Why did certain religions ban pork?

Tatyana said:
Humanity may have a long history of cannibalism as well as human sacrifice and burnt human sacrifice.

http://www.livescience.com/9118-gnawed-bones-reveal-cannibal-cavemen.html

The practice of cannibalism was still quite common among islanders of the South Seas until fairly recently, and may still be practiced.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...830733/Cannibal-fear-over-German-tourist.html

The hypothesis is that back in the Bronze Ages, the Abrahamic religious tradition may have been adopted and popular as humanity lost its hunger for some of the more barbaric practices of our past.
Click to expand...
It was tongue in cheek, but your examples are nowhere near the Fertile Crescent where pork taboo was widely known. The hypothesis this taste was known when people first started eating pork? It seems a stretch to me. I agree cannibalism examples are widespread around the world, the Americas come to mind. But people would have had to still be cannibals at the time the pork ban began and that's where I'm having trouble seeing the connection.

All this looking to fit the evidence to the conclusion ignores the evidence we do have. Food and other taboos are as common as god myths and there is little consistency except the fact it identifies and reinforces 'them' vs 'us'.

If you are going to explain it on the basis of heath, taste, economy, (did I miss anything?) then that same explanation should also explain other food taboos. But they don't. In addition there are non-food rituals and taboos that also fit the 'them' vs 'us' reinforcement hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
I've heard that "pigs are dirty animals" line my whole life, and the more I hear it, the more it just sounds like post-hoc rationalization. Not only are they giving up multiple sources of perfectly safe nutrition with the cleaveth/cheweth requirement, but if pigs needed to be forbidden at all on a societal level, it indicates enough of their neighbors were successful pig farmers that it was a temptation.

My money's on "tribal identifier," as Humes Fork suggested. Like cutting off bits of the penis, it's just a shibboleth to separate the uses from the thems. Only you don't have to drop trou to demonstrate your allegiance.
Click to expand...

Especially when you factor in how filthy chickens are, yet nobody prohibits eating them (except those that prohibit eating all meat).
 
Cainkane1 said:
I once read that swine consume more food than they prodice. For instance you could feed more people with the grain used to feed pigs than you would get from the meat.
Click to expand...
Read about this as well in addition to hearing about it from various people who don't believe in the no-bacon hoopla here in Israel. The confusing bit is that cows require more feed to weight gain ratio that pigs require.

ie: Complete Costs of Raising Pigs

Pork FAQs

Then again, more parts of the cow can be used than pig. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
The prohibition against eating pork makes the strange story of the one variously called the Gerasine (in Mark and Luke) or Gadarine (in Matthew, where there are two of them) demoniac (Mk. 5:1 - 20; Mt. 8:28 - 34; Lk. 8:26 - 39) all the more odd. Jesus heals a man possessed by a legion of demons. They beg him not to drive them from the country, but to let them go into a herd of about 1,000 swine. However, once they've possessed the swine, the pigs run off a cliff into the sea and drown. So, it would seem that the demons are now without animals to possess, and their being allowed into the swine is rather pointless.

In Mark, the man who is healed of his demonic possession begs to follow Jesus; but Jesus sends him home and tells him to tell his friends what God has done for him. Since this is in the region of the Decapolis, it's probable the people there are Greeks, rather than Jews, which would explain them keeping pigs. However, it's rather odd then that, in Mk. 4:35 - 40 (parallel verses Lk. 8:22 - 25 and Mt. 8:18 - 27), Jesus specifically decides to cross the "sea" (actually a lake) to the other side and has to command the sea to be calm in order to get there. Neither Mark nor Luke give any reason for Jesus deciding to cross to the other side, though Matthew indicates that Jesus does this to escape the crowds. However, immediately after exorcising the man of his legion of demons, Jesus again crosses the "sea" and again, in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, is met by great crowds. So, we have this odd little story in which Jesus inexplicably crosses the Sea of Galilee (or Lake Tiberias) to a region populated by Gentiles, exorcises a madman (or two, in Matthew) then crosses the lake again to resume his ministry among the Jews.
 
Last edited:
bigjelmapro said:
Read about this as well in addition to hearing about it from various people who don't believe in the no-bacon hoopla here in Israel. The confusing bit is that cows require more feed to weight gain ratio that pigs require.

ie: Complete Costs of Raising Pigs

Pork FAQs

Then again, more parts of the cow can be used than pig. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

http://agricultureproud.com/2012/02/06/cattlemens-college-cattle-feed-efficiency/
Understanding these feed and gain conversions is an important step in identifying efficient cattle. Putting things into perspective, on average cattle require 6 pounds of feed for every one pound of gain. This compares to swine and poultry conversions that are closer to 3:1 and 2:1, respectively. Fish are closer to a 1:1 feed to gain conversion.
Click to expand...

