Why do Christians eat pork?

[Z102]

Our "Christian" religion is actually a mixture of christian and pagan beliefs (think christmas tree). That might explain why we don't follow the bible as we are supposed to do.

That's quite true. Christianism started as a "sect" of Judaism, and it was later, mainly through the action of St. Paul that it was stripped of many of its Judaic symbols and mixed with Greek traditions, thus it became more of an "Universal" religion, more probable to be accepted by the people of the Roman Empire. That explains why there's no notion in the Christian doctrine of "clean" and "unclean" foods: it would make it too complicated. If you think about it it makes sense: you have only 10 commandments to follow, which summarise in just one, and there's only one god that doesn't require overly complicated sacrifices or cult. And of course, St. Paul and his successors adopted much from the pagan traditions of the time and incorporated it into their doctrine. That's why we celebrate the birth of Jesus in December instead of in September, for instance.

A lovely site that shows the content of the bible as an interpretation in Lego? can be found here (I linked to the "What not to eat part" , given the current topic). The laws from the Old Testament are nice reading material.

Seafood:

Leviticus 11:9
'These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, that you may eat.
Leviticus 11:10
All that don't have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination to you,
Leviticus 11:11
and you detest them. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses.
Leviticus 11:12
Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that is an abomination to you.

So, according to the Old Testament octupus and shrimp is forbidden, but, if you read on... (great site, BTW)

Leviticus 11:21-22
'There are, however, some winged insects you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. You may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.'

Thanks, but no. I won't change my ham or my octopus for a plate of roasted crickets

 

[trionic]

For some, religion/faith doesnt mean ceremonies and laws. So instead of browsing some old text, you rely on your conscience.

 

[jeffy777]

^^^ It wasn't Paul who brought in the traditions and paganism. It really started with the Roman emporer Constantine who supposedly converted to Christianity (there were other compromisers before, but things really "escalated" at this time), and then continued on with the popes and the middle ages.

 

[YF19pilot]

Something I didn't think about before hand. God gave man (well, the pope anyway) power to decree law. Christ told Peter that what he held true on Earth, would be true in Heaven. So, it may be that sometime before the seperation and creation of the Protestant churches that one of the popes declared pork to be okay to eat. There are many "laws" set in by popes and the Church that aren't written in the bible (which can make things confusing at times).

And, since many of the Protestant faiths kept some of the core doctrine of the Catholic church, pigs being okay to eat was probably kept.

The divisions of Christianity have served to bring the Catholic church out of corruption, especially at a time when the world was expanding, and the church was spreading throughout the world. Martin Luther is probably the most famous such person, though he resented people naming their faith after him.

 

[Firecat]

This is one of the problems I have with strict dietary rules set by God. What if you are fed forbidden things when you are a child and your parents believe different things? What if you are in a hospital etc. unable to make / voice your opinions and are fed forbidden things?? You go straight to hell then??

That's not a problem. It has to do with knowingly eating it. You can't be blamed for what you can't control

Well I know that, and you seems to know that. But there are a lot of people in this wrld who seem to disagree. For them eating is enough, knowingly or not.

I actually know a good example about this. I am doing a mystery shopping study for a company and one of the questions we are supposed to ask is whether their products have gelatine (not 100% sure thats the english term..) or not. This comes from an actual occurance where a muslim family asked whether a product contained it and they were told it did not. Later they found out it did and they sued the company and would have basically wanted to kill the person responsible for staff training because they had committed a sin by eating it (even though they did not know it at the time)... Huge fight.

And I would like to remind you that I do not live in america and the family did not receive any money as a result, only an official apology. (for those of you who think they sued for hope of getting rich)

lol....that's a lawsuit I would never support. Although, they were misled...so who knows. Anyway, i've seen other cases like this. A lot of people were upset because they thought the McDonalds fries were vegetarian, but there was some kind of beef spinkling used. I dunno.

Anyway, I understand your point. People read into the text what they want to get out.

 

[YF19pilot]

:shock: Wow, this thread moves pretty fast...there were only 2 pages when I started writing my last post...

 

[Firecat]

Something I didn't think about before hand. God gave man (well, the pope anyway) power to decree law. Christ told Peter that what he held true on Earth, would be true in Heaven. So, it may be that sometime before the seperation and creation of the Protestant churches that one of the popes declared pork to be okay to eat. There are many "laws" set in by popes and the Church that aren't written in the bible (which can make things confusing at times).

And, since many of the Protestant faiths kept some of the core doctrine of the Catholic church, pigs being okay to eat was probably kept.

The divisions of Christianity have served to bring the Catholic church out of corruption, especially at a time when the world was expanding, and the church was spreading throughout the world. Martin Luther is probably the most famous such person, though he resented people naming their faith after him.

Hmmm....I kinda see what you are saying, but I'd imagine that the written law (what was revealed) can't be changed, but maybe there is power to change other laws that weren't clear (or never existed).

