Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


ye shall have their carcases in abomination!
March 2, 2004 12:26 PM   Subscribe

god hates shrimp
posted by bluno (79 comments total)

 
Heh. I want a bumper sticker.
posted by scody at 12:30 PM on March 2, 2004


Sorry scody. God hates bumper stickers, too.
posted by stevis at 12:38 PM on March 2, 2004


God only hates bumper stickers if they're made from mixed fibers. Duh.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:43 PM on March 2, 2004


I'm sure many of you will have seen the similar letter to Dr. Laura.
posted by callmejay at 12:45 PM on March 2, 2004 [1 favorite]


It is a constant mystery how people can cherry pick things from the Bible, but still think of it as the word of God. Look, believe whatever you want, with my blessing. But if your official book of God's word says that you can't eat shrimp it might be a good idea to ask God for a second edition. Know what I mean? The majority of the Bible seems wonderful, but about 25% seems really stupid. Not just questionable, but full on stupid.

Couldn't some pruning be done? Wasn't the thing compiled by committee around 100 AD anyway? What could possibly be wrong with a revision? Or better yet, do the same thing they did when they compiled the Bible originally - Get a bunch of church folk together and choose the best theological writing from the last few hundred years.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:49 PM on March 2, 2004


Perhaps, but Long John Silver's is probably sighing in relief that NASA waited until today for their big announcement
posted by briank at 12:49 PM on March 2, 2004


Jesus declared all foods clean. The shrimp thing was part of Jewish ceremonial law, and according to the book of Acts this would be part of the law that gentile believers were not to be held to.

Pass the tartar sauce, baby.
posted by konolia at 12:52 PM on March 2, 2004


The majority of the Bible seems wonderful, but about 25% seems really stupid. Not just questionable, but full on stupid.
Please think where current science was at the time they preached this message.

Oddly people die frequently form eating these “fish”, yet I wouldn't use that as an example back for where this site is going with all this.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:55 PM on March 2, 2004


Rev. Donald Sensing:
"God hates shrimp"?
That what these folks say, citing Leviticus chapter 11 and linked by Glenn Reynolds. (Personally, I hate shrimp myself, but not because of Leviticus.) Paul Golba emailed me asking me to respond to the site's assertion that "Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord," just as much as homosexuality. Therefore, Christians should boycott seafood restaurants. Asked Paul,
I feel that this argument is ridiculous and false and I have some sense why (the Kosher laws were lifted in the New Testament?), but I want to know for sure. Could you tackle this issue in your blog? I would greatly appreciate it.
I can tackle this with one hand tied behind my back, but I won't because my site is called One Hand Clapping, not One Hand Typing.

One, the "hates shrimp" site is somebody's idea of a joke and deserves to be treated that way. Ha, ha. Now I've laughed.

Two, Christians are not bound by Jewish dietary restrictions (says so here.)

Three, the New Testament repeats, not lifts, the sanction against homosexual practice here and here. (The second reference's meaning is a little obscure, though.)

I would also point out that while Paul lists homosexual practice as a sin, he gives it no special weight; it's just a listed item, along with many others.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:59 PM on March 2, 2004


Personally I would think that if homosexuality was a big no-no, the Jesus himself would have said something about it instead of leaving it to non-divine beings who came later. There I go again with my common sense...
posted by clevershark at 1:03 PM on March 2, 2004


So, since Jesus didn't declare homosexuals clean, konolia, should we infer that you don't support gay marriage?
posted by divrsional at 1:04 PM on March 2, 2004


Briank, are you kidding?

That would have made them millions!

Who goes in just to buy one shrimp? They want their pop and their eight pounds of whatever and their ha ha ha.... oh man, sighing in relief.
posted by jon_kill at 1:06 PM on March 2, 2004


"and according to the book of Acts this would be part of the law that gentile believers were not to be held to."

So why have it in there? And why is it wrong for some people to eat shrimp, but not others? And if Jesus and Acts are going to "back out" some of the earlier edicts, while not commenting on others, does that mean that other items in Leviticus are taken as gospel? Or does that call them into question as well?

You don't have to answer of course, but I am interested in understanding something that many feel is morally vital, but I feel is pretty silly. I doubt I'll ever understand. But I am willing to listen.

