The Pope Blesses Rubber Dingers

The Pope's recent comments regarding the use of condoms must have prompted an almighty Alleluia! from all those who own shares in condom-making companies (I hope someone checked for any pre-announcement plunges on such stocks from the Vatican Bank).
At  last the Catholic Church is moving into the 18th Century. This is just another step towards ridding ourselves of all the stupid edicts in this world centered around sex and obsession.

There are about six billion of us on earth right now. We’re all individuals with varying views, attributes, hopes, wants, needs, expectations, flaws and talents.

Yes, we come in two varieties, those with a penis and those with a womb -- tackle in or tackle out.

Just to be absolutely clear, those with the gear hanging in space are male, and those with the gear tucked away are female.

Women can do things that men can't – give birth, breast feed, collect shoes, have multiple orgasms.

Men can do things that women can't – piss up a wall, write their name in the snow.

Throughout history there has been continuing debate about how men are better at this and women are better at that. You know the stuff – men are more physical, men can read maps, men are stronger, men can run faster blah, blah, blah. But in reality we are all individuals with varying abilities and talents.

Remember, I’m a man, yet Florence Griffith Joyner would have no trouble whatsoever in thrashing me over a hundred metres, even if I had an eighty-metre headstart.

The majority of this “better than” bullshit has traditionally come from men, because let’s face it guys, it’s really just pissing up a wall.

Should women be allowed to be priests. This, and pretty much any gender-based argument, is phallic bullshit.

Unless the job description specifically includes tasks that require the use of genitals, or a womb, there is no place for gender arguments in the 21st Century. Therefore, unless the priesthood involves some secret rituals, like pissing up walls or inseminating altar boys, there is no reason to even discuss whether or not women should be allowed in.

I use this priesthood issue, but it is not an exception. It empitomises the millions of fallacies that handicap humanity. Just look at how much time, energy and emotional angst goes into this question even today. And for that matter all the similar bullshit questions of the past – should women, be allow to vote, get equal pay, should slavery be banned, is apartheid OK, should blacks get the same rights as whites, is the earth flat or round, should we allow same-sex marriage. We could fill libraries with the reams of these, at-the-time all-important fallacies, not to mention the physical and emotional energy, the suffering and pain, that has been wasted on them. There is one vital ingredient common to all such debates, and that’s ignorance.

For example, let’s examine this ridiculous “why priests must have a dick” argument.  Like so many fallacies wasting our time today, it relies on a misunderstanding of scripture. It’s an argument perpetuated by people who assume that old books are closer to the truth than today’s writings. The older the book, the more important its messages, so ancient scripture must therefore be venerated.

Whereas I say if the printing press had pre-dated Christ, we would have a very different sense of Christianity today. We would have a much greater understanding of how people thought and how they communicated at the time. We would have a plethora of books espousing all kinds of pluralist views. We would have critical reviews of the books of the day, including the Old and the New Testament.

We would understand what Jesus really meant when he said, “This is my body”.

 “This is my body” is bullshit. Beautiful bullshit, certainly, just like Ich bin ein Berliner.

We know Kennedy was not a Berliner because of mass media. Therefore we understand what he really meant.

Could you imagine if the Bible was published today. Would it outsell Harry Potter? I doubt it.

Although the Bible has many authors over many years, imagine – as many Bible “experts” still do – if it was written by one person. How would it stand up to peer review? How would the author go, for example, facing media questions?

“So Mr God, are you expecting us to believe that Mary was a virgin? And if so, what exactly did she and Joseph do on their wedding night?”

“If she gave birth to your son, doesn’t that mean you must have committed adultery, that is, broken one of your own commandments as referred to earlier in the book? What exactly do you mean when you say you did not have sex with that woman – Mary?”

“What terrible sin did Joseph commit to deserve a wife who doesn’t put out?”

“If the marriage was not consummated doesn’t that mean it’s annulled?”

“If you are in all living creatures, doesn’t that make you personally responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world?”

The Bible is littered with contradictions from cover to cover – and remember the Old Testament is fundamentally the Koran and the Tora.

But they are only contradictions if you take the text literally. The fact is the Bible was never written to be taken literally – it’s beautiful bullshit from cover to cover.

Scholars today understand a great deal about these documents and the people who wrote and edited them. But this information is unfortunately more ignored than understood by those with a vested interest in forming their own interpretations of scriptures.

It’s these ignorant views that form the basis for most conflict and debate about things religious. That’s the Cuckoo's Egg.

Churches are often far more preoccupied with their own preservation than their purpose.