Posts Tagged ‘homosexuality’

h1

Those pesky abominations!

November 1, 2007

Monday’s episode of Jeopardy (which I watched last night; ah, the joy that is TiVo) included a category called “Biblical Abominations.”  Normally, I hate it when a category that’s based on the bible is included in the game.  However, I figured I would enjoy this category as I assumed it would hint at the hypocritical behavior of xtians.

Homosexuality is the “abomination” xtians repeat the most often.  They love to quote passages from Leviticus that say, supposedly, homosexuality is evil.  I’ve always wondered why xtians are so hellbent against homosexuality when there are plenty of other abominations, i.e. sin, that they freely commit.

To my delight, none of the Jeopardy answers had to do with homosexuality.   Instead, the Jeopardy writers included the abominations of eating shellfish, and the ban on anything to do with bugs, eagles, incense and Egypt.  Wow!  Egypt is an abomination?  Tut would have been so proud.

So, despite the abomination that is shellfish, I’ve never encountered a xtian eschewing a lobster or a clam.  In fact, I’ve even seen ads for church sponsored clambakes.  Likewise, I’ve never heard a xtian parent scold a child for committing a sin by playing with a caterpillar or a ladybug.  Oh, and what about incense?  Don’t the catholics love to swing around their purses full of incense during mass?  They should be going straight to hell for that.

Furthermore, xtians claim that the US is a xtian nation because the “founding fathers” wanted it that way.  (Uh, that’s a big lie.)  Nonetheless, the symbol of this great xtian nation is an eagle.  Ha!  Eagles are an abomination!  Ooh, those xtians who covet eagles are sinners! Since it’s in the bible, it has to be true.  Right?

When did xtians decide which abominations are worse than others?  And how could they do that?  If god said something is an abomination, it can’t be changed just because some xtians choose not to obey the word of god.  It’s not rational that xtians are so against one supposed abomination when they freely engage in other abominable behaviors.  Isn’t an abomination is an abomination?

Advertisements