The Abominable Shellfish
Why some Christians hate gays but love bacon
The third book of the Bible, Leviticus, has some wonderful passages. The Jubilee laws outlined in chapter 25, for example, provide an inspiring vision of liberty and justice for all. The 10th verse of this chapter even supplied the inscription for the Liberty Bell: "proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."
The Jubilee laws and the ideals they embody, unfortunately, are nearly wholly neglected and forgotten. Most of the book of Leviticus is similarly neglected.
Yet some passages live on, their teachings still regarded as unwavering and binding.
One such passage is Lev. 20:13, which says (in the King James Version), "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."
That passage is frequently cited by the spokesmen of the religious right to explain why they're so adamantly opposed to allowing homosexuals to enjoy full civil rights here in America.
The thing is, though, that the book of Leviticus condemns a lot of things as "abominations." The 11th chapter is overflowing with abominations. For example, from verses 10-12:
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: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
The folks over on the religious right cite Leviticus as evidence that homosexuals are an unclean "abomination," yet they have no problem eating at Red Lobster. What gives?
Since many observers have noted this apparent inconsistency (see, for example, godhatesshrimp.com) I figured I would wade in to try to explain why it is that so many contemporary Christians reject gays while embracing shellfish.
To understand why God is no longer considered a hater of shrimp you have to flip ahead to the Acts of the Apostles, the good doctor's account of the early days of the Christian church.
Acts chapter 10 finds the apostle Peter on a rooftop in Joppa, praying at noon before heading down to lunch.
The impulsive former fisherman has grown into a genuine leader in the early church. At Pentecost, he preached the gospel to people from every corner of the Roman Empire and he is slowly appreciating that this new community is supposed to transcend any ethnic or cultural boundaries. But the goyim still seem to bug him a bit. Especially the Romans.
So God gives him a vision. Peter falls into a trance and sees a vision of a giant tablecloth descending from heaven. The tablecloth is covered with honeybaked hams, cheesesteaks, crab cakes, calamari and lobster.
"Eat up, Peter," a voice tells him
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter says. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
"Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean," the voice says. "And try the angels on horseback, they're like butter."
This happens three times.
This is generally regarded as an instance in which a New Testament passage seems to set aside a prohibition from the Old Testament. And that's why our friends on the religious right do not feel compelled to eat kosher and do not consider shellfish to be "an abomination."
Fair enough, but there's something else going on in this story. The main point of Peter's rooftop epiphany has nothing to do with diet. The main point of this vision had to do with the people who were about to knock on Peter's door.
Peter is about to meet Cornelius. Cornelius is a gentile. Worse than that, he is a Roman. Worse than that, he is a Roman centurion. Cornelius is about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger.
But give Peter credit -- he understood the vision. "Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean." Don't call anyone unclean that God has made clean.
Peter does not treat Cornelius as an unclean outsider. He travels to the centurion's house, where he says, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
Peter gets it. In this new community that God is building, this church, there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. No one is excluded as unclean.
This is the unsubtle point that Luke is hammering home for his gentile friend Theophilus. The surrounding chapters of Acts read like a hyper-P.C. after-school special on celebrating diversity. The church embraces Jews and gentiles, Roman soldiers and slaves, men and women, Africans, Greeks and even a token white European.
In our fondness for Easter ham, we Christians have fervently clung to the surface-level meaning of Peter's vision. But we haven't been as enthusiastic about embracing the larger, more important lesson God was teaching him there on the rooftop. When the "unclean" outsiders knock on our doors, we don't like inviting them in.
That, in a nutshell, is why some Christians happily dismiss one "abomination" while still behaving abominably out of allegiance to another.
(Oh, and what about Leviticus' Jubilee laws? Those were never set aside by anything in the New Testament, but Christians no longer treat them as authoritative because, um ... well, because money is pretty and shiny and let's us buy nice things.)
Most. simplistic. ill-informed. comments. on. Christian. theology. ever.