Also - Someone once told me that the reason that shellfish and pigs were made off limits in the Bible was that these types of creatures would eat human flesh. Whereas chicken, cows, sheep, goats, etc wouldn't.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:08 PM on March 2, 2004


We have more or less debated this quite recently, havent we?

Having said that...when I first saw this yeasterday, it made me laugh. Thanks for posting!

On preview: too late! but...

As i'm no christian.it's all a little irrelevant what rev. donald, S@L, Konolia and their ilk feel - unless they discriminate against me.

Oh, wait...
posted by dash_slot- at 1:09 PM on March 2, 2004


Well my less than perfect understanding of the Christian Bible is that the NEW Testament is sort of one big huge amendment to the OLD Testament.

That being said it's pretty freakin impossible to get any clear definition on a lot of what's in Leviticus, particularly after it's been translated and edited ump-teen times in the last few thousand years.
posted by aaronscool at 1:14 PM on March 2, 2004


The hebrew version's pretty old, aaronscool.
posted by callmejay at 1:20 PM on March 2, 2004


Finally God & I have something in common.
posted by birdherder at 1:29 PM on March 2, 2004


y6y6y6 is full on stupid.
posted by Witty at 1:31 PM on March 2, 2004


So where exactly did Jesus lift the dietary restrictions? Not to get into a scripture fight, but the way I read it, He said:

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5, KJV)


And he then goes on about how you should not only obey every "jot" of the law, but you should try to be even more stringent than is explicitly written. And this is from the sermon on the mount, which is pretty much as theologically explicit as Jesus got. It just seems to me that there isn't much wiggle room there (though I understand Paul tried hard to create some).
posted by mr_roboto at 1:32 PM on March 2, 2004


Get a bunch of church folk together and choose the best theological writing from the last few hundred years.
First you may interpret the book the way you want. Sad part about the commenting on this book is "less" have read it from beginning to end.

Read the canonicity of The Bible then add historical finds since then will shw you that in its original form it has been consitant, unlike "Romeo & Juliet". If you don't understand it, there are theologians whom have been educated in it's original language that may help you.

NEW Testament is sort of one big huge amendment to the OLD Testament.
The New Testament is about the church age which is now.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:33 PM on March 2, 2004


What could possibly be wrong with a revision? y63

Oh, things could be very, very wrong. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 1:37 PM on March 2, 2004


And he then goes on about how you should not only obey every "jot" of the law, but you should try to be even more stringent than is explicitly written. And this is from the sermon on the mount, which is pretty much as theologically explicit as Jesus got. It just seems to me that there isn't much wiggle room there (though I understand Paul tried hard to create some).
Mark 7 verses 14-19
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[6]
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")


The sentence in parentheses is in the original text. I linked it so you could see for yourself.
posted by konolia at 1:46 PM on March 2, 2004


Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him.

Sounds like hot, man-on-man action is okay to me!
posted by interrobang at 1:52 PM on March 2, 2004


Someone gave me this scripture when I shaved my head...

...For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head." (I Corinthians 11:3-6—NASV)

Individual interpretation of the Bible is so fun!
posted by bmxGirl at 1:54 PM on March 2, 2004


Wasn't the thing compiled by committee around 100 AD anyway?

You're probably thinking of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 or perhaps the Council of Laodicea in 363. Or sometime in the 11th century if you believe Fomenko.
posted by F Mackenzie at 1:57 PM on March 2, 2004


Steve_at_Linwood, for a Christian apologist, you're still doing the absolute worst of cherry-picking. Being more than passingly familiar with the Bible, I invite you (with great anticipation) to show me where Jesus, you know, the one called the Christ, repeats the sanctions against homosexuality.

mr_roboto, I think you might want to pay more attention to the idea that the old laws were the laws of the old covenant, the deals God made with man for salvation and grace. The new covenant, that came with the Christ, was not for stricter adherance to the old law, but for stricter adherance to the new law, which I should think would be pretty simple actually. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you would yourself. That having been said, Paul was about the worst thing that ever could have happened to the religion of a loving God.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:07 PM on March 2, 2004


Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him.

