Jerusalem--
Christian groups across the globe celebrated briefly Sunday morning, then let out a collective groan as Jesus Christ rose, appeared outside his tomb, saw his shadow, then promptly retreated back inside. The large crowd that gathered for the event quickly dispersed as clouds started to dominate what had been clear morning skies.
The risen Christ ensured 6 more weeks of Lent in the annual Easter ceremony when he emerged to cheering that quieted as he noticed the shadow cast by the bright morning sun. Christ waved and thanked the crowd, then shrugged his shoulders while looking down at the shadow.
"Well, that's the way it goes," Christ said.
He then miraculously rolled a 5-ton boulder back in place behind him, sealing the entrance to the tomb he had remained in since late afternoon Friday. Many Christians were clearly disappointed by the ceremony.
"I can't friggin' believe it," Maria Chinchilla said. "What am I going to do with all this beer and candy?"
Priests and pastors appeared flustered and frustrated as they feverishly rewrote homilies and made last-minute liturgical changes in preparation for their various Sunday services. Easter has been re-scheduled for Sunday, May 28.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Friday, April 14, 2006
Brokeback Bible?
Lent is almost over, and by Sunday Catholics everywhere can stop giving money to charity, start drinking again, eat whatever they want and take the leaves they turned over about 40 days ago and pack them away until next year. Which I guess makes sense-- permanent change within the church (at least the Catholic one) is generally frowned upon. After all, Christ only stayed dead for 3 days before He gave up. Of course, that begs the question-- is it really fair then, if Christ could only manage for 3 days, that we have to give up stuff for 40? I guess we can only blame ourselves for not negotiating a better contract.
With the unveiling last week of the recently discovered "Gospel of Judas", this weekend's festivities could take on a whole new meaning. According to the ancient text, Judas and Jesus may have been closer than once thought, and, contrary to the story of deception and betrayal portrayed in the four traditionally accepted gospels, Judas may actually have been acting at Jesus' request. The argument has been made, then, that this better explains the famous "kiss" between Judas and Jesus just before He is handed over to the authorities.
But according to a revelation I had last Sunday in church while the priest was reading that very portion of the Passion narrative, it only explains part of the story. I had never really thought much about Judas and Jesus kissing before, but while sitting there listening to the reading and thinking about this newly discovered text and all the recent talk about the Bible supposedly condemning homosexuality, it suddently dawned on my like a lightning bolt from the heavans: Jesus was/is gay, or at least bi-curious. I know, I was stunned too. But once that hit me, everything else about the Bible started to make sense-- that Jesus was 33 or so at the time of His death, yet never married, that He only would round up men for disciples, that He was a carpenter (you know, woodworking). . .
It also offered me a better explanation of why He was put to death so suddenly and seemingly without cause. Executing someone just for claiming they are God incarnate? Hardly. It is now obvious to me that the crucifixion was in actuality the most notorious hate-crime of all time.
Of course, just because I was inspired by the Holy Spirit through divine revelation to come to that conclusion doesn't mean you have to believe me. But if you don't believe me, you probably also don't believe the Bible is the true reveleation of God's Word handed down to man (through divine inspiration of course), so there's that to think about.
Even though I know it's true ('cause God told me), I know you Scripture Nazis out there want some Bible quotes or something to back it up. Well, you're in luck. A cursory review of the New Testament (by me) revealed just over 150 references to Jesus' homosexual/bisexual preferences. Then, to check my work, I let a couple gay guys I know look it over (amazingly the Bible did not burst into flames and burn to ashes in their hands like I thought it would), and, wouldn't you know it, they found over 700 references! I guess I just couldn't pick 'em out the way they could.
What's that? You want some of the quotes? Well, since I assume some of you may not have a couple of gay friends handy to help you out, I'll give you just a couple of the highlights. Remember when Jesus went gathering up disciples, and told a couple of them to put their fishing nets away and follow Him? Remember what He said when they were concerned that they weren't going to be catching fish anymore? That's right, Jesus said not to worry because they were going to become "fishers of men". And with Jesus' striking good looks and long flowing hair, you can bet their nets were going to be full.
Skipping ahead to the end of His life, remember when He tells Peter that he will deny him three times before the cock crows? Regardless of the obvious clues the species of the bird provides, remember the words Peter uses to deny Him? That's right, Peter claims that he didn't "know" Jesus. And you all know what to "know" someone in the Biblical sense means. . .
Speaking of "knowing", everyone knows that throughout the gospels John is referred to as the disciple whom Jesus "loved". But it is also repeatedly stated that Jesus loved everyone. So why would the authors feel the need to go out of their way to say that Jesus loved John specifically? Obviously they were trying to clue us in as to what a lot of their "secret meetings" were all about, but didn't want to be too explicit for fear that their gospels would be banned, and themselves executed (editors were a little harsher back then).
Finally, there's that kiss. If I remember right, Mel Gibson conveniently portrayed the kiss from Judas as being one on the cheek. But since every word of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, if the Bible meant it to be a kiss on the cheek, it would have said so.
Also, with homophobia at all time highs at the time these texts were written, one would think the author would have been absolutely clear on that as to avoid any confusion. But at the same time, gospel authors can't, by their very nature of being gospel authors, deviate from the true inspired Word of God, so "kiss on the cheek" was obviously not how it went down.
Two of the four gospels (Matthew and Mark) use nearly the exact same words: "Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him." The other two contain significant variations, but there is absolutely no mention of any cheek-kissing. And apparently the kissing wasn't really a big deal to anyone, or there would have had to be some kind of follow-up like ". . . as those gathered around turned away in disgust" or ". . . as the men who had come to arrest Jesus threw rocks at Him and called Him names".
So what does this all mean? Is Dan Brown all washed up? I don't think so. Remember, God told me that Jesus was not gay, but bi-sexual. So obviously Jesus still could have fathered a child with Mary Magdalene and the whole Holy Grail saga remains plausible. But what this does mean is that all the people who claim the Bible condemns homosexuality better get a grip, because this Easter, Christ's here, he's queer, so get used to Him!
With the unveiling last week of the recently discovered "Gospel of Judas", this weekend's festivities could take on a whole new meaning. According to the ancient text, Judas and Jesus may have been closer than once thought, and, contrary to the story of deception and betrayal portrayed in the four traditionally accepted gospels, Judas may actually have been acting at Jesus' request. The argument has been made, then, that this better explains the famous "kiss" between Judas and Jesus just before He is handed over to the authorities.
But according to a revelation I had last Sunday in church while the priest was reading that very portion of the Passion narrative, it only explains part of the story. I had never really thought much about Judas and Jesus kissing before, but while sitting there listening to the reading and thinking about this newly discovered text and all the recent talk about the Bible supposedly condemning homosexuality, it suddently dawned on my like a lightning bolt from the heavans: Jesus was/is gay, or at least bi-curious. I know, I was stunned too. But once that hit me, everything else about the Bible started to make sense-- that Jesus was 33 or so at the time of His death, yet never married, that He only would round up men for disciples, that He was a carpenter (you know, woodworking). . .
It also offered me a better explanation of why He was put to death so suddenly and seemingly without cause. Executing someone just for claiming they are God incarnate? Hardly. It is now obvious to me that the crucifixion was in actuality the most notorious hate-crime of all time.
Of course, just because I was inspired by the Holy Spirit through divine revelation to come to that conclusion doesn't mean you have to believe me. But if you don't believe me, you probably also don't believe the Bible is the true reveleation of God's Word handed down to man (through divine inspiration of course), so there's that to think about.
Even though I know it's true ('cause God told me), I know you Scripture Nazis out there want some Bible quotes or something to back it up. Well, you're in luck. A cursory review of the New Testament (by me) revealed just over 150 references to Jesus' homosexual/bisexual preferences. Then, to check my work, I let a couple gay guys I know look it over (amazingly the Bible did not burst into flames and burn to ashes in their hands like I thought it would), and, wouldn't you know it, they found over 700 references! I guess I just couldn't pick 'em out the way they could.
What's that? You want some of the quotes? Well, since I assume some of you may not have a couple of gay friends handy to help you out, I'll give you just a couple of the highlights. Remember when Jesus went gathering up disciples, and told a couple of them to put their fishing nets away and follow Him? Remember what He said when they were concerned that they weren't going to be catching fish anymore? That's right, Jesus said not to worry because they were going to become "fishers of men". And with Jesus' striking good looks and long flowing hair, you can bet their nets were going to be full.
Skipping ahead to the end of His life, remember when He tells Peter that he will deny him three times before the cock crows? Regardless of the obvious clues the species of the bird provides, remember the words Peter uses to deny Him? That's right, Peter claims that he didn't "know" Jesus. And you all know what to "know" someone in the Biblical sense means. . .
Speaking of "knowing", everyone knows that throughout the gospels John is referred to as the disciple whom Jesus "loved". But it is also repeatedly stated that Jesus loved everyone. So why would the authors feel the need to go out of their way to say that Jesus loved John specifically? Obviously they were trying to clue us in as to what a lot of their "secret meetings" were all about, but didn't want to be too explicit for fear that their gospels would be banned, and themselves executed (editors were a little harsher back then).
Finally, there's that kiss. If I remember right, Mel Gibson conveniently portrayed the kiss from Judas as being one on the cheek. But since every word of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, if the Bible meant it to be a kiss on the cheek, it would have said so.
Also, with homophobia at all time highs at the time these texts were written, one would think the author would have been absolutely clear on that as to avoid any confusion. But at the same time, gospel authors can't, by their very nature of being gospel authors, deviate from the true inspired Word of God, so "kiss on the cheek" was obviously not how it went down.
Two of the four gospels (Matthew and Mark) use nearly the exact same words: "Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him." The other two contain significant variations, but there is absolutely no mention of any cheek-kissing. And apparently the kissing wasn't really a big deal to anyone, or there would have had to be some kind of follow-up like ". . . as those gathered around turned away in disgust" or ". . . as the men who had come to arrest Jesus threw rocks at Him and called Him names".
So what does this all mean? Is Dan Brown all washed up? I don't think so. Remember, God told me that Jesus was not gay, but bi-sexual. So obviously Jesus still could have fathered a child with Mary Magdalene and the whole Holy Grail saga remains plausible. But what this does mean is that all the people who claim the Bible condemns homosexuality better get a grip, because this Easter, Christ's here, he's queer, so get used to Him!
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Sarcasm Tutorial
Anyone Ever Heard of Sarcasm? A Rear End Tutorial
Originally published in The Gonzaga Bulletin's 'Rear End', Feb. 15, 2002 (in response to angry letters regarding the diversity article):
The thing I love most about Gonzaga is how well everybody understands sarcasm. Since I never write in that style, people have few problems grasping the high concepts and lofty notions in my stories. That is why there is absolutely no need for a crash course in sarcasm, parody and satire: You all just seem to "get it" like it was innate at the moment of birth. Amazing.
First of all, sarcasm always means exactly what it says. If it is 100 degrees in a classroom on the fourth floor of the AD building and I say, "Damn, it's freezing up here," that means I'm cold and I would like to borrow a sweater. If someone down the hall in a dorm is blasting Kylie Minogue at 3 a.m. and I say, "Hey, that song's awesome, could you turn it up?" that means I love that song and wouldn't rather be sleeping. It also means I wouldn't rather be shredding my eardrums with a cheese grater.
Now I know this is some tough stuff, but try to keep up. Say I just got an F on a test. It is likely that some cheery goon might say, "Hey, I aced that test no problem. How'd you do?" I might then say, "Awesome." That means I like getting F's and like it even better when cheery goons discuss their winning grades at length with me.
The same rule doesn't apply to food, however. Say I am at the COG, for example, and someone comes by and says, "How's the burger?" I would probably say, "delightful," which in that situation means the burger definitely does not resemble a sick cat's stool sample. If they then proceed to inquire about the soup, I might again use the catch-all, "awesome," (just like I did about my F) but this time it would mean the soup is gourmet, not that it looks more like the vomit after a Thanksgiving feast.
You should be beginning to see that sarcasm has very few uses. It really only comes in handy when you want to say exactly what you mean and be entirely serious about it. Like after a date with someone who slapped you in the face and told you they never want to see you again, someone is likely to ask how the date went. If you want to be a quick wit and make a joke of the whole thing, steer clear of sarcasm! Instead, say something like, "Oh, it pretty much kicked ass . . ." as you rub your still red and bleeding face. Your friend is apt to say, "Great! So when are you two hooking up again?" This is because they undoubtedly understand sarcasm and your conscious choice to not use it in that situation.
OK, so now I'm going to up the ante. Imagine the possibilities if you could answer one sarcastic remark with another sarcastic remark. It's just too bad that you can't. Say you have to do a horribly long research project for class, and after it is assigned a classmate says, "This project is going to be sweet." You might think you could then say, "What the hell are you talking about? Research is stupid and you are stupid if you like it!" But since the first statement clearly means that the student loves research and loves research projects, your reply would be extremely out of line. But if you feel that the person's statement is completely serious and you're comfortable with it, go right ahead and let fly with the sarcasm in your response. It will further discussion and form the bridge between two widely differing viewpoints. This, of course, will be because you're on "the same page."
Take the "Rear End" for example — with a name like that, how could anyone in their right mind think it to be a page of sarcasm? Couple that with the fact that the Bulletin's "Opinion" section features nothing but column after column of hilarious, clever and biting satire while the "Rear End" consistently offers up only the most serious, droning and banal discourse imaginable. But I guess it's easy to see why you would confuse the two.
So, since you don't need it and obviously have mastered the subtle shadows that divide the serious from the satirical, I have devised the first-ever "Rear End Sarcasm Quiz." Answer all the questions and check your score at the bottom to see if you are a jackass. No cheating.
1) It's February in Spokane which means it is overcast, windy and there is a slight drizzle. Your friend opens the curtains and says, "Hey, another glorious day in tropical Spo-Canada." S/he really means:
a) S/he likes Spokane and the beautiful climate it affords.
b) Winters in Spokane are dreary and no one could possibly do enough harm to society to deserve such a punishment.
c) S/he is from Seattle so it's really too hard to tell.
2) After a drunken Kennel Club member vomits all over your friend's new pants at a basketball game, the friend curses and says, "Sweet, thanks Kennel Club. Real classy of you." S/he really means:
a) S/he is indebted to the Kennel Club for making her once ordinary jeans unique and interesting, and aspires to be as knowledgeable and reputable a fan as to be worthy of Kennel Club membership.
b) The Kennel Club, while a good idea on paper, in reality amounts only to throngs of drunken revelers who for the most part possess little appreciation for the finer points of basketball, yet can debate at length the merits of certain Bulldogs' hind quarters while slinging lewd, crude and rude obscenities at opposing players and officials with reckless abandon in a consequence-free environment.
c) S/he is in the Kennel Club so this stuff "doesn't ever happen."
3) Your friend writes an article in the paper which claims that anyone that goes to a public school is a "fornicating heathen" and should be shunned at all costs. S/he really means:
a) That all non-Catholics are sinners and will perish with Lucifer in the fiery furnace, and we must create a bubble around ourselves and dare not peer out from it, lest we be corrupted by evildoers.
b) That while the idea of keeping a Catholic university aligned with its mission and ethos is very admirable and extremely beneficial to faith and community development, the point of view that some (not all and not even a majority of) people at GU have is very dangerous in that it seems to value Catholicity over diversity and freedom of ideas, thus subscribing to the notions of "old-school" Catholicism which held that if it was not Catholic it was bad. While the Catholic church has moved forward and recognized that good and even truth can be derived from other faiths, it would be nice to see the entire GU community embrace the belief that non-Catholics have something to offer too and quash the stereotype of "the public school heathen."
c) You react before you think and it won't matter anyway.
Congratulations! You've completed the "Rear End Sarcasm Quiz." If you answered "A" to each of the questions above than pat yourself on the back: you are a Sarcasm Wizard. If you answered "B," I'm sorry, but you are horribly misguided and should be banned from ever speaking in public again. If you answered "C," you, like the legendary albino wonder-boy Powder, are made of pure energy and you are about to burst forth through the world like lightning exploding from the heavens.
Copyright 2006 The Gonzaga Bulletin
Originally published in The Gonzaga Bulletin's 'Rear End', Feb. 15, 2002 (in response to angry letters regarding the diversity article):
The thing I love most about Gonzaga is how well everybody understands sarcasm. Since I never write in that style, people have few problems grasping the high concepts and lofty notions in my stories. That is why there is absolutely no need for a crash course in sarcasm, parody and satire: You all just seem to "get it" like it was innate at the moment of birth. Amazing.
First of all, sarcasm always means exactly what it says. If it is 100 degrees in a classroom on the fourth floor of the AD building and I say, "Damn, it's freezing up here," that means I'm cold and I would like to borrow a sweater. If someone down the hall in a dorm is blasting Kylie Minogue at 3 a.m. and I say, "Hey, that song's awesome, could you turn it up?" that means I love that song and wouldn't rather be sleeping. It also means I wouldn't rather be shredding my eardrums with a cheese grater.
Now I know this is some tough stuff, but try to keep up. Say I just got an F on a test. It is likely that some cheery goon might say, "Hey, I aced that test no problem. How'd you do?" I might then say, "Awesome." That means I like getting F's and like it even better when cheery goons discuss their winning grades at length with me.
The same rule doesn't apply to food, however. Say I am at the COG, for example, and someone comes by and says, "How's the burger?" I would probably say, "delightful," which in that situation means the burger definitely does not resemble a sick cat's stool sample. If they then proceed to inquire about the soup, I might again use the catch-all, "awesome," (just like I did about my F) but this time it would mean the soup is gourmet, not that it looks more like the vomit after a Thanksgiving feast.
