Posts Tagged ‘cafeteria Christianity’

Sunday Sermon: Conservative cafeteria Christianity, continued

leviticus_tattoo

So, last week I mentioned that lots of anti-gay Christians love to quote from Leviticus about homosexuality being an “abomination,” while the same chapter also condemns eating lobster. But guess what’s prohibited in the very next chapter? The chapter right after the one containing the verse tattooed on this guy’s arm? That’s right, tattoos!  Talk about cherry-picking the Bible!

But here’s the thing. This would be really funny in a lighthearted, let’s-laugh-at-the-Christians kind of way, except for one thing. The guy in the picture? In the news video the pic is taken from, he’s defending a friend of his who was caught on tape nearly beating a guy to death for being gay. Religion can be silly, and ridiculous, and so self-contradictory (both in what it says and what it’s followers do) as to be absurd, but always remember: Religion. Is. Also. Dangerous.

(Nice catch from the Friendly Atheist, from whom I also snagged the pic)

Sunday Sermon: Conservative cafeteria Christianity

conservative_bibleThe Conservative Bible Project has received lots of comments already, and it really kind of speaks for itself (in a Poe’s Law sort of way — if someone did it as a parody, some people would call it an over-the-top caricature). But I love the way people who call themselves “Bible believers” still find ways to justify ignoring, twisting or just plain defying the parts of the Bible they don’t like.

It’s the same sort of people who use the Old Testament description of “abomination” to describe homosexuality, and then either ignore the fact that the same chapter of Leviticus calls eating lobster an “abomination,” or point to a New Testament passage showing that the old Leviticus laws don’t apply (because the author of the book had a dream vision in which he got to eat shellfish), but somehow insisting that the other parts of Leviticus (the parts they like) aren’t also invalidated.

Sure, it may be true that the “adulteress story” (where Jesus says the one who’s without sin gets to cast the first stone) isn’t authentic, but somehow I doubt they’ll be applying the same rigor to the parts of the Bible that appeal to them.