Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [b]Clams, shrimp, lobster, etc. are abominations.
Leviticus 11:10
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:
Many other things are forbidden such as sowing a field with two kinds of seed, wearing a ...[text shortened]... all of the above are allowed by members of his church even though they set "bad examples".[/b]
Food such as shrimp and lobster have high salt content and probably not the best to eat. In addition, pork was forbidden, presumably because of the high fat content because eating fat was prohibited. From what we now know about eating foods high in fat content, this was probably sound advice. Trimming the sides of your head could prove harmful if you were to draw blood and a subsequent infection resulted. Again, probably sound advice. Serving mammon rather than God focusing on ones riches rather than their God is another piece of sound advice.
So tell us TOO, why is it sound advice not to engage in homosexual activity?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [b]Clams, shrimp, lobster, etc. are abominations.
Leviticus 11:10
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:
[/b]
Isn't that the most ridiculous Bible verse?
Most things that live in the water don't have fins or scales. What is it about living in the water that makes a specimen abominable, and what is it about fins and scales that ought to impart immunity from this condition?
Does this verse actually reflect the will of God, or does it rather betray an extremely primitive grasp of zoology, botany and biology in general?
Originally posted by whodey The command is not to drink actual blood. Considering the dangers we now konw in drinking blood, it was nothing more than sound inspired advice.
Oh, so that which is consumed during Holy Communion isn't in fact the actual blood of Jesus?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Isn't that the most ridiculous Bible verse?
Most things that live in the water don't have fins or scales. What is it about living in the water that makes a specimen abominable, and what is it about fins and scales that ought to impart immunity from this condition?
Does this verse actually reflect the will of God, or does it rather betray an extremely primitive grasp of zoology, botany and biology in general?
Those that do not have fins or scales are probably not open ocean/sea specimens. This would make them bottom dwellers by in large. In short, the adivce was not to eat cockroaches of the sea. Again, probably sound advice
Originally posted by whodey I think this may be a Catholic belief, but for me it is purely representative.
So, it seems then that Catholics, believing
1) that they consume the actual blood of Jesus
2) that drinking blood is an abomination,
3) that sinners should be rebuked
should regularly rebuke one another as a matter of routine after each service of Holy Communion.
Doesn't the fact that they don't administer such rebukes indicate that they don't in fact believe that which they profess to believe?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles So, it seems then that Catholics, believing
1) that they consume the actual blood of Jesus
2) that drinking blood is an abomination,
3) that sinners should be rebuked
should regularly rebuke one another as a matter of routine after each service of Holy Communion.
Doesn't the fact that they don't administer such rebukes indicate that they don't in fact believe that which they profess to believe?
Your ask'in the wrong guy, guy. Try asking a Catholic. 😉
Originally posted by whodey Those that do not have fins or scales are probably not open ocean/sea specimens. This would make them bottom dwellers by in large. In short, the adivce was not to eat cockroaches of the sea. Again, probably sound advice
Come on. Do you really believe that it goes against God's will -- and to such an extent that it is an abomination worse than human slavery -- to eat a shrimp but not, say, a tuna fish?
Why don't Christians protest outside of Red Lobster?
Originally posted by whodey Food such as shrimp and lobster have high salt content and probably not the best to eat. In addition, pork was forbidden, presumably because of the high fat content because eating fat was prohibited. From what we now know about eating foods high in fat content, this was probably sound advice. Trimming the sides of your head could prove harmful if you were ...[text shortened]... sound advice.
So tell us TOO, why is it sound advice not to engage in homosexual activity?
You're the one who tried to justify your bigotry by saying things such as the following:
"So when TOO comes to me and asks me about homosexual unions I say, 'No, for it is written...'"
You can say "for it is written" about all the verses I cited.
If it is something that you or you fellow members do or might choose to do, then what the Bible says isn't important.
Like I said, you use the Bible as a weapon to further your bigotry by taking selectively from the Bible.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Come on. Do you really believe that it goes against God's will -- and to such an extent that it is an abomination worse than human slavery -- to eat a shrimp but not, say, a tuna fish?
Why don't Christians protest outside of Red Lobster?
As I said, I do not believe that slavery is "tasteful" to the Almighty, just like divorce is not. However, he made provisions for them based upon the fallen state of man and their already current socioeconomic state during that time.
As for eating shrimp, there is really no need to do so during that time, especially if it is not the best thing nutritionally.
Having said that, the whole issue about eating "unclean" foods was later challenged in the NT, but not homosexuality. As I see it, one deals soley with the body as the other deals with our sexuality which has spiritual implications. After Christ came the focus became our spiritual life rather than our carnal one.
Originally posted by whodey Food such as shrimp and lobster have high salt content and probably not the best to eat. In addition, pork was forbidden, presumably because of the high fat content because eating fat was prohibited. From what we now know about eating foods high in fat content, this was probably sound advice. Trimming the sides of your head could prove harmful if you were ...[text shortened]... sound advice.
So tell us TOO, why is it sound advice not to engage in homosexual activity?
Let me see if I understand you correctly:
Homosexuals should be ostracized from membership / leadership of your church because the Bible says it's an "abomination".
Those who eat clams, shrimp, lobster, etc. should not be ostracized from membership / leadership of your church even though the Bible says it's an "abomination".
There doesn't seem to be any doubt about what you are: a bigot and hypocrite.
How you can continue to deny this is beyond me. You're seriously deluded.
Okay, it's not important enough to warrant ostracization from membership / leadership of your church. It's not important enough to warrant zealously rebuking.
I thought it would be understood within the context given, but evidently not.
You're a modern day Pharisee who uses scripture toward your own ends.
20 Sep '09 22:19
Rebuked
Back to Top