Is homosexuality an abomination?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

anotheratheisthere
Banned
Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:00 am
Location: New York

Is homosexuality an abomination?

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #2

Post by Furrowed Brow »

This is difficult....I had a friend.....we got drunk.......my guard was down.......things took an unexpected turn :oops: ......we ate lobster......just one claw......sometime I still eat scampi....they sell it in Tescos.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #3

Post by micatala »

Forget shrimp.

Give me a bucket of steamed clams and a tub of melted butter.



I will note that OP does not seem to have a question for debate, although I guess we can take the title as such.

My own view, as a Christian, is that the various books of the Bible should usually be considered with respect to the audience to which they were first addressed. The Mosaic Law was given to the ancient Israelites. The purposes and content of the law reflect their view of God and other aspects of their culture.

The NT basically allows that we who are Gentiles are under no obligation to follow the Mosaic Law. In fact, Acts Chapter 15 records the early church leaders making a decision to exempt Gentiles from all of the Mosaic law except . .
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
So, shrimp is OK, but lay off the blood pudding.

Now, a counter argument could be made that this would still include the sexual laws of which bans on "man lying with man" are a part. However, if the sexual laws are equated with these two food laws, most people today, even Christians, wouldn't find these any more reasonable than the seafood laws.

In addition, I would make the case that if the Apostles are free to make such a judgment for the Christians under their leadership, we can take this as a precedent for us today that we have the same freedom.

Most Christians voluntarily belong to a given church or denomination. They decide whether they will follow the teachings of that leadership, or if they will change churches or denominations or simply follow CHristianity "under their own authority." Thus, I do not see that Christians in general (and certainly many of us do not) need to consider homosexaulity as an "abomination."
" . . . 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

anotheratheisthere
Banned
Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:00 am
Location: New York

Post #4

Post by anotheratheisthere »

micatala wrote:Forget shrimp.

Give me a bucket of steamed clams and a tub of melted butter.



I will note that OP does not seem to have a question for debate, although I guess we can take the title as such.

My own view, as a Christian, is that the various books of the Bible should usually be considered with respect to the audience to which they were first addressed. The Mosaic Law was given to the ancient Israelites. The purposes and content of the law reflect their view of God and other aspects of their culture.

The NT basically allows that we who are Gentiles are under no obligation to follow the Mosaic Law. In fact, Acts Chapter 15 records the early church leaders making a decision to exempt Gentiles from all of the Mosaic law except . .
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
So, shrimp is OK, but lay off the blood pudding.

Now, a counter argument could be made that this would still include the sexual laws of which bans on "man lying with man" are a part. However, if the sexual laws are equated with these two food laws, most people today, even Christians, wouldn't find these any more reasonable than the seafood laws.

In addition, I would make the case that if the Apostles are free to make such a judgment for the Christians under their leadership, we can take this as a precedent for us today that we have the same freedom.

Most Christians voluntarily belong to a given church or denomination. They decide whether they will follow the teachings of that leadership, or if they will change churches or denominations or simply follow CHristianity "under their own authority." Thus, I do not see that Christians in general (and certainly many of us do not) need to consider homosexaulity as an "abomination."

Well put.

My original post is meant to indicate that all those who use Leviticus as evidence of God bing against homosexuality are patented hypocrits who deliberately cherrypick Bible passages, deliberately ignore passages on THE SAME PAGE which use the exact same language, and deliberately twist the word of God to fit their agenda.

Jonah
Scholar
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 12:32 pm

Post #5

Post by Jonah »

What is an abomination is denominations spending 30 years to tear themselves to mother fricking shreds, one fiber at a time over homosexuality. They were cannibalizing each other in the mainline denominations in the 80s and they ain't done yet.

Please. When is the cell going to divide? They've been threatening-promising to split in the Episcopal and ELCA churches FOREVER. Just SPLIT already.

Look up Lewis Black's take on this on youtube.

The only reason why the OT wrote anything down on sex is because the ancient Hebrews were f#%& out of control....dudes were bringing camels into the village and saying "I'm in love."

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #6

Post by micatala »

Moderator Intervention
Jonah wrote:What is an abomination is denominations spending 30 years to tear themselves to mother fricking shreds, one fiber at a time over homosexuality. They were cannibalizing each other in the mainline denominations in the 80s and they ain't done yet.

Please. When is the cell going to divide? They've been threatening-promising to split in the Episcopal and ELCA churches FOREVER. Just SPLIT already.

Look up Lewis Black's take on this on youtube.

The only reason why the OT wrote anything down on sex is because the ancient Hebrews were f#%& out of control....dudes were bringing camels into the village and saying "I'm in love."
The moderators have taken the position that even euphemistic swearing is against the rules. Please avoid this in the future.
" . . . 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

User avatar
Scotracer
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Post #7

Post by Scotracer »

Furrowed Brow wrote:This is difficult....I had a friend.....we got drunk.......my guard was down.......things took an unexpected turn :oops: ......we ate lobster......just one claw......sometime I still eat scampi....they sell it in Tescos.
You bought a lobster from Tesco? Well I have never been so offended in all my days.

I'd like to reference the Bishop of Oxford's views on homosexuality:



I feel that as a very progressive religion Christianity can survive the next 100 years. If they stay strong on the literal interpretation and fundementalist approach I think it has had its day...almost.
Why Evolution is True
Universe from nothing

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
- Christopher Hitchens

Jonah
Scholar
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 12:32 pm

Post #8

Post by Jonah »

Swearing is Jewish.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #9

Post by Cathar1950 »

Jonah wrote:Swearing is Jewish.
So you being Jewish makes it alright to swear?
What is this one-liner suppose to mean?
Did you know that one-lines are not allowed unless they are somehow actually relavant and have a point?
So please explain how swearing is Jewish.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #10

Post by Cathar1950 »

Scotracer wrote:
Furrowed Brow wrote:This is difficult....I had a friend.....we got drunk.......my guard was down.......things took an unexpected turn :oops: ......we ate lobster......just one claw......sometime I still eat scampi....they sell it in Tescos.
You bought a lobster from Tesco? Well I have never been so offended in all my days.

I'd like to reference the Bishop of Oxford's views on homosexuality:



I feel that as a very progressive religion Christianity can survive the next 100 years. If they stay strong on the literal interpretation and fundementalist approach I think it has had its day...almost.
A reactionary Christianity has been growing in influence and wealth since the 19th century. I suspect much of it has to do with the spread of our corporate market culture.
You would hope the world would out grow such notions. I suspect the authoritarian and slave roots are not that easily forgotten. If Christianity is going to have anything to say except reactionary subjugation it will need to become more sympathetic and relational and actually meeting human needs here instead of projecting some reinterpreted ancient cults views of God. Are Lord and Master really good models for God today; do they really speak to our struggles and responsibilities?

Post Reply