Bible thumpers, exclusively male since the Bible’s inception, dismiss history because like the primitive men who made up a male god or gods, they desired a way to control, to exert power over people.

Jesus existed. He died in a horrible way history describes as the ultimate Roman way of death by disrespect. However, Jesus really thought his God was going to come and reconcile the earth within his disciples’ lifetimes.

That’s why the Bible and New Testament are not relevant now or in future times to come. Jesus was in accord with God, his “father” about slavery, homosexuality, etc. Jesus was written about many years after his death by the New Christians who wanted to exalt his death by creating scriptures which do more to separate people than any other cultural practice.

It especially makes no sense women or people of color would follow religions which undermine their existence based on the New Christians’ fervent desire to create power and control based on narrow, primitive, uneducated viewpoints of those times. I dare not say “ancient” because too many people today give its meaning the false equivalence as “wise” or “a kind of wisdom which is above reproach”.

Saul of Tarsus persecuted his own Jewish tribe of people—-and other tribes of people who did not follow Roman law—in the brutal common ways done in those days. Women, too, were crucified facing the tree or cross. But nary a woman’s death by crucifixion is mentioned in the Bible or New Testament yet hundreds—perhaps thousands—occurred.

It’s time to leave male god myths perpetuated by primitive men behind. It’s time to focus on how to become a better human being by reading up, studying, humanistic behavior.

Humanist understanding is the only way to heal this world fucked up by religious lopsided male dogma created by delusional fearful men of the past.

Consider this my final post on this side of your movie discussion site. Taylor, I am not your enemy nor am I a friend who will ever pay you lipservice. You’re a complex person like everybody else and I may vehemently disagree with a few of your movie ratings but value your creativity and willingness to post opinion which you do not agree.

Back in the day I was a huge Anne Rice, interview with a vampire fan… and like in book 27 or whatever, deep in the Vampire L’Estat space, she argued something in that vein as well. I wish I could remember which book that was. But one of the vampires was around then and saw for himself Paul subverting the church.

But let’s dive in on that a second. Because that is so fascinating to me. This guy Paul? Who was a Pharisee’s Pharisee. A Jew’s Jew… opened up the mind of the Christian Jews to whom? To the Gentile. That logic makes zero sense to me in that it was Paul among all other disciples that realized that Grace was extended to everyone. If he was a saboteur, then I would have thought he would have been the bing proponent against that migration to the whole world. Right? (Which, actually was Peter’s stance for a while until he realized he was wrong.)

But to understand that argument, you would have understood what his purposes were. Maybe the argument is that Paul was trying to destroy the church by including Gentiles? And he accidentally, in so doing, made it the single most influential religion the world has ever seen? Seems a little far fetched.

“But the thing for me that clenches his legitimacy and his fervency to the gospel was his own verbiage in the letters he wrote:

2 Corinthians 11 “Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.”

Now, I don’t know about you… but if I was punking you and your club in order to derail it completely, I’d have stopped with the ‘going without food’ let alone the ‘Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one’!! Right? I mean, he is human after all. But not only did he suffer food deprivation, and whippings, but beatings and shipwrecks and craziness upon craziness. Just seems like a serious stretch to me… you know?

Chuck Colson, one of the men convicted as a part of Watergate always said that if the Disciples weren’t legit, they would have also unraveled after Jesus’ death… like watergate unraveled. But he argued that the Disciples ability to stay the course in spite of the beatings, the whippings, the terror, the threats, proved just how committed they were to this vision that Christ painted for them. I mean, they all died violently (minus John, but that is a different topic for a different day). Peter crucified upside down. Andrew was scourged, and then tied rather than nailed to a cross, so that he would suffer for a longer time before dying. Acts 12:1-19 says that James was killed with a sword via beheading. Philip was scourged and crucified in Heliopolis. Some say Bartholomew was skinned alive and then beheaded. Thomas impaled on a spear in Greece. Matthew was stabbed in the back by a swordsman sent by King Hertacus. Simon and Jude crucified.

I think you get my point. But yeah, really cool thought. Do you think that Paul was trying to subvert the fledgling church?