U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 06-23-2009, 02:08 AM
29,610 posts, read 5,723,856 times
Reputation: 4265


What hasn't been picked up or mentioned for some reason is the lack of separation of rationale.

We have some very theist - sounding anecdotes of how 'eating Bible changed my health' or the health of some other folks at least or how much better kosher foods tastes. Though a friend of mine had a Jewish friend who hated kosher meat because it didn't taste of anything.

No, we can't use particular examples as general evidence that Biblefood is best, though I'm surprised that the evangelists haven't tried the 'Bible-diet' as a way of making converts. It may be that there is something in the claim that the hebrew dietary laws were based on some health factors, though I gather that not seething a kid in its mother's milk was more because the Baal-worshipping Canaanites used to do just that.

Certainly these days there should be no problem with eating pork or shellfish. So I'd say that it's pretty much like anything else to do with the Bible. We could profitably improve our eating habits and some of those might match something in the Bible, but it would be illogical to do it just because it's in the Bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 06-23-2009, 02:14 AM
226 posts, read 748,764 times
Reputation: 158
lobsters, snails should not be considered food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-23-2009, 02:16 AM
29,610 posts, read 5,723,856 times
Reputation: 4265
Originally Posted by grmike View Post
lobsters, snails should not be considered food.
I like lobsters. I can take or leave snails - mind, you have to be careful how you prepare them. Why can't they be considered food? I'd be interested to hear your reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-23-2009, 05:26 AM
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
3,412 posts, read 4,070,447 times
Reputation: 3529
Lobster, yum

I do enjoy pork, catfish, lobster, crab, shrimp .. not snails though

Pigs don't sweat. Sweat helps rid the body of illness, poisons, etc. Since they don't sweat those things remain in the fat of the pig.

Eating fish without scales is also among the unclean foods. Normally those types of fish, like the catfish, are bottom feeding scavengers that eat dead and decaying plants and animals.

Those are some of the reasons why God had made the food laws, but I don't believe God would punish people for eating those things. Though, people would probably be much healther if they didn't eat them, or at least ate them in moderation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-23-2009, 06:17 AM
29,610 posts, read 5,723,856 times
Reputation: 4265
That's a good answer. I have been warned about bottom - feeders before and I must say wondered whether there was any medical reason for that -after all, the body absorbs what it needs and expels what it doesn't - or it's just the idea puts people off.

(later) well I had a look and it seems that not all bottom - feeders are unscaled - most are, If I'm right in thinking that eels, cod and flatfish are scaled. Of course, not all bottom feeders are detriphagous. Shellfish do seem to be bottom - feeders but I looked at a number of sites and the general view was that there were healthy enough and only modern pollution concerns are raised. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that Jewish dietery restrictions were put in place with the 21st century in mind.


is uncompromising about how filthy it is but the motivation seems religious rather than biological.

"Those who say Christ abolished the law condemning pork are motivated by their stomach not Scripture. The problems with pork are biological, and Christ never changed the laws of biology. "

Is dismissing the whole of the gospel and the Pauline epistles. Of course, one can decline to eat unhealthy food but for medical reasons, not religious.

This, remarkably, comes from a Jewish site.

"With the outbreak of swine flu it is intriguing to explore why pork is prohibited according to Jewish law. The proscription in the Torah is not accompanied with any logic. With the recent outbreak of swine flu does this offer some logic for this prohibition? Can this not be considered remarkable foresight?

Is pork unhealthy? Pork has been much used, much loved, and much maligned over the years. Some consider pork a healthy alternative to beef, but many also fear that it requires special precautions. According to studies, if improperly handled pork can indeed make you ill, and possibly kill you. So, is pork a dangerous item that should be feared due to health?

Pork is actually a nutritious choice of meat and low in fat. Besides being low fat, pork is also rich in nutrients without being loaded with calories. It contains high levels of some essential B vitamins like B6, B12, niacin, thiamine, and riboflavin. In addition to the B vitamins, pork also contains high amounts of other nutrients, providing you with iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc and protein. A three ounce portion of pork provides nearly half of the daily requirements for protein.
But is it worth it? Is it worth the risk?

Another problem with pork is that pigs have a reputation of being dirty animals. This seems to be principally a social and societal rather than health problem. If pigs are a staple of a daily diet, it requires breeding. Since their farms are filthy, it has a negative affect on the town or city where they are being bred."


I leave it to the individual to research any further, but this does seem to sum it up. There seems no reason other than modern health concerns (there have been with other non-porcine meath products and fish of all kinds) or religious objections, which carry no weight other than with the religious. As we saw from the ensignmessage line, they throw Jesus and Paul in the bin if it doesn't suit their prejudices. So why should I listen to them if they don't listen to Jesus or Paul?