So it seems that Jesus didn't buy the concept of "cleanliness"; I don't see how it necessarily follows that he rescinded the dietary laws, especially since He said explicitly that He wasn't rescinding any of the law. This seems completely unambiguous from the sermon on the mount. There's much more ambiguity in His discourse on cleanliness, at least. It seems like the safest thing to do would be to obey "every jot and tittle" of Old Testament law, just as Jesus said we should.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:07 PM on March 2, 2004


Shrimp are, let's face it, objectively disgusting.

Nevertheless, this is probably another example of how the Bible is a great guide for individial living -- e.g., I don't have to watch any of my Jewish friends eat shrimp, which is fine with me -- but a problematic basis for rules in a pluralistic society.
posted by subgenius at 2:09 PM on March 2, 2004


The new covenant, that came with the Christ, was not for stricter adherence to the old law, but for stricter adherence to the new law, which I should think would be pretty simple actually.

I know that's what Christians like to believe, but is seems to be explicitly contradicted by what Jesus himself said. When He spoke of "the law, or the prophets" and of "the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" he was speaking of the old law: traditional Jewish law. His contemporaries considered Him a rabbi, remember. He declared this old law to be completely valid and intact!
posted by mr_roboto at 2:11 PM on March 2, 2004


“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ” (Ephesians 6:5).

Thats NT, right: so that trumps all. Tho, I admit it's not Gospel.

Is there some wiggle room?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:15 PM on March 2, 2004


My brain is exploding:

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

An abomination is an abomination is an abomination. Refer to the Jewish dietary laws which do not allow the consumption of shellfish. Then look up the laws of family purity ... and see that homosexual behaviour is equally prohibited and is equally 'not done.'

Of course, as far as Gentiles are concerned, they are not prohibited from eating shellfish. They are, however, prohibited from engaging in homosexual activity, as laid down in the Sheva Mitsvoth B'nei Noach [Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noach], affirmed in TB Sanhedrin 59b and ratified as halacha in the Mishne Torah: Hilchot Melachim u'Milchamoteichem 9:7.


If I'm going to explain this to all my gay homosexual friends, I'm going to need an explanation. And a pronounciation guide.
posted by subgenius at 2:19 PM on March 2, 2004


Sorry, that was inspired by this:

Faced with such morally troubling passages, the reader has one of three options:

(A) Deny that the passages really endorse slavery. But this seems rather difficult to do, especially given the references to “property” in the first quotation, which was allegedly spoken by God himself.

(B) Maintain that the Bible contains no error and concede that slavery may be morally acceptable. Not surprisingly, few believers take this approach (though the case was quite different 150 years ago, when slave-owning Christians often cited these passages). This option ought forcefully to be rejected. Surely one should have more confidence in the wrongness of slavery than in the inerrancy of the quoted text. Which leaves us withƒ

(C) Acknowledge that the Bible contains some error. To admit this is not to claim that God makes mistakes. Perhaps humans have erred in interpreting God's will: after all, one should not confuse complete faith in God with complete faith in human ability to discern God's voice.

Option (C) comes at a cost, however. Once you have admitted that the Bible contains error, you cannot simply use “The Bible says X” as if it were an airtight justification of X. This is as true for homosexuality as it is for slavery.

Is the Bible thus rendered useless? Not at all.

posted by dash_slot- at 2:19 PM on March 2, 2004


He declared this old law to be completely valid and intact!

Just as he declared us completely incapable of following it, hmmmm?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:19 PM on March 2, 2004


"First you may interpret the book the way you want."

Well, yes. And I accept that. But think about it from my point of view. On the one hand we have people saying such and such is against God because it says so in the Bible. But then we have others saying the Bible is open to interpretation. For those of us who run the risk of being abominations, this isn't very helpful.

Keep in mind that as it seems probable that I'm one of the abominations which the Old Testament goes on about, I'm a bit critical of such "fuzziness" in the Bible.

When I was studying Zen I came to enjoy the teachings of masters which are largely gibberish, but can lead to wonderful insights after you struggle with them for a while. In other words, interpreting them the way you want is sort of the point. But no one would take the messages literally and condemn someone's actions based on the sound of one hand clapping, or the moon on the water, or whatever.

But with the Bible we seem to have it both ways. We are suppose to interpret it, but we can also draw from it verbatim when we need debating points. I find this rather insidious.

"The New Testament is about the church age which is now."

Here again the train seems to run off the tracks. With dozens of established denominations based on differing interpretations, this statement seems patently false.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:24 PM on March 2, 2004


The exceptions written in Acts were conceived by later christians to make the religion more palatable (no pun intended) to potential Roman converts.

It wasn't Jesus's doing, and it proves that compromising principles for salability has been around for a long time.

So, yeah, the website's a little off. But it's what Jesus would have wanted. And you can say that I can't speak for Jesus, but then I'd point out that Republicans do it all the time.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:24 PM on March 2, 2004


What could possibly be wrong with a revision? y63
Oh, things could be very, very wrong. ;)

dejah420, that is an abomination if I ever saw one. I guess it is a continuation of the dumbing down of everything because people cannot be bothered to think for themselves and want their whole belief system handed to them on a plate in bite-size pieces (shrimp-sized pieces?).
posted by dg at 2:27 PM on March 2, 2004


y6y6y6 is full on stupid.
posted by Witty at 4:31 PM EST on March 2


Yeah. When I can't beat their argument I just resort to a little name-calling, too. It's much easier and lets me keep my tiny thoughts intact.
posted by stevis at 2:32 PM on March 2, 2004


Jesus declared all foods clean. The shrimp thing was part of Jewish ceremonial law, and according to the book of Acts this would be part of the law that gentile believers were not to be held to.

I've never understood this concept of God changing His mind. You'd think He in His infinite wisdom would get it right the first time.
posted by laz-e-boy at 2:36 PM on March 2, 2004


"The New Testament is about the church age which is now."
Here again the train seems to run off the tracks. With dozens of established denominations based on differing interpretations, this statement seems patently false.
Why? Also your statement may make mine true too with: "the established denominations". When were they and established and from what teachings? Thus "the church age".
posted by thomcatspike at 2:38 PM on March 2, 2004


first "and" please strike.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:39 PM on March 2, 2004


"Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you would yourself."

Here is where Christ and I really run into problems. This is one of those simple rules that sound great on paper, but don't work in a social setting. It's almost like Jesus wanted us to live in the woods and live apart from things like commercial enterprise, culture, dissent, assholes, etc.

Also what if I love everyone, but I feel God is simply too unjust? There is a fairness issue here.

Also we have the problem that I've never met a Christian outside of the clergy who loves everyone. But I have met a few people who love everyone, but they weren't Christians. The two seem to be mutually exclusive at some level.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:40 PM on March 2, 2004


"Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you would yourself."
One word: humility
posted by thomcatspike at 2:42 PM on March 2, 2004


Witty - "y6y6y6 is full on stupid."
stevis- "Yeah. When I can't beat their argument I just resort to a little name-calling, too."

Actually stevis Mr (Ms?) Witty is probably not far from the truth. I tend to be so full of rhetoric that any wisdom I've accumulated over the years gets obfuscated.

And it's much easier to debate issues when everyone assumes I'm an idiot. Lowered expectations and all.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:48 PM on March 2, 2004 [1 favorite]


"One word: humility"

But humility is a different animal.

Loving everyone and acknowledging God is something I could decide to do if it made any sense to me. But being humble is viscerally impossible for me. It's something I've struggled with in the past and given up on.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:57 PM on March 2, 2004


y6y6y6 same here.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:03 PM on March 2, 2004


Being more than passingly familiar with the Bible, I invite you (with great anticipation) to show me where Jesus, you know, the one called the Christ, repeats the sanctions against homosexuality.

If you would have read the whole quote I posted from Rev. Sensing you would have found this:
Three, the New Testament repeats, not lifts, the sanction against homosexual practice here and here. (The second reference's meaning is a little obscure, though.)

I would also point out that while Paul lists homosexual practice as a sin, he gives it no special weight; it's just a listed item, along with many others.
Now, if you mean where did Jesus himself say "homosexuality bad!".... I would assume that since you are "more than passingly familiar with the Bible" you know that the New Testament is not actually written by Christ.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:04 PM on March 2, 2004


y6y6y6, why do you hate Jesus, Kant, Nietzsche, Buber, Lord Whitehead, Davidson and your mother (remember the golden rule!) so much?

Humility isn't self-effacement, or self-loathing. Its the simple recognition that we're all in the same damn boat, and choosing not to be the one who punches a hole in the bottom just to see what will happen.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:05 PM on March 2, 2004


"Its the simple recognition that we're all in the same damn boat"

Your dictionary is broken. Seriously.

"y6y6y6, why do you hate Jesus, [...] so much?"

I don't hate them. I just feel they're wrong for the most part. Maybe not Kant so much. But like all ideologies and philosophies their ideas work well in context, but don't scale at all. What Jesus said on the Mount works pretty well for the vicinity of the Mount, but for San Diego 2004, not so much.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:20 PM on March 2, 2004


Now, if you mean where did Jesus himself say "homosexuality bad!".... I would assume that since you are "more than passingly familiar with the Bible" you know that the New Testament is not actually written by Christ.

That's a different point entirely.

Wulfgar is making a distinction between things that Jesus said to his disciples and things that Paul said, which are two totally, completely, different things.
posted by bshort at 3:22 PM on March 2, 2004


Steve: those are verses from Corinthians; if you had read Wulfgar!'s comment properly, you would see that he's looking for the words of Jesus, not those of an epistolarian. Believe it or not, His words are written down many, many times in the books called the "Gospels".
posted by mr_roboto at 3:24 PM on March 2, 2004


Now, if you mean where did Jesus himself say "homosexuality bad!".... I would assume that since you are "more than passingly familiar with the Bible" you know that the New Testament is not actually written by Christ.

Oh my, Steve wishes to play logic games, how fun! Of all the pathetic, if amusing , defenses you've laid for yourself on this forum, Steve, this would rate as your magnum opus. Simply, you are correct. The New Testament was not written by the Christ. However, the Gospals frequently quote Jesus as having said X, Y or Z. Surely, with the revulsion that Christ must have felt towards homos, leaving them out of the love of God and all, the Scriptures must recount something that Jesus said about queers being sinful in the eyes of God? After all, he said that divorce is flat out wrong (Whom God has joined let no man put asunder). Of course, we could argue that humans may not know whom it is that God has joined, until we've divorced enough to find them. But that's beside the point. If God has joined Rosie O'Donnell to her truest love, are you the man that would defy the will of God?

Oh wait, it's okay to bash gay marraiges because the book isn't written by Christ, so we really don't know that he told us not to interfere in a marraige. We should trust Paul, instead and for certain? Yes? Isn't that what you argued, that we should trust Paul as speaking for God? You remember, right before you took me to task for asking if any of his 4 chronichlers were seen as quoting Christ smacking the rightious God-fu on faggots? Heavens, it would appear you're being inconsistant, Steve. Either believe the teaching, or justify your beliefs with misbegotten quotes from a professor of the teaching. Your choice, of course.

However, we can trust Saul/Paul to speak for the Christ because he was a murderous terrorist who had a conversion experience and now speaks beyond what Jesus ever could ... Yes? Isn't that what you're preaching Steve? God hates Fags because Paul says so? Maybe we should call it Paulianity, instead. What about it? Hell, Christ never said don't listen to false prophets, (oh wait, maybe he did) and we'd never know anyway, because Jesus didn't write the New Testament.

Seriously, Steve, are you seeing any problem at all with your stance here? 'Cause I assure you, the rest of the rational world will.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:26 PM on March 2, 2004


"Oh my, Steve wishes to play logic games, how fun!"

What? No barrels of fish about?
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:30 PM on March 2, 2004


Wow. I was just going to point out that it was that it was Paul that had the problem with homosexuals.

Then I get to the end of the comments and see that Wulfgar covered the Paul angle.

And, in case anyone is wondering, it was supposedly Peter who had a vision regarding "unclean" foods being now ok to eat. Not Christ.
posted by kayjay at 3:38 PM on March 2, 2004


We should trust Paul, instead and for certain? Yes? Isn't that what you argued? ... etc, etc, etc

No, I'm not arguing at all. The "God Hates Shrimp" website is the one cherry picking, and my point in posting in this thread was to point out that it was doing so.

"God hates Fags because Paul says so?"

You really need to take it down a notch, buddy. Christianity teaches that God loves all sinners.

You can have your mock battle all you want, but I am no biblical scholar, and I know by reading these threads lately that most people that post here know even less than I about the scriptures.

I oppose the state sanctioning "gay marriage" for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:44 PM on March 2, 2004


Then Steve, I would ask you quite simply, why do you defend ideas (ideals) that have no place in your thinking? If you oppose gay marraige for reasons that have naught to do with religion, why do you defend the preposterous thinking of those that oppose not only gay marraige, but homosexuals themselves? Draw your line in the sand Steve, but don't expect that others will respect your defense of the indefensible.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:54 PM on March 2, 2004


I oppose the state sanctioning "gay marriage" for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

That is very interesting Steve because I cannot see a reason to be against state sanctioned gay marriage that is not based in religion and the belief that Homosexuality is a sin.
posted by aaronscool at 5:29 PM on March 2, 2004


I know by reading these threads lately that most people that post here know even less than I about the scriptures.


well, I'm not in love with MeFi threads re: religion either but what's the litmus test? having taken theology classes? ability to read koine?
(because frankly, Steve, King James is amazing poetry, the cornerstone of the English language, but it's a very bad translation if we're discussing theology. The New American is better, but it's still lacking.
so, either we disqualify all those of us who haven't studied theology and can't read New Testament Greek, or we try to discuss things anyway. using tools like common sense, etc.

I oppose the state sanctioning "gay marriage" for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

Thank Allah, a non-fundy Republican -- loos like you guys are bound for extinction

anyway, what are those reasons? because the fundy "GodHatesFags" point of view is at least consistent -- the fundamentalist medieval take on religion makes homosexuality abhorrent, hence it makes sense to be against gay marriage. at least it's consistent.

secular arguments against gay marriage, instead, look much, much shakier -- you know, because of the "equal rights for all" Enlightenment things. don't forget most secular arguments against gay marriage are eerily reminescent of those used less than a century ago against, for example, inter-racial marriage. or desegregation.
I'm just curious, that's all

,)

on preview: I see aaaronscool is making the same point
posted by matteo at 5:51 PM on March 2, 2004


"are eerily reminescent of those used less than a century ago against, for example, inter-racial marriage. or desegregation."

Which why the effort to outlaw same sex marriages will fail. It's basically the same fight even though the people are different.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:04 PM on March 2, 2004


The "God Hates Shrimp" website is the one cherry picking, and my point in posting in this thread was to point out that it was doing so.

We didn't do it that way to cherry-pick scripture, we did it that way because "God Hates Shrimp" is a much shorter URL than "God Hates Other Things Besides Fags."
posted by RylandDotNet at 6:12 PM on March 2, 2004


I wondered if it was you when I saw the unusual name, Ryland. Nice one!
posted by dash_slot- at 6:48 PM on March 2, 2004


Based on the same Biblical teachings, of course. You could have used "God hates those that enjoy eating arachnidie", or perhaps, "God hates the other white meat". How's about "God hates menstration", or more briefly (heh), "Menes shalt be lowly in Mine Sight". "Sunder Thine women who have not procreated due to fornication, lest you be deseased by their impotence". "Daddys like Lot make good babies with hot daughters". "The rightious, like Methuselah, come long time". "Daniel fucked lions, how tough are you?!!" Shit folks, we have a whole t-shirt line here.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:49 PM on March 2, 2004


I've never understood this concept of God changing His mind. You'd think He in His infinite wisdom would get it right the first time.

I will try my best to explain this without being too preachy.

Morality is an expression of God's will. So if the eating of shrimp is displeasing to God in one century then eating shrimp is bad at that time.

You probably know, for example, that God was very pleased by animal sacrifice back during Old Testament times. That really made him feel happy back then, and understandably so. Of course we all know from experience that the thrill we feel the first time someone sacrifices an animal in our names is hard to reproduce, and a couple of hundred thousand animals later we're just sort of bored with it, you know? So eventually we stop granting special favors for that. God is no different than you and me in this respect.

Also you have to take account the fact that Jesus died to forgive our sins, because that really changed everything. Imagine a situation where a lot of people you knew were doing horrible things that you could never forgive -- things so awful that you were ready to condemn them to eternal suffering in a lake of fire -- until you realized that their crimes would be much easier for you to tolerate if your offspring were punished for their crimes, so long as they believed that this substitutive retribution made some kind of sense. Once you had that clear moment where punishment-by-proxy revealed itself to be the answer to the problem of evil, wouldn't this completely change your ideas about right and wrong? In a situation like that you might not even care to see adulterers stoned to death anymore, no matter how happy that made you in the past. Even mixed fibers might not seem like a big deal in that context. You'd have to totally re-write the rules from scratch, which is what God did, and understandably so.

Does that make the matter more clear?
posted by boredomjockey at 7:39 PM on March 2, 2004


I have no quarrel with shrimp. But I am a mere human.
posted by troutfishing at 7:51 PM on March 2, 2004


"Does that make the matter more clear?"

Well, it makes it sound much goofier. I'm sorry. More power to you if that theology helps your life work. But that's so far from something I could take seriously that I've always assumed I had it wrong.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:06 PM on March 2, 2004


I detected a faint whiff of snark on that one, boredomjockey.

God had a covenant with the Hebrews. We Christians have a new covenant with him. The contract details are a bit different is all.
posted by konolia at 8:24 PM on March 2, 2004


Blah blah blah.

God hates bacon too, ya know...
posted by aaaaa at 8:25 PM on March 2, 2004


I detected a faint whiff of snark on that one, boredomjockey.

You may want to loan your snark detector to y6y6y6 when you're done with it. ;)
posted by boredomjockey at 9:42 PM on March 2, 2004


(Or to me, if y6y6y6 was snarking as well.)
posted by boredomjockey at 9:47 PM on March 2, 2004


God hates snarks.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:18 PM on March 2, 2004


Does that make the matter more clear?

Actually, yes it does. I've moved from not understanding it to understanding why I don't believe in it.
posted by laz-e-boy at 11:51 PM on March 2, 2004


"detected a faint whiff of snark on that one, boredomjockey."

So..... I'm confused. That isn't what Christians believe?
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:58 AM on March 3, 2004


God made shrimp to teach humanity the secret of fusion.
posted by troutfishing at 5:55 AM on March 3, 2004


The contract details are a bit different is all.

Why? Why would eating shrimp be bad for Hebrews but right for Christians?
posted by Summer at 6:45 AM on March 3, 2004


(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

The sentence in parentheses is in the original text. I linked it so you could see for yourself.
posted by konolia at 4:46 PM EST on March 2


"As for the sentence: (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")? It simply doesn’t appear in the original Greek."

Here's the Greek (in transliteration):
[19] hoti ouk eisporeuetai autou eis tên kardian all' eis tên koilian, kai eis ton aphedrôna ekporeuetai; —katharizôn panta ta brômata.

It's not clear how the last clause (katharizôn panta ta brômata) fits into the sentence; another translation has: "...[19] because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?"

We're not going to have another "Religion is dumb!" "No it's not!" argument, are we?
posted by languagehat at 7:49 AM on March 3, 2004


Quick! Perform the special ritual to appease the invisible man in the sky!
posted by spazzm at 8:11 AM on March 3, 2004


"We're not going to have another "Religion is dumb!" "No it's not!" argument, are we?"

Why not? I think discussions of this sort have gotten much better here. We all learned something in this one, yes?

"Quick! Perform the special ritual to appease the invisible man in the sky!"

Or not..........
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:12 AM on March 3, 2004


It's not clear how the last clause (katharizôn panta ta brômata) fits into the sentence;

exactly.
ibis redibis non morieris in bello, I'd say, l-hat

it's also pretty elegant (though i'm usually no fan of koine) how the writer uses katharizô -- a loaded liturgical word if there ever was one.

but at this point, in a post-Mel environment, whenever I see religion threads, apothanein thelo
posted by matteo at 8:41 AM on March 3, 2004


apothanein thelo

I knew you were the Cumaean Sibyl!

Cumarum misere piae Sibyllae,
Cui ampulla focus domusque sola,
Nam vetusta satis diu sacerdos
Vitam agebat, et acriter mori vult.

posted by languagehat at 10:29 AM on March 3, 2004


damn illi pueri!

*shakes fist, knocks hand on ampulla's glass*
posted by matteo at 4:40 PM on March 3, 2004


« Older The paintings of James Rosenquist...  |  How bad was the bombing of Dre... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments