PDA

View Full Version : The Jewish and Muslim prohibition against pork?



Nuc
04-28-2007, 01:51 AM
Since this issue is actually making news nowadays, what do you think about it?

diuretic
04-28-2007, 02:05 AM
It's stupid.

avatar4321
04-28-2007, 05:35 AM
It's intelligent, atleast for the middle east region because Pork was historically disease ridden in that region. very unhealthy. But worldwide... eh. There is a reason God rescinded the Law of Moses when Christianity went world wide.

Gaffer
04-28-2007, 09:12 AM
I'm all for the muslims ban on pork. Gives us a psycological advantage on them. All bullets should be tipped in lard.

KitchenKitten99
04-28-2007, 10:33 AM
I'm all for the muslims ban on pork. Gives us a psycological advantage on them. All bullets should be tipped in lard.

maybe start sprinkling bacon bits or lining up strips of bacon on the outer edges of Iraq. No one dare come in, no one wants to leave...

Hobbit
04-28-2007, 01:19 PM
Historically, the pork ban was good, as it lead to a healthier society (the ban, not pork). In modern times, it doesn't really have a practical purpose, but it is a way of expressing their faith. I know a Messianic Jew (a Jew who is also a Christian) who says she doesn't think there's really anything wrong with not going kosher, but that she sticks to kosher, anyway, because it sets here apart as one of God's chosen people. Nothing arrogant, it just kind of takes the fire out of what she says when she proclaims her Jewness and orders a ham sandwich in the same breath.

Trigg
04-28-2007, 04:50 PM
The jewish people I've known eat pork and don't see a problem with it.

Didn't Macarthur dip bullets in pork at one time??

diuretic
04-28-2007, 04:53 PM
The jewish people I've known eat pork and don't see a problem with it.

Didn't Macarthur dip bullets in pork at one time??

You might be thinking of the British in India and the causes of the Sepoy Mutiny/Rebellion.

Trigg
04-28-2007, 05:04 PM
You might be thinking of the British in India and the causes of the Sepoy Mutiny/Rebellion.

I'd have to look it up more, don't feel like it right now. I know someone did it in one of the wars.

Anyway my whole thought on pork is who cares. The only way I see it as a problem is the muslims who refuse to check the people out in the stores. I read a story about wal-mart having a problem with that.

They shouldn't apply for a position and then expect changes be made for them. I'm sure there are plenty of jobs that don't go against their religion.

Gaffer
04-28-2007, 06:41 PM
I'd have to look it up more, don't feel like it right now. I know someone did it in one of the wars.

Anyway my whole thought on pork is who cares. The only way I see it as a problem is the muslims who refuse to check the people out in the stores. I read a story about wal-mart having a problem with that.

They shouldn't apply for a position and then expect changes be made for them. I'm sure there are plenty of jobs that don't go against their religion.

It was General Pershing in the Philipines. They had a bunch of muslim insurgents like they have today. He captured 50 of them and had his men dip their bullets in pigs blood then executed 49 of them and buried them with the pigs blood on them. The last guy was released to go tell his buddies. The insurectiuon died out after that.

Gaffer
04-28-2007, 06:49 PM
The Jews don't have a problem with pork other than they are not suppose to eat it. They can touch pigs or the meat and it is ok. muslims can't even touch a pig and any part of a pig is considered contaminating and if they die having touched a pig or pig parts they go to hell unless they have a special ritual to purify themselves.

The Israelis began putting tubs of lard on their buses to discourage bombers. Because the lard would be spread by a bomb and get all over the remains of the bomber. You notice there haven't been any bus bombings in Israel for a long time.

diuretic
04-28-2007, 09:38 PM
It was General Pershing in the Philipines. They had a bunch of muslim insurgents like they have today. He captured 50 of them and had his men dip their bullets in pigs blood then executed 49 of them and buried them with the pigs blood on them. The last guy was released to go tell his buddies. The insurectiuon died out after that.

Bah, Pershing was well behind the Brits on the brutality stakes then. They strapped the rebellious Sepoys to the muzzles of cannons and fired them.

diuretic
04-28-2007, 09:39 PM
The Jews don't have a problem with pork other than they are not suppose to eat it. They can touch pigs or the meat and it is ok. muslims can't even touch a pig and any part of a pig is considered contaminating and if they die having touched a pig or pig parts they go to hell unless they have a special ritual to purify themselves.

The Israelis began putting tubs of lard on their buses to discourage bombers. Because the lard would be spread by a bomb and get all over the remains of the bomber. You notice there haven't been any bus bombings in Israel for a long time.

That's clever, using the enemy's superstitions against him, that's exceedingly clever.

Yurt
04-28-2007, 09:54 PM
Jesus never changed the pork thing. As Peter (I think peter) dream indicated, it will not mean "hellfire" but, I see no problem with keeping with the original command. Many things were unclean back then, yet it was only pork. Why differentiate?

shattered
04-28-2007, 09:58 PM
I don't see an option for "Who cares - it's part of their religion and their choice"

I think sucking back a piece of styrofoam, and everyone drinking wine from the same germy cup is stupid, but people do it anyway, because it's part of their religion.

loosecannon
04-28-2007, 10:19 PM
I don't see an option for "Who cares - it's part of their religion and their choice"

I think sucking back a piece of styrofoam, and everyone drinking wine from the same germy cup is stupid, but people do it anyway, because it's part of their religion.

agreed.

If you want freedom of religion, extend freedom of religion.

Your dirty blond anorexic on a cross (stick) may look stupid to folks who honor fatass Buddhas

(Tithing? why does God have a cash flow problem?)

shattered
04-28-2007, 10:30 PM
agreed.

If you want freedom of religion, extend freedom of religion.

Your dirty blond anorexic on a cross (stick) may look stupid to folks who honor fatass Buddhas

(Tithing? why does God have a cash flow problem?)

Ok, I'm not going to be quite that crude about it...

Yurt
04-28-2007, 10:57 PM
agreed.

If you want freedom of religion, extend freedom of religion.

Your dirty blond anorexic on a cross (stick) may look stupid to folks who honor fatass Buddhas

(Tithing? why does God have a cash flow problem?)

No wonder you have nothing to add to the tax thread. God have a cash flow problem? You are simple. It is for the church dolt, if you read. The church, humans, people, earth folk, ie, not God, humans, bipods, ya know oxygen bipods with opposable thumbs....

Nuc
04-29-2007, 12:43 AM
That's clever, using the enemy's superstitions against him, that's exceedingly clever.

Yeah, the Vietnamese used American superstitions against us. The whole thing about needing to have the remains of dead family members. That obsession led to the whole MIA/POW family thing about trying to get the bones or the corpses. Asians don't care. When you're dead you're dead.

diuretic
04-29-2007, 12:52 AM
Yeah, the Vietnamese used American superstitions against us. The whole thing about needing to have the remains of dead family members. That obsession led to the whole MIA/POW family thing about trying to get the bones or the corpses. Asians don't care. When you're dead you're dead.

I must be Asian :lol: - I'm not, I'm Anglo-Irish (typical bloody Aussie bloke)
but I take your point.

Hobbit
04-29-2007, 02:19 AM
It was General Pershing in the Philipines. They had a bunch of muslim insurgents like they have today. He captured 50 of them and had his men dip their bullets in pigs blood then executed 49 of them and buried them with the pigs blood on them. The last guy was released to go tell his buddies. The insurectiuon died out after that.

The historical accuracy of that account is still in question. Snopes can find no definitive resource.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

diuretic
04-29-2007, 02:32 AM
The historical accuracy of that account is still in question. Snopes can find no definitive resource.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

I've just consulted my favourite history book on US history and no mention is made of this. There are eight references in the index to Pershing. Two reference his involvement in Mexico and the other other six have to do with his service in WWI. Now I know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but this book would have a reference to it if it could be proven.

For doubters the book is The Oxford History of the American People by Samuel Eliot Morrison, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965.

I'm heartened that Black Jack Pershing wasn't a murdering racist brute, unlike the Brits in India.

gabosaurus
04-29-2007, 02:19 PM
It's a different culture and a different religion. Why are you questioning it?

Pale Rider
04-29-2007, 02:58 PM
It was General Pershing in the Philipines. They had a bunch of muslim insurgents like they have today. He captured 50 of them and had his men dip their bullets in pigs blood then executed 49 of them and buried them with the pigs blood on them. The last guy was released to go tell his buddies. The insurectiuon died out after that.

We should do the same thing in Iraq. Those people are zealots, might as well exploit it to our advantage.

Gaffer
05-01-2007, 08:35 PM
The historical accuracy of that account is still in question. Snopes can find no definitive resource.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

I'll see if I can find more on it. It's been a long time since I read it. It was early in his career. I'm surprised snoops didn't have something on it though. Of course when I read it it was in a book, not an internet site. I believe it was around 1906. But I could be off by a couple of years.

Nuc
05-01-2007, 08:56 PM
It's a different culture and a different religion. Why are you questioning it?

Differenciating between different species of mammals is silly. That's why. Eat 'em all. Or eat none.

diuretic
05-01-2007, 11:28 PM
Differenciating between different species of mammals is silly. That's why. Eat 'em all. Or eat none.

Bush tucker yum. You can eat reptiles as well. Crocodile taste like chicken (really). I can't come at snake though. And I couldn't even begin to eat a witchetty grub.

loosecannon
05-01-2007, 11:37 PM
Bush tucker yum. You can eat reptiles as well. Crocodile taste like chicken (really). I can't come at snake though. And I couldn't even begin to eat a witchetty grub.

alligator is fatty, and gross. It is neither stringy or tough but still unchewable. And tasteless save for the greasy, oily, unpalatable ardour.

Rattlesnake is quite delicious. And very easy to prepare.

Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 12:05 AM
alligator is fatty, and gross. It is neither stringy or tough but still unchewable. And tasteless save for the greasy, oily, unpalatable ardour.

Rattlesnake is quite delicious. And very easy to prepare.

Gator is as you say, kind of like turtle, fatty, greasy, and hard to swallow. I had the unfortunately opportunity to eat gator when I lived in Tampa.

Frog legs are good, as is Rattle Snake.

avatar4321
05-02-2007, 01:33 AM
It's a different culture and a different religion. Why are you questioning it?

Why aren't you? I rather like questioning everything. otherwise how can you learn? How can you understand others?

Of course, that is predicated on the assumption you want to learn. if you question things just to be an @$$ then i guess it really wouldnt be much benefit for you.

diuretic
05-02-2007, 03:18 AM
alligator is fatty, and gross. It is neither stringy or tough but still unchewable. And tasteless save for the greasy, oily, unpalatable ardour.

Rattlesnake is quite delicious. And very easy to prepare.

Never tried alligator, just the Estuarine Crocodile (nickname is "Saltie") that is farmed and which is obviously in the wild in the tropical part of the Northern Territory here. It's not bad but it's bloody expensive. No, couldn't come at Rattlesnake, any kind of snake......:puke:

Nuc
05-02-2007, 05:46 AM
Never tried alligator, just the Estuarine Crocodile (nickname is "Saltie") that is farmed and which is obviously in the wild in the tropical part of the Northern Territory here. It's not bad but it's bloody expensive. No, couldn't come at Rattlesnake, any kind of snake......:puke:

Rattlesnake is good, also had some kind of snake up in Darwin. It was good. Croc is bland.

KarlMarx
05-02-2007, 06:02 AM
I've several reasons for the prohibition, mainly prevention of disease.

A Muslim woman I know told me the reason for the prohibition is that pigs eat their own droppings (as do other animals).

The Bible also prohibited eating the flesh of carnivores (animals that eat other animals) and of carrion eaters (vultures, crows etc). That makes sense. Carnivores and carrion eaters tend to carry disease causing bacteria and viruses, but they're immune to them. So eating the flesh of a carnivore invites disease.