The Abominable Shellfish

Why some Christians hate gays but love bacon

The third book of the Bible, Leviticus, has some wonderful passages. The Jubilee laws outlined in chapter 25, for example, provide an inspiring vision of liberty and justice for all. The 10th verse of this chapter even supplied the inscription for the Liberty Bell: "proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."

The Jubilee laws and the ideals they embody, unfortunately, are nearly wholly neglected and forgotten. Most of the book of Leviticus is similarly neglected.

Yet some passages live on, their teachings still regarded as unwavering and binding.

One such passage is Lev. 20:13, which says (in the King James Version), "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

That passage is frequently cited by the spokesmen of the religious right to explain why they're so adamantly opposed to allowing homosexuals to enjoy full civil rights here in America.

The thing is, though, that the book of Leviticus condemns a lot of things as "abominations." The 11th chapter is overflowing with abominations. For example, from verses 10-12:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

The folks over on the religious right cite Leviticus as evidence that homosexuals are an unclean "abomination," yet they have no problem eating at Red Lobster. What gives?

Since many observers have noted this apparent inconsistency (see, for example, godhatesshrimp.com) I figured I would wade in to try to explain why it is that so many contemporary Christians reject gays while embracing shellfish.

To understand why God is no longer considered a hater of shrimp you have to flip ahead to the Acts of the Apostles, the good doctor's account of the early days of the Christian church.

Acts chapter 10 finds the apostle Peter on a rooftop in Joppa, praying at noon before heading down to lunch.

The impulsive former fisherman has grown into a genuine leader in the early church. At Pentecost, he preached the gospel to people from every corner of the Roman Empire and he is slowly appreciating that this new community is supposed to transcend any ethnic or cultural boundaries. But the goyim still seem to bug him a bit. Especially the Romans.

So God gives him a vision. Peter falls into a trance and sees a vision of a giant tablecloth descending from heaven. The tablecloth is covered with honeybaked hams, cheesesteaks, crab cakes, calamari and lobster.

"Eat up, Peter," a voice tells him

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter says. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

"Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean," the voice says. "And try the angels on horseback, they're like butter."

This happens three times.

This is generally regarded as an instance in which a New Testament passage seems to set aside a prohibition from the Old Testament. And that's why our friends on the religious right do not feel compelled to eat kosher and do not consider shellfish to be "an abomination."

Fair enough, but there's something else going on in this story. The main point of Peter's rooftop epiphany has nothing to do with diet. The main point of this vision had to do with the people who were about to knock on Peter's door.

Peter is about to meet Cornelius. Cornelius is a gentile. Worse than that, he is a Roman. Worse than that, he is a Roman centurion. Cornelius is about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger.

But give Peter credit -- he understood the vision. "Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean." Don't call anyone unclean that God has made clean.

Peter does not treat Cornelius as an unclean outsider. He travels to the centurion's house, where he says, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."

Peter gets it. In this new community that God is building, this church, there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. No one is excluded as unclean.

This is the unsubtle point that Luke is hammering home for his gentile friend Theophilus. The surrounding chapters of Acts read like a hyper-P.C. after-school special on celebrating diversity. The church embraces Jews and gentiles, Roman soldiers and slaves, men and women, Africans, Greeks and even a token white European.

In our fondness for Easter ham, we Christians have fervently clung to the surface-level meaning of Peter's vision. But we haven't been as enthusiastic about embracing the larger, more important lesson God was teaching him there on the rooftop. When the "unclean" outsiders knock on our doors, we don't like inviting them in.

That, in a nutshell, is why some Christians happily dismiss one "abomination" while still behaving abominably out of allegiance to another.

(Oh, and what about Leviticus' Jubilee laws? Those were never set aside by anything in the New Testament, but Christians no longer treat them as authoritative because, um ... well, because money is pretty and shiny and let's us buy nice things.)

Comments

[mrs mcmuffin]

I really enjoyed this post and will have no compunction about opening my door to prawns!

[Mark]

"He forbade them to say of anything that it was unclean, and insisted that all things were clean and made no distinction between the clean and the unclean."
-- the Great Law of Genghis Khan

The NET Bible has an illuminating translation note on Leviticus 18:22:

The Hebrew term hb*u@oT (rendered "detestable act") refers to the repugnant practices of foreigners, whether from the viewpoint of other peoples toward the Hebrews (e.g., Gen 43:32; 46:34; Exod 8:26) or of the Lord toward other peoples (see esp. Lev 18:26-27, 29-30). It can also designate, as here, detestable acts that might be perpetrated by the native peoples (it is used again in reference to homosexuality in Lev 20:13; cf. also its use for unclean food, Deut 14:3; idol worship, Isa 41:24; remarriage of a former wife has been married in between, Deut 24:4; etc.).

The references in Genesis and Exodus are especially interesting. The abominations mentioned there are all Hebrew customs that the Egyptians found detestable: eating at a table with Hebrews, raising sheep, and sacrificing some kind of animal. (It's not clear what was wrong with the animal sacrifices; I would conjecture that the animals were sheep, which could be offensive in a culture where sheep were an abomination.) A note on the word in Ex. 8:26 adds:

An "abomination" is something that is off-limits, something that is tabu.

I'm not sure what that's worth (I have only the translators' word on it), but there's a substantial difference between "tabu" and "evil".

And I've always loved Peter's response when God tells him to eat. "Surely not...Lord!"

[animus]

Peter had doubtless forgotten the verse of Leviticus that goes: Thou shalt not address the Lord thy God as "Shirley."

[fairest]

That first sent. of Luke's Book of Luke is the best one Henry James never wrote.

Thanks, this was great. It was even better than that "West Wing" episode.

[Brandon]

This is a bit long but I think if you liked Fred's post you may find this charming...

A Letter to Dr. Laura...

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors complain to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to continue to pay for her education by law ?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense and threaten to call Human Resources.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians? Is there something wrong with tham due to the weather?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project ? What is a good day to start? Should we begin with small stones? Kind of lead up to it?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same as a you-know-what. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses fall within some exception?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? The Mafia once took out Albert Anastasia in a barbershop, but I'm not Catholic; is this ecumenical thing a sign that it's ok?

I) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan

[Stan]

This was going around a while back: www.godhatesshrimp.com. Amusing.

[Patrick Mullins]

When I was a child pedant of 9 or 10, I read all of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus (I am by far proudest of the last, because the tedium is unparalleled, and none of the stories are good like in Cecil B. DeMille--so this prepares one for any numbers of disciplines as one moves into the School of Hard Knocks.) I then was unable to finish the following book "Numbers" (two more would have got me the Torah, isn't that what it is?)

When I was a far more engorged 15, I did read "Numbers"--by John Rechy.

This noble work concerns misbehaving in Griffith Park.

Therefore, when it comes to Cornelius, he does rather sound like a Bacon Double Cheeseburger--I'd leave the bacon on to make sure both laws (and possibly at least one other) were taken care of (although I guess Gentiles breaking Jewish law is a little anticlimactic). No way I wouldn't let that one in the house--or go to his place, for that matter. It might even turn into a "warm, caring relationship, with quiet evenings, dining by candlelight and long walks by the construction site."

Although if I went to his place, that might really break a sacred law: "You gonna have to come up sometime...see me.." (Love, Mae West)

[Beth]

Wonderful post, Fred. I've never read Acts, but if it's all as entertaining as the passage you quoted, maybe I should give it a try. I also appreciated your in-depth analysis of the spiritual and theological arguments behind abandoning the Jubilee laws.

There is a lot of good in Leviticus along with the nonsense. There's Jesus's favorite, of course, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," as well as rules about leaving the gleanings of the harvest for the poor and homeless, treating 'aliens' with decency, being fair and upright in business dealings, and treating the rich and poor the same under the law. That last, especially, is one I wish more Christians would pay attention to. If they want to change government to better conform to Leviticus, why not start with something which is clearly under the provence of government: the judicial system.

"Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean," reminds me of another quote, by the prophet, Tennesee Williams. In "The Night of the Iguana" a woman describes an encounter with a man who had an odd sexual perversion. "Weren't you disgusted?" someone asks. "Nothing human disgusts me," she replies, "unless it's unkind, violent." God created some sea creatures with fins and scales and some without. He created some people with a desire for the opposite sex, and some with a desire for their own. I don't know for certain what God considers 'impure', never having sat down and discussed it with Him, but I do know that the only truly disgusting acts are those that are violent and cruel.

[Ted Barlow]

Oustanding, Fred.

[Diamondrock]

Wonderful post. I'd recommend the reading of Acts to anyone who hasn't read it. It's one of my favorite books of the Bible.

[LTH]

Beth - what if God created those who are violent and cruel?

[Andrew Reeves]

Much as I would like to agree with you, the problem with gayness in the NT is that the first chapter of Romans pretty roundly condemns it. If you believe in the authority of the New Testament Canon, then that still leaves you with problems. If, OTOH, you do not recognize the validity of the NT canon, then why make it an issue of biblical interpretation in the first place?

If the First Cause is the Holy Trinity as described in the last two millenia by the Christian church, then you should work to do what He says. If the First Cause is Allah as described by the Koran and Hadiths, you should do what He says. If, though, the first cause is a blue man with a flute, a divine watch-maker, or perhaps the universe just kind of popped into existence, then one really shouldn't bother onesself with how to interpret the scriptures except as a historical curiosity and for understanding what religious folks are up to.

[Beth]

what if God created those who are violent and cruel?

I'm sure He did, if for no other reason, because I'm sometimes cruel myself. But I also believe we were all made clean, and the fact that we sometimes do unclean, disgusting things doesn't change that. Of course the Williams quote is not identical to the one from Acts, but I think they both point to a similar idea: look beyond your prejudices and recognize that your societal mores don't necessarily reflect ultimate truth.

Andrew--those are some interesting points, and remind me of some things that Eco said in his correspondence with Cardinal Martini regarding Catholicism. Thank you for "man with a blue flute" as "first cause." It's got a lot of possibilities.

[Emily]

My favorite part of Leviticus (unless it's in Deuteronomy; I think maybe it's in both) is where it says that if you see your neighbor's ox walking around lost, you should return it to him, or take care of it until you can.

Sure, the NT canon still leaves you with problems. But the passage I always, always hear quoted with regards to homosexuality is the Leviticus passage--and I think that conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot there *precisely* because it's so easy to challenge, by sites like godhatesshrimp... The Romans passage is harder to challenge, but it's the "abomination" stuff that really gets a rise out of people, and licenses their disgust, so it's the one that always gets brought out.

[Russ]

Pretty selective, to say the least. Yes, all those at the door were welcome; that's why Paul notes that many in the church at Corinth were "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers," but were no longer, because those who practice those sins are outside of the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-12 NRSV)

And if you think "sodomite" is some kind of exclusive first-century temple prostitute, read some of Robert Gagnon's essays on the topic: http://www.robgagnon.net/

[carla]

1. ummm, what are the "Jubilee laws"?
2. My brother has been insisting that the question I ask myself should be "what would genghis do?" He (my brother) can be quite eloquent on this, particularly when he's had a beer or two and is sitting outside listening to the Mets game.

[Edward Liu]

Howdy,

Between this post and today's Real Live Preacher post ("There's Something About the Way You Use the Bible"), it's a good day for sane and moderate but deeply felt Christianity.

-- Ed

[2KF]

Peter got it. Paul didn't. Makes me wonder if Nietzsche was right about ol' Paul.

[Morgan]

OK, I can't resist :-)

You really should be careful opening your door to prawns. You never know where they've been...

http://www.8legged.com/DeepFriedLive/DFL01_02.html

[Kevin Hayden]

Thank you, Fred. Now can you direct us to the New Testament passage that has Jesus in combat boots spraying holy machine gun fire at heathens who refuse to be saved?

Somehow, I have to convince my liberal friends that Jesus kicked ass and took no prisoners, so they'll enlist in the Sacred Bleeding-Heart-of-Christ Marine Corps.

I took a look at Gagnon's page, and 20 minutes ought to be enough for life. A consummate nonpareil pedant, I am sure there are a lot of people like him making a lot of money.

The only thing of interest to me was that I had always wondered about the Kings I and II "male cult prostitutes" who were "exterminated" after various "wicked reigns," and how even some of the more virtuous rulers--like Joash, grandson of Athaliah, who tried to kill him, but he got her slain instead--lapsed into the mild versions of the "wrong path" later in life because they allowed the "worship in the high places." These earlier ones sound like forms of the later "temple prostitutes" that this guy Rogers became aware of in Corinth; making a difference between them and non-commercial gays and Lesbians--and Gagnon does an endless, incredibly boring refutation of an already boring thesis.

Another of Gagnon's articles is about why gay marriage is wrong, and includes such nuggets as why same-sex intercourse is far worse than infidelity--he equates it with incest. He says gay fidelity is just a way of extending and making worse something already wrong.

Why, Gagnon is about is refreshing as the Ku Klux Klan. What a bad trip.

You pulled a cool one here, Fred--proliferation galore.

[Kevin]

First of all... I love your blog name! I soooo identify with it. LOL Kudos for originality.

Secondly, what a fascinating post. Very thought provoking. I may have to blog on it.

[goetz von berlichingen]

the first cause is a blue man with a flute

a reference to Krsha Consciousness?

[Cliu]

Fantastic Posst! But I have to agree with Andrew Reeves on arguing with Christians. Finding Biblical justification for legislating against or for anything is absurd -- as has been amply demonstrated, especially by the Dear Dr. Laura letter, -- the part about animal sacrifice was excellent! Even as we laugh at people who try to use th e Bible as a sacred self help manual for redemption and salvation, I'd like to remind us that what we are really arguing against is theocracy (in any form) and what we are arguing for is the separation of church and state.

[Paul]

Also, Andrew, if you read the first chapter of Romans you will see that although Paul clearly doesn't like homosexual (as well as other kinds of sexual) behavior, he is not "condemning" it; rather, he says that such behavior is a natural consequence of being an idolator. Not the same thing. And certainly not the same thing as condemning "gayness". You've got the read the text, not just hit people over the head with it.

[maurinsky]

I was gettng ready to post pretty much what Cliu said: all of this analysis doesn't matter in the end because despite the rantings of the radical right, our laws should not be based on passages from the Bible, regardless of how they are interpreted.

Paul--there were many reasons the other Paul had little success on his Athenian gig. They were actually pretty polite about not letting him make the sale, but there was hardly a felt need for his services.

We are all idolaters to some degree--money, ibuprofen, necklaces, interior decoration, cream sauces, football, computers, political office--and these also lead to new idols of fellatio, cunnilingus and sodomy as well as inter-crural relationships accompanied by mutual masturbation among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Indeed, they do stem quite felicitously from any number of stimuli as well as idols--like nature, for example. Which means they are not "consequences" in the sense that a high fever is a symptom of a staph infection.

There wasn't any "gayness" to condemn in Paul's day--there was same-sex activity, but "gayness" is a recent development, and does not apply to old cultures. Insofar as "gay" applies to some other spiritual qualities, such as happiness, laughter and joie-de-vivre, it is probably safe to assume Paul would had felt free to judge them as harmful--all this, because people are so ready to overlook Paul's early career. I mean there are plenty of murderers on Death Row who are always "finding God." He persecuted Christians, helped stone St. Stephen, and then "found God." What a New Ager.

Good thing, huh? He should have gotten at least 5 months jail time, then 5 months house arrest followed by probation.

Ultimately, it's a matter of who wins to some of us. And this means gay people win if they decide a lot of what gay culture is going to be that is different from heterosexual culture. If gays win their battle, they don't have to prove they have managed to produce monogamous relationships like those heterosexuals (often don't) have. They don't have to please Christian dogmatists. The best gay journalist I know of, Richard Goldstein of The Village Voice, recently described his 20-year "marriage," which he says they will legalize if they can: "he has tricks, I have affairs." Meaning, they are not interested in the traditional edicts on fidelity; nor do they have to be. I don't see the essential heterosexual context losing, because endless reproduction seems to be one of the most effective ways of making the world even more desperate; but the main reason gays are more interested in monogamy than in previous periods is STD's, not anything Paul said. Any gay man or woman who cares what Paul or any other bigot says about homosexuality in this day and time ("some progress has been made," as Blanche DuBois so succinctly put it)already needs tons of new idols in the form of Xanax or Prozac, et alia.

[bellatrys]

Will anyone be offended if I post the link to the Brick Testament here? Or is it merely mightily redundant?

[Beth]

I think a lot of people are missing Fred's point. He's not arguing that homosexuality is approved in the NT, but explaining 'why some Christians hate gays but love bacon' and showing why their reason is silly. Apparently, they use that chapter in Acts to justify ignoring the OT dietary restrictions while sill claiming its other laws are God-given and eternal. They interpret Peter's vision as God saying, "Remember all that stuff I told you not to eat? Well, funny story, turns out that was all wrong; you can eat whatever you want. Go ahead, dig in."

With a literalist interpretation like that, Andrew's right, there's no point in worrying about it unless you buy the whole 'Word of God' thing. The way Fred tells it though, it's a story that makes you think, and you don't have to believe in the Holy Trinity for that.

carla,
IIRC, the Jubilee comes once every 70 years. During Jubilee, all slaves were freed, all lands were returned to their original owners, and all debts forgiven.

[Alex]

Jubilees occur every 50 years - 7 x 7 + 1, not 70.

AN interesting point is that one reason Christians don't observe them is that centuries before Christ Jews had already stopped observing them. It was an early instance of idealistic legislation that sounded great but was a disaster in real life.

The problem was that the whole economy was dependent on loans, including farmers who had to borrow against future crops to plant their seed. The Jubilee forgave all debts, so the lenders, not being idiots, refused to lend if a Jubilee year was coming up. As a result, crops plummeted in Jubilee years and the practice had to be dropped. IIRC, some formula was worked out by which a loan could be called something else and therefore still be collected in a Jubilee.

[Nathan]

If the Old Testament was the only place in the Bible where homosexuality was prohibited, you might have a case that it's no longer inherently sinful, using your argument above. However, it is also clearly prohibited in the New Testament. For example, see Rom 1:24-28, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10.

[Cliu]

About two hundred and fifty years ago only -- the American and French Revolutions opened the way for a secular democracy based upon religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Thus was Enlightenment thought incarnated as political fact. Now both of those Revolutions were flawed, and have struggled, but the idea that an expansive rather than restrictive notion of democracy could be launched from the ruins of the Old Regime was launched. I think the tolerance of religious doctrine in the public sphere is the actual goal of the religious conservatives. Check out Thomas Frank's editorial in the New York Times and his new book, What's the Matter with Kansas? The Right wants to lose the culture wars so that they can be crucified on the cross of liberal decadence. We want a democracy, not a theocracy -- they want to lose the culture wars in order to rally the troops -- millions of the disenfranchised who thrill to the idea of Christian righteousness, but whose wallets are being emptied by Republican tax cuts for the rich and the evisceration of public services.

We may not win them back with shrimp.

[Cliu]

Here is my real url. Please visit my blog.

[M]

Nathan ---

Those passages are great. Unfortunately, the next chapter in Romans expresses condemnation for hypocrisy. ("Do you condemn those who commit adultery but commit adultery yourself" --- something that should have been brought up a lot more during the Clinton impeachment.) The next chapter in 1 Corinthians orders women to cover their hair while praying. (A law the Roman Catholic church finally dropped after Vatican 2.) The next chapter in 1 Timothy commands women to learn in silence and not to presume to teach a man. (Imagine if you will the public school system suddenly devoid of female teachers.)

Biblical law is all well and good, but playing "pick and choose" with Scripture, telling people it's righteous because God said so, and then making it into public policy that non-Christians also must follow? Not in my country, thanks. Various Christian groups may feel free to deny homosexuals (or women, or Blacks, or whoever) access to their religious services. That's their right under the First Amendment. The minute they try to also pass legal sanctions against any of these groups, because a Bible passage says it's okay (and while they ignore the passages surrounding that same passage) they're going to have problems from me.

[pharoute]

I highly recommend John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century." It was a required reading in a Medieval European history course I took many moons ago. The reviewers at Amazon give a much more lucid synopsis then I can after all this time but I remember Boswell argued his thesis vigorously.

[bellatrys]

I really wanna know why Paul is more important than Jesus. Let alone deuterocanonical Paul.

I never get any answers on that, I'm just told to shut up, woman.

I also never get any answers from bible-thumpers on why Paul/"Paul" supposedly says that it's wrong for men to cover their hair while at prayer, when he was a proud Roman citizen as well as a traditional Jew. (Kippot didn't become de riguer for the laity until after the Destruction of the Temple, I have read, but as a symbol of personal piety they were already starting to be used by the laity in emulation of the clergy in devotions.)

And like we've been saying all along, why are some verses in the KJV so much more important than others, anyway?

[derek g]

If one of the apostles had a prophetic dream recorded in the new testament where god pronounces same sex relationships "clean", this would be a valid arguement. One such dream regarding food is included in scripture, so the arguement being made, while I agree with the sentiment, is hardly fair or compelling.

This is an arguement that can be won, but not with that line of reasoning.

[Mr.Murder]

The new dispensation is only that you love one another. Who is to stop a man from loving others? It really seems like anything past this simple devotion is window dressing...

[bellatrys]

Um, the Food dream wasn't "about" food, Derek. Did you miss the bit about how afterwards, Peter *doesn't* run down to the market and start buying up cartons of shrimp and hams, but he goes to [gasp!] visit ritually unclean *people* instead.

It was a metaphor, as Fred explains for those people who don't understand symbolism.

Also, do you make sure that you don't ever sit on a pew or chair that's been occupied by a woman having her period? Or worse yet, brush up against one of us? Because there's a *lot* about that in the Mosaic law, and yet you feel free to ignore that, even though it's not in Peter's dream either.

[prozacula]

Christians are so concerned about homosexuals and their 'agenda', but they fail to mention that Jesus never once mentions homosexuals. If you don't like homosexuals, DON'T BE ONE! How hard is that? These people that want to return to Biblical law scare the shit out of me. Ever read the Scarlett Letter? People have known for hundreds of years that extremist religious re-interpretation of any religious text leads to messed up shit!

Here is another point that the Bill of Rights-raping 'Christians' need to listen to: Jesus said that when you pray, you should pray in a closet, instead of praying in public and making a big show of it for everyone (which I equate with churchgoers, also known as Churchianity, or politicians who push their religion for political reasons). Please stop shoving your 'perfect Christian' bullshit in my face, and leave me alone. Anyone who presumes to know the mind of God needs to shut the hell up.

[Sabrina]

I agree with prozacula. People need to stop shoving their religion in other people's faces. However, I have no problem sharing what I believe if people really would like to know.
For example:

in Jacob 3:7-9 it says: "Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?
O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers."

So, quit shoving your religion in my face, and go ahead and shove it back in yours.

[Trey]

This was awfully well-done. I posted a chat on this subject a while back, if you\'re interested.

http://puravida.typepad.com/only_connect/2004/03/what_about_lobs.html

[Jacob]

What we've got here is a misunderstanding.

First of all, CHRISTIANS ARE NOT AT ALL BOUND BY THE MOSAIC LAW (i.e. - the Old Testament, the Law of Moses, the Jewish Law, The Penteteuch, etc.). The New Testament affirms this multiple times. The Old Law was a covenant that was FULFILLED when Christ died. Therefore it is no longer in effect. Thus, the dietary laws no longer apply.

On the other hand, homosexuality is condemned by the NEW TESTAMENT as well! Christ says in Matthew 19 that marriage, "from the beginning" (Gen. 2:24) is for MALE AND FEMALE for life. This necessarily exludes homosexuality. Jesus did not use extraneous words, but captured as much as possible in simple, logical statements. One man, one woman, no fornication. That means no homosexuality.

