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

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

There's nothing about gay sex that inherently leads to sickness. I'm certain health had much less to do with it than maintaining strict gender roles, suppressing religious sex rites and encouraging a high birth rate.

I'm not aware of any evidence of the ancient Israelites being the "healthiest, safest, most secure, most formidable, most powerful most cohesive people around". That is total nonsense that flies in the face of history. The Israelites were relative nobodies living in a backwater that was conquered over and over by more powerful neighbors, until they finally got the boot for good by the Romans. Hardly successful, secure, powerful, formidable, safe and probably not very healthy, either. We know they weren't cohesive since there were always various factions of Jews bickering with each other.

 

[oldbadger]

There's nothing about gay sex that inherently leads to sickness. I'm certain health had much less to do with it than maintaining strict gender roles, suppressing religious sex rites and encouraging a high birth rate.

For the people to expand ASAP couples needed kids.
Gay sex wouldn't help much but it would open up closed couples, a condition which would have left the whole nation open to spreading illnesses caused by open relationships.

Any sexual 'sins' mentioned in the OT would have led to weaknesses, illnesses etc amongst the people.

I'm not aware of any evidence of the ancient Israelites being the "healthiest, safest, most secure, most formidable, most powerful most cohesive people around".

They survived and grew for many hundreds of years.
I thgink that they did rather better than the surrounding tribes and nations, yes?

That is total nonsense that flies in the face of history.

That's rather like saying that Alexander the Great, or the Agar Khan were rubbish leaders of stupid nations, 'cos, look, they didn't last...... Nations rise up and fall back, think.

The Israelites were relative nobodies living in a backwater that was conquered over and over by more powerful neighbors, until they finally got the boot for good by the Romans.

Yeah.... The Romans conquered almost everybody but hundreds of years before that the Israelites did rather well.

Hardly successful, secure, powerful, formidable, safe and probably not very healthy, either. We know they weren't cohesive since there were always various factions of Jews bickering with each other.

Like your country and mine today? Sure. Get a group of humans together and they will 'bicker'.

But the 507 laws were the most amazing guide to becoming a stronger, healthier, more cohesive nation of people that have ever seen from ancient times. They were amazing.

Today we could forget a whole bunch of them in these times, one of the biggest reasons being that we have better medical services, another being that we don't need to have massive growth in our populations.

There isn't a law amongst the 507 that didn't help the nation in some way, and I for one hold the Laws of Moses in deep respect for what they accomplished back in their day. After all, I don't suppose too many other nations' written histories survived for us to see today.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

That's cute. But. THAT DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION:

Show me ONE THING that was discovered/invented by faith alone-- in all history?

You cannot do that, because that never happened. Religion is not a valid path to discover reality.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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..

Yet? The vast majority of the world's wars and such? Came from True Believers™ and/or Followers Of the Real Bible©.

This would utterly destroy your silly claim, above... what you have apparently "seen" appears to be entirely imaginary... Just like your god...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Indeed: you just described every single True Believer™ , ever... blind until they put away their delusions (faith).

Because everyone is born without faith in gods-- and they remains so, until someone begins to lie to them.... and the lies are heaped upon more likes until they are True Believers™

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For the people to expand ASAP couples needed kids.
Gay sex wouldn't help much but it would open up closed couples, a condition which would have left the whole nation open to spreading illnesses caused by open relationships.

Any sexual 'sins' mentioned in the OT would have led to weaknesses, illnesses etc amongst the people.


They survived and grew for many hundreds of years.
I thgink that they did rather better than the surrounding tribes and nations, yes?


That's rather like saying that Alexander the Great, or the Agar Khan were rubbish leaders of stupid nations, 'cos, look, they didn't last...... Nations rise up and fall back, think.


Yeah.... The Romans conquered almost everybody but hundreds of years before that the Israelites did rather well.


Like your country and mine today? Sure. Get a group of humans together and they will 'bicker'.

But the 507 laws were the most amazing guide to becoming a stronger, healthier, more cohesive nation of people that have ever seen from ancient times. They were amazing.

Today we could forget a whole bunch of them in these times, one of the biggest reasons being that we have better medical services, another being that we don't need to have massive growth in our populations.

There isn't a law amongst the 507 that didn't help the nation in some way, and I for one hold the Laws of Moses in deep respect for what they accomplished back in their day. After all, I don't suppose too many other nations' written histories survived for us to see today.

