Talk:God Hates Shrimp

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Oh Noes! This may excite a well-known exsysop. Author of the opus User:HeartOfGold/Essay Homosexuality Is Not On The Same Level As Eating Shellfish : :-) --Bobbing up 06:08, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Do we have an article along the lines of List of things God hates for rather arbitrary reasons? --Edgerunner76 10:39, 15 December 2007 (EST)
You might consider: Actions which demand the death penalty in the Old Testament. .-) --Bobbing up 12:40, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I've seen that and I think it's a great article. My idea is a little more like - The Abrahamic God's rather eclectic and bizarre sensibilities. Maybe I'll look into possible “rational” reasons for why these otherwise strange things are brought up. --Edgerunner76 07:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Fred says shrimps okay[edit]

It's also indicated here in Answerbag

Phelps referred to this verse:

This is what the Lord said to Peter in a vision - Acts 10:9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Read more: Is it okay for a Christian to eat shrimp, lobsters, crabs or oysters if Deuteronomy 14 says they're unclean? | Answerbag [1] (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! It means I can eat babies if I wanna.Kamizushi (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Infallibility / Omniscience[edit]

For quite some time I've been wondering why a god would have to change his laws under any circumstances if he is omniscient, omnipotent and infallible, something I referenced in a little comment.

It may be my memory playing tricks on me but wasn't there a page here like 'Examples of God being wrong' or something? Would make for some interesting reading and a link to clarify. Many thanks! Polite Timesplitter (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

List of mistakes made by God is what I think you're looking for. Scarlet A.pngmoral 10:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks Polite Timesplitter talk to me sugar, but best keep it on thedown-low 11:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Change "fish" to "marine animal"[edit]

I request a change of "fish" in the article to "marine animal".

Because currently it looks like both this group of people and the Christians who interpret the verse in the same way are wrong on the basis of facts. You see, shellfish are not actually a kind of fish, despite the name, and crustaceans are shellfish. Nullahnung (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead, then. Nullahnung (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


Under "Doctrine" we presently have. "In this they fail to make a distinction between the Old Testament's ceremonial "abominations" (put out of force by Jesus) and its moral "abominations" (still in effect)."

Presumably some groups of religious individuals would feel this is true, but I'm not certain that we should be stating it as fact. Would the Jews agree for example?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, since it talks about Jesus Jews this isn't applicable to Jews in the first place. Nonetheless, you're right, this shouldn't be stated as fact. One could also argue that Jesus said that not one iota of the law should be changed. And considering how the text continues, I'm not sure it was intented to be stated as fact, either. I'll try to reformulate it, if that's okay. Octo8 (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that some groups of Christians follow Old Testament dietary laws. The followers oh H W Armstrong certainly used to.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
A very quick search gives me this Christian who feels that the law is unchanged. But my point is that we should not be making any dogmatic statements of doctrine which seem to say that one religious group has the "right" interpretation of the bible when it's pretty obviously the ultimate book of multiple choice answers. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I changed the formulation to just making this a Christian counterargument, instead of the wiki stating it as fact. I mentioned Matthew 5:18, but yes, maybe those religious communities should be mentioned as well. Octo8 (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly much better now that we no longer state it as fact but, yes, I think that the fact that not even 100% of Christians are convinced of the proposition would make things even better. As you are on it I'll leave it to you if you want to add it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey now, first saying I should do it and then doing stuff yourself - sorry, your edits got kinda drowned now ;) But I thought it best to unite the counterarguments to one section, instead of them being split among two (Doctrine and Fallacy). Also "doctrine" sounded a bit too high for a parody website for my liking. Octo8 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Crustaceans and cephalopods with scales and fins?[edit]

Zoologists don't typically call a crustacean's segmented exoskeleton by the term "scales", but is there a specific reason why you can't, for example, consider the top portion of a lobster tail as a single row of wide scales? Some crustaceans also have fin-like appendages.

Some cephalopods show scale-like dermal structures and fins are a common feature for cephalopods.

Would the authors of Leviticus consider crustaceans and cephalopods with fins and scales as kosher for consumption and if not, why? (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Same word[edit]

shrimp is שקץ while same-sex sex is תועבה both times. I assume it's the same in KJV, but it's possible there is a english translation that diffrentiate. (citation: the same verses, but in Hebrew) --Nngnna (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

So - it-s an injunction against eating homosexual sea creatures without scales? That's more weird than the original!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
They aren't kosher anyway. But you don't have to stone them unless they lay with each other the same way as with a human woman.--Nngnna (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)