• 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?

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
How about, because the one who created us found it an abominable challenge to the natural way he created us for. The same as oral or anal sex might be considered, and certainly adultery and bestiality.

If the reason for those things being a sin were that Christians (or the alleged religious origins of them whomever they might allegedly be) objected to them or found them distasteful it wouldn't have been necessary to classify them as sins.

Cause christians define homosexually incorrect and thereby claim homosexuals are the result by their actions.

Straight people perform oral sex probably more than gay people. That, and who is actually gay or straight in the bible?

The homosexuality is a sin is an incorrect statement if going by medical terminology rather than those in the B.C. area where orientation wasnt near the point than ones actions.

The blame is on the action. Either one accepts it and moves on or rehashes it. Just dont know why both parties dont understand each others positions. You guys can call it sin/non sin but what exactly are you guys referring to that is based on the bible and its culture rather than ones generation and cultural and personal bias?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Homosexuality is a sin. Just christians define homosexuality different than how it is descrbed today. So, they view the morality of homosexuality incorrectly.

If christians used the correct definitions, they would not home in on homosexuality (orientation) but distinct and context refers to sexual promiquity of any person performing that said behavior.

If those opposed to christians views of homo. as sinful, probably need to understand they arent calling the orientation a sin (biblial views dont mention it), but the action. If one sees the nature of christians claims, it makes sense.

Dont know much you can argue about the actions. Once its defined on the individual, that is the problem not the sin itself.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

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.

To sum up:

1) Magic
2) Because they believe it's Icky
3) They don't like it--therefore, nobody should be permitted.
4) Because Gaaaaawd*



*(the Family Guy answer)
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I see that you didn't start this thread for answers. You just wanted to rant at Christians without learning any of their basic dogma.

Understood.
Hang on, it seems to me that you have not so far explained why sexual relationships are considered to involve morality, whereas dietary rules are not.

That is the distinction you seem to be relying on in your explanation as to why some things in Leviticus can be ignored by Christians but others apparently not - even though the text makes no distinction.

I can see it seems intuitively reasonable to associate human relationships with a moral dimension, but what is the scriptural authority for making this distinction? Is there one? Or is this a case in which the principle of sola scriptura breaks down?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Hang on, it seems to me that you have not so far explained why sexual relationships are considered to involve morality, whereas dietary rules are not.

That is the distinction you seem to be relying on in your explanation as to why some things in Leviticus can be ignored by Christians but others apparently not - even though the text makes no distinction.

I can see it seems intuitively reasonable to associate human relationships with a moral dimension, but what is the scriptural authority for making this distinction? Is there one? Or is this a case in which the principle of sola scriptura breaks down?
This is not a distinction I have made. It is a distinction the Christians made. I am just explaining what their position is.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
This is not a distinction I have made. It is a distinction the Christians made. I am just explaining what their position is.
OK. I take that to mean that, although you understand this is a distinction Christians make, you do not know on what basis they make it.

So we're not really much further forward.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
OK. I take that to mean that, although you understand this is a distinction Christians make, you do not know on what basis they make it.

So we're not really much further forward.
I believe they make it on the basis they they believe Jesus made all foods clean. These distinctions have also traditionally been explained as matters of conscience - in other words, actions that you don't, or shouldn't, need to be told are wrong and laws individual societies tend to enforce independently from one another. For instance, things like theft, murder and so on are pretty universally prohibited, you don't really need (or shouldn't need) G-d to tell you these things are wrong. Eating prawns, however, is not one of these things.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Cause christians define homosexually incorrect and thereby claim homosexuals are the result by their actions.

Straight people perform oral sex probably more than gay people. That, and who is actually gay or straight in the bible?

The homosexuality is a sin is an incorrect statement if going by medical terminology rather than those in the B.C. area where orientation wasnt near the point than ones actions.

The blame is on the action. Either one accepts it and moves on or rehashes it. Just dont know why both parties dont understand each others positions. You guys can call it sin/non sin but what exactly are you guys referring to that is based on the bible and its culture rather than ones generation and cultural and personal bias?

Well, the Hebrew word sin means to miss the target, or goal, set by someone else. In this case, the creator Jehovah God. The Hebrew word is chat·taʼth′ and the Greek ha·mar·ti′a, both meaning miss. You can sin in words (Psalms 39:1) or in heart, attitude (Proverbs 21:4) deed (Leviticus 20:20) or neglecting to do right (Numbers 9:13)

I don't think that Christians define homosexuality incorrectly, they are supposed to be of the mind to hate the sin and love the sinner. I, for example, am a non-practicing homosexual.

It doesn't matter who performs oral sex more, straight or gay people since both are unnatural use of the God given pleasure in sex.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Well, the Hebrew word sin means to miss the target, or goal, set by someone else. In this case, the creator Jehovah God. The Hebrew word is chat·taʼth′ and the Greek ha·mar·ti′a, both meaning miss. You can sin in words (Psalms 39:1) or in heart, attitude (Proverbs 21:4) deed (Leviticus 20:20) or neglecting to do right (Numbers 9:13)

I don't think that Christians define homosexuality incorrectly, they are supposed to be of the mind to hate the sin and love the sinner. I, for example, am a non-practicing homosexual.

It doesn't matter who performs oral sex more, straight or gay people since both are unnatural use of the God given pleasure in sex.

They do define it wrong. Homosexuality in scripture is an action. Its a form of promisquity among any person who had same-sex sex, raped, killed, and had some form of idolism.

