Problems with Pork

[Sojourner]

It is important to bear in mind that pigs kill and eat their own kind and cause and transmit diesease as a result. If we look at "Mad Cow Disease" where the remains of Cows were fed to cows, it is a similar disease if not the same. In the outback of Australia there are a number of feral pigs and property owners have pig traps that are inescapable to the pigs. Often because of remote location they can only be checked on an irregular basis. It is not uncommon to find a live pig in the trap and the remains of several dead ones that have killed and eaten one another to survive. If the likes of Mad Cow disease was spread throughout the jewish people it could have done significant damage to them and potentially changed history not unlike the various peoples recorded in history that are no more.

[Tom Wetmore]

I have a theory that attempts to resolve the apparent inconsistencies and lack of clear explanation in Scripture of the reasons that some animals are clean and others unclean.  The later developed rationale of a health basis remains inconsistent when comparing the lists.  Beef is far worse from a health standpoint than the lean meat of rabbit or kangaroo.  Many of the unclean are predators or scavengers eating other animals and/or almost anything.  But so are many clean fish.  And chickens really are prone to eat everything.  And it has been documented that recognized herbivores like deer, will rob bird nests of eggs and baby birds within their reach. 

The theory is partly derived from an understanding of the Hebrew word translated as "clean".  It is sometimes translated as "pure" which may be more consistent with the original Hebrew. Think in terms of purebred, as in clear and unmixed lines from ancestors.  We worship the Creator. It seems logical that the uncorrupted hereditary lines of animals that remain "purebred" from the one original created by God would be acceptable as an offering to the Creator.  And that any species corrupted or fundamentally altered by sin or mixed breeding by sinful mankind would not be acceptable to the Creator. It is logical that predators or scavengers were not God's original design.  But after sin and death entered the picture, they served a useful purpose. And some beasts of burden are adapted (changed) to serve the needs of weakened mankind in a sinful world. 

Edited July 28, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[Liz]

Why do we have to know why it's unclean? Why can't it be simply be because God said not to eat it? He told our parents not to eat a certain fruit, He didn't tell them why and they lost Eden because of it. It was a fruit after all, not a piece of meat. Yet, He said "Don't do it". God gave a list of clean and unclean, and some rules to go by if encountering an animal not on the list. Six thousand years and we haven't learned a thing.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

how many wear mixed fiber clothing?

[hch]

Based on the intro, how should P.O.R.K be classified: Phood Or Road Kill?

[Tom Wetmore]

Why do we have to know why it's unclean? Why can't it be simply be because God said not to eat it? He told our parents not to eat a certain fruit, He didn't tell them why and they lost Eden because of it. It was a fruit after all, not a piece of meat. Yet, He said "Don't do it". God gave a list of clean and unclean, and some rules to go by if encountering an animal not on the list. Six thousand years and we haven't learned a thing.

This whole discussion does reveal part of the reason it may be important to understand the why of it.  If we understand why of any of the aspects of what we read in Scripture it helps to understand the underlying principle involved and not get sidetracked into reasons that simply were not the basis that lead us to make up new rules without a proper foundation.  If it was truly and only about healthful diet, then we have been lead astray by leaving the door open to eating equally or worse things that may be on the "clean" list or not fitting into the known categories.  And it leads to embellishment and exaggeration and as can be seen by the OP, falsification, of why we should not eat swine flesh.  The Levitical rules really seem to be as brotherly love pointed out, a means of purification for temple access, rather than dietary.  If a ritual purification was all it took to rectify the ingestion or exposure to what was considered unclean, it really couldn't have been a lasting health issue in question. 

It goes to the credibility of our message.  It needs to stand up under scrutiny.  If it is all arbitrary and like our mother told us, "Because I said so!", when we have to make up our own minds on things that may be in doubt, we have no real solid rationale or principle on which to decide.  The "because I told you so"  reason for obedience works OK for a child.   I am not trying to diminish the importance of simply trusting God at his word.  But we do have to think and reason our way through far more complex things as our faith matures and we encounter more complicated and nuanced circumstances.  We are more apt to fear making the wrong call and avoid harmless or inconsequential things needlessly or blunder into worse and more harmful things because we have no reason to avoid them.  

That is why we have obese Adventists that zealously avoid pork and shellfish products at all costs even in minute processed levels of ingredients,  but think nothing of huge portions of far more harmful and fattening desserts, or fried veggie meats that are far too high in sodium, or sugar rich soft drinks.  If we are basing our decision on what we should eat and drink merely on a "Thus saith the Lord", all that is OK, because he never mentioned any of that.  And we would also be free to have a bit of wine for the stomach's sake or any intoxicant for that matter as long as we avoid drunkenness or getting stoned.  A little buzzed is OK by Scriptural standards.  And swing the pendulum to the other extreme and we have fanatics avoiding good and needful nutritious things, starving themselves and their babies for fear of a little harm.  The strain at gnats and swelling camels...

