About This Site
As you may have realized, this site is a parody. It is meant to poke fun at people like Fred Phelps, and at people who protest against gay people and gay marriage.
The point we're trying to make is that by using the Old Testament (specifically the book of Leviticus) as a basis for protesting gay marriage, you run into a couple of problems. The first is that in the New Testament, Jesus established the New Covenant, which stated that the old Mosaic laws about unclean things were invalid (Jesus in his own person said nothing specifically against homosexuality, although Paul later attributed some remarks to him). The second reason is that if you still want to quote from Leviticus, despite Jesus' doing away with Mosaic law, then you better be prepared to enforce the whole thing, not just the parts you like. This includes not only the injunction against shellfish and mussels and such, but also against wearing fabrics made of blended fibers, cutting or shaving your beard, sowing mixed seed in a field, and a slew of other things nobody but Orthodox Jews take seriously anymore.
But, some of you say, in the original Hebrew, there are two words that were both translated as "abomination": to'eivah, for homosexuality, and sheketz, for non-kosher food.
Our answer to that is:
- Sure, that's the letter of the law, but pretty mealy-mouthed, in our opinion - you take the "strict constructionist" viewpoint in this situation to justify your prejudice while still being able to eat what you want, while glossing over or ignoring other translation problems in other parts of the bible. (More about biblical mistranslations in Romans and Corinthians: What the New Testament Says About Homosexuality)
- You claim that some parts of the bible are open to interpretation, that there are translation errors, that some parts only apply to Jews, etc., and then simultaneously claim that the bible is inerrant and without flaw... a positively Orwellian bit of doublethink there. Either follow all the rules, or admit that they're all outdated.
But, still others say, what about 1 Corinthians? Paul says... Well, the easy answer is, this site was never meant to be a comprehensive rebuttal to following outdated religious rules. The less easy answer is that, in his letter to the church in Corinth, Paul referred to restrictions listed in Mosaic law in the Torah, a.k.a. the Old Testament, so basing your argument on Paul's reference to a source that was declared invalid by Jesus (see above) is a shaky bit of reasoning. Or to explain it more clearly, we'll quote a friend who is studying to be a minister:
1) Paul is not God.
2) When Paul is citing this list of sins he is doing it to make the point that the Church in Corinth is free of these sins, which were listed in the Torah, because of their faith in Jesus. Paul's letter to the Romans spells out in excruciating detail how the law no longer applies to Christians because they have died to sin and been risen in Jesus. In other words, these categories were good enough for our Hebrew forebears as they went, but as Jesus says to the tricky scribes, Moses gave those laws (specifically speaking of divorce) because the people's hearts were hard. Jesus clearly demands a higher mode of ethical conduct; in repeated instruction and parables he contrasts what people were taught with what he says. Therefore, Paul's personal feelings about what kind of people will inherit the kingdom of God, taken as a blanket condemnation of certain behaviors, is not only contrary to Paul's own teachings on the matter of justification, but deeply opposed to the spirit and teaching of Christ.
3) What Paul is giving a list of, in both verses that you cite, are examples of depraved conduct, as he sees it. His point is that when people turn their backs on God, they are prone to act in all kinds of sick ways; his point is not to list things that Christians should mark in their notebooks as being the "newly revised Levitical code". Paul is saying, "You guys used to do all kinds of crazy shit, but now that you have Jesus, you've got your act together." I would say that there is a big difference between lustful, furtive couplings and a committed, healthy relationship. The notion of a committed, healthy homosexual relationship was utterly foreign to early Jews and Christians, as was the notion of abolition [of slavery], racial intermarriage, antiseptics, and all sorts of other things that we take for granted today.
4) Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the Gospels, not once. If it was so important that we had to clamp down on it anywhere and everywhere it rears its terrible head, don't you think he would have at least, you know, brought it up? There is on the other hand, a specific condemnation of divorce in the Gospels, spoken by Jesus, and yet I don't hear Focus on the Family saying anything about divorce.
About the Authors
This site is the work of Joe Decker and Ryland Sanders. Joe came up with the original idea on his LiveJournal and photoshopped the original protestor photo; Ryland designed and built the site; both of us wrote the content.
Joe Decker is an activist and a professional photographer who lives in San Jose, California. You can see his original works online at Rock Slide Photography. [ more about Joe ]
The late great Ryland Sanders was a web developer in Austin, Texas. He ran a blog called The Adventures Of A Boy And His Computer, and does other stupid web tricks. [ more about Ryland ]
Copyright © 2004-2013 by Joe Decker and Ryland Sanders.
Please don't hotlink images on this site; you are free to copy them to your own server.