Instead of just repeating this utter nonsense, why don't you provide some evidence that those laws had anything to do with health? I already know your claim that the Israelites were the greatest people of antiquity is total crap so we can set that aside. We'll also set aside your rather alarming praise for a set of laws that calls for the death penalty for insulting your parents, among other ridiculous things.

 

[oldbadger]

Instead of just repeating this utter nonsense, why don't you provide some evidence that those laws had anything to do with health?

Instead of repeating this utter nonsense, why don't you have a look through the 507 and discover for yourself just how amazing the OT laws were? Did you know, for instance, that all flat roofs had to have parapets put up around them? Now why do you think that was? And by the way, that is the law where I live now.

I already know your claim that the Israelites were the greatest people of antiquity is total crap so we can set that aside.

Who would you put forward? One of the tribes which they slaughtered?

We'll also set aside your rather alarming praise for a set of laws that calls for the death penalty for insulting your parents, among other ridiculous things.

What other ridiculous things?
Alright then, Let's have a list.

You have to remember that hard laws were needed to survive in hard days. You can't be pretending that I would accept a lot of those laws now, would you? But back then they were right, I expect. All of them.

You should look through the couple of dozen poor laws amongst them, now they could be brought up to date to suit modern times, don't you think? Or do you want to trash those as well?



EDIT: Ahhh........ I've just noticed that you're a Left Hand Pather......... maybe you would have had a different view when you were a strong Christian?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Instead of repeating this utter nonsense, why don't you have a look through the 507 and discover for yourself just how amazing the OT laws were? Did you know, for instance, that all flat roofs had to have parapets put up around them? Now why do you think that was? And by the way, that is the law where I live now.


Who would you put forward? One of the tribes which they slaughtered?


What other ridiculous things?
Alright then, Let's have a list.

You have to remember that hard laws were needed to survive in hard days. You can't be pretending that I would accept a lot of those laws now, would you? But back then they were right, I expect. All of them.

You should look through the couple of dozen poor laws amongst them, now they could be brought up to date to suit modern times, don't you think? Or do you want to trash those as well?



EDIT: Ahhh........ I've just noticed that you're a Left Hand Pather......... maybe you would have had a different view when you were a strong Christian?

I'm not seeing any evidence for your claims. You'll also need to provide evidence that the Israelites actually wiped out any people. The Bible, whether Jewish or Christian, is not history. The Hebrew Bible is the mythology of the Jewish people, written from their tribal perspective. Of course they're going to make themselves out to be a great and special people. All mythologies do the same for their people. It's not objective history.

Since when do you need to kill kids who insult their parents in order to survive? Or kill men who have sex with men?

My religion is irrelevant. I'd be saying the same, regardless.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not seeing any evidence for your claims.

I've been waiting........
Now you think that the OT Laws are 'crap', is that true?
In any event you picked out a severe law or two in order to rubbish the whole.
So let'#s look at how the Laws of the OT could have helped, say, you........ OK?

Out of the 507 I have selected just a few wonderful laws which could benefit the vast % of poorer people today ...... you need to see how these could be adapted to fit our world, but if you can't I reckon others will.

How much these could have benefited you in your time of need, when you were begging for help because your laws didn't help you........

Read....... and learn.....

Ex: {22:22} Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. {22:23} If thou afflict them in any wise..........

Ex: {22:25} If thou lend money to [any of] my people [that is]poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

Ex: 22:26} If thou at all take
thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto
him by that the sun goeth down: {22:27} For that [is] his
covering only, it [is] his raiment for his skin: wherein shall
he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I [am] gracious.

Lev:{19:9} And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. {19:10} And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather
[every] grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the
poor and stranger: I [am] the LORD your God.
{19:11} Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie
one to another.

Deut:{15:7} If there be among you a poor man of one of thy
brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the
LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine
heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
Deut{24:6} No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh [a man’s] life to pledge

Deut: {24:7} If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die;

You'll also need to provide evidence that the Israelites actually wiped out any people. The Bible, whether Jewish or Christian, is not history. The Hebrew Bible is the mythology of the Jewish people, written from their tribal perspective. Of course they're going to make themselves out to be a great and special people. All mythologies do the same for their people. It's not objective history.

What? To convince you? I don't need to bother to convince you of anything..... The proof of the laws is their contents. You cherry pick laws that don't fit today's needs, which is hardly any proof against them 'back then'.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not seeing any evidence for your claims..

I got bored with waiting for replies to that last group of amazing OT laws, so let's look at more poor laws..... laws that today could help disadvantaged folks, like the poor who need a foothold, or widows who need care and support.

You see, they aren't crap laws.......... all 507 were amazing, even though today a small number are inappropriate for modern times.

Deut. 15:7 Basically the rich must help to subsidise the poor!

Deut. 15:11 In fact everybody should pay in to help the needy.... not a charity, a law!

Deut. 24:12 Debtors must be allowed to have their pledged tools back..... so that they can eat, survive and eventually pay back. We have that in the UK today!

Deut. 24:17 Widows should be allowed to have loans pledge free.

Oh dear....... all these amazing laws that you want to rubbish. In fact for every law you find that is in your opinion bad, I can either answer the challenge or provide (hmmmm) six good laws in return.... easy.

Read and learn........

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I got bored with waiting for replies to that last group of amazing OT laws, so let's look at more poor laws..... laws that today could help disadvantaged folks, like the poor who need a foothold, or widows who need care and support.

You see, they aren't crap laws.......... all 507 were amazing, even though today a small number are inappropriate for modern times.

Deut. 15:7 Basically the rich must help to subsidise the poor!

Deut. 15:11 In fact everybody should pay in to help the needy.... not a charity, a law!

Deut. 24:12 Debtors must be allowed to have their pledged tools back..... so that they can eat, survive and eventually pay back. We have that in the UK today!

Deut. 24:17 Widows should be allowed to have loans pledge free.

Oh dear....... all these amazing laws that you want to rubbish. In fact for every law you find that is in your opinion bad, I can either answer the challenge or provide (hmmmm) six good laws in return.... easy.

Read and learn........

You'll die of boredom waiting because I'm not going to join you in agreeing with your unfounded praise for the Mosiac Code. You didn't answer my requests so this conversation is pointless and pretty much over. You're usually better at a discussion than this so I'm disappointed in you.

 

[OtherSheep]

That's cute. But. THAT DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION:

Show me ONE THING that was discovered/invented by faith alone-- in all history?

You cannot do that, because that never happened. Religion is not a valid path to discover reality.

Science seems to be a religion, by your definition. It was probably called philosophy during the Age of Reason. It all started with an idea, which you would almost have to call faith in one's own inspiration... the ah ha moment... which leads to the blood, sweat and tears of proving the "ah ha" theory.

Faith in God is born when the name of the Creator is discovered. But the Creator must first have been sought. It's the same process as that of science, actually.

But the treeworshippers never got away from point A, and so never even realized there was a point B to be found. They seem to have been superficial creatures.

But then, uncreated spacedust vs uncreated spirit isn't much of a choice, either.

 

[OtherSheep]

The vast majority of the world's wars and such?
Came from True Believers™
and/or Followers Of the Real Bible©.

You're confusing "true bible believers™©"(TBB) with their own belief in their own shorthand, aka dogma/canon.
They can't seem to take the time or the trouble to think about what they read, (when it comes to the Bible, although they don't think the same way at all when they read any other books).
So they make up shorthand aka, their "statement of faith"... so they're all on the same page and provide a unified front.
They claim godly inspiration for the whole canon they've come up with (a teeter-totter of in-and-out, both before and after Nicea) and call heretics those who don't believe their dogma/canon, which they are pleased to call "church doctrine".

I promise you, THAT /\ is the cause of wars "in the name of God."
Because Iesous says love your enemies, and pray for them (Matthew 5:44).

Iesous says thou shalt not kill, steal, or covet: don't hate thy neighbor (which TBB will tell you means something other than what they would call it were it done unto them... they redefine the meaning of (1)hate, (2)neighbor and (3)kill, in order to do so... or even reinterpret the Greek Bible itself ).
________________________
Matthew 13:19 "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth not, then cometh the wicked, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side."

Don't judge the followers of Iesous by the doings of the waysiders. Find out for yourself what Iesous said and learn His nature, and then separate the wheat from the tares in your own mind.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Science seems to be a religion, by your definition..

That would be a no. I do not have religion-- not how you mean the word, you see. I'm godless, and faithless too; no religion of any kind.

It's just that the scientific method is demonstrably superior to faith.

Simply because of all the results from science, and zero results from faith.

So there you go.