Fred: OF COURSE Christians are supposed to welcome everyone, saint and sinner alike. Jesus's public ministry -- his willingness to interract with all types of people with varrying degrees of virtue -- makes that abundantly clear. But Jesus also COMMANDS us to repent and sin no more. In other words, the real beef that secularists and liberal Christians have with orthodox Christianity is that fact that, yes, Virgina, there is such a thing as sin. (If there weren't, the whole point of Christ's death on the cross is rendered rather moot, don't you think?).
Thus, as much as it may seem a total bummer sometimes, there are things we're, um, commanded not to do. Like cheat on our taxes. Kill people. Slander. Have sex with people other than our spouses. Covet our neighbor's new beemer. And when we do succomb to temptation and commit such transgressions, we're supposed to repent, and make an effort not to do them again. And yes, sodomy and other forms of sexual immorality are included in those "thou shalt nots". (apparently God -- the whack-job that He is -- actually thinks -- tee hee hee -- that unbridled sexual activity could actually have adverse effects on his cherished creations; the overprotective, unreasonable old bugger apparently thinks He needs to protect us from doing things that could harm us. What an unreasonable A-hole our creator is).
Now, to clarify again, Christians are supposed to love EVERYONE, including those (like nearly all of us) who pretty regularly defy God's laws. But what this DOESN'T mean is that this commandment to love somehow means the laws don't exist. It doesn't. And we both know it.
Of course, none of this has any degree of relevance if one is not a follower of Christ. But if one is, it's self-delusional to pretend otherwise. I can quite confidently say there's exists not a single follower of Christ who, in his heart of hearts, believes that eating a lobster tail has the same effect on his soul as a roll in the hay with someone other than his spouse.
Posted by: Benedict | Feb 08, 2006 at 01:00 AM
there are things we're, um, commanded not to do. Like cheat on our taxes. Kill people. Slander. Have sex with people other than our spouses. Covet our neighbor's new beemer. And when we do succomb to temptation and commit such transgressions, we're supposed to repent, and make an effort not to do them again. And yes, sodomy and other forms of sexual immorality are included in those "thou shalt nots"
This is the oddest little list. Lie. Murder. Lie. Commit adultery. Covet. And buttsex.
One of these things is not like the others. One, and only one, of the things on this list is NOT one of the Ten Commandments.
Isn't it a big presumtuous to rewrite the Old Testament so that buttsex ranks with the Decalouge while leaving the rest of Leviticus in place? And that's not even addressing your little bout of begging the question; A) God forbids 'sodomy', B) God forbids us things that hurt us, C) That's why God forbids us sodomy. Of course, you don't have any proof or argument that sodomy hurts people, we're supposed to take your God's word as authoritative.
Posted by: NBarnes | Feb 08, 2006 at 01:35 AM
The Prophet's Most Difficult Parables
If you flush the Bible down the toilet, does that make it OK to be gay?
If the moneylenders have scales, does that make it unclean to eat them?
When Jesus complained to the apostles, 'The poor are always among you,
but I will not always be among you', was he asking to be bitch-slapped?
If you 'out' a gay Pope during Ramadan, will it be a Friday or Saturday?
Three prophets walk into a bar. The one dressed in black refuses to sit
on the seat nearest the door, which is on the south wall. The one dressed
in gold refuses to sit on any seat that a goyim has made unclean. The one
dressed in white sits down, but is hovering a few feet off of the floor,
annoying the waitress. Which prophet is Southern Baptist? (trick question)
- -
Recent anthropological, paleological and genetic-drift studies have now
converged on a premise that language, and by redaction, writing, and by
redaction, the Psalms, the Koran and the Torah ... are the result of an
expansion of human forebrain area, beyond what was needed for survival.
Driving that change, females selected for language development in males,
as a way to keep the drudgery of sex more interesting. Then one thing
led to the other, and pretty soon Repugs were beating on their Bibles.
Somebody get those Repugs laid!!
