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.

[GentleDove]

Is homosexuality an abomination (equating homosexuality with shellfish eating)

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.

I understand the OP’s attempt to make a “reductio ad absurdum� argument against the Biblical position against homosexuality by equating it with eating shellfish—“everyone� knows it's ridiculous to prohibit the eating of shellfish, therefore the Bible’s teachings against homosexuality cannot be rational or true.

However, the OP is misrepresenting Scripture here by equivocation of the word “abomination� taken out of proper Scriptural context. (In addition, to a lesser extent, this OP contains the argument fallacies of “appeal to common practice� and “appeal to ridicule,� but I don’t have the time I’d like to go into it right now, so I won’t address those at this time.)

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.

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.

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.

[scottlittlefield17]

Good Samwise, that is exactly what I was going to say when I got the time to answer. You stole my thunder but hey, at least that means I am not alone!

[Goat]

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.

Not quite.. that is only if you read the passage in isolation, and only if you don't bother looking at the original Greek. The term used in the original Greek has a number of meanings, and homosexuality is not one of them. More accurate translations would be "male prostitutes' , 'boy prostitutes' , pederasts, or even 'soft' (I.e effeminate, which does not have a sexual connotation at all')
If Paul meant to mean homosexuality, he would not have used the term 'malakoi', but he would have used the term paiderasste.

This is an example how people's prejudices can affect translations.

[scottlittlefield17]

What about Revelation 22 where it says the sexually immoral will not enter the Kingdom of heaven. How do you define sexually immoral.

[Goat]

What about Revelation 22 where it says the sexually immoral will not enter the Kingdom of heaven. How do you define sexually immoral.

That is a very vague term isn't it.

It pretty much can mean anything you want it to.. or not. That also changes with the times.

[Jonah]

gentle dove,

Your assertion that the Ten Commandments have primacy as "moral law" is a Christian invention.

Judaism does not elevate the Ten Commandments above Torah in general.

You also invent another legal fiction: "ceremonial law". Such a concept would only exist because Christians want to disassociate themselves from some aspect of Torah.

In Torah, one should take on issues, one by one, by their own characteristics and history.

As for shellfish, no one knows anymore why the prohibition originated.

As for homosexuality, the essence of the prohibition(s) is unclear and debatable....because it was not discussed in depth then in text as we discuss it today. We're not going to be able to solve that, so the proof texting thang is just sport.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 3 Post 24

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.

I think that's a very creative take on the issue. A reasonable reader will surely understand the "you" to mean "ya'll, because I (God) don't like it either". By no means do I wish to tell someone how to practice their religion. I would still contend they shouldn't come up with creative interpretations to dismiss passages they may or may not like.

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.

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.�

Again, I don't seek to have a theological discussion, that is for believers, however I would contend that what a singular God tells one, He tells all. It is my contention, and the various sects and religions bear it out, that folks will accept those parts of a religion they are comfortable with, and reject other parts they disagree with.

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.

I don't doubt that the seventh commandment can be applied to homosexuality, but I would contend it only comes into play when considering the proscriptions against sex outside of marriage. So the seventh commandment is almost a double jeopardy situation, where homosexuals are not allowed to marry, and then considered violating the very law that bars them from becoming otherwise legitimate.

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.

I've come to learn one will read the Bible in their own way. My guiding principle would be the "do unto others" deal, and in practice I would not seek to prevent folks from living according to their conscious. In this regard I would contend no one has a right to condemn the otherwise harmless actions of another, and any violation of the "do unto others" principle would be lower in rank. As GentleDove points out, some laws are more "valid" than others, and it is my contention the "do unto others" principle trumps them all. Which of us is correct? Or more correct? I can't help but think a loving god, that created all humanity, would seek to have all His children live as one family, the family of humanity.

Is homosexuality an abomination? The Bible seems to think so. Is this proscription worth all it has wrought? I hardly think so.

[micatala]

gentle dove,

Your assertion that the Ten Commandments have primacy as "moral law" is a Christian invention.

Judaism does not elevate the Ten Commandments above Torah in general.

You also invent another legal fiction: "ceremonial law". Such a concept would only exist because Christians want to disassociate themselves from some aspect of Torah.

