Tag Archives: Leviticus

Why the Bible is not true: bad translations and worse interpretations

Every religion has its leaders, usually self-appointed guardians of morality who have had some form of indoctrination either by other leaders or by books.  Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the greatest number of illiterates acting as leaders in their respective cults.  The worse offenders are the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox bishops especially in the USA where the new crop are appointed by a marginal scholar, the German-born pope (Josef Ratzinger), and in the land of Slavs by the criminal/cigarette selling billionaire patriarch Kirill of Moscow.  The are joined by the Ayatollahs of Iran whose knowledge of ancient Arabic is minimal (to be as generous as possible) and the illiterate imams in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iraq and other Arab nations (but with less lethargy in debates in Egypt and no scholarship prevalent in Somalia, Nigeria or Uganda that merely regurgitates what the current crop of poorly edited Qur’an state and students are required to memorize as if they were successors to Muhammad’s Memorizers).

Cain leads Abel to the field (by James Tissot)

In each of these cults there are accounts, to varying degrees of a rather erotic story that is redefined, reglossed, and redacted into the mythology of two brothers known as Cain and Abel.  Neither existed, but are references to actions.
“Cain” is an old Gaelic word that became Hebrew in time as קַיִן.  It is a word that went from a marginal comment to being incorporated into ancient scripts.  Originally, it meant a rent paid in the form of a subsidy of crops and other agricultural and animal raising enterprises; the crop was usually wheat, but at times corn and various root crops, none of which were special.

Stele of Qadesh in ancient Egypt

It is depicted throughout the history of art as a man bundling wheat or other grains). 

The idea that Cain was a warrior or a man given to battle and murder comes from ancient Celtic legends that made their way south and into Babylonian legends that ultimately flowered in Apiru/Hebrew mythology.

Scot and Irish scribes glossed from marginalia into the corpus of texts. The ancient Hebrew word is Qayin and means “created one”. It has been found in some ancient scrolls and translates as “to rise up” or in ancient Akkadian it means “to strike” with a special antecedent from the earliest Apiru from India who joined the Akkadians as mercenaries in the service and pay of the rulers of Egypt. 

Qadesh Treatise (3000 BCE)

The Akkadian and Egyptian Qayin (הֶבֶל) actually refers to a fertility ritual involving sodomy for both females and males at the instruction of deities (known as Satis, Sati, Amaunet, and Isis, who was a part of all world religions including the faith devoted to Pachamama of Perú) and was a part of the ancient Egyptian Trinity that Constantine I ultimately would refashion into the Christian Trinity) who spoke through their priests.

Ésotérisme Mon étrange pouvoir

It was known as “Ésotérisme Mon étrange pouvoir” that made the priests more valuable than the worshippers. Males were retained in the temple to assure fertility but were subordinate to the female who carried the seed and was the instigator of the act. It is not until much later, with the rise of rabid patriarchy that the male asserts dominance–in part because of the Code of Qadesh (The Rules for Ritual Sodomy in Honor of the Goddess) that they became active but then required the recipient to lay on the ground, leading to the rank and vain plagiarized insertion by Apiru warriors into the Book of Leviticus.

Yahweh’s Wife (on potsherd)

The actual statement in Leviticus is not the rejection of the act but the importance of the act in worshipping and recognizing foreign gods of both genders  (לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים על־פני Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7) with an overt effort establishes the exclusive nature of the relationship between the emerging nation of Israel and its god, Yahweh (one of the bull gods of ancient Egypt as the God of Israel) by marrying the agricultural deity to the Canaanite goddess of fertility Asherah.

the Lord their God, and served the Baals and Asherahs.- Judges 2:7

While the various writers of Deuteronomy and Leviticus commanded the people “of Israel” to turn from “pagan [country or foreign] gods”, few did.  The majority rejoiced in the old ways and practiced polytheism. The people of Israel did not, reluctantly, embrace monotheism until the Babylonian Captivity. 

the Lord their God, and served the Baals and Asherahs.- Judges 2:7

Part of the confusion is because of a misunderstanding and bad translation of the word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים that is interchangeable with אלוה and אֱל) all of whom were war lord, murderers, and highly sexual beings.  The Hebrew text uses Elohim for “gods”, a noun that is notably used both as a plural; however, later redactors and revisionists labored at making this plural noun a singular noun (that would be El: אֱל) when it was necessary to speak of the god of Israel (cf. van der Toorn, K.; Becking, Bob; van der Horst, Pieter Willem, editors (1999), Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (revised 2nd edition, Leiden [u.a.]: E. J. Brill, 1999, p. 274, 352-3).  There is no linguistic justification for this absurdity (cp. Mark S. Smith (2008). God in translation: deities in cross-cultural discourse in the biblical world.  vol. 57 of Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Tübingen, Deutschland : Mohr Siebeck, p. 19).  It is but a nationalistic ploy in an effort to unite a divided people of various cultures into one.