Posted by: Pauley Shore | Feb 08, 2006 at 02:01 AM
Benedict --
It's quite a leap to read anything in the post above as a denial of the reality of sin, but I admire the passion with which you attack something I didn't say.
I am curious though --
Is your point that, since we were, unambiguously and explicitly "COMMANDED" to follow strict dietary laws, that Christians remain bound these immutable laws?
Or is your point that Peter's vision was exclusively and narrowly about dietary laws -- and that therefore both Luke and Peter himself misunderstood the meaning of the apostle's rooftop revelation and must be grouped among the "secularists and liberals"?
Posted by: Fred | Feb 08, 2006 at 04:38 AM
Fred, I think Benedict's point is that Peter's dream means "those who do not keep old testament laws should not be turned away from the church", and that it is invalid to deduce from that that "breaking the old testament laws is now OK".
Which is a coherent stance so far as it goes, but doesn't explain why Benedict feels himself at liberty to eat lobster. Because the same argument can be applied to the kosher laws: God is telling Peter to accept non-kosher people, but that doesn't make eating non-kosher food any less of a sin.
Jim's post above seems to be a much better-argued case for a similar POV, for my money. Of course, as a non-Christian, this is somewhat academic for me.
Posted by: AH | Feb 08, 2006 at 08:09 AM
"females selected for language development in males,
as a way to keep the drudgery of sex more interesting."
Pauley, you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: the bunny | Feb 08, 2006 at 09:33 AM
Regardless, the Greek word for "servant" in both instances is pais, the word from which we derive in English the word "Pedarist."
Alas, "pais" just means "child." See T. Irwin's translation of Aristotle's Ethics (2d ed. p. 319).
I suppose the equivalent is calling one's servant "boy."
Oh, and there is no English word "pedarist," if the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is to be credited.
(Not to join the gay-bashers, but let's stay fact-based.)
Posted by: Anderson | Feb 08, 2006 at 07:39 PM
bellatrys asked, "I really wanna know why Paul is more important than Jesus."
That's easy -- because Paul was the anti-Christ!
Posted by: Kim | Feb 08, 2006 at 11:07 PM
"Most. Simplistic. Ill-informed. Comments. On. Christian. Theology. Ever."
Perhaps Benedict's used to the more sophisticated moral treatises of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, for example.
Posted by: Victoria | Feb 09, 2006 at 02:43 AM
That's pretty low, Victoria. And immature.
Posted by: Barry | Feb 09, 2006 at 04:04 PM
Um, doesn't this assume that all Christians eat at Red Lobster? I, for one, do not. I never touch shellfish, as it is proven to be poisonous, and it also slows one down mentally.
It has taken thousands of years for science to figure out when the Bible knew all along-- that shellfish is no good for the human being. The Bible always was ahead of its time. Still is.
As for this, ahem, bit of leftist propaganda. The problem with such one for one moralizing is that eventually you can find a hypocrite for every sin you can name. Wasn't there a Christian who murdered? Therefore murder must be okay. Wasn't there a Jew who raped? Therefore rape must be okay. Didn't David commit adultry and murder, and didn't Jesus come from the line of David, and therefore...
The argument is specious. Good is good and sin is sin, and no one has yet shown me that sodomy is good. There is always this talk about how Christians are bad because there can be no very good argument about how sodomy is good. It is, to roughly 80% of Americans, an act of pure carnal lust that can never transcend the body and never produce anything greater than the spread of disease. These people are not hypocrites. They are honest people who have decided that sodomy is not a holy act that should be honored by the laws of the society they too have a stake in.
Sorry. I have friends who are gay, and I love them, but a sin is still a sin. I am a sinner too. We all are. But it is a far cry from being a sinner and falling in love with your sins. This is where liberal Christian theocracy has its intellectual downfall. The thing that makes one a Christian is the acceptance of Christ, not the acceptance of sin.
Posted by: Marko | Apr 29, 2006 at 06:06 AM
"Acceptance"?? What makes one a Christian is the following of Christ, and the acceptance of sinfulness. L&J might consider you a Christian if you say the magic words, but Jesus said you have to walk the walk, too.
Shellfish wasn't poisonous until we started dumping toxic waste in the oceans. Gross, yes. I don't eat giant seagoing insects very often either, and only when someone else does the dissecting. You may consider this to be a case of the Bible being way ahead of its time if you wish, but it is more like a case of if there really was a verse commanding all Men to carry a concealed handgun.
Posted by: cjmr's husband | Apr 29, 2006 at 07:24 AM
all the evidence from the old testament is truly outdated. Has anyone happened to read the New testament? This is the new covenant! Jesus Christ is the sacrificial lamb who took away the sins of the world. The purpose of christianity is not just to follow rules but as jesus said before he rose into heaven to spread the word. Jesus was against the theology of the pharisees. They were religious people and yes all they cared about was not working on the sabbath and not eating bacon. Jesus cared more about the salvation of the world.
Does that mean we can sin and be fine? you may ask.
well see, the reason why we see so much sin in terms of homosexuality in the anglican churches is because of their pharice like beliefs. They still believe that obedience to god makes us acceptable to god. Thats not true at all! That is true in the old testament but like i said before, Jesus makes us acceptable to god and so they try to make themselves acceptable and fall short. They feel guilty for not being able to reach the christian standards(jesus) and guilt then leads to condemnation which is where the enemy wants us. Jesus is god how can we try to match our standards with god? The only way to live a christian life is to receive christ as the lord and saviour and living the one as life. Jesus living through us. Remember jesus saying that it was not him doing all those miracles but the father doing it through him. That is the one as life. It is easier to follow the commandments when youre living that life. It comes naturally.
The commandments of god are to make us happy. You may think thats corny but the bible says that god is love and love has to have an object. We are the object of gods love and he loves us so he gives us commandments to be happy. So what are the punishments of sin? The punishments of sin is being unhappy. Do you think murderers are happy people, or burglars? That is all we know. God says thats he is the judge. Further punishments are up to him and not for us to say.
Homosexuality is just another thought from the devil. Has anyone had a thought that they knew was stupid. anything that makes yourself wonder why on earth you thought that. The truth is that it is not your thoughts cause you are not that screwed up but it is from the enemy. "Homosexuality" youve given this ridiculous thought a name already?! Hell! even i have those thoughts but im not gay.
Heres an example of a absolutely stupid thought
ask a barber whether theyve had a wierd thought of stabbing a customer in the back of the neck for no reason. Im not saying that all barbers do that but what i am saying is that its just a stupid thought and we should not give it any significance and obsess about it.
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 28, 2006 at 05:49 AM
Hell! even i have those thoughts but im not gay.
...
Who wants to be the one to break it to him gently?
Posted by: Merlin Missy | Aug 28, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Who wants to be the one to break it to him gently?
Not while he's cutting my hair.
ask a barber whether theyve had a wierd thought of stabbing a customer in the back of the neck for no reason.
Really. Eek.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Aug 28, 2006 at 11:16 AM
I never wanted to be a barber anyway.
I always wanted to be
A LUMBERJACK!
Posted by: cjmr's husband | Aug 28, 2006 at 01:07 PM
Who wants to be the one to break it to him gently?
Not while he's cutting my hair.
ROFLMAO!
I never wanted to be a barber anyway.
I always wanted to be
A LUMBERJACK!
Eww.. too butch. Me, I want to sing..
I want to sing and dance, I want to sing and dance, I want to be a pirate in the Pirates of Penzance. Wear me silver-buckled slippers and me tight shiny pants - I want to sing and dance!
Posted by: Duane | Aug 28, 2006 at 07:20 PM
It really depends on the kind of lumberjack you're thinking of. Some cut down trees, yes, but also skip and jump, and like to press wild flowers. Perhaps you could meet one on Wednesday, and share a buttered scone?
Posted by: Ray | Aug 29, 2006 at 03:35 AM
like i said im not saying that all barbers do that but what im saying is that its an example of a silly thought. Let me ask you a question. Do your thoughts always make sense? Im not saying that youre crazy either.(:P or maybe)Just that we should ignore these wild ideas.
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 04:45 AM
Anthony: Hell! even i have those thoughts but im not gay.
We tried to break it to you gently, Anthony.
You may prefer not to identify as gay, and that's your choice: but if you have fantasies (thoughts) about having sex with men, unless you prefer to identify as a Manichean heretic, those thoughts are not from the Devil: they're perfectly normal human thoughts that gay/bi men have every day.
Fantasising about stabbing the back of the neck of the person whose hair you are cutting, though... I think that's a message from God that you were meant to be a lumberjack. Go cut down trees, smell wild flowers, have buttered scones for tea... and dress in women's clothing, suspenders and a bra.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Aug 29, 2006 at 06:08 AM
Anthony, the simple truth is that some men like to have sex with other men. It's not a weird fleeting thought that they then disown, it's not a momentary confusion. They like having sex with men in exactly the same way that you (I'm guessing) like having sex with women.
You might want to meet one or two out and open gay men (or women) before you say any more about their 'stupid thoughts'. Top tip: when you do, don't compare their desire to have sex with people they are attracted to with someone's desire to kill people. That could really get the conversation off to a bad start.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 29, 2006 at 06:49 AM
well then i apologise for getting this coversation off on a wrong note.
But if you dont mind me asking when do people actually start knowing that theyre gay?
a few friends telling them that they are at a teen age?
or does it just begin with an urge which they have allowed to continue?
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 08:46 AM
Probably about the same age you started knowing you were straight.
I certainly didn't need freinds to tell what my sexuality was. Did you?
Posted by: wintermute | Aug 29, 2006 at 09:49 AM
Anthony, when did you "decide" that blond hair and large breasts were actually kind of hot? Was it an urge that you allowed to continue? Did you try not allowing it to continue? ("No, I must be more attracted to red hair! And freckles! Yes, from now on, I will only be attracted to women who have freckles!")
I don't know how to put this any clearer - gay people are just like you, except that are sexually attracted to different people. Whenever you start asking a question "Do gay people..." ask yourself "Do I..." and "Would that change if I was attracted to different people?"
Posted by: Ray | Aug 29, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Anthony: But if you dont mind me asking when do people actually start knowing that theyre gay?
The first time they are told (or read) that the feeling of being attracted to the same gender is called "gay". Before that, they just know they're attracted to the same gender, without having a word for it: just as straight kids know they're attracted to a different gender from their own, without necessarily knowing yet that the word for that is "straight" or "heterosexual".
Also, what Ray and Wintermute said.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Aug 29, 2006 at 10:47 AM
so then you agree that it started from an urge?
only the urge was towards guys
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 10:51 AM
in the same way that you being straight "started from an urge". Seriously, gay people are gay in the same way that you are straight.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 29, 2006 at 10:56 AM
well at the end of the day it depends on what your beliefs are.
would you agree? This day and age christianinity is not everyones belief and therefore we are arguing on an (what the bible calls) "earthly" basis.
What is natural will really depend on what you believe in.
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Well, that works if you ignore the huge numbers of gay Christians. You know, the folks who realized Jesus had nothing to say about gays or lesbians, but plenty about what straight people ought not to be doing with each other. (Oh, and living our neighbors, but nobody listens to that part anyway.)
Posted by: Merlin Missy | Aug 29, 2006 at 11:14 AM
What is natural will really depend on what you believe in.
No. (Assuming by "what is natural" you mean "what occurs in nature" or "what people just are".)
That doesn't depend on what you believe in: that is, regardless of whether or not you believe it.
Of course, there is the story of the (lumberjack?) who, seeing his first giraffe, stared for quarter of an hour and then said "There ain't no sich animal."
