Prohibitions

Thomas

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
14,328
Reaction score
4,247
Points
108
Location
London UK
Discussion elsewhere caused me to look round a reason for the prohibition of pork and shellfish ... the latter is, I think, debatable in Islam.

Having made only cursory searches, it seems there exists no 'logical' reason for the prohibition – pigs are often unfairly condemned as dirty animals – although a pig will eat pig ...

I mean, if for example pigs are unclean, why did Noah simply not take them on the Ark?

But there is some debate as to whether these prohibitions arose as a means of distinguishing 'us' from 'them'...

There is, from what I read, no evidence of farming pigs or hunting boar in Ancient Egypt.

There is some anthropological research that suggests circumcision among Sumerian and Semitic peoples, and Abraham might have mandated it as a mark of the covenant for himself and his household – his tribe – regardless of their origin.

Having looked again at Leviticus, it's difficult to see why God would extend such a list of prohibitions – or why God ruled the birth of a female child to be twice as bad a s a male ...

+++

We surely have to acknowledge that in various cases traditional cultural practices have received a divine endorsement, or even that because a cultic practice is mentioned in Scripture, it becomes de facto law.

I am not arguing against kosher or halal practice ...

... just thinking aloud. If I've caused offence, I apologise without reserve, I have nothing invested in this discussion.
 
Thomas said:
Discussion elsewhere caused me to look round a reason for the prohibition of pork and shellfish ... the latter is, I think, debatable in Islam.

Having made only cursory searches, it seems there exists no 'logical' reason for the prohibition – pigs are often unfairly condemned as dirty animals – although a pig will eat pig ...
Click to expand...
I would imagine it is something to do with their nature..
Sheep eat grass, and are happy in a flock.

Several idioms related to pigs have entered the English language, often with negative connotations of dirt, greed, or the monopolisation of resources, as in "road hog" or "server hog". As the scholar Richard Horwitz puts it, people all over the world have made pigs stand for "extremes of human joy or fear, celebration, ridicule, and repulsion". Pig names are used as epithets for negative human attributes, especially greed, gluttony, and uncleanliness, and these ascribed attributes have often led to critical comparisons between pigs and humans.
Pigs_in_culture - Wikipedia

Pigs, both as live animals and a source of post-mortem tissues, are one of the most valuable animal models used in biomedical research today, because of their biological, physiological, and anatomical similarities to human beings.
...
Examples of viruses carried by pigs include porcine herpesvirus, rotavirus, parvovirus, and circovirus. Of particular concern are PERVs (porcine endogenous retroviruses), vertically transmitted viruses that embed in swine genomes.
Pig - Wikipedia

I do not think that most people would consider eating another human being.
Pigs are actually quite intelligent .. as are dogs.
I know some cultures eat dogs .. not mine I hasten to add. :eek:

Thomas said:
I mean, if for example pigs are unclean, why did Noah simply not take them on the Ark?
Click to expand...
I don't believe that the flood covered the whole globe.
As far as many people knew in those days, the world wasn't a globe, in any case.
 
Whales are very intelligent and have been a source of food so I don't know if that's the reason. I do agree that these laws were put into place because of the risk of disease in a small and growing population. Scavengers carry disease.. not adequately washing things would risk disease. Even today not cooking pork thoroughly can make someone very sick. My guess is God knowing all of this that we in our current age know would command such things to protect His people after the flood. The one I don't understand is Niddah. That is a question I would like to ask God in heaven when I pass.

I was taught and believed that the law in its entirety was established during that dispensation to show the need for a Savior as it would be revealed in time. Even then men were saved by faith as we see with the Patriarchs. King David as an example was a beloved of God but he committed great sins.

God has always shown His great Mercy and Grace. I feel in the church age He really simplified things for us as excaliming this is my Son My chosen one listen to Him. It helps me to know that my works done of myself don't please Him but my works done in faith pleases Him. That is a prayer I pray. I know I am not worthy but I pray that through His work in my life He find me worthy as I stumble along as a child. This is my very humble opinion.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I would imagine it is something to do with their nature..
Click to expand...
Possibly ...

muhammad_isa said:
Several idioms related to pigs have entered the English language, often with negative connotations of dirt, greed, or the monopolisation of resources, as in "road hog" or "server hog"...
Click to expand...
For sure, but it seems somewhat unfair. If you're clearing ground, for example, pigs are ideal ... and although they have received a negative press, again, I wonder why?

Their colour, shape, noise. the fact they root around?

Poor critters, they don't have much going for them.

Then again, what's the prohibition with shellfish ... or indeed any sae creature without scales or fins?

muhammad_isa said:
Examples of viruses carried by pigs include porcine herpesvirus, rotavirus, parvovirus, and circovirus. Of particular concern are PERVs (porcine endogenous retroviruses), vertically transmitted viruses that embed in swine genomes.
Pig - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Yeah, I always put it down to pork becoming dangerous in the climate, so safer to stay clear ... not sure how well that's attested, though.

Undercooked chicken is pretty risky ...
 
Faithfulservant said:
I do agree that these laws were put into place because of the risk of disease in a small and growing population.
Click to expand...
Were they, though, that's what I was wondering.

Faithfulservant said:
Even today not cooking pork thoroughly can make someone very sick.
Click to expand...
Same goes for chicken ...

