• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

PinkTulip

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2005
285
29
Ontario
✟23,723.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Now you're taking what I'M saying out of context...

consider... is it possible that the reason why the author of the book of the Bible that contains a law against something (pick an issue) did so because of a concern relevant at the time?

And if so, is it also possible, that modern technology and society, being markedly different to the time that said llaw was written, are no longer logically compelled to observe said law?

Lets, for the sake of argument, consider the Levitical injunction against shellfish.

WHY did the author of Leviticus say that eating shellfish is an abomination?

Because someone who goes about eating shellfish in the llate bronzeage Middle East, presumeably doesn't do so more than once, and its a race between the botulism and the salmonela as to what kills him

Jump fwd 3000 years, and we have refrigeration, better transport methods to ensure that seafood is fresh when it arives at table, and, should worst come to worst, medical treatments for food poisoning. In such a setting, is there any reason, beyond dogmatic rigidity, to abstain from eating shellfish if you want to?
There are spiritual reasons as to why Jews eat Kosher. I can explain later. And shellfish is nasty - they do not fully cleanse themselves of their waste, so you are eating fecal matter.eewwww..Pigs eat anything. eww Read The Makers Diet..

Christians uphold the Law of Kosher sex. Acts 15
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Now you're taking what I'M saying out of context...

consider... is it possible that the reason why the author of the book of the Bible that contains a law against something (pick an issue) did so because of a concern relevant at the time?

And if so, is it also possible, that modern technology and society, being markedly different to the time that said llaw was written, are no longer logically compelled to observe said law?

Lets, for the sake of argument, consider the Levitical injunction against shellfish.

WHY did the author of Leviticus say that eating shellfish is an abomination?

Because someone who goes about eating shellfish in the llate bronzeage Middle East, presumeably doesn't do so more than once, and its a race between the botulism and the salmonela as to what kills him

Jump fwd 3000 years, and we have refrigeration, better transport methods to ensure that seafood is fresh when it arives at table, and, should worst come to worst, medical treatments for food poisoning. In such a setting, is there any reason, beyond dogmatic rigidity, to abstain from eating shellfish if you want to[/SIZE]
?

There is that same old, lame old shellfish argument, again. No matter how many times that gets rebutted, seems like about once a day it gets dredged up like Freddy on Elm street.
Read carefully, the dietary laws were specifically abrogated in the N.T., the condemnation of homosexuality was not, it was reiterated.
Act 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (Act 11:5-10)

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (Act 15:29, 21:25)
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
1 Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

1 Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:​
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
There is that same old, lame old shellfish argument, again. No matter how many times that gets rebutted, seems like about once a day it gets dredged up like Freddy on Elm street.
Read carefully, the dietary laws were specifically abrogated in the N.T., the condemnation of homosexuality was not, it was reiterated.
Are you missing my point on purpose, or are you sincerely unable to process a new perspective? Shall we try again?

WHY were shellfish considered abomination in the first place?

Because, in the context of the time at which Leviticus was written, they were very likely to be bad for you.

Agree, or disagree?

Now that we can safely eat shellfish without near certain death, this particuar passage of Leviticus no longer applies,

agree/disagree?
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
36
Indiana
✟28,939.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
First example that springs to mind is Vietnam veterans and the problems they have encountered dealing with guilt issues an unaprecoating society has placed on them.

You think society put that guilt on them? If they regret their decisions then it is from within them. Society can only make us reflect on those desisions we make, we judge.

Funny you didn't mention the forgoten War the U.S.A. lead for the U.N. in Korea.
 
Upvote 0

PinkTulip

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2005
285
29
Ontario
✟23,723.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Are you missing my point on purpose, or are you sincerely unable to process a new perspective? Shall we try again?

WHY were shellfish considered abomination in the first place?

Because, in the context of the time at which Leviticus was written, they were very likely to be bad for you.

Agree, or disagree?

Now that we can safely eat shellfish without near certain death, this particuar passage of Leviticus no longer applies,

agree/disagree?
This may help:

http://www.susanscott.net/OceanWatch1996/sep23-96.html

And you still haven't said anything about Acts 15
 
Upvote 0

TheFathersDaughter

The Revolution has Started
Mar 3, 2007
480
84
34
✟17,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Green
FACT: Homosexuality (assuming it isn't paired with sex outside of marriage, or rape, or anything) is the only sin that DOESN'T HARM ANYBODY OR YOURSELF.

Unless you're overly sensitive. Families aren't torn apart by someone else being homosexual or even by parents being homosexual. That comes from judgemental and generalizing behavior not the actual homosexuality.

That aside, homosexuality, meaning union between two people of the same gender, is the only sin that does not cause physical/mental grief in this world for the sinner or for those that it's aimed at. God doesn't make laws for no reason. He makes them to protect.

Meaning the only thing people have to "prove" it's a sin are a few easily misinterpreted verses and some bigotry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnemyPartyII
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
You think society put that guilt on them? If they regret their decisions then it is from within them. Society can only make us reflect on those desisions we make, we judge.
When society turns its back on you, and individuals spit on you in the streets... I'd say that is society making you feel bad, not you feeling bad because society has encouraged you to "reflect"
Funny you didn't mention the forgoten War the U.S.A. lead for the U.N. in Korea.
Um... what about it?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
. . .
[SIZE=-1]That aside, homosexuality, meaning union between two people of the same gender, is the only sin that does not cause physical/mental grief in this world for the sinner or for those that it's aimed at. God doesn't make laws for no reason. He makes them to protect.

