Loading ...- Category:
- Soap Box
- Author:
- Phil Scott
- Posted:
- Wednesday, 8 April 2009
It’s Easter, and a welcome break for everyone who hasn’t been retrenched.
But we should think of it as more than just a long weekend with a chocolate binge. Easter has a deeper meaning.
I went to Sunday School as a kid. (Presbyterian, because it was the closest and my brother and I could walk to it. Our parents stayed in bed sleeping in, I presume, since they failed to produce any further offspring.) We learned a lot of stuff there, all of which we took at face value.
I’m thinking of the Apostles. There were 12 of them, and they snuck around in a very tight-knit group. Well, they had to! They were persecuted by the rest of society. From a contemporary adult perspective, that means only one thing.
The Apostles were kind of closeted. For instance, they would have supper in the back room of a restaurant, curtained off from the public, with no women present. They must have done that regularly because a -˜Last Supper’ presupposes the existence of other suppers before it.
But what did such -˜suppers’ actually entail? Was it just about eating? This was the time of the Roman Empire -” Rome controlled Jerusalem -” and for the Romans, supper included a full-on orgy. Appetites of every kind were indulged.
Ask yourself: why is chocolate so heavily associated with Easter? Is it a symbol? There are plenty of other food symbols in religious ritual: bread for flesh, wine for blood, etc. Maybe there was more to these -˜suppers’ than meets the mouth.
On the other hand, the Apostles hated the Romans. Perhaps they rejected the Roman orgy model. But then the question is: what model did they embrace? The only other one familiar to them would be Greek: the Socratic set-up. Socrates surrounded himself with youths, spouted wisdom and paused every so often to rhapsodise on the subject of male love. That’s not a million miles away from Jesus and co.
The Apostles seem ambivalent towards women. We’re not sure if any of them were married. (This was before the time of in-depth journalism, so we have no profile pieces to look up.)
We do know that a hooker named Mary Magdalene flirted with Jesus, so you might assume the Apostles’ wives -” if they existed -” would have caused a bit of a stink about that. Enough to rate a mention in the Gospels, you’d think, yet they are nowhere to be found.
We know St Paul hated women, because he said so. If ever there was a historical figure struggling with his sexuality, it’s him. Paul’s the prototype for our modern American evangelists.
Truth is, Christianity could have started out as a gay cult. All that loving your fellow man!
It was the priests who came later who wanted to target a wider demographic, so they subverted the true queer Christian message. And they still do.
Tags: Christianity, Easter, gay cult, roman orgies, Sunday School, the Apostles, the Last Supper
April 12th, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
With regard to the following quote from your article
“On the other hand, the Apostles hated the Romans. Perhaps they rejected the Roman orgy model. But then the question is: what model did they embrace? The only other one familiar to them would be Greek:”
This is not accurate. What you seem to be forgetting is exactly who these men were. They were Orthodox Jews. They would have drawn their moral foundation entirely from the Hebrew scriptures, known as The Tanakh in Hebrew, or what Christians refer to as the Old Testament.
Furthermore regarding you assertion that the Gospels make no reference to any of the Apostles being married. I refer you to Matthew 8:14-17 & Mark 1:29-31, the story of Jesus healing the mother-in-law(meaning he had a wife)of Peter.
April 20th, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
I knew someone would come up with chapter and verse to attack this piece. Guess I won’t be publishing it as a serious piece of scolarship.
April 20th, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
I must add in all sincerity, I really appreciate anyone who writes “with regard to” instead of the common and inaccurate “with regards to”. Good on ya, Ben.
April 20th, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
One more thought: Peter my have been married once, but turned gay and thrown it all away to follow the Lord. Jesus ‘curing’ of Peter’s (ex?) mother-in-law may have been a political move on his part. Such things are not unheard of.
