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.
Is homosexuality an abomination?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Banned
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:00 am
- Location: New York
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Is homosexuality an abomination?
Post #181Not, according to the Jewish faith. One of the laws is one of the laws is one of the laws. That way of separating the Laws up is just not relevant to the Jewish faith.Witch of Hope wrote:Leviticus have divided up Bible scientists into four groups which are:Goat wrote: The Jewish faith dies not separate the law into 'ceremonial , dietary and moral'. The law is the law. splitting that up seems to be a Christian 'innovation' to try to excuse while some restrictions are followed, and others aren't.
Moral laws, such as the 10 commandments
Civil laws which should regulate the living together
Health laws (e.g. about leprosy)
Ceremonial laws, such as all victim laws/sacrefice laws (sorry, I don't know which English word is correct)
The chapter 18 to 20 is part obviously of the ceremonial laws, they concerned the purity/holyness of the temple anyway. The textual context turns into it considerably as well from the word "To'ebah" which was translated in the KJV as "abomination". No good translation by the way. Better got for this Polynesian word "taboo" be correct there.
I will agree that Toevah is not a good translation. Taboo isn't either. I would more call it 'ritualistically unclean'. Someone who was 'ritutalsitically unclean' could not enter the temple until they purified themselves in the Mikvah.. (basically it is a bath where the source of water is 'natural' , such as a spring, or rain water).
A woman that is menstruating is 'toveah' .. until she purifies herself by immersion into the bath. The Mikvah is extremely important to the Orthodox Jews, somewhat important to the Conservative, and the Reform and Reconstructionist Jews view it as anachronistic.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Re: Is homosexuality an abomination?
Post #182Witch of Hope wrote:Leviticus have divided up Bible scientists into four groups which are:Goat wrote: The Jewish faith dies not separate the law into 'ceremonial , dietary and moral'. The law is the law. splitting that up seems to be a Christian 'innovation' to try to excuse while some restrictions are followed, and others aren't.
Moral laws, such as the 10 commandments
Civil laws which should regulate the living together
Health laws (e.g. about leprosy)
Ceremonial laws, such as all victim laws/sacrefice laws (sorry, I don't know which English word is correct)
The chapter 18 to 20 is part obviously of the ceremonial laws, they concerned the purity/holyness of the temple anyway. The textual context turns into it considerably as well from the word "To'ebah" which was translated in the KJV as "abomination". No good translation by the way. Better got for this Polynesian word "taboo" be correct there.
I certainly accept you or anyone else could create their own classification of these laws.
What I have not seen is any evidence within the text or from ancient Jewish sources that show such divisions.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Re: Is homosexuality an abomination?
Post #183I agree with you. So, a Jew take a Mikvah, and was then clean to enter the temple. This has nothing to do with a homosexual love relation, it was only about Jews who visit a Pagan temple and has homosexual sex there, as I understood Leviticus 18 and 20.Goat wrote:
I will agree that Toevah is not a good translation. Taboo isn't either. I would more call it 'ritualistically unclean'. Someone who was 'ritutalsitically unclean' could not enter the temple until they purified themselves in the Mikvah.. (basically it is a bath where the source of water is 'natural' , such as a spring, or rain water).
A woman that is menstruating is 'toveah' .. until she purifies herself by immersion into the bath. The Mikvah is extremely important to the Orthodox Jews, somewhat important to the Conservative, and the Reform and Reconstructionist Jews view it as anachronistic.
Re: Is homosexuality an abomination?
Post #184As I already wrote, it was not Jewish but Christian scientists who subdivided Leviticus so. It was also some German. Might do, sometimes people need drawers into which they can divide something up and, be how known. This law is part of filing A, that rule to filing B.micatala wrote: I certainly accept you or anyone else could create their own classification of these laws.
What I have not seen is any evidence within the text or from ancient Jewish sources that show such divisions.
I would not overvalue it. But if you look at Leviticus and read through, you notice that this division absolutely makes sense.
-
- Student
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:14 am
- Location: Granby, Connecticut
Jumble Foolishness and Blessed Love
Post #185Imagine a jeweler who had developed to such an extent his knowledge of precious stones that his whole life was in this distinction between genuine and false, mingled together, and having equal delight in both---he would shudder inwardly at seeing the absolute distinction resolved; but in case he beheld the child's happiness, its delight in the game, he perhaps would humble himself under it and be absorbed in this "shuddering" sight.
Re: Jumble Foolishness and Blessed Love
Post #186And what do you want to tell us with this parable?abstractposters wrote: Imagine a jeweler who had developed to such an extent his knowledge of precious stones that his whole life was in this distinction between genuine and false, mingled together, and having equal delight in both---he would shudder inwardly at seeing the absolute distinction resolved; but in case he beheld the child's happiness, its delight in the game, he perhaps would humble himself under it and be absorbed in this "shuddering" sight.