Why Christians eat pork ?

reply to post by GLaDOS


none of them are real in my book unless you go back to the Sumerians.

Originally posted by samsamm9
Sorry my Christian friends, I had another question about the religion of Jesus.
I still try to understand things about your faith. Jesus certainly didn't eat pig.
The bible prohibits it's consumption, and yet most Christian eat it.

Again, I thought Christians were supposed to be "Jesus like".
So why not be more like Jesus ?
Why eat the swine ??

The Bible
prohibits the consumption of pork, in the book of Leviticus

“And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth
not the cud; he is unclean to you”.

“Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch,
they are unclean to you.” [Leviticus 11:7-8]

Pork is also prohibited in the Bible in the book of Deuteronomy

“And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud,
it is unclean unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their
dead carcass.” [Deuteronomy 14:8]

And remember, you are what you eat ...

Pretty sure if Jesus lived now, he'd have no problem demolishing a bacon cheese burger.

This is one area I have a problem with religious followers, literal ones at least. Can we apply a little logic, and consider the times back then?

Pork could kill you 2000 years ago! We didn't have the same storage facilities we have now, nor the means to keep it clean enough not to make you sick. The rule about not eating pork was most likely made so thousands, if not more, people didn't die from eating the meat.

If the bible was written today, they'd probably ban fast food, because of the horror it does to your body. Seriously, with all the unhealthy crap people shove down their mouths, why would anyone think pork is the issue? Seems your God didn't take into account microwaves and freezers, lol. Yet he's all knowing. Imagine that. With everything he knew, your God thought pork was the problem. Why not simply just not create pigs in the first place, lol?

Those of us Christians who are of Gentile ancestry were never beholden to the law in the first place.

Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of the law. When he sacrificed himself, as a sacrifice without spot or blemish in the eyes of the OT law, he completed the entire system instituted by Moses.

Even before the Crucifixion, Jesus let his followers skip all the ceremonial hand-washing before Jewish prayers. (Matthew 15:2)

The people who plan to be saved by the law have to live by all of it. Those who are saved through faith do not have to abide by the laws of works.

Just look at Abraham. He didn't know which day the sabbath was; he didn't keep Kosher, but through him all nations of the earth are blessed. He wasn't even a Jew! (since Judah was his great-grandson, and not vice-versa).

The Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as the one to Galatians, covers all this in great detail.

Look at the law in the context in which it was given.The law was given to a group of people living and migrating in the wilderness... and not a small group either... possibly hundreds of thousands of people if not more.

Pork was declared unclean as it breaks down fast in warm weather.... is a large animal and if not all was eaten, it would go to waste. Plus, as noted previously, the animal very likely carried trychinosis and if not thouroughly cooked, could contaminate and make sick a very large number of people.

Most of the Levitical Laws seem odd or bizarre at first glance, but when seen in the context of protecting the health of a large migratory group in close quaters in the field... they make perfect sense. Similar laws or decrees have been made by field commanders to their armies... even as recent as the Civil War or WWI.

That is why the women menstrating was isolated, along with the sick person, or one with lesions..

At the spiritual level, Jesus founded a "New Covenant" which did away with the old laws. A Christian would not kill, so one does not need a law prohibiting murder.

A Christian would not lie, cheat, steal, covet, commit adultury... so a set of laws prohibiting such is no longer needed.

As for food, Paul expresses the idea that Christianity is for all people, irregardless of culture or back ground. As such, a person's practices or eating habits are unimportant. However, if you have a friend or entertain a stranger... and your habits may tempt or offend, you should mend your habits while in their presence.

For instance, if you are entertaining a recovering alcoholic... do not serve wine, even if you like wine... be considerate and giving and loving and encouraging.

If you are entertaining a vegan, then serve lots of non meat dishes and even refrain from meat yourself for the evening.

If you are entertaining friends or family and one or some may be gay, again, be loving and generous and respectful.... leave the judging to God... that is not our job. We are to love all people, there by being a witness for Christ as to the power of His love.

That's all... so simple and sometimes so hard.To be the sevant and put others before our own self.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Yes,The current Bible was a colection of 66 books (39 Old Testament)+ (27 New Testament) (Catholic bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha) after a bit of haggling Mainly by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.

Source

Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180), a much less well-known figure, was tremendously gifted in expressing the ancient faith of the church regarding the deity of Christ:

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was provided too, to indicate who was being killed. Who was it? It is a heavy thing to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain from saying. But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.

Nicea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error. The council had no idea that they, by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority.

The (Catholic) Church View:
In the Catholic Church the version used is the Douay-Rheims Bible consisting of 73 books. In the Protestant church only the 66 books approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885, which today is known as the Authorized King James Bible, are used. No other books, neither the Apocrypha, which was included in the original King James Bible, nor the 22 books mentioned or quoted in the King James Bible, are considered inspired.

The Bible View:
There was no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the Bible until the commission of the first Bible by the Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century AD. The books that make up the Authorized King James Bible were chosen by men, not divine forces. The language of the King James Bible is obscure and limited.

Source

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.—more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books is thought to have begun around 1000 B.C., and to have continued for about 1,100 years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods, and were often unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.

Many biblical authors are unknown. When an author has been named that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors; the present names were assigned long after these four books were written. And—in spite of what the Gospel authors say—biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry.

This is a start.
And yes, I know of and respect your understanding of the history of the Bible.

reply to post by Zeptepi



I don't think you understand what I was asking you or you even realize what you are claiming.

You're claiming that in 397 AD people from the Catholic Church went back in time with a time machine, possibly as early as 400 BC, to EDIT the earliest of the Dead Sea scrolls to add dietary restrictions in there, that weren't in there before?

OR you are claiming that in 397 AD the Catholic Church found the Dead Sea Scrolls, EDITED them to control people, changed their mind, PUT THEM BACK IN THE CAVE, and then didn't find them until 1957?

This is what I'm trying to tell you. The OT manuscripts that have the dietary laws in them are OLDER than the Catholic Church. You need a time machine for your theory to make any sense.

You're just spreading old Atheist myths that never check out for the simple fact that we have manuscripts that are OLDER than the Catholic Church. We can simply go back and see what they said. It's funny. If Atheists are really so sure of themselves, how come they have to spread lies and myths to win their arguments? Shouldn't they be based on facts and the work of historians?



EDIT: One other side note that makes the claim even more absurd that I just thought of. Those dietary restrictions in the OT? The Catholic Church doesn't even make Christians follow those laws? Why? Because the NT says we don't have to.

So, the claim is even more absurd when you claim that the CC dug up ancient Jewish texts to add dietary laws that weren't there before, changed their mind, hid them back in a cave, then told everyone to DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're claiming they changed the Bible to say, and allowed us to eat pork, but then kept printing copies of the OT with their changes in them that had dietary restrictions?

That makes the least sense I think I've ever heard in my life. Why bother changing the Bible to put dietary restrictions in it, if you're not going to bother to tell your congregation to follow those restrictions because the NT overrides them anyway? What was the point of that? Was it a conspiracy against Jewish people that were already dead? Where is the logic?

Jesus didn't eat pork because he was Judeo-Christian, but also because all Christians at the time of Jesus didn't eat pork, at the time not eating pork was a Christian religious belief.

Christians no longer were forbidden from eating 'non-kosher' foods, long after Jesus' ascension into heaven, the vision of God making all animals clean or kosher happened when Paul had a vision, it is recorded starting in Acts 10... This vision has been universally interpreted by Christians including Paul up to the most modern day Christian, whether they know of the vision or not.

Acts...

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 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:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

Originally posted by samsamm9
Sorry my Christian friends, I had another question about the religion of Jesus.
I still try to understand things about your faith. Jesus certainly didn't eat pig.
The bible prohibits it's consumption, and yet most Christian eat it.

Again, I thought Christians were supposed to be "Jesus like".
So why not be more like Jesus ?
Why eat the swine ??

The Bible
prohibits the consumption of pork, in the book of Leviticus

“And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth
not the cud; he is unclean to you”.

“Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch,
they are unclean to you.” [Leviticus 11:7-8]

Pork is also prohibited in the Bible in the book of Deuteronomy

“And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud,
it is unclean unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their
dead carcass.” [Deuteronomy 14:8]

And remember, you are what you eat ...

1. Litteral interpretation of a book that was written by men who lived centuries ago, and has been mistranslated, rewrittten, and edited more times than man can count is just silly.

2. If god hadn't wanted man to eat pork, he wouldnt have made bacon taste so good!


Did you know that every omnivorous animal on earth likes bacon?
Don't even act like vegitarians don't eyeball those bacon bits on a salad







Oh...and BTW, you are not what you eat any more than a car is what you put in it's tank.
I hate that analogy.
You are the sum of all your parts plus all the things your parts do.

Pigs don't sweat, so all the toxins and other crap they've ingested over the years is all right in there. Not a very bright move eating pork. For me not eating pork has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with staying healthy.

"On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh to the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: 10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending to him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice [spoke] to him again the second time, What God has cleansed, [that] call not you common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

There is your answer p..that chamber and others quoted from the bible..

The reason that christian eat pork..is because God told them it was OK now....its in the new testament..so not too hard to figure it out.

Originally posted by alonzo730
Pigs don't sweat, so all the toxins and other crap they've ingested over the years is all right in there. Not a very bright move eating pork. For me not eating pork has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with staying healthy.

Apparently that's another myth. Sweating is about the worst most inefficient way to detox. You'd basically dehydrate first.

www.lisabarger.com...
articles.latimes.com...
shine.yahoo.com...

Looks like it's just more new age stuff. If you'll notice, the number one claimers of detox by sweating, usually just happen to own Saunas. Coincidence? I think not.

Originally posted by samsamm9
Again, I thought Christians were supposed to be "Jesus like".
So why not be more like Jesus ?

Where in the Koran does it say " Go forth and have anal sex with boys of 13 dressed likes dancing girl's and when he's all used up sell him on so you neighbour can sexully abuse him aswell" but the Afghans do it....

Where in the Koran does it say -
Verily you will make a really bad twenty minute home video anouncing you're going to be a martyr for Allah, then strap on 3 kilos of C4 and then go to the nearest legitimate target.
And for them, legitimate means any of the following -

1 - A bus stop
2 - A Red Cross food hand out line up.
3 - A medical centre for kids and old people.
4 - Any market where there's kids,mothers,old folk and cripples.

It doesnt mention it anywhere in the Koran, but the Afghans do it, and then blow themselves into a pink mist taking with them 50 innocent bystanders, all this of course comes with a place in paradise thrown in free.

I thought muslims were supposed to be "Mohammed like".

So why not be more like Mohammed ?

Every religous text is open to personal interpretation.

ALL have been manipulated throughout history to serve the ruling church and governing bodies of the day.

Only the Westbourough Baptist Church still believes this s@@``.

The church only had control of the masses during the middle ages because of ignorance, as nobody knew how to read and the interpretation of the bible was strictly theirs.
If today you still believe all this crap, and you let this book dominate your life, then you belong in the middle ages.

Intresting topic.Not really sure how to answer this to be honest. I got to say i think some people got it twisted when they say the old testament dosnt apply anymore. What about the Ten Commandments? Can I go murder now and it be all good with the Christ man? I dont think so. You cant pick and chose to make things easier for you. If you are going to live by the bible, live by the whole thing! Dont be a hypocrite. Anyway..I am wondering if maybe it has something to do with Matthew 8:31 where Christ cast the demons into the swine. Who really knows.

Originally posted by jerryznv
Old Testament laws do not apply to the new law that Jesus brought..."It is not that which a man takes into his mouth that defiles him, but rather what comes out".

Pork in...not out...unless you have been consuming mass quantities of alcohol...then maybe out!

Either way...old laws that have no relevance now!

Old laws that still have relevance now:

Matthew 5:17-18(KJV)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


And Jesus wasn't talking about eating food when He said, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." He was talking about the fact that the Pharisees were complaining because the disciples had eaten without first washing their hands.

Matthew 15:1-2 (KJV)
1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Matthew 15:10-11 (KJV)
10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matthew 15:18-19 (KJV)
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

We are not supposed to eat pork, or any other food which defiles our bodies. Our bodies are now the temple of God. We cannot defile the temple with such things as unclean meats, dairy products that are treated with hormones, etc., alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


So you kill homosexuals on a daily basis? You cleanse yourself with the ashes of a red heifer every time you're in contact with a dead body? You lock people with Leprosy up in a closet? You only eat mana that falls from Heaven and nothing more? You personally go out and stone adulterers? Even though Jesus didn't stone the adulterer? Do you know why? Why don't Christians follow these rules?

Do you keep the Sabbath? If you're Jewish and you don't keep it, we'll have to kill you. If you're not Jewish and you DO keep it we'll have to kill you? Sounds like you've never read the Bible.

The whole point of the NT is that there was only one person that perfectly kept the OT law and that was Jesus. It has over 600 rules and if you mess up ONE you're condemned to die and to Hell. That is unless you accept Jesus as your savior. That's a good majority point of Paul's writings. If you try to live by the law you will fail and be condemned by it and will go to Hell for it. There is no salvation in the OT laws.


EDIT: Also, you quote "11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. "

Then you go on to tell us it matters what we put in our mouth? You like, just contradicted yourself or what? How's that work?

reply to post by samsamm9


WE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES !!!!

Originally posted by jeramie

Originally posted by jerryznv
Old Testament laws do not apply to the new law that Jesus brought..."It is not that which a man takes into his mouth that defiles him, but rather what comes out".

Pork in...not out...unless you have been consuming mass quantities of alcohol...then maybe out!

Either way...old laws that have no relevance now!

Old laws that still have relevance now:

Matthew 5:17-18(KJV)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Yes they still have relevance in that Jesus followed them perfectly and that's why he is the FULFILLMENT of them that makes him an acceptable sacrifice. You have a funny idea of the idea of full fill.

Let me ask you, if we had a contract where I did work for you, and then you were supposed to pay me, and then you came to my house to pay me and said, there you go, I've full filled the contract. Then wouldn't you be upset when I came over to your house tomorrow and asked for the money again?

You'd say NO I ALREADY PAID YOU! THE CONTRACT IS FULL FILLED!

The OT is a contract between God and the Israelite, and the NT is a new contract between God and all men. Not just the Israelite. Remember, it was FORBIDDEN for a Gentile to observe the OT law. Therefore for me, a Gentile, to observe the law I have to NOT do what's in the OT except the exception of the 10 commandments which was given to all men before the Israelite were a people. The rest of the laws were only given to Israel and the Gentiles were considered FORBIDDEN from practicing them unless they totally converted to Judaism or a few other exceptions.

Jesus fullfilled the old contract. Telling people that they're still bound by the old contract is trying to still get paid after you've gotten paid.

Remember, Jesus hadn't been crucified in that part of the story yet. He was still alive. But yeah if you were a Jewish Christian some of those OT laws might apply to you. However, Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism to be a Christian.

Before I comment some more..let me make it clear I am not christian, so I find it odd jumping to the defence of these folks considering the hate sent my way by them. That out..gotta say..I keep reading people post about christians need to be like jesus but I dont think you get it, hell some christians dont even get it, Those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ are not and should not aspire to be like Jesus. Jesus was a man embodied by the spirit of Christ and walked the earth to see as a man would see and suffer as he suffered. Now where it gets even freakier is when it goes to say "i and my father are one" which without going into too much off topic detail..Christians should aspire to be more godly not like jesus who was a man. Man this sounds crazy...cause somewhere in that book it also give reference to having no other god before you..so if your trying to be perfect and the only one who is perfect is God..but you are supposed to be like god..arent you a living sin..oh crap..i think I broke my brain..too late for this ..

You do you and give respect to one another and have faith, I beleive you will be ok in the eyes of the Creator. Eat,be happy,love and give thanks and honor these are all acts of the real Creator.Our choices in life is why we are here. Why waste it wondering why and suppressing life.

reply to post by Cyberboiraves


Yeah, that was the whole point of the NT. That we're condemned by the law. We're all sinners. That we're not perfect and can never be like Christ or God. That's why he had to save us from the Judgment of the Law. The Judgment of Hell.

It's a misconception that Christians think they're gonna be perfect and sinless one day and that's why we're going to Heaven. I don't know where that idea comes from, but it's not from the Bible. If I was perfect I wouldn't need a savior in the first place. It'd be a waste of my time, and more importantly, Jesus' time.

No the Bible teaches that we're basically hopeless, and hence, we need to be saved.

reply to post by tinfoilman


I will reply with I dnt really care with what that book says. It would be nice if people didnt taint what I am sure it was intended to teach but at this point its a joke. And what I put in my mouth is not foul if you must know...lol..I have standards..lol. Excuse me mods if this was over the top..