Culture – Page 39

The Power Of Unrelieved Guilt

“In fact, one might say that all modernity, all the creators of the intellectual artifice that is the modern age, were bent on nothing more than rationalization of apostasy, with sexual rebellion as its vehicle. What do Margaret Mead, and Bloomsbury, and Picasso, and Sartre and Freud, and the various forms of socialism, and Paul Tillich, and any number of lesser lights have in common? Precisely that: rationalized sexual misbehavior construed as liberation. In reality it was nothing more than an attack on God in general and the Christian sexual morality in particular….

Add to apostasy the sexual sin that follows almost automatically therefrom — modernity, as I said, is nothing but rationalized sexual misbehavior anyway — and then add the abortion that follows naturally from the sexual revolution, and you have, after a while, a pretty impressive pool of guilt, one big enough to form the basis for a political movement…. Guilt has not only become endemic; it has become a powerful political tool. Liberalism, as currently practiced, is the politics of guilt. Guilt is the engine that pulls the Liberal train… what we are interested in here is the political grammar of those ostensibly involved in righting these wrongs. All the liberal causes are orchestrations, in one way or another, of the pool of guilt that has been building throughout this century.

The Democratic party is a good example of how this all gets brokered. The women blackmail the Liberals, who feel guilty about the sexual revolution, and the feminist power block comes into existence. The homosexuals blackmail the feminists, who feel guilty about abortion and so compensate by allowing the homosexuals to become officially designated victims, so that the feminists won’t have to face the real victims — their own aborted children. Guilt becomes the power base for each of these movements. It becomes the medium of exchange in the political marketplace. In order to play, you must first get yourself designated as a victim…. It works in direct proportion to the number of people in our society who turn away from Jesus Christ, the one and only effective antidote to guilt. It is simple enough to be reduced to an equation: the politics of guilt and blackmail will increase in inverse proportion to the number of people who follow Jesus Christ and — we might add, as he would — do his will. All of this only makes sense because the need to escape from guilt remains a constant in the life of human beings. If people deliberately turn away from Jesus Christ … they will be forced to seek release from guilt by ritual actions … ”

E. Michael Jones
Degenerate Moderns – pp. 121-122

“The reality of man apart from Christ is guilt and masochism. And guilt and masochism involve an unshakable inner slavery which governs the total life of the non-Christian. The politics of the anti-Christian will thus inescapably be the politics of guilt, man is perpetually drained of his social energy and cultural activity by his overriding sense of guilt and his masochistic activity. He will progressively demand of the state a redemptive role. What he cannot do personally, i.e., to save himself, he demands that the state do for him, so that the state, as man enlarged, becomes the human savior of man. The politics of guilt, therefore is not directed, as the Christian politics of liberty, to the creation of a godly justice and order, but to the creation of a redeeming order, a saving state. Guilt must be projected, therefore, on all those who oppose this new order and new age.”

R. J. Rushdoony
The Politics of Guilt and Pity — p. 9

1.) Rejection of God and His Law word as incarnated in Jesus Christ brings guilt. Guilt is objective and will always require some attempt at being assuaged. For Biblical Christians our guilt is assuaged in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ and the following assurance that “if we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” The modern does not have this means to relieve themselves of guilt and so much of their behavior and life is spent as a means to find a relief valve for their personal inescapable guilt.

2.) Since those outside of Christ do not have the only proper means to deal with their guilt they only have one of two options in order to find a temporary release of guilt. Those two options are either sadism in some degree or another or masochism is one degree or another. This is just another way of saying that either they will punish themselves (masochism) for their guilt or they will punish others for their guilt (sadism). If they punish others for their guilt often it will be those who are closest to them in their personal relationships. The attempt at removing guilt by means of self atonement can be seen in history by the religious flagellants as they whipped themselves bloody in order to relieve their sense of guilt. However, this means of relieving guilt can also be as comparatively benign as some small form of self sabotage that insures that one can not succeed in some effort. Sadistic attempts at removing guilt are sometimes as blood drenched as abortion where living human beings are made the guilt sacrifice of their parent’s sins or it can be simply the work of a parent shoving their guilt off on their child or a spouse placing their guilt upon their husband or wife.

3.) Guilt becomes a tool whereby whole cultures and social orders are manipulated. For example, White people are made to feel guilty for their success and they are manipulated, by false guilt, to support policies (quotas, educational set asides, manipulated SAT scores, etc.) that work to insure that they, as a people group, no longer can be successful. False guilt over a false sin, as named by a false god, can only be paid for by a false masochistic atonement. For example, women are made to feel guilty for being a wife and homemaker and they are manipulated, by false guilt, to take up careers and to place their children into day care centers. False guilt over a false sin, as named by a false god, can only be paid for by a false atonement. For example, heterosexuals are made to feel guilty for rightly finding sodomy and perverseness disgusting, and they are manipulated, by false guilt, into believing that their natural abhorrence is unnatural and worthy of being sanctioned. False guilt over a false sin, as named by a false god, can only be paid for by a false atonement. Guilt, as Jones notes, is a powerful political tool.

4.) When guilt is allowed to be the train that pulls the body politic, then the weak rule over the strong. When guilt is allowed to be the ruling motif of any social order then it is only those who can somehow claim victim status who are prioritized in import over non-victims. When this happens (and it has happened in our culture) then whole pecking orders of “more victimized than thou” are created. Women more victim then men. Lesbian women more victim then straight women. Handicapped Lesbian women more victim them non handicapped Lesbian women… and on and on it goes. In such a culture the weak dominate the strong so that the strong must continually brought down to the level of the weak.

5.) The blackmailing that happens that Jones mentions I suspect takes place in the following way. In return for homosexuals not mentioning the abortion issue to guilt laden feminists the feminists lend the weight of their support for the homosexual movement. In such a way guilt over abortion is used as a muting factor that allows a large power bloc that was itself created by guilt (feminists) to turn a blind eye to the creation of another large power bloc that is created by guilt (homosexuals).

6.) Blood is still often connected with this pagan relieving of guilt. The blood sacrifice of abortion provides relief of the guilt that comes from violating God’s 7th word.

My Night At The Graduation Ceremony

Values clarification in Government schools asserts that each student must decide for themselves what their values are or will be. The student is taught to be the sovereign creator of their values. Via whatever form of values clarification that the Government schools use, and by whatever means (computers are often used for this programming), children are taught to establish values through exercises which are comparatively innocent and non-threatening. In these beginning exercises the wee student ranks or compares items based on personal preference. Short lists are made of their preferred food, sport, or vacation for example. The goal here is get the student accustomed to revealing themselves so that later revelations about their values on matters not benign will allow teachers to coax, often via peer pressure, students whose values are not approved to choose the pre-determined values, and to choose those pre-determined values in such a way that they see themselves as the ones doing the choosing.

This stage of drawing the student out via benign matters works to make the student comfortable in sharing. Once they are comfortable in revealing truths about themselves they are then presented, over time, with a series of moral dilemmas, asking them if they agree strongly, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, disagree strongly, and to forth. The questions that are now asked are not about their favorite game, or their favorite meal. The questions now asked move from personal preference to ethics. Questions like,

Should children have the right not to accompany their parents to church?
Should homework be abolished?
Should teens be free to engage in sex before marriage?
Is euthanasia a good idea?

Children are malleable and when a few children give answers that are not in accord with the carefully crafted majority report those children are subject to the public scrutiny that puts them out of lock step and so are subtly pressured to surrender their convictions that are not in keeping with the majority report. All of this is just Skinnerian behavoristic conditioning. The student has been conditioned quite without themselves realizing they have been conditioned. Instead what they believe is that they themselves were the sovereign creator of their values. Such values clarification thus leads to the prioritization of the self in the mind of the student, though the controller understands that the real priority always was upon the conditioner.

In 1999, the year that the class of 2012 began their schooling as Kindergartners, in an address at the US Naval Academy, Dr Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret), gave a background briefing on the Frankfurt School, reminding his audience that it was the ‘foot soldiers’ of the Frankfurt School who introduced the ‘sensitivity training’ techniques used in public schools over the past 30 years (and now employed by the US military to educate the troops about ‘sexual harassment’). During ‘sensitivity’ training teachers were told not to teach but to ‘facilitate.’ Classrooms became centres of self-examination where children talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives. In point of fact though, the conditioners were the authority in their lives.

All of that is necessary background for the observation I wanted to make when I started. Friday Night I attended a High School graduation and the word “self” was used repeatedly in the student speeches. Repeatedly the students were told, “Listen to your self,” “Follow your better self,” and “Be your best self.” In these speeches the students were a crystal clear reflection of the religion they had been indoctrinated in since they were 5 years old. The students were triumphing the cult of self that had been drilled into them via values clarification programming. This observation is not to say that the children were’t nice or polite children. I’m sure most of them are. It is not to say that they weren’t intelligent or talented. I’m sure many of them are. It is only to say that they have been programmed into a false religion.

One of the main student speakers spoke about words and whose words we should really pay attention. I was screaming in my mind the whole time she was leading up to her crescendo with, “We should really pay attention to God’s words in Scripture,” but when she hit her crescendo we discovered we should really listen to ourselves.

Of course this values clarification also teaches the idea that there is no such thing as absolute truth. If values are only what we choose or what we prefer then the notion that there is absolute truth is a-priori ruled out. As a result we get comments like the one I was tossed recently when speaking with a 20 something year old about objective definitions of family. She informed me along the way, “You’re idea of family works for you and my idea of family works for me.” This is just this young lady repeating the relativism that is inherent to values clarification.

The values clarification programming technique is used to pound into their heads, between the ages of 5-18, that they are autonomous individuals who are the source of their values. This is why this kind of education is rightly called “Humanism.” Any education process that leaves students (Humans all of them) thinking that the autonomous self is the source of all valuation is a educational process where the god that has been owned is themselves. Any educational process that begins with the assumption that no God can be allowed into the conversation about values, in the name of some deluded notion of “neutrality,” is a educational process that ends up with the best students on Graduation night parroting the party line about the importance of self and the need to listen to the self.

The ability to educate, during their formative years, apart from establishing the centrality of God for all truth creates a vacuum where a different establishment of centrality for all truth must be lodged. In government education that new centrality for all truth — that new foundation upon which all ethics are based — is the sovereign malleable self.

Marxism, Sovereignty, and R2K

Eternally speaking, God is absolutely sovereign and holds all sovereignty as His own. No one can challenge God’s sovereignty, though many imagine that they can and do. God, in His infinite wisdom, has appointed certain spheres where Federal Representatives are delegated temporal sovereignty in order to rule in God’s stead in the spheres to which God has appointed them.

So then, temporally speaking, there is only so much sovereignty to go around. Reality doesn’t expand, and as such temporal sovereignty over reality does not expand either. What this means is that no matter how temporal sovereignty is sliced up and divided at the end of the doling out of temporal sovereignty if one was to add all the temporal sovereignty together its total amount could be neither increased or decreased. Hence, if any one agency is able to accrue an increase in its temporal sovereignty that agency does so at the expense of some other agency losing some sovereignty.

To put this in concrete terms, if the State increases its total amount of sovereignty the result is that it does only at the expense of the family or the church losing the sovereignty that it formerly exercised before the state successfully seized the amount of sovereignty it lost from the state. Similarly, were the family to increase its total amount of sovereignty it could only do so at the expense of other agencies.

All this is background to consider how it is that Marxism is a sovereignty sucking plausibility structure. Marxism, by its nature, consistently seeks to seize sovereignty from all other social order spheres in order to locate all sovereignty in the state. By doing so Marxism, seeks to attack all other temporal sovereignty not delegated to it so that it might ascend to the most high in order to convince itself that the sovereignty it wields is of the eternal type.

By its very tenets Marxism consistently attacks two of the basic spheres God has ordained and it does so because these basic spheres of family and religion impede the state’s attempt to garner into its fists a monopoly on sovereignty, power, and authority. The Marxist state attacks the family through tax policy, education policy, and its ongoing attempt to take away the family’s ability to own private property. The Marxist state attacks religion by cordoning it off from the public square and by drawing the circle ever tighter as to where and when religion can be displayed. The Marxist state, regardless of what degree of Marxism it is currently at works to confiscate property, break up families, and legislate against faith expressing itself in the public square.

Marxist states, given their dialectic philosophy, may, from time to time, enter into detente with family or religion but if it does so it only does so as a way to prepare itself for the next blow against these spheres. Such politically calculated detentes are akin to a hammer lifting itself away from the nail. The hammer is not in retreat but is only building energy for another blow against the nail. If Marxist states are successful in this seizing of sovereignty it may allow family and / or religion to exist but only as satellites that serve as a pretense that the Marxist state has not seized all sovereignty, and as to lend credibility to the Marxist totalistic rule.

The attempt to seize sovereignty may be violent as in communist take overs or it may be more benign and incremental in its methodology as is found in Fabian socialism, progressivism, Corporatism, Liberalism, Welfarism, or the Nanny State. Whereas communism advocates the seizure of sovereignty by cutting of the head, different forms of socialism prefers to slowly, silently suffocate those who will not surrender their sovereignty.

Of course this Marxist seizure of sovereignty as it becomes more and more totalistic ends up stealing another sovereignty and that is the sovereignty found in self-government. As Marxist and collectivist approaches succeed in sucking up temporal sovereignty the end result is that the individual likewise loses his / her self sovereignty and they themselves become effective wards of the state. Individuals, no longer being independent agents and no longer having personal sovereignty are reduced to being cogs in the Marxist civil-social order machine. Individuals become merely extensions of the state.

All of this explains why radical two kingdom theology is such a poison pill for the church because radical two kingdom theology insists that the Church as the Church has no role in declaiming against the Marxist state’s attempt to seize all temporal sovereignty. R2K “theology” would stand silent as the state seeks to absorb all temporal sovereignty so that it becomes the idol state that has raised itself up against the almighty God. In R2K “theology” the only time the Church can protest this seizure of sovereignty is when the state seeks to dictate to the Church about its formal worship patterns. But if the Church is only concerned about its formal worship patterns then why would the state ever have any reason to want to absorb a sovereignty that it views as irrelevant? In point of fact if the R2K church is telling its people that they must obey the state, the state may very well view the R2K church as already effectively one of its agents.

Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, & Cries Of “Institutional Racism” In The Christian Reformed Church

Though the term “institutional racism,” has been around at least since the 1960’s it seems, of late, to be entering more and more into the conversational lexicon of the Church. The Christian Reformed Denomination, for example, as a overture before it that calls,

“The denomination to repent of the personal and institutional racism that causes separation between fellow members, excludes some from full participation in the life of our denomination and hinders the denomination in achieving the diversity goals it has set for itself.”

When the overture insists that we need to repent of institutional racism we should back up and consider the meaning of institutional racism so that we can know what we are repenting of. The term “institutional racism” describes societal patterns, as implemented through our various cultural institutions, that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. “Institutional racism,” it is thought, is so pervasive that only those people who admit to its existence can see it for what it is. “Institutional racism” has so stacked the deck in its favor that if one denies that “institutional racism” exists that only proves that one has been infected by “institutional racism.” So, if one agrees that “institutional racism” exists in our culture, it is an affirmation of the reality of “institutional racism,” but if one disagrees that “institutional racism,” exists it is also an affirmation of the reality of “institutional racism” in as much that such disagreement only proves that “institutional racism” is successfully doing its evil work causing the “institutional racism” deniers to not see that they are victims and so perpetrators of “institutional racism.” It is always convenient to back a theory where those who agree with you prove your theory, while those who disagree with you also prove your theory.

The phrase “institutional racism” was coined at least as far back as the 1960’s by Kwame Ture (nee — Stokely Carmichael). Carmichael felt that it was important to distinguish personal bias, which has specific effects and can be identified and corrected relatively easily, with institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. So, as originally coined, “institutional racism,” is a incarnating of personal racism into our civil-social institutions that remains pushing the culture as a whole in a racist direction because the institutions themselves supported racism. So, here we are as a culture which transfers billions of dollars annually to minority communities through various entitlement programs and people want me to believe that we suffer from “institutional racsim? Here we are as a culture which has created affirmative action programs, quota requirements, and minority set aside expectations in order that minorities might get ahead and still we are being told that we suffer from “institutional racism?” Here we are absorbing, millions upon millions of minority immigrants and the intellectual elite want to convince me that there is work yet to be done in tearing down “institutional racism?” We just elected a Black President, who named a Black Attorney General, who has refused to apply the law to Black Panthers because they are Black and we are yet informed that “institutional racism” is a ongoing problem in these united States?

What most folks don’t realize is that “institutional racism,” is just the most recent expression of the critical theory Hermeneutic that belongs to the Cultural Marxists. Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist tool of destructive criticism intended to pull down Western Civilization, as influenced by historic Christian categories such as domestic family, commonwealth, authority, hierarchy, tradition, decentralized and diffuse civil government, sexual boundaries, and other similarly Christian informed realities that comprised historic Western culture. Critical theory’s technique was to see all of these historic Christian categories as wicked tools of oppression against minorities, women, and heretofore those considered sexual deviants. The work of Critical theory was and is to place and spin these Christian Categories so that they are seen to be the means of power by which victims are kept down, abused, and negated their rightful place of cultural hegemony. Critical theory has, as its goal, the replacing of the formerly Christian cultural gatekeepers with new cultural gatekeepers who will build cultural institutions that reflect the values of cultural Marxism. The cry of “institutional racism,” is, more often than not, the cry of those who desire the values of variant forms of Marxism to be the shaping influence on Western Society — values that include Marxist economics that call for redistribution of wealth, Marxist sociology that calls for a leveling of all formerly stratified hierarchic relationships (men vs. women so that matriarchy is superior to patriarchy, heterosexuality vs. homosexuality so that the marriage of two men is superior to the marriage of a man and a woman, children vs. parents so that children have equal rights with parents). The end goal is to create a distinction-less, egalitarian New World Order. And as all this is embraced by large swaths of the Church it has the added benefit of having a Jesus candy coating on it that makes it “Christian.”

Critical theory’s technique is akin to what C. S. Lewis described as the technique of the “Spirit of the Age,” in his book Pilgrim’s Regress,

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

In Lewis’ story the Spirit of the Age (Waiter) had captivated John (Lewis’ main Character) and insisted that what was intended for nourishment was garbage. Like the Waiter, in Lewis’s work, the Cultural Marxist critiques the healthy and normal as unhealthy and abnormal.

Our prevailing zeitgeist is not interested in creating a conscience that tells us that cow milk is a secretion akin to urine or feces. No, what our Cultural Marxist Spirit of the Age is set upon convincing us is that Christ informed culture is evil and that Christian white people are the devil.

Martin Luther anticipated the rise of Critical theory 500 years ago.

“It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist.”

Critical theory is the technique of the false prophets of Cultural Marxism to create a false consciousness in white Christians, and the cry of “Institutional Racism,” is just one of the many buzz phrases that Cultural Marxists are using to overthrow Christian civilization.

Finally, on the score of “Institutional Racism” we must wonder if that buzz phrase from Critical theory is in point of fact a desire on the part of those who use it to decimate what little remains of White Christian civilization. When someone laments institutional racism they are lamenting the meager existence of white Christian institutions, and thereby, it would seem the very existence of Whites themselves.

The amazing success of the Critical theory cry of “institutional racism” is driven by its ability to laden people with guilt. Guilty people are people who then can be manipulated at will by the sense of guilt that they are seeking to overthrow. So strong is the guilt that Western Man feels now, in part due to the work of Cultural Marxism, but more because Western man has turned his back on God, that those who offer relief from that guilt (the Cultural Marxists) essentially become movement Messiahs to modern man. The Cultural Marxists use critical theory to make Western Man feel guilty. The Cultural Marxist offer a plan on how Western man may atone for his sins. Western man gladly will do anything to deliver himself of this contrived and artificial guilt.

And the blood atonement that Cultural Marxists are requiring of Western Man is his own death. The guilt that Critical Theory lays on Western Man is of such a nature that it can only be atoned for through the death of Western man as Western Man as been influenced by Biblical Christianity. And so cries of “Institutional Racism” can only be alleviated by Western Man going all masochistic and destroying himself so that he can be replaced by a new Soviet (cultural Marxist) man, who will be informed by the new faith of Cultural Marxism.

The first part of the solution to resist this is by Western man to repent and turn to Christ. In Jesus Christ Western man’s real guilt is taken away and he is raised up to walk in newness of life with Christ. Only once our guilt is seen as being carried by Christ can Western man no longer be manipulated by false Critical theory charges of “Institutional Racism.” Only once Western Man’s guilt is seen as having been born with Christ can he deal with whatever racial problems might yet remain in a way where his eyes are wide open to the agenda of those who have as their desire what is left of Christian civilization.

The second part of the solution to resist this is by thinking Biblically. As long as we are not thinking God’s thoughts after him in every area of life (History, Social Order, Economics, Family Life, Education, etc.) we are prime candidates to be blown about by every strange wind of doctrine. Cultural Marxism is a strange doctrine and critical theory is the wind that fills its sails. We have to return to the conviction that there exist distinct ways of thinking that Christians are identified by. If we refuse that conviction then Christianity becomes a wax nose that the Cultural Marxists can shape in their direction in order to call their cultural Marxism “Christianity.”

God grant us grace to repent for the open window for repentance is closing fast upon us as a civilization.

Ask The Pastor — Are Christians Who Oppose Sodomy Inconsistent Since They Don’t Oppose Shellfish?

Dear Pastor,

I find your criticism of gays to be mean, homophobic, and cruel. You fundamentalist Christians are so inconsistent in as much as you don’t take your own bible seriously. You tell those of us who are gay that God finds sodomy to be an abomination and yet you seem not to care about the other things in Scripture that God finds to be an abomination. Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are supposed abominations before the Lord, just as gays are a supposed abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage?

Bring all of God’s law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver’s and Red Lobster. (LOL). Yup, even Popeye’s shall be cleansed (LOL). We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants. (LOL)

I’m not going to analyze the bible for you I believe what I believe. I do not listen to what a man has to tell me on Sunday. I also do not believe everything in the bible.

Habib,

Already this objection raised by sodomites is becoming a worn out old canard. I’ve heard it raised as a “insightful and devastating protest” on talk shows. I’ve seen it put into scripts for television and movie dramas. I think among the sodomite crowd it is beginning to be seen as some kind of silver bullet that instantly kills the werewolf that is Christianity.

But you’ll excuse this werewolf if he just laughs at your silver bullet fired.

It is easy for those without knowledge on the Scriptures to knee-jerk when it comes to the issue of how the Scriptures are read. We don’t read the Scriptures without hermeneutical pre-understandings that help us to see how God’s revelation as a whole is to be understood Habib.

However, among those with a little background in the reading of Scripture we understand that there are distinctions that have to be made for them when we present God’s word on different subjects. One of those distinctions is that whatever God says remains in force for man unless in later revelation God alters what He said earlier on a matter.

The classic example of this is the Sacrificial system you find in the Old Testament. This is a system that God required by His Old Testament revelation. However, with the coming of Jesus Christ, who was the sacrifice about whom the Sacrificial system was proclaiming, the sacrificial system is no longer practiced by Christians. Jesus Christ was God’s fulfillment of all sacrificial offerings therefore Christians no longer offer bloody sacrifices of animals, even though you find the requirement for it in the Old Testament.

Another example of God altering earlier revelation is regarding foods consumed. Now, you will be interested in knowing that some Christians do still follow the OT dietary Law believing that the law regarding foods that you cited is still in force.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 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:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

So, for these Christians your criticism that Christians are inconsistent in their application of God’s Word is completely absurd.

However, your criticism remains absurd for those Christians who do eat what is forbidden in those Scriptures you cited because they can turn to Acts 10 and find that what God once called “Unclean,” has been lifted so that He now, in the New Covenant calls it clean. So, just as Christians no longer preform sacrifice because God’s requirement for sacrifice has been met, so Christians eat shellfish because God lifted His prohibition against it in later revelation.

However, what God has not lifted is His abomination of Sodomy. In point of fact, in the New Testament, God says again what He says in the Old Testament that Sodomy is an abomination, thus reinforcing those passages that were cited earlier to you. Here are the New Testament passages that agree with the Old Testament passages,

I Corinthians 6:9-10 — Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Obviously God has not altered His stance on the abomination that is sodomy.

Now, I understand that it is unlikely that this explanation will probably make little difference to your continued embrace of Sodomy but I wanted you to see that there is no contradiction in the Christian position on this matter. Christians can consistently refer to Scripture regarding the vileness of sodomy without being inconsistent because they don’t hold shellfish to be vile as well.

Now, would you like to talk about this more over a dinner on Red Lobster? I love crab-meat and I would love to explain you how it is you can give up your sodomite lifestyle and embrace life abundant.