![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Otherwise known as "If gay sex is wrong, then so is eating shrimp" or "The Bible says that if you eat shellfish, you'll burn in Hell".
Examples:
"something delightfully blasphemous (like people eating shrimp)"
Friendly Atheist blog on Patheos
"But there’s much more to know about these shellfish than simply how tastily they can be served up on a plate. You need to be aware that that tasty morsel you'd love to eat will cause you to burn in hell for all eternity."
God Hates Crustaceans
"In the same book that condemns homosexuality, there's another verse that you may find important:
[Leviticus 11:9-12 is quoted]
I know the Bible can be a little hard to understand, so let me spell it out for you: God hates shellfish. You know what's a shellfish? Lobster. Because of this, I fully expect a ban on Maine's lobster industry ASAP."
Blog entry
Why is this argument pointless?
Firstly, the claim that Christians have to follow Jewish food laws, and that this would be apparent if they actually read their Bibles, indicates that the speaker has not, in fact, read the Bible themselves. Perhaps they got as far as Leviticus, and then gave up? I know I used to, when I tried to read the Bible through like a novel when I was a child. Luckily, I was already familiar with the whole bit at the end called "The New Testament".
The Jewish food laws are specifically brought up, and specifically named as not binding on Christians. The typical verses used are:
Matthew 15 ("Listen and understand!It is not what goes into your mouth that makes you ritually unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes you unclean.")
Acts 10("Do not consider anything unclean that God has declared clean.")
Acts 15 (the First Council of Jerusalem, "The Holy Spirit and we have agreed not to put any other burden on you besides these necessary rules: eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from sexual immorality. You will do well if you take care not to do these things.")
Romans 14 ("My union with the Lord Jesus makes me certain that no food is of itself ritually unclean; but if you believe that some food is unclean, then it becomes unclean for you."
And so on. Technically, if you were a Sola Scriptura Christian, then you might consider yourself bound not to eat blood or meat that has been strangled, but the majority of Christians in the world are not Sola Scriptura and consider this a matter of discipline declared by a council as appropriate for a particular time and place.
Secondly, the claim that the prohibition on gay sex is based on the same book that prohibits the eating of shellfish again indicates that the speaker has not read the Bible beyond Leviticus. Quite apart from the food laws being specifically considered and named as not binding under the new covenant (what Christians are under), whereas the chastity laws are not considered and dismissed, gay sex is specifically called out as sinful in the New Testament. The typical verses used are:
Romans 1 ("Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing."
1 Corinthians 6 ("Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves—none of these will possess God's Kingdom.")
1 Timothy 1 ("law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching")
So the Christian teaching on homosexuality is not based simply on the passage in Leviticus, so even if the whole Old Testament law was abrogated (which is not a typical belief, nor the basis for rejecting the food laws), the Bible would still say that gay sex is sinful.
Thirdly, saying that the Bible claims that those who eat shellfish will burn in Hell is just stupid. The people who consider themselves bound by the food laws (Jews) do not typically believe that anyone will burn in Hell, as that is not a teaching found in the Old Testament. The people who worry about burning in Hell aren't going to worry about shellfish, because the same New Testament that speaks about Hell also says the food laws are not binding.
Anything else?
When you mock this particular passage in the Bible, you're not actually mocking Christians, because Christians don't believe this passage relates to Christianity. Instead, you are mocking devout Jews, who do indeed abide by this passage. You might like to consider whether, in your own society with its history and demographics, that is something you are comfortable doing.
If you use this argument as part of a point about how atheists are more familiar with the Bible than Christians, you just make yourself look stupid.
Use a different argument
Examples:
"something delightfully blasphemous (like people eating shrimp)"
Friendly Atheist blog on Patheos
"But there’s much more to know about these shellfish than simply how tastily they can be served up on a plate. You need to be aware that that tasty morsel you'd love to eat will cause you to burn in hell for all eternity."
God Hates Crustaceans
"In the same book that condemns homosexuality, there's another verse that you may find important:
[Leviticus 11:9-12 is quoted]
I know the Bible can be a little hard to understand, so let me spell it out for you: God hates shellfish. You know what's a shellfish? Lobster. Because of this, I fully expect a ban on Maine's lobster industry ASAP."
Blog entry
Why is this argument pointless?
Firstly, the claim that Christians have to follow Jewish food laws, and that this would be apparent if they actually read their Bibles, indicates that the speaker has not, in fact, read the Bible themselves. Perhaps they got as far as Leviticus, and then gave up? I know I used to, when I tried to read the Bible through like a novel when I was a child. Luckily, I was already familiar with the whole bit at the end called "The New Testament".
The Jewish food laws are specifically brought up, and specifically named as not binding on Christians. The typical verses used are:
Matthew 15 ("Listen and understand!It is not what goes into your mouth that makes you ritually unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes you unclean.")
Acts 10("Do not consider anything unclean that God has declared clean.")
Acts 15 (the First Council of Jerusalem, "The Holy Spirit and we have agreed not to put any other burden on you besides these necessary rules: eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from sexual immorality. You will do well if you take care not to do these things.")
Romans 14 ("My union with the Lord Jesus makes me certain that no food is of itself ritually unclean; but if you believe that some food is unclean, then it becomes unclean for you."
And so on. Technically, if you were a Sola Scriptura Christian, then you might consider yourself bound not to eat blood or meat that has been strangled, but the majority of Christians in the world are not Sola Scriptura and consider this a matter of discipline declared by a council as appropriate for a particular time and place.
Secondly, the claim that the prohibition on gay sex is based on the same book that prohibits the eating of shellfish again indicates that the speaker has not read the Bible beyond Leviticus. Quite apart from the food laws being specifically considered and named as not binding under the new covenant (what Christians are under), whereas the chastity laws are not considered and dismissed, gay sex is specifically called out as sinful in the New Testament. The typical verses used are:
Romans 1 ("Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing."
1 Corinthians 6 ("Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves—none of these will possess God's Kingdom.")
1 Timothy 1 ("law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching")
So the Christian teaching on homosexuality is not based simply on the passage in Leviticus, so even if the whole Old Testament law was abrogated (which is not a typical belief, nor the basis for rejecting the food laws), the Bible would still say that gay sex is sinful.
Thirdly, saying that the Bible claims that those who eat shellfish will burn in Hell is just stupid. The people who consider themselves bound by the food laws (Jews) do not typically believe that anyone will burn in Hell, as that is not a teaching found in the Old Testament. The people who worry about burning in Hell aren't going to worry about shellfish, because the same New Testament that speaks about Hell also says the food laws are not binding.
Anything else?
When you mock this particular passage in the Bible, you're not actually mocking Christians, because Christians don't believe this passage relates to Christianity. Instead, you are mocking devout Jews, who do indeed abide by this passage. You might like to consider whether, in your own society with its history and demographics, that is something you are comfortable doing.
If you use this argument as part of a point about how atheists are more familiar with the Bible than Christians, you just make yourself look stupid.
Use a different argument
