Kosher

[Gxg (G²)]

And it would also fall under the "whatever" your insurance company will pay for. As it is, sometimes by the time the ins. co. gives the go-ahead, it's too late to be of any help. Unless you're one of the few who can pay out of pocket, you don't have much choice as to what is used in a surgical procedure or what is used to fill the rx - it's going to be the cheapest, financially, that the ins. co. can get away with. You can bet your last dollar, and sadly, very often, that's exactly what is being done!

But I believe that every creature has some purpose for being on this planet. Medicinal isn't out of the question if it can't be used for food for all to eat.

Sometimes, it really is true that you gotta do what you gotta do...and work with what's available in times of survival. Sadly, insurance makes a world of difference with medical options and when you're in a life or death situation and you're out of it, there's very little time to try expressing what you do or don't want inside of you.

For those animals that do bring medicinal benefits and thus have value in saving lives, it's amazing that the Lord chose to make them. All creatures have value--and it's sad that some animals, due to being forbidden to eat, are reviled as being hated by the Lord even when the Lord never said anything on that. Every creature that the Lord made was special and has a purpose, even pigs.

It's amazing considering how researchers have even used pigs to create organs for others and have used pigs for testing a new design of colonoscope as part of the battle to improve screening for colorectal cancer which is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the Western world. For those Jewish men who are pig farmers and helping to save lives around the world, I say thank the Lord for what they do

• Can a Pig Heart be Kosher? | Science | Religion Dispatches
• BBC News - Israeli pig-farming kibbutz draws religious ire
• Pig-farming kibbutz in Israel is a religious target « Eideard
• On Israel's Only Jewish-Run Pig Farm, It's The Swine That Bring ...
• Traditional veterinary medicine in the Near East: Jews, Arab - OIE
• Boisbriand, QC, Canada - Jewish Community Upset about Pig Lab ...
• The Good Good Pig: The Extraordinary Life of Christopher Hogwood - Page 67

Apart from the medicinal aspects, there's also the reality of recreational. Consuming something from a pig being detrimental isn't the same as saying all contact with pig parts is harmful/an "unclean" matter. It says in the Torah that one should not touch the carcasses of swine....specifically, the prohibition against "touching" a pig – or any non-kosher animal for that matter – from Leviticus 11:8, where it states: "You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Understanding this verse in its most literal sense leads one to the conclusion that it is forbidden to touch any part of a non-kosher animal's carcass. ..but that would be something that creates a lot of issues. Does this mean that we should not wear Hush Puppy shoes (made of pigskin) or play football or rugby with a ball made of pig skin?

To understand Leviticus 11:8 as being ultimately literal/understood as touching them in any sense would be problematic since that'd mean that it would have been unlawful for a Jew to have rode upon a camel, or to take out and make use of hog's lard in medicine. It seems the context was of touching them in order to kill them, and prepare them for food, and eat them.. and indeed all unnecessary touching of them is forbidden, lest it should bring them to the eating of them. Of course, the text may chiefly respect the touching of them dead for its own sake...as that can lead to diseases and a lot of other issues.

Animal hide does not carry impurities, especially when it is tanned. Even the apostle Peter did not seem to have an issue with it...as he lived with a tanner for sometime.

Acts 9:43
Peter stayed in Joppa for some time with a tanner named Simon.
Acts 9:42-43 / Acts 9

Acts 10:32
Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’
Acts 10:31-33 / Acts 10

​

A tanner was involved in treating the skins of dead animals, thus contacting the unclean according to Jewish law---and an individual involved in such a trade was despised by many. In Acts 10:9-16, the passage addresses but whether Peter was going to recognize God’s cleansing actions in the life of Cornelius---the one who aided in beginning the Gentile Pentecost. Peter was being shown that being cleansed by God made one clean. The unclean beasts were being used because eating them would have naturally repulsed Peter—just as Americans are today when they see what passes for food in some cultures. In the same way Peter would have been repulsed at the idea of going into Cornelius’ house and preaching the gospel to them. We see the Jewish mindset in this regard when we hear what those of the circumcision said in Acts 11:18: ‘So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.’

[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]I find it interesting that Peter was staying and eating in the house of a Jewish believer whose livelihood would have made him unclean, but would have still held up his nose at entering the house of a Gentile. Simon was a tanner, which would have made him unclean, because the tanners had constant contact with animal carcasses (Ben Witherington III, New Testament History, (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001), p. 208). The stench from the process would have been unbearable. It was bad enough that tanners had to place their homes outside of the city (notice the passage tells us his house was by the sea). So Peter, who was staying in a stinking hovel would have turned his nose up at entering the house of a gentile. Peter could understand that God could cleanse a Jew doing an unclean occupation, but could not understand God cleansing an unconverted Gentile. This is why God had to command him to eat things that would have disgusted him—to get through this ethnic barrier. For it does seem that Peter had some serious issues as it concerns prejudice and racism (more shared here).[/FONT]​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We have the ability to affect others (and ourselves) positively or negatively.

Real talk..

 

[rstrats]

When ever a "discussion" ensues as to whether or not the Biblical dietary laws are applicable for today, Genesis 9:3 is invariably brought up to support the idea that they are not. Any idea about the meaning of that verse?

 

[pat34lee]

When ever a "discussion" ensues as to whether or not the Biblical dietary laws are applicable for today, Genesis 9:3 is invariably brought up to support the idea that they are not. Any idea about the meaning of that verse?

I see two possibilities. First, Noah knew clean animals from unclean animals. This was shown because he had to bring on the ark one pair of all unclean animals, but seven pairs of all clean animals. With this being the case, he would have known that YHWH only meant clean animals as food.

Second: After the flood, it would take years or decades for the animals to repopulate the earth. This command could have been made so that men would be able to eat what was available where they lived until the clean animals became numerous enough so that they could alone be eaten.