• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

why can we eat pork?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's pretty silly to say which animals are clean and which are not clean. They're all pretty much the same thing. Bones, organs, muscle tissue, skin and hair. It is the muscle tissue that you eat. It's pointless to argue over which one is "clean" and which one is not. There's little difference between a pig and a cow, other than the taste.

The whole idea that pork is "unclean" is preposterous. It's mighty tasty.

God said it in his Word, not us. It's still a sin whether it taste good or not. Premarital sex is fun... you don't do that now do you? (Rhetorical question, don't feel obligated to answer)

The law was ridiculous, anyhow. It was nothing put rituals, many of them seeming very pagan. Jesus wasn't about that.

Are you calling God's Word pagan???? That is what's pagan, that's actually blasphemy of YHWH. The law is not ridiculous, it is not very demanding and there were other things besides rituals... obviously such as eating biblical. You might also want to check into Sabbath keeping.
 
Upvote 0

Scholar in training

sine ira et studio
Feb 25, 2005
5,952
219
United States
✟30,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
OObi said:
God said it in his Word, not us. It's still a sin whether it taste good or not. Premarital sex is fun... you don't do that now do you? (Rhetorical question, don't feel obligated to answer)
Where does the Bible say that it is a sin for anyone to eat unclean animals? Do you know how and why the Bible draws a distinction between clean and unclean animals?
 
Upvote 0

Kuv

Saved
Jul 24, 2005
39
0
36
Zagreb, Croatia
Visit site
✟15,149.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Engaged
Scholar in training said:
Where does the Bible say that it is a sin for anyone to eat unclean animals? Do you know how and why the Bible draws a distinction between clean and unclean animals?

It says so in Leviticus 11.

In case anyone still thinks it's wrong to eat pork, read Mark 7:14-23.
 
Upvote 0

Scholar in training

sine ira et studio
Feb 25, 2005
5,952
219
United States
✟30,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Kuv said:
It says so in Leviticus 11.
I was hoping OObi would respond, but Lev 11 is directed toward the Israelites (note verse 11. In the Hebrew, the word lachem signals that the command is to a specific group). In other words, the eating of unclean animals is phrased as being detestable to the Israelites; it is not phrased as being an abomination to God.

In case anyone still thinks it's wrong to eat pork, read Mark 7:14-23.
This is a good passage to bring up (especially Mark's note in verse 19).
 
Upvote 0
Where does the Bible say that it is a sin for anyone to eat unclean animals? Do you know how and why the Bible draws a distinction between clean and unclean animals?

The Word of God says that certain animals, aka common animals, are unclean. It says in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronmy 14:

Leviticus 11:2-3, 7
2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth. 3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 7...And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.

Deuteronomy 14:3, 8
3Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. 8...And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it [is] unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

That's the where and here's the why: YHWH teaches separation, separation between things that are holy, and things that are profane. YHWH made a distinction between animals so that we understand that YHWH has standards and he has drawn a line. Part of that line is clean and unclean meats.

It says so in Leviticus 11.

In case anyone still thinks it's wrong to eat pork, read Mark 7:14-23.

You have taken that verse out of context. It does not mean anything close to what you are trying to make it say. When we read this, we need to consider the whole chapter. I'll do so now:

Mark 7:1-4
1Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4And [when they come] from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Okay, now, from reading this, what do we find the problem to be? Answer: Pharisees had come to condemn Yeshua and the disciples because they did not follow a Talmud custom of washing the hands, or mikva. What this is, is before eating or worshiping, Jews would dip their hands into a thing of water and if at least one drop of water came down off their elbow, they were ritually clean and could commence their part in the meal or service. If the drop didn't come off, they were unclean and would go through the detailed cleansing process.

This and only this is the problem so far. There is nothing, not even a hint of clean or unclean animals.

Mark 7:5-8
5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. 7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. 8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Okay, now here we see Yeshua's response to the Pharisees's accusation. He says, "You say you honor Me, but your heart is elsewhere". He is saying to them that they are the ones that are wrong (The Pharesees are wrong and Jesus is right, who'd a thought). But notice certain phrases He uses. He says that they teach the commandments of men and make them doctrines. And when they do that, they put aside the commandment of God. Jesus has the commandment of God, and from up above what have we established as the commandment of God? Certain meats are unclean. The washing of the hands the Pharisees are preaching has nothing to do with Torah or God, but Talmud, Jewish traditions (hence the phrase, traditions of men).

Mark 7:9-13
7And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"--' (that is, a gift to God), 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Now we get to the real issue of which Jesus was talking about later.Jesus says "you reject me, God, when you don't honor your parents". Now wait a minute!! When did paretns get involved! Most people don't realize what this verse is about because they just don't want to be accountable to God and keep Torah. This is talking about Corban, the giving of possessions (in this case property) to the synagouges as a gift to God. At some later time they could redeem their property (I don't know how it works but something like this). When their property was Corbaned (I don't know if that's a word) then they could not shelter their parents when they were sick, or couldn't pay for their house, or whatever other problem that could have been. When they heard the news of their parents misfortune, then they would Corban their property so they could live on it but be able to say to thier parents "sorry, I have given it to God for the time". This is what Jesus was condeming.

Now, we have gone through everything we could have up untill this verse in question. So... I pose the question:
HAS THERE BEEN ANY ISSUE BETWEEN EITHER THE PHARISEES OR YESHUA CONCERING CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEATS????
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(just want to stress this point)

Mark 7:14-17
14And when he had called all the people [unto him], he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one [of you], and understand: 15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

So here is what Jesus said: "Listen to Me, things from the outside of man can't defile him, only the things on the inside can". Yeshua was talking about the washing of hands, was there anything about meats in this chapter up untill now? No! So why do we all of a sudden say that Jesus declared everything clean? We can't say that, it is unmerited.

However, some will say that "Jesus said word for word that he purged all meats!". Well... yes He did, but it was a parable. Look in verse 17, notice that Mark uses the term parable and why? Do you think it was because it was one? Parable means "don't take me literally!". Yeah Jesus said that word for word, but when he gave his other parables those things didn't actually happen! However we don't say that Jesus lied because they didn't happen, we understand that they were parables, just like this is a parable.

Originally, pork was not eaten because it carried diseases.

Even though this was probably the case, we don't know. Back then there wasn't refrigeration (surprise surprise) and the animals that YHWH declared unclean were ones that could go bad really easily. Think about shrimp that isn't refrigerated... how would you keep it good?

I was hoping OObi would respond, but Lev 11 is directed toward the Israelites (note verse 11. In the Hebrew, the word lachem signals that the command is to a specific group). In other words, the eating of unclean animals is phrased as being detestable to the Israelites; it is not phrased as being an abomination to God.

We are all Israelites. It's a long story and I'll have to post again to explain it, but yeah...

Even if you weren't an Israelite (as in Jew, by race I mean, not religion) the it is still in effect for you.

Numbers 15:29
Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

Shalom (Peace)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Linus
Upvote 0

justified

Well-Known Member
Oct 8, 2005
1,048
25
40
✟16,331.00
Faith
Protestant
Even though this was probably the case, we don't know. Back then there wasn't refrigeration (surprise surprise) and the animals that YHWH declared unclean were ones that could go bad really easily. Think about shrimp that isn't refrigerated... how would you keep it good?
Pork carried a disease (I forget the name; see Albright Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan) and thus people learned to stay away. At least people in the hills of Judah. The Philistines ate them.
 
Upvote 0

Nazaroo

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)
Dec 5, 2005
2,626
68
clinging to Jesus sandalstrap
✟18,230.00
Faith
Christian
Even though this was probably the case, we don't know. Back then there wasn't refrigeration (surprise surprise) and the animals that YHWH declared unclean were ones that could go bad really easily. Think about shrimp that isn't refrigerated... how would you keep it good?

Pork carried a disease (I forget the name; see Albright Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan) and thus people learned to stay away. At least people in the hills of Judah. The Philistines ate them.

This is all fallacious logic (false).

(1) It cannot be a case of modern 'refridgeration' making the food laws no longer important:

a) Refridgeration and preservation by cold-water storage was known in 500 B.C.

b) If Jesus declared 'all foods clean' in 30 A.D., refridgeration techniques could not have been the issue, since Jesus didn't offer them at that time. Instead we had to wait another 2000 years.

c) If refridgeration eliminated the need to sort animals by 'clean/unclean', then Jesus had nothing to do with it, and He was woefully out of sync with the rest of the world.

d) In actual fact, modern science has shown that many animals have species-specific parasites and other vectors of disease, while other animals don't have the same ones. Thus the basic principle of sorting animals by their potential to transmit disease to humans is in fact reasonably well founded.

e) 2000 years AFTER Christ, these animals are still 'unclean' in the wild. That is, there is no evidence that any sudden or sweeping biological change occurred at the time Jesus allegedly pronounced 'all foods clean'. This means that either Jesus pronouncement was a false prophecy, or a failed 'miracle', or else we have misunderstood what Jesus actually said or meant.

f) When we examine the text in Acts (Acts 10:34-47)concerning the apparent 'eating of unclean foods', it becomes clear that the vision was ALLEGORICAL and did not concern eating food, but warned against racist prejudice and xenophobia.

f) When we compare what Jesus is supposed to have said in Mark (the main text attempting to justify the permission to eat anything we want) with what Peter said in Acts (Acts 10:14) it becomes abundantly clear that Peter had never heard of any doctrine granting permission to eat 'all foods' from Jesus in his lifetime!

g) Even if Paul virtually ignored the question of the food laws, or dismissed them as relatively unimportant in comparison with the Gospel, this would only have applied to Gentile Christians (believers), not unbelievers, Jews, or Israelites of the diaspora who kept the food laws. Paul never ordered Jews to stop their own practices, but rather claimed they were unecessary for Gentiles to gain entrance to the New Covenant of Salvation for all.

h) Although Jesus seems to have ignored Pharisee traditions regarding ritual washing, even Jesus was baptized ('WASHED') by John as a symbol of entrance into the New Covenant community.

i) Paul also spoke on multiple occasions against various kinds of 'uncleanness', including walking around filthy, and having an unkempt appearance.

j) Matthew also advised against even the appearance of 'uncleanness' or disheveledness as a public display of 'repentance' or mourning, and instructed his flock to wash, and keep a neat appearance to blend in with others (Matt. 6:16-17)
 
Upvote 0

abadsign

Active Member
Jul 4, 2006
73
2
✟22,703.00
Faith
Christian
Waaay back on page 1 of this thread, Nazaroo made some very good points that no one has chosen to address. From http://www.christianforums.com/t2845726-why-can-we-eat-pork.html#postmenu_23019292

Nazaroo said:
(14) Is it wrong to eat pork? Yes, it is clearly wrong for the pig! Is that good stewardship? The fact is, animal farming is actually inefficient as well as bad for the animals. The same land dedicated to growing fodder for animals could more effectively provide much needed food for most of the third-world countries. Food would be plentiful, if prime farmland wasn't wasted growing corn for cattle, and tobacco for idiots.

(15) Is it morally right for Christians to support industries that mistreat animals or place them in inhumane conditions? No. It is morally wrong to allow unnecessary suffering, even when it 'saves money'. Locking up chickens 24 hours a day inside cages and keeping them awake, force-feeding them and forcing them to lay eggs is an outrageously inhumane condition, and wholly unnatural for the chickens. Can this be considered moral? no. Can we stop it? Yes! By boycotting products that require unnecessary suffering, even for animals. "It shouldn't even happen to a dog!"

(16) Is it morally right to inbreed animals for hedonistic pleasure? Is it morally right to allow 'scientists' for large corporations to genetically engineer freak-life forms to increase 'efficiency' (=profit) for gluttons? No. Do Christians have the right to exercise their God-given power to boycott products and change market structure LEGALLY to relieve suffering? Yes! And this would be completely lawful.

It seems that most of us would rather debate law and covenants than face the raw fact that our dietary practices result in a kind of ritualized torture for millions and millions of God's creatures.

You can't just pray this away though. Turning a blind eye doesn't solve anything.
 
Upvote 0
O

OObi

Guest
Yes... this is a problem. But so is abortion... why don't we consider that? Gun violence is a rather large problem, we should do demonstrations or something to end it. Homosexuality is running rampant, we should try and censor the media. Speaking of media, why don't we get rid of all the porn in the world why we're at it? We should try solving world hunger, war, and the salvation of humanity as long as the rest of the stuff is on the list.


You can't exactly fix the problems of the world. Boycotting a food isn't going to do anything except make a hassle for you. The sin isn't on you eating that food, it's on whoever decided to torture the animals for profit.
 
Upvote 0

abadsign

Active Member
Jul 4, 2006
73
2
✟22,703.00
Faith
Christian
OObi said:
Yes... this is a problem. But so is abortion... why don't we consider that? Gun violence is a rather large problem, we should do demonstrations or something to end it. Homosexuality is running rampant, we should try and censor the media. Speaking of media, why don't we get rid of all the porn in the world why we're at it? We should try solving world hunger, war, and the salvation of humanity as long as the rest of the stuff is on the list.

You can't exactly fix the problems of the world. Boycotting a food isn't going to do anything except make a hassle for you.
Let's take your examples at face value. So I guess you perform abortions for fun, shoot people regularly, and buy gay porn on a regular basis, right? Because you can't fix the world's problems, so you might as well indulge in all of them? It would be such a hassle to stop killing people, etc. :sorry:

I know I'm probably sounding really snarky right now, but I'm just trying to get you to look clearly at your own rationalizations. We are always quick to defend the wicked things we do personally, and change the subject to those things that other people do.

Of course we need to address all the injustices in the world. But the fact is you eat two or three meals a day already, and changing the content of them doesn't take much effort on your part yet it has real effects upon the world. We know that the little things we do every day count, don't we? Isn't that part of Christ's message?

The sin isn't on you eating that food, it's on whoever decided to torture the animals for profit.
Ever heard of supply and demand? If you eat meat then you are directly responsible for perpetuating these industries, just the same as you would be if you went down to the porn shop and bought a video.

I'll take a quote from http://www.jesusveg.com/qow100.html
Why don't you focus your attention on abortion or child abuse? Why do you care about animals?

Since the principle that underlies all of Jesus' actions is the sanctity of life and the right of every being to be secure from violation and harm, it makes perfect sense that some organizations and individuals would focus their limited energy and resources on the alleviation of the millions of daily acts of violence against animals in laboratories, on factory farms, in the fur and leather trades, and on our streets. As animals have few defenders, this is an enormous undertaking. Those who are particularly adamant on the abortion issue should also consider the issue of vegetarianism, as it requires no additional effort and lends the credibility of personal action to their statements about being "pro-life."

There is so much violence in the world, from wars in sub-Saharan Africa to violence in U.S. inner cities. For the most part, the issues are complex and the solutions not easily formulated. Even with the issue of abortion, few of us will ever have to make this choice, and no one can make this choice for someone else, however much some people might wish to.

But there is one area where the solution is simple: the issue of animal abuse on factory farms. Each and every one of us can simply choose not to be animal abusers by becoming a vegetarian. Every time we sit down to eat, we make a choice: Do we want to support compassion and mercy? Or do we want to support misery, violence, and bloodshed? Are we animal abusers, or are we kind to animals? Most of us would agree that it is immoral, unchristian even, to cause gratuitous suffering to a dog or a cat. It is illogical, as well as unkind, not to extend this same understanding to cows, pigs, chickens, fish, and all other animals.

If we purport to be "pro-life," yet we choose to support violence, misery, and death every time we sit down to eat, what does that say about our convictions? For a simple palate preference, we have become "pro-death," we are paying for cruelty to animals. The only legitimate Christian or "pro-life" choice is vegetarianism.


I hope you'll at least read these cites before you jump to defend your own status quo.
http://christianveg.com/
http://jesusveg.com/
 
Upvote 0

Nazaroo

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)
Dec 5, 2005
2,626
68
clinging to Jesus sandalstrap
✟18,230.00
Faith
Christian
I'd go even further.
Not only can we do something by taking what seems like very small actions locally, like a single 'vote', but Jesus actually ordered us to, and gave an example:

He fed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. What if Jesus just gave up, and said, "No point in this: the hungry we'll have with us always."

Even though this will probably be called 'bad exegesis' by some theologian, I think Jesus intended us to consider the fact that one begins to solve any problem one step at a time. "Take up your bed and walk." must have sounded preposterous and even insulting or scarey to the cripple, but by doing, he found out he actually could walk.

Jesus has a way of ignoring objections, no matter how plausible they sound from our rational 'Sadducee' viewpoint.

But if miracles weren't possible, then the dead aren't raised, Jesus wasn't ressurrected, and our faithfulness would be in 'vain', as Paul would say. Yet people saw Jesus walking around, even through locked doors, and were convinced enough to die for their new-found hope.

Let us also hope and strive for the faithfulness once delivered to the Apostles and saints, and boldly try to help others, whether we think we have the power or not. Its not about having the power ourselves, but whether or not the Father in heaven will honour our intent by supporting our good causes with supernatural help.

And if the Father does help us to follow Jesus, even over water, let us give thanks then, and glory to God the Father and our Lord Jesus the Christ.
 
Upvote 0
I knew already :clap:

Then why are you making a big deal about muslims not eating pork?

Let's take your examples at face value. So I guess you perform abortions for fun, shoot people regularly, and buy gay porn on a regular basis, right? Because you can't fix the world's problems, so you might as well indulge in all of them? It would be such a hassle to stop killing people, etc. :sorry:

No, I don't support these... but for some reason, they are still around? It seems that whether or not I support them they are going to be around untill the end of world because people like to sin. I don't need to be worried about being a vegitarian, Yeshua himself said so.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.