 

[M3lover]

Well, like mmap i'm not that big of an believer, but i don't really get the whole unclean animal thing. Sure, pigs can be dirty sometimes, but so can cows, chickens etc. And shellfish???? Why are they more unclean than for example an eal, which IMO is way more gross (but still tasty). The eals will eat some pretty damn discusting things (What do you think is often found in rotten bodies on beaches?) if the oppertunity is there. I don't eat entrails like hearts, kidneys, brains etc. because I think it looks and tastes bad.

 

[jeffy777]

Something I didn't think about before hand. God gave man (well, the pope anyway) power to decree law.

Well, I think this is where Catholics get off track, thinking that man has the right to change what God has said. And to say that Peter was the first pope is not accurate. For one thing, the Bible specifically says that Peter was a married man, and pope's have always remained unmarried. For another thing, according to the New Testament, James was actually the first "leader" of the Christian church. In any case, there was no such thing as a "pope" until a few hundred years after Christ.

Well, like mmap i'm not that big of an believer, but i don't really get the whole unclean animal thing. Sure, pigs can be dirty sometimes, but so can cows, chickens etc. And shellfish???? Why are they more unclean than for example an eal, which IMO is way more gross (but still tasty). The eals will eat some pretty damn discusting things (What do you think is often found in rotten bodies on beaches?) if the oppertunity is there. I don't eat entrails like hearts, kidneys, brains etc. because I think it looks and tastes bad.

The general rule of thumb seems to be that God didn't want people eating animals that were scavengers or that mainly ate other animals. Cows are grazers and eat mainly grass (in the wild anyway), pigs will eat any garbage that you throw at them. And you've heard the expression that "you are what you eat", and that does have some truth to it. Well, pigs are basically living garbage disposals, so that's why God said not to eat them because He knew it wasn't good for us.

 

[mmap]

Yeah, God is a merciful God and doesn't hold you accountable for things you didn't know about. It's not like He's just sitting there with a twitching finger ready to push a "go to hell" button when you mess up :lol:

Yeah that's what they keep telling us, but I'm not too convinced... Have you read te old testament?? A lot of weird shit going on there, not really in the spirit of a "forgiving" and "merciful".

I think I've made it clear that this really doesn't bother me... I personally think that the bible was written (or compiled) by man to serve a purpose and as such is not too applicable today, but still... I dislike the series of conflicting messages coming from the church and other religious leaders.

 

[jeffy777]

Have you read te old testament?? A lot of weird shit going on there, not really in the spirit of a "forgiving" and "merciful".

I think I've made it clear that this really doesn't bother me... I personally think that the bible was written (or compiled) by man to serve a purpose and as such is not too applicable today, but still... I dislike the series of conflicting messages coming from the church and other religious leaders.

People always tend to highlight the judgments of God and overlook the mercy. I've read the old testament several times and there's plenty of mercy there, and yes there's judgment as well, there's no doubt about that.

Yeah, there are a lot fo conflicting messages, but that's life. People rarely agree on anything, religious or non.

 

[mmap]

People always tend to highlight the judgments of God and overlook the mercy.

There's a reason for this... His/hers etc. judgements aren't really merciful and forgiving in nature.

Killing every first born child in Egypt?? Killing innocent children...

You can tell me a thousand examples of mercy and forgiveness, but if God is almighty allpowerfull and never ever wrong, then this single example fucks it for me. It cannot be justified in any way or form. God cannot make mistakes or bad decisions.

this for me leaves only a few possible ways to look at God, and our views on his/hers/its nature differ in that a wee bit.

 

[M3lover]

The general rule of thumb seems to be that God didn't want people eating animals that were scavengers or that mainly ate other animals. Cows are grazers and eat mainly grass (in the wild anyway), pigs will eat any garbage that you throw at them. And you've heard the expression that "you are what you eat", and that does have some truth to it. Well, pigs are basically living garbage disposals, so that's why God said not to eat them because He knew it wasn't good for us.

Erhmm, last time I checked the pigs on the farms wheren't beign feed garbage. So if you feed the pigs with organic healthy plants there would be nothing wrong with eating them? You don't eat the animals because of what they can eat, or for what they do eat?

 

[jeffy777]

Erhmm, last time I checked the pigs on the farms wheren't beign feed garbage. So if you feed the pigs organic healthy plants there would be nothing wrong with eating them? You don't eat the animals because of what they can eat, or for what they do it?

In the wild, pigs eat basically anything, and I've heard from farmers that sometimes they will take dead carcasses and other nasty things and throw it to the pigs just to get rid of it. Of course this doesn't happen everywhere and I'm sure that pigs very well taken care of on most farms, but that doesn't make them any "cleaner" to me. God said don't eat them, so I won't. If you want to, that's your decision.

There's a reason for this... His/hers etc. judgements aren't really merciful and forgiving in nature.

His judements always have a reason. Just like when a parent spanks a child, many would say "that's so cruel and unmerciful", but it all depends on why the parent is doing it. A lot of times it's for the child's benefit.

I can't explain all of God's ways because, well, He's God, and I'm just a man. But it seems that when He wiped out the first-born in Egypt, it was a punishment against the nation for their evil ways. It wasn't anything that the children themselves had done, and I would think that God would give the children eternal life, so it was no real loss for them, but rather a punishment against the parents.

