1. Post #1
    Dennab
    February 2008
    1,355 Posts
    Before I get started on the topic and my point of view, I want to say this: If you're here just to brag about your sense of anti-religion and make a bunch of ~edgy~ jokes, That doesn't go to say that if you're not religious that I or others don't care about your opinions.


    I would also like to say that I'm not like, super dubstep frag-video levels of pro at my religious texts.

    So, as you may or may not know: The original followers of the god of Abraham, the Hebrews, did not, among other things, eat pork. Then our next in the line of prophets comes along, Jesus. Suddenly, the followers of Jesus begin eating pork again. Later, the final prophet comes along, Muhammad. The Muslims do not eat pork.

    I am starting to believe that we (Christians) should not eat pork. When was it ever said that it is acceptable for one who worships the god of Abraham to do so?

    I'd love to elaborate even more, but I do believe I've made my point and properly laid out a debate. If I could improve this post, let me know.

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,861 Posts
    If you honestly and in all seriousness absolutely NEED an imaginary friend of the Abrahamic variety, I strongly recommend Islam. The Holy Quran remains largely unchanged, if at all. It's also written in one constant beautiful song, but that element will be lost if you're reading it in a translated form.

    But this changing of the text over the centuries is what causes things like this. Christianity came about as an amalgam of the different books that were being taught in communities at the time, so when the church properly came together, they had to source a complete holy text from these various books. So you get a huge editing and voting process where many Gospels end up on the cutting room floor (like the Gospel of Judas) and various others are edited to suit the political landscape of the time and to influence people to behave in certain ways (like condemning Judas as a traitor to Christ and casting blame on Jews as a whole, which is NOT the story of the Gospel of Judas).

  3. Post #3
    Dennab
    February 2008
    1,355 Posts
    If you honestly and in all seriousness absolutely NEED an imaginary friend of the Abrahamic variety, I strongly recommend Islam. The Holy Quran remains largely unchanged, if at all. It's also written in one constant beautiful song, but that element will be lost if you're reading it in a translated form.

    But this changing of the text over the centuries is what causes things like this. Christianity came about as an amalgam of the different books that were being taught in communities at the time, so when the church properly came together, they had to source a complete holy text from these various books. So you get a huge editing and voting process where many Gospels end up on the cutting room floor (like the Gospel of Judas) and various others are edited to suit the political landscape of the time and to influence people to behave in certain ways (like condemning Judas as a traitor to Christ and casting blame on Jews as a whole, which is NOT the story of the Gospel of Judas).
    Out on a couple of tangents here, I am a Christian that accepts Muhammad as canon. I see it as a reaffirmation of my faith in God, and besides that it just makes sense to me. I call myself a Christian only because that's what I became when I first accepted God (I didn't believe in God until around the age of 16.) I'm not sure what I am, all I know is that I believe in God and have some beliefs that may seem contradictory if I am counted as a Muslim or a Christian alone. For instance, I believe in the word of Muhammad. This would conflict with my belief in Jesus if I were considered a Christian, as though Muhammad counted Jesus as being part of the line of prophets, he bore that Jesus and God did not share the father and son relationship that we people know of. God impregnated Mary by his will alone, and he is above such things as blood, kinship, or other such relationships with men. But, I do not pray 5 times a day and I do not maintain the level of cleanliness before prayer that a Muslim is expected to do, nor do I face Mecca when I pray.

    Also, why do people feel the need to blame anyone for Jesus's death? Wasn't that the whole plan? Jesus becomes a martyr of the new and radical belief of a loving and merciful God.

    I appreciate a logic based approach to this, though.

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    11,915 Posts
    Well the Christian church says that the New Testament overwrites the Old. You have things like Christ saying "it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him but what comes out" and it's clear that their is a rejection of more archaic spiritual practice. Many Christians will say that if we are still obliged to follow the Old Testament over the New than Christ's death was in vein.

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    J Paul's Avatar
    October 2007
    2,861 Posts
    Well, interestingly enough, the opposite is the story told by the gnostic Gospel of Judas. The Gospel of Judas can be interpreted as basically saying that Judas was performing his acts under the direct order of Jesus; that Jesus told him to deliver him to the authorities so that God's work may be done. Judas, in this case, is the right hand man of Christ, possibly his closest and most reliable companion, the one person he could trust with such a heavy task.

    But, when the Bible was edited together, they nixed that part, and changed the other gospels around to instead say that Judas was a betrayer of Christ. This was probably done in order to foster a general suspicion of Jews among Christians. The Gospel of Judas is only one example of the various times this happened.

    Basically, and this is speaking from a historical perspective, not my own opinion, but generally speaking, Christians like to change things around to suit how they feel (coincidentally, pretty much like you describe in your post how you've done in your personal life), regardless of the fact that it's supposedly the word of God. So, you get people who claim to believe in the god of Abraham, yet they eat pork, and they work and light their house on Sundays, even though these acts are ungodly and possibly even blasphemous.

    So since this is mass debate and I have to be nice and logical, I can't tell you you're wrong for believing what you do, even though the Bible and organized Christianity as a whole is simply a propaganda tool. But I will ask that you research the history of christianity, because I can almost guarantee that you will find out about all of these unsavory things about Christianity and either convert to Atheism or at the very least adopt Islam.

  6. Post #6
    Gold Member
    Craigewan's Avatar
    October 2005
    3,858 Posts
    To just address the title question - It's because Christians were not just of jewish descent, but were gentiles too (and used to eating pork), so Christ's followers never adhered to jewish dietary laws.

    At least, that's what I've heard.

  7. Post #7
    I pushed my dad off the stairs and all I got was he came back
    Aerkhan's Avatar
    October 2009
    4,767 Posts
    To just address the title question - It's because Christians were not just of jewish descent, but were gentiles too (and used to eating pork), so Christ's followers never adhered to jewish dietary laws.

    At least, that's what I've heard.
    Not true, most Christians in Bible Times were Jews before Jesus came along and went all "You Jews doing it wrong."
    They were mostly the people of lower standing, and as such resorted to eating what they could. That isn't to say they were all poor, but only a couple were priests and the such.

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    Chrille's Avatar
    August 2005
    5,427 Posts
    Because it says in chapter 14 Romans that it doesn't matter what you eat, or something. Of course, it was just to spread the religion to parts of the world where people ate pork and maybe weren't willing to give up on it. Same thing with circumcision.

    It's fucking stupid anyway, don't stop eating pork for crying out loud.

  9. Post #9
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,059 Posts
    Mostly because of the thing about the old law being crucified with christ and the vision one of the apostles had saying they could now eat pork and all that.

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    11,915 Posts
    Well, interestingly enough, the opposite is the story told by the gnostic Gospel of Judas. The Gospel of Judas can be interpreted as basically saying that Judas was performing his acts under the direct order of Jesus; that Jesus told him to deliver him to the authorities so that God's work may be done. Judas, in this case, is the right hand man of Christ, possibly his closest and most reliable companion, the one person he could trust with such a heavy task. But, when the Bible was edited together, they nixed that part, and changed the other gospels around to instead say that Judas was a betrayer of Christ. This was probably done in order to foster a general suspicion of Jews among Christians. The Gospel of Judas is only one example of the various times this happened. Basically, and this is speaking from a historical perspective, not my own opinion, but generally speaking, Christians like to change things around to suit how they feel (coincidentally, pretty much like you describe in your post how you've done in your personal life), regardless of the fact that it's supposedly the word of God. So, you get people who claim to believe in the god of Abraham, yet they eat pork, and they work and light their house on Sundays, even though these acts are ungodly and possibly even blasphemous. So since this is mass debate and I have to be nice and logical, I can't tell you you're wrong for believing what you do, even though the Bible and organized Christianity as a whole is simply a propaganda tool. But I will ask that you research the history of christianity, because I can almost guarantee that you will find out about all of these unsavory things about Christianity and either convert to Atheism or at the very least adopt Islam.
    No, Judas being the betrayer was in the other gospels from the start. Of course he would defend himself in his own (supposed, though since disproven) gospel. There were other reasons that gospel wasn't made canon, it was a complex process. Don't automatically attribute it to malice

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    I'm an atheist and even I know that Jesus said it was okay to eat all kinds of foods as long as your cleaned them.

  12. Post #12
    Turbo Dyke
    .Lain's Avatar
    June 2010
    20,988 Posts
    I'm an atheist and even I know that Jesus said it was okay to eat all kinds of foods as long as your cleaned them.
    And in correct portions, no?

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,803 Posts
    There's a number of factors that probably contribute to it. The problem with pork (and the bans of it) in part stem from the fact that pork tends to be easily infested with parasites and these tend to flourished in warmer regions - regions where Islam and Judaism originate and flourish.

    It really was pretty dangerous meat in those areas.

    Compared that to christianity which had a habbit of incorporating larger groups of people.

    There might have been a ban on Pork at first, or it was an unsaid ban, but as christianity expanded into pork eating countries it was phased out.

    While a lot of things in religions tend to be stupid in their interpretation, they often do have a real world basis on why rules existed. Obviously many of these rules aren't necessary anymore today but that doesn't discredit them in a sense.

  14. Post #14
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    Because it says in chapter 14 Romans that it doesn't matter what you eat, or something. Of course, it was just to spread the religion to parts of the world where people ate pork and maybe weren't willing to give up on it. Same thing with circumcision.

    It's fucking stupid anyway, don't stop eating pork for crying out loud.
    The books of the Bible were not written to simply appeal to different cultures.

    As for eating pork.. It doesn't matter to me, it doesn't affect my relationship. It's just like with the book of Leviticus and how it says to not do a lot of things that many people do today Example: specific clothing material. So I would say that the Old testament is a bit... Unreliable... Especially to Christians but it shouldn't be totally discarded.

  15. Post #15
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts
    Hebrews 7:12 is probably the key here

    For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

    It wasn't the birth, but the death. The new testament didn't begin until the death & resurrection of Christ, because God instates covenants conditional upon death, not birth.

    The old priesthood was the priesthood of Aaron, or the Levites. However, there is an older priesthood, that was not under any law, and that is the priesthood of Melchizadek (Abraham met Melchizadek. Personally, I believe Mel was a theophany, an OT appearance of the Son of God, but that has been debated for centuries). When Jesus Christ died and was resurrected, the book of Hebrews says that God instated Christ as a new priest under the order of Melchizadek, and with a change of the priesthood, (from Aaronic to Melchizadek) there was a change of law.

    In actuality, all of the Old testament laws are done away with, although most Christians are afraid of letting them go, as though the Holy Spirit is just going to let them go crazy sinning, when the Bible says that Gods grace will sustain them and help them live holy through Jesus. Instead, they rely on moralism and the law as a guide, and try to enforce it on others, when Paul specifically says in Galatians that it was a burden not even the Israelites could bear, so stop trying to force it on others.

    The Bible never makes a delineation between the 10 commandments and the 603 that follow. I don't know why Christians do. It refers to all of them as the law, and the 10 only really sum up the 603, which Jesus came along and then said "here is a better commandment. Love God and love others". Paul says "If you are going to keep the law, you better keep it all". James says "If you break one of the laws you have broken them all - James 2:10". So if Christians are going to say "don't do this because the 10 commandments say this" then by all means, they shouldn't eat pork, or shellfish, or wear polyester etc.

  16. Post #16
    :-)
    Phycosymo's Avatar
    December 2007
    4,198 Posts
    For the parts on Pork, and whatever meat that's considered "unclean", there's Mark 7:18 & 19:
    "Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
    Interestingly, in Galatians 3:15-22:
    Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

    Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

    Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
    Basically you're meant to Believe in Christ, his teachings, his death, and his resurrection, much more so than following the law. It even says that if you attempt to follow the law you are cursed with sin.

