Is eating shellfish less of an abomination than homosexuality?

Well, it's funny and over-simplified (as a religious argument)...but appropriate as a comeback to her OT reference.

 

I simply cannot fathom why some Christians today think that the Biblical arguments against the hedonistic homosexuality of the Bible apply to the monogamous homosexuality of today.

 

Ergh... what kind of sicko eats shellfish?

 

ergh... what kind of sicko wears cotton-polyester blend?

Ahhh, Dr. Laura. Always good for a laugh.

 

in answer to the question: yes.

 

Yes this also disturbs me a lot, you can read the entire bible and you will see it condemmning the most commmon actions humans beings do today, yet this are never remarked or stated..its really sad how ignorant people can be.

 

Are you asking a christian or jew, if a your asking a Jew are they exilded jews or Jews living literally by the Torah in a nation that allows them to make the necessay scarfices and such.

If your asking a christian then yes, eating shelfish is not sinfull.

 

I would enter this discussion, but not being a complete fool. I will not.
I know from experience, where it will go.

 

Yes, us Laura's are funny.

As far as shellfish and homosexuality goes,



I'll have to look into it.

 

Eating shellfish is above homosexuality but below the abominable snowman on the scale of abominability.

 

(Note for factuality's sake: there was some dude after jesus who saw god lay a ton of unclean food before him and told him to eat. When questioned about this, god said his rule about unclean food was silly pish posh and he didn't know why he even said it in the first place.)

my disagreement here falls under the cherry-picking POV and Satya's POV.

 

This isn't about Chery picking, the argument over the Jewish dietary laws came about when gentiles started converting to Christianity in large numbers. The Apostles had to decide whether the new Gentiles would have to keep the laws of the Jews to be Christians. The Apostles came to the conclusion that the sanitary and dietary laws were no longer necssary.

Modern Christians don't pick and choose what laws they follow, thaey adhere to the decisions of the Apostles.

 

Actually, by following the apostles, modern Christians are kind of forced to cherry pick since there were things the apostles did not seem to agree on and there are books left out of the Bible that vary significantly. Modern Christians are pretty much expected to just have 5th grader's understanding of the scripture and to just glaze over certain parts rather than having any degree of understanding of the historical context of the book or how it was put together. Anyone who thinks Paul would have expected his letters to end up in scripture and adhered to literally is kind of crazy. And for that matter, the power of combining cultural myths with actual historical events, does provide some pretty powerful illusions, and modern day Christians are kind of expected not to question those anymore than they would question whether Marie Antoinette really said, "Let them eat cake" or whether Edison really invented the light bulb.

 

Quoted from the Westminster Shorter Catechism (men whose intellectual boots no one here is intellectually worthy of so much as looking at would be bashful to correct the Westminster Divines who originally wrote this) which can be found here complete with footnoted scriptural references. If you want interpretations of scripture from men who had greater understanding of the scriptures, read it, all of it with the mentioned scripture.

Now for the interpretation of the above being that it uses big words and is not aimed directly at your inquiry.

1. The scripture makes clear that there are some sectors of the law as given by God to the Hebrews that are exclusive to the Hebrews. These include the ceremonial and civil laws and they are modernly called. They can generally be found in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They're original purpose was to set apart and distinguish the Hebrews from those whom they dwelt with. Specifically by making them "ceremonially clean" that they may enter into His presence at the Tabernacle and later the Temple which were to be kept Holy (that is, different, alien, otherworldly, etc.). This is all intended to point to the Holiness of Christ who would come from them.
2. Being clean already by the work of Christ and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, Christians may now enter into the presence of God freely, without fear of the complications of their sins. Further, it is no longer necessary that they distinguish themselves from others with outward exertion for by the grace of God and His direct intervention and ordinance they are already being made different.
3. That being said, the original reason that the Hebrews entered into the presence of God was to provide justification for their sins by making sacrifices which pointed to the coming Christ who would make no need for such justification, being that He was that very justification that was being alluded to by sacrifice and is the sole source of justification before God for the sinful (i.e. every human being ever).

In conclusion, then, there is no more need for the Christian or anybody to maintain cleanliness before God for they are all already clean. Being that the entire purpose of Leviticus is lay out the full procedures for the admission, maintenance, and ceremony of the temple it would be wise to conclude that this is indeed ceremonial law and no longer necessary for presenting ourselves before God. Which, by the way, I imagine the unregenerate would have no intention of ever doing, being it's inevitable conclusion.

That said, I shall address the moral law (that is, that law which is given to everyone) and it's differing purposes to the unregenerate (those of human kind who have not received call and election to God by the Holy Spirit) and the regenerate (those who have by no merit of their own).

The expectation of the Law is that you will not be able to keep it, for you cannot by the very nature of your being.

Lastly, the scriptures and why they are so:

God is immutable, omnipotent, and omniscient, therefore if He spoke and intended that it be written to us and heard in the scriptures, as scripture, it would be impossible for it to be contrary. Being that the "other texts" referenced in this thread are not canon and many have never been deemed canon, I'd say they aren't meant to be read as canon, wouldn't you? Further, all the scriptures can serve to the unregenerate is condemnation so I'm not surprised that you would use it to do just that.

 

All very insightful, but rather confusing. summary s'il te plait? or, what does it mean to the question at hand? IS eating shell fish less of an abomination than homosexual acts?

 

Frankly, I don't consider theologians to be intellectuals.

Uh oh, did I just step on your appeal to authority fallacy?

The whole, "homosexuality is against moral law" is one of the more hilarious arguments you hear because if you actually argue the moral law with the very kind of reason that Paul prescribed, then it falls apart.

 

I can spew logical fallacies with more eloquence than you can. So trust me.

 

Eek.

Oh come on.