Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

First, that the highly similar sentence in 1 Corinthians 6:12 to one in chapter 10 proves that chapter 6:12-13 can only be talking about the same issue as chapter 10. So chapter 10 and its issue gets to define Paul's words and entire point in 6:12. Nevermind any other possible points the standalone plain reading of chapter 6 and its text might have to show us . Nevermind that chapter 6 chronogically preceded chapter 10. If anything, chapter 10 might be a totally different reapplication of his earlier words. ,*,********,*,*********,****,,,,************************************* Second, you thus argue that the point of chapter 10 had to do with meat sacrificed to idols (it did and it generally was forbidden to be eaten but meat was temporarily still allowed to be eaten though Paul elsewhere seemed to be describing situations that indicated a permanent ban on all flesh consumption . Even the situation in chapter 10 has logic which indicates an eventual ban such as not eating certain meats that offend if others know what you do )so that must then be the point of chapter 6 especially verses 12-13. The problem is that it doesn't fit too neatly into the point of chapter 6 or at least not in an obvious way.

I still don't see why the homosexual activity vice, in I Corinthians 6, isn't 'ceremonial' and only related to the idols feast with sex and drinking. You made the idol temple issues up, based on chapter 10's events (the Jannes and Jambras innertestamental literature detailing the Baalam event in Numbers)as an excuse when you felt meats were an issue in chapter 6, though your reason for bringing meat into the chapter was to explain away Paul's "all things are lawful " declaration while sexual acts are being discussed as sin (and marriage issues were a big topic in chapters 5-7). I know that the 'ceremonial' explanation is commonly given as the type of sins in the first Vice List outside the Gospels. I am referring to none other than the Acts 15:20(15:29 repeat )Apostolic Council with fornication as a sin. You have yet to show what is and isn't simply a "ceremonial' sin verses a non ceremonial one in chapter 6. My question applies to the "table fellowship " explanation for food prohibitions too. I haven't seen any response from you on the drinking parallel (in the chapter 6 sin list )to chapter 10 idol ceremony issues. Infact you owe us an explanation for ALL listed sins in Acts 15 and I Corinthians 6. Quote each sin in the list and explain how it is to get followed and why.

Quote all the Vice Lists and explain. I Corinthians 6 was one but you selectively parsed and threw in the "table fellowship " phantom which is a cousin to the "ceremonial " excuse to say that sins a Christian disagrees with is only TEMPORARY or only culturally relevant in the past. Your attempt to bring in the cultural irrelevancy excuse was for a reason that is unique to the chapter 6 vices, that is you have no trouble accepting the sins here as sin (unlike the command for females to cover their heads and to shut up and to not eat meat FOUND ELSEWHERE )but to ignore dealing with what exactly Paul meant when he said all things are lawful in 6:12.

Even with FORNICATION as a sin. The sin list is seen as culturally irrelevant and obsolete today. Faith already said so in another thread. The same thing was said about fornication in REVELATION 2:14 and 2:21. Faith already brought the "obsolete " meat issue into I Corinthians 6 with excuses of idol ceremonies so by that logic, the whole chapter is about temple prostitution and not private sins. Ceremonial and Table Fellowship in Faith's own words in past threads and frankly even this one (if you know what to look for ).

POST 399 In this post you are claiming there's some kind of difference between 'ceremonial ' sin and some other kind of sin? Sin is sin, it's all judged by God as sin. POST 302 Prostitution is referring back to what he'd said about having liberty as a Christian to eat meats sacrificed to idols... fornication is identified as a sin... however we are to understand him it can't be as a license to visit a prostitute. POST 318 it is clear from pages of NT text that we are to give up all sin so it can't be treating fornication or any other sin as optional. -Faith- ********,***************************************************************** Now You have said that Acts 15:20, 15:29, Revelation 2:14, 2:21, is about "table fellowship " just like you are saying here about I Corinthians 6 (selectively you are in this case ),chapter 10 (this thread), plus elsewhere in I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14-15. But the Acts 15:20, 15:29, Revelation 2:14, 2:21 are about "fornication" but you say it is obsolete "table fellowship " and you said that in a response to my quoting a fundi dictionary saying it was just a TEMPORARY ceremonial issue. I plan to start a thread so you can not hide from your own claims and perhaps it can be only us two posting.

