Forum | Welcome | Debate Rules | Links | Facebook | Twitter | Donate  
Debating Christianity and Religion
A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)
 
 FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in

Is homosexuality an abomination?
Is eating shrimp an abomination?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17, 18, 19  Next  
Reply to topic    Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Religion and Sexuality
Author Message
anotheratheisthere
First Post
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:33 am  Is homosexuality an abomination? Reply with quote

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.
micatala Offline
Site Supporter
Savant
Avatar

Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Total posts: 8236
Gender: Male

63162.60 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 21: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:31 pm   Reply

scottlittlefield17 wrote:
Here is my position on that as a Christian. God restated many things in the new testament some with even stricter guidelines. Such as when Jesus said that the old law said not to kill but he says not to even hate. There are a few things however that are not restated in the New Testament. One is the clean versus unclean food. In fact both Jesus and Paul said that all foods were clean. Homosexuality however is restated in the Bible several times. One time being in Romans chapter one. Another example that the New Testament does not us to do is worship on Saturday. All the other ten commandments were reinstated but that one.


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.

Remember that a central theme of the NT and Christianity is that the heart is more important than the law. Paul is discussing a group whose hearts have turned against God. Elsewhere in Romans, see chapter 14, Paul discusses how some actions (including those deemed abominations in the OT!) are OK for some believers but not for others, and the distinguishing factor is the state of their hearts or the concsiences. If a person can eat meat with a clear conscience and good faith, then it is Ok for them. If their conscience condemns them, they should not eat it. IN either case, the matter is between the individual believer and God, as long as the person does not act to the detriment of the faith of others.
Back to top
View user's profile   
Jonah Offline
Scholar
Joined: 28 May 2009
Total posts: 324
Gender: Undisclosed

2576.51 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 22: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:37 pm   Reply

Of course, I do not see homosexuality as abomination. Toward that position, I compare intersexuality. I can get no one to state what their position would be.

In my view, an intersexual married to male or female would be just as problematic for the fundamentalist religionist, as a gay marriage. So. I ask if the fundamentalist would also seek to ban marriages between intersexuals and non-intersexuals? If not, why not? Is there is a special cultural aversion to homosexuality rather than something more thoughtful? But if fundamentalists want to seriously move on their bans of gay marriage on moral and theological grounds, wouldn't those same grounds apply to intersexuals?
Back to top
View user's profile   
theophilus40 
Scholar

1657.62 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 23: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:14 pm   Reply

micatala wrote:

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website   
GentleDove Offline
Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Total posts: 234
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Age: 41
Gender: Female

2461.88 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 24: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:29 pm  Re: Is homosexuality an abomination? Reply

Is homosexuality an abomination (equating homosexuality with shellfish eating)

anotheratheisthere wrote:
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.


Last edited by GentleDove on Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:02 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile   
scottlittlefield17 Offline
Emergencies ROCK!!
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Total posts: 488
Location: Maine USA
Age: 22
Gender: Male

3923.64 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 25: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:31 pm   Reply

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! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile   
Goat Offline
Site Supporter
Savant
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Total posts: 23888
Age: 56
Gender: Male

66452.46 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 26: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:58 pm   Reply

Samwise wrote:
micatala wrote:

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.
Back to top
View user's profile   
scottlittlefield17 Offline
Emergencies ROCK!!
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Total posts: 488
Location: Maine USA
Age: 22
Gender: Male

3923.64 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 27: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:02 pm   Reply

What about Revelation 22 where it says the sexually immoral will not enter the Kingdom of heaven. How do you define sexually immoral.
Back to top
View user's profile   
Goat Offline
Site Supporter
Savant
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Total posts: 23888
Age: 56
Gender: Male

66452.46 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 28: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:18 pm   Reply

scottlittlefield17 wrote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile   
Jonah Offline
Scholar
Joined: 28 May 2009
Total posts: 324
Gender: Undisclosed

2576.51 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 29: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:21 pm   Reply

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.
Back to top
View user's profile   
JoeyKnothead Offline
Savant
Avatar

Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Total posts: 13222
Location: God's country, if'n he had one
Age: 0
Gender: Undisclosed

11422.42 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 30: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:26 pm   Reply

From Page 3 Post 24

GentleDove wrote:

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.

GentleDove wrote:

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.

GentleDove wrote:

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.

GentleDove wrote:

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.
Back to top
View user's profile   
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Religion and Sexuality All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 3 of 19
Facebook
Tweet

 






Hymn Lyrics Plus

On The Web | New Kind Church | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter


Lo-Fi Version
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Hosted by Lunarpages.   Produced by Ecodia.
Igloo Theme Release v0.9 Created By: Igloo Inc. and PROX Designs in association with Kazer0 Designs.
Protected by CBACK CrackerTracker
279506 Attacks blocked.