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.

[micatala]

You are either deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws with the unchanging moral law. See Galatians. Context is everything.

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.

I would have to agree. I have not found anywhere in the Bible, OT or NT, any explicit mention of the division of the law into ceremonial, dietary, moral, or any other divisions.


Yes, there are some mentions of Jesus differing with some OT teachings, includint that having to do with food. He also differs with the OT teaching on marriage and divorce.

Still, those statements don't add up to a systematic reclassification of the law.



Also, it is worth pointing out what Jesus is quoted as saying on these matters with what is written in Acts.

In Acts, ch. 10 I believe, Peter receives a vision of all kinds of animials, clean and unclean, coming down from heaven. A voice says "rise Peter, kill and eat." Peter objects that he has never eaten anything unclean, but after three repetitions, Peter decides perhaps he needs to rethink this.


One has to ask, why is Peter not even contemplating the eating of unclean animals at a time which is some months, perhaps years, after Jesus' teachings on this matter? Why would one of the 2 or 3 closest disciples of Jesus not be aware of a teaching Jesus gave almost surely in his presence as recorded in Mark? Why would he need this vision to conclude that it is OK to eat unclean things?



Note that later in Acts, chapter 15, James the brother of Jesus and the other disciplies, after much debate, conclude Gentiles need only follow a handful of the 600 plus rules of the law. Again, if Jesus had already exempted his audience from many of these laws, why the necessity of this conclave?

Why is there NO mention of the comments Jesus made along these lines evident in the book of Acts?

[Witch of Hope]

Pastor Mel White, a gay pastor from the MCC and founder of soulforce, a non violent group of LGBT Christians, wrote in his pamphlet "What the bible says, and doesn't say - about homosexuality", this about abomination and Leviticus. I quote:

What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, “abominations� (TO’EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive.
To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God.
Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality. (...)
Now what do the Leviticus passages say about homosexuality? I’m convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here’s why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation:
“He spilled his seed on the ground... And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also� (Genesis 38:9-10).
For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control).
Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?
Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man’s sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.
The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk “wasting� even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. (p.13,14)

If you would like to read the whole pamphlet, take a look at here:
http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf

[JohnPaul]

Pastor Mel White, a gay pastor from the MCC and founder of soulforce, a non violent group of LGBT Christians, wrote in his pamphlet "What the bible says, and doesn't say - about homosexuality", this about abomination and Leviticus. I quote:

What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, “abominations� (TO’EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive.
To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God.
Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality. (...)
Now what do the Leviticus passages say about homosexuality? I’m convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here’s why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation:
“He spilled his seed on the ground... And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also� (Genesis 38:9-10).
For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control).
Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?
Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man’s sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.
The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk “wasting� even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. (p.13,14)

If you would like to read the whole pamphlet, take a look at here:
http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf

Oh, of course the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. It merely prescribes the death penalty for it. You can obfuscate all you want about the exact meaning of "abomination," but I think we all know what "put to death" means.

[Witch of Hope]

Oh, of course the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. It merely prescribes the death penalty for it. You can obfuscate all you want about the exact meaning of "abomination," but I think we all know what "put to death" means.

There was the death penalty in ancient Israel for much which represents no problem today:

wear of mixed fibers
Tatoo
disobidience against the parents
Worshipping other gods
Ban on eating shrimps

etc.

The question is anyway why all this was threatened with the death penalty?
For me it looks that fear. is the key Fear which should impede the people act against the rules of the Jewish priests..
Why did these priests build these rules?
Fear of loosing power?
Fear of it, that Jews mix with heathens, accept their traditions?
Did they want to protect the Judaism?
Everything would be possible!
The Mosaic law only does not apply to Christians any more. That is also not the death penalty for homosexuals.Or would you allow somebody to kill homosexuals?

[JohnPaul]

Oh, of course the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. It merely prescribes the death penalty for it. You can obfuscate all you want about the exact meaning of "abomination," but I think we all know what "put to death" means.

There was the death penalty in ancient Israel for much which represents no problem today:

wear of mixed fibers
Tatoo
disobidience against the parents
Worshipping other gods
Ban on eating shrimps

etc.

The question is anyway why all this was threatened with the death penalty?
For me it looks that fear. is the key Fear which should impede the people act against the rules of the Jewish priests..
Why did these priests build these rules?
Fear of loosing power?
Fear of it, that Jews mix with heathens, accept their traditions?
Did they want to protect the Judaism?
Everything would be possible!
The Mosaic law only does not apply to Christians any more. That is also not the death penalty for homosexuals.Or would you allow somebody to kill homosexuals?

Of course, looking at Leviticus realistically, it was all about the priests keeping themselves feared to maintain themselves in power. I believe Leviticus also contains some stuff about rewarding the priests properly for all their hard work.

How many Christians are careful not to look at the Old Testament whenever it suits them? The civil law may not allow killing homosexuals now, but the Bible still does, and the Bible is the "Word of God" to true believers, don't you know? I believe it was just last fall that a young man in Pennsylvania killed an old homosexual with a sock filled with rocks, because the Bible told him to stone homosexuals to death. Jesus may not be particularly pleased, but I am sure the vindictive psychopath God of the OT will be ecstatic.

[East of Eden]

You are either deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws with the unchanging moral law. See Galatians. Context is everything.

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.

No, it was a God invention, called the New Covenant. The church has understood this for 2,000 years.

[Goat]

You are either deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws with the unchanging moral law. See Galatians. Context is everything.

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.

No, it was a God invention, called the New Covenant. The church has understood this for 2,000 years.

That is a very strong positive truth claim. Care to actually show it is 'God's invention'. Can you show that this artificial breaking up of 'moral , cerimonal and dietary' laws is 'understood by the church' for 2000 years?

You made the claim.. prove it.

[JohnPaul]

You are either deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws with the unchanging moral law. See Galatians. Context is everything.

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.

No, it was a God invention, called the New Covenant. The church has understood this for 2,000 years.

Please provide evidence to support that claim. Remember the Bible is not an "authority" in this sub-forum. It seems a little presumptious to arrogantly dismiss the entire Jewish faith with some Christian "invention" here. I believe that claim should require some evidentiary support too. What does it matter what the "church has understood"? After all, it was the Jews who wrote the laws.

[Witch of Hope]

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.

[Witch of Hope]

No, it was a God invention, called the New Covenant. The church has understood this for 2,000 years.

So it says the Bible. But is this also correct? Or is not it the invention of the Jewish priest caste sooner or of Paul, Peter or John? Is there a God? Up till now there is no proof for God. But how shall one prove God also? How should one prove the invisible friend from childhood?