To Arms! – Heavenly Pizza Promotes Massacre of Gay People

So sayeth the sign with a picture of a pepperoni on the pizza. (Leviticus 11:7)

When it comes to picking cherries, Heavenly Pizza fills a whole pie.

Heavenly Pizza posted a reference to Leviticus after the Supreme Court decisions last week. Looking it up was an exercise in excess caution. Leviticus 20:13 says exactly what we predicted it would say:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

In other words, those LGBTQ abominations just ought to be killed, that’s all. End of story. God has spoken.

One would think that the authorities would frown upon a business prominently displaying a sign that advocates murder, but this is Searcy, Arkansas. Searcy is dominated by the Churches of Christ. It is home to Harding University, but instead of the tolerance and openness that one tends to expect from a college town, Harding’s worldview mimics that of the town: Harding is a Christian institution, and by Christian, it means Churches of Christ, not those sinful not-really-Christian Presbyterians or Catholics. The congregants of the Churches of Christ believe that the bible is the inspired and completely inerrant word of God, which means

  1. They haven’t read the book to see all the contradictions this inerrant work contains;
  2. They accept what their preachers say is dogma when they need to clear up perceived inconsistencies;
  3. They have read the book, but they have seriously deficient reading comprehension;
  4. They know nothing about the history of the copying and translation of the bible;
  5. They cherry-pick, even though they say they don’t; or
  6. All of the above.

Aside from encouraging hate crimes, Heavenly Pizza has a few problems. Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21 all prohibit cooking cheese and meat together. Therefore, clearly, nothing says “I hate Jesus” like a steaming slice of pepperoni (a sausage made from a blend of pork and beef) served up with extra cheese (beef and cheese together, guys? Not kosher!) and helping of bigotry. If we’re going to abide by Old Testament law, we need to abide by all of it, because after all, this is the inerrant word of God.

Let’s worry about Heavenly Pizza’s sinfulness. Please assure me that their employees aren’t required to wear uniforms made of a cotton-polyester blend, nor that the restaurant’s owners allow anyone wearing such a sinful fabric to enter the place. Can anyone confirm whether Heavenly Pizza pays its employees’ wages daily, not weekly or bi-weekly like sinful employers might? I wonder how many times the cashiers at Heavenly Pizza have accidently given incorrect change, only to find the person they shortchanged to give them the right amount plus an extra 1/5 to make up for the error – and how many times, when an honest customer has told them they received too much change, the Heavenly Pizza employee extracted another 1/5 from him? God requires that, you know.

I hope Heavenly Pies doesn’t have a pizza with shrimp on their menu, because that would be a sin. I hope that when they say the blessing over their pizza, they aren’t sporting zits or bruises or rashes or cuts, they don’t wear glasses, and they aren’t limping, because if so, the blessing just won’t work. And I am shocked – shocked, I tell you! – that they have what they call a “Hog Zone” in their restaurant. While some might think that is a special place for fans of the Arkansas Razorbacks, you and I recognize it as a place to keep unclean animals from polluting the rest of the restaurant.

It is an abomination that Heavenly Pizza is open on Saturday; it’s against God’s law to be open for business that day.  According to their website, they are open on Sunday for lunch, too. I fear for their immortal souls, what with all the work they do on the various and sundry sabbaths.

My guess is that the only verse in the whole chapter in all of Leviticus the good Christians at Heavenly Pizza bother to remember is the one about gay-bashing. I’m so glad that they are all about promoting (in the words of Harding University) “an all-encompassing love for God and a corresponding love for people.”

Except for those homos. Because homos aren’t really people. And treating them like real people entitled to equal rights is one of Satan’s many schemes to lead us down the path of sorrow.

Come have a slice of pizza…..the extra toppings of bigotry and hatred are free!

Surely the good Christians at Heavenly Pizza aren’t hypocrites. Let’s examine Leviticus for possible problems, just to be sure. Now, a lot of Leviticus focuses on the exact rites and beasts and plants that are used to purify offerings and sinners, but there is a lot of good stuff in those 27 chapters that tells us how to live and all. I’m going to assume that all the good Christians at Heavenly Pizza obey each and every stricture of that particular book of the Bible, just like they do all the rest of the chapters. Because inerrant word of God.

I’m sure no one around there has ever told one of their friends, family members or colleagues that they don’t want to testify in court, despite knowing what happened in the case being litigated. That happens a lot, especially in divorce cases – people just don’t want to get involved. They don’t realize that refusing to go to court is a sin, and that to purge themselves of that sin they need to sacrifice a female sheep or goat according to Leviticus 5:6.

They have to do the same if they break any kind of promise, according to Leviticus 5:4. I wonder if there is anyone there at Heavenly Pizza who has not broken a promise, and I wonder how many sheep and goats have died for their sins.

All of the people there surely have a priest check their acne and boils for leprosy as directed by Leviticus 13, too. Don’t they?

What will you bet that some of those folks at Heavenly Pizza are hunters, or know hunters, and have eaten a rabbit or two? Leviticus 11:6 says that’s a sin. I bet they’ve chowed down on tasty crawfish, yummy oysters, and succulent lobster, not to mention some good southern fried catfish. They’re in deep trouble, according to Leviticus 11:9-12.  And if those folks have ever tried alligator or rattlesnake meat – delicacies in the rural south – they’re likewise doomed.

Have the women at Heavenly Pizza who have borne children  purified themselves after giving birth by sacrificing a lamb in accordance with Leviticus 12:6, and sacrificed two pigeons or turtledoves after every irregular menstruation pursuant to Leviticus 15:29? I hope so. They don’t want to be seen as cherry-picking what parts of the inerrant word of God they want to follow, after all.

I’m sure none of those godly people have ever read their horoscopes, because if they have they are being shunned by the other godly folks thereabouts, and whoever wrote those horoscopes has to be put to death immediately. Likewise, I hope none of them have ever had sex with a menstruating female, because that results in shunning, too. I hope they check the community carefully to see who’s having sex and who isn’t, who’s on her period and who isn’t, and that they keep the sexes strictly separate during that terribly unclean time.

No one at Heavenly Pies has ever had an extramarital affair, because their colleagues already would have put them to death pursuant to Leviticus 20:10, just like the gay people they want to kill. That verse is right before the one they cite to promote the massacre of gays, so you know they totally abide by it. Likewise, if any of the boys around those parts have had sexual relations with an animal, they are murdered immediately, too. I’m not saying any have, naturally, because I’m not aware of the community rising up to stone any cow-, chicken- or pig-fuckers.

Death comes to us all, and when the good, holy people at Heavenly Pies lose someone, I’m sure they immediately stop shaving, and no matter how the death of their loved one distresses them, I’m sure they don’t pull out their hair or scratch or cut themselves in their grief. Because that would be wrong. Likewise, I’m sure they don’t call a coroner or undertaker, because Leviticus 21:1-4 tells them they have to deal with the dead bodies themselves. They don’t tattoo anything on themselves, because Leviticus 19:28 strictly and expressly forbids it, and they treat immigrants just like anyone born and raised in Searcy, because the bible tells them to - why, I would imagine they completely ignore federal law on hiring illegal immigrants because they know biblical law supersedes federal law.

I’m sure all the wives of the religious leaders who lead the flock at Heavenly Pizza were virgins when they got married, and that none of them were divorced or widowed, and that all of them are related to their husbands. God doesn’t like second marriages, because cooties or something, and priests have to keep it in the family. And if any of the daughters of these pastors ever slept around, surely her father burned her to death stat, just like Leviticus 21:9 tells him to do. There’s just no killin’ like an honor killin’. These pastors never go near a dead body, either. Funeral rites for the blessed Heavenly Pizza crew are conducted by their close families, not by their church or by a funeral home.

Heavenly Pizza Pies has its ardent supporters in Searcy, of course. Looky what one of Jesus’s peaceful, loving followers said:

heavenly pizza commentSo…much…fail.

First, “sodomites are waging a war of death and misery”. Sure, they are. For years the news has been full of hetero-bashing hate crimes and lynchings like the one committed by that awful Matthew Shepherd, discrimination against heteros in the workplace, denial of adoptions and foster parent qualifications to heterosexual parents, denial of spousal benefits to heterosexual couples, … what? No? I got that backwards? Oh. Then on to the next…

“This Holy Christian Nation.” Exactly! The First Amendment clearly established Christianity as the official religion of all the United States and its territories, and that was confirmed by Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (ratified by both houses of congress unanimously and signed by Founding Father John Adams) and Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists…. what? No again? Backwards again? Damn. Okay, on to the next point.

“Self-hating baby killers will not stop…” Damn right they won’t. Not until every baby is dead, by golly! We hate babies! They are almost as icky as lesbofags! Except… no. Those without the guilt imposed by religion don’t hate themselves, and no one kills babies except criminals. Furthermore, “self-hating baby killers” is so off-topic as to be ludicrous in this situation. So, another fail.

“Will not stop until their Atheist religion has ruined everything for everyone.” I can’t even pretend on this one. If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, an empty bowl makes a meal, and not collecting stamps is a hobby. By definition, atheism is the absence of religion. And it doesn’t ruin anything, because there is nothing to ruin. If the commenter wants to hang on to her delusional fairy tales, she can. She can believe in Santa all she wants to, and she can assume that when he doesn’t come down her chimney on Christmas morning it was because she was such an awful person. (Because she is.)

“They don’t want equality, they want everyone under their control.” Ouchies for the missed semicolon opportunity there. And if she wasn’t sure about the semi-colon, she should have used a period, because that misplaced comma hurts my feelings. And that’s not me wanting to control her; that’s just proper punctuation. The whole idea of “control” is making other people conform to what you want, not what they want. If you don’t want to get gay-married, honey, don’t get gay-married. But you shouldn’t have the right to control gay people’s happiness and basic human rights any more than they should have the right to control yours.

“It’s time we as a country impose God’s will on them…” See the paragraph above. She really doesn’t get it, does she?

