The argument was invalid in the very beginning. The morality of eating pigs is still questionable, due to their sentience (/suffering) and ecological issues.
Woman dies in Ireland after being denied an abortion (Coming to a state near you!)
- Thread starter ace99
- Start date
The argument was invalid in the very beginning. The morality of eating pigs is still questionable, due to their sentience (/suffering) and ecological issues.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
The rule against eating pigs was never something that applied to gentiles. Gentiles were forbidden from eating blood or the meat of animals slaughtered in needlessly cruel manners, like strangling or gradually amputating parts for different meals. This command was given to Noah rather than Moses, and was confirmed by the apostles as something that gentile Christians need to follow.
Acts 10 isn't really about abrogating the dietary laws for those to whom they previously applied. It was a symbolic vision about how he needs to ring the gospel to non-Jews too.
Acts 10 isn't really about abrogating the dietary laws for those to whom they previously applied. It was a symbolic vision about how he needs to ring the gospel to non-Jews too.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
That is not why the bible separated them from other animals. The difference between clean and unclean animals in the Bible is those who are herbivores are clean and those who have some meat in their diet are unclean. You used this to try and show how people ignore the Bible, when you are the one ignoring it.
GhostWriter16
Deity
That's not the reason the Bible uses either IIRC. It says "Animals with divided hoofs and chew the cud" for animals. For fish its "Fins and Scales" and IIRC there was just a list for birds.
I think the point was really some combination of "Health reasons" and "Trust God even when the instructions don't make sense."
It may be that each of those categories includes all herbovores and excludes all others, but if that were so, why not just say "You may not eat any animal that eats meat?"
Not saying you're wrong here, I just have never heard that explanation before.
Trying to put motivations on Divine Commands is asinine. Noah was permitted to eat pig, but jews were not? And then it's because pigs eat meat? We can eat (carnivorous) tuna, but you're going to suggest it's due to meat-eating? What the hell does that have to do with cloven hoofs? It's all finger-snapping "poof!" arbitrary in Christian doctrine.
The morality of eating pigs is different in the 21st century because of new ethical insights regarding sentience and ecological issues. The Bible's 'magic 8 ball' approach doesn't need to be defended.
Farm Boy
they're all reactions
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 27,945
If you believe that it truly was magic 8 ball rather than observation with limited tools and understanding drawing, quite frequently, the wrong conclusions as to how to minimize harm or survive in a crazy ass brutal world.
I'll back up: I think the dietary restrictions for Jews are based off of a combination of theological reasoning strongly coupled with observation and tribal wisdom. I very much believe that to be true.
I think the Noahide dietary laws and the Christian recantation of Jewish dietary laws are 'magic 8 ball' stuff. They're over-riding the tribal wisdom for the wrong reasons.
I think the Noahide dietary laws and the Christian recantation of Jewish dietary laws are 'magic 8 ball' stuff. They're over-riding the tribal wisdom for the wrong reasons.
Farm Boy
they're all reactions
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 27,945
I'll have to read up more on that one of these years. I lack appropriate detail to do more than just roll with that.
Similar threads
