’t god just bypass the payment of sins, or defer it, or make them free to begin with? That’s harsh to crucify people no matter if they are your son or not. I have always had this argument with Christians and therefore God, but he only talks through signs and symbols and other people which is suspect. I am way more into Jesus, who uses the same language but his example speaks volumes so he’s cooler just by default.

And if God can’t forgive, or requires Jesus dying on the cross in order to consider it then forgiveness is expensive and even though Jesus supposedly already paid the bill, there’s all these hidden costs that God still needs to cover.

Like why do ‘Christians’ hate gay people? Why can’t they ‘forgive’ homosexuality? Why do ‘Christians’ judge constantly – don’t they know they’ll be judged? Apparently this doesn’t faze them in the least because they bang that gavel in the face of violence, inhumanity, death – children who are bullied for being gay and suffer to the point of suicide – the tragedy of all tragedies – and they still have the gall to tell us we are hell bound.

I have only respect and love for those who take Christ’s teachings to heart. It’s not that I am anti-Christian. I grew up in the church. I know about it. I know all about it. I taught Sunday school. I helped children from the ages of 2-12 learn about God and Jesus and answered their questions as best and lovingly and nice as I could, but I had many questions myself that no one, not even the clergy, many in my own family, could answer. So I gave it all up. I walked away from the church because I didn’t get it. I didn’t want to participate in a place where I felt unacceptable. It wasn’t school so I had the choice to leave. So I left. it’s not that I am an Atheist particularly either. I just don’t find the actions of many ‘Christians’ appealing. I don’t think they are acting christlike and they are supposed to. That’s what it’s called dummy – “CHRIST-IAN” ACT LIKE ONE!

What I take comfort in, which is directly from the bible, which is the most important thing really, is resurrection. No matter how much we are abused and scorned and hated and even crucified and left for dead or already dead, we will rise. Fuck yeah we will fucking rise so fuck you.

All I know, is that come judgement day, I will stand next to these so called Christians and homophobes and I will be smug and satisfied and may get some demerits for indulging in the sin of pride, but that’s way better than the hatred and psychic and literal murder of gay people that they are guilty of. It’s going to be like traffic school vs prison. I may get points on my license but they are going to fucking hell.

16 Comments. Add To The Mix…

  1. You may know this already, but it’s a pet peeve of mine so I want to say it anyway:

    The idea that Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins, because God couldn’t possibly forgive us any other way, is known in theology-speak as subsitutionary atonement. It’s a crappy theology for exactly the reasons you pointed out (why can’t God just love and forgive?), but it’s NOT NOT NOT the only way to understand Jesus and what happened on the cross. Check out this piece for a more in-depth argument: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/is-god-pissed-off-good-friday-reflection_b_1386902.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

    There are better theologies out there, more loving and accepting theologies, and I think Christians ought to talk about them. Not because that will magically turn all the doubters Christian, but just because Christians have injected so much hatred and judgment into the world, we ought to balance it out sometimes.

    One perspective on the cross that I prefer is that it didn’t “earn” anything. It was just awful and wicked and made Jesus a victim, which means that Jesus is always and forever on the side of victims. To me, that’s a theology that offers some hope.

    (Disclaimer: yes, I’m a Christian, so Jesus matters to me. No, I don’t expect everyone to feel the same way.)

  2. Hey, Margaret.

    Do you really believe in the afterlife? I don’t, but I really wish I did. I wish I believed in reincarnation, so I could be reincarnated as a gay leatherman and do the whole thing where I work my way up to being a top by starting as a bottom.

    I had a pretty bad breakup with my Boyfriend in the Sky, but even when we were together, I had a hard time believing in an afterlife. Which is kind of a problem if you’re a Christian, because if there’s no afterlife, Christ is kind of, well, a chump, right? Back when I was a believer it was just one of those ideas I’d avert my eyes from so I could keep believing without it being so painful and confusing.

    As a laugh, I just noticed that the words on the anti-spam CAPTCHA are “some mushrooms.” Maybe it’s a hint?