“If the sodomites don’t like the punishment imposed in Leviticus 20:13, they certainly won’t like the heat from the flames of hell.” Sweetie, there is no hell. And even if there were, I’m betting you’d get to visit it, too, because of all the rules in Leviticus you’ve broken in your lifetime. Here – wipe your tears with this cotton-poly blend hanky. There’s a good girl. What? You weren’t a virgin when you got married? And you’ve been divorced? Burn, baby, burn!

I’m not even going to bother with the rest, except to say that I think law enforcement takes a rather dim view of making threats of death, mayhem, and torture to other people.

There’s just one thing that Heavenly Pizza Pies and its supporters are forgetting in their argument. The Supreme Court decision that Heavenly Pizza finds so objectionable was a decision about what the government should do in a country that prides itself on equality. Churches and their members are free to do something more strict, more stringent, as they please. They can be bigoted, discriminatory and hateful if they want to be. They are private organizations and they have a right to free speech, too. The government does not enjoy that privilege, however, because while a church can choose who to serve and who not to serve, a government has to be even-handed in its treatment of all of its citizens.

Today my friend Kevin, whose wit and wisdom I admire to the point of not even wanting to give him credit when I plagiarize him, summed it up beautifully. Kevin happens to be from Searcy. He also happens to be one of those loathsome homoqueers that Heavenly Pizza Pies wants to kill. He said:

There is church and there is state, two separate things.
The state is required to have equality. The church is not.
A church member’s opinion may reflect his church’s teachings.
As an American, you either stand for equality or you don’t.
Go ahead, say the words, “I do not believe all people are created equal.
I do not believe all have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Sounds pretty crappy, huh?

–Kevin 7/3/13

Heavenly Pizza Pies, you and your kind make the baby Jesus cry like you are burning him with your nasty cigarettes.

Stop it.

 

++++++++++++++

Got a legal question? Email me at anne@aramink.com. I’m a lawyer, but there’s only a 2% chance I’m licensed in your state. Whether I answer your question or not, sending me an email or reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. I’m on Twitter as @aramink, and you can see my regular blog at www.aramink.com, where I write book reviews, ruminate on Life, the Universe, and Everything, and occasionally – frequently – rant about Stuff.

  • Lurker111

    While some of the dietary restrictions may be based on real and perceived threats of unsafe food, I often wonder if others weren’t designed by some smart rabbi to keep Jewish wealth in-tribe, viz., to keep food vendors from other cultures out of the reach of the Jewish masses.

    • Artor

      The mixed-fibers prohibition was to keep the Hebrews from wearing linen & cotton, like those decadent, pagan Egyptians. Nothing but itchy wool for you! Pretty much all of the prohibitions are tribal markers.

      • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

        Actually a lot were health codes as well.

        • Nate Frein

          No, that’s after the face rationalisation.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            Actually the reverse is true. What people think a cultural practice means and what it really means are separate. A lot of religious practices are really constructs to keep a civilization together.

            A religious person would never rationalize that a religious practice is actually a cultural practice to maintain some form of governance or to manage interactions between people.

          • Nate Frein

            First, I think you’re wrong. You see something similar when christians try to say that scientific progress was impossible without the christian view of god.

            It’s an attempt to make a narrative that the culture was more rational that it really was. There simply isn’t the evidence that early jews stopped eating pork for “health reasons”.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            If I’m wrong, then anthropologists are wrong. Religious systems, political systems, and economic systems were interconnected in primitive societies. In part, religious beliefs acted as a way to pass on civil code, even if people weren’t aware of it. It also acted as a sort of society glue.

            A good example might be a festival to some god before harvest season. Those practicing the religion would say that it’s so that the god will provide a good crop, but the reality is that it provided a way for people to organize for harvest and other related purposes.

          • invivoMark

            You’re guilty of a non sequitur here.

            What you claimed is that a lot of the religious proscriptions in the Bible, such as those against eating pork, shrimp, crab, hare, mixed meats, meat and milk, as well as proscriptions against wearing mixed fabrics, having sex with someone during menstruation, or shaving while grieving for the loss of a family member, are in there for health reasons.

            What you presented as evidence is the fact that religious beliefs can act as a way to pass on a civil code and act to increase societal cohesiveness.

            Even if that’s true, that is in no way evidence for your claim. That’s a non sequitur.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            It is not a non sequitur. It is another example of how religious beliefs really have purposes within a culture beyond the religion itself, even if the people who practice the religion do not realize it.

          • invivoMark

            Which of the following do you disagree with:

            1) I presented your argument accurately.

            2) Stating a generality (religious beliefs can sometimes do this one thing) doesn’t prove specific cases (the Bible, in these examples, is an instance of religious beliefs doing this one thing).

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            Specific cases of eating pork, shrimp, etc were special cases of the topic actually. My original point was that religious practices are often a way for organization within a culture. Most religious beliefs are either explanations of observations or methods of governance.

          • invivoMark

            Okay, so it was a non sequitur, then. You haven’t demonstrated that the prohibition of eating pork or shrimp derived from legitimate health concerns. I would like to see evidence for that, please. If you can’t provide any, then I would like to know how your point is relevant to the conversation.

            Also, I reject your claim that “[m]ost religious beliefs are either explanations of observations or methods of governance,” except in the perverse translation of “governance” as creating power differentials and mass manipulation of populations. I think that most religious beliefs are the result of superstition, exploitation of our natural fear of death, and wishful thinking stemming from our desire to be on the winning team.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            The discussion moved away from a specific topic of pork and more towards general use of religion as code.

            As for the prohibition of pork, and other related religious practices, the lack of disease in Jews seen during the black death helps emphasize how they worked. Pork is just one example, and one that was not brought up by me. You keep defaulting back to it. However even then, we know that eating pork and shell fish, before we had better preparation methods, was indeed less safe than other practices. Eating milk and meat together also has health consequences.

            That’s great that you reject the claim, but most anthropologists will tell you that the bulk of religious practices are indeed methods of governance or explanations of observations.

          • invivoMark

            Now you’re just making stuff up.

            1) We knew how to cook back in the BC times. Pork was no more difficult to prepare than goat or cow, and they were equally likely to carry human pathogens.

            2) Shellfish aren’t even in the same phylum as humans, and definitely don’t carry more human pathogens than cows or goats.

            3) Eating milk and meat together does not have health consequences. Unless you’re counting high cholesterol, which I really don’t think was a concern of wool-wearing tribal peoples.

            4) Speaking of wool, the post you initially responded to in this thread was talking about how silly the prohibition on wearing two types of fabric is. Did you mean to imply that there are health reasons for that, as well?

            5) “[M]ost anthropologists will tell you …” [Citation needed]

            6) “… the lack of disease in Jews seen during the black death [sic] …” [Citation needed]

            Actually, seeing as how Y. pestis, the causative pathogen of Black Death, is transmitted by fleas via rodents, I don’t see how a culture’s eating habits could protect them from the plague. Clearly, there wasn’t a geographic pattern of infection based on local cuisine. I think you’re pulling reasons out of your ass to explain a phenomenon that didn’t even exist in the first place, all so you can try to support an argument you’ve already lost.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            1) Please research trichinosis

            2) Shellfish are filter feeders. Everything in the water is filtered through the bodies of shell fish.

            3) Eating meat and milk together does cause problems with digestion although I’m not sure if that is the reason for the no meat and milk together. I’ll have to research that one more.

            4) Did you not see “a lot”? I never said it was all health codes. I said most of it was civil codes. There are exceptions.

            6) Talk to a few anthropologists. Or pick up a book on anthropology.

            5) Naomi E. Pasachoff, Robert J. Littman A Concise History Of The Jewish People 2005 – Page 154 “However, Jews regularly ritually washed and bathed, and their abodes were slightly cleaner than their Christian neighbors’. Consequently, when the rat and the flea brought the Black Death, Jews, with better hygiene, suffered less severely …”

            I keep discussing religion in more of a broad sense than PORK and eating habits. I’m talking about civil codes in general, including, but not limited to health codes. Washing and bathing, which reduced transmission of the plague in Jewish populations is a perfect example of health codes being masked by religious beliefs.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

            Anthropology without Geography and Archeology plus History equals Where In The Name Of Time And Space ARE WE?!

            Guys, this is fascinating, but I think you’re having two different arguments at this point. The best way to get a debate back on track is to backtrack to where the first switch-gate was, to use a train analogy. Find out how far you can agree on things, then, BAMF, start your engines.

            As far as I know, bats are birds and bugs have four legs, so if it has six legs or more it’s kosher. Trust me, a person of the Jewish faith in a cave full of bats and centipedes and blind cave fish won’t go hungry~!

          • invivoMark

            1) So let me get this straight. You are claiming that this one specific parasite is the entire reason that there is a proscription against eating pork in the Bible? That’s a hell of a claim! Do you have even one scrap of evidence for this?

            2) So what? What does being a filter feeder have to do with human pathogens? How many human pathogens live in the ocean?

            3) What problems with digestion?

            4) So what’s the reason for the rule about wearing mixed fabrics?

            5) “Most anthropologists” isn’t a source.

            6) I’m a bit skeptical about that reference. See, the problem with books is that it’s really easy to get away with a very low level of academic rigor.

            I will readily admit that you could be right on this point – that ritual hygiene may have protected Jews from the European plagues. But I can’t find any corroborating evidence, either for fewer casualties among Jews or for higher standards of hygiene. Europeans bathed frequently around the time of the Black Death, contrary to popular belief.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            You know, I keep trying to speak in generalities and you keep trying to back me into a corner. Seems to me that you’re not actually interested in a discussion in the first place.

            I don’t have time to sit here and give you an entire lecture. I simply made a point that a fair number of religious practices were more than just belief systems. They were methods of conveying health, civil, and social code.

          • invivoMark

            Actually, I was rejecting your claim that “a lot [of the prohibitions in the Bible that are being discussed in JT's post and this thread] were health codes”, and supporting Nate’s accurate statement that that claim is based on after-the-fact rationalization.

            It’s also a bad trope that needs to die.

          • islandbrewer

            You know, even when I was a kid and the “prohibition of pork saved the ancient peoples from trichinosis” meme started going around, I thought, “wait, cows and sheep can contract parasites, too. And why is it that the Jews never learned just basic hygiene and how to cook meat properly and simply animal care? Wouldn’t that be better than ‘Don’t eat pork!’?”

          • Susan Carey

            Trichinosis is rather nasty though. It’s why we still think pork must be well cooked even though there has been no trichinosis in domestic hogs in North America for decades.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            I think you need to pick up a good text on anthropology.

          • invivoMark

            So you keep saying. But you have yet to back up your claim with any solid evidence, so apparently these good texts on anthropology of which you are so fond aren’t very helpful in these sorts of discussions.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)
          • invivoMark

            Okay. And what does that have to do with the many, many religious proscriptions brought up in this thread and in JT’s post?

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            It will help you understand the functions of religion. I gave you examplea, it it wasn’t enough. Kottak brings up another one: beef being ahimsa. In this case the proscription may have been more economic than health related.

          • SheltieJim

            After reading what I think is the entire thread, I’d like to interject. The written history from Old Testament times is generally pretty thin and incomplete, so a lot of what we think we know is based on incomplete and often inconclusive clues from the few sources available. I don’t think that Kir’s assertion is as off-base as you (invivoMark) seem to think. I’ve read plenty of material — some authoritative and scientific, and some less so — that supports Kir’s assertion to one degree or another.

            The way I would have worded what I believe to be Kir’s point is this: Humans are incredibly bad at learning from their mistakes (witness our current economic crises as but one example) without some mechanism to institutionalize the lessons learned. One way to institutionalize important lessons is to give them supernatural force — that is, make violations of the lesson a cultural taboo, one example of which is a “commandment” from a “god” as part of a “religion”. (I put the terms in quotes because different cultures will use different terms for the same concept.)

            Mark, I don’t believe that either you or Nate have “proven” your viewpoint any more than Kir has “proven” his. It’s fine to claim that Kir’s assertion (that religious proscriptions follow, as in ‘come after’ established practice) is “after-the-fact rationalization”, but that leaves unanswered the question of why a tribal priest would establish those proscriptions in the absence of any meaningful reason.

          • invivoMark

            What’s the null hypothesis?

            In evolution, it’s a bad idea to assume that every trait has evolved for a specific purpose under a specific selection pressure. And when describing the function of DNA, you don’t get to assume that every bit of DNA is functional. We have a lot of junk DNA in our genomes, such as pseudogenes and transposons.

            Now, a geneticist could point out a few pseudogenes and transposons for which we have described functions – just as an anthropologist could point out a few religious traditions for which there are very good, secular reasons. But the geneticist can’t then extrapolate to assume that all or even a majority of pseudogenes have functions, and it would be similarly preposterous for the anthropologist to assume that a majority of religious traditions must have some secret secular reason for it.

            Kir’s assertion may sound reasonable, and it may even be one that is supported by most anthropologists. But the argument Kir has made needs to meet a rather high standard of evidence, and Kir hasn’t provided that evidence.

            Until the burden of evidence has been met, I have to reject Kir’s argument. I don’t have to “prove” my viewpoint, because my viewpoint is simply a rejection of Kir’s argument (you can’t prove a negative, and all that). My viewpoint is the null hypothesis, which is that there was no hidden secular meaning (such as “health codes”) to the myriad arbitrary proscriptions in the Bible.

          • Wabisabi

            By analyzing the genetics of the heirs of some English villagers, who were seemingly resistant to Y. pestis during the repeated episodes of the plague, it’s been found that their good fortune stemed not from cleanliness, but fortuitous genes. These same genes, that bestowed protection against Y. pestis, have been found to protect their descendants from HIV. More research may find a genetic basis for Jewish resistance, also.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            Citation? I wouldn’t mind seeing the research.

          • randomfactor

            I think nearly all of those restrictions are along the lines of “this competing religion does this, don’t YOU do this.”

            A Jewish friend of mine is insistent that every one is some sort of health or hygiene protectant, though.

        • Jasper

          I think the idea of not eating pork is a good example. We just didn’t know how to cook it safely, so it was deemed evil/bad – thus solving the problem… sorta.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            Precisely.

          • Laury Plant

            Please describe the difficulty in cooking pork versus that of cooking sheep/goat/cow/etc and why the risk-reward differences were so vast it required a cultural taboo against.

          • Marco

            It probably relates to the very real risk of getting a fatal tape worm infestation from undercooked pork, as opposed to the much lower risk from eating undercooked lamb or goat.

          • Jasper

            I’ll give a disclaimer that I’m not sure about this, so take it with a grain of salt.

            The idea is that pigs are more genetically similar to humans, and diseases are more likely to jump from pigs to humans… that, and it spoils faster for some reason.

          • Jasper

            Here’s a reference in case anyone’s curious. I haven’t compared this to all other meats, though.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork#Disease_in_pork

          • invivoMark

            Pigs are no closer to humans than goats, cows, sheep, etc. http://www.timetree.org says that we all diverged about 94.2 million years ago.

            Pigs are known to be a potential source of pandemic influenza, and that’s because their respiratory tracts contain receptors that are recognized by both avian and mammalian influenza. So one pig can be simultaneously infected with both an avian and a mammalian strain, and since influenza strains easily swap DNA with one another, a pig makes a uniquely ideal incubation chamber for new, deadly strains of influenza.

            But that quality of pigs doesn’t extend to other diseases. And according to this paper, pigs have not been historically associated with either influenza or with disease in general. In fact, the 1918 Spanish Flu is the first known case where there were clear signs of a swine-derived pandemic influenza.

            According to that paper, pigs don’t appear to be particularly associated with disease any more than poultry or other livestock. Even their claim to disease fame, influenza, seems to be much more closely associated with horses than with pigs.To be sure, the ancients didn’t seem to differentiate one disease from another very well, so it’s hard to say they would have even noticed if one animal transmitted more diseases than another.

            I just don’t see the evidence that pigs were known to transmit more disease than other livestock. And even if it were there, it certainly wouldn’t explain the prohibition against crabs, shrimp, and shellfish, since they’re a totally different phylum and rarely carry potential human pathogens.

          • Jasper

            Conceded. I wasn’t particularly married to my position

          • invivoMark

            Sure, but I appreciated the opportunity to geek out for a bit. Epidemiology is cool, and I thought that paper was pretty interesting. It would have been pretty cool if ancient societies had figured out patterns of zoonosis, and then based our food supply around avoiding disease. Sadly, as smart as we are, we’re just not that naturally perceptive when it comes to disease. That’s why we have science! :-)

          • Laury Plant

            Thanks for doing the digging on this.

          • Susan Carey

            Hogs are omnivores and thus the difference. One risks contacting trichinosis when one eats insufficiently cooked meats of omnivores and herbivores (unless their diet has been controlled.) Perhaps it was not then known that the danger could be avoided by through cooking,

          • Laury Plant

            And yet so are goats, in an many ways are much more risky eaters then pigs. Trichinosis is also found commonly in wild game birds. So….again, the exclusion of pigs for dietary reasons alone fails.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            Alone yes, but combine in economic factors of raising pigs in desert conditions and you start to understand why proscription against pigs was beneficial at that time.

          • SheltieJim

            One reason is the cost of cooking (gathering wood or even dung for fires is relatively expensive, particularly in a desert), so rare meat was more likely to be eaten than well-done meat. And trichinosis doesn’t reliably die when cooked only to a low temperature (rare), so pork has to be cooked more thoroughly. Also, most long-time farmers can tell when their cows, chickens, goats, and sheep, have picked up parasites (that are likely to infect their eaters), but trichinosis isn’t so apparent in pigs.

          • Laury Plant

            Trichinosis is also common in game birds, so why no exclusion there?

        • boh

          How is it that anything coming from those people could be considered “health codes” if they didn’t even knew that boiling water and washing hands would prevent diseases? To me it’s all paranoid and arbitrary bullshit.

          • Jasper

            To be fair, boiling water would necessitate an understanding of germ theory before that action would make any sense… washing hands wouldn’t be that much better.

            We’re talking about a group of people who would blame most illnesses on demons or something.

            … but something like “every time we eat that berry, we get sick, so we’ll institute a rule that no one can eat that type of cherry”.. while primitive, is still a “health code”… and much easier for non-epistemologically trained beings to discover.

          • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

            You don’t need to “know”. It’s simply that the religious practices that worked allowed the community to do better. In other words, the religions evolved to provide what people needed through natural selection.

      • Stev84

        There seems have to have been some weird fixation with keeping things separate (or pure?) just for its own sake. For example there is also a prohibition on planting different crops together. The meat/milk thing also falls in this category.

  • Link Daddy

    St. Paul in Galatians, Chapter 5 covers this topic of the Law and pizza: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205&version=NASB

    Jesus is the ONLY one who ever perfectly obeyed the Law. This is exactly why we need Him as our Savior, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23 (Read the rest of Romans 3 for further explanation: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203&version=NASB).

    IMPORTANT EXCERPT:

    …being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. -Romans 3:24-26

    RE: Dietary Laws (Old vs. New Testament)

    On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. -Acts 10:9-16

    So according to the New Testament Christians are not bound by the requirement to be circumcised, nor to the Old Testament dietary Laws. Christians are “justified as a gift by His grace” through faith in Jesus Christ.

    RE: Homosexual acts, etc…

    Unlike circumcision and the dietary laws, however, notice that St. Paul in Romans Chapter 1 describes a whole list of things as “worthy of death”:

    For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 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. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. -Romans 1:25-32

    Again, this is why we need to believe on Jesus. For who has not been insolent, arrogant, greedy, envious, boastful, etc. We need to take notice and acknowledge these as sins so that we may correctly examine our consciences and repent of all sin, asking Jesus for forgiveness and resolving to change.

    The Scripture helps us understand what is pleasing to God. If He describes something in His Word as “bad”, we should do everything in our power to do the opposite for love of Him. Not just because we believe that it will result in punishment, but because we want to be respectful and obedient daughters and sons.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

      Why do you believe there is a god?