This is a good point. Nowhere in the law are such distinctions made. Repeatedly the text says that the Israelits must obey all of these decrees.

I do not Gentledove's comment about the shelfish and sexual laws being on "different pages." However, we should remember that chapter and verse designations and pages were not part of the original. As I understand, these would have originally been written on long scrolls. The larger point is that ALL of these decrees were originally part of the same law, with no distinctions.




Secondly, I will raise one other point. I accept that it is difficult to get any support for homosexuality out of the Bible. However, I will note that the Bible allows for believers to reach their own conclusions, either individually or as a group, with regards to what is sinful.

One passage is in Acts Chapter 15, where James and the other Apostles decide Gentiles need not follow the Mosaic law, except for those on sexual immorality and a couple of dietary issues. Now, you could say "See, the Apostles say the sexual laws are still in effect!" and this is a valid point.

On the other hand, there is some ambiguity on what "sexual immorality" means.

More importantly, if it is OK for the Apostles to make such a decision and consider it relevant for all Gentile believers, why should Christians today not take the same freedom that the Apostles took? Does the Bible really support the notion that once these original followers died, no other changes in doctrine could be made?

Keep in mind also that later Christians HAVE felt free to change doctrine. Paul said women should be silent in church. What christian churches follow Pauls teaching on this today? Paul said women should not cut their hair. What church holds this as doctrine today?


As a second passage, consider Romans 14 where the specific context is the very dietary and sabbath laws from the OT. Paul allows that each individual believer can decide if and how to follow these laws in their own conscience and in their own direct responsibility to the Lord, as long as they do not act to damage the faith of others. I would note that this issue was quite controversial in their day (as Acts ch. 15 clearly shows), just as homosexuality is today. Paul even refers to these as debatable issues, as I recall. What case can be made that Paul's discussion in Romans 14 should ONLY apply to the specific examples he cites, and not to other examples of disagreements among believers?



Keep in mind that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love each other. I would humbly submit that gay relationships do not inherently run afoul of either of these commandments. Rather, we should consider the biblical comments that seem to be speaking to homosexuality the same way we think of biblical teachings on dietary laws, and the treatment of women and slaves, namely as archaic teaching that reflect the limitations and prejudices of the people at the time of writing instead of an eternal doctrine direct from God.


My view would be to expect nothing more of homosexuals than we do of heterosexuals. If we allow one to marry, the other should be also. If unmarried sex is immoral for one, it is immoral for the other. Equal treatment for both.

[GentleDove]

gentle dove,
Your assertion that the Ten Commandments have primacy as "moral law" is a Christian invention.
Judaism does not elevate the Ten Commandments above Torah in general. You also invent another legal fiction: "ceremonial law". Such a concept would only exist because Christians want to disassociate themselves from some aspect of Torah.

I didn’t state that the Ten Commandments have primacy as moral law; I said they were a summary of God’s moral law. I will take your word for it about Judaism; my understanding is that the Talmud is more important than the Torah in Judaism these days, although I could certainly be wrong.

In any case, the distinction between moral law and ceremonial law might seem to be a Christian invention to you, but from my point of view, the distinction arises from exegesis of the text itself, especially when taking into account what Christians believe to be the further revelation of the New Testament, which clarifies the distinction. That’s why I cited Galatians and Hebrews. (I could have cited others.) In many cases, where to draw that line of distinction is debatable, but the resolution of these debates among Christians depends on studying the context, word usage and meaning, etc.; in other words, I still hold that the Bible is the standard, even as Christians debate what it says and means. I’m not ashamed of the Torah and do not want to disassociate myself from it. As a Christian, I simply see the Torah in light of the Christ and the New Testament, and I attempt to interpret the Torah from that perspective.

In Torah, one should take on issues, one by one, by their own characteristics and history.

Do you mean look at the context of each Biblical law to see how it applies to each issue with its own unique characteristics and history? I certainly agree with that.

Don’t we take on issues using a standard by which to judge the issue’s characteristics and history, its rightness and wrongness, and our course of action in regard to that issue? Isn’t the choice between God’s standard or our own autonomous standard?

As for shellfish, no one knows anymore why the prohibition originated.

