The New Pope Is A Murderer

Well, perhaps not exactly so, but complicit in the deaths of thousands of people each year. He runs the church that tells people to behave in ways that will kill them so they can make their imaginary friend happy. It might not say condoms are evil in the holy texts, but men found a way to extract that rule from the books anyway.

The one thing that would be simple to do, easy to live with, and could improve the reputation of Catholicism would be to change stance on birth control and condoms. No, they can’t do that because what this world needs more than anything else is starving and suffering people who pray to a god that is not there.

You should stop by and check out a few videos from StarStuffPress




  1. The birth control issue seriously ticks me off. That’s for sure.

    • There are a few things about the RCC that get me worked up. This is but one. The whole elect a man to be infallible is … well, it’s fucking ridiculous.

      • To be fair, the “infallible” declarations are few and far between. But yes, it’s ridiculous.

        • It is interesting to look at the early church from the view of the bible authors and compare Paul to modern day politicians. Paul arguably has the heaviest influence on Christianity compared to the twelve. He never even saw or knew Jesus yet his teachings are used predominantly. Read the thing through and you’ll get the impression that Jesus wasn’t so keen on a church or clerics.

          If you lived in the 1st century c.e. that book probably made a lot of sense. Somewhere between then and 300 c.e. it stopped making sense. That guy Constantine, he knew what he was doing. So much for the actual teachings of the christ. It’s much better when interpreted the way ‘we’ want it to read.

          • Not sure where you’re going with this. I think there’s a positive assertion in here somewhere, but it’s buried a little deep. 🙂

            • Paul and Constantine both took whatever the early Jewish Christians were and turned it political with the establishment of a church and further by making it the official religion of Rome. This was not the message of the christ. The very idea of a church was wrong from the beginning… at least for Christians.

              To complete the politicization of the following of Jesus, the crowned the emperor as head of the church and called him infallible.

              Yep, I’d say they really understood the message of their deity, well, his son anyway. /sarcasm

              • I can see that with Constantine, but not so much with Paul. Are you asserting that Paul’s writings were inconsistent with what Jesus is recorded as teaching?

                • Paul politicized it by creating a “church”. Constantine pumped up the volume on it. I can’t point out off the top of my head, but reading the Pauline letters you can see that he really put the “live like I tell you and win a prize” spin on things. It’s more than can be stuck in a blog reply but here is a fair stab at explaining what I’m talking about.


                  The entirety of the NT has distinct thematic crescendo while framed on an itinerant gypsy preacher who taught to forget worldly possessions because the end was coming and pretty damn soon too. He was like any of the ‘world will end soon’ preachers we’ve seen over the years. Paul put a marketing spin and PR make over on the whole deal. All of the apostles basically were murdered for their ideas. They weren’t very charismatic people. You might see all this is a comparison to a suicide mission by the dirty dozen with a drug addict leader. Paul sold that story, the only one to convincingly do so. Without him, Constantine would not have become Christian, and the world would be a different place today.

                  • I think there is definitely a big difference between what is taught in the modern church and the overall message reportedly preached by Jesus. It’s easy to try and draw neat connections to show that modern Christianity is Pauline and thus Paul must be in contradiction to Jesus.

                    I think there’s a simpler explanation, though. Modern evangelical Christianity is intensely superstitious, in many ways much moreso even than much of prescientific Catholicism. As such, modern evangelicalism depends heavily on prooftexting. Since Paul’s writings compose the greatest bloc of text from any one writer, he’s most susceptible to being prooftexted. When you prooftext Paul but look broadly at Jesus….yes, you’re going to get contradictions.

                    I think that’s more likely because this whole “works/faith” dichotomy is really terribly recent. It didn’t arise at all until the Reformation, and it didn’t exist in its present form until the modern evangelicalism of the past 1-2 centuries. Before, no one would have really seen Paul and Jesus as in opposition.