Faithfulservant said:
The one I don't understand is Niddah. That is a question I would like to ask God in heaven when I pass.
Click to expand...
TBH I think it owes more to cultural practice than Divine input ...
 
Thomas said:
Undercooked chicken is pretty risky ...
Click to expand...
First comes belief .. and then comes realisation of why G-d has made marriage obligatory..
..or made usury unlawful etc.

I merely offer some suggestions why G-d has made pig-meat unlawful.

I believe that we are affected by what we eat and drink, spiritually.
Drinking blood is prohibited, for example, and I believe that it affects
our spirit .. we are what we eat.

Islam does not go to extreme .. as JW's sometimes do .. one should not
die due to no blood transfusion, or starve to death etc.
..but religion is a personal thing, between a person and G-d.

It is not difficult to avoid pork and bacon .. desire comes into it, too
..much like the avoidance of sexual misdemeanour.
 
muhammad_isa said:
It is not difficult to avoid pork and bacon
Click to expand...
If you're a Muslim or a Jew, that's up to you. I doubt anyone desires to eat doggy poo.

Jesus Christ made clear He was not concerned with outer forms of dress and diet and ritual, but only with the soul, imo
 
Last edited:
I do believe the original Semitic prohibition on pork and shellfish was probably based on the danger to people of food poisoning. Apart from that, it seems we 'westerners' somehow prefer to eat herbivorous animals; it's why we will eat a giraffe but not a tiger, or a dove but not an eagle -- hence the dichotomy about pork, or crocodile?

There are other eastern cultures that believe a person absorbs some of the quality of the animal one consumes, and have no problem with eating carnivores or omnivores, such as canines. And of course, some reject meat altogether?
 
I rarely eat shellfish... they are basically filtering the water... doesn't make sense to me to eat the filter.

Shrimp.shipped from polluted waters.in asia...nah, not for me.
 
@muhammad_isa
Because so far your posts serve to propagate the overall impression of English Islamists as militant, mischievous, disrespectful and untruthful, imo
 
logging off now ...
 
Thomas said:
Discussion elsewhere caused me to look round a reason for the prohibition of pork and shellfish ... the latter is, I think, debatable in Islam.

Having made only cursory searches, it seems there exists no 'logical' reason for the prohibition – pigs are often unfairly condemned as dirty animals – although a pig will eat pig ...

I mean, if for example pigs are unclean, why did Noah simply not take them on the Ark?
Click to expand...
As I understand, and I invite knowledgeable correction from one of the Jewish faith:

We cannot eat scavengers or carnivores. We cannot eat the lower half of "clean" animals, I forget the dividing line but I always bring to mind the solar plexus. If I recall, unless it was a total offering which were comparatively rare - once or twice a year if I recall, the typical daily sacrifice only burned the top half. We cannot eat meat torn from a living animal as you see earlier - I seem to vaguely recall something very similar to that. Songbirds are clean, fish with fins and scales only - shrimp and most shellfish are scavengers, my friend used to call shrimp underwater cockroaches. Ha! - Consider John the Baptist! He wore coarse clothing and lived in the desert (and his Daddy was in the priest class), and he ate locusts and wild honey. Locusts (and their kind) are the only insects I recall being "clean." Someone observing kosher could live on a diet of locusts and still be considered clean by kosher law.

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. I have a Jewish friend who will not eat any kind of meat with any kind of dairy product. I think the general proscription has gone to that level as a conscientious safe bet of sorts. I think a more literal interpretation would be like a calf in beef milk, among a lot of people who not only kept cattle but counted wealth in the number of cattle they had. Cattle was a form of currency. I always keyed on a more subtle level, that this meant not to further injure someone once they are down - but that is my interpretation.

I always struggled trying to understand the place of dogs and cats and horses. Technically, horses are unclean. Yet wise old Solomon built stables to house his chariot army. Dogs and cats are carnivores. Just being in contact with anything unclean meant you must wash and be ritually unclean until the following evening.

Clean mammals to consume had to chew the cud (be ruminants) and have cloven hooves. Horses chew the cud, but their hooves are not cloven. Pigs feet are cloven, but they do not chew the cud. Cows (obviously), deer, sheep, antelope, goats, and giraffes are all considered clean to eat by kosher.
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
First comes belief .. and then comes realisation of why G-d has made marriage obligatory..
..or made usury unlawful etc.

I merely offer some suggestions why G-d has made pig-meat unlawful.

I believe that we are affected by what we eat and drink, spiritually.
Drinking blood is prohibited, for example, and I believe that it affects
our spirit .. we are what we eat.

Islam does not go to extreme .. as JW's sometimes do .. one should not
die due to no blood transfusion, or starve to death etc.
..but religion is a personal thing, between a person and G-d.

It is not difficult to avoid pork and bacon .. desire comes into it, too
..much like the avoidance of sexual misdemeanour.
Click to expand...
The bible says life is in the blood Leviticus 17:11 I feel that's held true for the day. There is something morally wrong with the consumption of blood? I was taught and believe that sexual sin is so morally wrong because it's a sin that impacts us spiritually. 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body
 
muhammad_isa said:
I don't think so..
I think he was pointing out the hypocrisy of observance of minor sins,
whilst ignoring major sins.
Click to expand...
I've addressed this before I think. He is more concerned on how we love others as opposed to favoring traditions that have no bearing in how we love others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top