darth_paul at 3:21PM, April 19, 2012

All I'm going to say about this is great job on the research, as I'm big on research myself & I respect that, and as has been said already... Love the sinner, hate the sin!

anonymous at 9:38PM, March 9, 2012

For what it's worth, Christians have a "you can eat whatever you want" excuse from Mark 7:18-19 where Jesus declares all foods "clean" (Peter has a similar vision saying this in Acts 10:9-15). On the other hand, that contradicts Matthew 5:17-19, where Jesus claims that he isn't there to change the old laws, and you can't get away with ignoring the least commandment. To avoid that discussion I go with either the "do not wear clothing woven of two fabrics" (Leviticus 19:19) or the "no tattoos" (Leviticus 19:28) commandments instead of the shellfish one.

Forewarned at 12:09AM, March 7, 2012

We need to get signs with "Leviticus 11:12" on them and confuse the Anti-gays

alschroeder at 5:46AM, Feb. 28, 2012

Why is literate Bible discussion so much more entertaining by a guy in a funny costume cussing constantly? Who knows, but thanks for being Scripturally accurante, Essaybee!

Weshtery at 6:20AM, Feb. 27, 2012

...and now everyone and their dog knows you can bring down Dr Electric with some calamari. Nice going genius. :¬D

maycroft at 11:01PM, Feb. 25, 2012

With great bible-slapping powers comes great responsibilities.

God of War at 10:30AM, Feb. 25, 2012

First of all, respect for having the balls to cover such touchy subject, most people would be afraid to attract certain kind of assholes ready to burn them at stake. Second, if it wasn't X-Pletive, who is a minister so it's expected for him to know such things, this would come out as an author tract. Third, gigantic props for the amount of research you did, as seen on the page and in your comments. I'm honestly impressed.

EssayBee at 7:08AM, Feb. 25, 2012

TBustah--The "out of context" argument comes from the passage's placement. Leviticus kind of has the sins organized into sections (sinful foods, sinful sexual practices, sinful worship practices, etc.), and the part some say pertains to all homosexuals falls in the middle of the sinful worship section and not the sex section. This leads some to conclude that the men lying with men passage refers to worship practices of the time that included such intercourse or else to the use of temple prostitutes. You (and others who have likewise commented) are right about the New Testament making many of the Old Testament laws irrelevant. The point X-Pletive makes about Paul's words is that the Greek words he used don't literally translate into today's modern homosexual (and through the years hasn't always been translated as such either). X-Pletive will touch more on Paul next page, which covers much of what everyone here has already said.

TBustah at 3:22AM, Feb. 25, 2012

I'd say Leviticus is pretty clear, & don't see how it can be taken out of context. There was no qualifier, it just says it's "detestable" or "an abomination". Rom 1:26-27 and 1 Cor 6:9 are also pretty clear. But we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't know what version you're reading anyway. I'm not going to pretend that stuff isn't lost in translation from time to time. As far as shellfish & other eating guidelines of the Old Testament, that stuff was waived in the New, (Colo 2:16-17, Matt 15:11, 1 Tim 4 1-4, & others). If you believe The Bible as a whole, & not just the Old Testament, there really is nothing you can't eat or drink, as long as it is not harmful to the body. At any rate, The Bible also says that God hates the SIN not the SINNER. Christ died for us all. Any way you slice it, WBC & other people like that are off base. Just because a person is living in sin doesn't give you the right to abuse them. It's not right, & it's not showing Christ's love.

jamoecw at 2:11PM, Feb. 24, 2012

a lot of good info on this page (not even counting all the info in the comments), i have to admit that bible lore isn't my strongest subject. with all of the killing god does many see that as a sign that he hates, though i never got that impression. one can kill without hating, just as one can hate without killing.

EssayBee at 5:28AM, Feb. 24, 2012

Mechian--The scene serves a few purposes. In the broadest terms (to avoid spoilers), this is to show that public sentiment isn't always behind the heroes, as it might have seemed from past issues. This story arc will get into the politics of heroes and their place in the world--and Fusion has a lot to learn about this sort of stuff. Plus, by associating herself positively with the Fab Five, Fusion is already losing points with certain groups. That said, I like the concept of a close-knit hero community, and this scene is meant to showcase that as well. Nothing personal happened to inspire this scene (it was written months ago), but a number of my friends and the godfather of my kids are gay, and I get sick of seeing all the political and religious rhetoric thrown against the LGBT community.