  3. Thanks for a great post. I was baptized Lutheran, was raised by one atheistic and one Christian parent, attended Presbyterian services on Christmas Eve, married a nice Jewish boy, and currently sing in an Episcopalian choir. I’ve seen a bunch of religious perspectives, including some pretty hateful ones too.

    The bottom line is that our country is a democracy, not a theocracy. That means civil marriage needs to be governed by democratic law, not by religious law. If people want to preserve a belief in a “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage, then they can run their church that way, but you can’t run government that way. Democratic law is nothing like religous law. Democracy guarantees the same freedoms, rights and resposibilites to all citizens; religion does not, and it needn’t. It’s perfectly okay for a church to impose all sorts of restrictions on marriage, based on its particular interpretation of morality.

    For example, few churches would marry philandering, abusive, drug-addicted heterosexual Satanists on their fourth marriage, because they would violate moral codes on many levels, but any City Hall across America would marry them. There are many moral prerequisites to religious marriage, but there are ZERO moral prerequisites to civiil marriage. Imposing one single requirement (the proper combination of genitals) under the argument of “morality,” while accepting the absence of all other moral requirements is arbitrary and insincere. If religious fanatics really cared about the morality of civil marriage (although it would be undemocratic), then they would sseek to impose the same restrictions on it as their churches would. Because they don’t, and they focus solely on preventing same-sex couples from marrying, it reeks of nothing more than bigotry.

    While I find it truly disgusting that people would openly seek to cause others harm because of their bigotry, it’s even worse to try to justify it in the name of religion. To hide behind a self-righteous facade of religion is not only distinctly non-religious but also cowardly. My call to homophobes is to stop defaming religion and just admit you’re a bigot already. At least people would respect your honesty, and we can have a real conversation with you.

  4. Interesting, but I disagree with the premise of your question, “Why can’t they ‘forgive’ homosexuality?” (I was raised Catholic but can’t be part of a church that does not act Christ-ian)

    Homosexuality is not something to be ‘forgiven,’ but something to be understood and accepted, as all of us, according to the bible, are created in His image. No more can a good Christ-ian deny homosexuals every God-given right and humane respect than he can deny women, children, blacks, Asians, short, tall, blonde, etc.

    Choices may need to be forgiven, but innate qualities? No. Also, in order for people to be “forgiven” the Christ-ian view requires repentance for your sins. Promoting forgiveness reinforces the view that homosexuality is a sin.

  5. I’m going to leave this link here, and hope you don’t mind.
    It’s an article by an ex-priest, talking about – among other things – the concept of original sin.

    http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645853-conversion-on-mount-improbable-how-evolution-challenges-christian-dogma

    “Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed. (I realize, of course, that none of this makes sense from the point of science; this is the world of theology. Please bear with me and enter into the willing suspension of disbelief for a bit.)

    The role of Christ as the Second Adam who came to save and perfect our fallen species is at the heart of the New Testament’s argument for Christ’s salvific significance. St. Paul wrote, “Therefore, just as one man’s trespass led to the condemnation of all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to salvation and life for all.” (Romans 5:18) Over the centuries this typology of Christ as the Second Adam has been a central theme of Christian homiletics, hymnody and art. More liberal Christians might counter that, of course there was no Adam or Eve; when Paul described Christ as another Adam he was speaking metaphorically. But metaphorically of what? And Jesus died to become a metaphor? If so, how can a metaphor save humanity? Really, without a doctrine of original sin there is not much left for the Christian program. If there is no original ancestor who transmitted hereditary sin to the whole species, then there is no Fall, no need for redemption, and Jesus’ death as a sacrifice efficacious for the salvation of humanity is pointless. The whole raison d’etre for the Christian plan of salvation disappears.”

