Thou shalt not
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: Thou shalt not
(18-01-2015 12:39 PM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  You can see how much I like pork.[Image: 12646effbec83faa735ae041f6b48382.jpg]

Is that a Remington No. 4? Or maybe a Sharps? Pretty ballsy to hunt wild boar with a single-shot rifle. Consider


And, yeah, the best bacon I've ever had was wild boar bacon.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 02:10 PM
RE: Thou shalt not
It's a Remington Rolling Block in 45-70. I'm pretty sure it's a No. 1 it reads Remington and sons Eli, Ny on top of barrel. Which means it was manufactured 1870s to mid 1880s. All my hunting rifles are single shot. I ain't skeered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 04:02 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2015 04:08 PM by Chas.)
RE: Thou shalt not
(18-01-2015 02:10 PM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  It's a Remington Rolling Block in 45-70. I'm pretty sure it's a No. 1 it reads Remington and sons Eli, Ny on top of barrel. Which means it was manufactured 1870s to mid 1880s. All my hunting rifles are single shot. I ain't skeered.

OK, but a wounded boar is not a pretty thing. Shocking

Did you know that some of those are worth thousands of dollars?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 04:22 PM
RE: Thou shalt not
I know. My Grandfather was a collector and a gunsmith. Some families like to do all sorts of things together. In my family it was shooting, that's what we did together.

I got my appreciation for vintage firearms at a young age.
The Rolling Block has been refinished so it's not as valuable as an all original one of same make. But it's still really cool to own. If that rifle could talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 04:56 AM
RE: Thou shalt not
(17-01-2015 03:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The claim is that pork is unclean "because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud". What the hell does that have to do with tapeworm eggs? If the verse read "because it contains things too small to be seen that can be dangerous if the meat isn't thoroughly cooked" then he might have a point.

I agree with what you are saying. But I think that it is not necessarily important to divulge explicit information. In defense of god I'd venture to say that divulging too much information could cause people to investigate these things. This would result in people touching to see which would result in the infections. Let's be honest, you wouldn't tell children all the nitty gritty details because that results in curiosity. And you know what intelligence plus curiosity brings.

(17-01-2015 03:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If it is true that the prohibition is based on a correlation being seen between eating pork and getting sick then the explanation given shows that it wasn't divine knowledge, it was just people noticing a pattern.

That's my hypothesis. I think moving on this idea and finding results for it would be the strongest rebuttal in these circumstances. Perhaps I should do a little investigation into how other cultures that were sufficiently far away from the Abrahamic influence treated such issues. It would have to be a civilization that would be reasonably expected to make these observations based on their relative sophistication.

(17-01-2015 03:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  My guess is that the original author just didn't happen to like pork.
Drinking Beverage

That may be true but it's irrational.


(17-01-2015 03:43 PM)gofish! Wrote:  My guess is that basic rules of what and what not to eat were established at least 30,000 years ago.

How do you know this? This would be exactly what I need for a rebuttal especially if it can be shown in many parts of the world.

(17-01-2015 04:53 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  Is he claiming that the problems with under-cooked pork is something the Hebrews figured out or something that God revealed?

It's not likely to be the former; trichinosis, tapeworm, etc, take a long time to make someone ill. It's not reasonable to think that they would have been able to figure out what the was.

My friend claims that it is the latter. In your analysis of the former, I think you've left out eating pork in sufficient quantities to cause a problem. In early times was pork cheap or expensive? If it was expensive, then perhaps it was the higher ups eating it profusely for status purposes. This would make linking pork to some kind of sickness easier to identify since only a select few consume it.


(17-01-2015 04:53 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  If the latter, why would God be ambiguous about the reason. Instead of calling it unclean and pointing to facts like cloven hooves, why wouldn't he tell them to make sure that ALL of their meat is sufficiently cooked. And that they should wash their hands before eating. He left them in the dark about so many other things that we had to figure out on our own after thousands of years of people suffering and dying from preventable causes...why make an exception for pork and shellfish?

I've mentioned some of the reasons why being ambiguous would have been the a reasonable approach. Perhaps there is link between cloven hooves and not chewing cud? I'll need to search that up. You're right about it being strange making an exception for pork and shellfish only. So the instruction does not seem as if it was for the preservation of life since there are likely more dangerous things to worry about than eating habits which god neglected to reveal.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: Thou shalt not
(20-01-2015 04:56 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  
(17-01-2015 03:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The claim is that pork is unclean "because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud". What the hell does that have to do with tapeworm eggs? If the verse read "because it contains things too small to be seen that can be dangerous if the meat isn't thoroughly cooked" then he might have a point.

I agree with what you are saying. But I think that it is not necessarily important to divulge explicit information. In defense of god I'd venture to say that divulging too much information could cause people to investigate these things. This would result in people touching to see which would result in the infections. Let's be honest, you wouldn't tell children all the nitty gritty details because that results in curiosity. And you know what intelligence plus curiosity brings.

Maybe not all the details, but I wouldn't give them a totally unrelated. meaningless explanation either.

Quote:
(17-01-2015 03:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  My guess is that the original author just didn't happen to like pork.
Drinking Beverage

That may be true but it's irrational.

That's the joke.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Thou shalt not
All this talk about not eating pork for religious reasons reminds me of a joke I heard once.

Priest to Rabbi: "So, have you ever tried pork?"
Rabbi to Priest: "Yes, I did once. How about you, father? Have you ever had sex with a woman?"
Priest to Rabbi: "Yes, I must confess, I did that once."
Rabbi to Priest: "Better than pork, wasn't it?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
20-01-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: Thou shalt not
(20-01-2015 04:56 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  
(17-01-2015 03:43 PM)gofish! Wrote:  My guess is that basic rules of what and what not to eat were established at least 30,000 years ago.

How do you know this? This would be exactly what I need for a rebuttal especially if it can be shown in many parts of the world.

I don't. It was a joke. Facepalm

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: Thou shalt not
A lot of the biblical "shalt nots" were based on hygiene and sanitation practices the ancient people simply hadn't discovered the science behind yet. Eating pork in those days was risky, not because of any "curse" but because they lacked refrigeration and didn't understand germs, bacteria, parasites, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 06:32 AM
RE: Thou shalt not
My cynical side would say that the priests banned it because they liked to eat it themselves. Maybe a poor farmer didn't have a lamb for animal sacrifice, so they would give the priest two pigs for a lamb. Then bacon would be on the menu for the rest of the week..........Dodgy

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: