Blandus Rex

Alright, let's talk this one out. The actual response is not "Silly man, your bible says shellfish are an abomination" but pointing out that many of the old testament proscriptions are no longer followed, as society and faith have evolved. Unless you're still keeping kosher, it does seem to weaken a case made from Lev; I know your case is actually the whole "nuclear family is the basic unit of society and should be strengthened by society" line, but I'm interested to hear what you think about the whole "abomination" end.

But Paul condemns homosexuality in the New Testament, too. Also, Jesus makes it plain that apart from marriage, celibacy is the only holy option.

HAHAHAHA THATS SUCH A GREAT RESPONSE
has anyone read the response to this?
Dear GOD itss great

why dont you go add another million to the 400 made my mel, making you idiots watch his dumbass movie that wasnt even in the bible(passion plays began in the middle ages)
oh but i guess you guys didnt know that

whoa! nobody's bitter here.

Shala-To head off any potential misunderstandings: (1) Blandus Rex is in no way associated with any business interests of Mel Gibson.
(2) Though you may be correct that the idea of a "passion play" originated in the middle ages, the *acutal passion* of the Christ is indeed recorded in the New Testament Gospel accounts (in the Bible).
(3) Your chosen moniker was not really apropos for my site. I changed the name to shala@yahoo.com. If you would like to pick another pseudonym, I would be happy to edit that for you.

Shade-

Sorry for the delay. Been away visiting the kid's grandparents and greatgrandparents. Regis is putting more miles on the car as a baby than I ever have as an adult!

You are correct that I do not base my objections to "gay marriage" on Leviticus. But since you asked...

Abomination. In the verses I cited, there are two Hebrew words translated "abomination" (of course!).

The word in relation to shellfish seems to have been used to indicate cultic significance. (You will often see in these cases that "it is an abomination unto you".) They would make one ritually unclean - who knows why - God said so. To believe and follow is part of the nature of faith. In the NT, followers of Christ have been freed from the cultic food laws, and so do not have to worry about shellfish (other than levels of mercury).

The word used in relation to homosexuality seems to be used in ways that indicate more of an inherent unethical nature or sinfulness. There is something wrong with a man having sex with a man that is wrong (or displeasing to God) aside from strict cultic significance. It is a "straight up" abomination - to God or anyone else. Paul says as much in Rom, 1 Cor, and 1 Tim. as Jake already pointed out. Homosexuality, aside from considerations of following the Law, is sinful in the eyes of God. Thus, it is still bad.

I am not a Hebrew expert, so there may be further nuances that I am missing. But based on HALOT definitions and the uses of each I have explored, this is my working understanding of the various ways abomination is used.

Well, it turns out Shala was probably a Troll. So I changed her name to Yoga Rage.

Yoga Rage - I sent you an e-mail and it came back as "no address." Yoga will never give you the confidance and peace that God will provide once you are in right communion with Jesus Christ. E-mail me your real address and I'd be happy to carry on the discussion.

Thanks,

If homosexualality is actualy an abomination and gays are not allowed into heaven, who is going to fix up the run down areas and increase property values. Also, if it is such an abomination, wouldn't that leave more room for you (without the "gays" to crowd it up).

It is important to understand the purpose of the book of Leviticus before "interpreting" to your convenience. The book was basically a survival guide for the exodus of the tribes of Israel. Shellfish and pork contains bacteria and can be dangerous to eat if not properly prepared. Having sex with anyone other than a woman of breeding ability wastes the "seed" of man and diminishes the size or population of the tribe. Read this for what is was designed for at the time it was written. It was a guide for people with little common sense. The world has changed and evolved and the interpretations of the bible need to evolve and change with the times.

Bruce - I have a hard time figuring out if you are "for" or "against". Either way, (WADR) I don't think it helps the discussion to stereotype gays as good decorators. This is something the liberal establishment (including gays) has done to their shame. For awhile, they chose to ridicule their friends and themselves in order to seem less threatening to mainstream Americans.

To answer your response seriously, I don't think there will be run down sections of Heaven. I also believe that there is plenty of room for everyone if they choose to go.

Tim - it also seems important to not too eaisly explain away Biblical texts that are difficult for us. The historical-critical method of biblical interpretation has a distinguished history of recovering Biblical authority -and- of horrible God-dishonoring abuses that have led millions to heresy. It takes either a tremendous amount of evidence or an extreme amount of hubris to claim that the purpose of Scripture is something other than what the scriptures claim.

Your proposal is certainly possible, but in the long history of the choosen people of God, Leviticus was not usually viewed as "a guide for people with little common sense." This is a view that is both dishonoring to Scripture and insulting to Jews. Your examples may be true to a point, but there is nothing "common sense" about tiny organisms you can't see that make you sick. Even so, this lack of scientific knowledge is not cause for us to assume that ancient Jews were so stupid that they were unable on their own to understand that when they undercooked meat they would fall ill or even die. Other cultures managed to understand basic life skills without Divine Writ.

The fact is, I do not try to interpret Leviticus (or any of the Bible) "to my convenience." Accepting all Scripture as profitable for instruction is more difficult than blithely dismissing the parts that do not conform to contemporary standards. It would be much more convenient for me to do what I want and expect God to change along with me. But that would not be correct, it would not honor Christ, it would not be faith.

Perhaps, and I am not by any means a theologian or a historian, shell fish and pork were not a part of the Hebrew diet of the Old Testament because of the mythological connotations they carried in the surrounding societies. Ocean dwelling creatures were worshipped in many cultures, especially the Anakites who lived in Canaan, and it eventually came down to the Philistines. The Jews, on their exodus from Egypt, had only known the worship of pagan gods so they asked for guidelines in serving a loving God. Their view was skiewed by the pantheon of cruel gods that surrounded them. In light of their view of God and gods it wasn't an odd request. It's very much the same as a child being told they can't leave the back yard because the street, or alley, is full of traffic and unsafe.
As far as homosexuality is concerned the short book of Jude says to beware of such people. I believe that is a sin and no sin out weighs another. Sin is sin in God's eyes, but we need to repent of sins. All sin is forgivable. Just ask it and believe that Christ died for your sins and serve Him. Easier said then done, but that's my view. I apologize if this is in anyway unscholarly or if you already know it.

It's difficult to condense the ideas of many essays I've read and written into a small space. I would be happy to elaborate if it's hard to understand.

Matthew - thanx for the comments, not hard to understand at all.

You very well could be right, your comments would fit with the cultic significance part. However, we run the risk of bad theology if we extrapolate too much from our "best guesses." You didn't do that here, just something to watch out for in general.

Thanks for visiting the site. I'll be posting regularly again soon.

I see the focus in mostly on two men being together to sexually please eachother. Why is the focus not as equally put on two females joined together to sexually please eachother? Is that not abomination as well?

CE - Thanks for the comment.

I think same-gender sex of either kind is wrong. I don't know why Leviticus only phrases it a certain way.

Romans 1:26 condemns women who "exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural..." In the context of the passage, this is most commonly regarded as refering to lesbianism.

i think that all of you against gays are inane WHO DDECIDED YOU WERE GOD AND GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CHOSE SOMEONES FATE!!

Bridget, sorry about the delay. Your post was trapped by MT-Blacklist and I did not realize it.

No one decided "we" were God.
No one decided "we" had the right to choose anyone's fate.
That is the point.

I do not think that I am "against gays" as you think of the phrase. Nor do I think "we" are inane or insane.

This was a humorous post about shellfish. What exactly bothers you about it?