If we are basing our choices on this topic on healthy vs unhealthy, we should go with what is sound and reliable information not on old wives tales or conjecture.  We do have plenty of excellent material available now.  

[Liz]

But there was no why of it with the fruit. There was no distinction between it and any other piece of fruit. The only thing that set it apart was the fact that God said don't eat it.

Maybe we need to amend our health message? I was under the impression that veggie meat was never supposed to be a long term solution, more of a step down process from meat eating to a vegetarian diet. Problem is, that people substituted one bad thing for another.

[GayatfootofCross]

My dear son is not SDA and completely politically and actively Vegan.

He does not eat meat or its products for one reason only, All animals are precious!

Pigs are very special creatures.

I hope everyone watches the video I posted way above.

[Liz]

I liked your video. My mom had a pig when she was growing up, the mother sow had crushed its back legs and she managed to not only save it, but got it to where it could walk by hopping. Mom said she was smarter than a dog. Sadly when mom went away to school, her parents ate it. When questioned about it, they said it was a working ranch, not a save-all-the-little-animals ranch. While I love my family, I'd be very peeved if they ate one of my pets. I don't care what the reason.

[brotherly love]

how many wear mixed fiber clothing?

It was not wearing mixed threads that was the point-it was not to mix with the non-believers. If it becomes about health or some other scientific claim then the message looses its meaning. What we eat and wear is part of us. The Law of Moses uses mechanical everyday aspects of life to communicate a message. We dont have to abstain from different threads because we are not a theocracy living under that Covenant by the Law of Moses, but we need to understand the message and apply it to our lives.

 

[LifeHiscost]

 We dont have to abstain from different threads because we are not a theocracy.

 

 

 

Sorry to have to ask you to speak for yourself, but I am living under a theocracy with the One Who spoke this, as my King.

15"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;…John 14

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

[phkrause]

Here's an interesting comment about eating pork per a Rabbi, not just someone making up reasons why this or that!!

Degrees of Non-Kosher

Are there degrees of non-kosher food? Meaning, if I'm going to cook a vegi omelet in a non-kosher pan (let's say that was previously used for pork), does it make no difference if I just go ahead and cook a Western omlette – i.e. using actual ham?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Yes, it makes a big difference! The general rule is to always try to maximize your mitzvahs and reduce your transgressions.

There is a wonderful story which illustrates this concept. The great rabbi the Chafetz Chaim was faced with a question from young Jewish men who had been drafted into the Russian army during the early 20th century. They asked: "If we are on the battlefront, and they serve us pork, what should we do?"

The Chafetz Chaim replied: "If there is no other food available, then you may eat the pork, because preservation of life overrides the kosher prohibitions."

"But," the Chafetz Chaim continued, "when you eat the pork, you may not lick the bones." In other words, if you're going to transgress, minimize it.

As for your specific case, the pork which is real non-kosher food is actually worse than using the pan which has the taste of non-kosher food absorbed into it.

But here’s a solution: just buy yourself a new frying pan!

[phkrause]

Here's another one that's probably more to the point that Tom was making:

Signs of Kosher Animals

When God spoke about kosher animals in the Torah, why does it only list the animals known to the people at that time? It never mentions any animals in Africa like the hippo or giraffe.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

What makes an animal kosher? The Torah says (Leviticus 11:2, 3, 7):

"Speak to the children of Israel saying: Of all the animals in the world, these are the ones you may eat. Among mammals, you may eat (any one) that has true hoofs that are cloven, and that chews its cud... The pig shall be unclean to you although it has a cloven hoof, since it does not chew its cud."

There must two signs: Every animal must have fully split hooves and it has to be cud-chewing. Is a horse kosher? No, because it doesn't have split hooves or chew its cud. What about a lion? It also lacks these signs. What about a cow? Yes, because it has both signs.

The practical law is explained by Maimonides (Laws of Forbidden Foods 1:2-3):

"The identifying signs of clean animals are specified in the Torah as two: the true cloven hoof and the chewing of the cud (rumination). Both must be present… Consequently, if a person finds an animal in the wilderness… whose muzzle has been mutilated, he should examine the hoofs. If they are cloven, the animal is clean – provided he can ascertain it is not a pig."

This is amazing! Even though the Torah already gave us the two signs that make an animal kosher, it decides to add some extra information. The Torah lists only one animal – the pig – that has the kosher sign of split hooves, but not the other sign of chewing cud.

Why does the Torah stick its neck on the line to tell us there is only one animal that has the kosher sign of split hooves, but not the other sign of chewing cud? All we have to do is find a second animal with that one kosher sign and we know the Torah is wrong! All we need is one more species, at any time in existence, that does not chew its cud yet has split hooves and we know the whole Torah is a farce. You can close up the religion. There goes Judaism. It's been a nice few thousand years. Why risk the whole religion and expose it to fraud, for no gain?

Certainly, in Moses’ time the Jews were not able to identify every existing mammal in the world. Was Moses a hunter or a safari expert that he knew this information?! Obviously not. And yet, the Bible put very specific information in there without fear of being proven wrong.

Zoologists today have identified over 5,000 different species of mammals. And still there is only one – the pig – that has the kosher sign of split hooves, but not the other sign of chewing cud.

Why would the Torah write this, and more incredibly, how could it have gotten it right?

The Talmud (Chulin 60b) concludes: This refutes those who question whether the Torah was given by God.

Kosher Dentures

 

ps:Even though this goes beyond just the pig, I thought that it was interesting how the pig is such a bigger deal than all the other unclean animals.

[JoeMo]

  The strain at gnats and swelling camels... [I think that should read "They strain at gnats and swallow camels."]

 

Aren't both gnats and camels unclean?

Cute; but the point Jesus was making goes along with what Tom is saying.  Jesus wasn't talking about the size of the animal, he was pointing out that both are unclean; but according to the Pharisees, some things were more unclean than others.  Some of us "strain" at eating Jello (gnats) because it is a meat by-product while we "gulp down" (the literal translation of the Greek word used in the Bible)  fried Loma Linda and Worthington "health food".  What is usually the biggest part of an SDA pot luck?  The desert table!  Sugar is SDA alcohol.  Some of the most rotund people I know are vegans who claim to religiously follow the SDA health message.

Edited July 27, 2015 by JoeMo

[Tom Wetmore]

Haven't you ever seen a fat camel!  

[brotherly love]

Here's another one that's probably more to the point that Tom was making:

Signs of Kosher Animals

When God spoke about kosher animals in the Torah, why does it only list the animals known to the people at that time? It never mentions any animals in Africa like the hippo or giraffe.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

What makes an animal kosher? The Torah says (Leviticus 11:2, 3, 7):

"Speak to the children of Israel saying: Of all the animals in the world, these are the ones you may eat. Among mammals, you may eat (any one) that has true hoofs that are cloven, and that chews its cud... The pig shall be unclean to you although it has a cloven hoof, since it does not chew its cud."

There must two signs: Every animal must have fully split hooves and it has to be cud-chewing. Is a horse kosher? No, because it doesn't have split hooves or chew its cud. What about a lion? It also lacks these signs. What about a cow? Yes, because it has both signs.

The practical law is explained by Maimonides (Laws of Forbidden Foods 1:2-3):

"The identifying signs of clean animals are specified in the Torah as two: the true cloven hoof and the chewing of the cud (rumination). Both must be present… Consequently, if a person finds an animal in the wilderness… whose muzzle has been mutilated, he should examine the hoofs. If they are cloven, the animal is clean – provided he can ascertain it is not a pig."

This is amazing! Even though the Torah already gave us the two signs that make an animal kosher, it decides to add some extra information. The Torah lists only one animal – the pig – that has the kosher sign of split hooves, but not the other sign of chewing cud.

Why does the Torah stick its neck on the line to tell us there is only one animal that has the kosher sign of split hooves, but not the other sign of chewing cud? All we have to do is find a second animal with that one kosher sign and we know the Torah is wrong! All we need is one more species, at any time in existence, that does not chew its cud yet has split hooves and we know the whole Torah is a farce. You can close up the religion. There goes Judaism. It's been a nice few thousand years. Why risk the whole religion and expose it to fraud, for no gain?

Certainly, in Moses’ time the Jews were not able to identify every existing mammal in the world. Was Moses a hunter or a safari expert that he knew this information?! Obviously not. And yet, the Bible put very specific information in there without fear of being proven wrong.

Zoologists today have identified over 5,000 different species of mammals. And still there is only one – the pig – that has the kosher sign of split hooves, but not the other sign of chewing cud.

Why would the Torah write this, and more incredibly, how could it have gotten it right?

The Talmud (Chulin 60b) concludes: This refutes those who question whether the Torah was given by God.

Kosher Dentures

 

ps:Even though this goes beyond just the pig, I thought that it was interesting how the pig is such a bigger deal than all the other unclean animals.

Casuistic Law in the Law of Moses was never designed to give every possible example or animal. This is different than our laws which try to disclose every possible scenario. Both are case law.

[GayatfootofCross]

It was not wearing mixed threads that was the point-it was not to mix with the non-believers. If it becomes about health or some other scientific claim then the message looses its meaning. What we eat and wear is part of us. The Law of Moses uses mechanical everyday aspects of life to communicate a message. We dont have to abstain from different threads because we are not a theocracy living under that Covenant by the Law of Moses, but we need to understand the message and apply it to our lives.

 

.. And here I thought about mixing with the fibers!

I've heard long discourses on it!

and here you are just the beginning of the Long Discourse or not....

 

Interesting thoughts...

GBU brotherly love