Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

Mycroft said:
The part where it says it applies to modern Christians. I can't find that part.
Click to expand...
Again: If you want to argue which parts of the Bible that are acceptable and which that are not, you are facing an uphill battle.
 
Not really that much of an uphill battle. There is reality to deal with: Christians do not ban the eating of pork.

You may find this page of interpretative interest from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (which is a site worth bookmarking if you are going to get into bible discussions):

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

So its a matter of opinion ... at best whether the dietary laws mentioned in the old testament for the Jews applies to Christians who do not appear until the new testament. My argument would hinge around the fact that the Christians of the NT did not exist under the peoples of the OT and therefore the OT could not forsee that their future existence as coming under their rules. Christianity was formed in part to leave behind the rules of the jews.

Certainly, as Mycroft points out and I have on several occasions, modern Christian faiths do not follow the dietary laws of the old testament where as the jews and muslims do.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Like I said to Rob Lister: If you want to argue which parts of the Bible that are acceptable and which that are not, you are facing an uphill battle.

Are you dismissing the Old Testament?
Click to expand...

Unless Rob Lister or Steve Grenard are practicing Christians, then the issue isn't what parts of the old testament are acceptable to them but which parts are acceptable to people who are practicing Christians. By the same token, the issue isn't if they are dismissing parts of the Old Testament, but what parts of the Old Testament are not practiced by modern Christians.



CFLarsen said:
Then, you treat Jews and Muslims differently than Christians.
Click to expand...

Duh.

CFLarsen said:
Why?
Click to expand...

In theory, because their different beliefs make them behave differently.

CFLarsen said:
It should be of no concern to you what faith people are. Yet, you discriminate against Jews and Muslims.
Click to expand...

People are always treated differently based on their beliefs. For example, you treat non-skeptics differently because their beliefs differ from yours.
 
CFLarsen said:
Again: If you want to argue which parts of the Bible that are acceptable and which that are not, you are facing an uphill battle.
Click to expand...

It's not what parts *I* find acceptable or not, but what parts practicing Christians find acceptable.

There are many ancient laws in the Old Testament that are not followed by modern Christians. If you believe they should be followed, then your argument is with the various organized Christian religions, not with Rob Lister, Steve Grenard, or myself.
 
It should be of no concern to you what faith people are. Yet, you discriminate against Jews and Muslims.
Click to expand...

Apparently it is if I am serving them food in a soup kitchen. How does this translate into "discrimination." ? Because two particular faiths happen to have dietary regulations which are anachronistic and out of sync with modern times? Did you know that Jews and Muslims could not benefit from insulin injections made from pigs and until alternatives were available these people suffered. If an orthodox jew or muslim were starving and the only food available was prohibited and they would die, then do you think it would be right to criticze such rules? Or if a diabetic jew or muslim were going into shock and they needed insulin and the only insulin available was porcine insulin do you think I am not correct in questionning their refusal to use this insulin even if to refuse would mean their certain death?

I do not discriminate against any religion but am free to discriminate against harmful aspects of that religion. This includes, for example, the harm being caused by christian fundamentalists like GW Bush and his constituents who are seeking to stifle stem cell research.

I am an atheist for these reasons. I could care less if a religionist wants to pray to their god or spend their time and money on religious activities.

To put a slight spin on a bloggers quote from above, I would rather offend somebody then kill them.
 
Last edited:
SteveGrenard said:
So its a matter of opinion ...
Click to expand...

Yeah. You got that right.

That's what it comes down to, people: Interpretation by humans. Only problem is: How can anyone claim to be the final arbiter of the word of God? Certainly not skeptics! And, if you claim to be a skeptic, how can you accept the interpretations of believers? If you really are a skeptic, you can't.

Crunch time.
 
CFLarsen said:
Interpretation by humans. Only problem is: How can anyone claim to be the final arbiter of the word of God?
Click to expand...


If the issue is using pork fat to grease bullets, you don't need to be an arbiter of the word of God, you only need observe how those that follow their version of the word of God behave.

If it really does deter Muslims from using them, then it's a useful tactic. If it doesn't, then it's not a good idea. Either way, making that decision doesn't require anyone to be an arbiter of someone else's religious laws.
 
Pardalis said:
Why pork? I don't know anything about religions but why this particular animal? Does anybody know?
Click to expand...
It's about the distinction between nomadic and settled lifestyles. Pigs are not well-suited to nomadism, but they're a boon to peasants since they'll turn the waste-product of crops to meat and manure, and will even (literally) eat sch!t. Judaism and Islam are products of nomad thinking, and on the principle of "what they do and we don't is bad" pork is out. Even after the nomads become peasants.

