F
This is a bit of a long text but I suggest everyone read it whole to understand my message here. Its worth the read, and it'll give you all something to think about. And probably give you incentive to go and reread your Bible.
Well, why do Christians like bacon and hate gays? Same reason that they don’t hate shellfish eaters but do hate gay people?
Why so many Christians hate gays all boils down to the source of hatred.
Religion is not the cause of it, it’s the excuse. It’s what bigots use to rationalize their bigotry: “The Bible says it’s an abomination”.
This off course refers to the Book of Leviticus, the third book of the Bible. Specifically 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."
Don’t get me wrong. Leviticus has many wonderful truly inspiring passages. Like 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.
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 carcasses in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Yes, indeed people. Leviticus states very clearly that eating shellfish is an abomination. Many, if not most Christians today eat shrimp or other shellfish. Yet, there has never ever been any persecution of shellfish-eaters. Why is that? Why is one sentence taken as “God’s law”, and another just as “ancient dietary laws”, when they’re both forbidden in the same book, and the condemnation for both (”abomination”) is the same?
The answer, of course, is that people are already bigots (though an important source of that bigotry may well be church sermons). Saying “It’s God’s command” instead of admitting to their prejudice makes them feel better.
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 I figured I would wade in to try to explain why it is that so many contemporary Christians reject gays while embracing shellfish and bacon.
To understand why God is no longer considered a hater of shrimp or bacon eaters 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.)
If biblical prohibition were the real source of condemnation, we would find ourselves in a society where shellfish eaters and bankers would be prohibited from participating in youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. Those who insist on such a ban would argue that those who so flagrantly violate God’s law cannot possibly be moral, and clearly cannot be considered good role models for our children.
What type of message does it give our children to be a member of a troop whose troop leader is known to be a practicing shellfish or bacon eater or banker – when the Bible so clearly identifies these acts as a violation of His law? These children will no doubt come to think that all of God’s law are open to question. This type of moral relativism is the last thing that we need to be teaching impressionable young minds.
When the church was in its early days God, and I mean God himself said onto Peter himself that the old ways had to put aside. God was giving mankind a new fresh start. God sacrificed his own son to give us this grand gift. No longer was mankind allowed to view his fellow man as unclean and unworthy.
God was reminding Peter that no person was unclean in His eyes. God wasn’t just talking about people who eat shellfish or bacon. He was talking about all the people that Leviticus and other books in the Bible called unclean. That includes gay people. They are not unclean. They are also the children of God. God does not view them as sinners, just as much as he doesn’t view bacon and shellfish eaters as sinners.
Look at why He, in his infinite wisdom, gave us this great gift. So we wouldn’t end up in the society Jesus had to live in. Full of hypocrites, shunned innocents, and people treating their brothers and sisters as unworthy unclean people that had no rights in life. Jesus died to help teach us this lesson. Jesus taught it all his life. He embraced the so called unclean people in the world. The bankers, the tax collectors, the Romans, the gentiles, the prostitutes, the lepers, the blind and lame…. That is what Jesus died for. For our sins. And God clearly instructed Peter what those sins where. One of them was the sin of mistreating each other. Leviticus calls shellfish and bacon people unclean people. Yet God himself said onto Peter not to see them as such. Not to treat them as such.
God absolved us all of viewing each other as unclean.
So, there you have it. Isn't this clear and unquestionable proof that homosexuality is not a sin in the eyes of God. God told of to put bigotry behind us. Jesus himself died professing this message. If you think it a sin to be gay then perhaps it is you who is sinning in the eyes of our Lord.
If you read the Bible, read it whole, don't just quote little sections of it. They lose their context and meaning that way. The Bible is not a weapon. But a teaching tool and a message from God to mankind. God never ever supports hate, it teaches love and acceptance. We have no right, and no business judging each others souls. That is God's privilege.
Feel free to share your thoughts on this topic. What do you think of these parts of the Bible, that are unfortunately, very much under read, and very poorly understood parts of the Bible.
I hope this gives people something to think about. Remember what God said to Peter in the Acts of the Apostles.
Well, why do Christians like bacon and hate gays? Same reason that they don’t hate shellfish eaters but do hate gay people?
Why so many Christians hate gays all boils down to the source of hatred.
Religion is not the cause of it, it’s the excuse. It’s what bigots use to rationalize their bigotry: “The Bible says it’s an abomination”.
This off course refers to the Book of Leviticus, the third book of the Bible. Specifically 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."
Don’t get me wrong. Leviticus has many wonderful truly inspiring passages. Like 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.
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 carcasses in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Yes, indeed people. Leviticus states very clearly that eating shellfish is an abomination. Many, if not most Christians today eat shrimp or other shellfish. Yet, there has never ever been any persecution of shellfish-eaters. Why is that? Why is one sentence taken as “God’s law”, and another just as “ancient dietary laws”, when they’re both forbidden in the same book, and the condemnation for both (”abomination”) is the same?
The answer, of course, is that people are already bigots (though an important source of that bigotry may well be church sermons). Saying “It’s God’s command” instead of admitting to their prejudice makes them feel better.
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 I figured I would wade in to try to explain why it is that so many contemporary Christians reject gays while embracing shellfish and bacon.
To understand why God is no longer considered a hater of shrimp or bacon eaters 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.)
If biblical prohibition were the real source of condemnation, we would find ourselves in a society where shellfish eaters and bankers would be prohibited from participating in youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. Those who insist on such a ban would argue that those who so flagrantly violate God’s law cannot possibly be moral, and clearly cannot be considered good role models for our children.
What type of message does it give our children to be a member of a troop whose troop leader is known to be a practicing shellfish or bacon eater or banker – when the Bible so clearly identifies these acts as a violation of His law? These children will no doubt come to think that all of God’s law are open to question. This type of moral relativism is the last thing that we need to be teaching impressionable young minds.
When the church was in its early days God, and I mean God himself said onto Peter himself that the old ways had to put aside. God was giving mankind a new fresh start. God sacrificed his own son to give us this grand gift. No longer was mankind allowed to view his fellow man as unclean and unworthy.
God was reminding Peter that no person was unclean in His eyes. God wasn’t just talking about people who eat shellfish or bacon. He was talking about all the people that Leviticus and other books in the Bible called unclean. That includes gay people. They are not unclean. They are also the children of God. God does not view them as sinners, just as much as he doesn’t view bacon and shellfish eaters as sinners.
Look at why He, in his infinite wisdom, gave us this great gift. So we wouldn’t end up in the society Jesus had to live in. Full of hypocrites, shunned innocents, and people treating their brothers and sisters as unworthy unclean people that had no rights in life. Jesus died to help teach us this lesson. Jesus taught it all his life. He embraced the so called unclean people in the world. The bankers, the tax collectors, the Romans, the gentiles, the prostitutes, the lepers, the blind and lame…. That is what Jesus died for. For our sins. And God clearly instructed Peter what those sins where. One of them was the sin of mistreating each other. Leviticus calls shellfish and bacon people unclean people. Yet God himself said onto Peter not to see them as such. Not to treat them as such.
God absolved us all of viewing each other as unclean.
So, there you have it. Isn't this clear and unquestionable proof that homosexuality is not a sin in the eyes of God. God told of to put bigotry behind us. Jesus himself died professing this message. If you think it a sin to be gay then perhaps it is you who is sinning in the eyes of our Lord.
If you read the Bible, read it whole, don't just quote little sections of it. They lose their context and meaning that way. The Bible is not a weapon. But a teaching tool and a message from God to mankind. God never ever supports hate, it teaches love and acceptance. We have no right, and no business judging each others souls. That is God's privilege.
Feel free to share your thoughts on this topic. What do you think of these parts of the Bible, that are unfortunately, very much under read, and very poorly understood parts of the Bible.
I hope this gives people something to think about. Remember what God said to Peter in the Acts of the Apostles.
.