      • Link Daddy

        Jesus saved me (literally). He is alive.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

          Define “saved,” “he,” and “alive”

          • Link Daddy

            How did He save me? I was under attack. I called on His Holy Name in prayer with a friend. He rescued me from the Abyss – just as He promised in His Word.

            Alive – defN – Living, not dead.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

            Since you haven’t defined all of the above, now you need to define what you mean by the words “attack,” “holy,” “saved,” “he,” and now, “dead.”

            Communication skills are an important part of being an adult member of the species homo sapiens. I give you the respect due to a fellow speciesmember merely by listening and not wandering off to swing on a rope into a lake, and I expect the same respect and honesty from your answers. Don’t short-change me with more vague words that could mean anything. I respect you enough to actually want to understand what you think, and why.

            I remind you, a lot of people would have dismissed you a long time ago. I’m trying to at least be a fellow human animal and part of society with you, so if me understanding you could help me to help you understand me, I’m all for it.

            Define what you mean when you say it. Take your time, in all sincerity.

          • Link Daddy

            Going to watch fireworks…Back later.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

            Rope swing, lake, splash. When you come back don’t forget to thank the Chinese chemists who made that show possible.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Hope the lake was fun! I got to see fireworks and go to a bar with friends and relatives. Best Fourth I’ve had in awhile.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

            Yeah yeah yeah, towlie towlie, I still say you’re only human.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Towlie? I have never heard that term before; what does it mean? Is it like townie?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

            It’s a towel. Towely towely. Better? Let’s try not to forget that I’m still waiting on what some guy actually means when he says words.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Ohhh. Ok. Yeah, I know you’re still waiting on definitions. You provided some as an example of how it’s done, that’s all!

          • Spark

            Must’ve been one long ass fireworks show…

          • Link Daddy

            I believe some of us are so stubborn, rebellious and intractable that God allows us enough rope to lead ourselves to that place of despair where our sinfulness becomes self-evident and we finally realize that we cannot save ourselves. This place is alternately called the “Crossroads,” the “Point-of-No-Return” or “the Edge of the Abyss.”

            The *specific* details of my experience are between me and the Lord. All I can tell you is that I went there, called on Jesus, and was saved…Born again. I still ponder the events almost every day. I could not explain it to you adequately. Just know that Jesus is indeed Alive, and He is the Lord and Master of all Heaven, Earth, Time, Space and Creation. We are not our own. There is a Cosmic Battle being fought between the forces of Good and evil, and we (unbeknownst to many) are in the middle of it. What is at stake? Our eternal souls.
            Thanks be to Jesus, the battle has already been won. He won it for us at the Cross. We just have to choose who we want to follow: The Way of the Cross leading to Eternal Life, or the way of the world (the devil) leading to eternal death and damnation.

            Jesus spoke in parables. My favorite parable is the one about the Prodigal Son. It illustrates this “Crossroads”-decision perfectly: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:11-32&version=NASB.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Wow, are you making a comic book? That sounds like something Marvel would make; the X-Men vs. Galactus in a Cosmic Battle between a hyper-powerful, dimension-destroying being and little ole humans with minor (and not-so-minor) upgrades.

            Seriously. That’s what you sound like.

          • Jasper

            I don’t know that I have anything more to say to him at this point. It’s just yet more unsubstantiated unevidenced undemonstrated gobbledygook.

            I don’t really care that he really really really thinks his Spiderman comics are real.

          • Link Daddy
          • islandbrewer

            Hey Link Daddy!

            Since you like rather irrelevant links, here’s one below.

            Since you referenced Jesus saving your life and prayer working for you, I was wondering if it was life-threatening cataracts that you were saved from, because then this would be actually relevant:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo

          • Link Daddy

            Figuratively speaking, that was part of the problem…I was blind to what Jesus REALLY did for me on the Cross (or the “little t” that your blasphemous buddy minchinned). I was blind to my own wretched sinfulness. I was blind to God’s Holiness. And I was blind to the Gift of God’s Grace and Love in my life.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            That’s … so awful. Really. You think of yourself as a wretched sinner? Get ahold of yourself, man. You’re not a bad person from what I can tell. Get therapy, go make art, something, but you are neither a wretch nor sinful, and thinking of yourself like that is just unhealthy.

          • Link Daddy

            Here’s the point: He wiped my sins AWAY. I was not able to forgive myself. But in his Power and Might He was able to forgive so completely that on the inside I was like a newborn infant. Literally, not figuratively.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            That’s a powerful delusion. It sounds very nice, but it’s still not true. I’m glad you feel better, but I still think therapy is far more indicated for having low self-esteem and/or having committed legal or moral crimes than accepting that an invisible sky wizard impregnated a virgin with himself so he could sacrifice himself to convince himself to forgive everyone for their ancestress eating a magical fruit because a talking snake told her to.

          • Link Daddy
          • Zinc Avenger

            To buy into the idea of being punched in the arm as a “cootie shot”, you first have to accept the existence of cooties. Before you know it, you’re getting punched and claiming it as a good thing! And all those people who are saying being punched in the arm is a stupid thing, well, they’ve all got cooties, so why should you listen to them?

            I’m sorry someone convinced you that you had a disease called “sin” that can’t be detected at all in any way. How lucky the person who told you you have this undetectable disease just happened to be selling the cure! Don’t worry, the cure is undetectable too. Don’t forget, the cure doesn’t work if you’re not 100% convinced it works! And you wouldn’t want to have an undetectable sin relapse, would you?

          • invivoMark

            In His Power and Might, He revoked your ability to type normally, apparently, and Forced you to Capitalize random words As You type.

            You poor, poor creature. I just don’t see how you can cope.

          • islandbrewer

            He wiped my sins AWAY.

            No.

            There’s no such thing as “sin.” There are good decisions and bad decisions. Acts that are harmful to others or yourself, and acts that are beneficial.

            I’ve made bad and harmful decisions. Harmful to myself and others. They can’t be wiped away. I can’t, for example, murder someone, ask Jesus to wipe away my sin, and have the murder undone.

            My bad decisions don’t go away. I can try to mitigate them, learn from them, be a better person because I feel bad for having made them, but they don’t get fucking ‘wiped away.”

            Nor would I want them wiped away. I can grow, learn, be a better person. But to delude myself that they get magically erased is a fucking delusion that can’t at all be good for society. It’s an idea that needs die. People need to fucking own their mistakes.

          • Link Daddy

            People do need to own their mistakes. It is called repentance and remorse. When one makes a mistake, one should apologise and make amends to the person or persons that they have been hurt.
            But as in your example of murder, sometimes apologies and amends are not enough. What do you do then when you can’t find forgiveness from yourself and/or others? Do you just end yourself? Do the people that were hurt by these actions just end the offender? We would all end up ending each other…
            The only path is love and forgiveness…Jesus is the ONLY ONE who is able to wipe away all the guilt, shame and pain for both offender and offended. Yes, we learn from our mistakes, and that is a good thing, but Christ offers to help carry our burdens when they become too big, and promises forgiveness to those who ask Him.

          • islandbrewer

            But as in your example of murder, sometimes apologies and amends are not enough. What do you do then when you can’t find forgiveness from yourself and/or others? Do you just end yourself? Do the people that were hurt by these actions just end the offender? We would all end up ending each other…

            That’s the horrible idiotic reasoning of an archaic viewpoint of needing to “pay for sins.” If I murder someone, I couldn’t “make it right” by asking for forgiveness. There is no “sin” to be “washed away,” just a bunch of people hurt by my actions who need to get on with their lives. The people surviving who have been harmed are the only ones who can forgive me. Typically, it’s their need to forgive that allows them to move on with their lives.

            Do you need to believe in a fairy tale to actually move beyond your mistakes? That’s really too bad. It really does take strength and resolve to face your mistakes, sometimes. But if you can’t face them yourself and need a magical friend to forgive you for something you haven’t done to him, you’re disengaging from reality, your not dealing with the reality you’ve created. You’re finding solace in a fantasy.

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            Too bad you’re thanking the wrong god. Odin was the one who saved you. And when you die, he’ll send his valkyries to bring you to Valhalla, but only if you believe in him.

            Why are you so blind to the Gifts of Odin’s Grace and His Love for you?

          • phantomreader42

            And now you’ve gouged out your own eyes to prevent yourself from ever seeing reality again.

          • Link Daddy
          • phantomreader42

            And Judas went out and hanged himself.
            Go thou, and do likewise.
            What thou doest, do quickly.

          • phantomreader42

            And Judas went out and hanged himself.
            Go thou, and do likewise.
            What thou doest, do quickly.

          • baal

            Phantom, don’t do that.
            Linkdaddy is deluded, harmful, off topic usually and an asshole but still a human being. I don’t agree with telling any human to go kill themselves. Acceptance of this type of marginalization has been used by those with power for way too long to great (meaning big not meaning good) effect. It’s a better argument to say that no one gets to talk like that then to say some folks are just so awful that they should commit suicide.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

            There you go with Zeus again.

            Is there any way at all you can stop thinking in terms of weather gods?!

            Evidence, or kindly w/ all due respect stfugtfoty

          • baal

            “I believe some of ”
            With apology for being graphic, I’m relating my mental experience:
            Whenever I read this semi-boilerplate language I throw up in my mind. It’s like you’re vomiting on my brain. I even get the Stan Marsh sound effect to go along with it. Why this response? The words and sentences don’t mean what they should based on the usual definitions of the words used and the syntax and grammar more or less are right but the meaning you are supposed to get bears little resemblance to normal English. Someone cited to the Jabberwocky above, that poem is intended to be somewhat non-nonsensical. Your barfing, on the other had, is supposed to fill me with awe, light and wonder. It doesn’t. It does the opposite of that.

          • Jasper

            It’s not true merely because you assert it. Personal anecdotes have zero evidentiary value. You have no idea the plethora of psychological contributing factors that can often lead people to believe strange bizarre things.

            I don’t believe you. I won’t ever believe you because you lack the necessary bedrock to convincing me – evidence. Actual empirical testable repeatable presentable falsifiable objective exclusive evidence.

          • Len

            I was under attack.

            Was someone shooting at you? Punching you?

            He rescued me from the Abyss

            You were hanging off a cliff? OK, I can understand you’d do all sorts of silly stuff in that situation. Or weren’t you?

          • islandbrewer

            Was someone shooting at you? Punching you?

            It was atheists! The atheists attacked him with their sneery condescension and naughty words.

          • Jasper

            At best, he’s describing a placebo effect.

          • baal

            The brave party was trembling through the forgotton woods on their way to deep dark dungeon when they suddenly heard the sharp strike of dice on a folding table. The DM looked up from behind the tryptic like combo-privacy screen and cheat sheet and said, “The rogue has noticed an Abyss lurking in the shadows, what are each of you doing and roll initiative.”

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            Actually, Link Daddy, Jesus didn’t save you, Odin did.

            Odin sees all and knows all. He is All Knowing and the All Father.

            He also has a great spear, two ravens and two wolves in attendance, and an 8-legged horse.

            If you were under attack, Odin would have killed your enemies with his spear. His wolves and ravens would have feasted on the corpses.

            Odin obviously saved you. Why do you now deny Odin?

          • phantomreader42

            I don’t know, fraudulently posing as another god, and fucking around with some idiot’s brain for his own twisted amusement seems more like Loki than Odin…

          • Susan Carey

            Why would Jesus select you to aid but ignore millions of others in dire straights?

          • islandbrewer

            You only need to pray in a particular spot, to a particular version of a particular god, and if you pull that off …

          • Jasper

            Well, it’s either him, or the millions of mothers across Africa who are praying with every fiber of their souls for some food so their malnourished children don’t die in their arms… but in vain. God can’t be everywhere, you know.

          • Link Daddy

            I assume you have been to Africa?

          • islandbrewer

            You only need to pray in a particular spot, to a particular version of a particular god, and if you pull that off …

          • Link Daddy

            Jesus provides His Peace, Love and Joy to millions upon millions who are in dire straits. We straight?

        • Zinc Avenger

          Wait, I thought He didn’t actually do anything tangible because Free Will? Did He reveal Himself to you? If so, why doesn’t He do that for atheists?

          A seat belt saved me. Literally. As in, “life in danger, death averted” kind of saved. I can point to seat belts that exist in the world to support their actual existence. I can explain how the process of said “saving” happened, and how that can be attributed to the actions of this seat belt in a way that you don’t have to believe in magic to understand and accept.

          • Link Daddy

            But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

            How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”

            However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

            But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;

            “Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
            And their words to the ends of the world.” -Romans 10:6-18

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

            Yes, we’ve read your book. Tell us what YOU THINK, AND WHY.

          • Jasper

            I’ve read the book too. It was dumb, and incredibly evil.

            Still waiting for evidence.

        • baal

          Delusion is one strategy for dealing with life’s problems.

    • Artor

      Dumbass, do you think we haven’t all seen that bullshit before and rejected it as bullshit? And why do you think it’s relevant here at all?

      • Link Daddy

        Three bucks are in a mountain meadow complaining. They’ve heard a rumor that a huge buck has entered their area, and they aren’t happy about sharing any of their does.

        The Alpha buck says, “You know, since we settled our differences and split up the does, I’ve been pretty happy with MY 30 does. I am not about to share any of MY does with this new buck.”

        The second toughest buck says, “Yeah, well I ended up with only 20 does, so I can’t afford to share any of MY does.”

        The youngest buck says, “I may only be half as big as you guys, but I’m not going to give up any of My 10 does.”

        Suddenly the biggest, baddest buck they had ever seen appeared at the edge of the meadow. He must have weighed close to 375 pounds and with huge sweeping antlers. As the huge buck trotted towards the three other bucks the ground seemed to shake.

        Suddenly the former Alpha buck is a bit more flexible, “Well, maybe I could spare a FEW does.”

        The second toughest buck says, “Maybe if I hide in the bushes, he’ll leave me alone.”

        But the small, young buck is snorting, raking the brush and shaking his fledgling antlers in an extremely confrontational way.

        Worried about the reckless youngster, the two older bucks trot over to the young buck and say, “Listen, son. It’s not worth dying for. Just give the new buck your 10 does.”

        “He can HAVE my 10 does,” replies the young buck, raking the brush and shaking his fledgling antlers again. “I’m just making sure he knows I’m a BUCK!”

        • Jasper

          … okay

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

          Jokes and Bible quotes only go so far before you have to actually think for yourself and say something original.

        • Artor

          I actually have to upvote this and thank you, however weird that seems. I always, ALWAYS get the same stupid hunting jokes and “Are you horny?” lines as if I hadn’t heard them 1000 times before. That’s the first original response I’ve seen in a few years.

        • Fred

          I understand Link daddy,

          You’re the young buck.

          You don’t have anything to fight with. You’re woefully outclassed and out gunned. All you can do is comically take a stand to somehow prove your own masculinity to yourself.

          • Link Daddy

            I digress.

          • Fred

            Don’t cry sugarpie.

    • Jasper

      “The Scripture helps us understand what is pleasing to God.”

      Step 1: Demonstrate that such a being exists.

      Everything else after that is moot, until that’s done.

      • Jasper

        I don’t know why this is hard to understand.

        Until it’s scientifically established that such a being exists (and after that we’d establish whether we care what pleases it, and it isn’t just a straight-up wicked individual), I couldn’t care less what it wants from me.

        If the reason I should care is because eternal hell-fire, that only reinforces the evil nature of this being… because that’s called extortion.

        I care about what this mythology’s god wants about as much as I care about what pisses off Quadoctosquid, the Intergalactic, Universe-creating four-octopus-squid hybrid deity.

        They’re all insane deranged concepts.

        • Beutelratti

          Quadoctosquidians? Quadoctosquiddies?

        • Link Daddy

          One may well bring a squirrel to a nut, but he can not make him eat it.

          • Zinc Avenger

            Or instead you could just assert there’s an invisible intangible nut there and say it’s the squirrel’s fault for not understanding that truly the nut is there and that it wants to be eaten, and wonder loudly and publicly why he’s not eating it, because you’ve eaten your fill of invisible intangible nuts.

          • Jasper

            We usually get responses like that from people who have nothing. There is a way to convince me of things.

            Science.

          • baal

            No Linkdaddy, I will not nibble your nuts. thank you. good day.

    • Baby_Raptor

      The bible creates the concept of sin out of the ether, then sells you the cure.

      That’s really all there is to it.

      Also, please explain to the audience why you think it’s completely moral that God created people with free will, thus designing them to fail, making it impossible for them to live up to his standards, and yet he still says we have to suffer for how he created us. Why is this okay in your mind?

      • Jasper

        That’s why we’re trying to figure out how to ween the Jem’Hadar off the White

        • David Simon

          +1 from another Niner. :-) The relationship between the Founders and the Jem’Hadar was one of convenience for the former and the very meaning of existence for the latter. It’s one of the best examples in science fiction of the wide range of subjectivity in values.

    • Matt Begley

      Your god and Jesus are fictional characters and your bible is a collection of plagiarized pagan mythology designed to control and harvest income from the ignorant masses.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

        “But by all means, feel free to do as Matthew 6: 5-6 tells you, while you’re at it!” (edited into your comment?!)

        (Don’t get me started on the plagiarism of the fucking flood thing~)

    • phantomreader42

      ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
      All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.
      “Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
      The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
      Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
      The frumious Bandersnatch!”

    • Havok

      ————————
      If He describes something in His Word as “bad”, we should do everything in our power to do the opposite for love of Him.

      ————————
      Even if we love someone, we should not do things which are grossly immoral or inhumane, such as stoning homosexuals and adulterers or keeping slaves.

      ————————
      Not just because we believe that it will result in punishment, but because we want to be respectful and obedient daughters and sons.

      ————————-
      And if we ACTUALLY wanted to be respectful sons and daughters, we would indicate to this “parent” that the things it asks are grossly immoral.
      It would then be the responsibility of that parent, if it wanted to be respectful and loving of us to either accept that it has asked us to do grossly immoral things, and apologise, or to provide reasons as to why we are mistaken concerning the morality or otherwise of those things.

      For some strange reason your god hasn’t bothered to do either of those things – either it has no respect or love for us and therefore doesn’t give a damn, or it does not exist. The former option is right out for your god, since it supposedly does care for us. Which leaves us the latter option of non-existence.

  • Rez™

    I just looked at their Facebook page. I’m surprised that the owner hasn’t just turned it into a church with a “love-offering-based” pizza buffet and declared tax exempt status.

    Westboro Baptist Pizza.

    • Silent Service

      Now you’re giving them ideas.

      • islandbrewer

        I see big rainbow placards saying “God Hates Anchovies!”

  • Rez™

    This will probably get deleted from their Facebook page, so I’ll repost it here:

    “Wow, not even officially open two weeks and you’re already dividing the community by wishing death on your fellow Americans on your storefront sign. Kudos.”

  • Nadia Yvette Chambers

    Given that fundamentalist Christians refuse to acknowledge gender transition, they likely argue that Lev. 20:13 applies to me as well.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I thought I was pretty well jaded, but I don’t think I’ll ever get to the point where someone advocating for my death doesn’t hurt.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      Yeah. That’s never happened to me personally, but other similar-ish things have. There are people who have never met a Jewish person before I pass into and out of their lives, and I have been asked about horns, hooves, and tail. It never ceases to be both amazing and hurtful.

      It’s not as bad as my death being advocated for. It’s not nearly as bad. But it still hurts, so I can imagine how much worse this sort of thing (the Leviticus quote, aimed like a dart straight at you) hurts.

      • Baby_Raptor

        People have asked you if you have horns? I am so sorry…

        Humans can be amazing sometimes. And not the good amazing.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          Yes. Not really seriously, but in the “I thought Jews had horns/tails/hooves? You don’t, right? Haha”. That sort of half-serious, half-joking, I really do mean this but I know it sounds really bad way.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

            Not only dehumanizing, but treated like a joke to them.

            If I knew any, I’d swear in Yiddish until I was purple in the face if I were in your shoes. Cripes, I can’t believe you still have to find yourself stepping in that bullpucky in this day and age, in this damn country of all places. And with a laugh! Like it’s all a joke! I’m seriously getting choked with rage so I’m gonna stop this post here and go watch kitten videos for an hour.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Yay kittens!

          • Matt Begley

            All three of the Abrahamic religions are vile. Each, Judaism , Christuanity and Islam have not only condoned, but commited theft, rape, kidnapping, slavery, murder, war, and genocide. Don’t feel so persecuted. One thing all of these religions agree upon is that atheists are evil. In modern society, atheists like myself are subjected to bigotry and slander constantly yet nobody seems to take notice much less care. There are actually laws in seven of the United States forbidding atheists from holding public office.

          • islandbrewer

            Damnit! I want horns and a tail, now.

          • phantomreader42

            Check furry sites, anime conventions, Etsy, and oddly enough, rennaissance festivals. The first is where I got my tail, the last is where I got my horns. And I picked up inflatable bat wings at a dollar store one year.

          • baal

            I have cute little porcelain horns that look like bone. I wear them to work every Halloween. I’m considering adding april fools day too.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    The petulance of “(you) ruin everything for everyone” is hardly surprising.

    I’m always expecting a big “Whaaaaaa!”before and after such a statement.

  • Kyle

    Great, after that first paragraph describing pizza, I’m hungry.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants
      • Kyle

        Nice, right slices of blasphemy coming up.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003194979553 Leiningen’s Ants

          Sacralicious!

  • unbound55

    As a legal question, shouldn’t the owner of Heavenly Pizza be arrested? He has publicly issued a death threat. I thought that was a criminal offense in most jurisdictions.

    • Jasper

      You’d think.

      Although, many states have legal exceptions that allow parents to ACTUALLY kill their children if it’s a religious conviction… threats seem mild by comparison.

    • Matt Begley

      Technically, he asked a question. Had he said We should act upon Leviticus 11;7 he would be guilty of inciting to riot and 4th degree assaut.

  • Leif

    Can we please stop linking to BibleGateway and instead link to SAB

    Skeptics Annotated Bible

    Leviticus 20:13
    http://bit.ly/YCXRdN

    Leviticus 11:7
    http://bit.ly/10E4EF2

    and so on….Please !!

    Thank You

    • Jasper

      If the goal is to gain credibility with those who disagree with us, citing their own sources at them is bound to have a heavier impact. Although SAB does reference their own book, they’re more bound to dismiss it… which is dumb, but there you go.

      • Zinc Avenger

        You type faster than I do, Jasper. I concur. This is not to detract from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, which is one of our best tools. But lets link the text, not the Cliffs Notes.

  • Divan Roets

    *Ugh!* *GROAN!* This is what I messaged to Heavenly Pizza’s facebook:

    You people are unBELIEVABLE(faith pun intended)!!…I should remind you that in ROMANS 2:1 it is written “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.” So just go STONE yourselves you rotten Christians and us gays will see you in hell and have our way with you for all eternity, I’m sure Satan would approve!

    • Matt Begley

      As an atheist, I think your threats are just as retarded as theirs. I support gay rights because I support equality and justice. I do not, however, support gay morons.

      • Divan Roets

        As a gay atheist, I sometimes feel I can’t keep my composure with things like this, knowing that these pizza people won’t listen to logic there is only venting left to let them know that I won’t sit by idly and let people like them be the way they are, my outburst is not comparable to their moronic beliefs. I can see that it is extreme, but I can not see anything moronic about it(or the ‘You’re no better than they are…’ argument.) I won’t take the moron insult personally, you don’t know me so you can’t really tell.

  • The Miller

    I kinda love the rant this one guy posted on their FB page.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=394116750697634
    Now I’m just hoping they turn up on Yelp and face the wrath of the reviewers there.

  • VoiceOfReason71

    Just so I’m clear … Verses in the Bible calling for wholesale extermination of non-Jews and homosexuals are “good,” and were dictated to faithful prophets by a holy, just and loving “God.” But verses in the Qur’an calling for the wholesale extermination of non-Muslims and homosexuals are “bad,” and were spoken by a bloodthirsty, cross-dressing, pedophilic madman pretending to be an invisible moon-god?

    • Matt Begley

      I’ve often wondered why Christians fail to see that their religion is the source for much of Islamic law.

    • corvus1970

      Well said.

    • wendilee1956

      While I have never read the Qur’an, I have studied Islam as well as other religions and to be clear, Muhammad was the prophet of Allah and followers of Islam are prohibited from worshiping Mohammad so their entire focus is on Allah. There are no priests who carry the “holy word” to the masses, only keepers of the mosques. Muslim women are actually treated better than Christian women. This is not to say that either religion is progressive but the reasoning behind the hijab is the complete opposite of the conclusion we Americans have come to.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        I agree with everything but the hijab parts. The reasoning behind the hijab is the same reasoning as behind purity culture in the US, and while it sounds alright on the surface, it’s actually full of incredibly toxic patriarchal ideas just below that. Go check out Love, Joy, Feminism here on Patheos for more about that; the author grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home that really pushed a lot of the purity culture, and she’s really good at explaining it.

      • baal

        “Muslim women are actually treated better than Christian women.”
        Other than the occasional acid treatment, honor killing or finger removal (other post today), curtailment of education and job opportunities.

      • Jemma

        What about honor killings, genital mutilation, denial of education and getting jobs?

  • Andrew Descant

    Just a note about atheism. It means no god not no religion see Unitarian universalism, some sects of Hinduism, and some sects of Buddhism all have atheists as members. Now atheism certainly isn’t a religious but neither is theism. Off certantly isn’t a TV channel but on isn’t one either. See Thomas Jefferson a nonreligious some would say antireligious theist.

  • Aaron Porkstick Miller

    I love this story. I can’t even understand how they cherry pickers think…. Great article.

  • Thundal Archsys

    Atheism is notably just the lack of theism. Please do not perpetuate that bit. There *are* atheistic religions, mostly in the form of canned philosophies or fitting philosophical labels, and the functions thereof (which needs only ritual to be a thing… many have rituals, to be fair).

    The rest is spot-on, so far as I see, though. Good write-up.

  • Nicholas

    This is why I just don’t respect Christians. They don’t read the very book they want to enforce. I would provided an analogy if one existed, but their level of ignorance is truly one of a kind. At least the awful Muslims are consistent.

  • Chris

    their phone number is (501) 268-8646 and their facebook is https://www.facebook.com/HeavenlyPizzaPiesSearcy?fref=ts

  • FTP

    I have an idea. How bout the entire world stop being pussies and worrying about what other people think about them. Amazing concept I know as it’s kept my life drama free for many many years. If they want to be ignorant let them. How does that sign even remotely harm you? It doesn’t until you let it. United States of over emotional pussies is what this nation needs to be renamed.

    • Zinc Avenger

      I can’t help but notice you’re getting over-emotional about people getting over-emotional about religiously mandated death sentences.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      Short response: “Pussy” used as an insult is immensely degrading to women. Stop that.

      Longer response: You’re saying that having a pussy (being a woman) is the same thing as being weak. As the happy owner of a pussy, I thoroughly reject that characterization and further suggest you think about why the insult you picked was to call us women like that was a bad thing.

      I don’t think death threats should ever be shrugged off. There’s a big difference between caring what people think about you and wanting to feel safe in the area you live; if I was a gay person in this town, this pizza place would make me feel immensely unsafe. The societal approval/indifference to a death threat aimed squarely at a minority population suggests that the people don’t care if the threat is carried out. That’s all sorts of bad.

    • Jasper

      Yeah, quit the sexist crap.

      Secondly, someone needs to familiarize him/her self with the word “fester”.

      • islandbrewer

        I still can’t figure out what that has to do with file transfer protocols.

  • wendilee1956

    I have always associated conservative Christianity with pizza. The Leviticus violations make the taste all the sweeter!

  • Pamela Mayer

    Some morons call themselves Christian. Don’t buy it! And that goes for their PIZZA TOO!

    • Zinc Avenger

      How do you tell a Christian from a non-Christian who calls themselves one, particularly when the (you say) non-Christian cites the Bible to justify their position?

      How can I, as an atheist, tell the difference? And how can I, as an atheist, be expected to be the arbiter of who is and who is not a Christian?

      • Divan Roets

        Or in other terms, who is a ‘good’ Christian or a ‘bad’ Christian? The multitude of contradictions in the bible makes it impossible for any Christian to to try and abide by it even with good intentions. So, for me there is no clearly discernible distinction.

        • Link Daddy

          I would couch it this way, Divan…How did Mr. Begley distinguish between a gay atheist and a “moronic” gay atheist in his comments to you above?

          • Zinc Avenger

            Strangely, we didn’t say that a “moronic” gay atheist is not an atheist. We don’t play “no true atheist”, we take issue with the behavior. We just told him to stop being a moron.

  • Jon Muller

    This is the most entertaining articles I have ever read!

  • Susana Paço

    I still wonder why they still try to mix Hitler with Atheists when it’s so clear that they love the hitlerian ideology….

    Fellow American Atheists, please enlighten me, do you learn about the 20th century European history in school?

    • Link Daddy

      Well said, Susana! Most American atheists do not know that they love the hitlerian ideology yet because they haven’t learned about the 20th century European history in school.

      • Zinc Avenger

        I know, right? Hitler was only raised Catholic, took his anti-semitism from Catholic teachings, sought diplomatic recognition from the Catholic Church (the “Concordat”), had his birthday officially celebrated annually by German Catholic clergy (“warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.”), and incorporated “Gott Mit Uns” (“God with us”) into the uniform of the Wehrmacht.

        Totally atheist.

        • Link Daddy

          Citations needed.

        • Link Daddy

          Here. I will help you:

          “The Reichskonkordat was a treaty between the Holy See and Weimar Republic…” (Weimar Republic preceded the Nazi regime, Zinc).

          “The concordat has been described by some as giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired quasi-dictatorial powers through the Enabling Act of 1933, though Hitler himself is not a signatory to the treaty itself. The treaty does not make mention of Hitler, or the Nazi Party. In the preamble, however, it addresses directly, President Paul von Hindenburg.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

        • islandbrewer

          I regret I can only give you one upvote.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        You’re being facetious, right? You’re not really suggesting that Hitler was an atheist, right, you know that old canard is totally bogus? And you’re also not associating an entire group of people (atheists) with him in order to smear them, even though they have nothing in common? Surely you don’t believe the other stupidity that usually comes with this, that because Stalin was officially atheist all atheists are therefore somehow Stalinists?

        Here’s your (fatally flawed) logic:
        1) Stalin was an atheist.
        2) Stalin was a totalitarian.
        Therefore: All atheists are totalitarian.

        You do see why this is an absolutely absurd argument, right?

        • Link Daddy

          In answer to your two questions: Right…and right.

          But, many atheists like to assert that politically Hitler was Right, when he was actually Left. He was not-right or Right, and he was certainly NOT Christian. Pagan, at best. Satanic IMHO.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Fascism is the very definition of the far right of the political spectrum, actually. Right-side is conservative, traditionalist, change-averse, all about law and order, leans towards the authoritarian, and advocates imposing (at least some) moral order on people through the state. The political Right teaches that people can handle only limited freedom and that people owe current societal norms and authority figures obedience and respect, since it worked in the past. It also teaches that order is required for any sort of justice or liberty, so it’s very averse to things that loosen or change the rules. Fascism is all those things taken to an extreme.

            Hitler claimed Catholicism and was never excommunicated, so Christian he was. He was a fascist- the US actually let in several known Nazis after the war in order to facilitate anti-Communist sentiment in the US, knowing that fascism (far right) was a direct ideological counterpoint to communism (far left), even though the reality of both was fairly similar in a lot of ways.* Totalitarian regimes from either side of the political spectrum converge on the many of same points of awfulness.

            It’s really very rude to both pagans and Satanists to associate them with Hitler. I’ve met both, and they’re usually perfectly nice people. Certainly no more awful than any other people I’ve met.

            *If you weren’t one of the groups Hitler or Stalin went after to exterminate. Hitler took the direct approach of kill-them-all, while Stalin went for forced cultural assimilation by banning native languages, art, schooling, and religion and by propagandizing all the schools.

          • Link Daddy

            I am going to offer an apology to you for two things: 1) I should not have made the flippant response to Ms. Paco’s post, and 2) for not responding to any of the arguments you just made other than to say “I don’t want to go there.”

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            1) Apology accepted, I’ve definitely said stupid things on fora and in comment threads before that I really wanted to unsay.
            2) Ok, we can not go there.

          • Link Daddy

            Thank you x 2

          • baal

            I’m starting to hate that to be an active atheist, you also have to have an above average level of education on Hitler and mid 20th century politics. The rampant misuse of historical terms is painful.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            It really is. You also have to have an above-average level of education on biology, cosmology, European Medieval history, American history, comparative religion, political science, political ideologies, and government systems.

            I like learning things, but damn I wish people would just wikipedia stuff for themselves sometimes.

          • Stev84

            Just because it’s called “national socialism” doesn’t mean it’s socialism. Socialists were the first people persecuted by the Nazis.

            The economy of Nazi Germany was not socialistic in any way. There was no collective ownership of production. It became more and more of a command economy, but so was every other country’s economy during the war (including the US and Britain). Underneath it was a free market economy with powerful business interests at the top.

          • islandbrewer

            Interestingly enough, Hitler made such an extensive use of outsourcing military functions to private contractors (eg, Volkswagen, BMW), that the US began emulating it towards the end of WWII, and it fueled the new military industrial complex that consumes the majority of US tax dollars today. Halliburton and KBR are more the products of Hitler than any socialist program.

      • Susana Paço

        you are a disgusting human being. use more your brain and less your knees. And actually study world history. Educate yourself

        • Link Daddy

          Keep reading. I did apologise for being flippant. Maybe you can do the same for maligning more than 2 billion people. Why bring up the name of the worst mass murderer in history and try to align him with Christianity? My misplaced comment was intended to show you the ridiculousness of yours. I hate even typing his name…

          • Susana Paço

            From the moment that extreme evangelical Christianity in America wants to force their own vision of the world on everyone, they act like hitler. A dark form of psychological eugenics that scars for life thousands of human beings every single day.
            And hitler was a Christian wether you want it or not. He believed that he was doing the will of your deity, the same will that evangelicals claim to follow when they force shame and guilt on homosexuals and want to deny them basic rights. You don’t get to rewrite the dictionary because you don’t want to be associated with hitler or anyone else.

            The only thing that American Christianity can do to move away from hitlerian ideologies is to stop trying to boss on everyone’s basic human rights (including life saving abortions, reproductive freedom, marriage freedom, etc). Unfortunately, the tyrant deity of the holy book doesn’t help that much.

            May reason and logic be with you and open your eyes. You don’t need a deity to be good and enjoy life. You do need one to be a jerk.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Susana, Hitler represents the worst of humanity. His religion really didn’t have anything to do with his actions- while he imbibed anti-Semitism that was historically Catholic teaching, it was pervasive in society in general and not a specifically religious teaching anymore. Hitler didn’t commit his atrocities because he was Christian. Being Christian didn’t stop him, but it’s absurd to argue that Hitler represents the worst of religious excess. He doesn’t. He represents the worst of totalitarian, eugenic excess based off of pseudo-scientific Social Darwinism.

            It’s fine to call a lot of American Christianity fascist. It is. It isn’t related to Hitler or Nazism at all, though- fascism is far more broad than just one point in history or one totalitarian government. Reason and logic is important, but so are the facts. We can’t learn from history if we don’t know it, and we can’t properly contextualize things if we lack the (political science, in this case) knowledge with which to do so.

            A Godwin from an atheist is still a Godwin. Don’t do that.

          • Susana Paço

            Thank you for your kind comment feminerd but this one I beg to differ. Hitler’s main trigger and main justification was his deity, at least in the beggining of the nazi regime. Many followed him with this justification e he kept using it to gain followers. I’m not comparing war tactics, as American christian fascists are not using gas chambers but rather idiotic laws. But I’m comparing goals and, in that, both are similar. They both want a pure race of mindless shepherds, one was physical, the other psychological

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I think finding the main trigger for Hitler’s actions is very difficult. We can’t ask the man, obviously, and his writing points to several different justifications. It’s important to remember that eugenics wasn’t unique to Germany- the US had forced sterilization for many poor, mentally ill, and minority women and “civilization” programs for Native American children. Hitler actually based at least some of his “master race” ideology on rhetoric and actions from the US of the 1920s.

            Basically, it’s just not that simple. Religion probably played a role, certainly in his speeches to get Germans to follow his lead (lots of rhetoric about the Lord’s plan), but it’s almost impossible to determine the role religion played in Hitler’s own personal ideology. His writings about religion change over time and are contradictory. I cant’ say that the main trigger and justification was religion; it may have played a part, but I don’t know how big of one.

            The goals, on the other hand: while they are somewhat similar, the tactics used matter. Calling someone “like Hitler” is extremely loaded and not accurate in this case. It shuts down discussion and debate. As I said, fascist is correct- all fascists want conformity of thought as well as action, tightly regulated by government with draconian penalties. It’s just going too far to say it’s like Nazism, because it isn’t; National Socialism is a specific brand of ideology that even the Tea Party fanatics reject. Fascist is accurate, but Nazi goes too far and is an ad hominem attack.

  • Jhudstone

    Personally, I think the pizza place is out of line, but arguing prohibitions against homosexual acts aren’t valid because Christians don’t follow Jewish dietary laws shows a profound ignorance of Christian history and theology.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      Why? They’re in the same section of Leviticus.

      • Jhudstone

        It doesn’t matter what ‘section’ they are in, it matters that orthodox Christian theology specifically addresses why food prohibitions no longer apply. And though Christians have no obligation (nor I would argue, basis) for keeping the civil penalties of Israelite society, the prohibition against homosexuality is based on human design, not civil law.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          ?? All the stuff in Leviticus is prohibitions and rules based on what God supposedly laid down as law. Where does this division between “civil penalties” and “human design” come from? You’re supposed to kill people for all sorts of ‘abominations’. The section it’s in matters, because if you say “well we think this part is God’s word but that part isn’t”, and the two sections use the same language and talk about the same thing (things God doesn’t like) and are actually the same section, you’re going to have to have some sort of reason why you think what you do.

          • Jhudstone

            In Acts, in the New Testament, food prohibitions are specifically addressed – and considered no longer applicable to the Christian community. That much is mere fact. Further along specific applications to the Christian community are addressed among the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the only two applicable prohibitions that remain from the Jewish law are the the rules against eating meat with blood in it, and against sexual immorality.

            Now that doesn’t mean no moral code remains, but that code existed long before Mosaic law, including the specific sacred union of a man and wife, by design.

            The civil law of Moses was for a particular society – the Israelite society. Christians don’t have a civil code because Christians aren’t a nation.

            Hope this helps clear it up.

          • phantomreader42

            The passage where the food prohibitions were “specifically addressed” involves a vision that is interpreted as a message from god not to call ANYONE profane or unclean. Not any FOOD, any PERSON. To argue that it’s only about food requires ignoring the lesson the guy who had the vision learned from it. You could claim that the whole thing is a bullshit hallucination, but if you do you have no grounds to dismiss the dietary restrictions either (except of course by rejecting the entire bible as a poorly-written work of fiction, but that throws out the anti-gay clobber verses too).

          • Jhudstone

            Apparently you aren’t familiar with the passage – let me draw a picture:

            A bunch of animals descend in a vision, God says, “Kill and Eat!”. Now most people understand ‘eating’ to have to do with food. One doesn’t profane animals, and God said nothing about profaning anyone. Peter refuses because he recognizes the animals as unclean according to Jewish dietary laws, after which God pronounces them clean. It’s really not that hard to understand, and the understanding is reinforced throughout the New Testament.

          • phantomreader42

            Apparently you didn’t bother to read either my comment or the passage you’re talking about.

            Peter, I remind you, the guy who claimed to have experienced this vision, the guy who supposedly wrote this story, said that the lesson he learned from it was “God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.” Any MAN, not any ANIMAL or FOOD.

            So, Jhudstone, why do you consider yourself better qualified to interpret the meaning of this story than THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DAMN THING?

            Now, you’re welcome to throw the story out, but you have to either throw out the anti-gay clobber verses with it, or stick with ALL of those ridiculous ritual cleanliness laws, including the bits about mixed fibers and touching the skin of a dead pig (neither of which is related to food anyway, so your argument already fails to address them).

          • Jhudstone

            Again you did read the whole thing; Peter was responding to complaints from the Jews that he was EATING with the Gentiles:

            Acts 11:1 The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

            4 Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6 I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. 7 Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’

            And elsewhere in the NT Paul talks about reproving Peter for avoiding eating with Gentiles:

            Gal. 2:11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

            14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

            15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

            Shall I provide more evidence?

          • phantomreader42

            No, the complaints were that he was eating with GENTILES. You know, those uncircumcised people who were all dirty because they didn’t follow the stupid ritual cleanliness rules? AGAIN, if the vision was purely and exclusively about food (as you claim), then WHY did PETER (the guy who supposedly HAD the vision) interpret it as meaning that it was okay to hang out with PEOPLE who weren’t circumcised, or wore mixed fabrics? Why are you so arrogant that you think YOU are better ualified to interpret the moral of this story than the guy who made it up?

          • Jhudstone

            I didn’t claim it was ‘exclusively about food’ I said it nullified the rules governing food prohibitions – which included eating with unclean individuals, as you so aptly pointed out. And the other verses I cited confirm this view (which I noticed you cleverly avoided). You are going to have to do better than this.

          • Link Daddy

            2 PETER 2:2-10

            Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

            For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

        • baal

          “prohibition against homosexuality is based on human design”
          Actually, I consider how my brain works as part of the ‘design’. Also, homosexuality (loving same sex, a thing that happens in your brain) is not only and always about how you fuck.

          • Jhudstone

            Sure, your brain is part of your design, as are your emotions, your relationships and the way in which procreate. The concern with the Christian is that all of these are consistent with each other.

          • baal

            Your concern isn’t for you to be concerned about. Unless you’d like me concerned about your narrow mindedness and started passing laws to broaden your views and experiences.

          • Jhudstone

            You obviously are concerned about those things.

    • peabody3000

      the point that you are quite carelessly missing is that any person who believes gays should be executed also apparently believes they themselves must be put to death.. for that is the penalty of wearing mixed cloths.. unless by some chance they happen to be uhhhh whats the word…. HYPOCRITES?

      • Jhudstone

        You’re a little late to this party, but the point made previously is that some OT laws were particular to Jewish civil custom, and and some were derived from eternal precepts. This doesn’t mandate a particular punishment for violating said precepts, but the two are not equal.

        • peabody3000

          if the punishment of death is equal for the both as stated by these loony verses, thats equal enough. if you are a believer, i understand why you might feel the need insist they are not equal but.. i say the two arent sins to begin with so the point is rather moot

      • Jhudstone

        The death penalty wasn’t imposed for ‘mixing fibers’ it’s a typical atheist myth.

        • peabody3000

          the bible condemns wearing mixed fibers, and forbids many other typical everyday activities. you either have to firmly believe all of it, or you really dont actually need to believe any of it

          • Jhudstone

            It good that you acknowledged you were wrong in claiming the death penalty was imposed in both cases, so now let me put the next myth to bed; not all civil laws of Ancient Isreal were the product of particular moral precepts.

            Some were merely pragmatic (as our laws are) and some had the intent of separating Isrealites from the pagan cultures around them.

            As much as this is true, a Christian has no moral obligation to adhere to such practices except in cases where touch laws conform to immutable moral precepts.

          • peabody3000

            i do find it amusing that you speak of myths when the entire bible is nothing but myth and folklore. and your point about jewish traditions means what, that the entire old testament is null and void? or that you can distinguish between so-called morals and traditions how? i dont consider homosexuality any kind of sin, so falling back on the old testament with all of its campfire tales as backing would be logic of a most circular nature

          • Jhudstone

            I am not sure what a discussion about systems of laws that actually provided the structure of a historic society has to do with ‘mythology’.

            Nonetheless I do appreciate your abandonment of your previous arguments.

            The very fact that Scripture is divided into an ‘old’ covenant and a ‘new’ one would give the reader of even average skills some indication of how to distinguish one from the other, don’t you think?

          • peabody3000

            i have already mentioned that the fact that the bible condemns everyday activities, and that i consider homosexuality everyday since they are always present among us and its nature at work, then one need not forcibly heed a single word of the bible. that is what i find simple and unequivocal. meanwhile, interpreting when the bible folklore “really” means it vs “just a homey little israelite tradition” is an exercise in ambiguity, because it is not founded upon reality

          • Jhudstone

            The Bible doesn’t condemn everyday activities – in the Old Testament it distinguished the means of carrying out everyday activities for the purpose of establishing a unique culture for a unique purpose. The coming of Christ completed that original purpose, and thus the previous means was no longer necessary. Unless this is understood, confusion is inevitable.

          • peabody3000

            hehehe.. youll say ANYTHING

          • Jhudstone

            Just the facts, of which you seem unaware.

          • peabody3000

            facts like the entire earth was populated by one incestuous family.. twice? :)

          • Jhudstone

            I am not sure what that particular point has to do with the fact that you can’t support the previous arguments you made?

          • peabody3000

            i can and have. i will repeat my central point, which is that the bible condemns many everydays behaviors, and is therefore absolutely no authority on the subject of how to live whatsoever. its a written record of campfire tales and superstition. everything you say hangs on arbitrary dogma

          • Jhudstone

            See there you are simply stating an illogical statement as follows:

            1. The Bible condemns everyday behaviors

            therefore

            2. It has no authority on how to live.

            Two does not follow from one, nor is there any evidence one is particularly true. Obviously the Bible allows all the behaviors necessary to live, survive, and thrive or there would be no Jews or Christians in existence.

          • peabody3000

            eating shellfish, working on the weekend, etc etc etc

            its bunk

          • Jhudstone

            You seem to miss the ‘logic’ part – the fact that the Bible prohibits certain behaviors that you practice ordinarily does not demonstrate it doesn’t have the authority to prohibit certain behaviors.

          • peabody3000

            that means you must arbitrarily decide which parts to follow. if it is arbitrary, then it is essentially meaningless. that is logic for you. there are many books people want to call holy, all filled with weird tales and quasi-moral edicts. nothing original about the old/new testaments in that regard. to me they are all distractions from reality

          • Jhudstone

            Again with the bad logic. The fact that the Bible prohibits certain behaviors that one might ordinarily practice doesn’t mean it is arbitrary. If it is my ordinary practice to drive 70mph in 55mph zone, it does not follow the law is arbitrary.

          • peabody3000

            thats really the best you can do huh. i’ll give you a better analogy before doing away with this insipid conversation: if an infallible, inerrant authority says that you can’t, hmm say hold a beverage in your left hand, then it isnt infallible and inerrant, and inst an authority on a fukking thing. the would-be authority is wrong, not you. the end. have a nice life

          • Jhudstone

            “an infallible, inerrant authority…isnt infallible and inerrant”

            Yeah, its best you leave on that note, as this is completely incoherent.

  • Roger Peritone
  • Alice

    This isn’t really important, but on a side note, I grew up in the denomination, and everyone I knew called it “Church of Christ” or “THE Church™ “, never “Churches of Christ.” Cause we were the only REAL church, doncha know? Now, not all CoC’ers believe this, but it’s a common attitude, particularly among the older generations.

  • Bob Clark

    Eat what you want Searcy, Arkansas. The scribe writing the rules back then probably added a pig to the list because they are and were nasty. Perhaps the scribe was overly fond of pigs, slept with them, and cared for them as a pet. By adding “do not eat pig” to his list, it would be like us adding dogs and horses to the do not eat list. That preserves their numbers. (But you think by not eating pork, there would be more pigs in the world.) After you eat what you want, just be the best person you can be and love you neighbor as yourself. Don’t expect a reward any more than the gift of life you have received. For the PiZZA JOINT, THE OWNERS ARE TOO FAR UP THEIR OWN ASS TO COMPREHEND THAT LIFE IS A GIFT, WHETHER IT JUST HAPPENS OR NOT, AND HATE DOES NOT GO WELL WITH PIZZA, one of life’s little pleasures.

  • PatTheRat

    Had not realized this restaurant was Christian-based. Will be going there after work to pick up dinner. Thanks!

  • Wabisabi

    Thanks Anne for another culture wars gem.

  • Jeff Henderson

    Just like American politics, here we have arrived at extremism. This article proposes that the quotation from the bible encompasses their entire belief system. On the other side, the people who quote scripture like this don’t take the time to consider the automatic conclusions drawn from a very limited message which can easily be misinterpreted without back story and a summation of deeply held beliefs. It is neither fair to assume that the owners of this store definitely want anyone dead, nor is it fair to quote such a verse that is very likely to bring up the ire of those who look immediately for evidence to support their position.

    Consistently, the world in which we live has striven to sensationalize everything. If it is not controversial or an ad hominem attack, it clearly must not be worthy of being published or sanctioned. For once it would be nice to read something that is balanced and helpful rather than extremist and caustic. I guess I just live in a fantasy world that doesn’t fit the “reality” paradigm of the age. Oh such a Dinosaur or Ice Age victim I am….


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X