The "Sin" of eating Pork and Shellfish

[Rainbow Mage]

Greetings everybody. For all my fellow Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, and point out the verses from Leviticus to point it out, do you skip over the next few verses? Didn't you know pork and shellfish are also sins? Do you just pick and choose what to believe?

 

[enchanted_one1975]

That is how I understand it.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

That is how I understand it.

I figured I'd make this thread just for you

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Greetings everybody. For all my fellow Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, and point out the verses from Leviticus to point it out, do you skip over the next few verses? Didn't you know pork and shellfish are also sins? Do you just pick and choose what to believe?

In the New Testament (the Epistles, specifically), it explicitly states several times that dietary restrictions no longer apply to believers (and yes, several verses refer to food specifically).

Actually, there are other passages that state that the Old Law no longer applies generally, but there's apparently disagreement as to what the "Old Law" refers to. I think that the supposition by some is that because Paul comes out rather strongly against homosexuality at other times, the inference is that when he says that the "Old Law" has been "torn down", or that "believers are dead to the Law", he doesn't mean that it's now okay to be gay.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Actually 9-10ths Penguin if you scroll over to another thread about homosexuality, I point out there how the Paul verses have been misinterpreted and taken out of context. I just started this post because fundies love to point out the Leviticus verses about homosexuality and how we must be put to death. Do they get their rocks off thinking about it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually 9-10ths Penguin if you scroll over to another thread about homosexuality, I point out there how the Paul verses have been misinterpreted and taken out of context.

Okay... so while you think they're incorrect in their interpretation, you see where they got their ideas from, right?

I just started this post because fundies love to point out the Leviticus verses about homosexuality and how we must be put to death. Do they get their rocks off thinking about it?

I don't know. Some of them probably do.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well the same Leviticus that says gays deserve death, also says people who eat pork and shellfish, and wear mixed fabric deserve death.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well the same Leviticus that says gays deserve death, also says people who eat pork and shellfish, and wear mixed fabric deserve death.

Yup. Though in the context of instructions to a particular group of people.

What I'm saying, though, is that the New Testament is much clearer about the fact that eating pork and shellfish is now okay than it is about homosexuality (or, now that I think about it, wearing mixed fabric).

 

[Rainbow Mage]

That still doesn't answer why they'd be hypocrites and quote a book from the OT that condemns them just as much as it does me.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

On a serious note though, I used to have the following theory when I believed in the bible:

The thing about shellfish and pork had to do with health risks. They are both unclean when alive and need to be properly cooked to be safe for consumption. They didn't exactly have a modern kitchen back then. Also, if you read the story about Sodom and Gomorrah, it talks about the men being raped rather than having consensual sex. At least that was my interpretation of it. Keep in mind that back then women were more of a man's property where he could do what he wanted with her. A man wasn't supposed to dominate another man in this way though. I say as long as pork and crab are safe that homosexuality should be too. :yes:

 

[TheKnight]

Greetings everybody. For all my fellow Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, and point out the verses from Leviticus to point it out, do you skip over the next few verses? Didn't you know pork and shellfish are also sins? Do you just pick and choose what to believe?

The fundamental problem is that Christians don't believe that all of the laws were commands from God. They don't see eating non-Kosher as a sin (and it isn't. In fact, the whole common conception of sin and what it is seems to be just ridiculous).

That is what lies at the heart of the problem. Homosexuality is seen as sinful (it is specifically called an abomination), whereas shellfish is not seen as a sin.

Yup. Though in the context of instructions to a particular group of people.

All of the laws in the Torah were given, in context, to a particular group of people.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

The fundamental problem is that Christians don't believe that all of the laws were commands from God. They don't see eating non-Kosher as a sin (and it isn't. In fact, the whole common conception of sin and what it is seems to be just ridiculous).

That is what lies at the heart of the problem. Homosexuality is seen as sinful (it is specifically called an abomination), whereas shellfish is not seen as a sin.

So, as the OP said, Christians pick and choose what rules they want to obey and ignore the others?

 

[JustWondering2]

Ummmm Pork, the other white meat! I love it and wouldn't stop eating it for anything! Same with shell fish of any kinds! Does that really make me a sinner? If so I know a lot of Cajuns that are going to Hell for sure!

 

[fallingblood]

That still doesn't answer why they'd be hypocrites and quote a book from the OT that condemns them just as much as it does me.

It does answer the question though. The New Testament is what Christianity is based off of. They use the Old Testament to reinforce those ideas. Since the New Testament supposedly supports that idea that homosexuality is sinful, then it is no problem to see that the Old Testament law concerning homosexuality is still in affect.

However, the dietary laws were specifically abolished. Which in turn made the Old Testament laws about diet void. So there is no problem ignoring the dietary laws while not ignoring the laws on homosexuality. The reasoning is somewhat sound.

However, I don't believe it to be this way. I'm simply stating how it can be justified logically. Personally, I don't see homosexuality being a problem in the New Testament. At most, I see it being called a punishment of sin, yet not a sin itself. Not to mention that homosexuality was seen differently in ancient times.

 

[shahzad010101]

Why swine is a abusive to be called because you dont like it, so how come eat it

 

[Levite]

I must say, I have never been clear on why Christians don't feel obligated to follow the majority of the commandments, yet so many tend to be adamant that the Bible is the literal word of God. To me, that just seems self-contradictory; and the various exegetical and theological arguments I have heard advanced by Christian ministers and priests that I have heard seem deeply unconvincing to me.

It seems to me that if you are going to demand of others that they follow the commandments regarding sexual proprieties, marriage, and divorce, to say nothing of using the Torah texts as support for capital punishment and other conservative issues, then one ought to be keeping kosher, observing the sabbath, the festivals, the laws of impurity (e.g., menstruating women must keep to themselves, and any time a man has an emission of semen, he must go to the mikveh-- or, ritual bath-- the next morning to purify himself), the laws of forbidden mixtures, and all the laws protecting the poor, the widow and orphan, the stranger in one's land, and the hungry-- all issues on which I note that most social conservatives generally take a fairly anti-Torah stance.

And what is more, if you're going to tell me that the entire Bible is the literal word of God, and even the parables, like the Creation story, must be understood 100% literally, then I like to cite Deuteronomy 23:12-13 "You must have a place set aside outside the camp, to which you shall go out; and you shall have a spade amongst your tools, and you shall dig a hole with it, and there you shall sit, and when you sit, you shall cover over that which comes out of you." In other words, what are you doing pooping in town, you sinner?!

See, fundamentalism gets us nowhere.

 

[TheKnight]

So, as the OP said, Christians pick and choose what rules they want to obey and ignore the others?

It's not that. It's that they don't all agree on which rules are actually rules.

I must say, I have never been clear on why Christians don't feel obligated to follow the majority of the commandments, yet so many tend to be adamant that the Bible is the literal word of God.

The New Testament pretty much clearly states that following the law is no longer necessary. "Christ is the end of the law..."

Don't worry. No matter what they say, their actions reflect what they truly think.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It does answer the question though. The New Testament is what Christianity is based off of. They use the Old Testament to reinforce those ideas. Since the New Testament supposedly supports that idea that homosexuality is sinful, then it is no problem to see that the Old Testament law concerning homosexuality is still in affect.

It depends how you interpret those verses in the NT. No the NT doesn't say homosexuality is a sin necessarily.

 

[blackout]

On a serious note though, I used to have the following theory when I believed in the bible:

The thing about shellfish and pork had to do with health risks. They are both unclean when alive and need to be properly cooked to be safe for consumption. They didn't exactly have a modern kitchen back then. Also, if you read the story about Sodom and Gomorrah, it talks about the men being raped rather than having consensual sex. At least that was my interpretation of it. Keep in mind that back then women were more of a man's property where he could do what he wanted with her. A man wasn't supposed to dominate another man in this way though. I say as long as pork and crab are safe that homosexuality should be too. :yes:

Interesting thoughts here EO. :yes:

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Interesting thoughts here EO. :yes:

I do try at times.