ChatterBank2 mins ago
Food and Religion
69 Answers
Why don't Muslims and Jews eat Pork?
I'm not having a pop at anyone - I just don't know much about different Religions
Thanks
I'm not having a pop at anyone - I just don't know much about different Religions
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thegasgooner. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Love is an emotion. Is God merely an emotion then?
Is God just a subjectively experienced series of biochemical reactions in the brain? This is not how I understand believers define God. Don't get me wrong, I pretty much agree that those who claim to have a personal experience of God are talking in precisely the terms of biochemical reaction, but my understanding is believers think God is something more than that, that he exists independently of our brains.
Alternatively, are you suggesting that love is something other than biochemical reactions in the brain?
As for ghosts, Naomi's position seems quite a sensible one. Excepting that I personally don't believe there's any such thing, the idea that she defines her experience as faith not truth seems an appropriate one.
Of course, there are plenty of tests we could set to prove or disprove ghosts, because ghosts are claimed to manifest themselves in reality in various ways. If they can be seen by the human eye, they can be caught on camera. If they can change the temperature, this can be measured. In short, if there is an interaction with the physical world via the natural laws, then it is measurable, and of course exactly the same applies to gods of whom the same is claimed.
The only serious difficulty is getting the tricksy ******* to appear on cue.
Is God just a subjectively experienced series of biochemical reactions in the brain? This is not how I understand believers define God. Don't get me wrong, I pretty much agree that those who claim to have a personal experience of God are talking in precisely the terms of biochemical reaction, but my understanding is believers think God is something more than that, that he exists independently of our brains.
Alternatively, are you suggesting that love is something other than biochemical reactions in the brain?
As for ghosts, Naomi's position seems quite a sensible one. Excepting that I personally don't believe there's any such thing, the idea that she defines her experience as faith not truth seems an appropriate one.
Of course, there are plenty of tests we could set to prove or disprove ghosts, because ghosts are claimed to manifest themselves in reality in various ways. If they can be seen by the human eye, they can be caught on camera. If they can change the temperature, this can be measured. In short, if there is an interaction with the physical world via the natural laws, then it is measurable, and of course exactly the same applies to gods of whom the same is claimed.
The only serious difficulty is getting the tricksy ******* to appear on cue.
123 You keep defeating your own argument. You've said exactly what I've been saying all along. 'The crux of the matter is proof.
A member of a split jury cannot say that the conclusion he has reached is the 'truth'. He may 'think' (to use your terminology) it's the truth, but because the 'proof', clearly, is not absolute and indisputable, he could be mistaken.
In the case of your 'God', I have looked closely at the 'evidence', if you want to call it that, and have found it to be non-existent. The only information we have stems from hearsay - and since you mentioned the law, hearsay would be deemed inadmissible in a court of law.
Can you imagine trying to 'prove' the existence of your God in a court of law? How would you go about it? In fact, that's a good question. I'll post it separately in R&S, and I hope you'll come along and answer it.
Waldo Yep, that's the problem. Getting the little rascals to appear on cue!
A member of a split jury cannot say that the conclusion he has reached is the 'truth'. He may 'think' (to use your terminology) it's the truth, but because the 'proof', clearly, is not absolute and indisputable, he could be mistaken.
In the case of your 'God', I have looked closely at the 'evidence', if you want to call it that, and have found it to be non-existent. The only information we have stems from hearsay - and since you mentioned the law, hearsay would be deemed inadmissible in a court of law.
Can you imagine trying to 'prove' the existence of your God in a court of law? How would you go about it? In fact, that's a good question. I'll post it separately in R&S, and I hope you'll come along and answer it.
Waldo Yep, that's the problem. Getting the little rascals to appear on cue!
The truth is how you define the evidence, if 2 independent witnesses give differing accounts you would have to believe one is truthful (in acourt of law).
I'm not inclined to the entire wisdom of Marvin Gaye (Heard It through Through The Grapevine) I trust my eyes, my ears and my instincts etc.
Waldo who said romance is dead? You must be a devil with the ladies with that line of patter "I think I'm forming a real chemical reaction in my brain due to osmosis over you" their knickers must fall off with that one!
I'm not inclined to the entire wisdom of Marvin Gaye (Heard It through Through The Grapevine) I trust my eyes, my ears and my instincts etc.
