O Muslims, why do not you eat pork ?

[psychoslice]

I think we have to realize that we are talking about pork here, no beheadings.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I think we have to realize that we are talking about pork here, no beheadings.

Yes that's right
But keep recipes Muslim believer
The contradiction in the teachings of Islam
Muslim believer refrain from eating pork
But it does not refrain from beheadings
Do you know the relationship
It is logical analysis to the contradiction within the Muslim personal

 

[psychoslice]

Yes that's right
But keep recipes Muslim believer
The contradiction in the teachings of Islam
Muslim believer refrain from eating pork
But it does not refrain from beheadings
Do you know the relationship
It is logical analysis to the contradiction within the Muslim personal

Yes I can see what you are saying, but I don't think all Muslims think that way.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Yes I can see what you are saying, but I don't think all Muslims think that way.

Whoever believes in this Education
He wants to be carried out
The best example of this is Iraq
Because after the collapse of Hussein's regime
And the emergence of Islamic organizations
Become a possible application of these verses
In Iraq
Yes
And offer you an important fact
Namely, that out of every hundred Muslims believe there are ten of them this education
And want to implement it in every moment
And you can imagine the seriousness of this education on human

 

[psychoslice]

Whoever believes in this Education
He wants to be carried out
The best example of this is Iraq
Because after the collapse of Hussein's regime
And the emergence of Islamic organizations
Become a possible application of these verses
In Iraq
Yes
And offer you an important fact
Namely, that out of every hundred Muslims believe there are ten of them this education
And want to implement it in every moment
And you can imagine the seriousness of this education on human

Well I don't know about that, after all you could be telling me anything.

 

[Smart_Guy]

During Saddam Hussein's rule was the law above all.
He was governor believes in a secular and nationalist ideology
He was away from Islam
The justice among people in the era of Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein did not know discrimination because of religion

Why do you judge Islam based on what you see bad done by some Muslims and not based on what you see good done by other Muslims? Don't you think this is not fair? Is it just cherry picking to support your negative view of Islam? Suddenly you call Saddam, a Muslim, a fair and just person, after generalizing bad to Muslims?

I don't mind you thinking bad of Islam and that it is evil, but to do that with stalking the belief and its followers is another thing. The best close example is your generalization of Muslims "cut heads between people" as you called it, instead of specifying the group that does it.

to-Smart_Guy Ditto!
Since it became the position of the administration in the Forum thou send me warnings
Why this fear of my words in this free forum ???
You have to respond to what I write about Islam
I am here Explain Islamic Thought
Why do not you give me thanks for this effort FREE?
Now what is the relationship between the prohibition of pork and cut throats ??
I ask for this contradiction?
And you have to provide the answer
Muslims are forbidden to eat pork, but Islam does not prevent beheadings
Do you think that one of the attributes that forbids Muslim to eat pork and halal slaughter will be ??
This is a logical question and mental
I hope that progress answer instead of sending warnings

Before I comment, I remind you (again) that the above questioning is in violation of the rules too. Please be careful. Don't expect the other mods to be as tolerant as I am.

Now, decisions in moderation are decided by the consensus of the staff, not just one or two of them. You wanna bash me, go ahead, but I can't promise you the administration will be as tolerant as I am.

Please refrain from breaking the rules any further. Please also consider not spamming your own thread. (?!?!?)

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Why do you judge Islam based on what you see bad done by some Muslims and not based on what you see good done by other Muslims? Don't you think this is not fair? Is it just cherry picking to support your negative view of Islam? Suddenly you call Saddam, a Muslim, a fair and just person, after generalizing bad to Muslims?

I don't mind you thinking bad of Islam and that it is evil, but to do that with stalking the belief and its followers is another thing. The best close example is your generalization of Muslims "cut heads between people" as you called it, instead of specifying the group that does it.

I'm talking about the Islamic thought and ideology
Every thought and every ideology in which the teachings of
These are the teachings of Islam
Is there a disadvantage that we publish service for Muslims ??
The prohibition on pork
The reason is that it reduces the honor in humans ??
Are all the peoples, nations do not have jealousy and honor for they eat pork ???
You answer to the question

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Well I don't know about that, after all you could be telling me anything.

Analysis is an important way to know the disease
And the use of analysis method on the teachings also a way to see each and every idea ideology
I use this technique even know Islam well
When Muslims refrain from eating pork
But in the teachings of the Koran also how to let loose on the neck of an opponent during the battle
Do you think that this ideology safe and suitable ??

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm talking about the Islamic thought and ideology
Every thought and every ideology in which the teachings of
These are the teachings of Islam
Is there a disadvantage that we publish service for Muslims ??
The prohibition on pork
The reason is that it reduces the honor in humans ??
Are all the peoples, nations do not have jealousy and honor for they eat pork ???
You answer to the question

How do you expect me to answer questions I don't know how to answer, and above all, I already gave my explanation of how I see eating pork and clearly said that those are my only answers?
Just read and focus, brother. Please!

Also, did Saddam eat pork? If he didn't, then you have no excuse. You already implied that Saddam was fair and just and this thread is about eating pork, and he was Muslim no matter what you say. You're contradicting with your self. And, why would you, a Christian, justify Islam better than Saddam, a Muslim? Note that I'm commenting on whither Saddam was a good or a bad person, I'm just using your logic about him.

2. you since I arrived to a managerial position in the Forum to send warning messages
Why ???
I write with me and the evidence from the Quran and Hadith
Why be afraid of free speech ??
The prohibition on pork from the teachings of the Koran
Why do not you help us find out why the prohibition ???
View attachment 9925

Mahasn, this is the third time I remind you that what you are doing here is a violation of the Rules. You know the Arabic saying الثالثة ثابتة. I'm not saying this as a warning that I'm going to do anything, I'm saying it as a disclaimer that if other moderators see it, a serious response will occur.

I also remind you for the X'st/nd/th time that I am already answering your questions. If you can't give a message in English well, maybe we can manage with a struggle to understand you or just pass on it, but if you cannot understand English well, there is nothing we can do to make you understand. Please go thru my posts again for the answers I have to offer. other than those, I don't have more.

 

[1robin]

Great response!! Very true. Sure, they could potentially heat something to 160 degrees, but they would have had no way of knowing whether they had done so.

I forgot where I got that theory from as an explanation for that verse and found it at the least reasonable. Those Levitical laws are a source of great confusion concerning those who are looking at Christianity from the outside. It is a hotly debated issue as to whether those laws have any application since Christ has come. IMO they no longer apply


P.S. I have been too busy to debate for a while but I found a little time to catch up today. However for some reason all responses to me have been deleted prior to Tuesday. So if I left you hanging in some way I apologize. I have never seen this site erase former responses before and have no explanation for why they did so in tis case.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, I get this. But the problem here is that we are pretending that pork is an exception from any other meat. More people die to beef related illnesses a year than they do pork illnesses.

The ancients didn't know anything about temperature, but not only does pork have to be cooked to a certain temperature to be safe, the same is true for any other meat, and plenty of plants as well.

Which is why it doesn't really make too much sense.

Conditions and circumstances that exist today are no applicable when considering laws that applied to a single culture over 2000 years ago. Their dietary habits, their geography, their farming practices would be what is relevant here, but I do not know what those circumstances were exactly. I do not intensively study the OT, as the my faith is based the core claims of the NT but if I hear a reasonable explanation for a confusing OT verse I will pass it along even if I have no idea if the explanation is the correct one.

The burden of faith is merely to lack a confirmed defeater. I personally adopt a best explanation burden for my core beliefs but for secondary issues like Levitical law merely a theoretical explanation is satisfactory for me.

 

[dust1n]

Conditions and circumstances that exist today are no applicable when considering laws that applied to a single culture over 2000 years ago. Their dietary habits, their geography, their farming practices would be what is relevant here, but I do not know what those circumstances were exactly. I do not intensively study the OT, as the my faith is based the core claims of the NT but if I hear a reasonable explanation for a confusing OT verse I will pass it along even if I have no idea if the explanation is the correct one.

This is true, but I fail to see offhand what would be different about eating a pig 3000 years ago and a pig today.

The burden of faith is merely to lack a confirmed defeater. I personally adopt a best explanation burden for my core beliefs but for secondary issues like Levitical law merely a theoretical explanation is satisfactory for me.

I personally can't except my own speculation as evidence for truth.

 

[1robin]

This is true, but I fail to see offhand what would be different about eating a pig 3000 years ago and a pig today.

I stated earlier that while both modern man and ancient men could heat pork to 160 degrees only in more recent times could we do so thoroughly and reliably.

Keep in mind that for whatever reasons God has, his instructions are not intended to make this world perfect. He does not intend to save this world, his efforts have been to save people from perishing along with it. Those Levitical laws were race, culture, chronological, and geographical specific. Many were only designated to make the Hebrews unique. The purpose of making them unique was to increase the impact of his revelations given through them. Since the faith claims of a tiny sect in a Roman backwater are the only claims to have a significant impact in every nation on earth, it appears he succeeded. Also since of this covenant included man, God had to make it practicable. A lot of the more bizarre rules can be accounted for by keeping this in mind.

I personally can't except my own speculation as evidence for truth.

All claims to knowledge include speculation. IMO these rules have been superseded and no longer apply and so there is little risk to being satisfied with less than certainty, not that any claim of any kind (beyond the fact that we think) is based on absolute certainty.

Can you name anything you believe or "know" which lacks a potential defeater?

 

[dust1n]

I stated earlier that while both modern man and ancient men could heat pork to 160 degrees only in more recent times could we do so thoroughly and reliably.

This is true, but it also true for any other meat, and also for many plants.

Keep in mind that for whatever reasons God has, his instructions are not intended to make this world perfect. He does not intend to save this world, his efforts have been to save people from perishing along with it.

I guess that outta go without saying.

Those Levitical laws were race, culture, chronological, and geographical specific. Many were only designated to make the Hebrews unique. The purpose of making them unique was to increase the impact of his revelations given through them. Since the faith claims of a tiny sect in a Roman backwater are the only claims to have a significant impact in every nation on earth, it appears he succeeded. Also since of this covenant included man, God had to make it practicable. A lot of the more bizarre rules can be accounted for by keeping this in mind.

Not sure what you mean here? As in the abolition on eating pork is more of a gimmick that makes the covenant seem more real and effective?

All claims to knowledge include speculation. IMO these rules have been superseded and no longer apply and so there is little risk to being satisfied with less than certainty, not that any claim of any kind (beyond the fact that we think) is based on absolute certainty.

Can you name anything you believe or "know" which lacks a potential defeater?

I don't really know all that much. I don't hold anything with 100% certainty, that which could potentially be defeated.

 

[1robin]

This is true, but it also true for any other meat, and also for many plants.

That is why I said we must consider the details of the context in this case. I do not think beef was readily available in the ANE, and so that would explain the absence of rules about it. It is wholly impracticable for God have given a rule book which included every circumstance any one may find them themselves in at any given time. It would have taken a thousand Alexandria's to contain it.

I guess that outta go without saying.

Many of the arguments against God are of the type I refer to as a false optimality. It is to assume that any imperfections that can be found are evidence against God's existence. My comment was merely an allowance if you were making an argument of this type. God's activities relating to us include a flawed party (us) and so we should expect to find perfection in this life.

Not sure what you mean here? As in the abolition on eating pork is more of a gimmick that makes the covenant seem more real and effective?

No, that was more of a generalized explanation of certain sets of rules. It was not intended to be applied to the rules about pork specifically.

I don't really know all that much. I don't hold anything with 100% certainty, that which could potentially be defeated.

Exactly, all our conclusions have a portion of faith within them. As well as false optimality I see many arguments I refer to as equating less than certainty with no value. It is the idea that unless certain it cannot justify reasonable faith. The flaw in that type of argument is it renders null and void everything we think we know in any subject. All claims lack absolute certainty (whether scientific, mathematic, philosophic, or theological).

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

How do you expect me to answer questions I don't know how to answer, and above all, I already gave my explanation of how I see eating pork and clearly said that those are my only answers?
Just read and focus, brother. Please!

Also, did Saddam eat pork? If he didn't, then you have no excuse. You already implied that Saddam was fair and just and this thread is about eating pork, and he was Muslim no matter what you say. You're contradicting with your self. And, why would you, a Christian, justify Islam better than Saddam, a Muslim? Note that I'm commenting on whither Saddam was a good or a bad person, I'm just using your logic about him.

Yes, I know you do not have to answer
But I look for the answer ??
2. Saddam Hussein was a Muslim Yes
But he believed in Arab nationalism
For this was a move away from the teachings of Islam and his judgment was a secular nationalist ??
It is better than Islamic rule
That is why the Islamists are opposed to Saddam Hussein

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to-- Christian/Baptist
Christianity where a fixed base for dishes
It is from the words of Christ
Not what goes into man defile him , but what comes out of it
This is the word of Christ
But this man is the one who decides any of cuisine valid Wi meat is harmful or beneficial
God gave us the mind
This is the Christian faith
But God in Islam to prevent pork gave no reason for humans to prevent pork ??
Is it for health reasons or for reasons ?? moral ??
Here God prevent Islam from the human mind also work ???

 

[peanutbutter63]

I haven't read all the comments yet, but Muslims eating pork or drinking alcohol should not be an issue today in Western society. I know of Muslims who drink alcohol but never touch pork. They don't do 'salah'/prayers, and just dress normally. It's up to the individual whether to take scripture literally...or as a guideline. On Judgement Day, people will be judged individually...and all are speculation before that time

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes, I know you do not have to answer
But I look for the answer ??
2. Saddam Hussein was a Muslim Yes
But he believed in Arab nationalism
For this was a move away from the teachings of Islam and his judgment was a secular nationalist ??
It is better than Islamic rule
That is why the Islamists are opposed to Saddam Hussein

You expect me to know everything? And I said I don't know an answer, I didn't say that I don't want to answer!
Islamists are opposed to Saddam? Define Islamists, please.

3. You send the warnings, I send the complaint to the administration publicly Forum
And tell her
That your forum wonderful and I hope that does not prevent you permit free dialogue in the extreme grades
Because prevent free speech means the triumph of evil

How many times do I have to explain that administrative decisions are decided by a committee, not a single moderator, and that discussing moderation against the rules?
I did that like 4 times already and I refused to report any of them out of consideration.

 

[beenie]

This has to be one of the most useless threads I've ever seen on RF. Who gives a flip if groups of people don't eat certain animal meat? I sure don't.