Those verses culturally obsolete too Faith? More cultural relativism on your part?

I said this about Faith in my post 428

quote:

---

[Faith said this in post 399, 302, and 318]

​

POST 399 In this post you are claiming there's some kind of difference between 'ceremonial ' sin and some other kind of sin? Sin is sin, it's all judged by God as sin. POST 302 Prostitution is referring back to what he'd said about having liberty as a Christian to eat meats sacrificed to idols... fornication is identified as a sin... however we are to understand him it can't be as a license to visit a prostitute. POST 318 it is clear from pages of NT text that we are to give up all sin so it can't be treating fornication or any other sin as optional.

​

-Faith-

​

[then I said]

​

Now You have said that Acts 15:20, 15:29, Revelation 2:14, 2:21, is about "table fellowship " just like you are saying here about I Corinthians 6 (selectively you are in this case ),chapter 10 (this thread), plus elsewhere in I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14-15. But the Acts 15:20, 15:29, Revelation 2:14, 2:21 are about "fornication" but you say it is obsolete "table fellowship " and you said that in a response to my quoting a fundi dictionary saying it was just a TEMPORARY ceremonial issue. I plan to start a thread so you can not hide from your own claims and perhaps it can be only us two posting.

---

Faith then said this in 430

quote:

---

I don't haave a clue what you are talking about. I've never used the term "table fellowship" and have no idea what it means. You seem to be going on about something in your own head, certainly not anything that has to do with me. (except the upper part of your post above the asterisks, that I recognize as mine but I have no idea what you are saying about it.

---

But see posts 205 and 206 in this threadEvC Forum: Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies?Here is me in post 205

quote:

---

Re: The Righteiousness of Obedience vs the Righteousness of Faith
There is an interesting issue about the law. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:18, the he will not abolish 1 letter of the law.
Then Paul said the things he said.

​

Then you have the modern day Christians.

​

Faith said:

​

quote:

---

[Faith]
Jesus had already taught that the Law is a lot deeper than outward obedience, it's a matter of the dispositions of the heart, that even lusting in the heart is adultery, and hatred in the heart is murder. Is there anyone who could ever claim to never have committed such sins? James says that we are guilty of all the Law if we sin against it even in part. The purpose of the Law, then, according to Paul again, is to bring us to Christ, who alone fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law and took all the sins on His own body of those who believe in Him, so that He could die in our place, pay for our sins that we are certainly unable to pay for, and set us free from the burden of the Law.

---

​

The interesting thing is that Acts 15 does maintain some Mosiac Law issues (related to food and fornication)

​

I put "alfred acts 15:23-29" into a google books search so I could find information on his historic translation of the 10 commandments and Acts 15:23-29 for his (typically interpreted as )law code. The issue of the 10 commandments often comes up when questions are asked about the old law.

​

quote:

---

Alfred the Great and Our Common Law Pamphlet — December 18, 2005
by Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee (Author)
Clearly, then Alfred believed that the Apostles here (at the Synod of Jerusalem or the first General Assembly of the Christian Church) enjoined God's Commandments upon all of the Gentile Christians who had heard it - and who indeed should keep it. For here he recalls that also "the Gentiles...should abstain from pollutions and idols and fornication and from blood [shed]. For Moses has those who preach him in every city from of old, being read out in the meeting-places every weekly sabbath-day." Acts 15:19-21 (cf. Genesis 9:5-6 and Exoduc 20:1-17).

​

King Alfred the Great and Our Common Law - F. N. Lee, Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee Rev. Prof. F. N. Lee - Google Books...

---

​

They had to weed out the weeds but found fundamentally important issues in the Mosaic Law and the oral law (traditions)to use as a foundation of maintained commandments which would be built upon with vice lists and further sins against conscience (which are sins against Jesus Christ).

​

The fact that the law was still changed creates a contradiction, but the entire law wasn't thrown out.

​

Contradiction?

​

Yes!

​

Abolishment?

​

No.

​

In my opinion.

​

The more honest fundamentalist dictionaries admit that it is just their opinion that these Acts 15:20 laws were ceremonial (also called cultic).

​

Here is one honest one and it is a classic.

