The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,414
Your claim is busted, and no amount of deflection will un-bust it.
Utter nonsense. I've posted details of islamic clerics who agree with me 100%.
Your claim is busted, and no amount of deflection will un-bust it.
This thread started with you asserting that 'Jews and muslins need not apply' for a pig's heart, implying that they would refuse on religious grounds. Your claim is busted, and no amount of deflection will un-bust it.
It's possible they had multiple rationalizations for forbidding different foods. Today a lot of westerners abhor the eating of cats and dogs. I wonder why?
Quite possibly - maybe due to health issues and avoiding contamination or spoiled meat. Perhaps the difficulties of keeping the animals healthy in the conditions pertaining at the time the book was written.
It seems likely a lot of the strictures defined in religious books were written with the intent of maintaining society in the face of the environmental and political conditions at the time of writing.
That those conditions no longer pertain seems to be lost on religious fundamentalists.
Or it could simply be that one of the social influencers of their time didn't like pork so told their follows not to eat it!
(Always think we should be careful with any "just so" stories, I've seen so many things that are done "because Fred said to do it" or "Fred did that" with no idea why Fred was saying or doing this to not, at least think it could be based on nothing but a personal preference.)
ETA: Dubious about health reasons from so long back, today we really struggle to understand the world that existed before germ theory was proposed and then accepted. Even the idea of washing our hands for hygiene is quite a new phenomena in historic terms.