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:
11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
"Love the Shrimper, Hate the Shrimp".
9 comments:
I hate to point this out, but that's a somewhat disingenuous comparison.
The punishment for eating unclean meats: Lev 11:40 And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
Versus the punishment for homosexual acts: Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
So just stating that both are abominations isn't quite honest.
Rob - Never be afraid to bring something like that up! It improves the quality of the blog.
I wasn't trying to be dishonest, merely pithy. I omitted Deuteronomy on the subject too, for example.
I hope my blog never devolves into an echo-chamber where only one view is permissible.
May I ask you to also mention the other acts requiring death in Leviticus? In the name of completeness, so we can see things in context.
By all means discuss new law vs old, what was discarded, what was affirmed. Romans 1:26 IIRC might be a good thing to mention... but also some of the other epistles, eg those dealing with "let not women have dominion over men" etc. It's not simple.
The subject is complex. My apologies for being too terse - but knowing what to leave out is tricky.
Thanks once more for a helpful (not to say polite, courteous etc) contribution.
What I don't understand is the tendency of some religious peoples in democracies to try and impose their religious views on others when that damages the very structures - secular government with a seperation of church and state and most importantly individual freedom of religion - that guarantees and protects their own beliefs.
It's like leaning out of the treehouse to chop at the bough with an axe.
Personally I find the placard, while not entirely accurate, is very funny and a good rhetorical device (if perhaps a little to obscure for the lowest common denominator). It's certainly more theologically valid than a lot of other groups placards.
Batty, I want to impose some of my religious beliefs on everyone around me, whether they believe in them or not. Partially it's because I think "Thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not steal" and "Don't stiff your hired hands" and such are good ideas.
Partially this is because if they sin, they are damaging their soul, and I am as responsible to prevent that as I would be to keep a toddler from sticking his tongue into a light socket.
(Caveat: I'm a Christian, but I'm just explaining the argument, I don't hold with it. As far as I'm concerned, you're responsible for yourself, and if you win a Darwin award, that's not my problem. But most people aren't as coldblooded as I am).
As for "separation of church and state", there's nothing magical about that. Secular governments have been every bit as unpleasant as the worst theocracies.
I could also argue that it's impossible to have a governement which doesn't have a religious bias--whether it's Baptist or Buddhist or athiest--but if you're bright enough to hang out here, you can figure out the rest on your own. It's late and I'm too caffeine depleted to philosophize.
The analogy actually makes some sense. If a judge declares that shrimp must be offered in a school cafeteria even when the voters disagreed, it might make a little bit of sense for there to be a Constitutional Amendment restraining such judges.
In any case, the real abominations are the "reality" TV shows.
This has just bugged me for a while, when people equate eating pork with homosexuality. It's just not a serious argument with anyone who knows the Bible well. There are verses in the NT that that prima facie seem to "cleanse" unclean meats (though that's not what they do) but there really aren't any which seem to OK homosexual acts, which doubly weakens the argument.
BTW I'm sorry if the tone of my comment was off. I didn't mean to accuse you of being dishonest, and I'm certainly not trying to say homosexuals should all be executed out of hand.
Rob, I meant it when I said your comment was useful.
Treading on eggshells for fear of giving offense is *not* required here, merely common courtesy and politeness - both of which you are guilty of in the 1st degree :)
To see where my own views on same sex marriage have come from, see a post by a guy I used to know in 2003: Confessions of a Homophobe.
I don't listen to the fundies because they aren't Christians.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.~Mohandas Gandhi
I try to live by the 4 gospels and pretty much ignore most of the rest. For it's there (4 gospels) that the important message (Love, Forgiveness, Tolerance) is found.
Hi Leah,
If you mean "there are some people who are culturally Christian but don't act like Believers", I agree with you. It might however be a bit unfair to imply that no fundies are Christian. We're hardly perfect, granted, and a lot of us have a tendency to run our mouth without knowing wherof we speak--but some of us, at least, are improving, albeit slowly and solely by God's grace.
There are gems you might enjoy outside the four Gospels. One of my favorites is Micah 6:8:
He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you,
but to do justly, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Post a Comment