Why is gay sex still a sin, but eating a lobster is not? They are both prohibited in the Bible. But for some reason after Jesus it is OK to eat a lobster, but not have gay sex. Why is this?
I even things out by only eating unshaven gay lobsters.
Marc
Because most people enjoy eating lobster. Most people are not gay.
…Thus making all things clean to eat. Genitalia does not apply.
methinks if you find genitalia too unclean to eat, you are maybe dating the wrong type of person.
It’s all good. Just don’t let your lobster lover give you a claw job. Oh ho ho! 
Perhaps, but only a Mr. Bungle neglects to scrub their genitalia before eating it.
Those texts were not about the dietary requirements of the Jews. Using them in this context is not apropos to your point.
It is true however that the prohibition from eating shellfish was (is) lifted. (While gay sex isn’t)
You’re just using the wrong texts to make your point.
So, which are the correct ones, raindog?
Gay sex is often linked to the prohibition of eating shellfish, or wearing mixed threads clothing as a means of showing the hypocrisy of criticizing homosexuality.
Those were aspects of the Mosaic Law that governed the Jews. The purpose of the Law however was to prepare the way for the Mesiah, which the Jews had been in anticipation of for centuries. Paul wrote that the law was a “tutor leading to the Christ.” **(Gal 3:24) **
But while the basic “core” aspects of the law were reaffirmed and supprted by Christ, and Paul and the other apostles after Christ, the law itself was “fulfilled” by Christ. Therefore the Jews were no longer under the Mosaic Law after Christ. (The Law had roughly 600 laws that governed not only ‘morality’ and worship to God, but dietary, sanitation and other sundry requirements)
After Christ Paul wrote, “For Christ is the end of the Law…” (Rom 10:4) and completing the thought at Galations 3:25 he writes: “Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to the Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor” (The Law) (See also Romans 7:1-5) (Eph 2:11-16) Further the verses at Col 2:13,14 reference the Law being nailed to the cross upon Christs death.
The texts cited in Acts refer to the expansion of the preaching work, and that the message of the Christ was no longer restricted to the Jews but was to shared with the Gentiles as well. The symbolism of eating “unclean” food was a powerful image for the Jews (in this case Peter) but the point for Peter was not one of diet, but to whom he was authorized (rather, compelled) to share the good news of the Christ with.
Thanks raindog. Two questions:
Was the prohibition of homosexuality not part of Mosiac Law?
Is Mosaic law laid out in the Bible anywhere?
So, in your interpretation, is the prohibition on gay sex one of the “core” aspects of the law that still applies after Christ’s advent, or one of those fiddly little Mosaic rules that now are null and void?
And what about Jesus and the Beloved Disciple?
Paul lays it out pretty clearly in Romans 1:16-2:6.
In other words, yes, homosexuality is bad Mosaic Law or no. Those who “gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men” were the sorts of people who “did not see fit to acknowledge God.” Hence, “God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” To be gay is to be one who willfully rebels against the Lord, not in a particular Levitican kind of way, but in a broad, rotten-to-the-core kind of way. Such people are “filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.”
This goes way beyond keeping Kosher. We’re talking “gay = satanic”. People can argue this point until they’re blue…“oh, that’s not what Paul really meant” yadda, yadda, yadda. I’m not much for revisionism and endless reams of subtext and semiotics. If you’re not subject to wishful thinking, but rather read the word on the page and take it for what it is, Paul catagorizes homosexuality as a symptom of pure evil. It certainly goes hand-in-hand with a great number of other sinful behaviors, and probably isn’t even the worst of those. But make no mistake, Paul tells us homosexuals are revealed, in their proclivities, to be “haters of God”.
There’s no worse sin than that. Love of God was NOT one of the things Christ’s new covenant freed humanity from.
But, in fact, homosexuals are not full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, etc. At least, no more so than heterosexuals are. Where does St. Paul get off?
[ned flanders]
Why me, Lord? I did everything I was supposed to . . . I even kept kosher, just to be on the safe side . . .
[/ned flanders]
Hey, I didn’t make up the rules. Don’t ask me where St. Paul gets his whacky ideas. I suppose the orthodox answer would be “from God.” That is what Paul asserts, after all, Road to Damascus and all that. If Paul were here to debate you, I imagine a reasonable response on his part would be to say, eyes cast heavenward, “I’m sorry, but this is God’s Word, His will, His Truth. To be granted Eternal Life, you must obey Him. To do otherwise is to burn.”
Yes it was part of the Mosaic Law, and it was reaffirmed post Mosaic Law. (along with adultrey, murder etc etc)
And yes, the Mosaic Law (The Law of Moses) is laid out in the bible. Most people’s only familiarity with them are the 10 commandments.
For the very few that have crossed paths with me here, I can hardly be called pro-gay. I’m not likely to be on many gay Christmas card list from members here.
That having been said, I find your post to be highly offensive. Paul doesn’t single out homosexuality as “pure evil”, and doesn’t use words anything close to that. Nor does he directly call homosexuals “haters of God.” While you’re at it, “rotten to the core” is too not supported biblically. The highest form of reckless hyperbole you display is “gay=satanic.”
You may be sincere. (I don’t know you) Maybe you’re trolling. But IMHO your post is insensitive and patently unChristian in the application of the biblical cites you’ve offered.
Just my 02¢
I’d like to hear this from a Jew, because, no offense, when Christians start talking about what things in the OT are for and about, I oftentimes later find out that it’s radically different from how Jews read their own Scriptures and always have.
And from what I know, this particular account doesn’t ring true to me at all. How could the Mosaic Law in particular be meant to prepare the way for the Messiah if the situation that called for a Messiah hadn’t even arisen yet when it was given? No one was anticipating a Messianic age in Moses’ time. The Jews weren’t even informed of it until much much later, and even then nothing was said about the law changing. In fact, it’s said that in that age all will know and believe in God and there will be world peace, etc. etc.
At no point that I remember does anyone in the OT imply what Christians claim about the point of the law: that it is going to be “fulfilled” or rendered unecessary or anything like that. And indeed, the only major change to it is made before Jesus even comes on the scene, when the latter phrophets say that the sacrificial sin system is no longer necessary now (in fact, it’s worse than that: it’s becoming a temptation and an evil!) that there is no temple-state anyway, that prayer and repentance alone are sufficient for atonement and forgiveness of sins (a rather unfortunate couple of passages for a religion that requires that there be a big problem with forgiving sin that Christ is needed to solve)
Well, I’m not trolling, and I think you’re wrong. I’m sorry if you’re offended, but I think the passage I cited is pretty clear in its wording. As I said above, to see it otherwise is, in my estimation, wishful thinking.
I’m very pro-gay, and I’m not at all Christian (I’m quite agnostic, if one wishes to be pedantic, essentially atheist in practice), so I figure if you consider my analysis “un-Christian”, that’s a fair assessment. However, since I consider a good number (perhaps a majority of) Christians to be the most un-Christian bunch of people I have ever seen, there seems to be a lot of un-Christianity about. I’m rather surprised you find my analysis so blatant, given all the fundies who preach very much the same thing. My take on the fundies is, while I disagree in most stringent terms with their position, they’re often a lot more in agreement with my own reading of Biblical passages than a lot of liberal Christians, who seem to want to cherry-pick the Bible for those passages that make them feel all cozy inside, whilst blithely ignoring, or even denying, the parts that make them squeamish.
Best thread title ever.