Well, I made a claim as to why backed up with Biblical evidence (because the OP set up an internal critique of the Bible). If you disagree with my interpretation, you’re free to bring up your own argument with Biblical evidence. It's true that God doesn't go into His reasons very much.

As for homosexuality, the essence of the prohibition(s) is unclear and debatable....because it was not discussed in depth then in text as we discuss it today. We're not going to be able to solve that, so the proof texting thang is just sport.

What’s unclear about “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.�?

Personally, I think the source of the lack of clarity and the debatability surrounding the moral question of homosexuality is not the text of the Bible, but rather our own human uncomfortable feelings about the condemnation of a sin when we know we are so fallible ourselves and our own human desire to be autonomous and rebel against God’s prohibitions and judgments.

A Christian knows (or at least believes) that God has made provision for salvation from sin in Christ, and that is why Christians are always trying to tell people about Jesus, even though it may irritate people sometimes.

[GentleDove]

From Page 3 Post 24

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.

I think that's a very creative take on the issue. A reasonable reader will surely understand the "you" to mean "ya'll, because I (God) don't like it either". By no means do I wish to tell someone how to practice their religion. I would still contend they shouldn't come up with creative interpretations to dismiss passages they may or may not like.

I think a reasonable reader will read what the Biblical words actually say in context, including the larger context of the whole body of Scripture. It seems to me that adding our own words to the Bible to dismiss passages we may not like is really the “creative interpretation.�

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.
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.�

Again, I don't seek to have a theological discussion, that is for believers, however I would contend that what a singular God tells one, He tells all. It is my contention, and the various sects and religions bear it out, that folks will accept those parts of a religion they are comfortable with, and reject other parts they disagree with.

I don’t think it’s logical to hold that because God is one, that therefore, He sees all human beings as “one� as well, and so whatever He says to one or some people, He in all cases is saying it to all people. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you wrote. I do agree with you that as long as people are judging by an autonomous standard they will “pick and choose� what tenets of a religion they will accept, according to that autonomous standard.

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.

I don't doubt that the seventh commandment can be applied to homosexuality, but I would contend it only comes into play when considering the proscriptions against sex outside of marriage. So the seventh commandment is almost a double jeopardy situation, where homosexuals are not allowed to marry, and then considered violating the very law that bars them from becoming otherwise legitimate.

Within the Christian worldview, God defines marriage and the lawful expression of sex. Homosexuals, of course, are allowed to marry; however, they must marry someone of the opposite sex and remain faithful (in thought and deed) to his or her spouse. If someone does not marry, they must still remain chaste, whether that person has homosexual desires or heterosexual desires. When our desires rule over us, then we will chafe and rebel against God’s laws. When by God’s grace, our will is brought under His, so that we agree with Him about what is right and wrong, His law is sweet as the honeycomb and a light to our path.

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.

I've come to learn one will read the Bible in their own way. My guiding principle would be the "do unto others" deal, and in practice I would not seek to prevent folks from living according to their conscious. In this regard I would contend no one has a right to condemn the otherwise harmless actions of another, and any violation of the "do unto others" principle would be lower in rank. As GentleDove points out, some laws are more "valid" than others, and it is my contention the "do unto others" principle trumps them all. Which of us is correct? Or more correct? I can't help but think a loving god, that created all humanity, would seek to have all His children live as one family, the family of humanity.
Is homosexuality an abomination? The Bible seems to think so. Is this proscription worth all it has wrought? I hardly think so.

The Bible can be read any way—if one ignores the words and contexts and judges the Bible by an outside autonomous standard.
The Bible says “do unto others� is the second greatest commandment and is like unto the first greatest, which is “love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.� The Christian worldview (from the Bible) provides a context and definition for the phrase “do unto others,� that will be removed from that phrase when removed from the Christian worldview, and in a sense, yes, mean anything the adherent to it wants it to mean. So, I personally cannot endorse that phrase outside of the Christian worldview in which it is properly defined and explicated.

In the Christian worldview, God did create all of humanity in His image and put His law in our hearts, but since the fall, because of our sin, we have scattered from Him and so lost our “family� status. Because God is loving, He has provided a Way (Christ) back to Him, so that we can call Him and all who are with Him “family.� That’s the gospel.