Why do some care about rules about gay people but ignore rule about shrimp, rape, and stoning women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Christians are bound by NEW TESTAMENT LAW, not OLD TESTAMENT.

Shellfish, stoning, and shrimp laws are OT laws.

Homosexuality is NT law.

Jesus also said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” to people who wanted to stone an adulteress.

We follow the Law of Christ. That’s why we don’t follow all laws in the Bible anymore. It’s not picking and choosing though, it’s based on which law we are bound to.

Yes the OP should ask the writers of the OT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP there will never be a satisfactory answer to your question. I'm a Christian and I don't "care" about any specific sin. We all sin. Period. I don't go around spouting that "this" is a sin and "that" is a sin, but if YOU ask me specifically about "this" or "that", then I'm going to have to say yes, it's a sin. Quit trying to play gotcha and just understand that we all sin and true Christians are trying not to and want that everyone know Jesus' love and saving power.

You think eating shrimp is a sin?

Only in 2 cases:

All you can eat
and
scampi

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gay Christian here. Being Gay is not a sin, Sins are choices we make in life. Being Gay is not a choice its the way we are born, therefore not a sin. OP i have a male friend who has been divorced twice and sleeps with women outside of marriage, eats bacon, shrimp etc. BUT he voted against my right to civil marriage when it was on the ballot. It is hypocrisy, i think the main reason is because people don't understand it. Theyre not Gay so they think its a choice. Ignorance at its finest.

I would think it would be tough to stay friends with that person

[Anonymous]

can someone please tell me where the new testament talks about homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

It's all right up there with our other blind spots.
Nancy Reagan was all against stem cell research until her husband got Alzheimers.
The Cheneys were against gay rights until their daughter came out.
All for drill baby drill until it's on the Florida coast where they go on vacations.

Jesus spent a lot of time talking about pious leaders like Pence. (not so much about gay folks)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't eat shellfish.

Why didn't you put the word "Christian" in your post title, since you clearly were not thinking about Jews? (BTW, kosher observant Jews vary in their positions on gays) Even though the books you reference were given to US, are written in a language most of y'all don't speak, etc, etc.

#culturalappropriation

I recognize there are some Jews who don't eat shellfish, don't cut their hair/beards etc.

Yes, this post is about Christians. As to why, I backspaced it to fit my whole title in..

You wrote a long OP that did not mention Jews, and mentioned Christianity, but did not say you were specifically asking Christians.

I understand you are interested in exploring the issue of hypocrisy among Christians, but I do find the tendency to "disappear" Jews in these discussions frustrating. The entire issue is rooted in the (arguably selective) early Christian project of deemphasizing Jewish religious law, of dejudaizing Christianity while retaining those aspects of the Hebrew scriptures that were useful to Christians. I think by ignoring that project, and its relationship to Christian 'supercessionism' you can't get a full picture of these issues in Christianity.

So how should the conversation go differently?

I would have put in the OP an acknowledgement that many Jews do follow the laws of the Torah (please don't call it the "old testament" outside a specifically Christian place, which AFAICT DCUM is not) and asked why Christian who generally do not follow those laws (with whatever examples you want) do follow this one, or something to that effect.

Your way of putting it effectively put out of mind the people descended (religiously and physically) from the very people discussed in the Hebrew bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP there will never be a satisfactory answer to your question. I'm a Christian and I don't "care" about any specific sin. We all sin. Period. I don't go around spouting that "this" is a sin and "that" is a sin, but if YOU ask me specifically about "this" or "that", then I'm going to have to say yes, it's a sin. Quit trying to play gotcha and just understand that we all sin and true Christians are trying not to and want that everyone know Jesus' love and saving power.

You think eating shrimp is a sin?

The dietary laws (of which the laws against eating fish that lack fins and scales are a part) were created , I believe, to set us apart, as a "nation of priests", to remind us every day of holiness and obedience to G-d.

They are not obligatory at all on anyone who is not a Jew by birth or conversionm (except the commandment to not flesh torn from a living animal, which is given to Noah and his children)

[Anonymous]

Similarly the laws against lying with a man as you would with a woman, are obligatory to Jews, and were given in the context of our migration to Canaan, where male-male temple prostitution was a practice. (note that the position that this ban applies only to anal sex, and not to other male-male sexual relationships, has been declared by a prominent Conservative rabbi, and is one accepted position within Conservative Judaism, though AFAIK no Orthodox rabbis hold this interpretation)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't eat shellfish.

Why didn't you put the word "Christian" in your post title, since you clearly were not thinking about Jews? (BTW, kosher observant Jews vary in their positions on gays) Even though the books you reference were given to US, are written in a language most of y'all don't speak, etc, etc.

#culturalappropriation

I recognize there are some Jews who don't eat shellfish, don't cut their hair/beards etc.

Yes, this post is about Christians. As to why, I backspaced it to fit my whole title in..

You wrote a long OP that did not mention Jews, and mentioned Christianity, but did not say you were specifically asking Christians.

I understand you are interested in exploring the issue of hypocrisy among Christians, but I do find the tendency to "disappear" Jews in these discussions frustrating. The entire issue is rooted in the (arguably selective) early Christian project of deemphasizing Jewish religious law, of dejudaizing Christianity while retaining those aspects of the Hebrew scriptures that were useful to Christians. I think by ignoring that project, and its relationship to Christian 'supercessionism' you can't get a full picture of these issues in Christianity.

So how should the conversation go differently?

I would have put in the OP an acknowledgement that many Jews do follow the laws of the Torah (please don't call it the "old testament" outside a specifically Christian place, which AFAICT DCUM is not) and asked why Christian who generally do not follow those laws (with whatever examples you want) do follow this one, or something to that effect.

Your way of putting it effectively put out of mind the people descended (religiously and physically) from the very people discussed in the Hebrew bible.

yes, good point. I am interested in why Christians in particular only follow some of these laws. Although I suppose I could ask the same question of extremely conservative Jews who do not eat shrimp, do not cut their hair/beards but also do not want rapists to marry their victims or want non-virgin brides to be stoned to death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:can someone please tell me where the new testament talks about homosexuality.

This is an article I just started reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thought on this is that it's because those people are exploiting the Bible for their own political purposes. It's not politically useful for them to not eat shellfish or have rape victims marry their rapists, so they act as though those passages don't exist.

What political purpose? I do not think you are wrong, but can you give some examples?

See Pence, Mike.

I understand why Republican politicians like to talk about these issues to divide people and get them to vote out of fear and anger. But I do not understand why Christian pastors would have the same motivation.

Really?

For Catholic priests it's because the Catholic Church espouses an explicitly homophobic message.

For Protestant ministers and Mormons it's because, for most of them, the majority of their congregation is Republican: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/

So you think that taking an anti-gay stance is beneficial for priests/ministers because it makes them more likely to maintain their large socially conservative congregation and all the benefits that come with that? Money, power, influence, prestige, etc.

Yes, absolutely. It helps keep their congregations relevant, from a political standpoint.

Ministers need to make a buck too.

[Anonymous]

Stuff like this makes me think that people just interpret it however it best suits their agenda:

The Greek word arsenokoit?s appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:

“ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ”
The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" has been alternately rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (King James Version, 21st Century King James Version), "sodomites" (Young's Literal Translation), or "homosexuals" (New American Standard Bible), or "men who practice homosexuality" (English Standard Version) or "those who abuse themselves with men" (Amplified Bible) or "for those who have a twisted view of sex" (New International Readers Version) or "for sexual perverts" (Good News Translation) or "for abusers of themselves with men" (American Standard Version). The original term is unknown before Paul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone please tell me where the new testament talks about homosexuality.

This is an article I just started reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

it seems like a bunch of gibberish

[Anonymous]

This was an interesting line from that wikipedia article:

"Sarah Ruden, in her Paul Among the People (2010) argues that the only form of homosexual sex that was apparent to the public in Paul's time was exploitative pederasty, in which slave boys were raped by adult males, often very violently. Paul's condemnation of homosexuality, Ruden argues, can be interpreted most plausibly as a criticism of this kind of brutally exploitative behavior."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thought on this is that it's because those people are exploiting the Bible for their own political purposes. It's not politically useful for them to not eat shellfish or have rape victims marry their rapists, so they act as though those passages don't exist.

What political purpose? I do not think you are wrong, but can you give some examples?

See Pence, Mike.

PP here, but yes -- the immediate PP gave the answer I would have. These people are homophobic and are using the Bible to justify attacking gay people.

What is the attack? If you asked Mike Pence is stealing a sin, he'd say yes. If you asked him if gossip is a sin, he'd say yes. If you asked him is jealously is a sin, he'd say yes.

BAHAHAHA so it's ok to do conversion therapy on gays (his wife) but no one should attempt conversion therapy on pathological liers (his boss)?