• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians, why is homosexuality a sin, but eating shellfish not a sin?

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Rival most certainly did not make up these categories. They appear all across Christian studies, under various titles depending on denomination.
Here is but one example:
Which Laws Apply? by R.C. Sproul
If this is new to you then you aren't nearly as researched on Christian studies, apologetics or otherwise, as you think.

I know that Rival did not make up the categories, but I think that the Christian apologists did make them up arbitrarily. Which is fine if that's what they want to do. But someone claiming to be a biblical literalist who eats shrimp while claiming homosexuality is a sin is not really a biblical literalist. That is the main point of the thread. Perhaps I'm more biased in this way because I grew up around a lot of hard-core Fundamentalists who claimed to take all of the Bible literally, even though simple illustrations like this show that they really don't take it literally.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Rival most certainly did not make up these categories. They appear all across Christian studies, under various titles depending on denomination.
Here is but one example:
Which Laws Apply? by R.C. Sproul
If this is new to you then you aren't nearly as researched on Christian studies, apologetics or otherwise, as you think.
Rival's three categories of the Torah law

Ceremonial & Other
Moral
Sacrificial​


The three uses of the laws as announced by Dr. R.C. Sproul in your linked article.

"The law, in its first use, reveals the character of God, and that’s valuable to any believer at any time. But as the law reveals the character of God, it provides a mirror to reflect to us our unholiness against the ultimate standard of righteousness."

"Second, the law functions as a restraint against sin."

"Third, and most important from Calvin’s perspective, is that the law reveals to us what is pleasing to God."
Gotta say, other than perhaps the second examples from both, the lists are hardly comparable. Although Sproul's explanation gives good reason to consider the mixing fabrics in clothing to be just as immoral as homosexual activity.

.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Rival's three categories of the Torah law

Ceremonial & Other
Moral
Sacrificial​


The three uses of the laws as announced by Dr. R.C. Sproul in your linked article.

"The law, in its first use, reveals the character of God, and that’s valuable to any believer at any time. But as the law reveals the character of God, it provides a mirror to reflect to us our unholiness against the ultimate standard of righteousness."

"Second, the law functions as a restraint against sin."

"Third, and most important from Calvin’s perspective, is that the law reveals to us what is pleasing to God."
Gotta say, other than perhaps the second examples from both, the lists are hardly comparable. Although Sproul's explanation gives good reason to consider the mixing fabrics in clothing to be just as immoral as homosexual activity.

.

Doesn't Torah Law merely apply to the ancient nomadic tribes of Israrel?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Because they're not arbitrary. A festival goes into the category of ceremonial laws, because a festival is a ceremony.

Atonement goes into sacrificial laws because it requires a sacrifice.

Murder goes into Moral Laws because it's a moral issue.

Again, this is how the Christians divide it.

"Don't do this because god said so" vs. "don't do that because god said so" are still both completely arbitrary regardless of how one chooses to categorize them.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ himself judge homosexuality to be a sin?
Nowhere.
That's why homophobic people have to rely on others, none of whom even met Jesus.

I assume that Jesus was a typically homophobic Jewish dude of the 1st century. But there is no way of knowing, based on the Gospels. Paul obviously was, but that isn't the same thing.

Moses doubtless was, as well. But Moses would also have been horrified by the Christian concept of trinitarianism. That totally breaks the 1st Commandment, creating a new god(or two) to worship.
Tom
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
According to Leviticus, engaging in homosexual sex is an "abomination." But, so is eating fish without fins and scales. Leviticus 11:9-12 states:

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

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."

Note that the act of eating fish without fins and scales is called an "abomination" no less than four times in these passages. Clearly, according to the bible, God views eating shellfish as a sin at least as abominable as that of homosexuality, if not more so. So, my question for Christians is, why do you cherry pick the part of the bible that forbids homosexual sex, while entirely ignoring the part that forbids the eating of fish without fins and scales? Why do evangelicals yell in the streets about homosexuality, but not about eating shrimp and lobster? Please explain this.

