It is said that when we stand before the Lord we will be naked. I’m already there. I bet this guy wishes he was right now.
Buy a high-quality print of this cartoon.
Own the original drawing.
Download my book nakedpastor101 for just .99¢
inappropriate tees 3: god hates fags
Leave a Reply
-
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
-
-
Magnificent….:)
This is my favourite sketch yet!
(Well, other than the Sophie series.
)
The following extended quote is excerpted from an article by Richard Elliot Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, authors of The Bible Now:
- – - – -
We are scholars, not politicians. Our job isn’t to score points for a side, push an agenda or to re-size the Bible to fit our personal views.
So here’s the text and a summary of the evidence:
“You shall not lay a male the layings of a woman; it is a to’ebah” (offensive thing)
Leviticus 18:22.
“And a man who will lay a male the layings of a woman: the two of them have done a to’ebah (offensive thing). They shall be put to death. Their blood is on them”
Leviticus 20:13.
We acknowledged that many people have recognized that these two texts pretty clearly do prohibit at least some kinds of male-male sex … The law really means what pretty much everyone has taken it to mean for centuries. Whatever view one takes, one must address the law fairly in terms of what it says.
So we sought to contribute another perspective that we believe can be helpful on this subject. The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to’ebah, translated in English here as “an offensive thing” or in older translations as “an abomination.” This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word. In both of the contexts in Leviticus (chapters 18 and 20), male homosexuality is the only act to be called this. (Other acts are included broadly in a line at the end of chapter 18.) So this term, which is an important one in the Bible in general, is particularly important with regard to the law about male homosexual acts.
The question is: Is this term to’ebah an absolute, meaning that an act that is a to’ebah is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative – meaning that something that is a to’ebah to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a to’ebah in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a to’ebah in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another – in which case the law may change as people’s perceptions change?
When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that, if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they’re cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (to’ebah) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians don’t eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (to’ebah) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and don’t find it offensive. See also the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (to’ebah) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.
…
Now, one might respond that the law here is different because it concerns an offensive thing to God – and is therefore not subject to the relativity of human values. But that is actually not the case here. The Bible specifically identifies such laws about things that are divine offenses with the phrase “an offensive thing to the LORD” (to’ebat yhwh). That phrase is not used here in the law about male homosexual acts. It is not one of the laws that are identified as a to’ebah to God!
If this is right, then it is an amazing irony. Calling male homosexual acts a to’ebah was precisely what made the biblical text seem so absolutely anti-homosexual and without the possibility of change. But it is precisely the fact of to’ebah that opens the possibility of the law’s change. So, (1) whatever position one takes on this matter, left or right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex between males but not between females. And (2) one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. The prohibition in the Bible applies only so long as male homosexual acts are perceived to be offensive. This could involve arguments and evidence from specialists in biology, psychology and culture. They are beyond our range of expertise as Bible scholars. Our task here has been to make the biblical evidence known.
- – - – -
Are Biblical Laws About Homosexuality Eternal?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-elliott-friedman/biblical-law-on-homosexuality_b_911963.html
Richard Elliot Friedman, Shawna Dolansky
authors of “The Bible Now”)
Huffington Post
posted 8/1/2011 04:52 PM ET
retrieved 9/16/2011
I say though hate were why men breathe –
because my Father lived his soul,
love is the whole and more than all
e.e.cummins ‘my father moved through dooms of love
I love this one.
It reminds me of my favorite Robin Williams joke, from his old stand-up routine…
That when Jesus returns for the final judgment, he’s going to come as a six-foot-five black man, saying “I wanna see Jerry Falwell…NOW!!!”
The spirit of the law on the one hand; the letter of the law on the other hand. No body loves the sound of one hand slapping.
This will sound rather off topic, but when I see that phrase now, I think of the satire “God Hates Figs.” It uses similar logic to those Kansas people to conclude that God must hate figs…and shrimp, and some other things.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Students-Counter-Protest-Westboro-Baptist-Church-at-University-of-Chicago-UIC-God-Hates-Figs-and-Shrimp.html
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
Hey nakedpastor. Can you NAME for me 10 pastors, not of Phelp’s group that has said “God hates fags” and where I can verify those you site? I don’t think you can. You pick up the screams of one man and his followers and make it out as many.
In fact, when you do that, you are putting yourself in the same arena as Phelps. You scream something that is not true. Now I tell you what; if you can site for me so I can verify it that ten other pastors say that “God hates fags” I will apologize all over myself about putting you in the same arena as Phelps.
Of course, you might say that this toon was/is just a jab at Phelp’s, but I doubt it seeing you are so anti-organized Church and most Pastors.
fishon: i am not anti-organized church nor am i against most pastors. you read me wrong.
I’m agreeing with Fishon on this one, MP. That’s the impression I get too–what Fishon is overall
describing. But, you’ve got a lot who appreciate your point of view, plenty of support for the
general criticism of church and pastors and the manipulation brain-washing and rejection you’ve experienced which motivates your agenda.
We do not have a black and white G-d!
The irony of it all is worth a good laugh.