Meaning the only thing people have to "prove" it's a sin are a few easily misinterpreted verses and some bigotry.[/SIZE]

What evidence, he asked sceptically, can you produce, which shows that any verses concerning homosexuality have been misinterpreted? While you ponder that question, and before you copy/paste the same old, lame old arguments from homosexualsЯ-us.com. Here is historical, verifiable evidence from the ancient Jews and the early church, which shows, beyond any question, that from the time of Moses through the first 3 centuries of the church ALL, 100%, TOTAL, EXCLUDING NOTHING, homosexual sex was condemned, by scripture.
Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED
. . . . Our Rabbis taught: If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]. . .

Sanhedrin 54b

This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.1 From this we learn the formal prohibition for him who lies [with a male]: whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it is further said, . . .

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. . . .

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind.13 . . .

He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality — R. Abbahu said: On R. Akiba's view, he incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie [with mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie [with any beast]. But on R. Ishmael's view, he incurs only one punishment, both offences being derived from the single verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 . . .

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), though as the regular name of priests attached to the temple of Ashtoret at Larnaca has been found on the monuments (see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

(e) The unnatural crimes against chastity, sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.


A manual of instruction for proselytes, adopted from the Synagogue by early Christianity, and transformed by alteration and amplification into a Church manual.

2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . . "Thou shalt not use witchcraft nor practise sorcery" (Ex. xxii. 18; Lev. xix. 26).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=341&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

On the analogy of this Biblical case the Rabbis decide several others (see Burglary). In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy; and where he seeks to ravish a betrothed damsel; for Deut. xxii. 27 indicates the duty of all that hear her cry to help her.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.

Adultery, sodomy, etc. Lev. Xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=689&letter=C

Homosexual acts between women (lesbianism) were forbidden by the rabbis on the basis of the Biblical verse "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow [any] of their customs." (Leviticus 18:3).

A midrash, Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8-9, states that this refers to sexual customs, and that one of those customs was the marriage of women to each other, as well as a man to a woman and to her daughter. The Talmud follows this view, forbidding lesbianism. Female homosexual behaviour, because there is no penile penetration involved, is regarded as less serious than male homosexual behaviour.

"We Can't Legitimate Homosexuality Halkhically" (USCJ Review, Spring 2004): Joel Roth

The two verses in the book of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism. The Torah&#8217;s prohibitions, let it be clear, are against actions, like male homosexual intercourse, not against fantasies or attractions.

The Torah and the Rabbis do not distinguish between types of homosexuals in any way... The Rabbis were well able to conceive of monogamous and loving relationships between members of the same sex, and I quote in my paper the texts that prove this beyond reasonable question. But their words cannot possibly be read to imply that such monogamous or loving gay relationships are in a different halakhic [Jewish legal] category than any other relationships between members of the same sex. The prohibition is clear and total.&#8221;​

Naomi Grossman, freelance journalist, states in her April 2001 article in Moment Magazine, "The Gay Orthodox Undergound":
"The Torah strictly forbids homosexual sex, and rabbis have consistently upheld that prohibition through the ages... The prohibition against homosexual sex comes from Leviticus: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence' (18:22). In biblical times, the punishment for violating that code was clear. 'If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -&#8212; their bloodguilt is upon them' (Leviticus 20:13). The Talmud extends the prohibition to lesbian sex [Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8]."​
 
  • Like
Reactions: BereanTodd
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The early church interpreted [size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/size]/arsenokoités variously as, “”sodomy,” “filth of sodomy,” lawless lust, “lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc.

Quoted from; Ignatius, 30-107 AD; Polycarp 65 - 155 AD; Irenaeus, 120-202 AD; Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD; Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD; Tertullian, 145-220 AD; Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and Origen, 185-254 AD.

Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years.
Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; so also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle [Paul] testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9]. He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved.

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he [Paul] recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with what he had already declared, "And as we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven.

Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.


And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body orifice is used for “lechery.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness!

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves


Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.


Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.


Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God; " in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account such sins before baptism, in so far after baptism he determines them irremissible, if it is true, (as it is), that they are not allowed to "receive ablution" anew.

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI.

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65.
That all sins are put away in baptism.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9][/b].

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
36
Indiana
✟28,939.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
When society turns its back on you, and individuals spit on you in the streets... I'd say that is society making you feel bad, not you feeling bad because society has encouraged you to "reflect"

That is supposed to happen as a christian.

DOESN'T HARM ANYBODY OR YOURSELF.

This is a lie perpetuated by society.

Der Alter... could you please take your gratuitous cut and pasts to a forum thread that is actually supposed to be about Bible verses?

Yeah you would think this was a christian forums sight or somthing.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Der Alter... could you please take your gratuitous cut and pasts to a forum thread that is actually supposed to be about Bible verses?[/SIZE]

Not a cut and paste. It is a relevant, compilation of historical resources, I have personally researched, posted in direct reply to an unsupported, unsubstantiated assertion by TFD in this post But I also like David's answer.

And my evidence OBTW has never been addressed.
 
Upvote 0