​

quote:

---

Blood (1.) As food, prohibited in Gen. 9:4, where the use of animal food is first allowed. Comp. Deut. 12:23; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10—14. The injunction to abstain from blood is renewed in the decree of the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:29). It has been held by some, and we think correctly, that this law of prohibition was only ceremonial and temporary; while others regard it as still binding on all. Blood was eaten by the Israelites after the battle of Gilboa (1 Sam. 14:32—34
Blood

---

​

They don't go into much detail.

​

I have a quote (on my zip drive) that comes from an article (in a book) which covers a special conference the World Council of Church's held on the Apostolic Council. The World Council of Church's write it off as not having much of a binding effect when one looks at the rest of the New Testament. They said the decision seemed to be "limited" in its influence.

​

The problem is that there are numerous references to these Acts 15 rules. Revelation 2, 1 Corinthians 8, etc.

​

It seems that these rules get written off simply because Christians today don't follow them. But, history shows us that is was essentially the Catholics (and those in their sphere of influence) who didn't follow these rules. The "Western church" (ie. Roman Catholics) even changed the text to remove all food references in the Acts 15 text. The oldest Acts of the Apostles in-situ manuscripts we have date from 200 A.D. (possibly slightly earlier) and it is the Roman Catholic corruption.

​

The scholars of today know that the later (350 A.D. in-situ texts) are the true representations of the (more) "original" Acts 15 text, and that the oldest texts we have were alterations.

​

All modern Bibles avoid using the text from the archaeological discovery which uncovered the Roman Catholic corruptions. (it was called P75 or P47 or something)

​

But the early Roman Catholics have won the larger battle.

​

Their post 1000 AD "cultic" (or "ceremonial") interpretation has won the day.

​

You don't need to change the text, you just need the power to impose your interpretation on everybody.

​

Is that a lesson for this whole Law issue?

---

You responded in post 206

quote:

---

My understanding of the judgment in Acts 15 is that it was intended to require the Gentile believers to obey certain laws that would have greatly offended the Jewish believers if disobeyed. It's an application of the principle that we are not to act in a way that causes our brother to stumble, even if we have every right to ignore the law altogether because it has been fulfilled. It was important that Gentiles not be required to be circumcised so that was the first judgment; but then they did require obedience to some laws for the sake of the conscience of the Jews:
As one commentator says: "If the decision is that one does not have to be Jewish to be a Christian, it must also be declared that one does not need to forsake the Law of Moses to be a Christian."

​

So it's not a matter of whether the law was ceremonial or not, but a matter of respect for the conscience of other believers -- in this case the Jewish believers who had been brought up in strict observance of the Law of Moses. When the Jews were later no longer the leaders in the Church it was recognized that there was no longer a need to obey these laws -- because there is no requirement any more to obey any of the laws as the Jews understood it.

​

abe: We're "in Christ," (we used to be "in Adam" as all human beings are, but when we give ourselves to Christ we are now "in Him." There's lots of theology wrapped up in that but I guess I should make it brief). Christ obeyed all the Law for us, we are reckoned as righteous (as obedient to the Law) through our faith in Him. (Not that we are to flout the Law in any way of course, which is one way salvation by faith and not by works has been misunderstood -- when we commit sin, which is defined as transgression of the Law, we confess it and forsake it, depending on Jesus for cleansing.) Sinners can't be saved; your sins have to be completely done away with because only the perfectly obedient/righteous can see God. We have no power in ourselves to wipe out our sins; that's what Jesus did for us, and we possess His righteousness through faith in Him.

---

Back to this thread.Now here is a parallel in Revelation 2:14 to the 1 Corinthians 10 Balaam Idol (food fornication) issue (Jannes and Jambres story from Josphus) issue.

quote:

---

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

---

See Revelation 2:20 to 21 too.Maybe fornication was ceremonial or table fellowship too?

quote:

---

I can't read your long post and don't see any reason to make the effort. The last line is enough to tell me there's no point: there is no such thing as "ceremonial" fornication if you mean that by being ceremonial it is not a sin. That's ridiculous.

---

But you were the one that said the Acts 15 rules expired!You were the one that brought up the temple prostitution issue in 1st Corinthians 10 to explain Chapter 6. (I am still not so sure about the way you come about it, but you refused to back up your claims, so its seems you just made it up. I was and am willing to entertain the very real possibility of some sort of connection, but not in the way you just selectively asserted what you did absent any proof or exegesis whatsoever)Here is your post 342 and you referenced 1 Corinthians 10.

quote:

---

Good grief, it isn't "just about meat!!" What Paul said about all things being lawful to him simply happens to refer back to that one passage about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Because that's where he said those very same words. But in the context of 1 Cor 6 he must be using it to refer to some view held by someone in the Corinthian Church. Since he mentions being joined to a harlot it is frequently guessed that he was dealing with the opinion that visiting prostitutes was lawful for a Christian. Not meat, visiting prostitutes. As I argued, there is so much in the Bible that makes it clear that sin cannot ever be "lawful" let alone Paul's remark in this very context that it would mean joining Christ to a harlot, which is a clear statement that it isn't lawful, there is no way to justify the lawfulness of sin from this passage, and if it doesn't suffice for you, read the reast of the Bible which should leave no doubt.

---

Here is 1 Corinthians 10 (it is based on an extra-Biblical expansion of the Balaam issue in Numbers)

quote:

---

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

​

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

​

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

​

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

​

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

​

6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

​

7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

​

8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

​

....
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

​

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

​

18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

​

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

​

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

​

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

​

22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

​

23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

---

Here is 1 Corinthians 6

quote:

---

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

​

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

​

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

​

12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

​

13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

​

14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

​

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

​

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

​

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

​

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

​

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

---

Here is Acts 15

quote:

---

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

---

Here is Revelation 2:14

quote:

---

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

---

1 Corinthians 10 again

quote:

---

7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

​

8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

---

Here is what you said about the fornication and food issue that was a commandment in Acts 15 for gentiles.

quote:

---

So it's not a matter of whether the law was ceremonial or not, but a matter of respect for the conscience of other believers -- in this case the Jewish believers who had been brought up in strict observance of the Law of Moses. When the Jews were later no longer the leaders in the Church it was recognized that there was no longer a need to obey these laws -- because there is no requirement any more to obey any of the laws as the Jews understood it.

---

You said that once Jesus, James, Peter, etc. died then you don't have to obey any laws anymore.That explains a lot.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Are you ever going to quote specific verses and show us your logic? You have made all sorts of leaps and I want to know how you make them. Connect the verses from the 2 chapters and show the connection. Then apply it in an honest way that isn't full of useless assertions.Here are some of your past posts.

quote:

---

[319]
To say it as clearly as I can: There is no way sin is ever lawful, it is the definition of lawlessness. It is what gets us sent to Hell. There is no way that could be what Paul meant. He was writing in a specific context to the unruly Corinthians, and it may be hard to understand because we don't have the complete context of the statement, but there is no way he is saying sin is lawful.

​

...

​

[321]
Accepting that the text is unaltered, my guess is that he didn't include enough of the context for us at such a remove from the experiences of the Corinthians to understand his meaning.
In such a case we are to apply the principle that we aren't to base our theology on unclear passages like this one, especially since there are plenty of others which make it quite clear that the whole point of Christian salvation is to be saved from SIN, and there is no doubt what sin is either, the Bible from beginning to end makes it quite clear.

---

Here is 1 Corinthians 6

quote:

---

12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

​

13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

​

14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

​

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

​

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

---

Here is the text in 1 Cor 10.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 10King James Version (KJV)

​

10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

​

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

​

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

​

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

​

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

​

6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

​

7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

​

8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

​

9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

​

10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

​

11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

​

12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

​

13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

​

14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

​

15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

​

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

​

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

​

18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

​

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

​

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

​

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

​

22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

​

23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

​

24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

---

quote:

---

Replying also to Message 554, Jesus would march into the bakery, buy the cake for the gay couple, then push over all the bakery displays. He didn't believe that showing love for his fellow man was an endorsement of anything.

---

Do you know that the Bible seems to allow Jews to sell non kosher food to gentiles (though the rabbinical authorities have debate over the issue)?I have already shown how Faith ignores the injunction against "blood" and what is "strangled"(which seems to be based on the Mishnah rules for slaughter), not to mention "fornication" (!) in Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25, etc.But consider Deuteronomy 14:21.

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 14:21King James Version (KJV)

​

21 Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

---

That was raw Bible text in the "Law of Moses"Rabbinical issues however.

quote:

---

Question: Can a religious Jew sell non kosher meat to other businesses if this is his means of income?

​

Answer: This is a very complex issue, and one that cannot be dealt with effectively divorced from specific details of situation and circumstance. Should this question have practical ramifications for you, I would strongly suggest that you consult with a competent local authority in Jewish law before deciding upon a course of action. With that in mind, what follows is a general summary of the issue of doing business with forbidden foods.

​

Unlike cooked mixtures of meat and dairy products, from which a Jew is forbidden to derive benefit, the Torah places no such restriction upon non-kosher foodstuffs, including meats. No distinction is made in this matter between the meats of non-kosher species and meats from kosher species which were improperly slaughtered. In fact, the Torah explicitly permits the sale of this second type of non-kosher meat to Gentiles (Deuteronomy 14:21).

​

However, the Shulchan Aruch, section Yoreh De’ah 117:1 records a specific prohibition against trading in non-kosher foodstuffs. While there are those amongst the early authorities who consider this prohibition to be of Biblical origin, most agree that it is an enactment of the Sages, either due to the issue of mar’is ayin (i.e. the appearance of impropriety which may lead others to transgress or to cast aspersion upon the actor), or as a safeguard lest one become inured to having non-kosher foodstuffs in his possession to the extent that he inadvertently partake of them.

​

While one is permitted to trade in non-kosher foodstuffs on an incidental basis (e.g. a kosher slaughterhouse may sell carcasses that are found to be unfit to a Gentile meat processing operation, since this is merely incidental to its main business — the production of kosher meat), this injunction would prohibit trading in non-kosher foodstuffs as the focus of one’s business, be it to other businesses or to consumers.

​

This injunction does distinguish between those foodstuffs which are non-kosher on a Biblical level and those which are non-kosher on a Rabbinic level (though Biblically kosher), permitting trade of the latter. In the case of meat, however, unless the business in question traffics in the byproduct of a kosher slaughterhouse or similar, it is unlikely that this distinction is of much utility, since both meat from non-kosher species and meat from kosher species which did not undergo ritual slaughter are Biblically prohibited.

​

The prohibition against trading in non-kosher foodstuffs is incumbent upon the business owner, a partner to such a business with a Gentile, and even upon a stockholder (should he or she have a role in the day-to-day decision making of the business). One may, however, hold stock in such a business provided that one has no active role in its operation.

​

In conclusion, being an owner, partner, or participant shareholder of a business that sells non-kosher meats as its primary objective would be, in all but very narrow and specific circumstances, prohibited for a Jew.

​

Again, if this question has practical application for you, I would stress the need for consulting with a competent, local authority on Jewish law prior to adopting a course of action.

​

I hope you found this information helpful.

​

Warmest regards,

​

Yitzchok Willroth

​

Ask the Rabbi, JewishAnswers.org » Selling Non-Kosher Food

---

Check out the technological marvel that is google!Googlealso put in words like:
kosher slaughter chickens neck (add strangled also)I don't want to over simplify this issue (otherwise I would be as lousy and disrespectful toward sin and the law and my fellow humans as Faith), as it is complicated.Shechita - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Torah (Deut. 12:21) states that sheep and cattle should be slaughtered as I have instructed you but nowhere in the Five books of Moses are any of the practices of shechita described. Instead, they have been handed down in Judaism's traditional Oral Torah, and codified in halakha.

​

Species[edit]

​

The animal must be of a permitted species. For mammals, this is restricted to ruminants which have split hooves.[1] For birds, although Biblically any species of bird not specifically excluded in Deuteronomy 14:12—18 would be permitted,[2] doubts as to the identity and scope of the species on the biblical list led to rabbinical law permitting only birds with a tradition of being permissible.[3]

---

Understand that here are forbidden techniques which are consistent with Acts 15:20, but contradict the written Torah. The Written Torah says that a chicken should be killed by wringing its head off but the New Testament and Rabbinical texts (the Mishnah which is in the Talmud) prohibit such.

quote:

---

ibid.
Forbidden techniques[edit]

​

Shehiyah (; delay or pausing) - A pause or hesitation during the incision of even a moment makes the animal's flesh unkosher. The knife must move in an uninterrupted sweep. Shehiyah occurs if the shochet accidentally stops the slaughtering process after either the trachea or esophagus has been cut, but before they have been cut the majority of the way through. Pausing can happen accidentally if muscle contractions in the animal's neck pull one of these organs out of contact with the blade. The latter case is especially common in turkeys.

​

Derasah (; pressing/chopping) - The knife must be drawn across the throat by forward/backward movements, not by hacking or pressing. Any undue pressure renders the animal unkosher. Derasah is the forbidden action that occurs when the shochet pushes the knife into the animal's throat without moving it back and forth, chops rather than slices, or positions the animal improperly so that either its head presses down on the blade as it expires or the shochet must push the knife into the throat against the force of gravity. There are those[6] who opine that it is forbidden to have the animal in an upright position during shechita due to the prohibition of derasah (pressing). They maintain that the animal must be on its back, lying on its side, suspended upside down by a rope or chain, or placed in a barrel-like pen that turns the animal on its back for slaughter. However the Orthodox Union accepts upright slaughter as long as the head is properly supported and today all cattle processing facilities in the U.S., except for the Agriprocessors plant in Iowa, use upright slaughter pens. South American kosher abattoirs primarily use the rotating pen, shackle and hoist as well as shackle and drag methods of slaughter.[7]

​

Haladah (; digging or burying) - The knife must be drawn over the throat so that it is visible while shechita is being performed. It must not be stabbed into the neck or buried by fur, hide, or feathers in the case of a bird. Haladah occurs if the shochet either accidentally cuts into the animal's throat so deeply that the entire width of the knife disappears in the wound, uses a knife that is too short so that the end disappears in the wound, or if a foreign object falls over the knife so the shochet loses sight of the incision.

​

Hagramah (; cutting in the wrong location) - The limits within which the knife may be applied are from the large ring in the windpipe to the top of the upper lobe of the lung when it is inflated, and corresponding to the length of the pharynx. Slaughtering above or below these limits renders the meat unkosher.

​

Iqqur (; tearing) - If either the esophagus or the trachea is torn during the shechita incision the carcass is rendered unkosher and cannot be eaten by Jews. Iqqur occurs if the shochet accidentally uses a chalaf with an imperfection on the blade, such as a scratch or nick, that causes a section of blade to be lower than the surface of the blade.[8][9][10]

​

Breaching any of these five rules renders the animal nevelah; the animal is regarded in Jewish law as if it were carrion.

​

Temple Grandin has stated that she has "observed that if the rules (of the five forbidden techniques) are disobeyed the animal will struggle. If these rules are obeyed the animal has little reaction."[11]

---

Faith is ignorant IMO.She will ignore Deuteronomy 14:21Just like she won't address Paul saying "all things are lawful" (whatever that means exactly with regards to "all" and "lawful" not o mention "things") in any other manner than a highly simplistic manner - and one that happens to fit conveniently into her preconceived ("biblical" so-called) views.

quote:

---

"I don't think we can spot Faith her territory here. Some Christians react in this way, but not all."

​

Well that depends on what you call a Christian. We know Faith has some pretty tight rules about what qualifies, and Catholics may not qualify under those terms

---

Faith typically follows Roman Catholic teaching 100%.(On this issue, however, the Pope says he has no right to judge and he said "mah", when asked about homosexuality, which means something like "how the heck would I know")More distortion on her part.She only attacks Catholics as a thinly veiled scheme to make it sound like her type of Christianity (Roman Christian or at least Orthodox) is one that is divorced from past persecutions. (she ignored Protestant atrocities and claims that was secular government's fault when asked)

We already seen that she feels James, Peter, Paul, etc. misunderstood what she feels they should have understood as sin (see her comments on Acts 15:20).I Corinthians 14:34-35 (the same forger who wrote the Pastoral Epistles added this to 1 Corinthians 14, and amazingly every fundamentalists I have asked to examine the whole text agrees with me that it was clearly added later in between 14:1-33 and 14:36-40)

quote:

---

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

​

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

​

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

---

I Timothy 2

quote:

---

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

​

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

​

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

​

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

​

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

---

Then 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

quote:

---

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

​

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

​

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

​

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

​

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

​

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

​

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

​

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

​

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

​

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

​

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

​

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

​

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

​

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

​

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

---

Respect the text.How to "follow" it is the responsibility of those who call themselves "Christians" I suppose, but it deserves the respect and attention of all.As does Deuteronomy 14:21.

She ignored it I see. Big shock!And to think that this is a specific case of something God said was o.k. to do.When Frako brought up the Law of Moses and things outlawed (post 2), Faith claimed this:

quote:

---

Faith [post 5]

​

Oh yeah, we have to hear about that old canard again too.
That's one of the laws specifically given to Israel and nobody else to teach them spiritual truths and to set them apart from the heathen nations. They apply to nobody but ancient Israel. Other laws were fulfilled by Christ.

---

So Faith dismissed the OLD "laws" in post 5.She also ignored newer Post Easter commands except older threads saw her say they were outdated and obsolete (I documented that fact but she ignored my post). Acts 15 and 21.Now she ignores the old laws saying sinful things can be sold to non-Jews. (the Deut. 14:21 meat issue might of had to do with the fact that an animal was killed by a non human so it already was killed in an inhumane way, but Faith doesn't care as it won't fit her arguments)It's amazing that this is literally the only verse that comes close to enlightening us as to what "God" really thinks about selling products that lead to sinful behavior.Faith ignores it!

quote:

---

Yes, I know that you try to sweep the distinctions under the carpet. But that doesn't mean that they aren't there or aren't important. Legally a clear-cut case of discrimination against gays is far less of a marginal decision than refusing to ice a slogan in favour of gay marriage.

---

I noticed that you have been trying to get Faith to back up her claims with scripture. (in past posts, but I have been too busy to read the newer posts)Good luck on that one!It is tough to debate somebody who feels she can ignore anything scriptural she wants to.Her Orthodox tradition (based on the Imperial Church theocracy of the 4th century on) says gay marriage should be illegal so to hell with scripture as far as Faith is concerned.This issue was decided by Rome (Faith calls Rome "God" mind you) so it is settled.Ask her about the Trinity.Same response.Scripture will be ignored or brushed aside quickly.

Notice Faith hasn't addressed the Deuteronomy 14:21 issue. (I am guessing so, but I haven't had time to read all the latest posts)Get a clue folks!Honestly.Also, I need to edit something I said.
I said, in post 347, that "It's amazing that this is literally the only verse that comes close to enlightening us as to what "God" really thinks about selling products that lead to sinful behavior."I still think that Paul saying all things are "lawful" might be worth our consideration since nomos could very possibly refer to the Roman laws that all homosexual conduct including marriage.Faith swept that one away pretty quickly.

quote:

---

Nomos - Wikipedia
Nomos - Wikipedia
Nomos or Nomoi may refer to: from the Greek term for "law It is the origin of the
suffix -onomy, as in astronomy, economy, or taxonomy. custom, traditional social
...
Cached

​

Nomos (mythology) - Wikipedia
Nomos - Wikipedia(mythology)
In ancient Greek religion Nomos is the daemon of laws, statutes, and ordinances.
By one account, Nomos' wife is Eusebia (Piety), and their daughter is Dike ...
Cached

​

Nomos (sociology) - Wikipedia
Nomos - Wikipedia(sociology)
In sociology, nomos refers to provisional codes (habits or customs) of social and
political behavior, socially constructed and historically (even geographically)
specific. The term derives from the Greek νόμος, and it refers not only to explicit
laws ...
Cached

​

Strong's Greek: 3551. νόμος (nomos) -- that which is assigned ...
Strong's Greek: 3551. (nomos) -- that which is assigned, hence usage, law
3551 nmos — law. 3551 (nmos) is used of: a) the Law (Scripture), with
emphasis on the first five books of Scripture; or b) any system of religious thinking
...
Cached

​

nomos | Greek philosophy | Britannica.com
nomos | Greek philosophy | Britannica
Jul 20, 1998 ... Nomos, ( Greek: law, or custom, ) plural Nomoi, in law, the concept of law in
ancient Greek philosophy. The problems of political authority ...
Cached

​

Nomos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard
Nomos Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard
Learn about Nomos original meaning using the New Testament Greek ...
anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command.

---

Has she addressed Deut 14:21 yet?Don't let her get away with ignoring this one.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.