« The First Youth Podcast | Main | Deep Fried iMac G5 »

The Chicken Story: Re-Posted

May 10, 2006

Originally posted on Dec. 8th, 2004 (I remembered writing this story and decided to look it up and re-post it.)

I think the chicken came first. Once the chicken came into existence, the egg became the primary means to form other chickens from then on. The chicken was created in a specific way with specific purposes, but the chicken's offspring didn't often agree with the destiny of chickens and therefore the chicks decided to stray. They still considered themselves chickens of course, but they decided that they didn't want to cluck or lay eggs. They decided that they would rather moo and produce milk. The original chickens were repulsed at such an idea knowing that chickens were created to lay eggs, but the renegade chickens didn't care. They decided that it was in their genes, and they proclaimed that they were designed to moo and produce milk. The original chickens were called bigots, fundamentals and thought to be closed minded, when all they really wanted to do was set the minds of the poor confused chickens straight. What did it mean to be a chicken? To cluck and lay eggs of course.

The confused renegade chickens just wouldn't hear it! They cried out for their own rights, formed their own support groups, and moved to the stables with the cows where they mooed and attempted to produce milk (even though they couldn't, because they are chickens not cows.) Many confused chickens adopted jugs of milk from cows in order to simulate the destiny they so desperately wanted, to be able to produce milk. Imagine the poor farmers surprise when he went to milk the cows and found a group of chickens mooing and standing next to the borrowed milk that they didn't really produce. What could the farmer conclude? These chickens were very strange indeed and obviously confused about their place in life. Thus, the farmer is left with a decision to make... does he simply allow the confused chickens to hang out with the cows and moo, setting the stage for chickens across the country to do the same, or does he force the chickens to move back in with the others, denying them their rights to moo?

The farmer does what any level headed farmer would do. He takes the chickens and forces them to go back to where they came from. He decided not to allow the confused chickens to act like cows and live in the barn. Now the confused, renegade chickens were angry. They went on strike, refused to lay eggs, and angrily pecked at the farmer�s legs when he was around. They thought they had every right to be cows and that every other animal and the farmer should just accept it. The farmer, however, knew the true place of the chicken and would not allow this foolishness to take place on his farm! Among the chickens, cows, and other animals on the farm there was much rejoicing. The poor renegade chickens continued to moo, and peck at the farmer�s legs to no avail. They lived out the rest of their days with the other chickens, forced to live by rules that they didn't choose, and they remained angry and bitter chickens all the days of their lives.

I was inspired to write this after reading a post today entitled the chicken, the egg, and the homo. I actually liked the post made at Obliquity. I considered it to be thought provoking and creative, however, it inspired me to write a silly little story about chickens from the viewpoint of the conservative, Christian chicken. I didn't come up with this to be mean or to make fun of anyone. Thinking about the chicken and the egg theory in comparison to the current battle between Christians and homosexuals got my creative juices flowing and this weird little story came out of all that.

The relationship between Christianity and Homosexuals right now is a current hot spot in our society and from personal experience I am well aware of both sides of this argument. The religious right stands up and declares homosexuality to be wrong, while the homosexuals and the left believe otherwise and it is a constant battle back and forth. I have been there, done that, and really have little interest in continuing such a battle, other than just reaffirming the position I have come to on the issue. I don't hate homosexuals and I don't spend my time finding new exciting ways to bash them. I don't intently try to harm them, but I will stand strong in my belief in what the Bible declares as truth. If saying that God's word says Homosexuality is a sin makes me a hatemonger, then I guess I am a hatemonger. I don't believe that I am, because really I am not a gay hating individual. If you want to be gay, then be gay. Just don't try to force me to accept it as ok, don't try to force me to believe it is the right thing to do, and don't try to force me to believe that God says it's ok. "What if a homosexual came to your church for a worship service?" I would welcome them, shake their hand, and treat them like everyone else. And yet, I am considered a hatemonger, and a hypocritical Christian because I believe homosexuality to be a sin. Would I be considered a hater if I declared murder to be a sin? Adultery? Pedophilia? Lying? Stealing? Cheating? Am I a hater because the Bible speaks against such things? According to the left I hate adulterers, liars, thieves, cheaters, and child molesters because I call them sinners. When I correct children, telling them they are doing something wrong, I must hate them too. In fact, if someone sins and another person points it out, it must be hate! Of course, since they are pointing out that I'm doing things wrong too then they hate me as well and in this little nasty circle everyone hates everybody. Even God takes an opportunity to point out the faults of humans, would that be hate as well? Folk's, that isn't what hate is. That is not being a biggot or close minded.

I think Christians are simply mis-understood. People don't understand why we have to be haters... It's not about hate. We don't hate homosexual people, at least I don't. I believe the Bible speaks against it, and I think it is a sin, but how does that make me hate homosexuals? It doesn't. I alwasy thought everyone was allowed to have their own opinions and thoughts on things, and yet if a Christian believes homosexuality is wrong they are immediatly branded as haters, and evil hypocrites for expressing that opinion. However, if I were to get on here and say you were a hypocrite for expression your opinion, well it would be another story all together. Just like with everyone else, Christians have the same right to express their opinion or understanding of what they believe the Bible says. It doesn't make them haters, evil, hypicrites, or anything else. I don't hate homosexuals, I just disagree with them. Have we come to the point in life where disagreement is equal to hatred?

Comments

Posted by: Susan L. Prince
December 8, 2004 05:59 PM

I happened across that post as well and had the same kind of thought process as you.

Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. I believe the Word of God is the ONLY TRUTH and that it says homosexuality is a sin, therefore it is sin.

The Word says gluttony is sin. Therefore it is sin.

I will treat the homosexual the way I, a glutton, would want to be treated, in love.

My accountability partner is treating me with love when she is helping me change my eating habits to something more healthy. She is not a hate mongerer because she says I am wrong with what I eat and how much I eat, she is in fact helping me to avoid the pitfall of sin, the bondage of sin.

Posted by: Pressed
December 8, 2004 09:30 PM

I can relate to the gluttony thing, since I too have a problem with that sometimes. I remember onetime I had this huge pile of spaghetti on my plate and one of my good Christian friends pointed out how bad that was, how much spaghetti was there, and just really made me feel guilty about it. At first I was a bit aggrivated, but she did what was right. She pointed out my sin. I didn't imediatly think she hated me, I knew that she didn't. She was just pointing out my flaw and trying to help me correct it. Needless to say, I didn't eat all of that spaghetti.

Posted by: marty
December 10, 2004 03:35 PM

good blog post. I am a christian and an employer who has gay people working for him that I love and respect very much. Do you think Jesus would have rejected someone for being gay? I don't think so and I think anyone who uses scripture to support homosexuality as a sin is being misled. The Bible also says that a woman who does not do what she's is told should be stoned to death. I could go on and on.

Posted by: Jim Shultz
December 14, 2004 12:21 PM

Wouldn't those on the left who say you are wrong for saying what you are saying also be "hating" you. They certainly are not being "open and affirming" of your view. Itsn't that how they define hate?

Posted by: thunder
December 14, 2004 01:16 PM

You make a fine point Jim, a fine point indeed.

Posted by: Christopher
December 14, 2004 04:11 PM

marty said: "...I think anyone who uses scripture to support homosexuality as a sin is being misled."

marty, I think that you missed the point of the post.

Posted by: Nicole
July 10, 2006 08:11 PM

I was really inspired by that story