pork.........

people ate meat before they started to use fire. they cut it off with sharp stones. it kept their teeth clean.

Daaammnn Im mad Im just now getting into this thread...peace be to soul controller, EyeHyeAm, blackwisdom,444trumpets, tostones, SubliminaL tha 7th BorN, prinerai, and all the others for good posts...(I just love learnin and new insight)

and identity, you seem lost my friend. One thing is, I dont know about your congregation...but it seems to be that they are reppin Ishmael, and most Jews (atlest that I know) all believe that they are from the branch of Jacob "Israel," so if you claim to be from the line of Isaacs brother, Ishmael, than you cannot be one of the chosen people who has the covenant.

and for those not really familiar with the bible, I highlighted abunch of "pork scriptures" saying how bad it is like for example...
the simple dietary laws:Deut 14
pigs specifically being unclean: Deut 14.8
And if you read Isaiah, then you see that he really hates pork eating people like in: Isaiah 66.17 and Isaiah 65.4

Its simply wrong, and I know more than just Jews and Muslims who dont eat it, simple educated Christians stay away from it also.

And more than enough people in this thread already did provide that there is simple logic and proven science against eating pork, proving that it is wrong.

and lastly, saying that the science is b.s. because there were not any real "scientific" tools back than or anything along those lines are foolish...especially from one who claims they read and study the bible and religion...because if you do than you would understand that Lord is the MostHigh, and wise, and he works in mysterious ways. There are a lot of things he says to do and it seems pointless but then eventually you see it makes perfect sense.

Like not only pork, but youre not supposed to eat shellfish because they do not have scales. And if you look into it, you would see that shellfish are scavengers, ingesting a lot of toxins, and not only that, but because of their absence of scales, a lot of posions from the sea attatches to their bodies and seeps into their skins.

And things like not cutting the hair from your temple and circumsicion, fasting one day in the year, all those things if you look into it...it makes perfect sense for healthy living. So because it didnt give a scientific reason behind it, doesnt change the fact that it is simple science and logic. He made our bodies, so I am more than sure he'd be the one who knows the most about how it should be handled.

peace and love

Quote:

---

and lastly, saying that the science is b.s. because there were not any real "scientific" tools back than or anything along those lines are foolish...

---

Agreed. I believe it was in the last 30 or 40 years (not too sure on the date) that a pyramid was attempted to be built. Japan and America I believe, and both failed MISERABLY. The attempt was for 30 feet and only a third could be completed. And they chose to use "simple tools" so to speak. Assuming they didn't have the "technological superiorty" we do now back then. The Pyramid in Giza is 450 feet tall. Even when they decided to try and use modern tools they couldn't get it up right.

The measurements of the corners of the pyramids are I blieve 51 degrees 51'', which is the exact meaurements made when you pour sand out of your hands on the the ground. If they were so primitive, how could they figure something out like that. It could also possibly disprove that slaves were used to build the pyramids. There's just too much science involved.

Quote:

---

Like not only pork, but youre not supposed to eat shellfish because they do not have scales. And if you look into it, you would see that shellfish are scavengers, ingesting a lot of toxins, and not only that, but because of their absence of scales, a lot of posions from the sea attatches to their bodies and seeps into their skins.

---

I knew you weren't supposed to eat seafood that doesn't have scales but I didn't know exactly why. Good looking. Also, my Mom is a Seventh Day Adventist and I've gone to the church and Staurday achool a few times. And they recognize that that the Bible says not to eat Pork and certain seafood and say that it's mainly for health reasons rather than some kind of divine law. The school I went to (senior year) didn't even serve any kind of meat. But you could go off campus for a meat fix if you wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeHyeAm

It could also possibly disprove that slaves were used to build the pyramids. There's just too much science involved.

---

its alreasy disproved. there were no slaves in the ancient Egypt, its a historical fact.

http://www.kinotainment.de/media/kikuki_babe.jpg heard you wanna eat my beloved babe? i suggest you eat those below, cause you gon feel pain sooner or later, which is called KARMA... cause no pig wants to die... http://www.matt-willard.com/Artwork/...Vegetables.jpg of course.. fruits also don´t wanna die.. better wait til they fall of the tree instead of robbing them down... it´s all sin..no doubt.. but theres deep sin (eatin animals) and low sin (eatin veggies) cause animals are souls on a higher stage, in a higher evoluted body form... they gon get pushed back just for your tongue taste? you gon get pushed back soon... AND ot brings several deseases to the physcial as well... from all animals .. it´s most sin to eat the cows cause they deliver milk. fish is the lowest under the animals..but it still stays sin, cause no fish wants to get taken out his natural element water. what you think they flippin around when you put them out the water? THEY DON`T WANNA DIE! yep. jesus was wrong with that. same with the wine

^^^^ If it's sin to eat a cow, why does God tell me its okay? I'm sorry but my fear for him is much greater than the vengeful spirit of a cow, my Lord will protect me.

peace and love

it´s not god who tells you its okay. it´s your ghost. cause you was rasied like that. if you knew from beginning that it´s sin to eat animal beef, you would feel its sin when you ate some. but your ghost don´t know better and so you think its okay...

the senses (tongue,eyes,nose,ears,skin) are unslaved. they do what they like to do..but that must not be the right thang at all.. the senses lead into your ghost and your ghost makin a picture of what´s right and wrong, but god got his own view on this. he sees a cow´s body and a human body all with the same eyes.

Show me your theory in the Old Testament, and Ill consider it

the old testament isn´t áll true... the vedic sanskrit is cause it was speaken by god (in verses)

there´s talk about reincarnation in the new testament tho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Princerai

but dats my opinion.. im no fanatic tellin u what 2 do

peace n blessingz

---

DONT EAT PORK!!!!!!

Im a fanatic telling you what to do!

peace...

this following comment is on point SUN!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeHyeAm

Some cats need to ge their facts straight. Just because we call ourselves omnivores and choose to eat meat does not mean that we were built to be omnivores. Compare yourself antomocially to a carnivore. You are the exact opposite my friend. From the length of your intestine to the shape of your teeth & nails to the acids produced in your stomach and the way you ingest your food. When was the last time you saw a lion stop and say, "lemme go ahead and spark up this log up so I can cook my meat. You gotta kill them germs!" That doesn't happen. They have the necessary tools within their body where they can just rip (claws and REAL k-9 teeth) the meat that they need and swallow without being infected by "germs". Plus, meat rots pretty quick, so their short intestines (compared to ours) allows less time for meat to hang around inside their bodies and rot. Bringing up the issue about acids produced again, our stomach doesn't produce those same acids. So our stomach has to over work itself to digest the meat. Our long intestines count for allowing the neccisary time for our body to get out all the nutrients out of things like vegetables and fruit. And also. Not all vegetarians are skinny. lol. Just because a person doesn't have meat in their diet, does not mean they won't have meat on their bones. There are more factors that come into play when talking about how big someone is.

Pigs are dirty (by our standards of what clean is, of course) as someone has already said, they are scavangers. They eat garbage. Back when there wasn't a "garbage pick up day" ( early America, think of the movie "Gangs of New York", there's actually a pig in the beginning eating), pigs were let loose on the town as garbage disposals. And then you want to cook and eat that? Wow... I also read somewhere that biologically they are very similar to humans. So eating a pig would also be one of the closest things you can get to cannibalism. <-- on that I have to check my sources. I couldn't tell you how close we are to the pig, but the main point that I did get from what I read was that it's almost like cannibalism. But with that said, you got stuff like mad cow and all these kinds of mental diseases and such. Sure, you can eat a little and not be infected, we have anti-bodies. But that's also short-term. You have to think about the long-run as well.

I haven't even talked about religous/moral beliefes. This is science. Seriously, look up the anatomy of an herbivore and compare it to yourself. Look at the shape of your teeth and the two sets of canines we have and look at the teeth of a dog. Look at your nails man. We couldn't rip meat off an animal. We had to make UTINSELS to eat meat.

Oh yeah, the pig also has something called a Tichnia (sp?) worm. Even cooking the meat it's still hard to kill. But look up the effects on what that does to your body. I believe it's a type of tapeworm.

But don't dismiss something as just "religion" and it's beliefs just because you have 85ers who don't even read the texts and interpret it for themselves or do and interpret it in a way the is beneficial only to their cause. Then let anything that may even remotely fall into the category of religion and just scream BLASPHMEMY! There's mad wisdom in those books and it's not just a bunch of carzy man jibberish.

---

I think people were overlooking this EyeHyeam. Please look at the CAPS yall!!


Kennings...thanx for the shout. Your posts were also definitely on point with regards to the topic.


PEACE!!!


SubliminaL tha 7th BorN

I don't like pigs.

Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches... The Riddles of culture

Every one knows examples of apparently irrational food habits. Chinese like dog meat but despise cow milk; we like cow milk but we won't eat dogs; some tribes in Brazil relish ants but despise venison. And it goes around the world. It's a challenge of having to explain why certain people should hate, while others love, the very same animal.

The half of the riddle that pertains to pig haters is well known to Jews, Moslems, and Christians. The god of the ancient Hebrews went out of his way to denounce the pig as unclean, a beast that pollutes if it is tasted or touched. The pig remains an abomination, despite the fact that it can convert grains and tubers into high grade fats and protien more efficiently than any other animal.

It is popular to believe that the pig is a dirty animal- dirtier than others because it wallows in its own urine and eats excrement. But linking physical uncleanliness to religious abhorrence leads to inconsistencies. Cows that are kept in a confined space also splash about in their own urine and feces. And hungry cows will eat human excrement with gusto. Dogs and chikens do the same thing without getting anyone very upset, and the anciets must have known that pigs raised in clean pens make fastidious house pets.

To Moses Maimonides, court physicians to Saladin during the twelfth century in Cairo, Egypt, we owe the first naturalistic explanation of the Jewish and Moslem rejection of pork. Maimonides said that God had intended the ban on pork as a public health measure. Swine's flesh "has a bad and damaging effect upon the body," wrote the rabbi. Maimonides was none too specific about the medical reasons for this opinion, but he was the emperor's physician, and his judgement was widely respected.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the discovery that trichinosis was caused by eating undercooked pork was interpreted as a precise verification of the wisdon of Maimonides. Reform minded Jews rejoiced in the rational substratum of the biblical codes and promptly renounced the taboo on pork. If properly cooked, pork is not a menace to the public health, and so its consumption cannot be offensive to God. This provoked rabbis of more fundamentalist persuasion to launch a counterattack against the entire naturalistic tradition. If Jahweh had merely wanted to protect the health of His people, He would have instructed them to eat only well cooked pork rather than no pork at all. Clearly, it is argued, Jahweh had something else in mind-something more important than the mere physical well-being.

In addition to this theological inconsistency, Maimonides' explanation suffers medical and epidemiological contradictions. The pig is a vector for human disease, but so are other domestic animals freely consumed by Moslems and Jews. For example, undercooked beef is a source of parasites, notably tapeworms. Cattle, goats, and sheep are also vectors for brucellosis, a common bacterial infection in underdeveloped countries that is accompanied by fever, chills, sweats, weakness, pain, and aches. The most dangerous form is Brucellocis melitensis, transmitted by goats and sheep. Finally, there is anthtax, a disease transmitted by cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and mules, but not by pigs. Unlike trichinosis, which seldom has fatal consequences and which does not even produce symptoms in the majority of individuals, anthrax often runs a rapid course that begins with body boils and terminates in death through blood poisoning.

The solution to the riddle of the pig requires us to adopt a much broader definition of health, one that includes the essential processes by which animals, plants, and people manage to coexist in viable natural and cultural communities. The Bible and the Koran condemned the pig because farming was a threat to the integrity of the basic cultural and natural ecosystems of the Middle East.

The ancient people of the Middle East herded sheep, goats, and cattle. Within the overall pattern of mixed farming and pastoral complex, the divine prohibition against pork constituted a sound ecological stategy. The nomadic Isrealites could not raise pigs in their arid habitats, while for the semi sedentary and village farming populations, pigs were more of a threat than an asset.

The basic reason for this is that the world zones of pastoral nomadism correspond to unforested plains and hills that are too arid for rainfall agriculture and that cannot easily be irrigated. The domestic animals best adapted to these zones are cattle, sheep, and goats. They have sacks anterior to their stomachs which enable them to digest grass, leaves, and other foods consisting mainly of cellulose more efficiently that any other mammals.

The pig, however, is primarily a creature of forests and shaded riverbanks. Although it is omnivorous, its best weight gain is from food low in cellulose- nuts, fruits, tubers, and especially grains, making it a direct competitor of man. It cannot subsist on grass alone, and nowhere in the world do fully nomadic pastoralists raise significant numbers of pigs. The pig has the further disadvantage of not being a practical source of milk and of being notoriously difficult to herd over long distances.

Above all, the pig is thermodynamically ill adapted to the hot, dry climate of the Negev, the Jordan Valley, and the other lands of the Bible and the Koran. Compared to cattle, goats, and sheep, the pig has an inefficient system for regulating its body temerature. Despite the expression "To sweat like a pig," it has been proven that pigs can't sweat at all. Human beings, the sweatiest of all mammals, cool themselves by evaporating as much a 1000 grams of body liquid per hour from each square meter of body surface. The best the pig can manage is 30 grams per square meter. Even sheep evaporate twice as much body liquid through their skins as pigs.

To compensate for its lack of protective hair and its inability to sweat, the pig must dampen its skin with external moisture. It prefers to do this by wallowing in fresh clean mud, but it will cover its skin with its own urine and feces if nothing else is available. Below 84 degrees F., pigs kept in pens deposit their excreta away from their sleeping and feeding areas, while above 84 degrees F. they begin to excrete indiscriminately throughout the pen. The higher the temperature, the "dirtier" they become. So there is some truth to the theory that the religious uncleanliness of the pig rests upon actual physical dirtiness. Only it is not the nature of the pig to be dirty everywhere, rather it is in the nature of the hot, arid habitat of the Middle East to make the pig maximally dependent upon the cooling effect of its own excrement.

Any animal that is raised primarily for its meat is a luxury. This generalization applies as well to preindustrial pastoralists, who seldom exploit their herd primarily for meat.

Among the ancient mixed farming and pastoralist communities fo the Middle East, domestic animals were valued primarily as a source of milk, cheeses, hides, dung, fiber and traction for plowing. Goats, sheep, and cattle provided ample amount of these item plus and occasional supplement of lean meat. From the beginnig, therefore, pork must have been a luxury food, esteemed for its succulent, tender, and fatty qualities.

Between 7,000 and 2,000 B.C. pork became still more of a luxury. During this period there was a sixtyfold increase in the human population of the Middle East. Shade and water, the natural condition appropriate for pig raising, became progressively more scarce, and pork became even more of an ecological and economic luxury.

As in the case of the beef-eating taboo, the greater the temptation, the greater the need for divine interdiction. This relationship is generally accepted as suitable for explaining why the gods are always so interested in combating sexual temptations such as incest and adultery. Here it is applied to a tempting food. The Middle East is the wrong place to raise pigs, but pork remains a succulent treat. People always find it difficult to resist such temptation on their own. Hence Jahweh was heard to say that swine were unclean, not only as food, but to the touch as well. Allah was heard to repeat the same message for the same reason: It was ecologically maladaptive to try to raise pigs in substantial numbers. Small scale production would only increase the temptation. Better then, to interdict the consumption of pork entirely, and to concentrate on raising goats, sheep, and cattle. Pigs tasted good but it was too expensive to feed them and keep them cool.

This, my friends, is true knowledge. I think it speaks for itself. Props on the post fifteen!