Waldo who said romance is dead? You must be a devil with the ladies with that line of patter "I think I'm forming a real chemical reaction in my brain due to osmosis over you" their knickers must fall off with that one!
Why? What feeble rot.
Is music any less enjoyable for knowing it is made of soundwaves?
Is a sunset less beautiful for knowing it is the result of photons hitting receptors at the back of the eye?
Is beer less intoxicating if you know the chemical reactions going on?
Of course not.
And if two independant witnesses give difffering accounts, perhaps both are wrong.
Is music any less enjoyable for knowing it is made of soundwaves?
Is a sunset less beautiful for knowing it is the result of photons hitting receptors at the back of the eye?
Is beer less intoxicating if you know the chemical reactions going on?
Of course not.
And if two independant witnesses give difffering accounts, perhaps both are wrong.
I'm amazed that no-one has actually answered the original question. Islam and Judaism are both very old religions. Until recent decades the most educated people in their societies were their holy men.
Ok so pork in hot weather is deadly. It 'taints' very quickly and becomes poisonous. Islam and Judaism originated in hot countries....get the link yet anyone?
The holy men decided that they needed to protect their people from the perils of tainted pork so they banned eating it as part of their religion. The Jews also forbid the eating of shellfish which can also go off very easily.
Ok so pork in hot weather is deadly. It 'taints' very quickly and becomes poisonous. Islam and Judaism originated in hot countries....get the link yet anyone?
The holy men decided that they needed to protect their people from the perils of tainted pork so they banned eating it as part of their religion. The Jews also forbid the eating of shellfish which can also go off very easily.
Mohammed originally put him self forward as a new Jewish prophet. He was rejected by the Jewish oligarchy so went off to make his own religion. In fact he originally intended that devotees prayed toward Juruslem but changed to Mecca when the Jews refused to acknowledge him.
Quite a lot of the essential Muslim philosophy is little more than repackaged Judaism. This includes the ban on pork.
Christianity also sprung from Judaism. However when the apostles Peter and Paul took the idea to Rome they were not having much success converting the Romans who very much liked to eat pork. So as the highly skilled marketers they were they dropped this requirement. Ironically the Christians went on to eat pork especially voraciously at the grat religious celebrations. The concept of a Christmas ham is really quite peculiar since Jesus would not have touched let alone eaten anything from a pig.
As for why the Jews don't like pork. When Abraham was a boy he didn't like pork but his mother made him eat it. So when he had his schitzophrenic hallucinations that he was being spoken to by God the voice inside him also said that pork was bad.
Much in religion comes about from accomodating the idiosyncracies of the founders. Great example of this are the religions where the founders lusted after multiple sexual partners. Mohammed fancied a 10 year old girl so he introduced multiple wives as part of his "inspired" philosophy. Joseph Smith of the Mormon church and David Koresh of the Davidians also liked to root around.
In the same way, religious inspiration written by men almost invariably upheld the superiority of the male and denied rights to women. Conversely the founders of the Feminist religion saw men as inherently evil.
Quite a lot of the essential Muslim philosophy is little more than repackaged Judaism. This includes the ban on pork.
Christianity also sprung from Judaism. However when the apostles Peter and Paul took the idea to Rome they were not having much success converting the Romans who very much liked to eat pork. So as the highly skilled marketers they were they dropped this requirement. Ironically the Christians went on to eat pork especially voraciously at the grat religious celebrations. The concept of a Christmas ham is really quite peculiar since Jesus would not have touched let alone eaten anything from a pig.
As for why the Jews don't like pork. When Abraham was a boy he didn't like pork but his mother made him eat it. So when he had his schitzophrenic hallucinations that he was being spoken to by God the voice inside him also said that pork was bad.
Much in religion comes about from accomodating the idiosyncracies of the founders. Great example of this are the religions where the founders lusted after multiple sexual partners. Mohammed fancied a 10 year old girl so he introduced multiple wives as part of his "inspired" philosophy. Joseph Smith of the Mormon church and David Koresh of the Davidians also liked to root around.
In the same way, religious inspiration written by men almost invariably upheld the superiority of the male and denied rights to women. Conversely the founders of the Feminist religion saw men as inherently evil.