Faith: 0
Science: All of them

It was probably called philosophy during the Age of Reason. It all started with an idea, which you would almost have to call faith in one's own inspiration... the ah ha moment... which leads to the blood, sweat and tears of proving the "ah ha" theory..

False, once more. You seem confused by the word "faith" and that it has multiple meanings.

Faith in God is born when the name of the Creator is discovered. But the Creator must first have been sought. It's the same process as that of science, actually..

Citation Needed: where is your PROOF. Note-- your ancient Book Of Magic (bible) isn't proof, it's your claim.

But the treeworshippers never got away from point A, and so never even realized there was a point B to be found. They seem to have been superficial creatures..

Non sequitur. Meaningless.

But then, uncreated spacedust vs uncreated spirit isn't much of a choice, either.

I don't know what "uncreated spacedust" refers to. Is that a magic spell from the bible?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You're confusing "true bible believers™©"(TBB) with their own belief in their own shorthand, aka dogma/canon.
They can't seem to take the time or the trouble to think about what they read, (when it comes to the Bible, although they don't think the same way at all when they read any other books).
So they make up shorthand aka, their "statement of faith"... so they're all on the same page and provide a unified front..
They claim godly inspiration for the whole canon they've come up with (a teeter-totter of in-and-out, both before and after Nicea) and call heretics those who don't believe their dogma/canon, which they are pleased to call "church doctrine".

Mirror, Mirror on the wall: Look deep and see yourself in your own comments.

I promise you, THAT /\ is the cause of wars "in the name of God.".

See above.

Because Iesous says love your enemies, and pray for them (Matthew 5:44).

Iesous says thou shalt not kill, steal, or covet: don't hate thy neighbor (which TBB will tell you means something other than what they would call it were it done unto them... they redefine the meaning of (1)hate, (2)neighbor and (3)kill, in order to do so... or even reinterpret the Greek Bible itself ).
________________________
Matthew 13:19 "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth not, then cometh the wicked, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side."

Don't judge the followers of Iesous by the doings of the waysiders. Find out for yourself what Iesous said and learn His nature, and then separate the wheat from the tares in your own mind.

See above. Irony.

 

[oldbadger]

You'll die of boredom waiting because I'm not going to join you in agreeing with your unfounded praise for the Mosiac Code. You didn't answer my requests so this conversation is pointless and pretty much over. You're usually better at a discussion than this so I'm disappointed in you.

You didn't have a chance......... trying to rubbish the 507. Not a chance.

For any one (outdated) law which you thought was nasty I could have shown many that are still amazing even today.

Prejudice cannot stand against substantial evidence such as that.

You demanded proof that the Israelites were successful militarily, when all you have to do is read their history. So much for not answering your questions. That was a cop-out.

 

[oldbadger]

..............The vast majority of the world's wars and such? Came from True Believers™ and/or Followers Of the Real Bible©. ........................

Hi.....
The above was sent to another member.
But the above is not true.
The vast majority of the world's wars came from humans who happened to be convenience believers.

But some of the finest victories were won by True Believers..... like Gandhi. What d'you think?

 

[Augustus]

The vast majority of the world's wars came from humans who happened to be convenience believers.

One study estimated that only around 9% of the wars throughout history were primarily caused by religion.

The number of wars prevented by religion, and the number of wars that would have occurred under alternative belief systems are obviously unknowable.

Clearly, the historical link between religion and violence is often overstated though.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hi.....
The above was sent to another member.
But the above is not true.
The vast majority of the world's wars came from humans who happened to be convenience believers. .

I'm afraid that it is true-- by following the principles of the Genuine Bible™ (as correctly interpreted by their Leaders), they were able to justify the wars they started.

But some of the finest victories were won by True Believers..... like Gandhi. What d'you think?

Sure! There were True Believers™ on both sides.

Of course, citing Gandhi we can point out he never-ever proselytized his religion. Only his pacifism.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm afraid that it is true-- by following the principles of the Genuine Bible™ (as correctly interpreted by their Leaders), they were able to justify the wars they started.


Sure! There were True Believers™ on both sides.

Of course, citing Gandhi we can point out he never-ever proselytized his religion. Only his pacifism.

I don't think that religion can be blamed for all those wars, just humans who hid behind the religious banners. Take away the banners and they simply raise up others, just as happened in the Russian Revolution.

And Gandhi's religious message was indeed peace.

Now Hitler was no religious warrior, true?