Excerpt: "Christians are busy citing Leviticus 18:22 as a reason they oppose homosexuality as much as they do, so, obviously, the best way to reach these 'Christians' is to quote Leviticus back at them. Specifically, Leviticus 11:8, the part that says the carcass of a pig is unclean and that it's a sin to touch it. Which means that logically, any sport that involves the throwing and catching of a ball made of pigskin is an unclean and sinful sport, and no true gay-hating Christian should approve of it."
Michele Bachmann waves bag of gay-unfriendly Chick-fil-A. (photo: Minneapolis News)
Chick-fil-A Christians Boycotting the NFL
07 August 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
ou never see as many self-proclaimed Christians line sidewalks to go volunteer at a homeless shelter or food bank or soup kitchen as we saw line up to get into Chick-fil-A on August 1. And that's something Jesus actually said Christians should do.
Christians are busy citing Leviticus 18:22 as a reason they oppose homosexuality as much as they do, so, obviously, the best way to reach these "Christians" is to quote Leviticus back at them. Specifically, Leviticus 11:8, the part that says the carcass of a pig is unclean and that it's a sin to touch it. Which means that logically, any sport that involves the throwing and catching of a ball made of pigskin is an unclean and sinful sport, and no true gay-hating Christian should approve of it. I'm sure Mike Huckabee is organizing an NFL boycott for all Christians this season.
And while they're at it, they should boycott Red Lobster, since the same book that says homosexuality is a sin says it's also a sin to eat seafood that doesn't have fins or scales. According Leviticus 11:10, eating shellfish is an abomination just as being gay is an abomination. I fully expect Chick-fil-A Christians to be outside of every Red Lobster in America calling out the sinners for eating unclean food of the sea.
Christians will really have their hands full with the law if they're as steadfastly obedient of the fifth book of God's Word, Deuteronomy, as they are of Leviticus, the third. Because Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 demands that parents of rebellious children should take their kids out in public and throw big rocks at them until they die. So the next time your daughter goes out and doesn't call you when she gets to her destination despite her saying she would, I would expect a true Chick-fil-A Christian to assemble a lynch mob with stones in hand waiting for the unruly child when she gets home.
But there is a bright side to Chick-fil-A Christiandom, because Leviticus 19:19 expressly forbids the planting of different kinds of seeds on the same plot of land as much as it forbids homosexuality. This means after the Chick-fil-A Christians are done with their sub-par chicken sandwiches, they'll obviously protest Monsanto, which makes a killing (literally) by genetically modifying seeds. I'm sure the Chick-fil-A Christians, being so steadfastly obedient to the book of Leviticus, would gladly work with us in stopping the agribusiness giant from ruining endless fields of crops, right?
Though something tells me not to hold my breath for the Chick-fil-A Christians to follow any other parts of the Bible that aren't convenient for them. The NFL is America's national pastime. We all love to eat tasty crustaceans. Some of us have our herb gardens and our vegetable gardens in the same patch of dirt. And none of us like stoning our kids to death. Some parts of the Bible are outdated and shouldn't be followed literally. And my dad, a Methodist preacher, agrees with me on that.
So all you Chick-fil-A Christians, you can stop calling gay people sinners. All of you sin just as much, if not way more, than gay people, according to the book of Leviticus. And unless Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy has ever bludgeoned one of his offspring to death with rocks when they refused to clean their room, I recommend he judge not, and refrain from casting the first stone. The only "family unit" that matters is one where parents love and provide for their children, regardless of the parents' gender or sexual preference. If you really want to wear your religion on your sleeve, put down the waffle fries and start protesting the murdering of innocent Pakistanis by drone strikes, and tell the Israeli army to allow the Palestinians to have some food and water, at the very least. Jesus would totally high-five you for that.
All that being said, my sincerest wish as a chicken-loving Southerner is that everyone would stop making eating fried chicken a political or religious statement. Fried chicken didn't do anything to us except be really delicious. If you don't like Chick-fil-A, go to Church's. And if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.
Carl Gibson, 25, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Old Lyme, Connecticut. You can contact Carl at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and listen to his online radio talk show, Swag The Dog, at blogtalkradio.com/swag-the-dog.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 14 May 2013
|
 14 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 14 May 2013
|
 14 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I am in quite a quandry... I have become intolerant of intolerance. I have been avoiding anyone openly espousing the Christian belief system and Chick-fil-A for years now. Am I supposed to now go to church and eat nasty chicken?
A theologian will tell you that much of the Old Testament does not fall into line with the teachings of Jesus. If in fact you do regard yourself as a Christian, shouldn't you be following His teachings instead of drawing on bits and pieces of ancient Jewish tribal law? Leviticus is pre-Christian by roughly 2000 years. Many, if not most of the dietary laws were adopted to prevent people from getting sick from contaminated or otherwise toxic foods. The rest....unless you're a nomad living from oasis to oasis with a tent as the only roof over your head....they really don't fit any more.
Leviticus does ban the wearing of clothing made of mixed fibers. To my knowledge it does not mention sports. But one might want to recall the flurry over Tim Tiebow (yes, a football player) making his Christian beliefs a public spectacle, and ask whether he was sinning by handling a pigskin.
We could free them if only they knew that they are SLAVES.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(ball)
Even if you held an old football, you wouldn't be touching a pig carcass (technically).
Edit: Aside from that this is a good article.
Oh, and Carl, you lived in Texas. You know that football is more important than Jesus.
rayb-baby, thanks for the correction on the the title....and, yes, he died way to early and we cannot afford to lose voices such as his as they are still sorely needed. thanks again for the correction...i like it when others post references to other readings they think are good or might be helpful for others and so i try and do the same when it seems appropriate.
There was nothing anti-semetic about his comment. If I didn't know any better I'd say you were the bigoted one.
Hey, anyone, what do you call someone who is jewish and who is prejudiced against christians.
In the language of my tribe...we call them schmucks
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Romans. 1:26-27).
LessSaid, even assuming that the two biblical quotations you sight are "true" where in the bible does it say that you or any other "christian" has the right to judge (let alone condemn, discriminate against or persecute) any other human being for their actions? Or, do you believe yourself and the owners of Chic Fil A worthy of casting the first stone? So, again, even assuming that the two quotes are "true" who gave you (or the owners of Chic Fil A) the right to tell others who they can or cannot marry?
Todd,
thanks for the comment. I agree that with many with many it is useless to try and engage them but for many others (and there are "progressive" conservativess as odd as that may sound...there are "green" fundamentalists at this point) i think it is important that we try and engage them in a respectful conversation which is why my tact is not to trash these folks but simply to point out internal inconsistancies (which in some ways i think was the point of Gibson's piece in the first place). In the same way, i think it was a real mistake for progressives to basically write off the entire t-party movement instead of seeing that much of their base (not their demogogic funders/leaders ) have the same critique of gov't that "we" do i.e., that it doesn't work for most americans. By simply dismissing them all we gave these folks no place to go but into the arms of the rabid right-wing.
Find a bible and look it up yourself. Only read it from the 24th vs to the 28 or to the end of the chapter.
I don't think that telling you what a scripture in the bible says is "judging" as you have taken for lesssaid. But Hebrews 13:4 says that the marriage bed is honorable in all...read the rest yourself including vs. 8. God will judge everyone at some point. Carl pointed out Lev. 18: 22 but maybe everyone needs to read vs. 23-24 Perhaps God only mentioned these things because they were already a problem.
Find a bible and look it up yourself. Only read it from the 24th vs to the 28 or to the end of the chapter.
I don't think that telling you what a scripture in the bible says is "judging" as you have taken for lesssaid. But Hebrews 13:4 says that the marriage bed is honorable in all...read the rest yourself including vs. 8. God will judge everyone at some point. Carl pointed out Lev. 18: 22 but maybe everyone needs to read vs. 23-24 Perhaps God only mentioned these things because they were already a problem.
I think you are making my point when you say that "God will judge everyone at some point" as my point to lesssaid was simply that, while the bible, does indeed make "judgements" regarding behavior, my understanding of "christianity" (i.e., the teachings of christ) is that it is for god to judge not for someone claiming to be a christian to judge another (let alone advocate for laws that discriminate against them).
6:10 And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)
You see, your problem is you are accepting someone else's translation from Latin, what was (possibly) originally written in Aramaic. While the New American Standard Bible (©1995) DOES use homosexual instead of Sodomite, that was some American preacher's decision to CHANGE the (alleged) words of god. (Even the original was written 100s of years after the alleged life of Jeshua of Nazareth. The problem with ANYONE quoting 'scripture' is that it is 2nd and 3rd...and 50th hand interpretation of the alleged original statement. Cont'd.
THANK YOU, MJnevetS! Exactly why these "battles of the scriptures" will never get anywhere. When there have been so many different translations from so many different languages (and NONE that I know of from the likely original language of Aramaic), it is totally impossible to assume any one version is THE best/most correct/most holy, etc., one.
Have you by chance read Neil Douglas-Klotz? He's an Aramaic scholar. I ran across a small book of his called "Prayers of the Cosmos" many years ago that offers numerous possible translations direct from Aramaic of the Lord's Prayer. It certainly opened my eyes to the fact that it is impossible to claim the bible can in any way be taken literally.
Yeah, can o' worms indeed. Thanks for your interest and response, and for the link -- I just read through it. Also looked back at Douglas-Klotz's Intro in the "Prayers of the Cosmos" book and then did a bit of reading about the Peshitta, since Douglas-Klotz mentions using it as a source. Check out this link:
http://www.peshitta.org/initial/aramaic.html.
Without a lot more study than I have time to give it right now, I am more inclined to stick with the likelihood that Aramaic was most likely the language Jesus spoke. But like you, what it all comes down to is that the bible cannot be used to "prove" anything! For every quote anybody can come up with, someone can come up with another that contradicts it!
No, I haven't done any surveys to verify my particular hypotheses about certain denominations. Nor am I anti-semitic. I live in the same house as my Jewish landlady, who agrees with me on pretty much everything, and she and I are good friends.
It's possible, diacad, that your PC cap is on too tight. Loosen up a bit, it won't hurt.
And LessSaid, thank you for your valuable contribution. This conversation would be lost without it. Keep in mind that Paul, a man with many flaws of his own, wrote the book of Corinthians, not Jesus. In fact, I challenge you to find me any part of the New Testament where Jesus specifically says homosexuality is a sin.
Let's see how their bottom line shakes out in a few months.
Or not...
What a shame you didn't understand the whole psalms as it reads and that Kootenay didn't even bother too look it up either. It refers to Babylon. You can see this in arab countries today.
So be sure to tell all those bible-thumping, shotgun-toting, football-cheeri ng Leviticans out there (nice title, Ken) that if somebody rapes their little girl, the bible doesn't say put the rapist to death, it basically says 'you break her, you buy her.' So tell those dads of violated daughters that if they were real Christians, then they'd put down the gun and pick up the checkbook and be ready to haggle price. (Deuteronomy 22:28-9)
Jesus said, "Blessed are the Peace Makers for they shall be called the Children of God" - Need to start protesting to end the war, "What you do to the least of them you do to me" - start protesting that there is no Health Care for All, Single Pay System.
I think that is enough for now, oh I forgot "Love Your Neighbor as Yourself", who is your neighbor and if you love your neighbor and we are all neighbors why are they not protesting Drones. Oh No they have to show up for a Chicken Sandwich to show their faith is strong.
What is the big deal about same sex relationships, they are not killing others and marriage, why do they concern themselves about other people living - get it LIVING NOT KILLING their lives or the lives of others. Jesus preached love and compassion for all I thought that was the Christian Doctrine.
I think that IS the Christian doctrine as Jesus taught it. Trouble is, the institutional church (controlled by human males, for the most part) has to a large degree either ignored the actual teachings of Jesus or perverted them so as to be unrecognizable.
Here are a couple more rules from Leviticus that will cause many of us some trouble, from the 19th Chapter:
Verse 28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you. (no tats!)
Verse 30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. (no Sunday football!)
Verse 33 and 34 - And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. (no abusing immigrants!)
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: Ex. 22.21 · Deut. 24.17, 18 ; 27.19 I am the LORD your God.
Verse 37 - Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD. (no picking and choosing!)
And football has nothing to do with either. Football and sports in general are all about the money!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion "Whatever it Be".
No forays were made into the more relevant Pauling epistles, e.g. Romans 1st chapter. The Old Testament was fulfilled by the New, but that shouldn't trouble the libs at RSN who are more interested in snarky polemical points than accuracy.
Allow me to emphasize what another commenter touched on earlier: Read the Gospels all the way through. You will find that Christ himself made not one single reference to homosexuality.
But there's more to the New Testament than the Gospels, isn't there? What about all the references to "homosexual immorality" in the Epistles and other books?
You might be interested to learn that the majority of them were references to prostitution -- specifically the ritual temple prostitution of pagan religions.
It's also interesting to note that the New Testament condemnations of homosexual perversion are all made in the context of an intentional, willful desire to abandon faithfulness to God.
No Epistle writer seems to have much to say about good people who live honorable lives, are followers of Christ, are kind neighbors and responsible citizens - and also happen to be attracted to people of their own gender.
So here's my suggestion: why don't we followers of Christ simply strive to show God's love to all? No exceptions based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, color of socks or any other detail. The Gospel of John says "for God so loved the world..." Loving "the world" is pretty inclusive. It doesn't allow for any exceptions.
1) tackled players are "sacked"
2) the center crouches down in front of the quarterback and passes the ball between his thighs and legs
3) a potential receiver "goes deep"
4) one of the positions is "tight end"
More from Dr. Stephen Colbert at
http://wikiality.wikia.com/Gay-sounding_Sports_Terms
For clarity, I'll point out that we LGBT people have not been protesting CFA for years because of a simple disagreement on the importance of Leviticus in our society, because those mean Christians called us sinners. We wouldn't be able to shop anywhere if that were the case. At issue is the severity of the organizations that Cathy supports with CFA profits. Organizations that support the criminalization , imprisonment and deportation of homosexuals. Organizations that publish lies equating homosexuality with pedophilia. That have also lobbied Congress to NOT condemn Uganda's 'kill the gays bill'. This is a protest against fascism and evil and any person who spends money at CFA supports this belief system directly, the point of the protest is to make people aware of this fact.
Leviticus 18:22
The translations of this verse found in most English Bibles are not supported by the Hebrew text.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: it is abomination. (KingJamesVersion)
Correct translation:
And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination.
This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement. Other verses in the Law will help clarify the acceptable use of the woman's bed (Lev. 15).
Hebrew translation explained for doubters:
http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus1822.htm
RSS feed for comments to this post