You should be beginning to see that sarcasm has very few uses. It really only comes in handy when you want to say exactly what you mean and be entirely serious about it. Like after a date with someone who slapped you in the face and told you they never want to see you again, someone is likely to ask how the date went. If you want to be a quick wit and make a joke of the whole thing, steer clear of sarcasm! Instead, say something like, "Oh, it pretty much kicked ass . . ." as you rub your still red and bleeding face. Your friend is apt to say, "Great! So when are you two hooking up again?" This is because they undoubtedly understand sarcasm and your conscious choice to not use it in that situation.
OK, so now I'm going to up the ante. Imagine the possibilities if you could answer one sarcastic remark with another sarcastic remark. It's just too bad that you can't. Say you have to do a horribly long research project for class, and after it is assigned a classmate says, "This project is going to be sweet." You might think you could then say, "What the hell are you talking about? Research is stupid and you are stupid if you like it!" But since the first statement clearly means that the student loves research and loves research projects, your reply would be extremely out of line. But if you feel that the person's statement is completely serious and you're comfortable with it, go right ahead and let fly with the sarcasm in your response. It will further discussion and form the bridge between two widely differing viewpoints. This, of course, will be because you're on "the same page."
Take the "Rear End" for example — with a name like that, how could anyone in their right mind think it to be a page of sarcasm? Couple that with the fact that the Bulletin's "Opinion" section features nothing but column after column of hilarious, clever and biting satire while the "Rear End" consistently offers up only the most serious, droning and banal discourse imaginable. But I guess it's easy to see why you would confuse the two.
So, since you don't need it and obviously have mastered the subtle shadows that divide the serious from the satirical, I have devised the first-ever "Rear End Sarcasm Quiz." Answer all the questions and check your score at the bottom to see if you are a jackass. No cheating.
1) It's February in Spokane which means it is overcast, windy and there is a slight drizzle. Your friend opens the curtains and says, "Hey, another glorious day in tropical Spo-Canada." S/he really means:
a) S/he likes Spokane and the beautiful climate it affords.
b) Winters in Spokane are dreary and no one could possibly do enough harm to society to deserve such a punishment.
c) S/he is from Seattle so it's really too hard to tell.
2) After a drunken Kennel Club member vomits all over your friend's new pants at a basketball game, the friend curses and says, "Sweet, thanks Kennel Club. Real classy of you." S/he really means:
a) S/he is indebted to the Kennel Club for making her once ordinary jeans unique and interesting, and aspires to be as knowledgeable and reputable a fan as to be worthy of Kennel Club membership.
b) The Kennel Club, while a good idea on paper, in reality amounts only to throngs of drunken revelers who for the most part possess little appreciation for the finer points of basketball, yet can debate at length the merits of certain Bulldogs' hind quarters while slinging lewd, crude and rude obscenities at opposing players and officials with reckless abandon in a consequence-free environment.
c) S/he is in the Kennel Club so this stuff "doesn't ever happen."
3) Your friend writes an article in the paper which claims that anyone that goes to a public school is a "fornicating heathen" and should be shunned at all costs. S/he really means:
a) That all non-Catholics are sinners and will perish with Lucifer in the fiery furnace, and we must create a bubble around ourselves and dare not peer out from it, lest we be corrupted by evildoers.
b) That while the idea of keeping a Catholic university aligned with its mission and ethos is very admirable and extremely beneficial to faith and community development, the point of view that some (not all and not even a majority of) people at GU have is very dangerous in that it seems to value Catholicity over diversity and freedom of ideas, thus subscribing to the notions of "old-school" Catholicism which held that if it was not Catholic it was bad. While the Catholic church has moved forward and recognized that good and even truth can be derived from other faiths, it would be nice to see the entire GU community embrace the belief that non-Catholics have something to offer too and quash the stereotype of "the public school heathen."
c) You react before you think and it won't matter anyway.
Congratulations! You've completed the "Rear End Sarcasm Quiz." If you answered "A" to each of the questions above than pat yourself on the back: you are a Sarcasm Wizard. If you answered "B," I'm sorry, but you are horribly misguided and should be banned from ever speaking in public again. If you answered "C," you, like the legendary albino wonder-boy Powder, are made of pure energy and you are about to burst forth through the world like lightning exploding from the heavens.
Copyright 2006 The Gonzaga Bulletin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)