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Aug 29, 2006 at 11:22 AM
thats a generalisation. Do you happen to know if the Gay christians are born again. Its difficult tell you about being born again if first of all youre not christian and if you have never been born again.
The lobster and homosexuality are both found in Leviticus which is the old testament but in the new convenant that doesnt mean that those are not sins. We are acceptable to god because of jesus but that does not mean that we can ignore the commandments in the old testament.
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 11:38 AM
well if you believe that we are made with an inclination to sin or whether we are made pure but still sin. but thats another argument. cause if my belief says that satan corrupts my mind with wierd ideas that brings another meaning to natural.i could ignore it or i could just follow it which means another natural. Whether my thoughts are truly mine.
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Its difficult tell you about being born again if first of all youre not christian and if you have never been born again.
Come again?
We are acceptable to god because of jesus but that does not mean that we can ignore the commandments in the old testament.
So from now on you will refrain from eating shellfish and pork?
Posted by: bulbul | Aug 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM
well if you believe that we are made with an inclination to sin or whether we are made pure but still sin. but thats another argument. cause if my belief says that satan corrupts my mind with wierd ideas that brings another meaning to natural.i could ignore it or i could just follow it which means another natural. Whether my thoughts are truly mine.
How do you know those thoughts are coming from Satan? And how do you know that Satan actually exists and is able to influence your thoughts? Since you've entered the realm of the imaginary and fantastical, why can't it be aliens or penguins using sopshisticated broadcasting equipment?
Here's a thought (from me, not Satan): those thoughts are your own, generated in the recesses of your own head with no help from imaginary monsters or aliens. If those thoughts are destructive you may have a mental condition that requires professional psychological help. If they aren't, you're probably just consuming too much caffeine. If you need a spiritual excuse for not taking personal responsibility for your own thoughts, check out Jeremiah 17:9.
Posted by: Duane | Aug 29, 2006 at 12:01 PM
nope :P that doesnt mean that i wont eat shell fish. its too tasty.
its just means that because of jesus i can live my life free of
condemnation. Being born again is Christ living through me ( like i said its difficult). and being born again is the only way to live a successful christian life. When you are born again you dont even have to refrain from sinning but everything comes naturally. In john 14:10 Jesus describes this.
Again that doesnt mean that im an angel :P. eventhough i like to believe it. Being born again is a phase as we battle to live our lives and fail instead of allowing jesus christ to live through us.
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 12:10 PM
if you want to know more you can go to
http://www.mikewellsdownload.com/16k.htm
and download some material cause thats the basis of his message
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 12:13 PM
that is exactly what im arguing that our beliefs determine whats natural. That was an example. and so you believe that all your thoughts are yours? even the most ridiculous ones? Are all your thoughts under your control? Never thought about anything silly? then the one who needs a phychologist isnt me :) so are we all evil then if a thought like that comes? Should we feel condemned?
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Do you happen to know if the Gay christians are born again.
Another case of breaking it to you gently: Anthony, you probably know Born Again Christians who are gay, but if your attitude here is any indication of how you are in the real world, they're probably not going to be comfortable coming out to you.
but that does not mean that we can ignore the commandments in the old testament.
You didn't actually read Fred's original post, did you?
For me, the difference between being a Christian and not is whether or not one chooses to follow Jesus' teachings, or whether one prefers to follow the OT and/or Paul. Christians looks to Jesus' own words: "Love God with all your heart, and all your soul and all your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself." These are the two greatest commandments, per the person who should know best. Everything else you say and do and think ought to stem from those two commandments, if you claim to follow Christ. If on the other hand, you choose to ignore them in favor of Old Testament law, that's fine and dandy, you're Jewish, good for you, and please stop wearing cotton-poly blended fabric, thanks. If you choose to ignore them in favor of Paul's teachings, that's fine and dandy, you're a Paulian rather than a Christian, and please don't get married and if you're female, make sure to cover your head when you pray, thanks. If you try to do all three, good for you, please keep in mind the rest of us have our own opinions on the matter.
