What makes you so sure that I'm arguing for the Bible? Their is no relative standard for MANY things. Murder. Theft. Adultery. I don't think that scriptures ever gave any *reason*. It was a commandment, not a "reasoning". There are many things that don't necessarily make sense about "clean" and "unclean" meats. By all means it appears to be arbitrary. Certain birds - birds of prey are unclean. Yet, turkeys and chickens are clean. For what that's worth, birds are incredibly reptilian - and ALL reptiles are UNCLEAN. Animals with cloven hoofs are "unclean". (this includes swine) That has nothing to do with shit eaters. ANY animal will eat its own shit, if given the opportunity, and nothing more appealing. For what it's worth - knowledge of scriptures is not the same as arguing on their behalf. Don't miss that point. Trying to be morally relavistic in every aspect of life is a character flaw, in my opinion. (although some may try to wear it as a badge of compassion or intellectualism) Some things are just wrong, no matter what your other beliefs may be.
Actually, when it comes to the bible, the problem with swine is no the hoves, it's the fact that they don't chew cud.
Josh.. fact is the problem is no longer a problem. As per the revelation of Peter, Christians may eat whatever they like.
I was told that the devil lives in it, if you eat it that means you're a devil worshipper! how true? I dont know, so on that level I avoid that from my diet.
Haven't got that far through the bible I'm afraid. I was just saying that the old testament restriction against pork is not based on hooves, but on cud chewing.
I had some devil yesterday morning for breakfast. I'm tempted to make some "pigs in the blanket" for dinner tonight. Serve em up with some Ranch Style Beans and skillet tators Hmm, that'll give me some devil farts. My wife will NOT be happy about that! She's still pissed at me for leaving the bathroom door open off our bedroom the other night after taking a dump. She was in the bedroom at the time, watching TV. She scolded me over that one
Umm.... That's not really what the book says. That "revelation" is almost universally accepted in the world of Christendom as a revelation of salvation being freely available to all PEOPLE. Many people of the day were considered dogs and pigs, and other things. The pronouncement was for the pious Jew to understand that they were no better than others. It is less accepted that this verse means people can/should eat whatever they want. The emphasis was not on "eating" or "not eating" - it was on not calling "unclean" what God had declared "clean". It was a story with a moral, something that required thought - not a face value declaration. (you know - a parable) Again, knowledge of a topic is not advocacy. You are correct. In fact, I mistakenly quoted it backwards. The cloven hoof is a requirement for "clean" meat. Mistake acknowledged.
I don't know about the devil living in Pork - but the stuff is pure shit. For those of you who still eat it, you are keeping the cost of my health insurance high! Have any of you actually ever been around a hog farm? And I'm only asking cause I grew up near lots of them, and had in-laws who owned one.
How exactly are we keeping your health insurance high? Pork is actually quite healthy. It is after all, "the other white meat". Yes, not sure what your point is. It's stinks, no doubt there... But so do cats and dogs and most domestic house pets. Are you saying that stinky animals are bad for your health? Your health care provider and insurance company are the ones keeping your health insurance high. Make no mistake about it.
I made a promise to myself not to indulge overmuch in discussing the Word here on the internet. But I cannot but think you actually do not know what Scripture I am referring to. At least I hope you do not. For the sake of the former it is: Act 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, v11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: v12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. v13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. v14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. v15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
So says the pork farming industry. Nevermind that the first "white meat" is almost identical to red meat in its nutritional composition. It's hard to argue against someone who likes their pork and has their mind made up, so I won't be a killjoy for you.
I know exactly what verse you are speaking of. Read a little further, and put it into proper context: So we have the disciple going into a trance as he bowed to pray. Next thing, he's going against ancient Jewish traditions, as it relates to associating with Gentiles, who are considered "unclean" - but no mention of actual eating is mentioned at any point. Care to discuss it further? Not sure how you take it so literally. This verse even proves that Peter didn't know what it meant right away: So, Peter didn't just say, "hey, I can eat pork now!". He didn't do that, because that's not what it meant then, and it's not what it means now.
Hahahaha... no I do not care to discuss it further with you. You are precisely the reason I made a promise to stop discussing the Bible on the internet. I will say only this about your remark. You are on the outside of Christian understanding. Catholic, Protestant, Baptist... we do not agree with your somewhat singular understanding, and that should be telling in and of itself. Paul also did not agree with your understanding. Rom 14:14 ¶ I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. v15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. v16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: Lol@your "care to discuss it further." ... you really are kind'a full of yourself.
tearfate, it is not strange. Just as Noah was permitted to eat pork, and then God's method changed down the road to the Era of Moses and the Law, so the advent of Christ and Peter's revelation and Paul's writings make it clear to Christians that we are now in a new era as well, and no longer under the Law of Moses but under the Law of Christ. Enjoy the pork if you like, and not if you don't like. But as Paul said do not judge one in their meats or by their meats. Do not offend either way your brother chooses. Oh, and you are wrong when you write: "woah its strange, protestant, jew, and islam considered pork as unclean, but Catholic says not." Protestants have no restrictions against pork for the reasons I elaborated above, and quite a few good recipes.
Can you please provide a source for your claims? Pork is a lot different than it used to be in terms of its fat content, which I will grant you is about the only negative I could see with pork. Pork is extremely lean today thanks in part to better breading. I would take a look here for the nutritional facts about pork.
Please prove that statement. I've never heard any such thing. In fact, the subject of what was law before the law, is WIDE OPEN to interpretation - but not many facts from either side. Don't criticize me for what you consider to be outside of your particular beliefs. You don't know who I am, or what I know. And, it's been my experience that most people who consider themselves to be "people of the book", don't seem to understand that it wasn't written in English, nor that the book isn't served justly IN English. Biases are not facts. Do you believe that the scriptures contain any errors? Do you believe that some translations are not translated correctly? Careful how you answer... Of course, if you don't want to answer, that's fine. I understand. (everything except how you can respond to a topic in an OT politics and religion forum, and then duck and run) Mia: You're providing links from the Hormel website. That's like trying to find out about the mechanics of nicotine addiction from RJ Reynolds. But since you don't have a problem with biased "facts", let me throw this at you: Pork "facts" (there's even some good reading for Dead Corn in there) So much of the debate about food centers around anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal, not because there isn't research, or it's junk science - but because money buys influence. "Official" studies into many things may or may not be correct - yet they are accepted, oftentimes while still theoretical. (eggs, anyone?) I could give you any number of examples, from the cancer link to cell phones, to who has WMD's. Prime example: saturated fats - good or bad? It depends on who you ask, and what TYPE of saturated fat! All known studies on saturated fat (that I have seen) where sf's were deemed "unhealthy", focus on animal fats, or hydrogenated oils. Of course those are bad! What about cold pressed vegetable oils? Well, the anecdotal evidence suggests quite the opposite about oils like Extra virgin coconut, avocado, and peanut oils - despite medical "research". In the real world, any idiot with a loud enough voice can draw a crowd, and that extends into the sciences. (a degree and a lab coat does not make a sage)