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.

[Goat]

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.

Leviticus have divided up Bible scientists into four groups which are:

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.

Not, 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.

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.

[micatala]

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.

Leviticus have divided up Bible scientists into four groups which are:

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.

[Witch of Hope]

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.

I 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.

[Witch of Hope]

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.

As 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.
I would not overvalue it. But if you look at Leviticus and read through, you notice that this division absolutely makes sense.

[abstractposters]

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.

[Witch of Hope]

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.

And what do you want to tell us with this parable?