Christians eating pork

[(*]

I've been pondering over this for some time.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All worship the same God.
2 of the 3 say that pork is unclean, and its adherents should abstain from eating its flesh.

I know most Christians follow the New Testament, but don't they follow the old as well? Which clearly states its position on the consumption or pork.

Can anyone help explain this to me?

[SonofRage]

As I understand it, Christians believe that they are following a new convenent with God. The old convenent was with the people of Israel and does not apply to them.

[jermicide]

I really know nothing about this but when I was taking Logic I had to find fallacies for a report so I picked up some free Christian mag at the supermarket (like the Good News or something) and it discussed the evils of pork and how it is not made for human consumption. I think it was saying that it was supported on how unhealthy pork can be.

[Anastacia]

Well... I don't know why pork is denied in the old testament but maybe they didn't know how to "make" it, so with their knowledge it was unclean and it was better to just deny it and write that to their law. I don't know exactly... It was just a guess. I think there are several other "laws" because of the same reason.

[Wenty]

Paul wanted to make a religion more accessible to the masses, thats why christianity did away with stuff like circumsion and not eating pork.

or so i've read.

[monkeydust]

The actual matter here is far more broad. Why are Christians eating meat at all?

I once posed this question to a Christian, pointing out how one of their ten commandments says 'Thou shall not kill', claiming that eating meat, if indirectly kills animals. He argued that it only applies to humans.

This clearly isn't true however, don't you think 'God' would have been more specific enough to say 'dont murder' rather than 'don't kill' if this commandment applied to people only.

[abigratsass]

muslims basically belive in christanity and judism but we also belive that the to past religons were altered to suit human wants (mind you not needs,cause religon always satisfys ones needs)anyway were all banned from doing any harm to our selfs and since for example drugs harm you then were not allowed to do drugs same applies for pork.
very simple really because wont really allow some of his followers to harm them selfs(christians)and protect the others(muslims and jews) unless he had a serious problem with them!!!

[LSD]

This clearly isn't true however, don't you think 'God' would have been more specific enough to say 'dont murder' rather than 'don't kill' if this commandment applied to people only.


In fact the "kill" that's in the ten commandments (the first and third ones, but not the second one) does not just refer only to humans but only to good god-fearing Jewish/Christian/Muslim (depending on who interprets it) humans.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2004, 09:39 PM


This clearly isn't true however, don't you think 'God' would have been more specific enough to say 'dont murder' rather than 'don't kill' if this commandment applied to people only.


In fact the "kill" that's in the ten commandments (the first and third ones, but not the second one) does not just refer only to humans but only to good god-fearing Jewish/Christian/Muslim (depending on who interprets it) humans.
I don't see where your coming from here. It merely state 'thou shall not kill' There is no interpretation needed here, it's short and concise and to the point. What I was asking was, if 'thou shall not kill' then why do Christians allow themselves to 'kill' for luxury meat etc.

[LSD]

I don't see where your coming from here. It merely state 'thou shall not kill' There is no interpretation needed here, it's short and concise and to the point. What I was asking was, if 'thou shall not kill' then why do Christians allow themselves to 'kill' for luxury meat etc.


Because the word "kill" is a cultural term.

While today many would include animals, and certainly everyone would include other races, 3000 years ago....

So in order to determine what the Bible writers meant, we must look at the whole piece.

If they had intended to ban all killing, than capital punnishment would not have been allowed, but it is in fact required for several offenses (killing, adultery, breaking the sabbath, not obeying one's parents)

And even in the New Testament, on several occasions, the Christians are encouraged to kill nonbelievers.

So yes, there is "interpretation needed" because without interpretation, the whole thing collapses.

[cubist]

being an ex christian i shall divolge

right christians have no ethics behind meat, some offshoots of christianity may but the key basis of the faith mentions nothing of it

judaism and islam and christianity are similar apart from a few key things,

islam = jesus was a prophet
judaism = son of god hasn't arrived yet (they can't face the thought that they killed him)
christianity = contradicts many rightwing crazy jewish policies with revolutionary jesus's actions in the NT yet tells you you should also obide by the OT or jewish bible

[LSD]

islam = jesus was a prophet
judaism = son of god hasn't arrived yet (they can't face the thought that they killed him)
christianity = contradicts many rightwing crazy jewish policies with revolutionary jesus's actions in the NT yet tells you you should also obide by the OT or jewish bible


Well, there are a couple more differences than that......

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2004, 10:03 PM


I don't see where your coming from here. It merely state 'thou shall not kill' There is no interpretation needed here, it's short and concise and to the point. What I was asking was, if 'thou shall not kill' then why do Christians allow themselves to 'kill' for luxury meat etc.


Because the word "kill" is a cultural term.

While today many would include animals, and certainly everyone would include other races, 3000 years ago....

So in order to determine what the Bible writers meant, we must look at the whole piece.

If they had intended to ban all killing, than capital punnishment would not have been allowed, but it is in fact required for several offenses (killing, adultery, breaking the sabbath, not obeying one's parents)

And even in the New Testament, on several occasions, the Christians are encouraged to kill nonbelievers.

So yes, there is "interpretation needed" because without interpretation, the whole thing collapses.
Good point there, you win, I need to go and read my bible again

[Rasta Sapian]

I personally think that swine is a dirty animal, it does not have the ability to sweat!
They will eat anything, especially shit (that's for all u shit lovers out there)

I eat it time to time, but try not to eat it too much! ;)

I am a christian, But man christianity has changed alot since the dark ages!

- i am not sure of all the facts, but when visiting the museum of civilization last summer I was taken by an exibit from the dark ages focusing on christian europe.

there were certain days when you could not eat meat at all, although fish was allowed
certain days during the week where you could not have sex

it seemed like these peoples lifes revolved around the church and worshipping god
ie. 1/10th of your income was taxed by the church, where everyone would go to hear the word of god by the monks or priests of the time, for there were no books, no one could read. Peoples worked the land and lived with livestock all for God.

Could all of these christians who lived over a thousand years ago be commiting sin by eating pigs, I doubt it, but I bet a pig roast would not happen all that often either!


anyway beef kicks ass, fuck mad cow what about mad pig?
peace out yall

[LSD]

I personally think that swine is a dirty animal, it does not have the ability to sweat!

Neither do dogs.


They will eat anything, especially shit (that's for all u shit lovers out there)

So will dogs.


I am a christian, But man christianity has changed alot since the dark ages!

Not nearly enough I'd say.

Despire 2000 years of "evolution" it still maintains it prejduces, homophobia, blatant xenophobia, and dogmatism.

Even the reformest sects aren't any better

They may have abandoned the church, but they kept most of its problems.



Could all of these christians who lived over a thousand years ago be commiting sin by eating pigs, I doubt it, but I bet a pig roast would not happen all that often either!

Well......if you accept that the word of God is unchanging and permanent then a sin then is a sin now.

And......if you accept the words of St. Mark and St. John then the words of the Old Testament remain within the "new covenent" and are therefore the word of god, and thereby eating porc is a sin.

But then again, who really gives a damn?

[cubist]

Rasta why you still a christian man? how? please tell i am interested as you clearly have alot of blind faith. i didn't manage this and am interested to know how.

you say its changed since the dark ages. well...

your right to start with when jesus existed it was the light ages. if christainity had followed jesus' intended course it would have made the perfect society unfortunately man used it to oppress restrict and control things which meant in multiple contradictions and oversights, foolish false practices. as paul warned beware of those that wish to corrupt shame no one read that bit in the 11th 12th 13th 14th 15ht 16th 17th 18th 19th centuries whilst they were segregating the "chucrh" into what it is today. the faith and the church are not the same.

[cubist]

LAD, now i apologise for the length

youre right i could have gone into the fundamental differences but i thought i would simply state an obvious difference to show that they are infact not the same in a different language.

but for you. i will go through christianity and point out where it is different
christianity--

in here is all the bits jews don't follow thus showing the diiferences.


taken from various sources

They believe that Jesus was the son of God; that he was sent to earth as the saviour of mankind; that he was human with normal human emotions and feelings; that he was crucified after being horrifically tortured; and that he rose from the dead three days after his death. Christians also believe that there is only one God - a God that consists of 'the Father', 'the Son', and 'the Holy Spirit'. They refer to their God as 'Father' as shown in the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Christians live by the bible, which they acknowledge as the written laws of God as well as the teachings of Jesus.
Their method of worship is made up of three main parts: the recreation of the last supper, known as Eucharist; the relating of the teaching of Jesus, the bible and Christian beliefs to situations in today's world, known as Exposition; and communication with God through the power of prayer.

Some people become what are known as 'born-again Christians'. They decide to welcome this faith into their lives and live by the teachings of Jesus. They are called 'born-again' because they class their old self as being dead, and see themselves as having been reborn as a Christian. Practising this faith does not mean that you have to go knocking on doors and preaching to others; it is more about living your life the teaching of Jesus and leading by example.


Life after death is another firm belief of Christians, who have faith in the 'eternal life'. Christianity is based upon building a strong relationship with God through the power of beliefs and the practise of faith. Followers of Christianity are often categorised into groups, which include: Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

Lol, i found this whilst looking for info

"Although Christianity has suffered over the years, the faith had managed to withstand competition from religions such as Islam, and still reigns victorious as the most popular religion in the world. " ironic how it claims to be popular rather than the true religion like the bible says

------what i found about islam

taken from fundamentals of islam (http://oregonstate.edu/groups/msa/books/fundamentals.html).


You should know, may Allah have mercy on you, that we should learn four points:


Knowledge : which consists in knowing Allah, knowing His Messenger, and knowing the religion of Islam by knowing the evidents from the Quran and the Sunnah.

Acting according to this knowledge.

Calling other people to this knowledge.

Persistence in the face of adversity that results from calling the people to it.

that is similar to christianity, and the moral teaching about life are similar. the split they had is similar to christianity too

taken from schisms inislam and christianity (http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw11islamchristianschism32100502.htm)


The two largest religions of this world, Christianity and Islam, have both undergone a major split. For instance, since Mohammed left no specific instructions about who was to succeed him as the leader of the Muslims, the controversy eventually split the Muslims into two groups. In the early Christian church, questions about the nature of Christ and the Trinity caused groups of people to leave the Roman Catholic Church. The Muslims and the Catholics dealt with these problems using different means.

[LSD]

Basically Christianity, Islam, protestantism, and maybe even Mormonsim, are attempts to update judeism....

They remain, however, products of their times as well.

Judeism is about 2500 years of of date, Christianity 2000, Islam 1300, Lutheranism 500, Mormonism 200....

[Rasta Sapian]

I may be a sinner but I sure as hell ain't going no damm dog....

damm man, thats just not right! :huh: :)


peace yall

[LSD]

What???

[hazard]

it probably has more to do with climate and geography than anything else

like, are pigs easier to raise in northern climates, such as those in france and england which were the first christianized countries? did the romans eat pig? if so it might have more to do with the cultures responsible for indoctrinating the religion.

remember, pigs like tend to like need to be cleaned more because of their like tendency to like, like, live in like pig pens. so like maybe like the pigs like neede a more like area that like like like had access to like more like fresh water so they could like be cleaned better so they could like be eaten.

[Sabocat]

Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfuckers. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got enough sense to disregard its own faeces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eat their own feces.
Jules: I don't eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, it'd cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we gotta be talkin' about one charmin' motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2004, 10:03 PM


I don't see where your coming from here. It merely state 'thou shall not kill' There is no interpretation needed here, it's short and concise and to the point. What I was asking was, if 'thou shall not kill' then why do Christians allow themselves to 'kill' for luxury meat etc.


Because the word "kill" is a cultural term.

While today many would include animals, and certainly everyone would include other races, 3000 years ago....

So in order to determine what the Bible writers meant, we must look at the whole piece.

If they had intended to ban all killing, than capital punnishment would not have been allowed, but it is in fact required for several offenses (killing, adultery, breaking the sabbath, not obeying one's parents)

And even in the New Testament, on several occasions, the Christians are encouraged to kill nonbelievers.

So yes, there is "interpretation needed" because without interpretation, the whole thing collapses.
Not only is it a cultural term but the original language was different! You must keep a lot in mind when reading the "Holy Bible." For instance, it was compiled under the commission of monarchs and left out phrases such as: can you not judge for yourself, what is right? --Jesus
Don't blindly believe the bible, a ruling class (semi-theocratic) compiled it, though it has many great concepts, historical referances and cultural information, not all of the original sources are even credible or translated well. Translation is almost an impossible task. I would estimated a translated version of something as complecated as the bible would be many times longer. You really need an interpreter for it, unfortunatly, most of these people would preach at you and try to get you to believe everything they say. A better source is scholars that understand much of the culture on many levels and are critical about th content.

[cubist]

the bible is wrong no matter what language interpretation you read,


KJV holds better relevance to greek and hebrew words by remaining to use Yaqweh and filo for different types of Love, and also uses "miseo" which by definition has multiple contextual meanings depending upon how you phrase it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 04:32 PM
the bible is wrong no matter what language interpretation you read,
That is a sad generalization. Parts of the Bible are wrong but some information is not. There are historical referances and descriptions of cities, etc. To say it is wrong is to simplify it to one concept. If the bible simply said "There is an omnipotent male god that created humanity in his own image. Then condemed humanity for it's error but sent an incarnation of his son to save them," then I would say that it was wrong but it isn't that simple. I don't know why you are oversimplifiying this but the bible cannot be summed up to yes or no, unless you would like to disprove everything in the bible, go ahead. Debate the ideology and theism of the bible all you like, just stop spreading dogmatism, it makes you no better than the preachers of the book that you are condeming so absolutely, as you close your mind just the same while trying to spread this lack of perception to others.

[LSD]

No you can argue that the bible is wrong because it is attempting to espouse an ideology.

If you can disprove that ideology, than you can disprove the bible.

I can say that "Mein Kampf" is wrong because the ideology it preaches is, even though it has many historical facts quite correct. It isn't "dogmatism" it's just convienience. Saying the Bible is wrong is just a short way of saying that which it advocates is wrong.

[cubist]

QUOTE (cephas @ Jan 30 2004, 04:32 PM)
the bible is wrong no matter what language interpretation you read,


That is a sad generalization.

ok i shall rephrase the bible implies things, which mislead and confuse the human being also making it possible for them to contort thoughts into messages from god allowing them to justify actions which are against basic human rights



Parts of the Bible are wrong but some information is not. There are historical referances and descriptions of cities, etc. To say it is wrong is to simplify it to one concept.

yes you're right.

it has many good war stories about how an army defeated many great tribes including the

medianites, which was destroyed by the biblical GOD and his israelites, but not only that he also killed the sons of every fallen man in the medianites society, and took the women to bethere own. i am aware the killing the sons bit is valid as in medianite culture its tradition to avenge your fathers death, but that doesn't make it right.

how ever historical or not it is a bias interpretation of historical events, but it misses alot.

the ice age where is this exceedingly important historical event.

the dinosaurs, did they die in 7 days before man was made or did they co-exist? if man was there from the beggining why do we have no human remains dating as old as dinosaurs.

how the dinosaurs died, assuming they were kept on the ARK as all animals went on in twos to allow reproduction. including the carniverous ones!

the point at which the romans made christianity there own faith quite a triumph for the christians really you would have thought it was included.





If the bible simply said "There is an omnipotent male god that created humanity in his own image. Then condemed humanity for it's error but sent an incarnation of his son to save them," then I would say that it was wrong but it isn't that simple.

It does simply say that.

"genesis 3 v 16

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate
from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return." "


Then came the laws becuase earth was no longer like heaven the human race was no longer a representation of GOD.

first you had the ten commandments but man couldn't keep to these, so god gave his only SON jesus, and he was the doorway to salvation.

apparently "Jesus is the only individual throughout all history who can give the word of approval to God regarding the acceptability of any individual into heaven, because he is the only one who died to pay God's price for sin. As Paul explains, "...God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ (Jesus) died for us (Romans 5:8)." The proof that God accepted Jesus' death on a cross outside of the ancient city of Jerusalem as payment for all human's sin is demonstrated by Jesus' resurrection from the dead three days after he had been laid in a tomb."

reference taken from a site i have saved on my comp will edit later with exact web location.


I don't know why you are oversimplifiying this but the bible cannot be summed up to yes or no,

well i think it can the choice is to choose history and science or this congealed lump of literature which contains some history but alot appears to be Myth, or as christians no it a matter of Faith.



unless you would like to disprove everything in the bible, go ahead. Debate the ideology and theism of the bible all you like, just stop spreading dogmatism,


i don't need to disproove the whole bible, it does it for me. i am not upturning history i am questioning integrity, of the non historical and somewhat unethical, immoral, misogynistic actions of there GOD.



it makes you no better than the preachers of the book that you are condeming so absolutely, as you close your mind just the same while trying to spread this lack of perception to others.

i am an ex believer i don't mis percept anything i just can't justify the actions in th ebible by the moral code it taught me to live by

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 30 2004, 06:53 PM
No you can argue that the bible is wrong because it is attempting to espouse an ideology.

If you can disprove that ideology, than you can disprove the bible.

I can say that "Mein Kampf" is wrong because the ideology it preaches is, even though it has many historical facts quite correct. It isn't "dogmatism" it's just convienience. Saying the Bible is wrong is just a short way of saying that which it advocates is wrong.
That would be ideologically wrong. That wasn't what I was refering to in my post, therefore cephas' earlier post would be taken so. Maybe cephas was right in that way but that was not my point.
On another line of thought, I am not sure that there is one consistant ideology in the bible but "Mein Kampf," has one author and so one veiw point. They are very different in that way. I guess you could say the bible is overall wrong ideologically.
"It isn't "dogmatism" it's just convienience. Saying the Bible is wrong is just a short way of saying that which it advocates is wrong."
If that is the case, what I said doesn't apply to cephas.

[Elect Marx]

ok i shall rephrase the bible implies things, which mislead and confuse the human being also making it possible for them to contort thoughts into messages from god allowing them to justify actions which are against basic human rights


That is much better. Thank you for the extended explaination.


yes you're right.

it has many good war stories about how an army defeated many great tribes including the

medianites, which was destroyed by the biblical GOD and his israelites, but not only that he also killed the sons of every fallen man in the medianites society, and took the women to bethere own. i am aware the killing the sons bit is valid as in medianite culture its tradition to avenge your fathers death, but that doesn't make it right.

I'm glad we can agree on that.


how ever historical or not it is a bias interpretation of historical events, but it misses alot.

the ice age where is this exceedingly important historical event.

True, it was writen by people a long time after any of the events would have taken place.


the dinosaurs, did they die in 7 days before man was made or did they co-exist? if man was there from the beggining why do we have no human remains dating as old as dinosaurs.

Good question, I have no idea but I don't really belive that creation story anyway. I had always figured that if the story was true that they would have been a previous creation of god but it doesn't really matter.


how the dinosaurs died, assuming they were kept on the ARK as all animals went on in twos to allow reproduction. including the carniverous ones!

That is rather irrelivant after my last answer but I don't think they would be there and if they were, they would have been kept seperate as the other animals would have been.


the point at which the romans made christianity there own faith quite a triumph for the christians really you would have thought it was included.

I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't want a fascistic - theocratic government taking the ideas I hold important and warping them to suit their oppressive causes. I don't know how these early christians felt about it.


It does simply say that.

I don't think it is that simple. If the bible only said that, I would have discarded it long ago and it would be much easier to prove but there is a lot more to it. Even if this is the dominant message, there is a lot more going on in it and I think that there are other aspects of life delt with, though biased and often inaccurate. If nothing else, the bible is an interesting story, with a theme of human history, culture and the belifs passed on by groups of people. I find it interesting how these relate to the people of our time. Some of the people so rightiously upholding the bible are the very same that often contradict it.


well i think it can the choice is to choose history and science or this congealed lump of literature which contains some history but alot appears to be Myth, or as christians no it a matter of Faith.

I don't chose one over the other dogmatically. I look at the bible critically as I do with history or science. That could have been what you meant.


i don't need to disproove the whole bible, it does it for me. i am not upturning history i am questioning integrity, of the non historical and somewhat unethical, immoral, misogynistic actions of there GOD.

Well...good work but I don't think the bible always disproves itself, though it would help.


i am an ex believer i don't mis percept anything i just can't justify the actions in th ebible by the moral code it taught me to live by

I think we are in the same boat (where ever that expresion comes from). Sorry if I was a bit harsh on you in my last post. I hope we can agree to be comrades ;) :hammer:

[cubist]

no doubt idon't mind, it is good to be challenged if nothing else it makes one better in his own thinking,

you say of the same boat, maybe pm about it see why we disliked it etc, it may appear that i am all against i am not i am sympathetic to ward faith and respect those that hold it but i don't see it has the way at all and just dismiss all of it really. and i am aware science is wrong too i don't know what to believe interms of creation maybe science will eveolve and give a better explanation one day.

adios

[mia wallace]

the reason why muslims dont eat pork is the trichinosis. muhamed has never said it is forbidden to eat pork, he said it is better not to, ut if they have no other choise, they can.

this is all i know about pork and muslims. :)
(i'm not a muslim, so forgive me if i'm wrong, but this is what i've heard)