I read a book on Judea recently and I wonder whether the proscription against pork is more to do with the prejudice of the Jewish herding tradition against the Canaanite farming tradition than with some sort of medical knowledge so advanced, (the religious fondly hope to persuade us) that it could only have come from God?

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-23-2009 at 07:01 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-23-2009, 06:29 AM
Location: Texas
14,079 posts, read 15,945,713 times
Reputation: 7682
A couple of issues come to mind from reading this discussion.

First of all, the idea that we can control our own health by the things we eat or the things we do is not Biblical. We do NOT have dominion over our own health; God does. If you are living in perfect submission to His will, which we are supposed to do, you will have the level of health which God wants you to have in order to fulfill His mission for you. If He wants you healthy, you will be, in spite of anything you do or fail to do. If He wants you sick and crippled, you'll be that too.

The bottom line for believers is to trust that God will do what's best for you and quit trying to take control of your own life. That's the sin of idolatry.

Secondly, Paul clearly warns us in Galatians 5 that if we commit to keeping one part of the Law, we commit to keeping it all and, thereby, make Christ of no effect to us. In other words, by doing so, we put ourselves back under the condemnation of the Law and, as he puts it, we've fallen from grace. That's got some pretty serious implications which we ought to mediated heavily on before commiting to obeying the Old Testament laws or any part of them.

Remember, we are not called to obedience; we are called to FULFILL the Law, in every apect, by loving God and loving our neighbors. That is not a license to sin, but it IS a commandment from Jesus Himself to quit worrying about following the Law and let the love of God flow through you to other people. By doing so, your account in regards to the Law is marked, "Paid in full" on judgment day.

Never forget what Paul said in Galatians and understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to successfully keep all the Law, so when you commit to keeping one part of it, you set yourself up for failure and disavow the Salvation of Christ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-23-2009, 04:07 PM
Location: Herriman, UT.
2,087 posts, read 4,371,389 times
Reputation: 1760
our God wants us to be healthy, to do the things that will further allow us to glorify HIM. A pig does not sweat, the toxins remain in its body and tissues. you eat that and it circulates through your digestive track, some of which NEVER leaves your tissues in the body. You do NOT excrete all of those toxins. They can build up and create disease (as in many cases they do). Pigs are capable of ingesting a lot of disease, bacteria etc. all of which do NOT effect them, but it WILL effect humans. Shellfish are basically toxin filters. You eat that and you are eating toxins in some measure. You just need to be sensible here. It's not about taste it's about how smart it is to eat an animal that partakes of waste and toxins, taking that into YOUR body. It's just not smart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-23-2009, 06:27 PM
Location: Brooklyn
40,058 posts, read 28,253,207 times
Reputation: 10397
Locusts are considered permissible to eat. When was the last time you went into a restaurant and saw them on the menu?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-23-2009, 07:20 PM
4,669 posts, read 3,541,044 times
Reputation: 409
Originally Posted by BudinAk View Post
The Old Testament lists a plethora of "forbidden" foods, that the children of Israel were not to eat. (there are dozens listed) Even today, some churches and beliefs follow at least some of those rules, such as not eating pork. Do you think we'd be better off to follow those ancient laws pertaining to food, or does it not matter in today's world? I have to wonder if the types of food eaten are a big contributing factor to all the obese and out-of-shape people in the world today. Why would God tell those people not to eat certain foods, if there was not some very good reason for it? I, for one, don't believe God issues such commandments "just because". There had to have been some valid reason behind it all. IE: even if it is not "sinful" to eat just about anything we want, what would happen if we CHOSE to eat only the "good" foods, and not the bad? Do you think there would be some long-term benefit to our bodies? Or no? Should I forget the whole thing, or just try it and see what happens? Has anyone of you already tried it, and noticed any difference you can tell us? You can find PAGES of this stuff by doing a Google search for "forbidden foods Bible".

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-23-2009, 09:07 PM
Location: SE Florida
1,194 posts, read 3,444,257 times
Reputation: 752
Originally Posted by Lisa_from_Debary View Post
I was raised SDA and I can confirm what your saying. Some take it a step further and are also vegetarian as well although this is not an official teaching.

According to what I found out in school...the rules about what foods are forbidden are not arbitrary. The unclean foods are animals that have a kind of intestinal track that allows them to absorb more impurities from the food the digest...therefore if you eat pork for instance, you get those impurities in your own body.

While this message comes directly from Leviticus, the prophet Ellen White from the Adventist church also wrote an extensive health message, calling your body the temple of god and so forth.
I too was raised SDA and we were veggies until I reached 15. EGW is someone I just couldn't grasp her teachings but the foods that are taught are not forgidden to eat they are just not good for the body as you say. That goes for smoking and it does make sense for us humans to treat our bodies as a temple because I also believe we are just temporary habitants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top