Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
The essential argument of GodHatesShrimp.com is that we should not condemn homosexuality as a sin based on the Old Testament because the Old Testament also refers to eating certain kinds of seafood...
The underlying reason for raising this question is to discredit other judgments in the Bible that have the same terminology thereby legitimizing (remove any guilt we may feel from engaging or approving) acts of homosexuality. We must not forget that homosexuality is a sin just like many others i.e. adultery, murder, bestiality. We must not commit any of them or to be in judgement of those who commit them. Although we should not judge others we should not let that justify the sin or make it acceptable to us. The association of abhorrent judgement between shrimps and homosexuality is flawed logic. Let me explain using an example. Historically, in most countries, acts of treason and murder led to the same outcome – the death penalty. The same judgement & punishment (outcome) for two different causes does not mean that those two causes are of the same gravity level. That is flawed logic. Today in many countries the death penalty has been abolished and replaced with jail terms. Does this mean that all crimes that attract the same jail term are equal in criminal nature and standards, not so. I want to explain the wider context. Most laws of the West used to be based on Judeo-Christian values. That means the Bible served as the basis for most human laws. Today, due to pressure from many powerful celebrities, politicians, atheists, lobby groups, vocal and special interest groups, one by one the laws are being revised, modified, ignored or dismantled to accommodate their non-Biblical wishes and practices. The pressure to get rid of homosexuality as a crime came from these groups who wanted to remove the social stigma of what they were practising and prevent them being blackmailed by criminals as a result. Homosexuality is now no longer a crime and to speak against or even question it is frowned upon as if that is the criminal act. We have come so far away from God's words that our legal systems are no longer reflective of the majority of the members of the society. It is these groups who have taken over the role of defining what laws are best for the society, many of which have low or no moral underpinning. It is only God's word that is in the way and that is why the Bible is under attack. Having decriminalised homosexuality, they have focussed on the next issue – the decriminalisation of drug taking. Many States in the US have begun to do (legalise) exactly that. Some groups have already started to argue the next issue which is the lowering of the age of consent (arguments as to the early sexual maturity of today's children have already started) aided by free pornographic material on the web. As I note in my research, once the 'morality' element is taken away then the US 'justice system' loses its 'justice' element because morality comes from the spiritual values espoused by the Bible. That is why unknown to most, there is a huge transformation taking place in the US legal system with the rest of the West following behind. It won't be long before laws on incestuous relationships or even bestiality will be modified or changed. After all, if God did not create the world and humans evolved from chimpanzees then how could anyone argue that it is unlawful to have sex with a chimpanzee, a member of the extended human family! Attempts to extend 'human rights' to chimpanzees failed but it won't be long before they also become legitimized. By the way, note that I support animal welfare and rights but what I argue here is the wider context of the changes that are taking place in the US legal system followed by the rest. In our changing societies where the numbers of believers in the Lord are shrinking by the day, the challenge for Christians is to consciously remember the 'sin' element separate from the legal rules. Just because a legal system may decriminalise an activity or declare an individual free does not mean that they are free from the 'sin' element if indeed they had committed that act.
1 Corinthians 10:23New American Standard Bible (NASB) 23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Here we see that yes, you can eat shrimp along with other unclean meats if you like. That being said, as popular as shrimp and pork are, they are still considered to be unclean by some from a biblical standpoint. Here is how. We are no longer bound to the Levitical laws of course. Yet we can with some degree of common sense, see that some laws were to govern the sacrificial rites / system, some were for health, some were for human relationships, and some were for civil government operations. Within the health laws, we can see that some might have more permanent importance (don't eat things that are higher in disease or toxin content) and some are more period specific. i.e. waiting so long after touching something that might be germ ridden. Now day's we only need to turn a faucet with hot water add some anti-bacterial soap and the problem is taken care of. They did not have ready access to such things then. Thus the laws for those things. Laws which govern civil human relations are still needed today. We may have modified them to some degree however (whether right or wrong) None-the-less we see the importance of civil laws. After the complete sacrifice of Christ on the cross we obviously no longer need the laws governing the sacrificial system. Studying them can be advantageous to learn how Christ death was applied in our behalf perhaps but that is about it. However if something was unclean to eat before the cross. The death of Christ does not likely change the way the biology works in the digestive system to suddenly counteract the chance of taking in some things that may risk our health. Reading the whole chapter of Acts 10 in context one can clearly see that the intent of the vision was to show that they were no longer to consider any man(kind) unclean. i.e. the gospel was to be preached / offered to everyone regardless of their genetic make up. Not just those who could trace their gene pool back to Abraham, Issac & Jacob. So while not a matter of salvation, one could make a good argument from purely scientific rational that unclean foods are not as healthy for us to eat as clean foods. Showing that from the beginning God knew about the scientific requirements for good healthy living. He created the world in which we live after all.
I wrote on this in "The Day Begins with Christ" by Adrienna D. Turner; but he doesn't HATE us to eat shrimp, these were unclean foods. If you think about what shrimp eat, or pig eat, they clean the earth which in other words, eat garbage and we are putting this in our bodies. There are toxins and unclean substances we are putting in our bodies. But we also have to be mindful, this was in the OT, in the NT, Romans 14, Paul touches on if you choose to be a vegetarian to avoid these unclean foods so be it but not to go against someone who chooses to eat these foods you feel should be not eaten, and let them be a meat eater. I believe if we pray over our foods, eat in moderation, and willing to detox our bodies for cleansing and healing purposes...we can eat shrimp or other foods on the list that are quoted as unclean in Leviticus. Also, listen to your body and note what foods you cannot put in your body and may also be on the list God suggested in OT in book of Leviticus. God is concerned about our health because these bodies are a "temple of the Lord"!
I would say that the answer to this question is definitively no, but that requires some clarification. The basis of this question is found in Leviticus 11:10: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." With regard to what is "abominable," some Christians often cite Leviticus 18:22, which says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." From this verse, many Christians will condemn sodomy as being an abomination to God. So this question is intended to show the hypocrisy of Christians who condemn sodomy, but who do not condemn the eating of shrimp. It's true that both things are called an "abomination" in the Old Testament. But is this actually hypocritical as some claim? First of all, Christ fulfilled the law by His all-encompassing death, and He nailed the ordinances on the cross (Col. 2:13-14). The "unclean" sea creatures were meant as a type of spiritually unclean things, illustrating that we should not partake of spiritually unclean things in our daily living. Now that Christ has come, we no longer live under the law, which was a shadow pointing to a greater reality. Today we have the reality of the Law--Christ. He Himself is our spiritual food and drink (John 6:54-55), and partaking of "unclean" things (anything other than Christ) should be an abomination to us. With regard to sodomy, the New Testament also condemns this practice (Rom. 1:24-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). This could even be considered as one of the unclean things illustrated in the Old Testament type--one of the many unclean things "swimming" in the sea of the world that we might be tempted to partake of. Most people--on both sides of the homosexuality debate--will admit that the New Testament teaches the above two points regarding the ordinances being abolished on the cross and the New Testament calling sodomy a sin. But the fact remains that a moral judgement ("abomination") seems to be assigned to both eating un-finned/un-scaled sea animals and committing sodomy, and this is the general point of contention. However, this assertion is a careless reading of Scripture. Leviticus 18:22 says that sodomy is an abomination--period. That is, God finds in morally repugnant. It is absolutely sin. Leviticus 11:10, on the other hand, says of certain sea creatures, "they are an abomination TO YOU." It doesn't say they are an abomination TO GOD or an abomination in an absolute sense (i.e abominable to God), but an abomination TO THE ISRAELITES. In other words, they were to consider them an abomination in their eating. In the New Testament age, the Lord has made all things clean (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15), and the ordinance of considering certain foods as an abomination has been nailed to the cross. We no longer have to refrain from the figuratively unclean items through hand washing and dietary restrictions, but we still need to refrain from the harmful spiritually unclean practices, because these will damage us, our fellowship with God, and our fellowship with other believers. As a final note, I would be remiss without affirming that God does not hate those who have practiced or currently practice sodomy, but He does hate the act of all sexual sin. God loved the whole world (John 3:16), and He desires to bring every person into His kingdom, wash them from the sinful acts of their past, and impart His holy life and nature in their being, so that they may carry out His economy. We need to repent of this and every sin and turn to God and His full salvation.