                    • I think that is one way to look at it, but it’s not how I see it. When you remove the gibberish and incoherent parts of the NT, what is left is about 50% Pauline. When Constantine commissioned the canonization of the bible, they basically picked the stories that did not conflict with Paul on any major points. Remember that even the faithful were working from differing texts in the first 300 years. They did not have the convenience of being able to analyze all of the books as one. Not all available books were included in the cannon. The nag hammadi library shows us this. Early Christians were essentially a mystery cult.

                      I agree with you on the works/faith dichotomy but I think the pressures of the early church on this issue are more important to formation of modern Christianity. Jewish Christians were the Branch Davidian’s of their day. They were not believed. Their doctrine got them killed. Paul sold the story. It is his letters and advice which govern Christianity from the 4th century on. The church was not the idea of the christ. It was the idea of Paul.

                      It is not just me. There is a movement within Christianity which rejects organized religion but not the teachings of their christ. I think that is a result of an honest reading of the text and an immensely sane reaction to organized religion. I simply do not subscribe to the idea that Jesus was a man god.

                      This does take us back to the fact that Jesus was teaching end times prophecy. A nut job that taught that the world would end before all his contemporaries were dead. Paul turned all that into something which could be organized and politicized. This was his contribution to history.

                      The reformation (Martin Luther) added a new spin. This created what we call modern Christianity. This is a different discussion than the differences between Paul and Jesus. Once you have a tiger by the tail, what you do is completely separate from deciding to grab the tail in the first place… for practical purposes.

                    • I’d be interested to know what evidence you have that the printing process commissioned by Constantine had any degree of debate over what went into canon. To my knowledge, there was never any canonization controversy….that was a myth perpetuated by Dan Brown and similar fiction.

                      When you say “The church was not the idea of Jesus, but the idea of Paul,” are you talking about organized Catholicism, or church congregations in general?

                      IIRC, the “world will end before my contemporaries are dead” idea was a misunderstanding of one passage mentioning a particular generation; the early apostles assumed they were the generation referenced. Jesus certainly preached the coming end of Judaism, but not the immediate end of the world. In fact, he even said he didn’t know when the world would actually end.

                • A bit extra thought: If you could reconcile the inconsistencies, the NT story is fairly dramatic and most story tellers seem to miss out on the fact that none of what is claimed by Paul et al impressed the Jews of Jerusalem nor did the apostles have a great deal of success. None of them died of old age… mostly because what they were selling was definitely not appreciated nor impressive to the people of the 1st century. A handful of nut jobs would not have gotten far without the added pizazz from Paul. He gave the people what people have always wanted – unwarranted hope.

                  These days you see this in diet commercials and those selling things which prey on the fears of humans: sexual dysfunction, social dysfunction, self esteem issues and so on. Paul sold his cure to the 99 of the Roman Empire. Not exactly a little blue pill, but he offered what other religions did not and superstitious humans clamored for.

                  It’s been a con job from the beginning. End of the world predictions that did not come true by a savior who isn’t, preying on the gullibility of humans, and the creation of a religion/church to keep it going in perpetuity. The earmarks of conspiracy seem to be in place though I don’t feel it was ‘planned’ so much as it was opportunistically abused.

                • Well, just stumbled across this one too: This helps paint a picture of the first 3 centuries a bit more realistic than what is generally spoken of.

                  • This was a really good read, but I think I might be missing something. What points were you wanting to call attention to?

                    • This goes to underscore the value of Paul’s sales pitch for the story. Without his writing there really isn’t any story. He sold the ‘next life reward’ bit like no other. Something that would have been truly appealing in the first 300 years C.E.

                      I’m trying to show, poorly perhaps, that if Paul was not there this religion would have died off like so many others as a mystery cult. He pushed it forward, Constantine solidified its place, the rest is history.

                    • Paul was definitely instrumental in increasing the geographical area reached by the Gospel, but the elements of reward-in-the-next-life were firmly and thoroughly part of Jesus’s teaching.

