The Kazoo Band

“Okay, children!  Time to play in the kazoo band!”

“YEA!”

“All right, let me hand out the kazoos.  Here’s one for you, Billy. And one for you, Suzy.  And one for you…and one for you…and one for you…and one for you, Leslie.”

“Uh, teacher, this isn’t a kazoo. These are two rhythm blocks -- “

“F*CK YOU!  F*CK YOU!  YOU DIE AND YOU GO TO HELL, YOU LITTLE BASTARD!  THOSE RHYTHM BLOCKS ARE A KAZOO! NOW BLOW ON THEM!  BLOW AND MAKE MUSIC!”

=phfft!= “I can’t!”

“YOU ARROGANT LITTLE BASTARD! HOW DARE YOU DEFY ME!  BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY, YOU WORTHLESS SACK OF HUMAN EXCREMENT!  BURN IN HELL UNLESS YOU BLOW THAT KAZOO!”

“But it’s not a kazoo!”

“IT IS IF I SAY SO, YOU LITTLE LIAR!”

“No, it’s not!  It’s two blocks of wood!”

“IMPUDENT, UNGRATEFUL SWINE! HOW DARE YOU THROW AWAY THE BEAUTIFUL KAZOO I GAVE YOU?”

“But I didn’t throw anything away! This is what you gave me!”

If this scenario played out in real life, we’d yank that teacher out of that classroom so fast their shadow would take fifteen minutes to catch up.

We would recognize this teacher instantly for what they are: An insane, possibly evil sociopathic psychotic who should never be allowed near children.

Why then do we assume our kind and loving Father God is saying the same thing about people with sexual orientation different from our own?

Here’s the situation: We are faced with one of two possibilities.  Either the literalists’[1] interpretation of the Bible is correct, and it is a book that is filled with contradictions that cancels itself out, thus making it worthless as a guide (much less an authority)…

…or the literalists are wrong and have been layering on folk religion, contemporary / local cultural values, and other human misinterpretation to the point where the real text, the real message is almost obscured.

The first view would have us believe that every single solitary line in the Bible has one meaning and one meaning only, and comes straight from the mouth of God, and can be interpreted only in the manner that the literalists claim is true.[2]

The second view would have us use reason and common sense, to sift through the histories of people and cultures and conflicts long dead, long gone and find the core teachings that are universally applicable.  This is the view that keeps orbiting back to “Love God, love your neighbor” and “treat others the way you want to be treated” and “judge not, that ye be not judged.  For...with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”.  The view that keeps turning up verses where the prophets of God tell us He isn’t interested in rituals and sacrifices, that He hates our phony religious meetings, that He despises religious leaders who make up increasingly arcane rules to tyrannize the people, and that all He really wants of us is to treat one another fairly and to look after the sick and needy, the widows and orphans.

Why would you listen to an insane and/or evil teacher when there’s a good shepherd?

The good shepherd spoke only once on the topic of sexual orientation.  In that instance he said the best thing possible was to be so devoted to serving God and serving our fellow human beings that sexual / romantic desires paled in comparison.  Some people, the good shepherd said, were lucky to be born without a strong desire for sexual / romantic relations; they were lucky insofar as they could more easily devote their attention to serving God.

For those who did have sexual / romantic desires, the good shepherd suggested marriage as a way of channeling those desires so one did not spend all one’s time trying to chase & satisfy them.

…and that’s it.

There are two instances when the good shepherd encountered people engaged in sexual sins.  In the first instance, he forgave the sinner and told her not to do it again.[3]

The second time he met someone who had been married and divorced several times and was currently shacking up with a new honey outside of wedlock.

The good shepherd did not judge her, did not condemn her, did not tell her to straighten up her life.

Rather, he unconditionally offered to share with her the secret of eternal life.  In fact, all he asked of her was that she in her current state of sin go and tell other people the Good News so they could be saved as well.

No repentance required.

Just act.

Go and tell.

Seek and share.

If the good shepherd can use the village slut to win souls, who the fnck are you to say any of his flock are worthless?  Who are you to say any of them are not accepted by him just the way they are, and in the condition & circumstances he finds them?  Who are you to say any of them may not be of service?

Tend to your own knitting.  To paraphrase this so we can sneak it past the high sheriffs at Google:

If you think cooking socks is a sin, don’t cook anybody’s sock.

Otherwise, mind your own business.

Who are we to judge the servant of another?[4]

.

.

.

[1] Religious and atheist

[2]  Which, by astonishing coincidence, just happens to justify the literalists’ personal peccadilloes and preeminent position in the present power paradigm.

[3]  He first asked her accusers if any of them were innocent of sin.  If any of them were, they could throw the first stone.  He had no takers.

[4]  To those who ask, "Well, Buzz, aren't you judging the servant of another with this post?" I say "hate the sin / love the sinner" right back atcha...

Off To The Nerd Prom!

Conversation #20,707