Egyptian fertility and love temple of the goddess Hathor at Dendera

What the later Hebrews and early Christians did was to embrace fertility rites but with love added, and commitment required, following the Shema. The Shema and its accompanying blessing/ curse reveals the intent of the commandment to include love for the one, true God and not only recognition or outward observance, as seen graphically in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (cf. Wylen, Stephen M. (2000). Settings of Silver: an introduction to Judaism.  New York, NY: Paulist Press)  This was even the message of Jesus of the New Testament (Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27. Ref. “Shema”, in HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 1996, Achtemeier Paul J., ed., New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers) and found in the canonical Gospels approved by the Emperor Constantine I before he destroyed the writings of Arius and other Gospels at his Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.

Cain, by Henri Vidal, Jardin des Tuileries, Paris

What is noteworthy for its absence in this reused tale of the past is that there is no reference to either Cain or Abel wearing clothes (in Arabic, Cain and Abel are always known as the Two Brothers and are cited jointly: ابني آدم, while neither one is mentioned by name).  Clothing was a sign of sin and denial, as seen in the account in Genesis where Adam sewed aprons for himself and Eve (the helpmeet, not helpmate) after they were expelled from the garden.  The absence of information indicates that both males were nude, and their body structure being different, leading Abel to parade arrogantly in front of his brother, as his name

Cain and Abel (by Titan)

indicates, and thus bring jealousy (a sin) into the scenario.  Artists have traditionally captured the two “youth” as nude (naked implies arousal and sinful acts), thus cementing the attack being upon pride, and it could have resulted in Abel’s toying refusal to worship the gods in the manner of the Babylonians (who settled the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that run through Iraq–the center of Eden) who practiced Qadesh (ritual sodomy). 

The vilification of Cain comes only with the writers who composed the various texts (letters or epistle) of Paul  (Saul of Tarsus).  In these cases the writers of the works ascribed to Paul make the landlord of Gan Eden (the garden of Eden) a vengeful, lustful and demanding people (elohim, where the word gods is regulated with temporal leaders who took on the trappings, appearance and

Cain’s offering (word cut 1701, in private collection of author)

title of gods) who played favorites.  This is clearly seen in the “offering”.  While Cain’s gift to the Great Lords was “of the fruit of the ground.” This is a direct reference to the alleged origin of Adam  (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎, Syriac: ܐܵܕ݂ܵܡ and found in all Abrahamic myths) is a word that translates as “red earth” or “dust” and “dirt” and even “handsome” (Gesenius, Wilhelm & Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1893). Genenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons. p. xiii.); it also has the meaning of “the one who is closest to the soil being formed from the soil” and thus the recipient of a superior person (Eve) who could induce fertility.  Paulinity, the successor to primitive Christianity, gave the story a different twice: Abel’s sacrifice was “more excellent” (it is found only in Hebrews 11:4; there were numerous questions in the fourth century church created by Constantine as to whether or not Hebrews was even authentic or significant) than Cain’s, and was accepted by God. 

The problem with Cain’s gift, by later redactors and used especially by scandalous sixteenth century scholars passionate for their own interpretations is the fact that Cain’s offering symbolized the resolute debate with the Great Advocate (the serpent: the god of wisdom, that in Babylonian languages and later incorporated into ancient Hebrew as Satan, means Advocate, and one who was favored by the gods in Job 2:1) around the Tree of Knowledge, but never a Snake.  In the earliest days of recorded history, the snake stood for knowledge and useful wisdom.  It was frequently portrayed as a woman, and represented her tongue and vagina.  Later with the advance of patriarchy, the snake became male and represented the tongue and the penis that would enter the celibate, chaste, saved, and enslaved to the gods.  To this end it must be argued that Cain was offering a challenge to the gods (elohim) and debating their monopoly on wisdom and insight, as the deities in Gan Eden were not considered to be at all omniscient (all-knowing), and even

