Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[East of Eden]

Nonsense, you're confusing the eternal moral law (which doesn't involve shrimp) with the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws. If I was a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point.

If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

The law is the law. There is no difference in Scripture from 'moral' law and 'dietary and ceremonial law'. That is just a later addition to make excuses.

Nonsense, see Galatians. Really, this has been settled in Christianity for 2,000 years. From Acts 10:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.�

14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Sure. let's look at the 'New Testament ones' IN CONTEXT. We must remember, it has to be in context..

First you need to get the context of the ceremonial, dietary and moral laws right.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/homont.html

[Goat]

Nonsense, you're confusing the eternal moral law (which doesn't involve shrimp) with the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws. If I was a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point.

If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

The law is the law. There is no difference in Scripture from 'moral' law and 'dietary and ceremonial law'. That is just a later addition to make excuses.

Nonsense, see Galatians. Really, this has been settled in Christianity for 2,000 years. From Acts 10:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.�

14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Sure. let's look at the 'New Testament ones' IN CONTEXT. We must remember, it has to be in context..

First you need to get the context of the ceremonial, dietary and moral laws right.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/homont.html

And, since when is that in a Jewish Scripture where it matters for Jewish law? Let me restate what I said. In Jewish scripture, there is no division between moral law and dietary and ceremonial law.

And, the scripture you quoted has NOTHING to do with the Sodomy laws that you said you were going to quote. Doing the old switcheroo there? Remember what you said.

You said If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

Now, my statement, in the Jewish scripture, there is no difference between the dietary law and the moral law stands.. that is a later add on.

And, you didn't do anything about presenting the laws about Sodomy in the New Testament.. in context.

[East of Eden]

Nonsense, you're confusing the eternal moral law (which doesn't involve shrimp) with the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws. If I was a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point.

If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

The law is the law. There is no difference in Scripture from 'moral' law and 'dietary and ceremonial law'. That is just a later addition to make excuses.

Nonsense, see Galatians. Really, this has been settled in Christianity for 2,000 years. From Acts 10:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.�

14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Sure. let's look at the 'New Testament ones' IN CONTEXT. We must remember, it has to be in context..

First you need to get the context of the ceremonial, dietary and moral laws right.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/homont.html

And, since when is that in a Jewish Scripture where it matters for Jewish law? Let me restate what I said. In Jewish scripture, there is no division between moral law and dietary and ceremonial law.

Yes, that came in the New Covenant. Again, see Galatians.

And, the scripture you quoted has NOTHING to do with the Sodomy laws that you said you were going to quote.

I didn't say it did.

Doing the old switcheroo there? Remember what you said.

You said If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

Now, my statement, in the Jewish scripture, there is no difference between the dietary law and the moral law stands.. that is a later add on.

And, you didn't do anything about presenting the laws about Sodomy in the New Testament.. in context.

If you're not going to read my link (you know, the one with the NT passages against homosexual behavior you allegedly want to see that I posted), what's the point of having a discussion?

[Goat]

Nonsense, you're confusing the eternal moral law (which doesn't involve shrimp) with the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws. If I was a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point.

If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

The law is the law. There is no difference in Scripture from 'moral' law and 'dietary and ceremonial law'. That is just a later addition to make excuses.

Nonsense, see Galatians. Really, this has been settled in Christianity for 2,000 years. From Acts 10:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.�

14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Sure. let's look at the 'New Testament ones' IN CONTEXT. We must remember, it has to be in context..

First you need to get the context of the ceremonial, dietary and moral laws right.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/homont.html

And, since when is that in a Jewish Scripture where it matters for Jewish law? Let me restate what I said. In Jewish scripture, there is no division between moral law and dietary and ceremonial law.

Yes, that came in the New Covenant. Again, see Galatians.

And, the scripture you quoted has NOTHING to do with the Sodomy laws that you said you were going to quote.

I didn't say it did.

Doing the old switcheroo there? Remember what you said.

You said If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

Now, my statement, in the Jewish scripture, there is no difference between the dietary law and the moral law stands.. that is a later add on.

And, you didn't do anything about presenting the laws about Sodomy in the New Testament.. in context.

If you're not going to read my link (you know, the one with the NT passages against homosexual behavior you allegedly want to see that I posted), what's the point of having a discussion?

\


1) What does Galatians have to do with Jewish scripture?

Care to put a link where you with the NT passages?? I am not going to go through 10 pages of posts to find it.

[East of Eden]

Nonsense, you're confusing the eternal moral law (which doesn't involve shrimp) with the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws. If I was a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point.

If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

The law is the law. There is no difference in Scripture from 'moral' law and 'dietary and ceremonial law'. That is just a later addition to make excuses.

Nonsense, see Galatians. Really, this has been settled in Christianity for 2,000 years. From Acts 10:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.�

14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Sure. let's look at the 'New Testament ones' IN CONTEXT. We must remember, it has to be in context..

First you need to get the context of the ceremonial, dietary and moral laws right.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/homont.html

And, since when is that in a Jewish Scripture where it matters for Jewish law? Let me restate what I said. In Jewish scripture, there is no division between moral law and dietary and ceremonial law.

Yes, that came in the New Covenant. Again, see Galatians.

And, the scripture you quoted has NOTHING to do with the Sodomy laws that you said you were going to quote.

I didn't say it did.

Doing the old switcheroo there? Remember what you said.

You said If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

Now, my statement, in the Jewish scripture, there is no difference between the dietary law and the moral law stands.. that is a later add on.

And, you didn't do anything about presenting the laws about Sodomy in the New Testament.. in context.

If you're not going to read my link (you know, the one with the NT passages against homosexual behavior you allegedly want to see that I posted), what's the point of having a discussion?

\


1) What does Galatians have to do with Jewish scripture?

It properly interprets them in light of the New Covenant.

Care to put a link where you with the NT passages?? I am not going to go through 10 pages of posts to find it.

See post 91, from a half hour ago.

[Goat]

Nonsense, you're confusing the eternal moral law (which doesn't involve shrimp) with the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws. If I was a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point.

If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

The law is the law. There is no difference in Scripture from 'moral' law and 'dietary and ceremonial law'. That is just a later addition to make excuses.

Nonsense, see Galatians. Really, this has been settled in Christianity for 2,000 years. From Acts 10:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.�

14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Sure. let's look at the 'New Testament ones' IN CONTEXT. We must remember, it has to be in context..

First you need to get the context of the ceremonial, dietary and moral laws right.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/homont.html

And, since when is that in a Jewish Scripture where it matters for Jewish law? Let me restate what I said. In Jewish scripture, there is no division between moral law and dietary and ceremonial law.

Yes, that came in the New Covenant. Again, see Galatians.

And, the scripture you quoted has NOTHING to do with the Sodomy laws that you said you were going to quote.

I didn't say it did.

Doing the old switcheroo there? Remember what you said.

You said If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

Now, my statement, in the Jewish scripture, there is no difference between the dietary law and the moral law stands.. that is a later add on.

And, you didn't do anything about presenting the laws about Sodomy in the New Testament.. in context.

If you're not going to read my link (you know, the one with the NT passages against homosexual behavior you allegedly want to see that I posted), what's the point of having a discussion?

\


1) What does Galatians have to do with Jewish scripture?

It properly interprets them in light of the New Covenant.

Well, that is the Christian claim. However, that does not stop the point that in the Jewish scriptures, that distinction is not made. For that matter.. Paul's letter story to make Judaism lite to help convert Gentiles really doesn't make that distinction either.. , nor does the little story from the author of Luke/Acts. That interpretation is read into the scripture, not from the scripture.

Care to put a link where you with the NT passages?? I am not going to go through 10 pages of posts to find it.

See post 91, from a half hour ago.[/quote]

Uh... that post has nothing to do with the laws on Sodomy at all in the NT.

[East of Eden]

Nonsense, you're confusing the eternal moral law (which doesn't involve shrimp) with the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws. If I was a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point.

If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

The law is the law. There is no difference in Scripture from 'moral' law and 'dietary and ceremonial law'. That is just a later addition to make excuses.

Nonsense, see Galatians. Really, this has been settled in Christianity for 2,000 years. From Acts 10:

"About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.�

14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Sure. let's look at the 'New Testament ones' IN CONTEXT. We must remember, it has to be in context..

First you need to get the context of the ceremonial, dietary and moral laws right.

http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/homont.html

And, since when is that in a Jewish Scripture where it matters for Jewish law? Let me restate what I said. In Jewish scripture, there is no division between moral law and dietary and ceremonial law.

Yes, that came in the New Covenant. Again, see Galatians.

And, the scripture you quoted has NOTHING to do with the Sodomy laws that you said you were going to quote.

I didn't say it did.

Doing the old switcheroo there? Remember what you said.

You said If you don't like the Old Testament laws against sodomy, can we use the New Testament ones?

Now, my statement, in the Jewish scripture, there is no difference between the dietary law and the moral law stands.. that is a later add on.

And, you didn't do anything about presenting the laws about Sodomy in the New Testament.. in context.

If you're not going to read my link (you know, the one with the NT passages against homosexual behavior you allegedly want to see that I posted), what's the point of having a discussion?

