(no subject)
http://www.ecolivingcenter.com/board/spirituality/messages/134.html
I was talking about the hypocrisy of the bible today with a coworker. I found this.
Posted by Article on July 18, 2004 at 00:39:57:
The Abominable Shellfish
Why some Christians hate gays but love bacon
The third book of the Bible, Leviticus, has some wonderful passages. The
Jubilee laws outlined in chapter 25, for example, provide an inspiring
vision of liberty and justice for all. The 10th verse of this chapter
even supplied the inscription for the Liberty Bell: "proclaim liberty
throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."
The Jubilee laws and the ideals they embody, unfortunately, are nearly
wholly neglected and forgotten. Most of the book of Leviticus is
similarly neglected.
Yet some passages live on, their teachings still regarded as unwavering
and binding.
One such passage is Lev. 20:13, which says (in the King James Version),
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination."
That passage is frequently cited by the spokesmen of the religious right
to explain why they're so adamantly opposed to allowing homosexuals to
enjoy full civil rights here in America.
The thing is, though, that the book of Leviticus condemns a lot of
things as "abominations." The 11th chapter is overflowing with
abominations. For example, from verses 10-12:
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of
all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the
waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an
abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have
their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the
waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
The folks over on the religious right cite Leviticus as evidence that
homosexuals are an unclean "abomination," yet they have no problem
eating at Red Lobster. What gives?
Since many observers have noted this apparent inconsistency (see, for
example, godhatesshrimp.com) I figured I would wade in to try to explain
why it is that so many contemporary Christians reject gays while
embracing shellfish.
To understand why God is no longer considered a hater of shrimp you have
to flip ahead to the Acts of the Apostles, the good doctor's account of
the early days of the Christian church.
Acts chapter 10 finds the apostle Peter on a rooftop in Joppa, praying
at noon before heading down to lunch.
The impulsive former fisherman has grown into a genuine leader in the
early church. At Pentecost, he preached the gospel to people from every
corner of the Roman Empire and he is slowly appreciating that this new
community is supposed to transcend any ethnic or cultural boundaries.
But the goyim still seem to bug him a bit. Especially the Romans.
So God gives him a vision. Peter falls into a trance and sees a vision
of a giant tablecloth descending from heaven. The tablecloth is covered
with honeybaked hams, cheesesteaks, crab cakes, calamari and lobster.
"Eat up, Peter," a voice tells him
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter says. "I have never eaten anything impure or
unclean."
"Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean," the voice says.
"And try the angels on horseback, they're like butter."
This happens three times.
This is generally regarded as an instance in which a New Testament
passage seems to set aside a prohibition from the Old Testament. And
that's why our friends on the religious right do not feel compelled to
eat kosher and do not consider shellfish to be "an abomination."
Fair enough, but there's something else going on in this story. The main
point of Peter's rooftop epiphany has nothing to do with diet. The main
point of this vision had to do with the people who were about to knock
on Peter's door.
Peter is about to meet Cornelius. Cornelius is a gentile. Worse than
that, he is a Roman. Worse than that, he is a Roman centurion. Cornelius
is about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger.
But give Peter credit -- he understood the vision. "Don't call anything
unclean that God has made clean." Don't call anyone unclean that God has
made clean.
Peter does not treat Cornelius as an unclean outsider. He travels to the
centurion's house, where he says, "You are well aware that it is against
our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has
shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
Peter gets it. In this new community that God is building, this church,
there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. No one
is excluded as unclean.
This is the unsubtle point that Luke is hammering home for his gentile
friend Theophilus. The surrounding chapters of Acts read like a
hyper-P.C. after-school special on celebrating diversity. The church
embraces Jews and gentiles, Roman soldiers and slaves, men and women,
Africans, Greeks and even a token white European.
In our fondness for Easter ham, we Christians have fervently clung to
the surface-level meaning of Peter's vision. But we haven't been as
enthusiastic about embracing the larger, more important lesson God was
teaching him there on the rooftop. When the "unclean" outsiders knock on
our doors, we don't like inviting them in.
That, in a nutshell, is why some Christians happily dismiss one
"abomination" while still behaving abominably out of allegiance to another.
(Oh, and what about Leviticus' Jubilee laws? Those were never set aside
by anything in the New Testament, but Christians no longer treat them as
authoritative because, um ... well, because money is pretty and shiny
and let's us buy nice things.)
