Why did God pick on the poor little piggies :)

JimiTime

I don't believe God does things arbitrarily, so does anyone have any insight into why he made Pigs, Crustaceans etc unclean and the whole weaving two different kinds of threads etc? I understand the ceremonial reasons as to why he seperated Israel from the nations etc, but what relevance did the Pig etc have?

As for the title, just thinking now, that the pigs were actually better off

Magic Beans

Pork and shellfish go off very quickly in the temperatures common in the Middle East. Hence the common sense avoidance of them as food.

JimiTime

Magic Beans wrote: »

Pork and shellfish go off very quickly in the temperatures common in the Middle East. Hence the common sense avoidance of them as food.

So does chicken doesn't it?

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

So does chicken doesn't it?

The whole thing makes more sense if you consider the rule was made up by a human.

As well as going off faster pigs spend most of their time in excrement, and so are considered dirty. Crustaceans just look wrong. Chickens are kind of cute and give us eggs and help us get up in the morning. Throw in a couple of bad cases of food poisoning and “god” has decided pork and crustaceans are bad.

MrP

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

what relevance did the Pig etc have?

There's no relevance outside of age-encrusted tradition as announced by Leviticus, and it's got nothing to do with pigs going rotten faster than beef in the desert heat, or pigs rolling around in the muck. At least not superficially anyway.

From the perspective of religious scholars, domestic animals have two relevant attributes -- whether their feet are cloven (split into two large nails) and whether they ruminate (chew the cud). An animal is declared to be ritually impure, and therefore unfit for eating, if it only has one of these attributes: ie, impure animals include pigs (have cloven feet, do not ruminate) and camels (do not have cloven feet (kind of), do ruminate). An animal is ritually pure and can be eaten if it has neither or both of these attributes (cow, goat, sheep).

There's also a link between the cloven foot and the traditional depiction of Satan with cloven hooves, but I've no idea whether the rule or the depiction came first.

The shellfish rule arose because things-that-live-in-water are ritually pure if they have both fins and scales (ie, fish). Everything else (crabs, shellfish) is ritually impure.

Fun fact:

At some point, I think during the 16th century, the Vatican declared that Capybara (an enormous relative of the rat) was actually a kind of fish. Theologically speaking anyway.

JimiTime

Firstly, as a Christian, I'm looking at this from a basis of God existing. (Mr P I'm lookin at you).

Robin, I understand the distinctions, my question is if there is any insight into why God declared the creatures he did unclean, and why he declared it unlawful to mix fibres etc. This is obviously a question asked in the spirit of belief in God

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I understand the distinctions, my question is if there is any insight into why God declared the creatures he did unclean, and why he declared it unlawful to mix fibres etc.

Well, the purity rule is as above and you'd have to ask the scribe/priest why he chose to write down that particular one over any other one.

From a rationalist perspective, religious purity rules appear to have their origin in schizotypal behavior. The endocrinologist/neurologist Robert Sapolsky has written interestingly and in some depth about this. Actually, that wikipage on schizotypal behavior links to one of Sapolsky's video lectures on the topic -- here.

From a religious perspective? Ask god, I suppose.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, as a Christian, I'm looking at this from a basis of God existing. (Mr P I'm lookin at you).

busted.

JimiTime wrote: »

Robin, I understand the distinctions, my question is if there is any insight into why God declared the creatures he did unclean, and why he declared it unlawful to mix fibres etc. This is obviously a question asked in the spirit of belief in God

Assuming, for a moment, there is a god, I can empathise with your confusion.

MrP

mcmoustache

It's an odd one alright. I can think of some practical reasons but as to why God would bother, I'm not sure.

From a starting position of belief in God, you could put it down to working in mysterious ways. What better way to be mysterious than invent rules that don't make sense?

It's possible that our being inferior to God means that such great questions are beyond our understanding too. Since we are incapable of fully understanding God, maybe these are some of the mysteries which have been put there to prevent this full understanding. Perhaps even, when we do understand these things, that we'll move closer to God. Or, conversely, maybe being closer to God will reveal the reasons.

Perhaps shellfish were one of God's more embarrassing mistakes that he was ashamed of but didn't want to admit it. Shellfish look odd and lots of them lack symmetry and have a rubbery texture as food. He probably preferred that beef be the food that the people thank him for. Remember, these rules are from the Old Testament and God was a lot more insecure back then than He is now. Maybe he wanted to be the guy who provided large beasts for His people to eat and not the guy who made people eat the ugly shells from the sea.

tl;dr, I haven't a clue. All I can do is speculate. Maybe we shouldn't worry ourselves too much with why God demands these things and instead, maybe we should just do as He says.

homer911

Pigs are mentioned several times in the Bible - the Prodigal Son, the legion of demons etc. - could it have any connection with their role in Jesus' planned ministry?

PDN

If we view the ritualistic food laws as simply a symbol that the Jews were God's covenant people, then there be no 'why' at all. It could be totally arbitrary. So this would be like asking why tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree (as opposed to a blue or green ribbon). Or like asking why wear a wedding ring on one particular finger rather than another.

However, it may be that the laws had a didactic element as well (being used to teach something). A lot of the ritual laws deal with the principle of holiness as being separate - eg not wearing clothing of mixed fibres or sowing different grains in the same field. The idea may well be to teach that you have to be one thing or another, a follower of God or a heathen, rather than hopping and compromising between the two. It would be easy to see why frogs, shellfish and bats were considered unclean foods. The Jews classed animals as belonging to the land, the sea, and the air - and such creatures tend to defy such categories in some respects. If they categorised animals into kinds on the basis of rumination and cloven feet, then animals that possessed one but not the other of these categories could be seen as blurring the boundaries of neatness and distinction that we all use to try to create order in the world. (Without having viewed Robin's video on schizotypy, or having encountered the word before, I would guess from the etymology of the word that it explores a similar idea.) So it's about teaching people to see things as black and white rather than as shades of grey.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

If we view the ritualistic food laws as simply a symbol that the Jews were God's covenant people, then there be no 'why' at all. It could be totally arbitrary.

Again, I don't think it is arbitrary at all. Knowing what I do of God, it would IMO, be out of whack with what I know about him.

However, it may be that the laws had a didactic element as well (being used to teach something). A lot of the ritual laws deal with the principle of holiness as being separate - eg not wearing clothing of mixed fibres or sowing different grains in the same field. The idea may well be to teach that you have to be one thing or another, a follower of God or a heathen, rather than hopping and compromising between the two. It would be easy to see why frogs, shellfish and bats were considered unclean foods. The Jews classed animals as belonging to the land, the sea, and the air - and such creatures tend to defy such categories in some respects. If they categorised animals into kinds on the basis of rumination and cloven feet, then animals that possessed one but not the other of these categories could be seen as blurring the boundaries of neatness and distinction that we all use to try to create order in the world.

I think thats a great explaination.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

So does chicken doesn't it?

Pork is harder to digest than other meats and is more likely to cause stomach upsets and various stomach problems, particularly if it is not prepared properly (pork is more prone to parasitic infections as well).

You can take the view that the ancient people's figured this out without understanding it and used religion to justify why people shouldn't eat it (they weren't after all going to give a lecture on modern biology), or if you believe in a particular religious explanation (which you obviously do) that God simply told people this stuff but didn't explain why given that, again, they wouldn't understand the biology behind it.

Isn't God knows best and doesn't have to explain himself to you a good enough explanation :P

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Pork is harder to digest than other meats and is more likely to cause stomach upsets and various stomach problems, particularly if it is not prepared properly (pork is more prone to parasitic infections as well).

Never knew that. Learn something new everyday:)

if you believe in a particular religious explanation (which you obviously do) that God simply told people this stuff but didn't explain why given that, again, they wouldn't understand the biology behind it.

Tied into the weaving two fibres etc, I think PDN's explaination is most plausible. I never really bought into the whole health scenario as a reasoning as to why God commanded it. Is every creature deemed unclean in Mosaic law a health risk like this anyway?

Isn't God knows best and doesn't have to explain himself to you a good enough explanation :P

Thats the temp folder things I don't understand are stored in, but I'm always on the look out for the explainations;)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Is every creature deemed unclean in Mosaic law a health risk like this anyway?

A lot of them are, though this can't really explain all of them. For example shellfish goes off very quickly, snakes and other lizards can contain poison. Other animals simply don't contain particularly good meet (who hunts Stork for example :P)

As an atheist I have the advantage of viewing this stuff in terms of collective cultural advice without the people understanding the biological reasons for each notion, similar to the old nursery rhymes about not eating particular berries.

I appreciate you don't, so I can't really provide a unifying notion of why all this stuff was picked. Though equally I understand why the arbitrary idea is as unappealing to you, since as you say God does everything for a reason.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

As an atheist I have the advantage of viewing this stuff in terms of collective cultural advice...

I don't necessarily see why a Christian can't have the same view. Also, insisting that this perspective is an "advantage" is begging the question.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Pork is harder to digest than other meats and is more likely to cause stomach upsets and various stomach problems, particularly if it is not prepared properly (pork is more prone to parasitic infections as well). You can take the view that the ancient people's figured this out without understanding it and used religion to justify why people shouldn't eat it .....

This. Especially the dietary laws contained in the Old Testament. Seems like it is the product of knowledge gained over many, many years, collected together and put into a distinct code for the people to follow. Far too many coincidental health benefits to avoiding what was prohibited than if it had been purely a problem of trying to fit certain animals into handy categories IMO.

homer911

Acts 10, 9-16 is generally referred to by pork eaters (the animals are alive)

(Unlike Romans 14:2 which meat eaters like me sometimes use to have a jibe at vegetarians...(the animals have been sacrificed to false gods))

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't necessarily see why a Christian can't have the same view.

You have to view it as something God decided.

Or to put it another way, I can easy say they aren't connected so you won't find a connection.

This is an advantage as it reduces the necessity of an answer that is constrained to the notion that God did actually do all this. At least I see that as an advantage

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

This is an advantage as it reduces the necessity of an answer that is constrained to the notion that God did actually do all this. At least I see that as an advantage

In the same way that, if we were discussing avalanches, someone who doesn't believe in the theory of gravity isn't constrained to answer in a way consistent with the notion of gravity. Which, I'm sure, they would consider an advantage.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

In the same way that, if we were discussing avalanches, someone who doesn't believe in the theory of gravity isn't constrained to answer in a way consistent with the notion of gravity. Which, I'm sure, they would consider an advantage.

Correct. Hence never considering anything proven in science is considered an advantage of science. If "Gravity is wrong" explains things better than an answer that requires gravity, then that is a good thing.

But we are getting some what off the topic ...

Coriolanus

It's only relatively recently that chickens were used primarily for meat. It used to be they were kept mianly for eggs and were only eaten at the end of life.

I was always told that the pig thing was because their screams sounds like humans. *shrug*

strobe

Maybe just a test of faith? We all know how delicious pork and lobster and prawn Thai green curries are. So by abstaining from these things you show God how much you dig Him and it teaches you something about exercising restraint over earthly desires or whatever. Like with the Muslims and Ramadan.