According to that author, pigs have a FCR that is a factor 2 better than cattle. Let's make it 1.5 for the sake of argument (your first link had a FCR of 3.8 for the two pigs he raised). For the cattle to be more efficient in the end, you'd need a percentage usable weight that is a factor 1.5 higher. Given that your first link had a usable weight percentage over 80%, I see a problem trying to argue that cattle would be more efficient. :D

I'm hard-pressed to see that efficiency would be a reason behind the religious ban in Judaism and Islam.
 
TimCallahan said:
The prohibition against eating pork makes the strange story of the one variously called the Gerasine (in Mark and Luke) or Gadarine (in Matthew, where there are two of them) demoniac (Mk. 5:1 - 20; Mt. 8:28 - 34; Lk. 8:26 - 39) all the more odd. Jesus heals a man possessed by a legion of demons. They beg him not to drive them from the country, but to let them go into a herd of about 1,000 swine. However, once they've possessed the swine, the pigs run off a cliff into the sea and drown. So, it would seem that the demons are now without animals to possess, and their being allowed into the swine is rather pointless.

In Mark, the man who is healed of his demonic possession begs to follow Jesus; but Jesus sends him home and tells him to tell his friends what God has done for him. Since this is in the region of the Decapolis, it's probable the people there are Greeks, rather than Jews, which would explain them keeping pigs. However, it's rather odd then that, in Mk. 4:35 - 40 (parallel verses Lk. 8:22 - 25 and Mt. 8:18 - 27), Jesus specifically decides to cross the "sea" (actually a lake) to the other side and has to command the sea to be calm in order to get there. Neither Mark nor Luke give any reason for Jesus deciding to cross to the other side, though Matthew indicates that Jesus does this to escape the crowds. However, immediately after exorcising the man of his legion of demons, Jesus again crosses the "sea" and again, in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, is met by great crowds. So, we have this odd little story in which Jesus inexplicably crosses the Sea of Galilee (or Lake Tiberias) to a region populated by Gentiles, exorcises a madman (or two, in Matthew) then crosses the lake again to resume his ministry among the Jews.
Click to expand...

It just occurred to me that, had the pigs not plunged into the sea, the people of the Decapolis could have had deviled ham.
 
Ibn Warraq mentioned the hypothesis in Why I Am Not A Muslim that it's possible that pork was seen as a luxury food for rulers or even a sacred one for temple priests, and the Hebrew prohibition of pork was more a reaction to this than any hygienic reasons (since God never bothered to lay out basic hygiene to His favorite tribe of illiterate genocidal maniacs).
 
Perhaps humans were not allowed to eat what Gawd was expecting in a sacrifice; which brings me to an old joke -- Gawd looks down from parted clouds at the altar below and says, "Medium rare, please Abraham."

:)
 
I have always understood the reason about pork to be simply that pigs can carry parasites, but also that pork spoils more quickly than other meat when not refrigerated. Even today pork is normally served "well done" rather than rare or medium.

Pork is also not the only prohibition. In Islam shellfish (including shrimp which has a shell) is also prohibited for the same reason, although not as rigorously by all since fishermen who catch it fresh would think that a waste.

This probably made sense when the temperature was well over 100F for much of the year.
 
Elind said:
I have always understood the reason about pork to be simply that pigs can carry parasites, but also that pork spoils more quickly than other meat when not refrigerated. Even today pork is normally served "well done" rather than rare or medium.

Pork is also not the only prohibition. In Islam shellfish (including shrimp which has a shell) is also prohibited for the same reason, although not as rigorously by all since fishermen who catch it fresh would think that a waste.

This probably made sense when the temperature was well over 100F for much of the year.
Click to expand...
You are buying and selling a myth.

What ever applied to pork applied to every other kind of meat people at the time ate. The health aspect is a Christian apologetics myth.

Spoiled pork doesn't smell any worse than spoiled beef.

Look how easy it is we buy into and adopt some belief based solely on the fact it sounded logical at the time.:(:mad::(:mad:

Come on people. Use those critical thinking skills. If you are going to explain it on the basis of heath, taste, economy, (did I miss anything?) then that same explanation should also explain other food taboos. But they don't.
The only hypothesis that fits both non-food rituals and taboos, and all different food taboos is the 'them' vs 'us' reinforcement of belonging to the group hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Polaris said:
Ibn Warraq mentioned the hypothesis in Why I Am Not A Muslim that it's possible that pork was seen as a luxury food for rulers or even a sacred one for temple priests, and the Hebrew prohibition of pork was more a reaction to this than any hygienic reasons (since God never bothered to lay out basic hygiene to His favorite tribe of illiterate genocidal maniacs).
Click to expand...

He did tell them not to crap in camp because he didn't want to step in it in the dark.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You are buying and selling a myth.

What ever applied to pork applied to every other kind of meat people at the time ate. The health aspect is a Christian apologetics myth.

Spoiled pork doesn't smell any worse than spoiled beef.

Look how easy it is we buy into and adopt some belief based solely on the fact it sounded logical at the time.:(:mad::(:mad:

Come on people. Use those critical thinking skills. If you are going to explain it on the basis of heath, taste, economy, (did I miss anything?) then that same explanation should also explain other food taboos. But they don't.
The only hypothesis that fits both non-food rituals and taboos, and all different food taboos is the 'them' vs 'us' reinforcement of belonging to the group hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Save us some research since you know this so well. In fact you give no reason worth mentioning. The them v us doesn't make any sense on its own.

It is a fact that pork can be more prone to parasites. It is a fact that it spoils faster, as does shellfish faster than fish. In the case of Islam, the religion has many commands that are directly related to hygiene among other things. Why would this one not be one of them?
 
Puppycow said:
I was just thinking about how awesome and delicious pork in its many manifestations is, and then I remembered that at least two of the world's major religions prohibit consumption of it. What a shame I thought, that so many people will never know how good bacon or or other porcine based dishes are.

At some point in the distant past some high religious mucky-muck must have decided that his own tastes and preferences were somehow a "command from God" and convinced other people that this should be a law, and not a personal choice.

Is that it, or is there any other conceivable reason?
Click to expand...
Trichina worms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
 
Polaris said:
Ibn Warraq mentioned the hypothesis in Why I Am Not A Muslim that it's possible that pork was seen as a luxury food for rulers or even a sacred one for temple priests, and the Hebrew prohibition of pork was more a reaction to this than any hygienic reasons (since God never bothered to lay out basic hygiene to His favorite tribe of illiterate genocidal maniacs).
Click to expand...

I suggest that there could be a book on the foods that the common people would have considered luxuries, and why pork should have been more of a luxury than any other meat is unclear. In fact, swine are in many ways easier to raise than cattle or other ruminants.

And god, Allah anyway, most certainly did lay out many general hygiene rules to follow.
 
Zax63 said:
I doubt anyone can say for sure but undercooked or raw pork was a source of trichinosis so it may have been for health reasons. I could also see pigs being seen as unclean due to their wallowing around in mud which probably included feces.

On the other hand I believe that kosher wine was just an economic thing to ensure that Jews bought only from other Jews. The restriction on pork might also have some economic reason behind it.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it - I shoot/research and report on first sight.
 
Bikewer said:
I've mentioned this before..... Anthropologist Marvin Harris wrote a little book some years ago called "Good To Eat"... About the various dietary foibles of various groups and peoples.

Pig hate, says he, had sound economic underpinnings. In the Middle East, pigs require a lot of resources that are hard to come by. Water, shade, etc. Additionally, they eat foods that are eaten by humans.
In areas with limited amounts of all three, pig husbandry becomes too expensive... Goats require none of them.. They'll eat almost anything.
What better way to keep people from raising a piggie or two on the sly than a religious proscription?
Same with Hindu cow-love.... The Brahmin cattle are much more valuable to the Indians alive than they are as a food source. They eat scraps, produce manure which used for fuel, etc. etc. There are not near enough of them to feed the Indian millions (billions now), and when the cow finally does snuff it, the lower castes can use the leather, body parts, etc. for rendering.
Click to expand...
Damn we do have similarities galore - wonderful book, read it seven/eight years ago.......:)
 
Why would the same reason have to explain different food taboos? Surely there could be different reasons for different bans.

I vote for a pre-religion ban that was co-opted as part of the commonsense bit that holy books add in to give them credibility. If everyone knows the world is flat, then you might put in a flat world with a little godly spin. If people don't eat pork (for whatever reason), codify it. Fear menses? Put that in too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom