From: Craig Craigslist
Submitted on: 18 December 2011
To: Robert Gagbag
I am sick and tired of those naysayers who caricature those of us who do not think that shoving a papilla on the coxa of the fifth pereiopod into another man’s mouth or sticking our fingers inside a certain somite (telson) is God’s will are just a bunch of old reactionaries. What they singularly fail to appreciate is that we anticrustatophagists are not a monolithic group. As the soft anticrustatophagist N.T. Wrymouth put it, the right/left polarisation is only as old as the French Revolution and inconsistency is only judged as such by those who accept that tick-all-the-boxes package deal.
This leads me to my question: is [it] true that the liberal postmodern procrustatophagists are really American imperialists? Let me tell you a little story which might illuminate my concern. At the recent San Francisco SBL, I was lucky enough to see and touch Wrymouth’s droopy liripipe in the registration queue for the prestigious 5.30am breakfast in the Nob Hill district hosted by the Calvinist Ombudsmen for Consubstantiation Kongress. Here men held hands and linked arms, which, before you ask, isn’t a homosexual practice because it was replicating what they do in the Middle East today and therefore just like what they did in the time of Jesus and Paul. Anyway, I digress. Wrymouth, as you are no doubt aware, is, like your good self, dedicated to wiping out the plague of crustatophagism from the Church. But did you know that he is also a leading critic of injustices in the Middle East? I understand that makes some our American brethren angry. But let me tell you this: Wrymouth taught me many things on that magical night (we arrived an hour early for the breakfast to make sure we got first helpings of salted hardhead). One thing in particular he taught me I will never forget: the appointment of a practising crustatophagist as homarus americanus was exactly like George Bush invading Iraq because all the people in Africa don’t like crustatophagism and to disagree with everyone in that continent is racist, imperialistic and ethnocentric, that the Bible was well counter cultural in its original historical context, and that the world has gone to the dogs thanks to Stoicism (or something like that). I don’t pretend to understand all the intricate details of the former Bishop of Drum’s complex arguments but would you agree that it is probably racist to eat shellfish or appoint a practising crustatophagist to a leading bishopric?
Craig Craigslist (Bursar, Calvinist Ombudsmen for Consubstantiation Kongress)
From: Rob Gagbag
To: Craig Craigslist
Don’t give me your “soft” anticrustatophagy! If the Word of God condemns shellfish-eating, who are we to “soften” God’s eternal decrees? Nay, anyone calling themselves “men of God” must ensure they stay hard in the face of temptation. If you feel yourself getting soft, I implore you to think about the broken body of Jesus our Savior, and regain fully your hardness in the Lord. For it is a slippery slope from “soft” anticrustatophagy to open acceptance of those abusers of the flesh who think nothing of stuffing their mouths full of cockles, oysters, or sea urchins, or feeling the strange and unnatural brush of tentacles against their chins as they gorge themselves on squid and octopi.
In taking this soft/hard opposition only as far back as the French Revolution, what the soft anticrustatophagist N.T. Wrymouth fails to consider is the long history of pagan Epicureanism which preceded it. These Epicureans believed only in hedonistic Pleasure, and – after the rediscovery of Lucretia the Epicurean in Modernity – the dinner tables of Moderns were opened up to the abomination of unrestrained crustatophagia – platefuls of cockles, crabs, crayfish, and other forms of seafood – as had never been seen during the centuries-long intervening reign of blessed Christendom. Although N.T. Wrymouth makes some correct observations concerning the interpretation of the food laws, here he is most fearfully astray in both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. As much as I regret doing so, here I must raise my hard fist against N.T. Wrymouth’s heretically soft tendencies (metaphorically speaking, of course).
N.T. Wrymouth is more or less correct, however, when he identifies the racism implicit in pro-crustatophagist stance. Isn’t this the great irony of these so-called “liberal”, “tolerant”, “politically correct” types? When the black man opposes their Epicurean pro-crustatophagia, they must resort to intolerance towards him! Therefore, it is the hard anti-crustatophagist who is shown to be truly and completely open-minded in this matter, free to consider this issue without the hysterical prejudice so commonly displayed by crustatophagy advocates. Ironically, we who are hard in our intolerance toward what is intolerable testify to our tolerance of that which is truly to be tolerated. Moreover, we are displaying our toleration of those who practice the true form of toleration. And it is this toleration, properly so called, which will one day be realised in its fullest potential when tolerance is made perfect in the Kingdom of God, and all shellfish-eaters, and, well, probably more than 99% of the population, are cast out into the eternal fires – not out of intolerance, of course, but paradoxically through the grace of God which tolerates these sinners’ rejection of the true toleration.
Therefore, we may rightly add racism to pro-crustatophagia on the list of sins committed by this group who abuse the Scriptures and their own consciences. I would add, if I may, that some of my best friends are Nigerians.
Dr. Robert Gagbag