posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:40 PM
Originally posted by ElohimJD
Pork is against the laws of God because pigs do not have sweat glands, and do not chew the cud (a process used by land animals to add a layer of
breakdown nessisary to remove toxins using saliva) and they cannot physically remove natural toxins from their flesh.
Good Lord! (pun intended.)
No sweat, eh? That makes an animal unclean?
whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat.
And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard,
14 the kite, and the falcon after its kind; 15 every raven after its kind, 16 the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its
kind; 17 the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; 18 the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; 19 the stork, the heron after
its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.
Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.
22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.
Source: Leviticus 11
None of the above animals sweat. How in God's name (again, pun intended) do they "physically remove natural toxins from their flesh?"
But wait! Now, what exactly does being "unclean" entail?
29 ‘These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and the large lizard after its kind;
30 the gecko, the monitor lizard, the sand reptile, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. 31 These are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever
touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. 32 Anything on which any of them falls, when they are dead shall be unclean, whether
it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack, whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water. And it shall be unclean
until evening; then it shall be clean. 33 Any earthen vessel into which any of them falls you shall break; and whatever is in it shall be unclean: 34
in such a vessel, any edible food upon which water falls becomes unclean, and any drink that may be drunk from it becomes unclean. 35 And everything
on which a part of any such carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it is an oven or cooking stove, it shall be broken down; for they are unclean, and
shall be unclean to you. 36 Nevertheless a spring or a cistern, in which there is plenty of water, shall be clean, but whatever touches any such
carcass becomes unclean. 37 And if a part of any such carcass falls on any planting seed which is to be sown, it remains clean. 38 But if water is put
on the seed, and if a part of any such carcass falls on it, it becomes unclean to you.
Note, please, that a seed that has come in contact with the dead body of an banned animal remains clean, as long as it was dry at the time. This
means you can still eat the plant that the seed would grow for you, were you to plant the seed. Alternatively, if you have watered the seed, and
the seed comes in contact with a dead banned animal, why, then the seed itself is unclean, and so is every ear of corn (or whatever) that
seed would have produced. And, presumably, any plant that the seeds from the harvest of the unclean plant would have produced.
All because pigs don't sweat? Neither do fish, but never let a dead pillbug fall on your seeds in a rainstorm.
Yeah, yeah. I knew you were full of it when I read this:
Originally posted by ElohimJDCannibalism (Khana = Priest; Baal = Sun God of Canaan) is also outlawed by God,
cannibal (n.) 1550s, from Sp. canibal "a savage, cannibal," from Caniba, Christopher Columbus' rendition of the Caribs' name for themselves (see
Caribbean). The natives were believed to be anthropophagites. Columbus, seeking evidence that he was in Asia, thought the name meant the natives were
subjects of the Great Khan. Shakespeare's Caliban (in "The Tempest") is a version of this word, with -n- and -l- interchanged, found in Hakluyt's
"Voyages" (1599). The Spanish word had reached French by 1515.
cannibalism (n.) 1796, from cannibal + -ism. Perhaps from Fr. cannibalisme, from the same year.
So, where does this leave us? Again, missing the "ignore" function.
edit on 11/27/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)