Originally posted by Proper Knob
So how does that relate to shellfish and other crustaceans? Which is what this piece of scripture is referencing.

I don't know, sorry. Some animals were considered clean, others unclean?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Surf and turf must be a double no-no for you, then, what with the old 'abstain from blood' thing.

😉

what about it? Peter reiterated the principle to Christians in the book of acts?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination

This typifies the muddled thinking of the Old Testament.

On the one hand Leviticus 20:13 says it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man. But Genesis 19: 5 - "Where are the men which came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us that we may know them." The word "know" of course has the Authorised Version's euphemistic meaning!

Again in Judges 19 an unnamed Levite was traveling with his concubine in Gibeah. They spent the night in the house of an hospitable old man. While they were eating supper, the men of the city came and beat on the door, demanding that the old man should hand over his male guest "so that we may know him."

And we all know what went on in Sodom.

Abomination?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Gotta love them "well done only" barbecues, huh?

have you tried chess for girls? there is a queen whose hair you can braid and a king whose head comes off so that you can blow bubbles and the pieces smell like strawberries, and get this, the knights are unicorns! yay!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about it? Peter reiterated the principle to Christians in the book of acts?

No he didn't

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how could it if the law has been nullified, what part of, 'the law is no longer binding on Christians', are you having difficulty with?

The part where what is or is not an abomination is codified into law.
What I am asking is whether or not something is an abomination because its in law, or whether the law not being binding implies that its still an abomination, but you may go ahead and do it without any worries.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The part where what is or is not an abomination is codified into law.
What I am asking is whether or not something is an abomination because its in law, or whether the law not being binding implies that its still an abomination, but you may go ahead and do it without any worries.

no because later the principle was reiterated that although the Law was nullified, for the Christian, homosexuality was still wrong, Paul makes it quite clear.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have you tried chess for girls? there is a queen whose hair you can braid and a king whose head comes off so that you can blow bubbles and the pieces smell like strawberries, and get this, the knights are unicorns! yay!

Very funny.

Not really.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Very funny.

Not really.

I knew you wouldn't believe me

YouTube

Originally posted by Pianoman1
On the one hand Leviticus 20:13 says it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man. But Genesis 19: 5 - "Where are the men which came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us that we may know them." The word "know" of course has the Authorised Version's euphemistic meaning!

>snip<

And we all know what went on in Sodom.

Abomination?

Yes, we know about Sodom because Gen 19:5 is talking about Sodom. Yes, it is the 'biblical' "know"ing. I don't see how you can do this "on one hand, but" thing with this. Sodom was destroyed because the people there were sinning up a storm, and yes, it was this "abomination" thing. I think instead of "But", you meant "and" or "because".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I knew you wouldn't believe me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1YSQJXMbUI

What is it with you people in Europe posting links to videos that are not available in the US? 🙁

Originally posted by Suzianne
What is it with you people in Europe posting links to videos that are not available in the US? 🙁

oh my goodness, you gotta see it, its hilarious,

try this one although it looks poor quality and rather ironically, bing wont let me watch it because i have an anonymity setting on my browser

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/chess-for-girls/17wj4x8hp

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh my goodness, you gotta see it, its hilarious,

try this one although it looks poor quality and rather ironically, bing wont let me watch it because i have an anonymity setting on my browser

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/chess-for-girls/17wj4x8hp

Bah, Bing uses Hulu, and it says this video is no longer available on Hulu.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no why would it be, the Law with its ordinances was never binding on Christians in practice, it was specifically for the nation of Israel, why this should be hard to comprehend, i cannot say. Eating Lobster is not morally wrong for as Paul mentions, the Kingdom of God does not mean eating or drinking, homosexuality is morally wrong because as Paul states, its unnatural.

the clothes you are wearing now are mostly unnatural. most medicines today are unnatural. airplanes are unnatural. man made structures are unnatural. meanwhile, cobra venom is quite natural. a tsunami killing thousands is natural.


you whined about something being unnatural and thus morally wrong on a computer while being connected to the internet.


and just as a side note. homosexuality is quite natural. it happens in nature all the time.


care to try explaining again?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no because later the principle was reiterated that although the Law was nullified, for the Christian, homosexuality was still wrong, Paul makes it quite clear.

I was asking whether something is an abomination based on whether it is in the law. If the law says eating seafood is an abomination and then the law is nullified, is eating seafood no longer an abomination? If so, then why don't we just use a word like 'crime' or 'illegal'?