                    • No doubt that Jesus taught that only through him do you get to the father. He was kind enough to introduce Hell as well. However, It was Paul that pushed it on the Roman empire with the zeal of salesman of the year. First century Christians were wont to act like small pockets of do-gooders, each using their own version of Christianity until Paul (and others briefly) got busy organizing them. He basically wrote the NT for them. He continually shaped first century Christians until there was the basic foundations of a church.

                      It can’t be understated how important that was. Jesus taught an ascetic Marxism (if you will) and Paul did not. This difference made Christianity acceptable to a Roman crowd. You’ll find Pauline Christians today. Go to your local megachurch and ask them to sell their belongings to feed the poor – not gonna happen.

                      In the end Paul subtly changed what it means to be Christian and sold it to the 99 of the day in Rome’s empire.

                    • I guess I’m still not catching the distinction. Where did Paul discourage the things Jesus taught? I’ll lay the blame for that on some of the later early church leaders, but not Paul.

                    • It’s not that Paul discouraged it, he taught something that differed in significant ways. A discussion of this can be found here:

                      Paul changed the message, made it palatable to more folk. I’m not saying the message was readily accepted, all the apostles were killed for their ideas. It’s not exactly as if the message was convincing to even those young enough to have been alive when Jesus was supposed to be alive. For the most part, all the founding members of the cult were killed for their teachings.

                      Modern Christianity isn’t very Christ-like exactly because it relies so heavily on Paul and his writings.

                    • I read through part of that article before. But I have trouble with that approach because I don’t think it’s warranted to label organized Christianity as primarily Pauline. The reason is what I mentioned earlier: prooftexting.

                      Modern Christianity prooftexts both Paul and Jesus heavily. If you look at their prooftexts of Jesus and compare to Paul’s overall message, you’ll come to the conclusion that they’re pro-Jesus and anti-Paul. If you look at their prooftexts of Paul and compare to Jesus’s overall message, you’ll come to the conclusion that they’re pro-Paul and anti-Jesus. Of course, since Paul wrote more (and was often more specific), he has a lot more opportunities to be prooftexted, so the latter happens more often than the former.

                      It’s not enough to say, “Modern Christianity disagrees with Jesus and quotes Paul, so Paul must disagree with Jesus.” Doesn’t work that way. To show that Paul turned Christianity away from what Jesus’s vision intended, you’d have to show actual contradiction between the message of Paul and the message of Jesus. Without prooftexting. A little textual criticism goes a long way; we don’t need to get hung up on literalism.

                    • Well, I’m going to think about this. You might have a point. Currently I think you’re mistaken, but I’ll do some study and rethink with your vantage point in mind to see what I conclude. I’ll do a post on it.

                    • Thanks! I look forward to it; I’ll try to cross-post or something.

  2. By discouraging the use of condoms, the rcc is responsible (in part) for the spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemy and therefore the “pope” is guilty to accessory of genocide.

    • Well now… I hadn’t thought to put in those words but I do agree in full with them. The pope is doing his part and American evangelicals are on the African continent trying to ensure that gays and witches get state sponsored murder treatment. I’m not sure what part the RCC plays in any of that, but I’m sure they aren’t stepping in to change things for the better.

      Thanks for commenting.

  3. Have you ever seen the Intelligence Squared debate with Stephen Fry, Hitch and Widdecombe? Stephen and Christopher both had brilliant speeches. This reminded me of that debate, because Widdecombe was so upset that condoms were being brought up; she really didn’t understand why the rest of the world was upset by their policy. Stephen also had a nice analogy wherein he compared the Church to Bulimics (I believe). Anyway, it’s worth checking out.

    • I have seen it. Both Hitchens and Frye spoke eloquently and defiantly with such dismissal of the church that any witness should not be able to side with religion. A certain Mr C Rock once said that if you’re black _and_ religious, you’ve got a fucking short memory! The same should be said of women, gays, and in fact anyone that is not a white non-practicing heterosexual male who may or may not have a penchant for young boys.

      • I have often thought of that too. 🙂

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: