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

[oldbadger]

How about most modern cultures?

Ah, but I was proposing that the Old Testament Laws were not only absolutely amazing, and reasonable 'back in the day', and successful back then, but that to my knowledge no group of humans from those times is known to have produced anything like them.

Just for interest, the 'No Shellfish' Law, turned in to an urgent appeal is posted all along our coastline here. And the parapet law is in UK (and European?) Legislation for any folks who might be working on any flat roofs. You couldn't make it up.

If the OT poor laws were brought up to date and adjusted to suit our Banking, Mortgage, Travel, Commerce, Retail, Industrial and Business environs then a massive boost to aid the less well-off would be made.

I'm very impressed with the OT laws even though some are no longer needed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

Homosexuality is when you're a guy and you're sexually attracted to other guys (or a girl attracted to other girls). The Biblical crap is just about maintaining sexist gender norms that oppress females.

 

[1213]

Homosexuality is when you're a guy and you're sexually attracted to other guys (or a girl attracted to other girls). The Biblical crap is just about maintaining sexist gender norms that oppress females.

I think your claim about the Bible is false. But now, if you have correct definition for “homosexuality”, I think it is good to notice that Bible doesn’t speak of homosexuality, it tells that the homosexual act is not good.

 

[Prestor John]

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.

First, the verses concerning the eating of shell fish was directed to ancient Israel only.

Notice all the times the Lord claimed it was an abomination "unto you"?

The "you" in this instance was ancient Israel.

I don't believe the Lord made such a distinction concerning homosexual behavior.

The Lord had lists of clean and unclean meats to teach ancient Israel not to mix with the Gentile nations.

He also did not want ancient Israel mixing fabrics for the same reason.

He did not want ancient Israel to become corrupted by the pagan Gentiles.

Then consider the dream had by Peter, where the Lord instructed him to eat of the unclean beasts, which was His way of telling Peter to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

If the true followers of God were now allowed to mingle with the Gentiles, what need was there from abstaining from the "unclean" meats or mixed fabrics?

Once you start riding without the training wheels, there is no need to put them back on.

The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled many aspects of the Law, but He did not change the laws of chastity and virtue had in the Old Law.

 

[Prestor John]

Homosexuality is when you're a guy and you're sexually attracted to other guys (or a girl attracted to other girls). The Biblical crap is just about maintaining sexist gender norms that oppress females.

No, having a same-sex attraction does not make a person homosexual.

It is acting on that attraction that makes a person a homosexual.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]"
Homosexuality - Wikipedia


homosexual

1.Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

• 1. 1.1 Involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex.
     ‘homosexual desire’

homosexual | Definition of homosexual in English by Oxford Dictionaries

 

[Prestor John]

"Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]"
Homosexuality - Wikipedia


homosexual

1.Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

• 1. 1.1 Involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex.
     ‘homosexual desire’

homosexual | Definition of homosexual in English by Oxford Dictionaries

In terms of God's Word and our Final Judgment, no one commits the sin of homosexuality until they engage in homosexual behavior.

Having an attraction to the same-sex, but never acting on that attraction, is not sexual sin.

Just as a man having an attraction toward a woman, but never acting on that attraction, is not the sexual sins of rape, fornication or adultery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In terms of God's Word and our Final Judgment, no one commits the sin of homosexuality until they engage in homosexual behavior.

Having an attraction to the same-sex, but never acting on that attraction, is not sexual sin.

Just as a man having an attraction toward a woman, but never acting on that attraction, is not the sexual sins of rape, fornication or adultery.

Okay. I wasn't actually talking about "sexual sin." That's your thing. I was merely providing a definition, given that there appeared to be some confusion about what homosexuality is.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I will explain this, though I am not a Christian, for the 183673928th time.


Homosexual relationships are a moral issue.

Actually it is just ritually unclean, not a sin. Menstruation is ritually unclean, but is it a moral issue? Abominations are not sins.

 

[OtherSheep]

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

Today, they'd call Epicurius-believers Scientology.(IMO)

I am glad that you agree with what Standford says, tho; it helps to... er... prove my point.*
____________
* Legal Definition of prove 1 : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of prove a will at probate 2 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of the charges were never proved in court... Definition of PROVE

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Today, they'd call Epicurius-believers Scientology.(IMO)

I am glad that you agree with what Standford says, tho; it helps to... er... prove my point.*
____________
* Legal Definition of prove 1 : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of prove a will at probate 2 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of the charges were never proved in court... Definition of PROVE

You have a point? Are you attempting to insinuate I'm a 'believer'? If so, you'd be wrong about that too.

But I do find it amusing, that you try to denigrate someone by claiming they are a believer (when they are not), as if being a believer was something to laugh at (it is).

Which makes me smile.