  6. Imma telling ya, Today is weird article day 0_0 . Imma not kidding, man. I have read the weirdest shit today. oye!! THIS , however, is a breath of fresh air for me. Unfortunately my brain is in fast forward but my typing is in rewind and so saying what I want to say feels imposible. I can’t say that Imma christian because i honestly don’t know. My father was a minister for awhile. We about starved so he had to take on work for us to survive and so lead him outta church. I even went to a religious school for a few years ( they kicked me out ! LOLz) They feared I would be a Bad influence on the students. Try that one on…. I may not know what I am but I accept what I do know. I love having the internet now as my books of research and I DO research intensly on religoius/spiritual matters. I can’t help myself. It is a blessing as well as a curse. The comments shared about Other theologies is so important and so true, for me anyway. Thanks for stirring the pot. I value these comments as well. thanks for this juicey post . You have some very intelligent people here : D

  7. Jesus transcended physical existance He is more than what He did even more than what He said ..He loves unconditionaly and taught us to also ..if we love Him we will ..I do ..so I love you ..did anyway ..now doubly because He taught me to ..so I will when you cuss and express your disdain and logic and individuality and pain and pride ..I will love you ..I won’t judge and catagorise and segregate and loath ..when you isolate and identify and self loath ..I will accept forgive and love you ..did anyway but because He taught me I will too – to death

  8. I’m not Christian either, despite having gone to church as a child. My parents were never that religious either, though. The idea of God sacrificing himself to himself makes no sense to me, but I can get down with Jesus’ teachings about the first being last and the last first. In other words, Christians who put down others are acting exactly how Jesus DIDN’T want them to.

  9. You’re right on, Margaret! There are some Christians who claim to forgive you for your sexuality but then they try to change you. Those are not real Christians. The only real Christians accept everyone.

  10. Hi Margaret. I think you are spot on. I love you.
    I had some thoughts I thought you might like to hear:
    The pillar of the mainstream faith regards love as a virtue like all other mainstream religions. This means we share a common belief of what is good. But we don’t live up to our God because we are human beings. God is love but humanity has so little love to go around. In some ways I’m comforted by these icons because they remind me that love exists. If anything that’s what Christianity did for me, just as the Buddah, or Allah may do for someone else. That’s all religion does. It reminds us, the rest is up to you and me to follow through.

  11. Well put! Even as a little kid, I couldn’t figure exactly how Jesus could die for my sins when, hello, he was long gone before I was born. And don’t get me going on the “Christian” homophobes.

    My fridge magnet says it best: “Please, Jesus, protect me from your followers.”

  12. I was pondering the very same thing a few days ago. I mean heck, Jesus kisses another man in the bible and hangs out with a rumored hooker and definitely goes out of the way to defend one. Jesus sounds awesome. That God fellow is rather shady though. It made me very uncomfortable to be grouped in with people who acted and treated others the way the worst of the Un Christ-like Christians do, and heck my very first time at Bible Camp they said God loves a kind atheist/non-believer more then a cruel ‘Christian’ because they act as stumbling blocks to those who would come to him and do good, where as the atheist/non-believer who does good does so more self-lessly then others, as they seek no other reward then to know they have done good.

  13. Excuse me if I only come by occasionally to read your blog. Alas my stalking days are past. But I like the way you write. I dont mean the grammar punctuation or syntax. Just the way you sound …in my head. although I’m not always clear on your meaning. Its not you but most other people too, even billboards or haphazard scraps of crumpled paper happened upon with whatever scribbling on it.

    But I like your writing… especially when I do understand

  14. I laughed for fifteen minutes straight at this:

    “It’s going to be like traffic school vs prison. I may get points on my license but they are going to fucking hell.”

    hopefully it’ll be more like we all get ice cream, but the bratty ones have to eat there’s from the cone up so it drips on their hands and gets sticky and cold. Or maybe it will be like that sour patch kids commercial with the pigeon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GINmvzOpfvc&feature=related

  15. This is one of those times when I am gratified by reading something so close to how I feel that I could easily have written it myself. I never understood the whole dying for our sins thing either. In fact, I don’t buy into this whole original sin thing, or any sin for that matter. Sin is an invention designed to maintain control. And Hell? Eternal damnation loses it’s meaning if it is eternal. It becomes the eternal whatever… It has occurred to me that Christianity was usurped by a vicious authoritarian movement which distorted the original message, rendering it nonsensical. The ‘Christians’ of today are exactly like the Jews of Jesus’ time, filled with unreasoning hate and ready to stone anyone at a moment’s notice. Nothing really changes.

Leave a Reply