Why Do Christians Eat Pork?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We need to remember dietary restrictions (such as pork) could have been a health concern back then.
They were in the wilderness for 40 years before reaching the Promised Land.
They had No refrigeration available, and under-cooked pork could have been a health hazard to them.

As I've pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, this explanation makes no sense. Other meats are just as risky when undercooked or unrefrigerated. Some, like chicken, are *more* risky than pork. It makes no sense at all to suggest they forbade eating pork but encouraged eating chicken because of risk.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trichinosis has typically been present in pork.

As well as in wild game, including several types of kosher animals.

And other types of kosher meat have their own health risks: chicken is known for salmonella and beef is known for e. coli, for instance.

It doesn't make sense to say that this dietary law had a health benefit.

OTOH, as I pointed out earlier, I think it does make sense to say that it can be attributed to lifestyle differences, since pigs are incompatible with a nomadic lifestyle. An ancient Jew who was eating pork had either:

- started raising pigs himself, which would mean he had abandoned his culture's traditional lifestyle, or

- got the pork from someone else, which would mean he was consorting with non-Jews. This could be seen as a threat to the insularity and cohesion of the Jewish community.

 

[sojourner]

As well as in wild game, including several types of kosher animals.

And other types of kosher meat have their own health risks: chicken is known for salmonella and beef is known for e. coli, for instance.

It doesn't make sense to say that this dietary law had a health benefit.

OTOH, as I pointed out earlier, I think it does make sense to say that it can be attributed to lifestyle differences, since pigs are incompatible with a nomadic lifestyle. An ancient Jew who was eating pork had either:

- started raising pigs himself, which would mean he had abandoned his culture's traditional lifestyle, or

- got the pork from someone else, which would mean he was consorting with non-Jews. This could be seen as a threat to the insularity and cohesion of the Jewish community.

You might be right. As it was, Ancient Jews didn’t eat much meat at all; meat was scarce.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

As I've pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, this explanation makes no sense. Other meats are just as risky when undercooked or unrefrigerated. Some, like chicken, are *more* risky than pork. It makes no sense at all to suggest they forbade eating pork but encouraged eating chicken because of risk.

The terms for the ancient Israelites under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law was: animal distinction.
- Leviticus 11:3-8; Deuteronomy 14:3-8
Even if we don't have all the in's and out's, that is what God decided for them while under that temporary Law.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

........... There is a form of warfare introduced which the Christians later describe as war in the heavens, and this is very likely the warfare which takes place in Canaan. A literal reading of the texts would have you believe that there is a bloody takeover of Canaan, but that doesn't seem to fit the archeology or history that is accessible to us.

My literal reading of Revelation 12:7 ' war in heaven ' is just that: war in heaven, and nothing to do with a location on Earth.
Satan and his demons ousted from heaven forever.
Before their destruction, Satan is in the vicinity of earth, and Not just one place on Earth as per Revelation 12:12,9

 

[Brickjectivity]

My literal reading of Revelation 12:7 ' war in heaven ' is just that: war in heaven, and nothing to do with a location on Earth.
Satan and his demons ousted from heaven forever.
Before their destruction, Satan is in the vicinity of earth, and Not just one place on Earth as per Revelation 12:12,9

Sure, and it doesn't matter that in Revelation it says that a sword comes out of Jesus mouth. It doesn't matter that repeatedly the book says the war is won by patience, by testimony, by not loving one's own life? These are to you words about muscles and blades. Where is the moral value in that point of view? It sounds far removed from any form of value that could be called spiritual. You know that people have imaginations, and we also can speak in figurative language. We can choose to live peacefully in the face of violent people, and that can be our warfare against evil.

 

[Looncall]

I understand mental focus. However, we have to sustain this physical body in order to do that. My theory is if God has said or ever said to not eat pork why do it. Our body is a temple so we should treat like nature and be resourceful and prolong life as long as possible. The more we can live and learn here the more it will benefit hereafter.

Pork needs thorough cooking, so it is not surprising that peoples who lived in fuel-poor environments, such as deserts, added pork prohibitions to their lists of taboos.

I have not heard of aversion to pork in fuel-rich places like forests. Has anyone here heard of such?

With modern, science-supported methods of raising swine, there is no reason to eschew pork.

 

[Tiapan]

We eat pigs because they taste great.
Perhaps the prohibition is due to the similarity in taste to human flesh.
In Papua-New Guinea the cannibals call human meat "long pig"..
Cheers

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pork needs thorough cooking, so it is not surprising that peoples who lived in fuel-poor environments, such as deserts, added pork prohibitions to their lists of taboos.

Chicken needs even more thorough cooking than pork, but they didn't make chicken taboo.