Keeping the Law for Israel, is required to avoid the scourges of the Egyptians/world. From bottom feeders, you ingest heavy metals, which leads to cancer, and homosexual relationships, lead to AIDS and other diseases.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I know that Rival did not make up the categories, but I think that the Christian apologists did make them up arbitrarily.
That you don't think such distinctions are warranted doesn't make them arbitrary. (There is a difference). The fulfillment and consequent abrogation of the Old (or Mosaic) Covenant is one of the central claims of Christianity. Now, if the Old Covenant is no longer in effect then it necessarily follows that the laws and regulations specifically related to the upkeep and performance of the said covenant are also no longer in effect.

Unlike the rules and regulations related to the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant (given to a specific people at a specific time in history) the moral law remains binding because the New Testament affirms its force. The moral law is universal and was always in and of itself independent of the Mosaic Covenant. In fact, the New Covenant is even stricter in certain areas completely proscribing divorce, remarriage and polygamy, which as Jesus explains were overlooked within the Old Covenant as a temporary concession to a hardened people on God's part.

Thus, the short answer is that you can eat pork because the New Testament makes it clear that the dietary law is not a condition of the New Covenant. But refraining from all forms of sexual immorality is, because sexual morality is explicitly affirmed in the New Testament as binding within the New Covenant.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Something that's missing in this discussion is that, according to the New Testament, God did change the dietary rules:

Acts 10:9-16:

9 About noon the next day, while they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing the meal, a trance came over him. 11 He saw heaven opened and an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and wild birds. 13 Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!” 15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into heaven.

Now... the passage doesn't mention shellfish specifically, but I think it could be reasonably construed to mean that the dietary laws had been completely set aside. Other passsges (e.g. Romans 14:1-14 and 1 Timothy 4:4-5) also imply that the dietary rules no longer apply at all.

Because they're not arbitrary. A festival goes into the category of ceremonial laws, because a festival is a ceremony.

Atonement goes into sacrificial laws because it requires a sacrifice.

Murder goes into Moral Laws because it's a moral issue.

Again, this is how the Christians divide it.
Not completely. There are laws that deal with charity to others - which I hope you would agree is a moral issue - or good conduct that isn't ceremonial or sacrificial that Christians don't consider to be in effect.

Some that come to mind:

- the rule against a farmer reaping the edges of his field. This was a form of charity, since the intent was that destitute people passing by could take some of the crop from the edges of your field to feed themselves.

- the rule that required an employer to pay their workers' wages before the sun set on the day that the work was done. Presumably, this was put in place for moral reasons (i.e. to prevent someone from cheating a worker by getting him to work unpaid for a long period, then refusing to pay the worker what he was owed).

I've never heard of a Christian keeping either of these laws.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Something that's missing in this discussion is that, according to the New Testament, God did change the dietary rules:

Acts 10:9-16:

9 About noon the next day, while they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing the meal, a trance came over him. 11 He saw heaven opened and an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and wild birds. 13 Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!” 15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into heaven.

Now... the passage doesn't mention shellfish specifically, but I think it could be reasonably construed to mean that the dietary laws had been completely set aside. Other passsges (e.g. Romans 14:1-14 and 1 Timothy 4:4-5) also imply that the dietary rules no longer apply at all.


Not completely. There are laws that deal with charity to others - which I hope you would agree is a moral issue - or good conduct that isn't ceremonial or sacrificial that Christians don't consider to be in effect.

Some that come to mind:

- the rule against a farmer reaping the edges of his field. This was a form of charity, since the intent was that destitute people passing by could take some of the crop from the edges of your field to feed themselves.

- the rule that required an employer to pay their workers' wages before the sun set on the day that the work was done. Presumably, this was put in place for moral reasons (i.e. to prevent someone from cheating a worker by getting him to work unpaid for a long period, then refusing to pay the worker what he was owed).

I've never heard of a Christian keeping either of these laws.

Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, has a "vision", which is referenced in Zechariah 13:4 as a shameful vision, by which he, as the personification of Shebna, the "steward" of the "royal household", will "shame your master's house" (Isaiah 22:15-18), and be "cast into a vast country"/Rome, were "there you shall die" Isaiah 22:18. Following Peter, and the unknown author of Acts, is like building a house on a foundation of "sand" (Matthew 7:24-27). "In that day", the day of the LORD, it will "fall" (Isaiah 22:25).

You forget, that the "Gentiles" are represented by the "adulteress" who was bought for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, "for many days", until the "sons of Israel will return" (Hosea 3). They would be the "flock doomed to slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), let by the "staffs", Peter and Paul.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
According to Leviticus, engaging in homosexual sex is an "abomination." But, so is eating fish without fins and scales. Leviticus 11:9-12 states:

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

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."

Note that the act of eating fish without fins and scales is called an "abomination" no less than four times in these passages. Clearly, according to the bible, God views eating shellfish as a sin at least as abominable as that of homosexuality, if not more so. So, my question for Christians is, why do you cherry pick the part of the bible that forbids homosexual sex, while entirely ignoring the part that forbids the eating of fish without fins and scales? Why do evangelicals yell in the streets about homosexuality, but not about eating shrimp and lobster? Please explain this.
According to scripture, Christians are under the law of Christ, not the law of Moses.
However the law of Christ is based on principles which are also found in the law of Moses, so it is those principles in the law of Christ which Christians live by.
Furthermore, there are particular Christian teachings which are also taught in the law of Moses, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, among others, which puts homosexuality among the works of the flesh - Christians are commanded to live not according to the works of the flesh.
There are also scriptures that clearly state that no Christian is under obligation to be circumcised, avoid particular foods, observe particular days, etc. So a Christian can eat any food they choose to, because of understanding the the principle - Romans 14:13-23; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13; 1 Timothy 4:1-5

The Christians are however taught that overeating - gluttony - is a sin. Drinking too much wine - drunkenness - is a sin. Yet, what they eat or drink is not mentioned as sins... That doesn't mean it's okay for Christians to drink Gramoxone. They still use their common sense in making decisions, so they may avoid foods for personal and sensible reasons.

There really is no cherry picking from the scriptures, done by Christians, but I find it is frequently done by skeptics.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
As Christians we normally do not keep kosher dietary laws. As for shellfish I think it is because they are scavengers and eat of the 'bottom', and whatever the fish eat, you eat.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
As Christians we normally do not keep kosher dietary laws. As for shellfish I think it is because they are scavengers and eat of the 'bottom', and whatever the fish eat, you eat.

You don't eat "kocher", because you are a son of the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11:16-17 & 13:4), Peter, who shamed his master's house (Isaiah 22:18), who is a "stumbling block to me" (Matthew 16:23). Eating swine, seems to be a major part of the "Christian" menu. (Isaiah 66:7). Trichinosis, seems to be a part of the "Christian" historical heritage. INCIDENCE OF TRICHINOSIS IN 300 AUTOPSIES AT THE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 1
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Trichinosis, seems to be a part of the "Christian" historical heritage.

If you eat raw or undercooked meats, particularly bear, pork, wild feline (such as a cougar), fox, dog, wolf, horse, seal, or walrus, you are at risk for trichinellosis.
I assume we have a better way of preserving and cooking meats today. Isn't the basic dietary rule, an animal must chew its cud and have split hoof?
 
Last edited:

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
According to Leviticus, engaging in homosexual sex is an "abomination." But, so is eating fish without fins and scales. Leviticus 11:9-12 states:

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

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."

Note that the act of eating fish without fins and scales is called an "abomination" no less than four times in these passages. Clearly, according to the bible, God views eating shellfish as a sin at least as abominable as that of homosexuality, if not more so. So, my question for Christians is, why do you cherry pick the part of the bible that forbids homosexual sex, while entirely ignoring the part that forbids the eating of fish without fins and scales? Why do evangelicals yell in the streets about homosexuality, but not about eating shrimp and lobster? Please explain this.

Food laws basically are for God to instruct ancient Jews what to eat and what not to eat such that , IMHO, to avoid being attacked by plagues and bacteria. They are thus obsolete as informed by the apostle that gentile Christians don't need to follow the ancient Jewish food laws.

Homosexuality is about something else. It's about how God doesn't accept a twist of His design purpose by humans' self sexual desire. They are thus apples and oranges.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
If you eat raw or undercooked meats, particularly bear, pork, wild feline (such as a cougar), fox, dog, wolf, horse, seal, or walrus, you are at risk for trichinellosis.
I assume we have a better way of preserving and cooking meats today. Isn't the basic dietary rule, an animal must chew its cud and have split hoof?

According to the linked autopsie report, a lot of people are eating either improperly cook swine or dog.
 
Top