Another Walmart employee has quit over their association with a gay chamber of commerce, saying that it felt like "God hit me" when she saw a report on the matter. And let's just say she seems a bit...dramatic:
"The minute my husband made me aware of this, I started to just cry," she said. "It broke my heart to see them choose to side themselves with what I call such an immoral organization. I just sat and cried."
Why, she hadn't cried like this since Elvis died. And you're gonna love this little snippet:
She had been discussing moral decline in America with her husband just a few days earlier, and had concluded that's just what the world is coming to these days.
Then when she discovered the chain at which she's shopped since it opened also had chosen that very direction to move, and she realized she could make a choice - let it go and conclude that's just the way of the world, or make a stand.
It was as if God told her: "Hey there, even you are beginning to be that way, letting other people tear down God's word."
Yeah, you've gotta stand up for God's word. And selling products to gay people is clearly against God's word. I mean, if you're supposed to stone them to death you clearly can't sell them motor oil or cereal, right? It all stands to reason. One wonders, though, why she's so selective about those parts of "God's word" she takes a stand for. I mean, she started going to Winn-Dixie instead of Walmart, but Winn-Dixie sells shellfish, something declared an abomination in Leviticus along with homosexuality.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
They also sell clothing of mixed fabrics, clearly forbidden in Leviticus 19:19. And would you believe that they also sell milk to unmarried women without requiring proof of virginity? It's an outrage how these retailers are "tearing down God's word."
- Log in to post comments
Bringing up the kosher laws when Christians act ridiculous is kind of pointless because Paul established that several things in the Old Testament (like the dietary laws) do not apply to Christians.
Actually, Flying Fox, it's not ridiculous to bring up kosher laws when some Christians use the portions of that code regarding homosexuals as a basis for anti-gay policies/activities. Both elements come from the same law code, and even from the same section of it.
I know, I've seen the lines about homosexuals. I didn't mean to imply we couldn't use that as a line of argument, I mean it won't have any effect because no Christian keeps kosher. At least, that's how it seems to me because whenever my friends ask me to explain kosher to them, it takes forever. Come to think of it, only one of my gentile friends actually knew where the dietary laws are.
The applicability of OT verses is moot, since Paul issues his own condemnations of homosexuality in Romans and Corinthians. They also get a mention in Timothy, listed among the unholy and profane.
Thus the people who argue New Covenant theology - that the Levitican laws have been supplanted, and are no longer applicable, can still be homophobes with solid NT backing.
The place where the hypocrisy really rubs is when those same New Covenant folks get all up in arms about perceived offenses towards the Ten Commandments.
I think that the real point is that the so-called Christians who bring up Kosher laws don't even realize that's what they are doing. They are, like our other "Chrisitian" favorites the Creationists, taking things that they do not understand the whole of and quote-mining for the meaning they want to find.
Wanna play a fun game with them? Ask them for 5 other things specifically mentioned in Leviticus and the punishments for them... I haven't found a single one who can answer...
Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Bakker, among others, established that many old testament laws do not apply to (wealthey and/or influential) Christians. Nor many new testament preachings, either. That woman should never have begun to work in such a den of iniquity.
Oh, give 'em a break, Ed. Their whole movement has been on the wrong side of democracy and liberty since the civil war; this is their last stand, as it were.
Stogoe - You want Ed to give them a break in their arms, legs or necks?
I still am waiting to find the first Christian or Jew who follows God's laws -- and God is specifically quoted -- on mildew and the treatment of infectious diseases. (Leviticus 13-14, if you want to look it up.)
If she is such a good Christian, what was she doing working outside the home? I realize its not in the Bible, but we all know a woman's place is in the home. Whore.
Yesterday I tried going to my local Walmart in a district that went entirely Republican. The parking lot alone was so packed at 5pm that I ended up driving to KMart.
Yeah, their protest is really working..
Do tell, how so?
Jesus put aside the Ten Commandments and put up the Jesus Two in their place: love thy god and love thy neighbor. According to the written accounts of this they're apparently more basic to El Goddo than the law and prophets.
Because if you use New Covenant theology to claim that the OT laws need not be respected, it is hypocritical to then claim that a part of those laws which is carried forward only *implicitly* is so astoundingly important in the original text.
Now, if there were an *explicit* reading of the Ten Commandants in the NT, that would be something else. But there isn't.
It's nuts to be claiming, essentially "we can ignore all those phrases because they're old school, and we replaced everything with new school" and then to turn around and be upset when an old school phrase is ignored.
If you must cherry pick which parts of the book "matter" , at least cherry pick consistently.
My understanding was that specific references were made by Paul (?) relieving Christians of their duty of dietary and clothing requirements. But then Jesus was said to have declared he was not there to change the law ... etc.
Not that I doubt you, I just want to verify it, so as to not use it, and then get stomped.
As I understand it (which understanding I must credit to the patience of a friend of mine who is a theology student) much/most of modern Christianity is actually from Paul, and not directly from the teachings of the OT, or of Jesus in the NT. Jesus did say specifically that he did not come to change the Law -- but Paul came along later and changed it, which apparently is a-okay. I've even heard it quipped that modern Christianity really should be "Paulianity".
While I do not think that my understanding of the involved Covenant theology is flawed, if you would like to learn about it in more detail, you probably need a better source the I am. I only know this stuff because I debate it casually online as a hobby, and I can certainly understand your desire to have a strong and clear basis of understanding before you argue it yourself. I could certainly be wrong about the theological intricacies of it all.
I think the hypocrisy of it though remains, regardless of the theological justifications that could be made. Like I said, cherry picking.
The key for many Christian theologians lies in Jesus' statement, "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets... but to fulfill them." Mt 5:17. They then interpret "fulfillment" as Jesus' existence, where what has been fulfilled includes the ceremonial requirements of the Law.
The question then, is which of the 616 (or so) commands and injunctions in the Penteteuch are ceremonial, and thus perhaps have been superceded, and which are ethical, and (presumably) eternal.
There are certainly those who argue that almost none of the Law remains relevant, and some who argue for virtually all of it. While I'm sure there are many pastors who "cherry pick," I would suggest for most that it is more complex than that. All of the Biblical references to homosexuality can be explained away if one wants (see, for instance, Peter Gomes The Good Book.
I imagine we are also familiar with preachers who hold that ALL of the passages are ethical and still normative.
Wait. Isn't 616 the Number of the Beast as listed in some of the alternate manuscripts of Revelation?
It's 613, not 616. There are commonly accepted to be 613 Commandments in the Pentateuch.
I read recently that the Missouri Baptist Convention had voted to call for a boycott of Wal-Mart because of its (supposed; I didn't check on this) policy of extending benefits to same-sex couples. Between the Fundies boycotting it for recognizing gays and the liberals boycotting it for its abysmal labor practices, Wal-Mart's ass should be grass any day now.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
There are different ways of counting the Laws. You are correct in that Maimonides gave the number as 613, and that has become the (more or less) standard count. Which is why I said "(or so)." Not having the Guide For the Peplexed handy, I consulted my nearest reference, which gave 616 (which has considerable numerological advantages). I think it a bit strong to say there are 613 "commonly accepted" Laws when significant portions of the universe hold to 616 (or 618 if holding the Genesis 4 injuntions to also be normative). Cheers.