INTRODUCING: ALBERT

A few days ago I got a response to an earlier post of mine.  It was thoughtful and written well enough that I thought I would re-post it as one of my blog articles--as opposed to leaving it hidden behind "3 comments"

Instead of calling this individual "Anonymous" I'm going to call this writer: "Albert."   So let me post his recent comment here:

Albert: As a matter of fact I am a Christian. Secondly, I am not that kind of Christian that is the "religious" kind - the kind as you put it regard GLBT as sinners or morally inferior. The type of religion that the Pastor Sempas and the like preach concerning homosexuality for instance, is straight fanatical and I see it as bigotry and hypocritical.

Quitstorm: I assume you're referring to Pr Martin Ssempa.  I'm sure he would say that you are not a Christian--period.  Ssempa would continue saying that there's only one kind of Christian--and that's the one as described in the New Testament--which is an extension of the Old Testament.  The NT does not refute the OT.

Albert: Yes I said it, and I'm a Christian. Why is it that they dont attack adultery or fornication with the venom they do concerning homosexuality. Its all wrong either way. They are all human, no more sinners than myself or the next person. Now that's where I agree with you that "religion" is a problem. The Jesus I believe in did not come to create a religion. Places of worship or churches are just that. Christianity doesnt start and end in the physical building. If Christ dined with thieving tax collectors, tagged amongst the worst sinners at the time, why would I expect that he wouldnt do the same with a gay person, and why wouldnt I. Point is, yes "religion" is more a tradition of sorts, but we are called not to be religious. Christ himself condemned the "religions" of the day - people who steadfastly held onto their belief systems that were more wrapped around tradition than anything else.

But back to the point of the original post and my earlier reply, I separate myself from the fact that the bombing was in a church/mosque and look at it as a loss of life. There coulda been non-believers say inside the church who say just so happened to be there because there was a friend/family wedding, etc and got killed. He may not be there to worship any particular god.

Or, why would I feel sorrier for a market crowd that got targeted by a bomb blast and not a church/mosque crowd & yet in that very same market are most likely people of different believers or non at all.

So should I identify the non-believer victims in that market crowd and feel sorry for them. Should I identify only those that are Christians - not the religious kind that think things have to be done a certain way, at a certain time, etc - should I identify those Christians and feel sorry for them and not be moved by the rest.

At the end of the day, we are all human beings, before we are a certain type of human being. And its the humanity aspect here that I am talking about.

RESPONSE TO ALBERT

Albert--Part I

Albert wrote: "The Jesus I believe in did not come to create a religion." 

Quitstorm: You seem to think that "Jesus" was a real person at one time--or maybe still is a real person.  Jesus, in fact, is a fictious charater in a collection of books comprising The New Testament.   There is absolutely no archaeological or historical evidence that the character "Jesus" as described in the New Testament was a real person.   This character, it is stated, walked on water and changed water into wine and rose up into "Heaven".  Superstitious people will believe this, but those of us to view the world scientifically understand that this is fairy-tale stuff.  Miracles never happened, this Jesus character never restored the sight of a blind man or restored life to dead people, and there is no such thing as a "Heaven".  The concept of a "soul" is pure fiction as well. 

 To answer your question: Jesus IS the religion.  Religion IS superstition.  Not only the character Jesus, but St Paul and all the other characters in the Bible are part of the religion.  I wouldn't be surprised if Paul of Tarsus was the one who created the character of Jesus.  But the fact is, there never was an historical Jesus.  No historian of the time recorded having seen a Jesus.  What was found among the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus was a forgery inserted by Eusebius of Caesarea. 

Albert wrote: "If Christ dined with thieving tax collectors, tagged amongst the worst sinners at the time, why would I expect that he wouldn't do the same with a gay person."  


Quitstorm: Hmm.  So you consider homosexuality a sin, therefore gay people are morally inferior to straights.  But you also wrote that you were not the kind of Christian who thought that gays were morally inferior.  Just comparing apples with apples, I'm sure you do not consider heterosexuality a sin, but you stated that you do think homosexuality is.  Now that more nations are legalising homosexuality, will Christians consider sexual relations outside of a gay marriage as "fornication" or "adultry"?

Quitstorm: Atheists do not commit sins, atheists are not sinners.  The concept of "sin" is purely religious and differs from one denomination and congregation to another.  To give an example, I've been trying to find out if Protestants consider drinking alcohol a sin.  Some say yes, others say no, others have explained that it's not the drinking of alcohol per se, but taking any kind of euphoriant that would separate their thoughts from their god.  One example where Christians disagree.  How is an atheist to know what Christianity it?  

Albert wrote: "I separate myself from the fact that the bombing was in a church/mosque and look at it as a loss of life. There coulda been non-believers say inside the church who say just so happened to be there because there was a friend/family wedding, etc and got killed. He may not be there to worship any particular god."

Quitstorm: With the exception of nine countries now that permit same-sex marriage, why would an atheist be at a wedding in the rest of the countries?  Atheists are proponents of human equality--as opposed to Christians, Jews and Moslems, and most other religions.  Recognising and witnessing a heterosexual marriage would be celebrating human inequality.  Repeat: INEQUALITY.  And there are atheists who find same-sex relations repugnant because of their childhood brainwashing.  These are atheists who got to the first stage of atheism: dumping the god-head, but yet are still burdened with all of the garbage that the Christian/Moslem authorities (parents, imams, priests, etc.) fed them when they were too young to question that authority.  Liberating one's self from all the harmful effects of religion takes time and a lot of thinking--along scientific lines.

What elicits my admiration is that there are a few heterosexuals who refuse to get married in their homophobic country, until gays are permitted to get married.  Meanwhile, as Christians say, our heterosexual supporters are "living in sin" because they are cohabiting while unmarried. I have written three editions of this article.Please wait look for the other remaining two pieces.