Homosexuality (hetero, bi, etc) are sexual orientations that have no relationship with the peoples behaviors. (Their not force to have sex nor one-type of it)

The problem isnt the differing definitions. Thats just christians seeing the bible culture of the past as acclicable in todays period (which is odd). Its defining other people by sin. Hence why they need a savior.

It isnt the belief. Its false but doesnt hurt anyone. Its the application of those beliefs whether verbal and/or action thats wrong.

They can miss the mark all they want; but, if someone is in front of the dartboard, that doesnt give them right to keep shooting all because it is their belief to finally hit a bulls eye.

Im sure ones devotion is to find balance to christ and people rather than be forced to act against anothers wellbeing because they feel obligated to follow their lord only and not his people as well.
 
Last edited:

Duke_Leto

Active Member
I believe they make it on the basis they they believe Jesus made all foods clean. These distinctions have also traditionally been explained as matters of conscience - in other words, actions that you don't, or shouldn't, need to be told are wrong and laws individual societies tend to enforce independently from one another. For instance, things like theft, murder and so on are pretty universally prohibited, you don't really need (or shouldn't need) G-d to tell you these things are wrong. Eating prawns, however, is not one of these things.

Rival, I think the people you’re arguing against are saying the distinctions you speak of don’t make any sense, not ignoring you. There isn’t a clear delineation between which laws are “moral” and which are “ceremonial”. Homosexuality is clearly not universally prohibited by cultures, nor is it something generally felt to be “wrong” (excepting those coming from Abrahamic backgrounds) yet Christians forbid it, while wearing mixed fabrics, another not-universally-prohibited law, is perfectly acceptable.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I believe they make it on the basis they they believe Jesus made all foods clean. These distinctions have also traditionally been explained as matters of conscience - in other words, actions that you don't, or shouldn't, need to be told are wrong and laws individual societies tend to enforce independently from one another. For instance, things like theft, murder and so on are pretty universally prohibited, you don't really need (or shouldn't need) G-d to tell you these things are wrong. Eating prawns, however, is not one of these things.
That may be so, indeed. But then, what one is really saying is that there is, or was, a tacit cultural understanding that homosexuality is wrong, rather in the way that there would be for murder, than a solid scriptural basis for the prohibition.

Which rather makes Mr Farnsworth's point, it seems to me.
 
Last edited:

Ellen Brown

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.

Must be something bad about it, I guess. It is known that sometimes people who have eaten shrimp for years, suddenly become allergic to them, um permanently. What the?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I think the people you’re arguing against are saying the distinctions you speak of don’t make any sense,
Do you think eating shellfish is a moral issue?

Do you think murder is a moral issue?

There you go.

Proscribing when to celebrate a holiday is not a moral issue.

Sacrificing is not a moral issue.

There are laws covering different subjects. One of these is diet. A diet is not a moral issue.
 

Duke_Leto

Active Member
Do you think eating shellfish is a moral issue?

Do you think murder is a moral issue?

There you go.

Proscribing when to celebrate a holiday is not a moral issue.

Sacrificing is not a moral issue.

There are laws covering different subjects. One of these is diet. A diet is not a moral issue.

The post was about homosexuality; is that a moral issue or a ceremonial issue? The point is that not all Biblical laws correspond to our modern notions of what is “moral” vs what is “ceremonial”. And I don’t think there’s any evidence that the authors of the Torah made much of a distinction either.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The post was about homosexuality; is that a moral issue or a ceremonial issue? The point is that not all Biblical laws correspond to our modern notions of what is “moral” vs what is “ceremonial”. And I don’t think there’s any evidence that the authors of the Torah made much of a distinction either.
How would you make homosexuality a ceremonial issue? How does that make any sense? A ceremony is a well-known concept.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I will explain this, though I am not a Christian, for the 183673928th time.

The Christians basically divide the Torah Law into three categories:

Ceremonial & Other
Moral
Sacrificial

As their belief is that Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices they no longer need sacrifices
They no longer consider the Ceremonial laws and Other laws, i.e., holidays, binding, because they believe they were a foreshadowing of Jesus and everything he did & happened to him.
They consider the moral laws binding, as their Scriptures attest.
Eating shellfish is not a moral issue; it is a dietary law.
Homosexual relationships are a moral issue.

VII. Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles
Keep in mind that morality is not limited to sexual issues.

morality noun [ C/U ]
us /məˈræl·ɪ·t̬i/
a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest:
Source: Cambridge Dictionary
and with this in mind

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
Source: Wikipedia
So . . . .

Homosexuality is a moral issue because _____________________________ .

How about having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) Moral? Why or why not.

How about touching an unclean animal (5:2)? Moral? Why or why not.

How about blasphemy (which is punishable by stoning to death) (24:14) Moral? Why or why not.

How about getting tattoos? (19:28) Moral? Why or why not.

How about mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) Moral? Why or why not.​

So, in as much as you claim "The Christians basically divide the Torah Law into three categories:

Ceremonial & Other
Moral
Sacrificial"
which is about as strained an apologetic as I've seen in some time, what are the qualifying characteristics of a subject under Torah law that makes it moral or not?

X is a moral issue because ____________________________________ .
Y is not a moral issue because _________________________________ .

.


 
Last edited:

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
But how do you differentiate when both are completely arbitrary?
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.
 

Duke_Leto

Active Member
How would you make homosexuality a ceremonial issue? How does that make any sense? A ceremony is a well-known concept.

Assuming you don't know this, Christians use the term "ceremonial" to mean non-moral law; that is, laws like the dietary restrictions, not wearing mixed fabrics, and not sowing mixed seeds.

On the other hand, if you're arguing that homosexuality is a moral issue, how?
 
Top