\


1) What does Galatians have to do with Jewish scripture?

It properly interprets them in light of the New Covenant.

Well, that is the Christian claim. However, that does not stop the point that in the Jewish scriptures, that distinction is not made. For that matter.. Paul's letter story to make Judaism lite to help convert Gentiles really doesn't make that distinction either.. , nor does the little story from the author of Luke/Acts. That interpretation is read into the scripture, not from the scripture.

Care to put a link where you with the NT passages?? I am not going to go through 10 pages of posts to find it.

See post 91, from a half hour ago.

Uh... that post has nothing to do with the laws on Sodomy at all in the NT.[/quote]

What are you talking about? It has 10 NT references against homosexual activity.

[Goat]

What are you talking about? It has 10 NT references against homosexual activity.

Oh..yhou mean wanted me to follow a link, because what yhou had put there did not have anything to do with homosexuality.. it had to do with peter eating.


I didn't follow the link, since what you wrote before hand had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Ok. I looked at that.. and the vast amount of those references say nothing about homosexuality what so ever. For example, the first one deals with marriage and divorce, and says nothing about homosexuality.

Titus says nothing about homosexuality.. and neither does Jude.

Nor do most of the letters from Paul say anything about it. It might use the phrase 'uncleaniess'.. but that says nothing about homosexuality.. You have to be one obsessed person, and read a lot INTO it, rather than reading what it says to assume it does.

That leaves us with Romans....



Now, the one that does.. well.. if you read it in CONTEXT.. the 'inflamed with unnatural lust' and all that sort of stuff was a punishment from God, not a prohibition from God.

[Autodidact]

But if you look at the context of Romans Chapter 1, you will see that Paul has in mind a specific group of people who were characterized by having already consciously rejected God, and who engaged in the pagan idolatrous practices of the day. I don't see that you can characterize this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality unless you ignore this context.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 contains a list of sins which will keep a person from the kingdom of God and homosexual practice is included.
The Bible teaches that any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong and it also makes it plain that marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman.

Really? Where does it do that?

[Autodidact]

First of all the two Biblical citations of the two OP examples of “abominations� in the Bible are not “on the same page� or in the same context at all. (I do appreciate that the OP cited the Bible chapters and verses.)

First, the context of the shellfish example (in Leviticus 11:10-11) is about the “sin offerings� and what is “clean and unclean� of Leviticus 10. The context is therefore redemptive ceremonial law and holiness as a foreshadow to Christ and the Christian life of separation from the world (see Galatians 3:23-25, Hebrews Chapter 9). Christians eat shellfish because the ceremonial law has been fulfilled in the reality of Christ, and so the shadows are to be done away with.

The wording is this: “But in all the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.� The phrases I have bolded indicate the limited nature of this abomination; the shellfish are to be “regarded as� an abomination by the children of Israel (not everyone on earth). God doesn’t view eating shellfish as inherently abominable; He is teaching His people about holiness and loyalty to God by obeying ceremonial ordinances which God lays down for them.

The homosexual example is a completely different context and wording. In Leviticus 18:22 (BTW, not on the “same page� as the OP stated), God (by Moses) is speaking about keeping His judgments which “a man� (any man, not just Israelites) does, he will live by them (Lev. 18:3-5). The context is that all men must keep these moral judgments (in context, against idolatry and sexual immorality) because if they don’t, they will die by them and remain under God’s wrath, as the Canaanites (Lev. 20:22-23).

The wording is this: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.� Nothing about regarding homosexual sex as an abomination; rather homosexual sex is an abomination in the judgment of God.

So the word "you" in the first passage means something completely different from the word "you" in the second passage? And you can clearly see the difference between something prohibited to you and something you are prohibited from doing. They are obviously completely different, because in the one case you shouldn't do it, and in the other it shouldn't be done by you. That's logical.

I will also quote Lev. 18:24 because it shows the universal (as opposed to Israel-specific) context: “Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.�

Another way to look at it is this: All the universal (for all men), unchanging (has not passed away with the coming of Christ—see Matthew 5:17-19) moral law of God is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Idolatry breaks the First Commandment. Sexual immorality breaks the Seventh Commandment. The prohibition against eating shellfish does not fall under the rubric of the Ten Commandments because it is not a moral law; it is a ceremonial ordinance, which passed away with the coming of Christ.

Guess what else isn't in the Ten Commandments: homosexuality. I don't know about you, but when it says, "thou shalt not commit adultery," I think it means that you're prohibited from committing adultery.

Therefore, the OP’s attempt to internally critique the Bible by pulling the same word—abomination—out of their different contexts doesn’t hold water.

By your logic, which isn't.