3 ms·

Why would religion prohibit consumption of pork, or cooking meat in milk?

vintermann 7y ago
Pork? Probably because they noticed pig herders/handlers got various diseases. Maybe not more than other animal handlers in the big picture, but they wouldn't exactly have done statistical trials on it. As I understand it, boiling a calf in its mother's milk may have been a ritual act of cruelty at one point, to draw the attention of various gods and spirits. Being a cruel bastard has certainly paid off at times, so it's not so strange some concluded that the gods like that sort of thing.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/forbidden-food https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/for... : Christopher Hitchens ..characteristically did not hold back in his book ‘God is not Great.’ [..]In God is not Great, Hitchens notes uneasy similarities between humans and pigs: Porcine DNA and human DNA are very similar, so much so that porcine heart valves can be transplanted into humans; pigs are noticeably smarter than other farm animals; and pig skin looks almost human, so much so that the smell and look of suckling pig and roasting human infants is, according to those who have had the misfortune of smelling and seeing both, disconcertingly similar. And make no mistake about it—many ancient Israelites had that misfortune. Hitchens thought this was the basis for the Jewish taboo against eating pork. Hitchens’ understanding makes complete sense—especially if you extend the argument even further. All meat consumption by Israelites originally required the animal be sacrificed to God. The choice parts were burned to soothe God—a necessary precaution in a world where natural disasters, disease, rampant infant mortality, death of an alarming number of women in childbirth, and famine had no other explanation than an angry or distracted god—or given to the priests to eat, and the remnants were eaten by the Israelite offering the sacrifice and those joining with him for that meal. Generations later, long after the taboo against eating pork had already been in place, non-sacrificial meat was allowed to be consumed. That means if pigs were kosher, Israelite worshippers would have smelled something eerily similar to the smell that emanated from pagan places of worship—if, as the Hebrew Bible claims, human child sacrifice was indeed practiced by the Israelites’ neighbors—and the Israelite priests would also have been seen consuming meat that bore a disturbing resemblance to those horrific pagan sacrifices. Would Israelites, who were then mostly illiterate, think that the Torah allowed human sacrifice? Would pig sacrifice cause Israelites to sacrifice their infants the way Torah claimed Israel’s neighbors did? Or could it be that the similarities alone were thought to be displeasing to God, regardless of how Israelites would or would not react to them? When understood in this context, and when we take into account the alarming frequency with which the Hebrew Bible says our ancient ancestors reverted to pagan worship, the taboo against eating pork takes on new meaning.[..] The whole piece is fascinating.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  > Pork? Probably because they noticed pig herders/handlers got various diseases. Right. So it would be a religious codification of "common sense", as suggested by the original poster who suggested that the same might have happened with people getting unwell from milk. For whatever it's worth, the theory I've read about pigs was that they simply weren't a good match for a nomadic lifestyle in an arid region. People still wanted to keep them though (presumably because they taste good), and it took a religious prohibition to keep them from it. No idea what the historical consensus is.

Pork? Probably because they noticed pig herders/handlers got various diseases. Maybe not more than other animal handlers in the big picture, but they wouldn't exactly have done statistical trials on it. As I understand it, boiling a calf in its mother's milk may have been a ritual act of cruelty at one point, to draw the attention of various gods and spirits. Being a cruel bastard has certainly paid off at times, so it's not so strange some concluded that the gods like that sort of thing.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/forbidden-food https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/for... : Christopher Hitchens ..characteristically did not hold back in his book ‘God is not Great.’ [..]In God is not Great, Hitchens notes uneasy similarities between humans and pigs: Porcine DNA and human DNA are very similar, so much so that porcine heart valves can be transplanted into humans; pigs are noticeably smarter than other farm animals; and pig skin looks almost human, so much so that the smell and look of suckling pig and roasting human infants is, according to those who have had the misfortune of smelling and seeing both, disconcertingly similar. And make no mistake about it—many ancient Israelites had that misfortune. Hitchens thought this was the basis for the Jewish taboo against eating pork. Hitchens’ understanding makes complete sense—especially if you extend the argument even further. All meat consumption by Israelites originally required the animal be sacrificed to God. The choice parts were burned to soothe God—a necessary precaution in a world where natural disasters, disease, rampant infant mortality, death of an alarming number of women in childbirth, and famine had no other explanation than an angry or distracted god—or given to the priests to eat, and the remnants were eaten by the Israelite offering the sacrifice and those joining with him for that meal. Generations later, long after the taboo against eating pork had already been in place, non-sacrificial meat was allowed to be consumed. That means if pigs were kosher, Israelite worshippers would have smelled something eerily similar to the smell that emanated from pagan places of worship—if, as the Hebrew Bible claims, human child sacrifice was indeed practiced by the Israelites’ neighbors—and the Israelite priests would also have been seen consuming meat that bore a disturbing resemblance to those horrific pagan sacrifices. Would Israelites, who were then mostly illiterate, think that the Torah allowed human sacrifice? Would pig sacrifice cause Israelites to sacrifice their infants the way Torah claimed Israel’s neighbors did? Or could it be that the similarities alone were thought to be displeasing to God, regardless of how Israelites would or would not react to them? When understood in this context, and when we take into account the alarming frequency with which the Hebrew Bible says our ancient ancestors reverted to pagan worship, the taboo against eating pork takes on new meaning.[..] The whole piece is fascinating.
tom_mellior 7y ago
> Pork? Probably because they noticed pig herders/handlers got various diseases. Right. So it would be a religious codification of "common sense", as suggested by the original poster who suggested that the same might have happened with people getting unwell from milk. For whatever it's worth, the theory I've read about pigs was that they simply weren't a good match for a nomadic lifestyle in an arid region. People still wanted to keep them though (presumably because they taste good), and it took a religious prohibition to keep them from it. No idea what the historical consensus is.