April 21st, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Phil
I was hoping that I would get a response. The tone of your piece is a bit tongue in cheek. Not sure if that was your intent but I strongly suspect that it was. Anyhow, lets go with your assumption that that Jesus and his Apostles were a group of Greek culture loving hedonists who had left all of that devout Jewish part of their lives behind. The fact that none of this fits in with the historical records is of no importance .If you believe it it must be true. Also I’d like to hear the story of Peter divorcing his wife and turning gay. This is a little surprising since his boss Jesus did preach against divorce(see Mark chapter 10, sorry about citing the chapter & verse again). When Peter made the ultimate “political statement” of being executed for being a Christian was his male partner put to death along with him? Somehow this story has been lost to history.
April 23rd, 2009 @ 12:07 am
Dear Ben,
Not sure if that was my intent to be tongue-in-cheek? My dear fellow, have you ever read anything else I’ve written? That is my ONLY intent! Historical accuracy is not my primary concern, but if it was I don’t know that I would trust the bible as a source. There are a number of gospels that never made it into the Good Book’s final edit, including the Gospel According to St. Cleo, where the sad end of Peter and his male partner Travis is examined in unnecessarily graphic detail.
Speaking of not being sure, I’m not sure if you are an historian or a professional Christian (or both), but if it’s the latter I would avoid the expression “If you believe it it must be true”. That kind of sums up the basic problem with religion.
April 24th, 2009 @ 1:43 am
Phil
I must be honest with you. I know Matthew,Mark,Luke & John back to front. I’ve even given the Koran & the Torah the once over and frankly I am in need of some new reading material. Please tell me that you own the only copy of the Gospel According to St. Cleo outside the Holy land and you’ll let me borrow it. I take the Ten Commandments very seriously (no surprise there I hear you say) so you can rest assured that I wiil not steal it. It may even move me to convert!!!
By the way, when the story of Peter and Travis does make it to the big screen what about casting? It’s got Brad Pitt written all over it, but I’ve always admired Kevin Spacey’s screen presence. I’d like to hear your thoughts on the matter. At any rate, the only choice for Director is Mel Gibson, since his last foray into the grand religious epic genre was such a masterpiece.
April 27th, 2009 @ 12:12 am
I can see Brad as Peter, but I don’t think Kevin would touch Travis at this point in his career. I’m afraid we’re stuck with David Hyde-Pierce. I do see Ian McKellen as God, however.
April 30th, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
A few more things that didn’t make the approved version of the Bible. During the Last Supper James turned to John and said “It’s a damn shame there are no women here because we’ve got all this red wine and this stuff is liquid panty remover. A few cups of this will make a loose women out of even the most virtuous maiden.” After dinner when Jesus and a few of the Apostles went to the Garden to pray the rest of the lads went to a topless bar, but got into a huge brawl with the bouncers for violating the no touching policy and spent the night in a jail cell.
April 30th, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
Regarding Atheism, Parker stated the following:[17]
Regarding Atheism, Parker stated the following:
“Basically … out of all the ridiculous religion stories which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous-”the silliest one I’ve ever heard is, ‘Yeah … there’s this big giant universe and it’s expanding, it’s all gonna collapse on itself and we’re all just here just ’cause … just ’cause’. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.”
Tery Parker(South park co-creator)
May 3rd, 2009 @ 12:27 am
It may be ridiculous as an explanation, but that’s because it’s not an explanation. It’s an admission that the unknowable can’t be explained. Why we are here or who put us here is actually none of our business. Otherwise we’d be capable of understanding it, and wouldn’t have to make up “ridiculous religion stories” and the 1001 rules that inevitably go with them.
Or it could simply be that we are not really as important as we think, and the fact that we briefly exist is neither here nor there.
At least we atheists don’t go around squirting superglue up the anuses of people we don’t like in support of our non-beliefs.
May 19th, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
-œ -œFreedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.
-” Pope John Paul II
May 30th, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
What the heck does that quote mean? Freedom means “do what I tell you”? A strange and perverse interpretation of the word. Maybe it means something else in Latin.