I have an atheist friend brought up in a Jewish household who still doesn't eat pork. Instead of adding pig-meat to his culinary options he's extended the gag-reflex to all meat and is now a vegetarian. Wierd but true.
 
LW said:
Nobody really knows the real reason for the ban since its origins are in prehistory.

There are several different hypotheses, like the one that you give. This particular hypothesis has the weak point that it doesn't explain why a similar prohibition didn't happen in other areas of hot climate -- pigs have been happily eaten all over SE Asia for millennia and I'd guess that pig meat spoils even quicker there.

I'm not so certain that there was a practical reason for banning pig meat. Pig is not the only mammal that is specifically mentioned as prohibited in Leviticus 11: camel, coney, and rabbit share this fate.
Click to expand...

Then, here's another. Pigs aren't native to the Middle East. They need a lot of water and lots of organic slop. SE Asia is fine. They have those things there. The dry Middle East isn't. So perhaps pigs came to be associated with immigrants.

Camels might be prohibited simply because work animals are not usually eaten in a culture. Dogs are eaten in fishing cultures but not in hunting cultures.

I don't know about coneys, but perhaps this is an instance of over-regularization. They noticed the feet and decided to make it about the feet.
 
Rob Lister said:
I could understand if the food in question was otherwise legally restricted (dog, monkey, cat, etc)
Click to expand...
Why is it that you can understand prohibiting dog meat, but not pork?

SteveGrenard said:
Apparently it is if I am serving them food in a soup kitchen. How does this translate into "discrimination." ?
Click to expand...
I guess it's similar to the logic under which offering marriage to opposite sex couples is "discrimination" against those inclined to form same-sex couples.
 
epepke said:
I don't know about coneys, but perhaps this is an instance of over-regularization. They noticed the feet and decided to make it about the feet.
Click to expand...

Dogs exhibit coprophagia which is why they are prohibited food under religious dietary restrictions. See:

http://www.vetinfo.com/deatpoop.html


Rabbits including coneys eat pellets they expel from their intestinal tract called cecotropes which are vitamin richmaterial; this behavior makes them the subject of dietary restrictions:

Here is what I found on this page:

http://www.rabbit.org/journal/3-3/digestibility.html


7. Undigested fiber and waste (hard fecal pellets) pass through the largeintestine along with vitamin-rich cecotropes(soft cecal pellets), which are formed from fermented cecal material. Cecotropes are higher in protein and water and lower in fiber than fecal pellets. (Cheeke 1987)

8. Cecotropes are consumed directly from the anus and returned to the digestive system (cecotrophy).

9. Protected in mucous membrane packages, cecotropes continue to ferment in the stomach for several hours, until they pass to the small intestine where the nutrients are absorbed. (Cheeke 1987)

http://www.gw.org/Rabbit.htm
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I doubt that that is the source of the restrictions. And what about the fact that cows eat their own vomit?
 
Art Vandelay said:
What's difference between banning pork and banning horse meat?
Click to expand...

Where is horse meat banned?

I still see it for sale in the US, usually in jars. Two companies in Texas produce a great deal of horse meat for export. It's also sold to zoos in the US.

I find it a bit too sweet, but it's high in protein. Horses are basically large, funny-looking rabbits, and you can get rabbit meat fresh or frozen.
 
epepke said:
Where is horse meat banned?
Click to expand...

In Leviticus 11. Though, horse is not mentioned by name but it doesn't fit the criteria of allowed animals (completely split hoof and chews cud).

Pope Gregory III issued a ban on eating horse meat back in 732 and he quoted Lev 11 as his justification. However, his real reason was that eating horse meat was a part of rituals of Odin worship (or Wotan or whatever name was used of that Germanic god back then) and he wanted to end that.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Why is it that you can understand prohibiting dog meat, but not pork?
Click to expand...

Because dog meat is priorly banned for reasons not religious but instead cultural (right or wrong). Were it not, I would have no problem with it either. It's all about disclosure.
 
SteveGrenard said:
If pork was the only food available I would agree it would be highly biased against jews and muslims. However, should soup kitchens for the poor then also ban other non-kosher or non-halal foods? And what about mixing dairy and meat? Should they be prohibited from serving milk or other dairy products when they are also serving meat? And maybe they should also have separate plates? Don't these religions require the use of separate plates for dairy meals and meat meals? And separate refrigerators for meat and dairy as well. We'll need those also. And for meat shouldn't it be specified how the meat would be slaughtered.
Click to expand...

Non-(specific religious)-approved food served at a soup kitchen? Easy: "Here's some food. Eat it or let your god come down and feed you."

Hopefully followed by "But before we eat, rather than say a prayer, let's ponder the bizarrity of a god who would throw you into hell for eating a hot dog. Why do we worship such a demented idiot-savant?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom