Religion, Spirituality, or Lack Thereof


Oh, then okay. But I’m still curious as to what you want to say.


Pretty sure the “do not eat shellfish” began as an observation that people who ate it had more chances to die of intoxication due lack of properly preserving or cooking it, and as time passed the common knowledge became ingrained in the religion. And not because “God thought 2000 years ahead of his time because one day the oceans will be polluted.” If God would give instructions ahead of his time, he could very well have ordered to not have slaves instead of “following the costumes of the time.”

The same goes for some branches in Hinduism that don’t eat egg. It was again probably an observation that people who ate it had more chances to die of intoxication considering how fast egg spoils in hot climates. So the common knowledge ingrained with their religion. Or would you agree with an Hindu that told you that this information was because Khrishna knew all along that humans would become lazy workers in front of computers and that high colesterol would eventually become a problem?


True, but can’t that be said in the case of everything? There are harmful microorganisms in all forms of plant and animal products, so what can be done? If anything, shellfish have a lot of proteins.

And this again doesn’t explain why being gay is forbidden in the Bible.


Probably because in old times you needed lot of children to guarantee that some of them reach adulthood. Plus, a growing population of one religion is a faster way to increase its power and influence, only when you’re big enough that you can try conquering and subjugating others.

So people “losing precious time” with relationships that will bare no fruits mean less children, and thus such relationships began to be seen as badly.

We even have modern examples of this approach today, Western cultures are having less children and Muslims continue growing, with high chances of surpassing the Christian population if the pattern continues. You can find in the internet people showing concern of the growing Muslim population and they are achieving that mostly because they are breeding more instead of conquering.

I heard also that it was a way for Christianity to separate itself from Greek and Roman costumes. I say only for Christianity because I don’t know if Judaism and Islam’s have similarities or not.


Yes, but
1- people didn’t know about microorganism during old times and
2- they had little to no way to stock food properly
3- Some food spoil faster than others, some require more attention to cooking than others

It was like the example of the eggs, they spoils VERY fast in hot climates, so it was wiser to avoid all of them since even cooking them still could cause intoxication.

However if you notice people dying by eating the big and highly caloric root of a plant, but later discover that you need to dry it, transform it to flour and then backe it and everyone lives with their stomaches full? Then it is okay as long as you backe it properly.


Yeah, but that doesn’t mean you have to murder people who don’t want to procreate.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t know what happened when food was spoiled. And food could be salted to be preserved longer.


Why the order was to murder them I don’t know, I can see why some foods and habits were forbidden or requested in those old times, but I have no clue why the option was mostly to kill everyone who disagrees.


some food are easier to tell when they are spoiled than others, and I said they had few options to preserve food. Salt wouldn’t work in the case of the egg, for example.

Can you imagine how some cheeses filled with fungus we eat today were discovered? Probably some starving, poor bastards had nothing than old cheese to eat, if you survive, hurray! If not… we’ll, at least you didn’t die on an empty stomach?


I think I know: to remove oppression, so only they could dissolve all arguments and bring back the master and slave relationship. You can’t fight if you’re dead.

They probably smelt it.


As someone who actually keeps some degree of kosher, nowhere except maybe some crap English Bible translation are kashrus laws about “morality.” It’s about what is deemed unclean.


And what was deemed unclean wasn’t because it had high chances of killing someone through food poisoning?


The Catholic church is in my home town - a lot of kids from my high school go there.
The Lutheran church is in a much, much smaller town about 10 miles away - only a few kids from my high school go there.

Since I wasn’t baptized or confirmed at the Catholic church, I feel like I fit in a little less. I also don’t know all the “traditions” or what to do. (There’s this thing where when a certain name is said you’re supposed to make a cross on your lips or forehead or something.) I do know how to cross myself though (“Father, Son, Holy Spirit”)

The Lutheran church, to me, seems much more warm and accepting. It’s a newer church, and smaller so the pastor is able to connect more with the people. I really like our pastor (we always discuss fun books). He makes the sermons fun and interesting and always does a children sermon for all the kids, something that always provides laughs.

For communion (go up to the front of the church and eat the bread and drink the wine), it happens EVERY SINGLE SUNDAY at the Catholic Church. I hate having to do it every Sunday (that I go) because there are a lot of people and I hate being in front of all of them. At the Lutheran church, communion isn’t every Sunday. Usually it’s before a holiday or when someone’s getting baptized or confirmed. Catholic = everyone drinks from the same cup (cough good way to get mono cough) and eats these bland, flat little pieces of cardboard (bread w/o yeast). My silly little sister insists the taste good (whatever lol). Lutheran = there are tiny trays with even tinier holders for little cups. These cups contain either grape juice, apple juice, or wine. I like the variety. There is also actual bread, not wisps of cardboards.

I have no hate against Catholics or how they go about worshipping God (as long as it’s done the way the good Lord wants it) but somethings the Catholic church does just doesn’t make sense to me. One of these things being that the priest (Fun fact: the catholic church’s “leader” is called the priest or father, and the Lutheran one is called the pastor,) always kisses the bible (maybe not too weird) but there’s a few more things.

Things I like about the Catholic church: when you come in and go out, you dip your fingers in Holy water and cross yourself, the Christmas pageants are pretty nice, THE FISH FRY (soooooo freaking good), I can see people I graduated with there, it’s in my hometown, the sermons are good

Things I like about the Lutheran church: our pastor is dope, lunch is served in the cafeteria every Sunday (people bring nice dishes from home), the Christmas pageant is beautiful, it just seems warmer and more pleasant there, less people so not as crowded, the sermons & and the children sermons, they have a playground, they have a garden, they have a baseball field, the music! (more light and authentic-sounding b/c not as echoey),

Things I dislike about C: There are two seat areas - one that faces the priest and one to his right side - I don’t like how they designed it, doing communion every Sunday (can we chill on that?), sometimes the music is very dreary (the singers are really good and the musicians, too),

Things they have in common: when the father/pastor says “and now we offer our peace to one another” and then we all get up and shake hands and say “peace be with you” to those seated around us (it’s kinda funny at the Catholic church because my dad, step-mom, and 4 younger siblings all go together and so when the father says go ahead we all shake hands and hug each other lol),

Um…yeah, that’s all I can think of for now. If I remember more, I’ll add it!

p.s. funny story: one time, when my youngest sister was still a baby she wouldn’t stop crying. My dad swiftly picked her up and walked out. My step-mom and I assumed he was trying to quiet her in the other room. NOPE! He took the van and my sister and went to the grocery store (literally right next to the church) and just bought groceries will we had to sit in a stuffy, humid room (it was summer). haha good old padre


Some of the catholic traditions are strange. But it’s okay to break them, I’d say. The crusty little bread thing isn’t good nor bad, it has no taste. And yes we all drink from the same cup, which is yuck! I always skip that part and just go to my seat. And the thing about the father also depends on who he is. Like the church we go to now, (which is a few miles away) takes forever just explaining stuff that have nothing to do with the service. But the one in our hometown is really funny and he makes us all laugh.
And true, there is no use in talking bad about religions when we basically worship the same God (in some cases).


Communion is indeed different at different churches. A lot of people don’t do one cup very much anymore (for health reasons). I’ve been to a one-cup church before and I don’t mind it, but the church was small. My own congregation and the one I’m considering placing membership at in my college town both do multiple cups, like a little tray with lots of small cups full of grape juice. We do partake every Sunday, but we don’t get up. They pass it around. There is unleavened bread (it’s kind of like an unsalted cracker) though at my home congregation some people make homemade unleavened bread and personally, I like it. It’s sweet and I wish I had the recipe to make at home. I don’t mind taking it every Sunday because it’s a good time for me to stop and reflect, remembering Christ, His life, His death, etc. I don’t think there’s really any set instructions for the details of Communion, though, and I think the remembrance and spiritual communion are more important than the food and the times observed. I’m glad you’ve found a place you feel welcomed and comfortable, though!

Also, interesting differences to note! My only experience is Baptist and church of Christ, so I’m always curious to know how other churches are. (I know a little about the Catholic church from my Dad)


I’m from a Catholic family and I’m surprised everyone drinks from the same cup where you go, @snorkadork. The church that my parents go (and the one I grew up going too), the priest and some helpers would go in front of the church (to split everyone in three or fours rows so the process can be faster) one holds the plate with the breads and the other the cup. They give you one bread, you dip it in the wine and eat it.

It is all a matter of hygiene guys… not that mindblowing. No ones puts their mouths in the cups.

Though I do have a feeling that the Catholics in Brazil sound way less traditional when compared to the US after hearing some people talking about their experiences here.


I guess it does vary in some cases because in a town in Mexico, they also dip the little bread in wine, but in regular masses only the father and those who help him drinl wine in seperate cups.


As a gay former Catholic history nerd, I actually ended up doing a lot of research into this very subject.

First of all, I will say that the idea of sexual orientation as we know it today did not exist back in the day. People didn’t necessarily marry and have babies for love or because they wanted to (though some certainly did). People got married to form advantageous family connections and to continue their own family lineage. It was a duty, not necessarily a desire. So really, no one cared if you were sexually attracted or even romantically compatible with the person you married. You married that person because it benefitted your family to marry them, so who cares about the nature and nuances of sexual attraction?

Romantic relationships, or relationships based purely on mutual affection, were almost always adulterous. Because the chances that you would fall madly in love with the spouse your parents picked out for you were slim to none, men would usually have to take a mistress if they wanted a romantic relationship. Women were basically SOL because having an affair risked getting knocked up with another man’s kid, which was often a death sentence during a time when there was no birth control. As a result, seeking any sort of relationship outside of a heterosexual, arranged marriage would have been seen as a lapse in duty and moral failing in and of itself, regardless of whether it was with the same or opposite sex.

During the time Leviticus was written, homosexuality was strongly associated with the Canaanite worship of Moloch, a fertility god that people would literally sacrifice their infant children to by burning them alive. There is entire verse in Leviticus forbidding the practice of “passing one’s child through fire” in sacrifice to Moloch. Well, there were also temple prostitutes, both male and female, that people would pay to fuck as part of these fertility rituals, and it was usually men fucking the male prostitutes. So as far as the Israelites could tell, homosexuality was just another unseemly manifestation of idol worship among other things (it also wasn’t uncommon for men to rape enemy combatants during warfare as a form of humiliation during this time, which probably has something to do with what went on in Sodom and Gomorrah, but I digress).

When Paul mentions homosexuality in his Letter to the Romans, he starts off by talking about idol worship and then proceeds to describe homosexual behavior (of men at least) as being the direct result of worshiping false gods. Some would argue that he references female homosexuality as well when he talked about “women exchanging natural relations for unnatural” but according to St. Clement of Alexandria, this was more likely a reference to anal sex with women, which was commonly practiced by temple prostitutes as a way to avoid getting pregnant.

Then he goes on to condemn homosexuality in his Letters to the Corinthians, which makes sense when you learn that Corinth was where the Temple of Aphrodite was located and prostitution, ritual or otherwise, was rampant there. Then he just reiterates this same condemnation in his Letter to Timothy.

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text. I’m not trying to say that there aren’t other reasons for the Bible’s condemnation of gay people or that homosexuality wouldn’t have been condemned outside the context of prostitution, but the more you know about the culture and history of the time, the more it makes sense why it wasn’t exactly smiled upon. It also doesn’t help that Christianity was very heavily tied up with asceticism, which condemned physical pleasure of any kind. It was even once considered sinful to enjoy sex too much with one’s own spouse (see St. Augustine and “concupiscence”).

And to be fair, it wasn’t like the Romans were as entirely gay friendly as we modern folk tend to make them out to be. Sex between people of the same gender was a) Only acceptable between men, and b) Only if one of the men was older or in a position of power over the other man. Basically the opposite of how it’s treated today.


The Catholic church I went to used one cup for everyone. It was a big church, so there would be multiple people giving out bread and wine, but it was still one cup for everyone in that particular line. They would wipe it after every person, but eh still not the most hygienic custom.


In addition, from a Jewish perspective at least:


This was very interesting.

And I laughed at the “romantic relationships were mostly adulterous.” Because, yeah, nowadays the concept of pursuing romance and forming a family is VERY different than back in the day. I do forget that such thing had more to do with obligations than anything else.

Note: I don’t know why sometimes I can quote on my cellphone and sometimes not.