Was calling shellfish an abomination a poor choice of words?

Question

Why didn't they just say it was unhealthy? Would God have sent people to Hell for indulging in shellfish before Jesus revoked that statement?

Answer 1

Well no, think about it. This "law" was written back when? The food wasn't exactly fresh back then, and shellfish NEEDS to be fresh in order to not have diarrhea. This is also the reason why they banned pork, because their pigs were fed with trash and the meat was tainted. And it was hard to ensure 100% cooked in the meat. This was an issue of keeping people alive. It can be seen as irrelevant in modern times because I do know some Jewish people who eat pork (and love it) and I think that God doesn't care that much about what we eat. Sure doesn't care about genocides, so why bother with a delicious oyster?

Answer 2

first of all, why is it that you think shellfish was called an abomination because it was unhealthy? thats just opinion, its not based on anything biblical.

Answer 3

There are 6 sins that God detests. 1 sin that is an abomination.. That sin is homosexuality.

Answer 4

ignorance of the benefits of shellfish obviously mislead the statement being stated...

Answer 5

You haven't been to our local oyster bar, have you?

Tell you what, one time I went the day after was hell, and "abomination" was the mildest of the epithets I used.

Answer 6

Yes.

Answer 7

If you haven't seen this before, check it out.

http://www.dragonlordsnet.com/abomination.htm

Answer 8

wow Aryan.....give it up. God does not send people to hell....people send themselves to hell