    I think that sums it up for this problem.

  17. Post #17
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts


    So, as you may or may not know: The original followers of the god of Abraham, the Hebrews, did not, among other things, eat pork. Then our next in the line of prophets comes along, Jesus. Suddenly, the followers of Jesus begin eating pork again. Later, the final prophet comes along, Muhammad. The Muslims do not eat pork.

    I am starting to believe that we (Christians) should not eat pork. When was it ever said that it is acceptable for one who worships the god of Abraham to do so?
    This might be unrelated to the topic, but are you a Muslim or a Christian. And I don't mean it in an intolerant anti-islam way, but I've never heard any Christian of any denomination acknowledge Muhammad as the final prophet, although I have heard many Muslims acknowledge both Jesus as a prophet but Muhammad as the greater final prophet.
    edit : nvm - you already answered this.

  18. Post #18
    C47
    C47's Avatar
    January 2010
    968 Posts
    Wasnt it Paul who kinda changed the laws and stuff so that Christians didnt have to follow Judaic law anymore? Think thats why consuming pork became ok.

  19. Post #19
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts
    Wasnt it Paul who kinda changed the laws and stuff so that Christians didnt have to follow Judaic law anymore? Think thats why consuming pork became ok.
    Three or four posts up, I gave a detailed explanation of why the law changed. The poster following me then posted some verses from Jesus. It has nothing to do with Paul. Peter was chowing down on pork while Paul was chilling somewhere in Arabia shortly after his conversion. If you are going to participate in a debate or discussion, you should probably know a bit about the topic and not repeat something you heard from someone else.

  20. Post #20
    Gold Member
    Devodiere's Avatar
    November 2009
    10,798 Posts
    Three or four posts up, I gave a detailed explanation of why the law changed. The poster following me then posted some verses from Jesus. It has nothing to do with Paul. Peter was chowing down on pork while Paul was chilling somewhere in Arabia shortly after his conversion. If you are going to participate in a debate or discussion, you should probably know a bit about the topic and not repeat something you heard from someone else.
    I'm curious though as when the first mention of pork specifically was in relation to Paul's conversion. He was one of the first non-Jews to come into the flock and while I'm sure mentions of the old laws being irrelevant now was before Paul, was he an influence in it?

    While I'm not an expert on the bible and you'd be hard pressed to find someone on here who is, we can still continue this discussion. I'm probably wrong on multiple points though so point that out, I'm interested in gaining a better understanding.

  21. Post #21
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts
    Yeah, Paul was definitely an influence on the spread of early Christianity, especially amongst the gentiles (non jews). If you don't believe in God/Jesus, then it's very easy to say "Paul is the founder of Christianity". However, if you do believe in God, and believe that God appeared to Paul at his conversion, and that in Arabia, Jesus communicated to Paul the Gospel by revelation (which Paul claims he did, and then had the other Apostles that had been with Jesus verify it), then it follows that Paul is only delivering the message given to Him by Jesus Christ.

    As for Paul writing about Pork, which is what the topic is about, I don't know the timeframe, since his letters are grouped by category, not time frame that they were written. He writes a bit about it in Romans, in Corinthians I and II and in Galatians and Colossians, but mainly in reference to a whole lot of laws, not specifically food laws. Paul's greater focus was on declaring the liberty that believers had in Jesus, and dispelling the teachings that people were trying to bring in to the newly formed churches and try and bring them back under law (circumcision, food and dietary laws and other laws), while also encouraging the new believers to live holy lives under the grace of God, motivated by love, not fear of condemnation because of law.

  22. Post #22
    Gold Member
    Devodiere's Avatar
    November 2009
    10,798 Posts
    Well yeah but I was talking about Jesus being influenced to more specifically include gentiles after Paul. Even from earlier teachings he was about liberty from the old laws but after Paul he reaffirmed this specifically aimed at gentiles not needing to follow the old laws.

