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

[2ndpillar]

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.

According to Acts, written by some unknown author, Peter had a shameful "vision" (Zechariah 13:4), which was used to "deceive". (Isaiah 22:18). The object of the so called vision, was with respect to his interaction with Gentiles (Acts 10:18).

 

[pearl]

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

But what does that have to do with Christianity

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Homosexual relationships are a moral issue.

They aren't really, though. There is nothing objectively wrong with homosexuality.

And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

And in Christ there is neither male nor female, so the gender of the lover is rather irrelevant.

And pork is clean if properly cooked. Any food is unclean if you let it be.

It is certainly the case that there is nothing at all in the teaching of Christ about homosexuality, one way or the other.

Matt 19:12 is the closest we'll probably get, plus John, not Mary M, is the "Beloved Disciple". Take that how you will.

The Catholic church dreamt up a concept (rather bogus, it seems to me) of "Natural Law", which has been used against any sexual practice not open to the possibility of reproduction.

Which is funny since non-humans engage in non-procreative sex all the time.

You just wanted to rant at Christians without learning any of their basic dogma.

How does saying "well, it's what Christians say in their dogma" make it RIGHT?

This clip from the documentary, Spartacus, might help him...

I was thinking of this scene too.

For a religion so against homosexuality (among men in particular), you'd think it'd be less misogynistic. Either women are the preferred partner for men or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.

the contexts suggest something else.

Yeah, gang rape seems to be the common denominator, not homosexuality.

I think that one of the most important lessons you can learn about the Bible is that it's parts were written for the people of a specific time, and that it wasn't written with us specifically in mind.

So God must kowtow to temporary human cultural preferences?

Poor God sounds like a Family Values politician, screaming bloody murder about sexual sins and then getting caught doing it minutes later.

How about, because the one who created us found it an abominable challenge to the natural way he created us for.

He created gays too.

The same as oral or anal sex might be considered

I would argue that's more of a hygiene issue than a moral one.

certainly adultery

Only seems to be wrong in the bible if the woman does it. A man can screw as many hookers and concubines as he wants.

bestiality.

I'm all for avoiding non-consensual relationships. Besides, if the non-human doesn't want it, one would think they'd bite their human lover's head off or something.

you are what you eat, most shellfish sustain themselves on the putrid rot and defecation of dead sea creatures.

If everyone knew what was in their food, they'd starve to death.

Hell, my mom didn't find out the truth about milk and hamburgers until she was almost into adolescence.

Whereas homosexuality is contrary to God's plan and order of reproduction of the species. And it is also un-natural.

Mary proves people can get pregnant without hetero sex and homosexual sex occurs all the time IN NATURE.

I believe they make it on the basis they they believe Jesus made all foods clean.

But if all foods are clean, we don't get to call them unclean, per God. In the one of the ONE good things Paul ever wrote, in Christ there is neither male nor female, which makes ALL gender issues superfluous.

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.

Jesus sinned all the time, even breaking commandments the punishment for which was death. He shouldn't have made it to adulthood given his penchant as a child for dishonoring his parents.

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.

I don't want any kind of sex, but I know better than to seek legislation based on my personal issues with the topic. I shouldn't punish others because of my hang-ups.

Do you think eating shellfish is a moral issue?

The bible did. That's the point. That they changed their minds later is irrelevant. At some point, food and fashion were moral issues.

Do you think murder is a moral issue?

One more complicated than a simplistic "good/bad" label will reveal.

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

If you live in a society where the gods will kill off entire segments of the population for not bowing three times instead of four, yeah, it's a moral issue.

Sacrificing is not a moral issue.

It is if you think God will be really p-sed if you don't.

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

But the genders become irrelevant if God considers all genders equal.

"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.

This would send most of Jesus' ancestors to hell.

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'?"

Is Jesus or Paul wrong when it is said genders are equal? Also, I call shenanigans that Jesus cares so much here for marriage when he clearly doesn't care for it at all in other scenes. Other than complaining that people shouldn't cause their children to sin, he has NOTHING good to say about families, disowns his publicly AND says that loving one's family will ensure they cannot follow Jesus at all.

It reeks of an inserted verse to promote reproduction during marketing lulls in the religion.

In fact, Iesous teaches directly against some of the OT... like genociding your enemy.

LOL. It's the ENTIRE plot of the apocalypse.

The free aren't allowed to decide which of the OT ordinances to follow, nor do we have to

We have a moral imperative to ensure our rules are actually justified. People were ready to kill Jesus over breaking the Sabbath. Jesus had no say in which rules to follow, so why did he choose to break a rule which would result in the death penalty?

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.

I consider considering the bible to be the Word of God idolatry.

Although Sproul's explanation gives good reason to consider the mixing fabrics in clothing to be just as immoral as homosexual activity.

In Genesis, God seems miffed that Adam and Eve attempted to wear clothes PERIOD.

Keeping the Law for Israel, is required to avoid the scourges of the Egyptians/world.

LOL. Egyptians had more rights than just about everyone in the Mediterranean.

From bottom feeders, you ingest heavy metals, which leads to cancer, and homosexual relationships, lead to AIDS and other diseases.

Bottom feeders wouldn't be poisoned with heavy metals had we not dumped heavy metals in the oceans. Homosexual sex doesn't lead to AIDS and other diseases. Contact with bodily fluids does.

But refraining from all forms of sexual immorality is

I just question the NT's ability to differentiate between sexual immorality and sexual morality. The bible is not filled with a love of consenting relationships.

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.

It's also supposed to be a thinly veiled metaphor to convince Peter to evangelize gentiles, which would mean gentiles aren't unclean either.

However, Jesus was here only for Jews per his own statements and had to be guilt-tripped into helping gentile petitioners.

Opening up the dietary/gentile issue was definitely a marketing ploy, akin to the Ferengi realizing they could profit even more by including females. They didn't do it for the morals, just the latinum.

Christians are commanded to live not according to the works of the flesh.

Eating is a work of the flesh and yet Christians do that.

Same as passing on to humans the antibiotics given to the cows.

Eating sick cows would be worse.

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.

Or, you know, they could cook it properly.

They are thus obsolete as informed by the apostle that gentile Christians don't need to follow the ancient Jewish food laws.

Bacteria didn't go away with Jesus, though. Bad meat will still be bad meat. A salad of E coli will still be bad for you. It shows that Jesus and the bible really didn't care about infection, as people all over the world ate "unclean" foods all the time and were fine (relatively).

Ripley: Do we have the capacity to make fire? Most humans have enjoyed that privilege since the stone age.

Aaron: [looking nervous and uneasy] No need to be sarcastic.

It's about how God doesn't accept a twist of His design purpose by humans' self sexual desire.

God made gays, though, in lots of different species. He made organisms that don't even require sex to reproduce. It simply can't be said that God created all things and yet doesn't know how anything works.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

@exchemist

Just thought of something that may answer your question. Christians see food as sacred insofar the meal, such as bread, must be clean (unleavened) bread is what jesus offered to his disciples at his first mass.

So bread/flesh/mana/a sacrifice, etc are sacred.

A person who follows christ becomes sacred. His flesh is saved through jesus passion. So, the mind, spirit, and body are given to god in worship.

When you get married, two souls and flesh come together as one in christ. Like the union between christ and his mass of people/church, so as husband and wife. The purpose is through creation one continues the work of God. If you don't create, there is no reason to be married.

Another reason with cleanses of the body and spirit when one has not sinned, is that the body is a temple of the spirit. So certain rites are an outward sign of an inner conviction of cleaning the body and spirit of sin from christ.

When you have sexual promisquity (not specific to homosexual behavior) you go out of that sacredness of flesh for the lust of the body. It is not used for god but for ones self.

When the bread is not sacred, one cannot offer it to god. It is unclean and to offer something unclean is a sin. Same as the body. The body is owned by god so whatever one does say lust makes the body unclean in front of god. Temples can't be unclean when in the presence of God.

It has to do with the lust/ego of the flesh and person not specific to whether the bread is clean or someone mates with the same sexes.

That's the logic behind why it's immoral and how the deitiary and behavioral rules compare in regards to morals.

In my opinion,

The spirit and flesh would-be one in god. If you are with a person (any person) and your spirit is off so is your flesh. If you mate and your spirit is with god so is your flesh. What's between your legs (whether bread is leavened or unleavened, no pun) shouldn't be an issue as first ones relationship with God. Once you put sex over spirit, it's immoral. It's so contradicting the view that no male nor female is considered when one received love from god. How we partake in love with another as christians is more important than what's between our legs.

 

[nPeace]

Eating is a work of the flesh and yet Christians do that.

Did you just say, people eat with their elbow?
Um, no. Eating is not a work of the flesh. Then again, maybe you are talking about something else other than what I am talking about, so in that case, you may be right.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Did you just say, people eat with their elbow?
Um, no. Eating is not a work of the flesh. Then again, maybe you are talking about something else other than what I am talking about, so in that case, you may be right.

That's not how it works. If you don't put food into your fleshy mouth? You will starve...

One cannot get more flesh-based than eating.

 

[viole]

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.

Everything that happens is nature, is natural, by definition. Deviating from the norm does not entail unnatural. It just entails deviating from the average point of a natural statistical distribution.

So, there cannot be unnatural things, unless we believe that nature has estabilished what is natural and what not, which is absurd, given the indifferent, ateological and amoral character of nature. It is actually a logical fallacy: appeal to nature. The basis of a whole set of evil things, incidentally.

Therefore, the only unnatural things that can possibly exist are necessarily supernatural. And that includes oral sex and homosexuality, apparently.

Good news for Christians, since they can use oral sex and homosexuality as clear evidence that the supernatural exists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Did you just say, people eat with their elbow?
Um, no. Eating is not a work of the flesh. Then again, maybe you are talking about something else other than what I am talking about, so in that case, you may be right.

Well, try to eat withot elbows.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Earthling]

Everything that happens is nature, is natural, by definition. Deviating from the norm does not entail unnatural. It just entails deviating from the average point of a natural statistical distribution.

So, there cannot be unnatural things, unless we believe that nature has estabilished what is natural and what not, which is absurd, given the indifferent, ateological and amoral character of nature. It is actually a logical fallacy: appeal to nature. The basis of a whole set of evil things, incidentally.

Therefore, the only unnatural things that can possibly exist are necessarily supernatural. And that includes oral sex and homosexuality, apparently.

Good news for Christians, since they can use oral sex and homosexuality as clear evidence that the supernatural exists.

Ciao

- viole

That is funny. Now I want you to clearly repeat three times the following phrase to the next adult person that you encounter.

I am sofa king we Todd Ed.

 

[viole]

That is funny. Now I want you to clearly repeat three times the following phrase to the next adult person that you encounter.

I am sofa king we Todd Ed.

And you say to an adult person: life developed independently on earth millions of times because of god. Caveat: that person must be older than eight.

What is your problem? Do you really believe that there are things in nature that are unnatural?

Really?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Earthling]

What is your problem? Do you really believe that there are things in nature that are unnatural?

Really?

I never said that. I said that Christians disprove of homosexuality, anal and oral sex, bestiality, because the creator sees them as unnatural practices. You can take a pine cone and shove it up your *** but that isn't a natural use of the pine cone or your ***.

I don't quite get why that is so difficult to comprehend. Is it because inserting a pine cone anally isn't widely accepted?

 

[viole]

I never said that. I said that Christians disprove of homosexuality, anal and oral sex, bestiality, because the creator sees them as unnatural practices. You can take a pine cone and shove it up your *** but that isn't a natural use of the pine cone or your ***.

I don't quite get why that is so difficult to comprehend. Is it because inserting a pine cone anally isn't widely accepted?

Nature does not care of what is acceptable. Therefore, whatever happens in nature, is natural. By definition.

Remember, we are machines obeying to the laws of nature. So, intentionality to operate that cone tree as a sexual toy, is also some natural process going on in some brains. Possibly.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Earthling]

Nature does not care of what is acceptable. Therefore, whatever happens in nature, is natural. By definition.

Remember, we are machines obeying to the laws of nature. So, intentionality to operate that cone tree as a sexual toy, is also some natural process going on in some brains. Possibly.

I can't accept the fact that you are so obtuse that you don't comprehend what I mean by unnatural use according to the creator. So I assume you are just spinning the subject.

A man, an avid hunter, invents an improved model of a riffle that becomes very popular for killing people in war. Someone invents the baseball bat and is horrified that it is used to beat people. These are examples of things being used in an unnatural way.

It hasn't anything to do with nature.

 

[viole]

I can't accept the fact that you are so obtuse that you don't comprehend what I mean by unnatural use according to the creator. So I assume you are just spinning the subject.

A man, an avid hunter, invents an improved model of a riffle that becomes very popular for killing people in war. Someone invents the baseball bat and is horrified that it is used to beat people. These are examples of things being used in an unnatural way.

It hasn't anything to do with nature.

Well, then replace "unnatural" with "improper" or "unintended", so that we have a clear-cut indication that some intentionality, or design, is assumed.

"Unnatural" is overloaded, and improperly used also by people who do not assume intentionality in the premises. Including some atheists.

Deal?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Augustus]

"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.

It's actually not as straightforward as that. It all depends on the translation of the very unusual term arsenkoitai which may or may not refer to normal homosexual acts.

For example, among other possible interpretations, it might refer specifically to pederasty. This is based on its usage in other texts, although there aren't many to go by.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I never said that. I said that Christians disprove of homosexuality, anal and oral sex, bestiality, because the creator sees them as unnatural practices. You can take a pine cone and shove it up your *** but that isn't a natural use of the pine cone or your ***.

I don't quite get why that is so difficult to comprehend. Is it because inserting a pine cone anally isn't widely accepted?

It's difficult, because so far? NO GOD HAS ACTUALLY SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM.

Oh, sure... people have claimed that, and people have claimed "god sezz or else"...

... but, so far as anyone can prove? No actual god has chimed in on the subject.

1) you have failed to establish the Universe was, in fact, Created
2) you have failed to show that if the universe was created, that your god is the one who did it.
3) you can't even definitively claim that your god is actually against anything...

If it is all THAT? Let God show up and tell us, today.

Using some ancient Bronze Age Book of Superstitious Nonsense? Does not cut it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I can't accept the fact that you are so obtuse that you don't comprehend what I mean by unnatural use according to the creator. So I assume you are just spinning the subject.

A man, an avid hunter, invents an improved model of a riffle that becomes very popular for killing people in war. Someone invents the baseball bat and is horrified that it is used to beat people. These are examples of things being used in an unnatural way.

It hasn't anything to do with nature.

Citation Needed.

Note: Referring to material obviously written by people? Is not a valid case.

 

[columbus]

I said that Christians disprove of homosexuality,

Christians also disapprove of vaccination, interracial marriage, President Trump, and Southern Baptists.
Perhaps this assertion of yours could benefit from some qualifiers.
Tom

 

[nPeace]

That's not how it works. If you don't put food into your fleshy mouth? You will starve...

One cannot get more flesh-based than eating.

Okay. I understand your view. That's far from God's view. Very Far. Like East and West.

Spoiler: works of the flesh

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct, 20 idolatry, spiritism, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, sects, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and things like these. I am forewarning you about these things, the same way I already warned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

Romans 13:13, 14
13 Let us walk decently as in the daytime, not in wild parties and drunkenness, not in immoral intercourse and brazen conduct, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not be planning ahead for the desires of the flesh.

 

[Earthling]

It's difficult, because so far? NO GOD HAS ACTUALLY SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM.

Oh, sure... people have claimed that, and people have claimed "god sezz or else"...

... but, so far as anyone can prove? No actual god has chimed in on the subject.

1) you have failed to establish the Universe was, in fact, Created
2) you have failed to show that if the universe was created, that your god is the one who did it.
3) you can't even definitively claim that your god is actually against anything...

If it is all THAT? Let God show up and tell us, today.

Using some ancient Bronze Age Book of Superstitious Nonsense? Does not cut it.

You keep projecting your anger at religion at me, Bob. God did say it. I'm not even going to give you a scriptural reference, you need to look it up yourself. Forget all the **** you learned in church and look for the truth.