[Riggsveda]

I know this is coming late in the dialogue, but if we take Jesus at his word and assume that in the kingdom of heaven there is "neither male nor female", that kind of puts the last nail in the coffin of the anti-homosexual argument doesn't it? There is no man, there is no woman, there is only the communion of souls. Thes fleshly raiments we wear are nothing more than sensory apparatus (apparata?)
But even better, maybe we should remember the numerous admonitions to stop worrying about what our neighbors do, leave that part of it to the better judgement of the Creator, and pay more attention to putting our own individual houses in order.
All good stuff straight out of the New Testament. I personally like the Gospel of Thomas.

[Bigwig]

There are a pair of passages in the Gospels that do further damage to the belief that God and Jesus really dislike gays.

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 tell parallel accounts of Jesus' encounter with a Roman Centurion in the town of Capernaum who had a servant whom one translation said he "loved." The NIV says a servant whom the centurion "highly valued." Regardless, the Greek word for "servant" in both instances is pais, the word from which we derive in English the word "Pedarist." Which is to say, despite the way it is translated and possible connotations regarding sexual abuse, there is a clear sexual inference to the relationship between the Centurion and his servant which Jesus not only specifically declined to condemn, but He went on to praise the Centurion's faith, saying, "I have not found so great a faith in all of Israel!" This passage, I'd say, goes along way to temper the much of the legalistic dogma against homosexuals with the grace that Peter was later to experience on the rooftop in Joppa.

[Jim]

Sorry to be a downer but there is a crucial flaw to this article. Follow Peter along a little bit longer in Acts and you find a church council in acts 15 where he is instrumental in the acceptance of Gentiles into the church without the need to follow the mosaic law. They are accepted without any reservations *except* that they don't practice idolatry or sexual immorality.

In that passage the Mosaic Law is explicitly set aside but prohibitions against sexual immorality (and idolatry) are retained. And Paul later demands that a church member practicing incest be asked to leave the church until he changes his ways.

This demolishes the God Hates Shrimp argument in one fell swoop. Certainly homosexuals are to be loved and cared for by the church, the "abomination" rhetoric has no place in the church either. But you can't make a case for homosexuality from Acts 10. The Old Testament laws against homosexuality and all sexual misconduct still stand, and just to be sure they are reiterated in Rom 1:24-28, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10.

It's the same old wisdom of loving the sinner but not the sin. People don't like that line. Partly because sensationalist and unrepresentative christians trample it so badly. Partly just because it means they don't get christians to submit to their agenda. But the gospels walk the line between rejection and condoning sin all they way through. Maybe one day the church will again too. But what a faithful church cannot do is simply rubber stamp the popular view of the day, they've done that before and it's always been disasterous: either they look like fools in 50 years time when people wake up to themselves or worse they tolerate a Hitler or some such.

[The LORD thy God]

Excuse Me for interrupting, but I would just like to point out that the bountiful meal that I gave to Peter and implicitly pronounced clean included:

(1) All kinds of four-footed animals;

(2) Reptiles of the earth;

(3) Birds of the air.

Now, I know that many scientists believe that I do not know much about biology, but I do know these things:

(1) Lobsters have ten feet.

(2) Lobsters are not reptiles.

(3) Lobsters are not birds.

So, if eating that delicious plate of jumbo shrimp, Alaskan king crab legs, and lobster stuffed with lobster stuffed with lobster is more important to you than following My law (of which, might I remind you, not one jot, not one tittle, will change until all is fulfilled (and no, My Son dying and coming back to life is not "all" being "fulfilled" - as should be obvious to you, a lot has transpired since then, and believe you Me, there's more to come)), then by all means, go right ahead and eat away. I understand - I made those creatures, and I know full well that they're scrumptious.

Yes, I'll understand if you eat them. Please keep in mind, though, that I will also make you burn eternally in a Lake of Fire.

Thanks for listening,

The LORD thy God.

[Guess]

How now of you satanist to twist the worrd of God to suit your own selfiness desires!!! Satan was the father of the lie, and you people are liars just like you father Satan!!! Get It!!! Naw I bet you dont get it.....but guess what you will!!!

[perianwyr]

Obviously, exclamation points. W.V.O. Quine didn't have a question mark on his keyboard. I am beginning to think this was a fine idea for nearly all punctuation.