• 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?

Bob the Unbeliever

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

Citation Needed. How do you know it's far from 'god's' view?

Notebook: you are going to need something other than an ancient Bronze Age Book Of Myth, that is so badly written (by any modern understanding) it's laughable.

No self-respecting Deity would permit such a silly book to be it's Sole Means Of Communication.
 

Earthling

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

Excellent point. Sort of. Most Christians allegedly disapprove of homosexuality for Biblical rather than social reasons. God did say that it was unnatural. (Romans 1:26-27)
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
You keep projecting your anger at religion at me, Bob. .

Straw Man. If you feel anger? It's all you-- me? I'm sitting here, laughing at theistic delusions.

I'm also sad, that so many people are severely harmed by theism in all it's ugliness.

LGBTQ are among those hurt the worst.
God did say it. .

Prove it. Note: you cannot use "scripture" to "prove" it, because that is your CLAIM.

You cannot use your CLAIM to prove your CLAIM.
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.

Scripture? I call horse exhaust. Show me actual words from an actual god?

And you might have a case. The bible is provably not from any god worthy of the title. It contains too many moral failures.

AND THAT IS THE TRUTH, EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES YOU VERY ANGRY.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Citation Needed. How do you know it's far from 'god's' view?

Notebook: you are going to need something other than an ancient Bronze Age Book Of Myth, that is so badly written (by any modern understanding) it's laughable.

No self-respecting Deity would permit such a silly book to be it's Sole Means Of Communication.
Oh. I knew you just wanted to start up another rant. Sorry Bob. Not with me.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Excellent point. Sort of. Most Christians allegedly disapprove of homosexuality for Biblical rather than social reasons. God did say that it was unnatural. (Romans 1:26-27)

Nope. You cannot use your CLAIM to "prove" your CLAIM.

You have 100% failed to show the bible is from ANY deity, let alone yours...
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Most Christians allegedly disapprove of homosexuality for Biblical rather than social reasons.
I was born in 1958.
During my lifetime, most Christians disapproved of interracial marriage.

God did say that it was unnatural. (Romans 1:26-27)
Saul of Tarsus wasn't God.
He never even met God.

Centuries after Paul wrote that Epistle a Roman warlord commissioned the Roman Catholic Church to bring some order to Christianity.
The RCC canonized that epistle. But when you claim that "God did say...", and what you mean is that some dude who never even met Jesus says...
I already know you're wrong. You just are wrong. You will make demonstrably false claims on the internet.
Tom
 

Earthling

David Henson
Straw Man. If you feel anger? It's all you-- me? I'm sitting here, laughing at theistic delusions.

I'm also sad, that so many people are severely harmed by theism in all it's ugliness.

LGBTQ are among those hurt the worst.


Prove it. Note: you cannot use "scripture" to "prove" it, because that is your CLAIM.

You cannot use your CLAIM to prove your CLAIM.


Scripture? I call horse exhaust. Show me actual words from an actual god?

And you might have a case. The bible is provably not from any god worthy of the title. It contains too many moral failures.

AND THAT IS THE TRUTH, EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES YOU VERY ANGRY.

So ridiculous. Why can't I get a Bible critic who makes some sense, knows the Bible and can challenge me?! Instead I get this. Farting flies!

If the Bible is wrong I want to know about it. Your version of truth doesn't make me very angry. Mostly I just shake my head like I do when I see some spoiled brat making a fuss at the grocery store.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
So ridiculous. Why can't I get a Bible critic who makes some sense, knows the Bible and can challenge me?! Instead I get this. Farting flies!.

Such Anger from you. Sad... and kinda funny. You failed to establish the bible is anything BUT an Ancient Bronze Age Book of Myth, written entirely by ... Men.

Until you do that? It's useless as an argument for anything reality-based.

Unless you wish to discuss why the world has so much human-created evil in it? As inspired by the ugly content of the bible? No?

Well... there you go.
If the Bible is wrong I want to know about it. .

Citation Needed: the sum of your posts, appear to say otherwise..
Your version of truth doesn't make me very angry. Mostly I just shake my head like I do when I see some spoiled brat making a fuss at the grocery store.

Such anger. Such vitriol. Such nasty language too. Looks like I struck a nerve...

Oh well. You can lead a person to Knowledge: But you cannot make them think.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I was born in 1958.
During my lifetime, most Christians disapproved of interracial marriage.

Yes. Like I said, you make an excellent point. Christians are like everyone else. Myself included. Idiots who sometimes say really stupid ****.

Saul of Tarsus wasn't God.
He never even met God.

Um. OK. Alright then. What's the point?

Centuries after Paul wrote that Epistle a Roman warlord commissioned the Roman Catholic Church to bring some order to Christianity.
The RCC canonized that epistle. But when you claim that "God did say...", and what you mean is that some dude who never even met Jesus says...
I already know you're wrong. You just are wrong. You will make demonstrably false claims on the internet.
Tom

Here's the thing. The Bible is group of selected selected books from prophets, kings, lawyers, fishermen, disciples and apostles of Jesus among others. They are all inspired (when originally written, not when translated) and they are all harmonious throughout, although there are some spurious passages.

When Paul, an apostle, wrote Romans 1:26-27 it was harmonious with God. Leviticus 18:22 / Leviticus 20:13.

But even if the bible had never mentioned homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia it wouldn't matter because it all falls under fornication.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Such Anger from you. Sad... and kinda funny. You failed to establish the bible is anything BUT an Ancient Bronze Age Book of Myth, written entirely by ... Men.

Until you do that? It's useless as an argument for anything reality-based.

Oh no. Well . . . bye now. Have a nice one. Bye Bye.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
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.

Seriously? Paul doesn't even agree with Paul: that guy you seem to favor says Adam was forgiven, but Eve... not.* The man was a tyrant to women... but all things are lawful for his boys. :( people!

Iesous says that Mary had the right of it when she sat at His feet and learned, while Martha complained that Mary wasn't chained to the stove alongside her... as though ANYTHING matters more than hearing what Iesous is teaching !

KotP can easily say that dark and light can exist in the same place, and both be equally faithful to their respective darkness and lightness fathers... but Iesous' sheep cannot.

People who have never had a relative tell lies about them, don't know what they're talking about, when it comes to the double-edged sword of Iesous... our unbelieving relatives will rat us out for far less than 30 coins... TRUST NO ONE.

____________
* If it's true... that man shall, by the sweat of his brow, earn his food...
 
Last edited:

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
Christians also disapprove of ... Southern Baptists.

:eek: Well... that's another reason I follow only the Kingdom Gospel.

You have 100% failed to show the bible is from ANY deity, let alone yours...

If you weren't born seeking the maker of the trees, the only reason you're here is to (1) promote treeworshipping and (2) foster the anger and dissent you're openly giggling about... which you cannot, at the same time, find obnoxious since you yourself promoted it.

In fact, I might even go so far as to stretch that analogy... and say that the way of the unbelievers appears to be distinctly unpeaceful and hightly subversive... if what I've seen here is a fair representation.

________________________
Wisdom is justified of her children: Blessed are the peacemakers.

Trying to convince a man born blind that one's personal description of the sky is accurate, just can't happen.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.

Of course both homosexual sex and consumption of finless-scaleless fish were both serious breaches of the Laws.

But the Israelites understood that 'Sin' led to 'Sickness' whereas this basic understanding has now been lost. Both actions could lead to serious illness or death back then.

Today with more knowledge it's possible to protect folks against illness and death who like eating scaleless fish or are in Gay relationships.

No problem, if you look at the reasoning behind the OT laws. :)
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Of course both homosexual sex and consumption of finless-scaleless fish were both serious breaches of the Laws.

But the Israelites understood that 'Sin' led to 'Sickness' whereas this basic understanding has now been lost. Both actions could lead to serious illness or death back then.

Today with more knowledge it's possible to protect folks against illness and death who like eating scaleless fish or are in Gay relationships.

No problem, if you look at the reasoning behind the OT laws. :)
How did gay sex lead to serious illness or death back then? HIV didn't exist until the 20th century and there's nothing gays do that straights don't.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
How did gay sex lead to serious illness or death back then? HIV didn't exist until the 20th century and there's nothing gays do that straights don't.
Hi....
Do you think that dangerous STDs didn't exist then?
The OT laws wanted to enable and facilitate the Israelites to grow fast in to a strong, healthy, fit, successful powerful people. Therefore it was ideal for young men to marry a woman and have families in closed relationships to protect from sickness. Men could keep captive-virgins but that was in closed couple relationships as well.

The shellfish laws protected from dreadful sicknesses.

There is not one single OT law in the 507 (excluding the other 106 ceremonial and sacrificial laws) that did not enable or facilitate the Israelites in to becoming the healthiest, safest, most secure, most formidable, most powerful most cohesive people around.

And Sin led to sicknesses and failures, is all........ nothing to do with morals, heaven, hell, spirituality, just a powerful people.
 
Top