“God hates fags!”
“Oh yeah, well God hates people who hate fags!”
“Oh yeah, well God will judge you!”
“No, he’ll judge YOU!”
It’s like a competition in self-righteousness.
nakedpastor
October 13, 2011 | 12:03 pm
fishon: i am not anti-organized church nor am i against most pastors. you read me wrong.
—-David, you tell me I am wrong–but that is what I take away from your toons and comments.
AND you didn’t address anything about my challenge; 10 names. Or is your cartoon “god hates fags” only addressing one miserable man, Fred Phelps? If so, you wasted your talents on one goober.
@Doug Sloan,
Fascinating stuff. I think your comment adds a lot to the discussion. I learn something new every day.
@fishon,
Let me bounce something off of you and you tell me if you think I’m full of crap or not. We are often at opposite ends of the spectrum, but i still hold out for the time i may learn something useful from someone who is not in agreement with me.
Here goes…
It’s always been my stance that so-called moderate Muslims are just as much a problem to the stability of western culture as radical Muslims due to their silence. Yes, some do on occasion speak out here and there, but you do not see any of them taking to the streets or actively protesting or going on the offensive against extremism within their own cultures or religion. Do you think I’m off base in my way of thinking?
Now, there are plenty of notable preachers who actively and publicly pursue an anti-homosexual agenda besides the Phelps. Whether you know that or not, this is indeed a fact. No, they don’t all parade around in shirts that scream “God hates fags!”, but they are still active in the suppression of homosexuals. In fact, I’d say their work is all the more oppressive because the appeal to the masses more by not being as outwardly bizarre as the Phelps family.
I’m of the opinion that moderate Christians are just as culpable or responsible for the 2nd class status that gays have in many countries precisely because these churches do not make it a point to openly and actively disavow their bigoted brethren. Can you see the consistency in my line of reasoning here? I’d like your input.
DAVID,
Don’t take Fishon’s bait. The picture shows one (1) unnamed individual on his/her judgement day. It’s power is in its singularity and namelessness.
fishon: the guy is faceless for a reason. i am possibly implicated. as well as you. no man knows the secrets of his own. the bible says that only God knows our deepest motivation. maybe this is you. maybe this is me. may it humble us all.
@David,
“maybe this is you. maybe this is me.” Indeed, this WAS me in a distant past…another life. This still pains me and shames me terribly.
The Godless Monster
October 13, 2011 | 5:06 pm
@fishon,
Here goes…
It’s always been my stance that so-called moderate Muslims are just as much a problem to the stability of western culture as radical Muslims due to their silence. Yes, some do on occasion speak out here and there, but you do not see any of them taking to the streets or actively protesting or going on the offensive against extremism within their own cultures or religion. Do you think I’m off base in my way of thinking?
—-TGM, I understand where you are coming from, and have heard that sentiment talked about in different News forums. However, I am not sure how affective moderate muslims protesting muslim extremism [most coming from other countries, though picking up in USA] would be. I hardly think it would even be heard by Islamic extremists in far away lands. And they would, and do consider those who do protest them as enemies. Ah, so many other thoughts, but will keep them to self. You asked, “Do you think I’m off base in my way of thinking?” No, not really. Again, I understand from where you come. I think MOST public protests are unfruitful, for the most part.
The Godless Monster
October 13, 2011 | 5:06 pm
@fishon,
Now, there are plenty of notable preachers who actively and publicly pursue an anti-homosexual agenda besides the Phelps. Whether you know that or not, this is indeed a fact. No, they don’t all parade around in shirts that scream “God hates fags!”, but they are still active in the suppression of homosexuals. In fact, I’d say their work is all the more oppressive because the appeal to the masses more by not being as outwardly bizarre as the Phelps family. I’m of the opinion that moderate Christians are just as culpable or responsible for the 2nd class status that gays have in many countries precisely because these churches do not make it a point to openly and actively disavow their bigoted brethren. Can you see the consistency in my line of reasoning here? I’d like your input.
——TGM, as a pastor, I sometimes, but not often, and it depends on the sermon topic, call homosexuality a sin, based on scripture [I won't argue with you that it is not in scripture]. Now if that makes me, as you say, suppression[ing] homosexuals, so be it. I call drunkedness a sin, so would you say that I am suppressing drunks [of which I once was]? I called prostitution as sin, while my daughter was a prostitute; was I suppressing my daughter. Bernie Maddow is a thief; does that mean I am suppressing him?
Aha, now I see where you were going with the two subjects and questions. I answered you muslim question without reading your Phelps/homo questions. Glad I did it that way now.
I suspect you would put me in the “bigoted brethren” category because I preach practicing homosexuality a sin. You aren’t concerned about consistency I think. I think it is only about whether preachers call homosexuality a sin because I am betting you think any talk of it being a sin is suppression. So consistency is a strawman arguement. But if I am wrong about the suppression thing or the consistency thing-correct me.
I hope you don’t feel a tone of antagonism from me. Your arguement and debate is very civil. I enjoy the give and take.
nakedpastor
October 13, 2011 | 7:14 pm
fishon: the guy is faceless for a reason. i am possibly implicated. as well as you. no man knows the secrets of his own. the bible says that only God knows our deepest motivation. maybe this is you. maybe this is me. may it humble us all.
——–What a copout. I did’t ask you about the face—-I ASKED YOU ABOUT THE INFAMOUS SAYING ‘GOD HATES FAGS.” And who has made that statement famous?????? Tell me, who!!! It wasn’t me, Joel, Rick, etc. Only one guy.
Are you HONESTLY telling me you did NOT think of Phelps when you conceived and put together the toon and the message, “God hates fags?” If you tell that is so, ok, I’ll take your word for it.
By the way, Doug, I don’t play the “bait” game. You give me way too much credit.
@fishon,
I didn’t take offense at all and didn’t sense any negative tone whatsoever. I can see how you might think I was trying to set you up, so to speak. Actually, my intent was to explain how I see things and to get your input.
No, I don’t see preaching about homosexuality as being as sin as being oppressive. Supporting the oppression of gays is not the same as preaching that certain behaviors are sinful. I get the distinction. My issue is with those who would attempt to legislate their morality on the rest of the world.
As an atheist, I do not think there is enough evidence to support belief in a deity. That does not, however, translate into a belief that religion should be abolished or banned. In fact, I am a strong supporter of freedom of religion, not just freedom from religion.
In order to maintain a civil, free and fair society we need to be vigilant in supporting the rights of others, even if we don’t necessarily understand or approve of their beliefs. Whether someone is a Christian or a homosexual, I believe they have a right to live their lives in peace and happiness and that can only come from equal protection and treatment under the law. If you were to preach to others that gays should not have the right to be married because your religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, then yes, that is bigotry. If you limit your preaching to stating that it is a sin, then no, I don’t see it as bigotry. Misguided beliefs, perhaps (and not entirely harmless), but I am not convinced that is it bigotry as you don’t encourage others to suppress homosexuals. Hope that clears it up a bit.
My Fundamentalism (a re-run; a membership drive)
Homo-phobic, sure. Xenophobic.
Misanthropic. Misogynist. Racist.
Solipsist. Narcissist: some redundancy
in all these ics and ists & it amounts to
fundamental Fear & Hate & welcome to
the First Church of the Crippled & any
one can join once outed & the cover-
up’s no longer adequate: leaking limp
and lame shall enter first; no talk of golf
or coming out parties of the debutante
kind; potluck suppers and holy smoking
prayer meetings possibly, with plenty of
coffee
Hello, I’m Sam: hate-ist addicted to fear,
sealed into my bubble-self for sure—box,
cave, culture, custom, convention, closet —
bad listener enthralled by my pond-image
man in the mirror convinced it’s all you &
you & you & not me I see. .
We can talk.
I’m out, damnit.
I’d pretend if I could get
away with it some more time
after time longer covering up
my cripple creek & make nice if
it weren’t obvious how much I fear
and so, of course: hate.
My bad as they used to say.
Undeniable.
You got a problem with that too?
Ya’ll come back, you hear? crippled,
cracked & crazed, stunned & stunning,
pre-requisite for Stupid Club: My
Church of the Hobble-de-Hoy.
Not for every body and you may not be for
every body either I don’t blame you See:
right there—Homo- Phobic
fishon: i don’t think you understand me. i try to hit on themes that are universal. sometimes i pick on one person if it is called for. i intentionally didn’t show the guy’s face because i really do think he represents many people. not just the Phelps. i suppose you would’ve liked to ask jesus who said a foolish man build his house upon the sand, “WHAT FOOLISH MAN? I WANT A NAME!” it’s meant to represent anyone for whom the shoe fits.
nakedpastor
October 14, 2011 | 9:11 am
nakedpastor
October 14, 2011 | 9:11 am
fishon: i intentionally didn’t show the guy’s face because i really do think he represents many people. not just the Phelps.
—-Ok.
He represents me: my hate. Got no problem with
homosexuals as it turns out: plenty of others I’d condemn–doesn’t matter, knowing better. It’s the feeling I can’t or cover without increased damage. That’s the problem with being specific. Devils in those details. Just leave it Fill-in-the Blank and then everyone can get “naked” so to speak, in our own terms. Fundamentals. I’m having no success recruiting members to my First Church of the Cripples. There’s got to be some lame folk out there–hobble de hoy shuffling along with ther fear, hate, homeland security and all the goes with it. Get naked with me. Fundamental. I’m shivering all alone.
To David and to Fison: maybe you both have seen this link on homosexuality and christianity
http://johnshore.com/2011/10/13/pastor-fired-for-linking-to-article-about-dont-ask-dont-tell/
ya i’ve seen it sam. it is sad. i hear LOTS of these stories. this is NOT unusual.
Wasn’t there a guy named Joseph with a multi-colored coat?
John Gills
October 15, 2011 | 1:58 pm
Wasn’t there a guy named Joseph with a multi-colored coat?
——Yea, but Joseph wasn’t God.
Sam,
It tells me the post was pulled.
So can’t respond.