Food consumption has very little relationship with sexual immorality or sodomy. Food consumption may harm the body and not the spirit. Sexual immorality destroys the soul and consigns it to condemnation. The scripture in the New Testament given the guideline to eating or abstinence from eating. It is clearly a matter of choice for the Christian but there is no such choice over what God has definitely classified as abominable. There is no amount of rationalization by man that will change the ordinance of God. Sodomy is sinful even if the whole of the civilized world will rationalized it. By the way, mere reference of Christians as hypocrites has not addressed the main issue of God's view of sodomy. Every Christian must continue to uphold God's tenets and not the fables of men
Jesus Himself acknowledged the rightful judgment of Sodom (and surrounding cities, "It will be better for Sodom.... than for you.... for they would have repented...."), so we know even the NT, JESUS, condemned the practicing of sodomy and homosexuality. Since we are also told that it is not what enters through the mouth that defiles a man, we learn that Jesus' teaching on diets, washing plates and cups, etc are of no significance as it pertains to defiling a man, or being unclean. Additionally, since we are also taught by the Lord that it is what comes forth from the heart that defiles a man, lusts, adultery, fornications, etc- seeing that they all point towards what homosexuality is, (and not only homosexuality, but also the misuse of heterosexuality), it is clear to see that the perversion of that which God did ordain, is clearly not acceptable, on any level. Lastly, the fact that it is now being widely accepted amongst "Christian" ranks, it is as much as an abomination as the act itself. Yes, God loves the sinner, and hates the sin. However, It is most detestable in the sight of the Lord to call that which is evil, good. The embracing of this abominable, ("liars, fornicators, the abominable...and they shall not inherit eternal life", that goes for those who are "Christian, and endorse it", because it is obviously IN THE HEART of those sitting in place of God Himself by ordaining it to be ok, today), but it is an abomination because it calls God a liar, and declares the HE, GOD, created homosexuals, who, if left alone, would kill off the human population, because they are UNABLE to "be fruitful, and MULTIPLY". So, the presupposition that God created, ordained, accepts, or changed HIS mind, is a slap in the face to God, and says that GOD is confused. This is a scratch on the surface of why the debate is over. God hates ALL SIN. Eating a dirty fish, can be unhealthy, and make you sick. Giving yourself over to the total corruption of your humanity, and wallowing in the pool of demonic, deceptive, total depravity and perversion of that which is holy and natural, is quite another thing, altogether.
In Matthew 15:17, Jesus plainly states, "I did not come to abolish the law or the prophets; I come not to abolish but to fulfill." It seems very simply stated by Jesus that the "laws" of the Old Testament were to be obeyed. For didn't Jesus himself follow the law? He didn't mince words here. Are there different levels of sin? I think not. An abomination as stated in the OT is sin. Is it an abomination to eat shellfish, mixing fabric, sowing different seeds, etc.? Yes. It is an abomination in the New Testament? Yes. The Law was not changed by Jesus, and He said as much. Is homosexuality an abomination, along with murder, false idols, and stealing in both sections of the Bible? Yes. The argument of shellfish and pork being "garbage" fish and "garbage" animals is not the point, although it could have been the point in the time of Moses. The same could be said about catfish. They do not have scales. Are Christians forbidden to eat them? A very slippery slope is attempted when we use only some of the Bible to fit an agenda and not include its entirety. One cannot interpret the Law any differently from Jesus' words. He came to fulfill, not to abolish. Mankind has progressed in thought and deed a several hundred fold since the birth of Jesus. But His words are as valid today as they were then. It is man that has changed, not God. The choice to follow all of the laws of God, Old and New Testaments, is yours alone. Your relationship with Jesus Christ is yours alone. You can't force that relationship on anyone else. They have to find it themselves. And if they truly seek Him, they will surely find Him.
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.