Lobsters and Homosexuals
In The Philosophy Gym, Stephen Law offers the overused argument that if Christians oppose homosexuality because of what the Bible says, then they must also avoid eating lobster, because Leviticus forbids both homosexuality and eating shelled seafoods.
This is another example that non-Christians are stupid. Even if the prohibition against shelled seafoods applies, the argument still fails. It could only show that Christians are still prohibited from eating lobster and other shelled seafoods, and that those who eat sin against God. Thus even if Stephen Law is right about the lobsters, he would prove only that many Christians continue to sin. There is still no argument in favor of homosexuality.
Suppose an argument demonstrates that if I oppose murder, then I must also oppose lamb chops. If I continue to eat lamb chops, that would not make it acceptable to commit murder, but it would only mean that the murderer sins in his killing, and I sin in my eating. Even a child could understand this, but a non-Christian philosophy professor does not.
Nevertheless, the argument cannot even demonstrate that Christians are inconsistent when it comes to lobsters. This is because Stephen Law makes the amateurish mistake of failing to interpret the opponent’s position on its own terms before turning it against him. The error exposes Stephen Law as a total moron.
The prohibition against eating shelled seafoods was a ceremonial distinctive that ended with the death and resurrection of Christ, when God commanded that the true faith would now be actively preached to all nations (Acts 10:9-16). On the other hand, God’s law regards homosexuality as both a ceremonial and a moral abomination. He does not revoke this condemnation against homosexuality in the New Testament, but rather reinforces it in the strongest terms (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Therefore, instead of refuting the Christians, Stephen Law exposes himself as a stupid, careless, and dishonest lunatic. He has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford, and he lectures on the subject at the University of London. Thus he becomes another example that even the best non-Christian scholars are the most incompetent morons of this world. Even an elementary school student could have avoided this error by looking up the verses in a commentary, but a philosophy professor writing a book for commercial publication could not even do this.
All non-Christians are morons. Many Christians refuse to say this because they have an evil respect for non-Christian scholars, and a false concept of Christian gentleness. In refusing to declare that all non-Christians are stupid, they have denied an important aspect of the Christian faith. The biblical message is that man is both sinful and stupid without Christ. Thus those who deny that non-Christians are stupid also deny that Christ saves us from both our wickedness and our foolishness. This implies that we were intellectually sufficient without salvation from Christ, and that we needed his salvation only from our sinfulness. This is a denial of the saving work of Christ, and amounts to blasphemy.
Vincent Cheung.
Doctrine and Obedience. 2012. Chapter 32.
https://www.vincentcheung.com/books/Doctrine%20and%20Obedience.pdf
Also in an essay form here at his site:
https://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/01/22/lobsters-and-homosexuals/
Oshea.
As one who has studied logic and philosophy I bring in this quote to demonstrate that many educated people are nothing more than professional morons. Vincent is correct in pointing out that Mr. Law's argument comments the fallacy of being non-relevant in this argument. Why is it that educated men often make logical mistakes at the basic level rather than the complex? Because most do not practice the basics enough to have mastered them. Boring repetition, is boring, but without it one should not expect to master either basic Kung Ku or basic Logic.
