4 ms·

Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. Some are period oriented, such as eating pork, which was notoriously hard to ma

by stuffn 9mo ago

Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. Some are period oriented, such as eating pork, which was notoriously hard to make sanitary. Others are to insure a society functions well, like for example not banging your neighbors wife or not causing harm to people. So, in this light it makes sense to treat it like a sin. And to be fair, it is a sin in modern society as well. We even have “sin taxes” for such vices we determine can be used for tax gain. I see no real problem with this. I am unaware of any large program that forces you to give yourself up to the Christian God, but most require you to give yourself up to a higher power. This is obviously designed to give you a release from things you can’t control so you can use that mental power to help yourself get better.

satvikpendem 9mo ago
But the point is it shouldn't be considered a sin, as in a moral failing, when it's a biochemical change in the body causing a disorder, and the solution is abstention and medicine (for example, GLP-1 agonists have been shown to significantly cut down on cravings [0]). It's like saying getting sick is a sin, when there preventative and curative solutions unrelated to believing in a deity or higher power. [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2829811 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
- criddell 9mo ago
  It’s foolish to ignore the social component of addiction. Some of the medicines and treatments showing the most promise are still too expensive for many. AA programs are accessible and can be helpful. You think they treat alcoholism (or alcohol abuse disorder) as a sin? In the meetings there isn’t a whole lot of judging going on. It’s mostly mutual support and compassion.
cess11 9mo ago
"which was notoriously hard to make sanitary" Why were the jews unable to handle pork? Didn't their neighbours manage it?
- satvikpendem 9mo ago
  Some historians speculate that it is a shibboleth to distinguish them from the pork eating gentiles.
- em-bee 9mo ago
  honest question, as i simply have no clue about this, is there evidence that they did? given that the koran also forbids pork i doubt that a way to make pork sanitary has been found before then.
  - int_19h 9mo ago
    Pigs were domesticated (specifically for their meat) for several thousand years already by the time the earliest Jewish dietary restrictions took shape. There are many theories that try to tie it specifically to the conditions in the Middle East, but none that I'm aware of are particularly convincing.
  - avadodin 9mo ago
    Pigs –being omnivorous– can acquire parasites that are harmful to humans at a higher rate than herbivorous ungulates. That was as true 1000 years ago as it is today. Cooking and salting the meat both greatly reduce incidence. It is possible that cultures which avoided pork altogether lacked adaptations against the parasites at the genetic level or simply that somebody among them noticed the relationship with illness whilst missing the link with undercooked meat.
    - cess11 9mo ago
      Let's say that was possible, why would it be likely, or even the most likely explanation? How do you square this against, say, the possibility that the early jews wanted to differentiate themselves from the egyptians? I'm not sure about the specifics of the archaeological record but perhaps it was the case that pork was an upper class thing in Egypt due to it being fat and tasty, and slaves and workers were instead fed beef. Then the rule in Leviticus might reflect this and conserve a part of an older identity. In early judaism at least some of the fat from mutton and so on was burnt as a cultic sacrifice, so maybe the idea was to keep tradition from before the exile to the Sinai.
miki123211 9mo ago
> Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. And yet others were designed to distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup. That distinction is worth keeping in mind.
- Aeglaecia 9mo ago
  why so ?

by stuffn 9mo ago

satvikpendem 9mo ago

But the point is it shouldn't be considered a sin, as in a moral failing, when it's a biochemical change in the body causing a disorder, and the solution is abstention and medicine (for example, GLP-1 agonists have been shown to significantly cut down on cravings [0]). It's like saying getting sick is a sin, when there preventative and curative solutions unrelated to believing in a deity or higher power. [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2829811 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

criddell 9mo ago
It’s foolish to ignore the social component of addiction. Some of the medicines and treatments showing the most promise are still too expensive for many. AA programs are accessible and can be helpful. You think they treat alcoholism (or alcohol abuse disorder) as a sin? In the meetings there isn’t a whole lot of judging going on. It’s mostly mutual support and compassion.

cess11 9mo ago

"which was notoriously hard to make sanitary" Why were the jews unable to handle pork? Didn't their neighbours manage it?

satvikpendem 9mo ago
Some historians speculate that it is a shibboleth to distinguish them from the pork eating gentiles.
em-bee 9mo ago
honest question, as i simply have no clue about this, is there evidence that they did? given that the koran also forbids pork i doubt that a way to make pork sanitary has been found before then.
- int_19h 9mo ago
  Pigs were domesticated (specifically for their meat) for several thousand years already by the time the earliest Jewish dietary restrictions took shape. There are many theories that try to tie it specifically to the conditions in the Middle East, but none that I'm aware of are particularly convincing.
- avadodin 9mo ago
  Pigs –being omnivorous– can acquire parasites that are harmful to humans at a higher rate than herbivorous ungulates. That was as true 1000 years ago as it is today. Cooking and salting the meat both greatly reduce incidence. It is possible that cultures which avoided pork altogether lacked adaptations against the parasites at the genetic level or simply that somebody among them noticed the relationship with illness whilst missing the link with undercooked meat.
  - cess11 9mo ago
    Let's say that was possible, why would it be likely, or even the most likely explanation? How do you square this against, say, the possibility that the early jews wanted to differentiate themselves from the egyptians? I'm not sure about the specifics of the archaeological record but perhaps it was the case that pork was an upper class thing in Egypt due to it being fat and tasty, and slaves and workers were instead fed beef. Then the rule in Leviticus might reflect this and conserve a part of an older identity. In early judaism at least some of the fat from mutton and so on was burnt as a cultic sacrifice, so maybe the idea was to keep tradition from before the exile to the Sinai.

miki123211 9mo ago

> Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. And yet others were designed to distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup. That distinction is worth keeping in mind.

Aeglaecia 9mo ago
why so ?