    And Paul was about as helpful as Constantine for spreading it, but even if I don't believe in Jesus the son of god I don't really question Jesus the man's existence.

  23. Post #23
    Hidole555's Avatar
    July 2009
    4,557 Posts
    I asked my priest this once. He said something along the lines that in one of the Psalms, Jesus said that since pigs were one of God's creations and pork wasn't toxic, people should be allowed to eat it. He essentially gave the "Go Ahead." for Christians to eat pork.

  24. Post #24
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts
    I hope you have misquoted your priest, for his sake :)

    Jesus wasn't alive when Psalms were written (David wrote most of them, probably about a thousand years before the birth of Christ). Jesus did quote the psalms a lot, but since David lived under Mosaic law, and most of the psalms are songs of worship to God (with most of them having prophetic applications concerning Jesus), there isn't a whole lot (I won't say none, because I don't know them well enough) of stuff about food in there.

    The two main reasons are that Jesus said it was cool (one of the biographies of Christ specifically say that "in saying this, Jesus declared all meats clean"), and the whole change of law thing that I wrote about (but both of those are really the same thing).

    The other thing concerning laws is that the laws were only ever given to Jews. Gentiles (non jews) had been eating pork since Abraham was a baby. The idea was that Jews were to be seperate and different from the rest of the world, hence all their rules about not combining fabrics and stuff.

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member
    Ziron's Avatar
    June 2006
    3,086 Posts
    The issue regarding clean meats is part of a bigger discussion in early Christianity. One branch argued that Christianity needed to stick with Jewish laws because of it's roots in Judaism. The other side claimed that it was no longer necessary because Jesus had come to fulfill the law, and thus there was no need to observe it anymore because of what Jesus had done.

    It's obvious to see who won. To me, that makes it a complete non-issue. Even if you wanted to ban pork and other unclean meats again, Christianity has evolved in such a way that it's no longer compatible with Judaism, even though it uses the Jewish Bible as a large reference. Trying to ban unclean meats again is pointless and just a half-assed attempt at trying to be "more in touch" with Christianity's roots, which is just plain dumb.

  26. Post #26
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts
    Yep,

    The point of Christianity was that it was different to Judaism. Paul makes much effort to stress the liberty that they had, and got mad at the jews who "came in privily, to spy out the liberty we had in Christ".

    Some Jews really embraced the new liberty they had, as they were able to let go of the law that had burdened them (Paul called it a burden. When Peter went on his little "gentiles need to keep the law" bit for a time, Paul said "You dolt, why burden them with it, when we Jews couldn't even keep it".) Other Jews decided "nope, Jesus is not for me, I'll stick with the law" (and then they added even more rules to it, which is what Judaism is today).

  27. Post #27
    Gold Member
    darkedone02's Avatar
    February 2006
    2,591 Posts
    Sometimes i just don't get what made up the concept of why they don't eat pork... When I am thinking way in the past before monotheism religions been popping up during the classical world when most of the majority was worshiping pagan religions like the Hellenism, Druidism, Zoroastrian, and Babylonian. Won't people eat any animal that is served or available back then?

  28. Post #28
    Gold Member
    Ziron's Avatar
    June 2006
    3,086 Posts
    Sometimes i just don't get what made up the concept of why they don't eat pork... When I am thinking way in the past before monotheism religions been popping up during the classical world when most of the majority was worshiping pagan religions like the Hellenism, Druidism, Zoroastrian, and Babylonian. Won't people eat any animal that is served or available back then?
    It's all because of a classification system the ancient Hebrews used. A land-based animal was classified as "clean" if it had four legs, had clove-shaped hooves and chewed cud. The pig does not not chew cud, so therefore it was considered unclean. Simple as that.

    The stuff about it not being clean for health reasons is nonsense made up recently to make the ancient Hebrews look smarter than they really were. Ignore it.