Therefore: if you hate 'fags', your ass best be lookin' for kosher food.
I was talking about the hypocrisy of the bible today with a coworker. I found this.
Posted by Article on July 18, 2004 at 00:39:57:
The Abominable Shellfish
Why some Christians hate gays but love bacon
The third book of the Bible, Leviticus, has some wonderful passages. The
Jubilee laws outlined in chapter 25, for example, provide an inspiring
vision of liberty and justice for all. The 10th verse of this chapter
even supplied the inscription for the Liberty Bell: "proclaim liberty
throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."
The Jubilee laws and the ideals they embody, unfortunately, are nearly
wholly neglected and forgotten. Most of the book of Leviticus is
similarly neglected.
Yet some passages live on, their teachings still regarded as unwavering
and binding.
One such passage is Lev. 20:13, which says (in the King James Version),
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination."
That passage is frequently cited by the spokesmen of the religious right
to explain why they're so adamantly opposed to allowing homosexuals to
enjoy full civil rights here in America.
The thing is, though, that the book of Leviticus condemns a lot of
things as "abominations." The 11th chapter is overflowing with
abominations. For example, from verses 10-12:
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of
all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the
waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an
abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have
their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the
waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
The folks over on the religious right cite Leviticus as evidence that
homosexuals are an unclean "abomination," yet they have no problem
eating at Red Lobster. What gives?
Since many observers have noted this apparent inconsistency (see, for
example, godhatesshrimp.com) I figured I would wade in to try to explain
why it is that so many contemporary Christians reject gays while
embracing shellfish.
To understand why God is no longer considered a hater of shrimp you have
to flip ahead to the Acts of the Apostles, the good doctor's account of
the early days of the Christian church.
Acts chapter 10 finds the apostle Peter on a rooftop in Joppa, praying
at noon before heading down to lunch.
The impulsive former fisherman has grown into a genuine leader in the
early church. At Pentecost, he preached the gospel to people from every
corner of the Roman Empire and he is slowly appreciating that this new
community is supposed to transcend any ethnic or cultural boundaries.
But the goyim still seem to bug him a bit. Especially the Romans.
So God gives him a vision. Peter falls into a trance and sees a vision
of a giant tablecloth descending from heaven. The tablecloth is covered
with honeybaked hams, cheesesteaks, crab cakes, calamari and lobster.
"Eat up, Peter," a voice tells him
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter says. "I have never eaten anything impure or
unclean."
"Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean," the voice says.
"And try the angels on horseback, they're like butter."
This happens three times.
This is generally regarded as an instance in which a New Testament
passage seems to set aside a prohibition from the Old Testament. And
that's why our friends on the religious right do not feel compelled to
eat kosher and do not consider shellfish to be "an abomination."
Fair enough, but there's something else going on in this story. The main
point of Peter's rooftop epiphany has nothing to do with diet. The main
point of this vision had to do with the people who were about to knock
on Peter's door.
Peter is about to meet Cornelius. Cornelius is a gentile. Worse than
that, he is a Roman. Worse than that, he is a Roman centurion. Cornelius
is about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger.
But give Peter credit -- he understood the vision. "Don't call anything
unclean that God has made clean." Don't call anyone unclean that God has
made clean.
Peter does not treat Cornelius as an unclean outsider. He travels to the
centurion's house, where he says, "You are well aware that it is against
our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has
shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
Peter gets it. In this new community that God is building, this church,
there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. No one
is excluded as unclean.
This is the unsubtle point that Luke is hammering home for his gentile
friend Theophilus. The surrounding chapters of Acts read like a
hyper-P.C. after-school special on celebrating diversity. The church
embraces Jews and gentiles, Roman soldiers and slaves, men and women,
Africans, Greeks and even a token white European.
In our fondness for Easter ham, we Christians have fervently clung to
the surface-level meaning of Peter's vision. But we haven't been as
enthusiastic about embracing the larger, more important lesson God was
teaching him there on the rooftop. When the "unclean" outsiders knock on
our doors, we don't like inviting them in.
That, in a nutshell, is why some Christians happily dismiss one
"abomination" while still behaving abominably out of allegiance to another.
(Oh, and what about Leviticus' Jubilee laws? Those were never set aside
by anything in the New Testament, but Christians no longer treat them as
authoritative because, um ... well, because money is pretty and shiny
and let's us buy nice things.)
Therefore: if you hate 'fags', your ass best be lookin' for kosher food.