Snake and temptation

omnipotent (all-powerful), nor omnipresent (everywhere). At best the gods were selfish, arrogant, haughty and vengeful, as seen in the repeated verbal ejaculatory exclamations that “vengeance is mine” (Psalm 6:1; Psalm 90:7; Hosea 13:11; Mark 9:43-48; Romans 2:8; Romans 12:19-21; Hebrews 10:30; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).  In every case the gods are  טהומוס or θεμος (themos) and וגרה (ogre, or dragon δράκοντας), beyond contempt and frightening. If we used the most ancient interpretations of the snake and the offering, it was Abel who attempted to beguile Cain with his tongue, either by singing or using it sexually, and either inviting or rejecting anal penetration.

Hathor giving the breath of life to the pharaoh (Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

As for Abel (הבל also pronounced Havel), it is from Hebhel that became Hebrew.  It actually translates as “vanity” but can be translated as “breath” and is indicative of ancient Egyptian deities who “breathed” upon dirt to create life, much in the same manner as the gods of what is today’s Iraq: ancient Babylon.  Abel also translates as “futility”: attempting to take credit for what another did thus arousing jealousy, animosity, and hatred. In the oldest Hebrew Bible, Abel translates as  “elusive” and indicates a tease or toying individual who like to frustrate others deliberately–not exactly god-like qualities nor those of a son of any god or prophet.  It is a better reference point for the myth of the slaughter of the brother.

Abel (Genesis 4:2, 4, 8-9, 25) is called a “righteous” man only in the New Testament (Matthew 23:35). His innocence appears only in a redaction (Luke 11:51).  His gift to the lords or gods of the garden were considered meritorious only in the writings of those who created the letters of Paul (Hebrews 11:4), with the absurd notion that Abel had blood equal to that of the Jesus of the New Testament (Hebrews 12:24) that had curative powers and could eliminate sin from others. None of this appears in the Torah. 

Cain’s death entering the Ark on Abel (MS in author’s private collection)

Modern translators recognize the errors in these definitions, for as I Samuel 6:18 points out, Abel is a word for a great stone on which the Ark landed (Cain, it was thought, through his wife and their descendants, were responsible for the Great Flood, but his death was allowed to enter the Ark so he could suffer so that others could live), or was put around the necks of the accused to sink into deep waters to test the gods judgment on them as to whether or not they were innocent (they would rise above the water) or guilty (they would drown)–a misuse of justice that lasted throughout the Middle Ages and even found its way into Colonial America in the form of the dunking stool.

Cain married sister Luluwa and had children

Abel was killed because of his boasting, bragging, vanity, and selfishness.  When it was first written in cuneiform the story tells us of a braggart that constantly bullied his brother rousing his brother to take his life by stoning.

What people do not know, commonly, is the first actual Biblical record of Cain and Abel and the alleged fratricide does not appear until the first century CE and then is a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Dead Sea Scrolls were inspected using infra-red photography and published by Jim R Davila as part of his doctoral dissertation in 1988. See: Davila, Jim R (1988). Unpublished Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Cave IV Qumran: 4QGenExa, 4QGenb-h, j-k. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University). Unfortunately over the years, and with the determination of the first Constantine (emperor of the East), many of the original scrolls were burned in an effort to “purify” Constantine’s newly established “catholic [universal] church”.  (Some scholars argue today that Constantine either had most scrolls with this fable burned or that a few escaped to the Dead Seas by various small communities of chrestianos and christianos.)  To do this required a total rewriting of approved biblical works that the Arian bishop Eusebius of Caesarea did so well years later. There is no mention of “brevity” in Abel in any early scrolls; on the contrary he was seen as a lecherous individual and who enjoyed cuckolding Cain, as an exegete in a Midrash suggests when it was written noting that Abel teased Cain about their marriage to twin sisters, with Abel demanding the most beautiful woman:  Aclima (Brewer, E. Cobham (1978 (reprint of 1894 version) and Cain having vaginal intercourse (the act of marriage) with Luluwa). The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Edwinstowe, England: Avenel Books. p. 3). 

Contrary to Maggie Gallagher (National Organization for Marriage) and Bryan Fischer (American Family Association), marriage was never between one man and one woman who were not related anywhere in the Bible.  This was common practice in ancient civilizations, and the sexual escapades were popular in more than a few of the tribes thus Abel hastened his own death in keeping with the period of the time to become a “god” (he is referred to as a saint in the early Christian religions, and oddly enough styled a prophet in Islam).

The influence of ancient Egyptian theology, practiced and written thousands of years before any Hebrew writing, brings strong bearing on the Cain and Abel myth.  According to Coptic Christianity (that was far older than either Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy, the latter two not being established until 325 CE, while Coptic Christianity actually can be dated to 100 BCE or

Part of Matthew 17-18 on a Coptic scroll

later) and the Coptic Book of Adam and Eve (2:1-15), and the Syriac Cave of Treasures, Abel’s body was placed within the cave after many days of mourning.  Most of the important Christian writings were preserved by the Coptics, despite repeated efforts of Roman Emperors, patriarchs and popes to have them destroyed.

The first parents, Adam and Eve, along with their descendants (detailed briefly in Genesis 5), offered their prayers over the unblemished and perfectly maintained cadaver of Cain whom everyone kissed from head to foot. The Sethite line of the Generations of Adam swear by Abel’s blood to

“The First Mourners” [Adam and Eve] by William Bourguereau

segregate themselves from the unrighteous, but there is no record of any blood being retrieved but only that it went into the soil (Genesis 4:10, redacted in Hebrews 12:24) but in much the same way as the blood that went to the goddess Maat attempted to summon justice.

In the extra-biblical Book of Enoch (22:7), one not sanctioned by Constantine I at Nicaea or anywhere else, the soul of Abel is described as having been appointed as the chief of martyrs.  These martyrs were neither witnesses nor saints, but zombies crying for vengeance and demanding the destruction of the seed of Cain (on zombies in the Bible, read Zechariah 14:12, Ezekiel 37: 1-14, Isaiah 26: 19-20, Deuteronomy 22:4-8, Matthew 12:11; 17:7; 27:51-53; Luke 1:69, etc.). This view is repeated in the Testament of Abraham (A:13 / B:11), where Abel has been raised to the position as the judge of the souls. It is of ancient Egyptian origin in the manner of the chief god of the Trinity: the Lord Osiris, known as Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and most importantly: God of gods (a common claim

Zombies in the Bible (and Jesus)

made by religious that claim to be superior to others or who have the only way, but here it was the pharaoh who was also murdered by his brother: the god Seth.  Seth cut him into fourteen pieces and scattered them to the winds.  Osiris’ sister-wife (much like the sister-wife Sarah joined with Abram/ Abraham) ultimately found all fourteen pieces and bound them up thereby creating mummification (but only after impregnating herself with Osiris penis (that had to be rescued from the stomach of a crocodile) so that she could give birth to a savior son: Horus (text is in the Egyptian Book of the Dead)


Filed under Ancient Egypt, Bible, Church history, Genesis, Language, Old Testament

United Nations Votes Against Human Rights

Homophobic bigotry has its historical roots in a misreading and mangled translation of ancient Babylonian myths that were plagiarized and incorporated into various Abrahamic (The people and languages Abrahamic religions arose from were in fact of one people—Jews, Christians and Arabs [many who were converted to Islam, usually at the point of a sword] who all claim to be descended from Shem) are among the Semites] writings in the Middle East–starting with the myth of Abraham (who was nothing less than the Apiru (it is found in Akkadian cuneiform texts that show a uniqueness near ancient Sanskrit. The corresponding name in the consonant-only Egyptian script appears to be PR.W, conventionally pronounced Apiru) transmogrification of the Hindu god Brahama (move the

Akkadian script: Peoples of the Battle of Kadesh

final “a” to the front of the name) who was carried along with a petty agricultural god (YHWH) into Canaan where the northern barbarians, who later were known as Israelites who created the mythology for a desert deity encased in a large black stone and known as Allah, rewrote history. (The earliest recorded instance of the term is dated to the reign of king Irkabtum of the north Mesopotamian, known in the bible as Amorite of the central kingdom of Yamkhad (c. 1740 BC), who had a year named “Year when king Irkabtum made peace with Semuma and the Habiru.” This has been taken to show that the Habiru led by Semuma already wielded such influence in the neighborhood of Alalakh that the local sovereign felt obliged to conclude a treaty with them.  There was nothing peaceful about the Apiru—on the contrary they were known as a filthy and evil foreign people who could not be trusted. It was for that reason the character of Lot was developed—a man so distrusted he had to sit in the outer gate to the brilliant and enlightened city of Sodom.)

Lot's cave where he impregnated his daughters (Gen. 19:36) outside Zoar

The original texts of ancient Apiru mythology details how a “Lot” (actually a word for a separating group of people from the original nomadic followers of Brahama who had made war plans to sack and destroy the City of Sodom, which in its day was known as “the Golden City of the Gods”) was rejected because of the Apiru demand for war when the Cities of the Plain were in armed conflict. Lot had to sit in the gate to judge “his” own people (Gen. 19:1)–and only was allowed a house within the walls to protect him and his extended family. When messengers (malak [in Arabic ملاك, Hebrew מַלְאָךְ, Aramaic מלא]: the original meaning of the ancient script in the Akkadian language), and Lot addresses them as “My Lords” conferring upon them military distinction (nowhere do we find the word for “angels” in the original scripts) came, they were rushed in without going through proper channels of the registration of foreigners. When (according to Genesis 19), the city council learned of Lot’s deception, “all the people, young and old together”, including women (Gen. 19:4), gathered before the house of Lot to demand to know (register) the messengers.  Lot refused and offered them his daughters (a common action) “to do with as you wish” (Gen. 19:8, including gang rape, molest, or kill) which exposes the corruption of this “patriarch”–who is patterned after “Abraham” who sold his wife Sarah into sexual slavery three times (by which he enriched himself with cattle, sheep, men and maid servants, etc; cf. Gen. 12-13f) before stealing her back from the various kings to he pimped his wife.

The absurd claim that evangelical and fundamental Christians and Muslims make is that the City of Sodom (and her sister cities: Gomorrah and Zoar) were destroyed because of homosexuality can quickly be dispatched although no rabid homophobe will ever give up this favored whipping post.  Ezekiel 16:49 states, clearly, that “the sin of Sodom” was “pride, fullness of bread, the inability to put forth the hand to help the needy” and so forth–sex is not even matched.

The Leviticus code declaring that “a man who lies down with a man” (Leviticus 20:13/16; cf. Lev. 18:22) is frequently brought up, but it exists only in bad medieval to medieval to modern translations neglects the original response “as if he were a woman” (meaning that it was a betrayal of self-acceptance, or a pretense in order to issue “an effusion”). This injustice continued against Canaanites who accepted homosexuality as a religious act “dog-priests” and the effusion was a sacred act symbolic of nurturing new life in a field (שּׂכּבּ)—the act was customary at times of planting and harvest.

There is no record of any “marriage” in the Torah (the only qualification for joining a man and a woman was that the wife [a word that meant helper or house slave] “is a virgin; and the Hebrew word (one) references cohabitation without ceremony or registration. The word for marriage as a ceremony does not appear until the European Middle Ages, when Jews refined it into the words erasing and insulin, the actual ceremony for the marriage. “Husband” is a Babylonian word (Baal [בעל] which is actually from the Akkadian Bēlu who was the Lord of an Assembly or a chief over gods or warriors) that actually translates as “master”. “Sanctification” of the union (Kiddushin, קידושין) actually comes much later in time.

 If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed” (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Interestingly, the contemporary concept of marriage appears no where in the later Jewish Bible, or in the initial Attic Greek Christian bible. Jesus goes to a “marriage feast” (John 2:2) only changes water into wine late during the “feast” (there is no record of a uniting ceremony). The text states that the host was upset as the best wine was saved “until last” (John 2:10f)—a notation that marriage was a public registration of commitment between two people (it states nowhere in the account that there was a bride nor a groom) and the purpose of the marriage was to “eat and drink until full” (drunk). If marriage was “religious” and “sacred” it is strange that the man who swore he would “fulfill the law” of Moses never married.

Not only did Jesus never marry—he never had a girlfriend; however he did let at least one man (John the Beloved) sleep on his chest (John 13:23, Luke 22:8)—and the only person he ever claimed to love was Lazarus (whom he “raised from the dead”—but who then disappears from all biblical account to make way for the advent of John the Beloved). Instead Jesus spent his entire public life around men, living with twelve, and having (Luke 10:1) 70 male disciples. In the day that Jesus allegedly lived, that would be considered the actions and traits of a gay man, as the only “married” man was Peter—and he lived with Jesus, abandoning his wife until she was on her death bed—similar to the way Newt Gingrich treated his wife (although Newt did bring his mistress to his wife’s death bed).

Evangelicals and fundamentals ignore the fact that Jesus preferred men over women, and find solace in the megaphone hatred of the mangled words of Saul of Tarsus (St Paul) whose writing latter has him stating that “effeminate men” (homosexuals) would not be allowed into heaven—but the original definition was lost: given to vanity, and it applies to men and women. But accuracy in translation has never been a strong part in religion, with all religions, especially Roman Catholicism and evangelical Protestants rewriting scripture to meet their own biases.

This crystallizes in the later “Koran” that appears more than a century after the death of “Muhammad” who was an illiterate camel driver–and who received Gabriel’s message while being deluded (to put it mildly) in the desert. He, knowing he could not read or write, Muhammad selected Remembrancers to listen to and memorize his tale of the Koran. They, in turn, remembered it and passed it to succeeding generations before it was written down—which gives cause to pause—as that was even the way the Torah and Bible came into being—with nothing being original. Out of this absence of academic accuracy come homophobic hatred, character and corporal attacks and religious sanctioned murders—now sanctioned by a once reputable, and respected institution that claimed to speak for all people: the draconic United Nations (See: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=81139&p=3941839 and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thor-halvorssen/united-nations-its-okay-t_b_787024.html.

The proposal that was ratified to allow the execution of people for being gay or lesbian, or bisexual or transgender was sponsored by evangelical fundamental Christian groups and Muslims and Mormons. The fact of being a homosexual, regardless if the person practiced homosexuality, was not considered for this marginalized community was reclassified as being nonhuman and dangerous to the well-being of order. Religion quickly became the master of the United Nations, and all pretenses of the UN

Uganda Christians Marching

sponsoring and supporting human rights were erased by a vote after the Roman Catholic church, leaders of the Mormon cult, and representatives of Muslim nations (along with several from Latin American nations) demanded that “homosexuality be stamped out” (see: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6520779/latest-un-shocker-its-ok-to-kill-gays.thtml). Uganda and other African nations promised an immediate push to execute gays and lesbians where ever they are found (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/12/uganda-kill-gays-bill-likely-to-pass.html) a move heralded by USA evangelical Christians, such as Scott

Scott Lively, Christian Missionary

Lively,  who claim that is the will of their god will not be outdone by the god of Islam and demands his share of human blood in sacrifice for the sin of homosexuality (see: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/01/the-nyt-looks-at-t-he-three-americans-who-participated-in-stephen-langas-uganda-conference-on-homosexuality-last-march-and.html and on Scott Lively see: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/24/22914, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9UGXSZDB7w).  

Iran hangs gay boys

Educated, intelligent, reasonable, responsible people will hold the United Nations in total contempt for its despicable action, its contemptuous and cavalier denial of human rights, and its posturing as an agency supporting and defending human rights. The United Nations must be stopped before other human rights erode into oblivion. Now is the time to withhold all money from the UN and all of its organizations that pretend to speak for the down-trodden, the

Iraq tortures and kills gays

marginalized, for the UN has taken up the mantle, the torch, and the arson of Adolf Hitler and has turned the institution into one so vile and nefarious it does not deserve any respect.  Daily the bodies of gay men and lesbians pile up in Muslim nations while the faithful declare that Allah is Most Merciful and that Islam is a religion of love, compassion, and understanding. It is the idiocy of Islam that strangles sanity and charity, and it is buttressed by the intolerance of evangelical extremists and fanatical fundamentalists in the USA who march in step with Fred Phelps and his Kansas based Westboro Baptist Church that not only condones but even funds the executions of those found “unworthy” of charity or the right to life and basic human rights.  In this regard, the United Nations has turned its back, collectively, on humanity and has sanctioned the most inhumane acts against all of humanity that finds itself to displease a few religious who claim their deity or deities do not recognize any person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Westboro Baptist Church poster

Leave a comment

Filed under Church history, Homosexuality, Jesus Christ, Nazis