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

[Skwim]

That is what I have been saying this whole time.


Because the NT makes it one, and because that is where they placed it.

Boy, I looked all over the NT and didn't find a thing. Care to point it out?

.

 

[Duke_Leto]

That is what I have been saying this whole time.


Because the NT makes it one, and because that is where they placed it.

So we're back to where the thread began -- How can Christians justify condemning homosexuality and not other seemingly arbitrary laws of the Torah?? I don't know what you're trying to do in this thread; you aren't actually arguing for the Christian perspective. You seem to take issue with people, insinuating they're purposefully being obtuse for not understanding the Christian perspective when we understand the Christian perspective perfectly well; we're just attempting to argue against it.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Boy, I looked all over the NT and didn't find a thing. Care to point it out?

.

I'll do it for her.

"For this reason, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Probably the clearest condemnation of homosexuality there.

 

[viole]

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.

Simple. Christians are moral relativists. I am sure they would also find it suboptimal to stone rebellious children to death, today.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So we're back to where the thread began -- How can Christians justify condemning homosexuality and not other seemingly arbitrary laws of the Torah?? I don't know what you're trying to do in this thread; you aren't actually arguing for the Christian perspective. You seem to take issue with people, insinuating they're purposefully being obtuse for not understanding the Christian perspective when we understand the Christian perspective perfectly well; we're just attempting to argue against it.

I get devil's advocacy. Because anyone arguing that shellfish and homosexuality are equitable in most Christian worldviews obviously don't understand the Christian perspective, and are instead trying to force a position on them they do not have, saying that if they dont then they're not being internally consistant. This is not only an eye rolling strawman but misses the more compelling question of 'why is homosexuality a moral issue?' As far as I'm concerned the question given in the OP has already been answered by @Rival.

 

[Duke_Leto]

I get devil's advocacy. Because anyone arguing that shellfish and homosexuality are equitable in most Christian worldviews obviously don't understand the Christian perspective, and are instead trying to force a position on them they do not have, saying that if they dont then they're not being internally consistant. This is not only an eye rolling strawman but misses the more compelling question of 'why is homosexuality a moral issue?' As far as I'm concerned the question given in the OP has already been answered by @Rival.

If they aren't equitable, the question becomes: Why not? Because there's nothing which makes homosexuality intrinsically a moral issue any more than it makes shellfish one.

 

[Audie]

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

Like hey, what is a jot here, or a tittle there?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If they aren't equitable, the question becomes: Why not? Because there's nothing which makes homosexuality intrinsically a moral issue any more than it makes shellfish one.

Whether or not christians agree with us it's a not a moral issue doesnt change that they've categorized it as such though. I don't agree that idolatry is a moral issue but I understand it's a moral issue to Christian's. So I don't bother asking, for example, why they wear mixed textile clothing but don't worship Buddha statues. I already know the answer.
Re: ceremonial and civil and moral laws are different to Christians.

 

[David1967]

"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."

I'm not a Jew.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I get devil's advocacy. Because anyone arguing that shellfish and homosexuality are equitable in most Christian worldviews obviously don't understand the Christian perspective, and are instead trying to force a position on them they do not have, saying that if they dont then they're not being internally consistant. This is not only an eye rolling strawman but misses the more compelling question of 'why is homosexuality a moral issue?' As far as I'm concerned the question given in the OP has already been answered by @Rival.

The answer given by @Rival was that there is somehow a distinction between moral and dietary laws in the OT, and that Christians disregard the OT dietary laws but observe the OT moral laws. However, this is not a valid answer, because there is no distinction between "dietary" and "moral" laws given in the two passages. As @Father Heathen pointed out, the distinction between "dietary" and "moral" laws is completely arbitrary, and is a distinction made up by those who want to use the bible to justify their bigotry against homosexuals. The Bible states that both homosexual sex and the consumption of shellfish are "abominations."

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If they aren't equitable, the question becomes: Why not? Because there's nothing which makes homosexuality intrinsically a moral issue any more than it makes shellfish one.

According to the Bible, they are both equitable and both moral issues. IN fact, since the Biblical passage alluding to shellfish refers to the consumption of shellfish as an abomination four times, I think it's safe to say the Bible considers eating shellfish to be even more offensive to God then engaging in homosexual acts.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Whether or not christians agree with us it's a not a moral issue doesnt change that they've categorized it as such though. I don't agree that idolatry is a moral issue but I understand it's a moral issue to Christian's. So I don't bother asking, for example, why they wear mixed textile clothing but don't worship Buddha statues. I already know the answer.
Re: ceremonial and civil and moral laws are different to Christians.

But Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. So, issues that are considered moral issues by the Bible would be considered to be moral issues by CHristians. So, wearing mixed textlie clothing and worshipping the Buddha would in fact be comparable "sins" against God, since they are both forbidden actions, according to the Bible.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. So, issues that are considered moral issues by the Bible would be considered to be moral issues by CHristians. So, wearing mixed textlie clothing and worshipping the Buddha would in fact be comparable "sins" against God, since they are both forbidden actions, according to the Bible.

Wearing mixed textiles was never considered a moral conduct law. Disobeying any law, ceremonial, sacrificial or conduct laws would be a sin but, as already pointed out, Christian's believe ceremonial and sacrificial laws were part of the pre messianic covenant fulfilled by the death of Jesus (obviously this is not true if Jewish people who have different reasons why sacrificial laws cannot be currently practiced.)

 

[Skwim]

I'll do it for her.

"For this reason, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Probably the clearest condemnation of homosexuality there.

No, the issue is whether or not the New Testament states that homosexuality is a moral issue. It does not. So, while one could well conclude it is, without qualifying guidelines one could also conclude that touching an unclean animal, and blasphemy, and getting tattoos, and mixing fabrics in clothing are moral issues. Rival contends that according to Christians the various laws enunciated in Leviticus fall into three categories, yet he neither shows evidence for this, nor any basis for their sorting. As I asked

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

And so far, silence.

My suspicion is that Rival concocted the three categories simply to justify the inclusion and exclusion of the various Leviticus laws into those one must pay attention to and those one can ignore. As I said, it's about as strained an apologetic as I've seen in some time.

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No, the issue is whether or not the New Testament states that homosexuality is a moral issue. It does not. So, while one could well conclude it is, without qualifying guidelines one could also conclude that touching an unclean animal, and blasphemy, and getting tattoos, and mixing fabrics in clothing are moral issues. Rival contends that according to Christians the various laws enunciated in Leviticus fall into three categories, yet he neither shows evidence for this, nor any basis for their sorting. As I asked

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

And so far, silence.

My suspicion is that Rival concocted the three categories simply to justify the inclusion and exclusion of the various Leviticus laws into those one must pay attention to and those one can ignore. As I said, it's about as strained an apologetic as I've seen in some time.

.

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.

 

[OtherSheep]

According to Leviticus, engaging in homosexual sex is an "abomination." But, so is eating fish without fins and scales.

Matt.19:4-5 And He answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read, that He which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh'?"

But where does Iesous say anything at all about shellfish?
The only food law Iesous teaches is not to eat that which is sacrificed to idols (Revelation).

Iesous says that His word never passes away... so that whatever He quotes from the OT will never pass away. In fact, Iesous teaches directly against some of the OT... like genociding your enemy.
Mixing what Iesous says with what was written to those who refused to hear God at the burning mountain, but instead wanted Moses, is a fatal mistake.

The free aren't allowed to decide which of the OT ordinances to follow, nor do we have to... since Iesous tells us that the Law and the Prophets are contained in two commandments [the genocide-em-all-law doesn't pass that test]. Iesous says to learn what "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" means. And since Iesous fulfilled the sacrificial law, mercy is all that remains to us: Love your neighbor as yourself. And to do that, you first have to love God with everything you are.

 

[Jollybear]

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.

Im sure some christians dont eat shell fish and lobster or pork.

In fact, i dont eat those things. If i go to a christmas party, like today, and its part of the menu, i may have it then, but its not part of my regular diet. I certainly dont go out of my way to eat that stuff.

Chicken, beef and sardines and eggs, tunna i think are healthier options.

However, mind you, shell fish today is more cleaner then would shell fish back in old testement time periods. That needs to be taken into account to.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Whether or not christians agree with us it's a not a moral issue doesnt change that they've categorized it as such though. I don't agree that idolatry is a moral issue but I understand it's a moral issue to Christian's. So I don't bother asking, for example, why they wear mixed textile clothing but don't worship Buddha statues. I already know the answer.
Re: ceremonial and civil and moral laws are different to Christians.

Idolatry has ramifications beyond the Mosaic laws. If the Torah were wiped from history, while Christianity somehow remained, Christians still wouldn’t practice idolatry, in the same way they wouldn’t go around murdering people.

The question is the basis Christians have for categorically separating homosexuality and mixed clothing. *What* exactly makes the former a moral issue and the latter not?

 

[Duke_Leto]

Im sure some christians dont eat shell fish and lobster or pork.

In fact, i dont eat those things. If i go to a christmas party, like today, and its part of the menu, i may have it then, but its not part of my regular diet. I certainly dont go out of my way to eat that stuff.

Chicken, beef and sardines and eggs, tunna i think are healthier options.

However, mind you, shell fish today is more cleaner then would shell fish back in old testement time periods. That needs to be taken into account to.

This is all irrelevant.

 

[Jollybear]

This is all irrelevant.

Why?

Also, why do you have a bunch of hands comming out of your head? Do you watch alot of horror movies?