And there is mercy here, because God gave the land of Egypt a great deal of time to change their ways and repent, and they rejected His mercy and paid the price. If God never dished out judement, then He'd be a pretty terrible God, just like a human judge would be considered an idiot if he never punished anyone. The Egyptians had tried to kill all the firstborn of the hebrews years before (what goes around comes around sometimes), so they had many years to change their ways, and this wouldn't have happened if they had.

We're kind of getting off-topic here and I know that some people love to cite all the "mean" things God has done, and I admit I don't know all the answers but I do know enough about God to know that He's real and He's changed my life for the better more than I can relate in words on a forum.

 

[Firecat]

People always tend to highlight the judgments of God and overlook the mercy.

There's a reason for this... His/hers etc. judgements aren't really merciful and forgiving in nature.

Killing every first born child in Egypt?? Killing innocent children...

You can see it that way. Of course, how can one justify the death of a baby from natural causes...or the murder of a 7 year old in present times.

There is a context for that story. Moses was saved at birth from the order of the Pharoah to kill the first born of the children of Israel.
The unwillingness of Pharoah to release the Israelites after years of abuse and the proof of God's power. Also, there were 9 plagues before that and people still didn't believe. There was an opportunity to escape this punishment (sacrifing of the lamb/blood on the door).

*edit*
At least that is why I think. I could be totally wrong, maybe it's something that I'm not meant to understand.

 

[Firecat]

Regardless of how some pigs may be raised, by nature they are omnivores.

 

[mmap]

I am aware of the context and the opportunities given to the people of Egypt. And I get why people think it could have been justified and / or God had a good reason for doing it. What I am saying that no matter the reasons or the history or the stupidity of the Egyptians I think the punisment was unjustified and cruel. God could have just made the life of the Faraoh am unbearable living hell untill he caved, or he could have just set the Jews go on his own, its not like God needs the Faraoh to OK his decisions.

I dont think that an Eye for an eye is a good thing. Justifying your actions by saying that someone else did the same thing (or worse) before is no justification to me.

God is supposed to be superior to us in every way, yet he seems to be petty and vengefull (again according to some bible stories), and yes this is merely my own interpretation, which I do not expect others to share.

 

[cvrefugee]

The Mosaic law in force at the time of Jesus? ministry was not rejected by the Savior. To a young man who came to him, and who claimed that he observed all the laws of Moses, Jesus said, ?If thou wilt be perfect ? follow me.? (Matt. 19:21.) Perfection lay not in forsaking the law of Moses, nor in following it only, but in embracing the higher principles of the gospel that superseded temporal law.

Jesus? frequent rebuke of the religious leaders of his day consisted not in showing them that their observances had become outdated with his advent or that they were no longer binding. His dispute with the Scribes and Pharisees stemmed from the fact that they insisted on the meticulous performance of temporal laws such as ritual cleanliness, while the weighty laws of love of God and of neighbor remained largely unobserved. Jesus said: ?These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.? (Matt. 23:23.) A Jewish tradition states that it was because of hate between brethren that the temple was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70, in spite of the fact that the Jews of the time were very learned.

Jewish religious learning had regressed into the cold dissection and scrutiny of the letter of the law, while the Spirit of God was denied. The admonition of Jesus that ?The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath? (Mark 2:27) provides a clear example of the spiritual state of the Jews of his time. This was an admonition that might have been applied to the whole law as well as to the Sabbath.

Jesus observed Jewish customs as well as those commandments in the Mosaic code that were part of the higher law. The atonement of Christ ended the necessity of those performances and ordinances of the Mosaic law that prefigured his sacrifice. Other parts of the law, including the Ten Commandments and precepts such as tithing, remained in effect because they were actually a part of the higher law of the gospel.

Several Mosaic practices such as baptism in water were also contained in the gospel. Strict laws governing hygiene, clean foods, and family and social relationships were neither abrogated by Christ nor abandoned by his Jewish disciples. Rather, ritualistic observance naturally lost its significance as men born of the Spirit would be presumed to keep themselves clean, physically as well as spiritually.

 

[fluffnik]

Unforutantely the taste argument doesn't hold much water, because the same God forbade the Jews from eating it. From what I understand, during the time Jesus was alive he didn't consume pork nor did the apostles

There was a whole bunch of stuff done to proto-christianity to convert it from a Jewish sect/cult to something suitable for gentiles and hence to being an imperial state religion - circumcision is another example.

Religions are fundamentally political in nature and anything banning pork in Northern Europe is going to bomb. Same deal when the Russians, shopping for a state religion, favoured Orthodox Christianity over Islam on the vodka question...

 

[fluffnik]

"The Reformation(II)"

Hmmm....I kinda see what you are saying, but I'd imagine that the written law (what was revealed) can't be changed, but maybe there is power to change other laws that weren't clear (or never existed).

Christianity has never really had the "Revealed Word of God" thing having always been based on translated third party reporting.

Administratively this is very convenient.