Xade at 11:47PM, Feb. 23, 2012

yeah, so many people use that verse out of context it isnt funny.

Mechian at 11:28PM, Feb. 23, 2012

Out of curiosity, if you can with out spoilers. what is the overall purpose of xpletive's sermon? to be more specific. I understand that the in story purpose is xpletive preaching against the idea that God hates gay's. (interestingly enough I was talking to a coworker about this specific page and discovered that a coworker of mine who was gay actually had an experience similar to this. only it was some idiot preacher who was saying that god hates gays and was using this verse the same way that the pedestrian up there tried to.). but from a writers perspective it doesn't seem to contribute to any plot (though for all i know you are just laying the groundwork for something later on). it almost feels as if you (essayBee) are preaching through Xpletive. which is ok but it makes me wonder if something happened personally recently to bring this on or if this is just a general making your readers aware kinda thing.

Tobimaro at 5:03PM, Feb. 23, 2012

5

EssayBee at 6:42AM, Feb. 23, 2012

thermight--That's the ESV's translation of the Greek terms "malakoi" (meaning "soft/effeminate," although "effeminate" had a different connotation back then than it does now) and "arsenokoitai" (which is a word Paul coined and its meaning is open to interpretation, although it has been variously translated to mean prostitute, homosexual, masturbator, etc.). Different translations give different meanings to the words, and because of that there is much ambiguity about intended meanings. However, the closest term at the time for our modern-day "homosexual" was "paiderasste," and that word was never used. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm has a lengthy look at the various translations, although you can argue about the site's objectivity from the fact that "tolerance" is in the site's name.) And X-Pletive will indeed touch on the context of the Corinthians passage next page.

thermight at 5:44AM, Feb. 23, 2012

he is right about Leviticus, but wrong about Paul. The footnotes from the ESV on 1 Cor 6:9 states. "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts". God loves all men, and we are all sinners.

algeya at 9:32PM, Feb. 22, 2012

too many words arrgg, just kidding since half of them are censored

EssayBee at 11:30AM, Feb. 22, 2012

Ozmandious--Unfortunately, I think you're right. I suspect X-Pletive's presence is more intimidating than persuasive.

Ozmandious at 6:45AM, Feb. 22, 2012

The only thing wrong with this page is the idea that you could get a bigot to see reason.

Raptor2213 at 6:12PM, Feb. 21, 2012

P.S. The source for the second reference is here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5298 So while X-pletive's arguement of shellfish may be valid (http://www.ucg.org/booklet/what-does-bible-teach-about-clean-and-unclean-meats/does-new-testament-abolish-meat-distinct/) His argument that it's miss-translated, isn't. On the other hand, if God loves prostitutes and criminals, he can certainly love homosexuals. God does NOT hate 'fags'.

Raptor2213 at 6:10PM, Feb. 21, 2012

So this comic got me inspired to delve into the root of the matter, sparking a bit of research. So I'll fire up the theoretical discussion that I've been having. Turns out that Leviticus says that, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination." Some people (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm) argue that, "Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah" into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."" However, interestingly enough, the word "to'ebah" is also used in the surrounding chapters to refer to Ritual Sacrifice and Beastiality. (I actually looked it up in the original Hebrew).

crazy_goodfellow at 3:21PM, Feb. 21, 2012

This may be the most awesome religious discussion I've read, probably because of all the censored swearing by one of the involved. Who is a super hero.

TuuronTour at 3:03PM, Feb. 21, 2012

Too bad that the (insert black bar here) pal is probably impervious to reason...

Dragonfire10503 at 1:19PM, Feb. 21, 2012

lol

anonymous at 10:15AM, Feb. 21, 2012

Why bother with all that? All you have to do is tell them the truth: religion is the source of all evil. Shuts them up every time.