An abomination...

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Ctrl, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,699
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So... as we all know... a man laying with another man as a woman is an abomination... from Leviticus 18
    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    But from Leviticus 11 we see that:
    9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

    10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

    11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

    So eating shrimp and lobster are seen no differently it would seem than men sleeping with men (no mention of women).

    So... I would think the revision of the law justifies eating the many many things the Lord said were unclean, or even further... abominations.

    So... either eating lobster is as disgusting as homosexuality... or homosexuality is no worse than eating lobster...

    What say ye?
     
  2. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What revision of the law are you speaking about?
     
  3. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,699
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When Christ died for our sins and we did away with the 613 laws of moses, dropping to, depending on who you talk to, believing in Christ, baptism, asking forgiveness, following the 10, etc.

    The reason we do not stone children for cursing their parents etc.

    Basically when Paul made it real easy to get into heaven.
     
  4. Glock

    Glock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,796
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    48
    well, I've heard of people having a shell-fish allergy, haven't heard of a case of anybody being allergic to homosexuality...even if they were, then take some Benadryl.
     
  5. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    When you speak of 'we' who are you talking about? I had no part in doing away with the 613 laws of Moses. Are you suggesting then that PEOPLE just arbitrarily changed the laws without any authority to make such changes? Are you suggesting that Jesus changed any of the laws? Please be specific and show scripture reference to validate what you are suggesting.

    What is the reason?

    Paul had that much authority? Wow... Paul must be high on the list of the dignitaries of God. Can you show me in scripture where such authority was vested in Paul?
     
  6. crusader777

    crusader777 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    r u saying just because both are listed as prohibited in the Bible

    thye are equally wrong??

    this makes no sense
     
  7. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Neither one is listed as having more preeminence than the other.. so Yes, it would appear that they are both equally an abomination.
     
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    24,746
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are valid reasons Christians removed many of the Gospels...GOD did not take them out, people did.

    Now, they instead simply create a new denomination and pick whatever they want.
     
  9. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,699
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The proverbial we.

    Acts 15

    Authority over the bible as we know it? A ridiculous amount... but no... I am referring to the judgment of James, who DID have authority. Paul just writes that everything Paul thinks is right is what God wants... I am not trying to derail into a Paul argument... it was an offhand comment having more to do with Pauls accounts than anything.
     
  10. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why doesn't it makes sense?
     
  11. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The "proverbial we" would include everyone. Which would mean that the Atheists had as much to do with it as the Christians, Hindus, Jews, Pagans, satan worshipers, etc... (the list goes on). I have already stated that I had nothing to do with any revision of the laws.. so I cannot be a part of that list.

    What about Acts 15?



    Only one entity has 'authority over the Bible'. That would be God.

    Once again, please show the scripture that shows that James had the authority to change any laws.



    That sounds more like your personal opinion than it does anything that I ever read in the Bible.

    Then the comments about Paul had no relevance upon the discussion? Got it.
     
  12. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,699
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is the consensus of the proverbial we that this is that this is what occurred, enough that if it were not a proverb, it could be. You are fond of semantic arguments it would appear. You as a part of humanity are included in the consensus that is we as to what occurred when thought is rendered to it.


    You asked for specific reference... I gave it. I am not going to read it to you. If it does not coincide to what I am saying to you, please give your interpretation.

    Well... the men who wrote it... and canonized it... they had authority. I mean... what does canonization mean to you? What was the Council of Nicea? I mean... it is a matter of faith that they were guided by God... I don't have that. Only the circumstances which surrounded them... which are also not the point.

    Acts 15.

    That is personal opinion... certainly the bible does not illiterate this about Paul, it is clearly an impression.

    Paul has relevance, but not focus, and I do not wish to switch that focus.
    Why are blood sacrifices no longer necessary? What change happened? Please articulate at least the chapters. Clearly you believe everything was under the authority of God and not men, this is not my argument... if you would like to start a thread, go ahead.

    You seem to be trying to have semantic and tangent arguments. I would like you to stop testing my understanding, and answer the questions raised to the best of your ability.
     
  13. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    11,907
    Likes Received:
    775
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love lobster ....shrimp, scallups...oh gosh but I would hate to be Jewish.

    Actually God's view of homosexuality is pretty much all through the Bible...old and new testament.
     
  14. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    However, when you cite a specific act, "and we did away with the 613 laws of moses", you are indicating that the proverbial 'we' were responsible for that act. That is an erroneous statement, when you have no supporting data to substantiate that claim. As stated previously, I had no part in doing away with the 613 laws of Moses.

    Irrelevant statement.

    Wrong again. According to you and historical evidence, the revision you speak of would have occurred many centuries before I was even thought about by mortal man. Therefore, my thoughts had nothing to do with the 'doing away with the 613 laws of Moses.'



    Why should I render an opinion on that chapter? You have cited no particular passage or passages within that chapter to even justify your own position.


    Am I one of those men that wrote it or canonized it? No? Further evidence that I had no part in the revision of those Mosaic laws.


    What about Acts 15?


    Your train of thought is somewhat confused... Please explain how the Bible can "illiterate" something about anyone?



    You need to stay focused. In your last post you stated " I am not trying to derail into a Paul argument... it was an offhand comment having more to do with Pauls accounts than anything." You have essentially stated that discussion of Paul would derail the thread, and therefore your comment indicates that discussion about Paul is irrelevant. So why did you bring up Paul if discussion of Paul is perhaps going to derail the thread?


    Because the blood shed by Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.


    Salvation.



    The chapters concerning what?


    No, this thread is fine, however you need to be a little more specific with your argument.


    All arguments involve semantics... it is the curse of language... My purpose of leaning on semantics is to seek clarification of things that are stated. All too often words fail to paint a really clear picture of the concepts in mind and subsequently 'arguments' evolve.


    I have answered your question(s) however, you have been evasive toward the questions that I have posed to you.
     
  15. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    33,027
    Likes Received:
    7,544
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :laughing: !!!
     
  16. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,699
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not aware of anything in the new testament except as it relates to general perversions, which are described in the old testament... Sodom and Gomorrah an often referenced tale for obvious reasons... but... not the only perversion going on there... Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for a multitude of sins, primarily lack of charity. Ezekiel refers to committing abomination... and of course they wanted to rape those angels... but I am not exactly sure that is homosexual... but whatever... it certainly stands to reason. There are two specific references I know referring to homosexuality... in Leviticus 18 and 20. but then there are some other things... which kinda say... well... maybe not...

    I Samuel 18
    1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
    2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
    3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
    4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

    Which... well... hits my gaydar. Not to mention:
    27 Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.
    is a bit weird... very interesting... uh... dowry.

    Then following in II Samuel 1
    22 From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty.
    23 Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.
    24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel.
    25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.
    26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
    27 How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!

    That's a bit gay... even if chaste.


    I think the homosex is gross personally... but I think a lot of stuff straight folks do is gross. I am not their advocate by any means... just questioning the biblical importance. Eating shrimp is the same abomination in the same book... and while homosexuality is only referenced twice explicitly... this no fins and scales things abomination is mentioned around 8 times.
     
  17. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you suffering from a lack of anything to say? Unable to refute the statement?
     
  18. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    33,027
    Likes Received:
    7,544
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is there to refute? :lol: The idea is simply ridiculous.
     
  19. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    11,907
    Likes Received:
    775
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The old and new testement does mention homosexuality as unrighteous. (Paul was very clear for one). The covenant with Hebrews is the....old wineskin. Jesus is the new wineskin. But the Old Testament is where we truely know God..what God deems righteous and unrighteous and i think its pretty clear. We aren't talking about one verse. This is why the Old Testement is so important and so studied. You can't cherry pick the new or the old testement. It needs to be read..in context and fully.
     
  20. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,699
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I say the proverbial we, it does not mean that you specifically did something. Why is this difficult for you?

    You are not the arbiter of relevance. It is relevant to fishing an answer out of you... it is relevant to me. It may be relevant to anyone following along. Not your judgment to make thank you.

    See above. When I say "we had slaves" you do not need to have had a slave for the proverbial we to apply. I am truly sick of this semantic argument. It has NOTHING to do with my argument.

    Why should I tell you what I think occurred then? You want to be obstinate? Why would you ask for that which you are unwilling to do? The ENTIRE chapter is relevant to the judgment of James. If you are unwilling to accept that as an answer, then you will not receive one. You are a time vampire. You know the question. You know the relevance. You know what I am saying. You simply choose not to address it. Eating shrimp is an abomination as is homosexuality. Do you view them the same? If not why?

    I believe the question you originally posed was "what revision".

    As you now clearly know what I am talking about, THAT revision. Now answer... or bumble off.

    Alliterate. Figuratively at that. To make redundantly clear. To admonish. Sorry for the typo and loose use of the word.

    No, as I have now shown, I do not. You know PRECISELY what I am talking about... and did from the start. You are just avoiding addressing your take on it for reasons known only to you.

    You have not. Please do so now.
    Why is eating shrimp now not an abomination, but homosexual sex still is, just a few chapters away... with 1/4 the references.
     

Share This Page