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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. My post was sincere. If the answer is that gays are truly going to hell, then I'm not sure if Christianity is for me

I think there are good reasons to think that the answer to that question is no though

The answer is never “x is going to hell.” You have misunderstood the fundamental components of Christianity and are trying to ask a specific question with no foundation.

Yes, often gay people and Jews are told they will go to hell.

I'm Jewish and have had people tell me I'm going to hell. Incidentally, a classmate of mine in 2nd grade wrote "the Jews killed Jesus" on my notebook.

Fun times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. My post was sincere. If the answer is that gays are truly going to hell, then I'm not sure if Christianity is for me

I think there are good reasons to think that the answer to that question is no though

The answer is never “x is going to hell.” You have misunderstood the fundamental components of Christianity and are trying to ask a specific question with no foundation.

Yes, often gay people and Jews are told they will go to hell.

"Are told?" Why the passive tense? Are told by whom? Do you consider every statement by every ignorant person to be representative of theology? Do you think terrorists represent Islam?

There is no Christian recipe book where X+Y+Z=hell. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity even among a lot of Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. My post was sincere. If the answer is that gays are truly going to hell, then I'm not sure if Christianity is for me

I think there are good reasons to think that the answer to that question is no though

The answer is never “x is going to hell.” You have misunderstood the fundamental components of Christianity and are trying to ask a specific question with no foundation.

Yes, often gay people and Jews are told they will go to hell.

"Are told?" Why the passive tense? Are told by whom? Do you consider every statement by every ignorant person to be representative of theology? Do you think terrorists represent Islam?

There is no Christian recipe book where X+Y+Z=hell. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity even among a lot of Christians.

Our church and christian schools tell the student that Jewish people will go to hell.

If you are not baptized and accept Jesus as your savior you will go to hell.

I don't believe them, it's insane talk. But that is what is taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. My post was sincere. If the answer is that gays are truly going to hell, then I'm not sure if Christianity is for me

I think there are good reasons to think that the answer to that question is no though

The answer is never “x is going to hell.” You have misunderstood the fundamental components of Christianity and are trying to ask a specific question with no foundation.

Yes, often gay people and Jews are told they will go to hell.

I'm Jewish and have had people tell me I'm going to hell. Incidentally, a classmate of mine in 2nd grade wrote "the Jews killed Jesus" on my notebook.

Fun times.

As a Catholic, I learned that I would go to hell if I missed mass and died before going to confession to be absolved of my sins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. My post was sincere. If the answer is that gays are truly going to hell, then I'm not sure if Christianity is for me

I think there are good reasons to think that the answer to that question is no though

The answer is never “x is going to hell.” You have misunderstood the fundamental components of Christianity and are trying to ask a specific question with no foundation.

Yes, often gay people and Jews are told they will go to hell.

I'm Jewish and have had people tell me I'm going to hell. Incidentally, a classmate of mine in 2nd grade wrote "the Jews killed Jesus" on my notebook.

Fun times.

As a Catholic, I learned that I would go to hell if I missed mass and died before going to confession to be absolved of my sins.

Right. I know it's uncomfortable for some Christians, but a fundamental tenet of Christianity is that your actions on earth help determine where you go (aka heaven, purgatory, or hell) after you die. "Salvation by faith" and for some denominations "salvation by works" is perhaps the most important aspect of Christianity, regardless of denomination. If you don't get baptized and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, I fail to understand how you can go to heaven in the logical framework of Christianity.

I understand some denominations have made semi-exceptions, like if a baby dies before getting baptized. But to say generally that there isn't criteria for going to heaven or hell in Christianity is crazy, IMO. It's the whole point of the religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the OP is asking this "sincerely" as he said in his post. I think this is the same OP that brings shrimp into any discussion that is even remotely relevant.

But for everyone else:
1. Shrimp. God never says it's a "sin." He says don't eat it. The Jews lived in the desert with no refrigeration. Makes perfect sense. (Then see Acts 9, where God declares all food "clean," and Peter totally gets the analogy that God loves everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, not just Jews. It's the same as if I told my son, don't hit your sister (it's wrong) and don't cross the street without looking both ways (it's a bad idea because you might get hurt).

There are sins between man and man, and sins between man and G-d. IE ritual sins. The Hebrew bible is clear that ritual sins are important (see so many laws in the 5 books of Moses) There are mixed indications in prophets as to their importance relative to the sins between man and man - the famous section of Isaiah about fasting, on the one hand, but lots of prophets complaining about ritual violations.

The book of Acts (you mean 10, not 9, right?) is an odd vision, not clear to me at least that its an indication the dietary laws are revoked, or were never about sin. In any case, the book of Acts is not cannon in Judaism.

Note also, many of the dietary laws have nothing to do with health. There is no health reason not to eat the calf and its mother's milk together, nor to avoid the sciaitic nerve.

As for the laws claimed to be about health, the nations that lived alongside Israel did not follow them, and there is nothing in the historical record indicating they had poor health as a result. Certainly its not hard to cook pork, for example and the dangers of infection are more than offset by the value of the protein source. The dietary laws are NOT about hygiene, but about creating a bond between the children of Israel and their G-d, a bond expressed in daily living, that sets them off from the nations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. And yes, you are right, it is Acts 10, not 9. My bad.

I understand that Acts is not cannon in Judaism, but the OP was asking about Christianity and why Christians don't follow all the Old Testament laws, so Acts would be relevant here. In any case, I agree with you that there were a lot of laws of ritual, and I agree with you that a lot of what was in the law was to set apart a people from God. But I don't think the shrimp was an indication of that. The LORD told the Jewish people that if they followed all the laws, they would live long in the land the LORD was giving them. So I think PART of that was not eating shellfish where there was no refrigeration. In the case of not cooking a calf in mother's milk, the idea as I understand it was that milk was life-giving and so to kill a calf and cook it in what was supposed to give life was an odd image that the LORD wanted them to think about. I don't know what the point of the sciatic nerve was. Mixed fabrics I believe was a way to illustrate not to mix with other religions and intermarry with populations that did not worship the LORD. So there were many reasons that these laws were on the books, so to speak. There is even a passage about breaking a pot if a bird had died in it. This was to keep food from being contaminated -- the LORD knew about this long before the scientific method was aware of it. So some of these things were indeed for health. Some were not.

In any case, yes, the prophets complained about ritual violations because they were in disobedience to the LORD. That much is pretty clear.

However, in Christianity, there is very little concern about ritual violations, because there is very little ritual discussed. The theology is: Believe in the LORD Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. There are a couple of admonishments about how to observe communion, but ritual is almost entirely non-existent. This is mostly because Christians believe that Jesus is our priest, and worshiping Him is done with the heart. So the Levitical rituals don't enter into it, because we don't have a priestly class. And in worshiping Christ, Christians are -- are should be -- still set apart.

[Anonymous]

^^^ People FOR God. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the OP is asking this "sincerely" as he said in his post. I think this is the same OP that brings shrimp into any discussion that is even remotely relevant.

But for everyone else:
1. Shrimp. God never says it's a "sin." He says don't eat it. The Jews lived in the desert with no refrigeration. Makes perfect sense. (Then see Acts 9, where God declares all food "clean," and Peter totally gets the analogy that God loves everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, not just Jews. It's the same as if I told my son, don't hit your sister (it's wrong) and don't cross the street without looking both ways (it's a bad idea because you might get hurt).

There are sins between man and man, and sins between man and G-d. IE ritual sins. The Hebrew bible is clear that ritual sins are important (see so many laws in the 5 books of Moses) There are mixed indications in prophets as to their importance relative to the sins between man and man - the famous section of Isaiah about fasting, on the one hand, but lots of prophets complaining about ritual violations.

The book of Acts (you mean 10, not 9, right?) is an odd vision, not clear to me at least that its an indication the dietary laws are revoked, or were never about sin. In any case, the book of Acts is not cannon in Judaism.

Note also, many of the dietary laws have nothing to do with health. There is no health reason not to eat the calf and its mother's milk together, nor to avoid the sciaitic nerve.

As for the laws claimed to be about health, the nations that lived alongside Israel did not follow them, and there is nothing in the historical record indicating they had poor health as a result. Certainly its not hard to cook pork, for example and the dangers of infection are more than offset by the value of the protein source. The dietary laws are NOT about hygiene, but about creating a bond between the children of Israel and their G-d, a bond expressed in daily living, that sets them off from the nations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. And yes, you are right, it is Acts 10, not 9. My bad.

I understand that Acts is not cannon in Judaism, but the OP was asking about Christianity and why Christians don't follow all the Old Testament laws, so Acts would be relevant here. In any case, I agree with you that there were a lot of laws of ritual, and I agree with you that a lot of what was in the law was to set apart a people from God. But I don't think the shrimp was an indication of that. The LORD told the Jewish people that if they followed all the laws, they would live long in the land the LORD was giving them. So I think PART of that was not eating shellfish where there was no refrigeration. In the case of not cooking a calf in mother's milk, the idea as I understand it was that milk was life-giving and so to kill a calf and cook it in what was supposed to give life was an odd image that the LORD wanted them to think about. I don't know what the point of the sciatic nerve was. Mixed fabrics I believe was a way to illustrate not to mix with other religions and intermarry with populations that did not worship the LORD. So there were many reasons that these laws were on the books, so to speak. There is even a passage about breaking a pot if a bird had died in it. This was to keep food from being contaminated -- the LORD knew about this long before the scientific method was aware of it. So some of these things were indeed for health. Some were not.

In any case, yes, the prophets complained about ritual violations because they were in disobedience to the LORD. That much is pretty clear.

However, in Christianity, there is very little concern about ritual violations, because there is very little ritual discussed. The theology is: Believe in the LORD Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. There are a couple of admonishments about how to observe communion, but ritual is almost entirely non-existent. This is mostly because Christians believe that Jesus is our priest, and worshiping Him is done with the heart. So the Levitical rituals don't enter into it, because we don't have a priestly class. And in worshiping Christ, Christians are -- are should be -- still set apart.

How is ritual not a part of Christianity? Sure you don't have the OT laws, but it seems to me there's a lot of ritual: you have to take communion during mass, stand up/kneel/sit down at certain parts. You have to do the sign of the cross at various parts. You have to confess your sins to a priest and then say X number of our fathers or hail marys to become absolved of that sin. Etc ...

I also don't understand your comment about there not being a priestly class. You literally have priests who are considered conduits between the people and God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. My post was sincere. If the answer is that gays are truly going to hell, then I'm not sure if Christianity is for me

I think there are good reasons to think that the answer to that question is no though

The answer is never “x is going to hell.” You have misunderstood the fundamental components of Christianity and are trying to ask a specific question with no foundation.

Yes, often gay people and Jews are told they will go to hell.

"Are told?" Why the passive tense? Are told by whom? Do you consider every statement by every ignorant person to be representative of theology? Do you think terrorists represent Islam?

There is no Christian recipe book where X+Y+Z=hell. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity even among a lot of Christians.

Our church and christian schools tell the student that Jewish people will go to hell.

If you are not baptized and accept Jesus as your savior you will go to hell.

I don't believe them, it's insane talk. But that is what is taught.

Again, people fixate on hell, I guess that is the most interesting thing to them. No Bible that I have ever read says "Jewish people will go to hell." No Bible that I have read says "unbaptized people will go to hell." What does the Bible say about hell? How do you get there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. My post was sincere. If the answer is that gays are truly going to hell, then I'm not sure if Christianity is for me

I think there are good reasons to think that the answer to that question is no though

The answer is never “x is going to hell.” You have misunderstood the fundamental components of Christianity and are trying to ask a specific question with no foundation.

Yes, often gay people and Jews are told they will go to hell.

I'm Jewish and have had people tell me I'm going to hell. Incidentally, a classmate of mine in 2nd grade wrote "the Jews killed Jesus" on my notebook.

Fun times.

As a Catholic, I learned that I would go to hell if I missed mass and died before going to confession to be absolved of my sins.

Right. I know it's uncomfortable for some Christians, but a fundamental tenet of Christianity is that your actions on earth help determine where you go (aka heaven, purgatory, or hell) after you die. "Salvation by faith" and for some denominations "salvation by works" is perhaps the most important aspect of Christianity, regardless of denomination. If you don't get baptized and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, I fail to understand how you can go to heaven in the logical framework of Christianity.

I understand some denominations have made semi-exceptions, like if a baby dies before getting baptized. But to say generally that there isn't criteria for going to heaven or hell in Christianity is crazy, IMO. It's the whole point of the religion.

Sorry, you have missed the entire point of Christianity. Perhaps read a Bible for yourself instead of relying on whatever resources you get your information from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the OP is asking this "sincerely" as he said in his post. I think this is the same OP that brings shrimp into any discussion that is even remotely relevant.

But for everyone else:
1. Shrimp. God never says it's a "sin." He says don't eat it. The Jews lived in the desert with no refrigeration. Makes perfect sense. (Then see Acts 9, where God declares all food "clean," and Peter totally gets the analogy that God loves everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, not just Jews. It's the same as if I told my son, don't hit your sister (it's wrong) and don't cross the street without looking both ways (it's a bad idea because you might get hurt).

There are sins between man and man, and sins between man and G-d. IE ritual sins. The Hebrew bible is clear that ritual sins are important (see so many laws in the 5 books of Moses) There are mixed indications in prophets as to their importance relative to the sins between man and man - the famous section of Isaiah about fasting, on the one hand, but lots of prophets complaining about ritual violations.

The book of Acts (you mean 10, not 9, right?) is an odd vision, not clear to me at least that its an indication the dietary laws are revoked, or were never about sin. In any case, the book of Acts is not cannon in Judaism.

Note also, many of the dietary laws have nothing to do with health. There is no health reason not to eat the calf and its mother's milk together, nor to avoid the sciaitic nerve.

As for the laws claimed to be about health, the nations that lived alongside Israel did not follow them, and there is nothing in the historical record indicating they had poor health as a result. Certainly its not hard to cook pork, for example and the dangers of infection are more than offset by the value of the protein source. The dietary laws are NOT about hygiene, but about creating a bond between the children of Israel and their G-d, a bond expressed in daily living, that sets them off from the nations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. And yes, you are right, it is Acts 10, not 9. My bad.

I understand that Acts is not cannon in Judaism, but the OP was asking about Christianity and why Christians don't follow all the Old Testament laws, so Acts would be relevant here. In any case, I agree with you that there were a lot of laws of ritual, and I agree with you that a lot of what was in the law was to set apart a people from God. But I don't think the shrimp was an indication of that. The LORD told the Jewish people that if they followed all the laws, they would live long in the land the LORD was giving them. So I think PART of that was not eating shellfish where there was no refrigeration. In the case of not cooking a calf in mother's milk, the idea as I understand it was that milk was life-giving and so to kill a calf and cook it in what was supposed to give life was an odd image that the LORD wanted them to think about. I don't know what the point of the sciatic nerve was. Mixed fabrics I believe was a way to illustrate not to mix with other religions and intermarry with populations that did not worship the LORD. So there were many reasons that these laws were on the books, so to speak. There is even a passage about breaking a pot if a bird had died in it. This was to keep food from being contaminated -- the LORD knew about this long before the scientific method was aware of it. So some of these things were indeed for health. Some were not.

In any case, yes, the prophets complained about ritual violations because they were in disobedience to the LORD. That much is pretty clear.

However, in Christianity, there is very little concern about ritual violations, because there is very little ritual discussed. The theology is: Believe in the LORD Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. There are a couple of admonishments about how to observe communion, but ritual is almost entirely non-existent. This is mostly because Christians believe that Jesus is our priest, and worshiping Him is done with the heart. So the Levitical rituals don't enter into it, because we don't have a priestly class. And in worshiping Christ, Christians are -- are should be -- still set apart.

How is ritual not a part of Christianity? Sure you don't have the OT laws, but it seems to me there's a lot of ritual: you have to take communion during mass, stand up/kneel/sit down at certain parts. You have to do the sign of the cross at various parts. You have to confess your sins to a priest and then say X number of our fathers or hail marys to become absolved of that sin. Etc ...

I also don't understand your comment about there not being a priestly class. You literally have priests who are considered conduits between the people and God.

You are conflating Christianity as a whole and Catholicism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the OP is asking this "sincerely" as he said in his post. I think this is the same OP that brings shrimp into any discussion that is even remotely relevant.

But for everyone else:
1. Shrimp. God never says it's a "sin." He says don't eat it. The Jews lived in the desert with no refrigeration. Makes perfect sense. (Then see Acts 9, where God declares all food "clean," and Peter totally gets the analogy that God loves everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, not just Jews. It's the same as if I told my son, don't hit your sister (it's wrong) and don't cross the street without looking both ways (it's a bad idea because you might get hurt).

There are sins between man and man, and sins between man and G-d. IE ritual sins. The Hebrew bible is clear that ritual sins are important (see so many laws in the 5 books of Moses) There are mixed indications in prophets as to their importance relative to the sins between man and man - the famous section of Isaiah about fasting, on the one hand, but lots of prophets complaining about ritual violations.

The book of Acts (you mean 10, not 9, right?) is an odd vision, not clear to me at least that its an indication the dietary laws are revoked, or were never about sin. In any case, the book of Acts is not cannon in Judaism.

Note also, many of the dietary laws have nothing to do with health. There is no health reason not to eat the calf and its mother's milk together, nor to avoid the sciaitic nerve.

As for the laws claimed to be about health, the nations that lived alongside Israel did not follow them, and there is nothing in the historical record indicating they had poor health as a result. Certainly its not hard to cook pork, for example and the dangers of infection are more than offset by the value of the protein source. The dietary laws are NOT about hygiene, but about creating a bond between the children of Israel and their G-d, a bond expressed in daily living, that sets them off from the nations.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. And yes, you are right, it is Acts 10, not 9. My bad.

I understand that Acts is not cannon in Judaism, but the OP was asking about Christianity and why Christians don't follow all the Old Testament laws, so Acts would be relevant here. In any case, I agree with you that there were a lot of laws of ritual, and I agree with you that a lot of what was in the law was to set apart a people from God. But I don't think the shrimp was an indication of that. The LORD told the Jewish people that if they followed all the laws, they would live long in the land the LORD was giving them. So I think PART of that was not eating shellfish where there was no refrigeration. In the case of not cooking a calf in mother's milk, the idea as I understand it was that milk was life-giving and so to kill a calf and cook it in what was supposed to give life was an odd image that the LORD wanted them to think about. I don't know what the point of the sciatic nerve was. Mixed fabrics I believe was a way to illustrate not to mix with other religions and intermarry with populations that did not worship the LORD. So there were many reasons that these laws were on the books, so to speak. There is even a passage about breaking a pot if a bird had died in it. This was to keep food from being contaminated -- the LORD knew about this long before the scientific method was aware of it. So some of these things were indeed for health. Some were not.

In any case, yes, the prophets complained about ritual violations because they were in disobedience to the LORD. That much is pretty clear.

However, in Christianity, there is very little concern about ritual violations, because there is very little ritual discussed. The theology is: Believe in the LORD Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. There are a couple of admonishments about how to observe communion, but ritual is almost entirely non-existent. This is mostly because Christians believe that Jesus is our priest, and worshiping Him is done with the heart. So the Levitical rituals don't enter into it, because we don't have a priestly class. And in worshiping Christ, Christians are -- are should be -- still set apart.

How is ritual not a part of Christianity? Sure you don't have the OT laws, but it seems to me there's a lot of ritual: you have to take communion during mass, stand up/kneel/sit down at certain parts. You have to do the sign of the cross at various parts. You have to confess your sins to a priest and then say X number of our fathers or hail marys to become absolved of that sin. Etc ...

I also don't understand your comment about there not being a priestly class. You literally have priests who are considered conduits between the people and God.

These are all Catholic rituals, and you won't find a single one of them Biblically. I'm not saying this as a Catholic-bashing thing, but all of those rituals are manmade. Take time to read the New Testament all the way through. You won't find any of them. And you WILL find this in 1 Timothy 2:5, that there is only ONE mediator between man and God, Jesus Christ. Much of what you write is even directly contradicted by Scripture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. My post was sincere. If the answer is that gays are truly going to hell, then I'm not sure if Christianity is for me

I think there are good reasons to think that the answer to that question is no though

Ultimately, it comes down to if you trust in Jesus as your Savior. That’s the only requirement for salvation. Good people disagree on doctrinal and theological points all the time. That’s okay. I would encourage you to seek the truth, don’t seek what you want to hear.

Also remember that God doesn’t treat the sin of homosexuality like it’s ten times worse than any other sin. He loves everyone equally. He hates the sin, but NOT the sinner

[Anonymous]

I understand that Acts is not cannon in Judaism, but the OP was asking about Christianity and why Christians don't follow all the Old Testament laws, so Acts would be relevant here.

Again, OP was not initially at all clear in that, and many follow on posts have ignored the quite different Jewish position. DCUM is a message board open to all, in a metro area with people of many different faiths. While its reasonable to assume that Hindus, Jains, pagans, etc are not much interested in someone discussing the Hebrew scriptures and their meaning, it is NOT reasonable in such a place to assume Jews are not. Whenever you discuss what you may call the "old" testament, in a "public" place, its a good idea to consider that Jews are listening and are impacted.

But I don't think the shrimp was an indication of that. The LORD told the Jewish people that if they followed all the laws, they would live long in the land the LORD was giving them. So I think PART of that was not eating shellfish where there was no refrigeration.

So you just eat them fresh, as lots of other peoples did, to generally no ill effect. Or ill effects offset by the added nutrition. There MAY be an explanation in that shellfish are scavengers, and scavenger species are looked on askance in the dietary laws - I think more of a broad sense of uncleanliness, a moral uncleanliness, than anything about health. But that is never a reason to forego following them - we are not supposed to look behind the law and judge Hashem's motivation which is unscrutable to us - instead we are to see that the law was given in love, and by following it, we reciprocate the love, and bring Him into our daily acts.

[Anonymous]

If you consider it a sin to make an idol, you are following ritual law, as I (the Jew above) defined it - a sin between man and G-d, rather than between man and man.