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

[Saint Frankenstein]

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For any one (outdated) law which you thought was nasty I could have shown many that are still amazing even today.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

Every people had a set of laws. I see no reason to believe that the laws of the ancient Israelites were better in any way. You still have provided evidence that those laws were for health concerns.

Militarily successful when? When they were being conquered over and over? When the Romans destroyed the Temple and kicked them out of Judea?

 

[oldbadger]

Every people had a set of laws. I see no reason to believe that the laws of the ancient Israelites were better in any way. You still have provided evidence that those laws were for health concerns.

Militarily successful when? When they were being conquered over and over? When the Romans destroyed the Temple and kicked them out of Judea?

I thought you went away?

Ok, so let's just stick with health concerns. You must have already realised how amazing the poor laws were because I showed you some.

Now I showed you the law which required all flat roofs to be fitted with parapets. We have that law here today ..... can you guess why? Yes, that's right.... health concerns.

I would guess that at least .... 20per cent of the 507 are directly intended to deter sickness. I have showed you some and if you cannot see that clearly, then I cannot help you. You can lead a horse to water....

And Since you have said that many ancient people had such wonderful laws, it's time for you to show any two from those times.
Good luck with that.

 

[1213]

...Why do evangelicals yell in the streets about homosexuality, but not about eating shrimp and lobster? Please explain this.

In Biblical point of view, eating anything unclean is wrong. But if unclean is cleaned, it is ok. And it could be said that unclean food has been cleaned and therefore acceptable.


I also heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter, kill and eat!' But I said, 'Not so, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered into my mouth.' But a voice answered me the second time out of heaven, 'What God has cleansed, don't you call unclean.'
Acts 11:7-9

But also, in NT, eating blood is not accepted. Also, homosexuality is not accepted. I also think that, if person has right understanding, he knows that homosexuality is not good.

but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.
Acts. 15:20

Personally, I think there is much worse things than eating wrong food, for example these:

Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Gal. 5:19-21

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I thought you went away?

Ok, so let's just stick with health concerns. You must have already realised how amazing the poor laws were because I showed you some.

Now I showed you the law which required all flat roofs to be fitted with parapets. We have that law here today ..... can you guess why? Yes, that's right.... health concerns.

I would guess that at least .... 20per cent of the 507 are directly intended to deter sickness. I have showed you some and if you cannot see that clearly, then I cannot help you. You can lead a horse to water....

And Since you have said that many ancient people had such wonderful laws, it's time for you to show any two from those times.
Good luck with that.

Okay, since you're not going to bother to present evidence or answering my pretty simple requests, I'm done here. I'm done trying with you. Keep on thinking that stoning men who have sex with men to death was a wonderful law that protected health (and not presenting one shred of evidence that that was what it was for). That's too vile for me to bother with.

 

[columbus]

I also think that, if person has right understanding, he knows that homosexuality is not good.

Why do you think this?
There's 7.5 billion horny humans on this planet already. Less new ones is better for the foreseeable future.

Homosex gives people the sexual outlet we are born with the instinct towards, without adding more people. And it doesn't include the violence of war and abortion and other ways of reducing the population.
I don't see any reason to think that homosex is wrong (not good).
So please explain why you think it is.
Tom

 

[OtherSheep]

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.

You seem confused by the word "faith" and that it has multiple meanings.

IMO, faith means trust... like sitting on a chair and presuming it will hold your weight. Only in my opinion, of course. Your opinion would appear to be the same, but you would call it something else... in my opinion. Opinions are all humans EVER have. Today, the possibility exists, that you can prove ANYthing, via the Internet: It's up to you to factualize whatever you WANT to believe.

Your so-called proof is nothing more than some persons' opinion, based on some other people's opinions, eventually based on some archaic mastermind who only earned his reputation by virtue of a bunch of people's trust in his instincts... er, opinions... that is, if he didn't pirate them from someone unknown to the masses in the first place, and only signed his name to them...

If you trust NO one, your ideas are those which came (like Athena, full-grown from the mind of Zeus, in that case) from your OWN instincts, period. Which means you've never been influenced by any other human at any point during your entire existence. Which makes you sort of like Romulus and Remus--raised by wolves. And even they must have taken notice of where mamma-wolf got her food... meaning that even those raised by wolves are not operating on instinct alone.

One could go on all day, writing volumes, all going back to the nature of knowledge and instinct and faith et al. But those books have already been written... and we en masse would have to trust the writers of those books... or reinvent the wheel from scratch... which also cannot be done unless you've the habits and nature of a complete troglodyte... if such a possibility still exists.

But in fact, bob, your philosophy is not Athena-full-grown; you just haven't thought about where your thoughts actually came from, all that much.

 

[OtherSheep]

See above. Irony.

[your current signature block says:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurius (341-270 BC)]

"The philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), an empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, together with the perception of pleasure and pain, are infallible criteria), a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies. Epicurus believed that, on the basis of a radical materialism which dispensed with transcendent entities such as the Platonic Ideas or Forms, he could disprove the possibility of the soul’s survival after death, and hence the prospect of punishment in the afterlife. ..."
Epicurus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Do you agree with Stanford on this definition, Bob?

 

[2ndpillar]

Why do you think this?
There's 7.5 billion horny humans on this planet already. Less new ones is better for the foreseeable future.

Homosex gives people the sexual outlet we are born with the instinct towards, without adding more people. And it doesn't include the violence of war and abortion and other ways of reducing the population.
I don't see any reason to think that homosex is wrong (not good).
So please explain why you think it is.
Tom

If your aim is to reduce the population, just open the gates and let the terrorist bring in a nuclear weapon, or possibly a suit case full of anthrax, or let the narcotics flow more freely. Just let China ship all the Opioids they want. You could kill off maybe 300,000 per year of baby producing young people. That would reduce the present as well as the future populations. Maybe you could make soylent green out of the dead people.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

IMO, faith means trust... like sitting on a chair and presuming it will hold your weight..

Yes-- that is one of many definitions of the word "faith".

But to conflate all meaings and uses of the word into one? That literally changes from sentence to sentence? Or in the case of theists such as yourself, changes meaning within the same sentence? That's being a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

Only in my opinion, of course. Your opinion would appear to be the same, but you would call it something else... in my opinion. .

See above. You are guilty of attempting to conflate the multiple meanings of one word, into all the same-- which is a Logical Fallacy. (I forget the name)

Opinions are all humans EVER have. Today, the possibility exists, that you can prove ANYthing, via the Internet: It's up to you to factualize whatever you WANT to believe..

Only if you miss-use the word "prove".

Moreover? All you'd have to do, to prove all atheists wrong?

Is have your god show up on TV, or at a national convention, or at the NRA or something similar.

No? Refuse to even try?

Yeah...

Your so-called proof is nothing more than some persons' opinion, based on some other people's opinions, eventually based on some archaic mastermind who only earned his reputation by virtue of a bunch of people's trust in his instincts... er, opinions... that is, if he didn't pirate them from someone unknown to the masses in the first place, and only signed his name to them....

Absolutely false: The proof is in the making, as they say.

ALL of modern civilization is based on Discoveries, from the use of the Scientific Method.

NONE of the modern discoveries came from RELIGION/FAITH. None.

That's pretty definitive PROOF, not opinion.

If you trust NO one, .

See? There you go-- conflating on of 'faith's many meanings into ONE FALSE 'meaning'.

Logical Fallacy.

.... your ideas are those which came (like Athena, full-grown from the mind of Zeus, in that case) from your OWN instincts, period. Which means you've never been influenced by any other human at any point during your entire existence. Which makes you sort of like Romulus and Remus--raised by wolves. And even they must have taken notice of where mamma-wolf got her food... meaning that even those raised by wolves are not operating on instinct alone..

Projection. Straw-man. False.

One could go on all day, writing volumes, all going back to the nature of knowledge and instinct and faith et al. But those books have already been written... and we en masse would have to trust the writers of those books... or reinvent the wheel from scratch... which also cannot be done unless you've the habits and nature of a complete troglodyte... if such a possibility still exists..

Straw Man. Again.

But in fact, bob, your philosophy is not Athena-full-grown; you just haven't thought about where your thoughts actually came from, all that much.

Straw Man. Projection. And absolutely false.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

[your current signature block says:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurius (341-270 BC)].

Yes. And so far? NO THEIST-EVER has managed to solve this conundrum.

You don't even try..

"The philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), an empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, together with the perception of pleasure and pain, are infallible criteria), a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies. Epicurus believed that, on the basis of a radical materialism which dispensed with transcendent entities such as the Platonic Ideas or Forms, he could disprove the possibility of the soul’s survival after death, and hence the prospect of punishment in the afterlife. ..."
Epicurus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Do you agree with Stanford on this definition, Bob?

Don't care. Doesn't matter in the LEAST.

YOU CANNOT REFUTE THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, instead you try to damage the messenger, instead of attacking the message.

CLASSIC THEISTIC DODGE.

Also, a Logical Fallacy (again, I forget which one)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

There is a difference. Leviticus 18 gives laws that apply to Gentiles as well, but Leviticus 11 gives laws that apply only to Jews.

In Leviticus 18, we are given a long list of sexual sins, from bestiality to various forms of incest to sodomy. The passage begins by God stating not to do the things that are done in Egypt or Canaan. In verse 24 it says, "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled." IOW Gentiles are going to be punished for doing these things.

That is not true about the laws of eating in Leviticus 11. There is absolutely no indication that these laws are for anyone other than the Children of Israel. So while it may be an abomination to eat lobster, it is only an abomination for Jews.

 

[oldbadger]

Okay, since you're not going to bother to present evidence or answering my pretty simple requests, I'm done here. I'm done trying with you. Keep on thinking that stoning men who have sex with men to death was a wonderful law that protected health (and not presenting one shred of evidence that that was what it was for). That's too vile for me to bother with.

So you couldn't find a single example of any group that had ever made laws as amazing as those OT ones, true?
That was what I asked you for..... and you couldn't do it.

Yep..... we're done here....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So you couldn't find a single example of any group that had ever made laws as amazing as those OT ones, true?
That was what I asked you for..... and you couldn't do it.

Yep..... we're done here....

You haven't bothered to prove that those laws were "amazing" in the first place. You didn't answer any of my questions. That's why we're done. Don't try to project it on me.

 

[Tena]

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.

I am not trying to feed homophobes here. But this is typical first class lack of knowledge some biblical critics have. Just like they use animals as justisification for human morality, because by that logic, eating feces or killing offspring is fine aswell because animals do it?, considering humans judge based on their philosophical morals not what animals are doing, its a classical nature does it so we can aswell argument, not if it makes sense etc. Also homosexuality or sexuality outside of implanting someone who you want to be with is what nature kind of goal is to go for. The abnormal part of sexuality such as homosexuality etc is just side effects to that. What nature wants in general is just to find someone to be with and implant that generation "or atleast nature itself has implanted it on a natural state, mental state is completely different". This is fyi over simplifying it, you should try your best what works, creating good environments i think matters mostly. But you get what i mean?

Either case. Reasons why Christianity as a whole ignore "not eat shellfish". Is because those are jewish laws. The new covenant according to Paul, Jesus is the sacrifice only needed while the old covenant is the covenant for jews which is not what christianity is about. So to translate, jewish laws is not mandatory to Christianity so thats why you dont need to use certain threads, aswell as eating pork is fine.

Sodom and Gomorrah is somehow used in new testament to teach what sexual immorality leads you too "which can be translated to environments in general". But its not like Christians are allowed to murder people (unless you can't reason with them, though peace is prefered but... scapegoat imperfect people who will implement it seems also a thing (this may be what old traditional Christianity " Catholics of western Europe (not sure of orthodoxy since i have not heard of its bad history as Catholic Christianity) or fanatical ones.. i am not sure" may have used as justisification for expansion "... but i am not a scholar but it has its type of uncertainties) i just assume its a moral sin since every sin is supposed to be a battle or something against your inner demons

Well either case, here is source if you want to read it in terms of to back up sources of old and new covenant.
Bible Gateway passage: Jeremiah 31:31-34 - New International Version
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 2:19-21 - New International Version
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 7:6 - New International Version

 

[1213]

Why do you think this?
There's 7.5 billion horny humans on this planet already. Less new ones is better for the foreseeable future.

Homosex gives people the sexual outlet we are born with the instinct towards, without adding more people. And it doesn't include the violence of war and abortion and other ways of reducing the population.
I don't see any reason to think that homosex is wrong (not good).
So please explain why you think it is.
Tom

Firstly, homosexuality is not needed to be nonviolent. Secondly, even if bad thing would prevent another bad thing, it doesn’t make the bad thing good. Thirdly, population growth is not a problem, greed and selfishness are problems. Nothing is enough for people who are greedy and selfish and don’t love others. And finally, homosexuality is not good, because body is not meant for the homosexual act. People should be wise enough to understand the purpose of different body parts.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Firstly, homosexuality is not needed to be nonviolent. Secondly, even if bad thing would prevent another bad thing, it doesn’t make the bad thing good. Thirdly, population growth is not a problem, greed and selfishness are problems. Nothing is enough for people who are greedy and selfish and don’t love others. And finally, homosexuality is not good, because body is not meant for the homosexual act. People should be wise enough to understand the purpose of different body parts.

What "homosexual act"? Anal sex? That's not "homosexual". People of all orientations and genders have anal sex. Why is it singled out between men? Heteros do it and so do lesbians. Straight people used it as form of contraception for centuries. This obsession with anal sex is very strange.

 

[1213]

What "homosexual act"? Anal sex? That's not "homosexual". People of all orientations and genders have anal sex. Why is it singled out between men? Heteros do it and so do lesbians. Straight people used it as form of contraception for centuries. This obsession with anal sex is very strange.

What then is “homosexual”?

I think it is good to understand, Bible speaks of that action and the action is the wrong thing. And I would say it is wrong for everyone, also unreasonable and not wise. If heteros do that, it is as wrong.

 

[Skwim]

What then is “homosexual”?

Evidently you're under the impression that anal sex is what should define "homosexual." It doesn't. Look it up on Google.

I think it is good to understand, Bible speaks of that action and the action is the wrong thing. And I would say it is wrong for everyone,

But when the Bible alludes to anal sex it's only in the context of male homosexual sex. You might want to apply it to heterosexuals as well, but unless you can cite scripture, your opinion: "I would say it is wrong for everyone," is absolutely baseless.

also unreasonable and not wise. If heteros do that, it is as wrong.

So, if heteros do it why is it

Unreasonable?
Not wise?
Wrong?

.​

 

[SkepticThinker]

If your aim is to reduce the population, just open the gates and let the terrorist bring in a nuclear weapon, or possibly a suit case full of anthrax, or let the narcotics flow more freely. Just let China ship all the Opioids they want. You could kill off maybe 300,000 per year of baby producing young people. That would reduce the present as well as the future populations. Maybe you could make soylent green out of the dead people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you couldn't find a single example of any group that had ever made laws as amazing as those OT ones, true?
That was what I asked you for..... and you couldn't do it.

Yep..... we're done here....

How about most modern cultures?