A mental exercise for you: ask yourself if you are spending more time fighting activities that Jesus didn't call sins, or those he did? (Divorce, avarice, refusing to help the poor, etc.) Ever picket a divorce lawyer's office? Ever log onto a message board frequented by rich people and ask why they haven't donated all their money to the poor that they may follow Christ?
Posted by: Merlin Missy | Aug 29, 2006 at 12:26 PM
> that doesnt mean that i wont eat shell fish. its too tasty.
Ah, I'm sure we'll all agree that that's a good enough reason to commit an abomnation in the eyes of the Lord.
> When you are born again you dont even have to refrain from sinning but everything comes naturally.
I'm not sure what that means. "Everything comes naturally" is, by itself, a good definition of an athiestic worldview, which is almost certainly not what you mean.
Maybe you mean "not sinning comes naturally". Except that sticking to the dietary requirements clearly doesn't. Does it come naturally to you not to shave the corners of your beard (Leviticus 21:5)? What about not touching menstruating women (Leviticus 15:19-33)?
> that doesnt mean that im an angel
Clearly not, if you're ignoring so much of Leviticus.
Posted by: wintermute | Aug 29, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Would you please refrain from assumptions like that. I really dont know any gay christians and if they have nothing to hide why are they uncomfortable coming to me?(like when adam and eve are hiding)god also said that he didnt give us a spirit of fear but of a sound mind. Youre assuming that there are gay people in my church. I did happen to criticize the anglican church though which is probably where you got your assumptions from.
The funny thing is that the ten commandments were in the old testament. Jesus referred back to the old testament meaning that it still does count.
and what you asked about the rich people giving all they have to the poor. Thats an example of flesh right there( flesh is doing something out of christ) and if you are familiar with christianity you would know that the flesh is hostile to god. It doesnt say good or bad flesh. It happens all the time in anglican churches where they believe that obeying god makes them acceptable to god when its actually what jesus does.
you said"For me, the difference between being a Christian and not is whether or not one chooses to follow Jesus' teachings, or whether one prefers to follow the OT and/or Paul." Jesus was on earth to save souls and introduce the salvation to the world. Does that mean he was against other teachings? Like pauls. I dont think so! remember that each of these apostles were anointed by god to write their part of the bible. Jesus is god.
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 12:48 PM
when i said that "everything comes naturally" i was reffering to living a successful christian life. When born again living the christian life becomes a norm and not a battle. You love god naturally and you love your neighbour naturally also. after all those are the most important commandments :P
Does it come naturally to you not to shave the corners of your beard (Leviticus 21:5). Try not to quote the bible in the wrong context. God was talking about priests.
eating shellfish and homosexuals may be a sin if you follow Leviticus up close. but again being born again means that we are holy no matter what sin we commited jesus has died for it. You may ask that by this it means that we can sin all we like. but when you are born again, a believer, you dont sin as much. of course there will be the stumble but your christian walk will be much smoother.
and the angel bit was a joke. dont need to criticize me cause my jokes suck :)
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:02 PM
Oh dear. You do know Paul wasn't one of the Twelve Apostles, right? That he never, you know, met Jesus? That he persecuted Christians after Jesus died, and only came later to believe?
Youre assuming that there are gay people in my church.
There are gay people in every church. Some are out, some are not, and if you're having fantasies about sex with other men, um, well ... It's called being in the closet. Gay people are afraid of being persecuted or even killed for who they are, so they, and I see you've got a problem with this concept, don't tell everyone. It's not only possible but extremely likely that you know several gay people who are afraid of telling you. You probably know even more people who are in truth gay or bisexual, but who have been told so often that homosexual = evil that they are denying it even to themselves and pretending to be straight. (I've seen this happen with people who got married and had families, and only accepted that they were gay years later.) So you can protest all you'd like that you don't know anyone, but the fact of the matter is, you probably do, and don't realize it.
you asked about the rich people giving all they have to the poor. Thats an example of flesh right there( flesh is doing something out of christ
I prefer to think of it as a more or less exact quote (accounting for translation) of what Jesus actually directed people to do. "Sell all your possessions, donate the money to the poor, and come follow me." If you're a follower of Christ, shouldn't you do that? And more to the point, if you're spreading Christ's words, shouldn't you be preaching those rather than ones he didn't say?
they believe that obeying god makes them acceptable to god when its actually what jesus does.
So it's faith rather than works, according to your view? That's fine as your own belief, but it undercuts your entire thesis. If I go out and have lots and lots of gay sex, but I have accepted Christ as my personal savior, then I'm saved, just as if you eat shellfish but accept Christ, you're saved. Or does that only work for sins that you commit?
Jesus is god.
Okay, but he said "Love God, love your neighbor." He didn't say "Go out and eat shellfish, but the buttsex is still bad." Unless of course you can point us to a translation where he did?
Posted by: Merlin Missy | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:06 PM
When you are born again you dont even have to refrain from sinning
Wow! Now I see why this "born again" thing is so popular!
Posted by: bulbul | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:14 PM
Does it come naturally to you not to shave the corners of your beard (Leviticus 21:5). Try not to quote the bible in the wrong context. God was talking about priests.
OK, try this one: Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Posted by: bulbul | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:20 PM
all the evidence from the old testament is truly outdated.
That may be the opinion of Paul. But according to the Hebrew Bible the covenant is eternal.
Posted by: aunursa | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:21 PM
Anthony is like Victor but not as funny.
Posted by: Duane | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:38 PM
But according to the Hebrew Bible the covenant is eternal.
Yep, but the covenant with whom?
Posted by: bulbul | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:42 PM
Try not to quote the bible in the wrong context.
How about historical context? When Leviticus was written, the Hebrews were a small nation surrounded on all sides by enemies. Infant mortality rates were high, and life expectancies were low. Now, if 3-10% of the population was gay (per current statistics), voluntarily pulling themselves out of the breeding population might make the difference between having enough children for a stable population and not. Thus, homosexual activity would be frowned on and written into the law in order to preserve the culture. Since all laws came from God, obviously God forbade homosexual sex.
Move forward to today. We have well over six billion people on the planet, and species and cultural survival is no longer a matter of incessant breeding and hoping more of the babies live than die. There's no more need for a cultural prohibition against homosexuality, and thus it's as silly and outdated as telling women they must cover their heads, a relic from ages past.
However, the prohibition sticks with us. Why? Well, as Fred has pointed out a few times, it's hard to tell people not to eat shellfish. They are nummy and sweet, and nothing goes down quite like a ham and cheese with a glass of cold milk. Rich people get angry when you tell them to give up all their possessions, and America has been preaching the Prosperity Gospel for over a century. But most people (again, see only 3-10%) won't be tempted to have homosexual relations, so claiming those rules are still relevant are a great way of rallying the troops against something most of them won't be tempted to do anyway.
Perhaps that wasn't the context you meant.
Posted by: Merlin Missy | Aug 29, 2006 at 01:56 PM
Anthony, maybe the wild idea that you should be ignoring is the one about the magic floaty guy in the sky who actually gives a shit about what you eat or who you have sex with. Because seriously, there's a whole lot of evidence that gay born-again Christians exist, but not so much for the magic floaty guy.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 29, 2006 at 02:05 PM
I really dont know any gay christians
Yes, we can be fairly confident that you do, assuming that you know more than (say) two dozen Christians. (Less than that, and it's possible, if unlikely, that every single one of them is 100% heterosexual.)
and if they have nothing to hide why are they uncomfortable coming to me?
Because you think that their natural, normal feelings are whisperings from the Devil, and equivalent to the desire you have to stab a customer in the back of his neck while you're cutting his hair.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Aug 29, 2006 at 02:46 PM