So What Does "being Christian" Actually Mean To You>?

Thanks. I hope practice makes perfect.

 

There's lots about Christianity that I think we don't know about. Or was lost/taken out or kept from public consumption.
For instance, reincarnation was part of early Christianity. As were spiritualism practicising groups, even groups akin to Eastern Tantra etc.

There's a lot of wisdom in the Bible. What is on the surface. AND what is written symbolically. I suspect few Christians have much of an idea about that.

That sad part is when I think of people who have openly or even fervently expressed themselves to be "devout Christians". Now some are very good.
But the ones that stick in my mind are the ones that preach one thing. And do another. :cuss: Anyway, whatever. : )

 

To be a Christian is to follow and live Gods commandments. Love your neighbor as yourself, do not steal, do not murder, do not lie, love Jehovah with your whole soul, mind, body and spirit.

 

and that is the total sum of all the law and the prophets, all the other crap is just because people tend to be thickheaded and need the obvious spelled out for them.

 

Apart from the "Love Jehovah" bit, that sounds like the same code of well being that spiritual folks that do not believe in a "God", live by.

So what makes the added "Love Jehovah" portion any special then living a generally clean life without "Jehovah"? What realistic difference does it make?

 

What's Jehova's beef with pork? He keeps telling his prophets to tell us commoners not to eat it . . .

 

^^ Ancient Marketing. Jehovah had stocks in Big Beef producers.

 

I think the Bible can be used to justify anything. For example, the Bible says nothing about abortion but there's a law in Numbers where if a husband is jealous, his wife drinks bitter water and if she cheated, she's cursed, but if she didn't, she's blessed by conceiving. That could be BS interpreted as being pro-life.

Christians expected to be slow to anger, but it seems like the vast majority of Bible thumpers are very hot tempered and rude, especially if they're authority figures. That's because they can just BS their way around it by claiming it's "righteous anger."

 

It is because they themselves do not understand.

When one questions their belief with logic, then the only way out is anger and a temper tantrum due to their own misunderstandings.

It is no different then a die hard Democrat or Republican, logic and facts cannot be understood when one is already swayed on a particular stance.

 

That's funny. It reminds me of my Catholic mother who used to tell me that the Catholic ban on eating meat on Friday back in the day was the result of successful lobbying by the fishing industry! There have been several attempts to explain the Jewish and Muslim taboo against pork. The earliest was Maimonides, rabbi and physician of the twelfth century, who stressed protection against diseases. Pigs, of course, carry trichnosis if the flesh isn't cooked well-enough. Critics of this theory argue that if that were the problem maybe God could have forbidden pork cooked below a certain temperature, and have wondered why beef would not also be included, since that can also carry disease if not properly prepared. But in arid and semi-arid environments of the Middle East, pigs are quite literally unclean. Contrary to the expression "sweat like a pig", pigs don't sweat at all. So they wallow to keep cool, especially in hot environments. Which is fine if clean water and mud are available, but when they aren't (as tends to be the case in desert environments) they use their own urine and feces.(yuck!)

I suspect other considerations are involved as well. One reason certain animals are forbidden is to set one community apart from the rest. This purpose is evident throughout Leviticus. Jewish dietary laws, keeping of Sabbath, and male circumcision became the most distinctive marks of being a Jew. This purpose was particularly important for a people trying to preserve its cultural identity amidst foreign populations. Archeologists studying Jewish origins found that the only meaningful distinction between the first Jewish populations of the Highlands and the Canaanites of the plains below was the absence of pig bones at the Israelite sites. The current explanation is that Canaanites took to the hills to escape their overlords and hostile conditions, and developed distinguishing customs to distinguish themselves as a separte people. This became more important during and immediately after the Babylonian captivity, when Leviticus is thought to have been written.

Another theory is presented by anthropologist Marvin Harris in Pigs, Cows, Wars, and Witches. He argues that the ecology of the Middle East favors sheep and goats and is unfavorable to pigs, which are best adapted to forest envionments. Generally speaking, it's impractical to keep animals as a food source alone. Unlikeruminants, which are sources of milk, wool, and hides, pigs are none of those, and since they don't eat grass, are comptitive with humans for food--and they can't be herded over long distances. Especially during the population exploseion of 7,00 to 2000 B.C., when extensive deforestation eliminated pig habitat, pigs became trouble to keep. But their succculent flesh became a temptaion for humans to keep them despite the ecological disadvantages. Hence Yahweh/Allah or their spokesmen had to intervene with the taboo.

 

The lists of prohibited animals set forth in Leviticus is extensive and complex, but the species included seem to have in common that they are not significant protein sources. Vultures, buzzards, mice, moles, lizards, snakes, bats,etc, are foods I could easily give up for Lent. Mollusks and crustaceans are more appetizing, but for most Israelites living removed from the sea and other waterways, these are also delicacies which are relatively rare and difficult to preserve. Rabbits and camels seem more promising, but since they don't have cloven hooves, they fall under one of the general rules of prohibition. Pigs are the major species of substance, and not only do they not chew their cud, but are difficult to keep in a desert envioronment, as explained in my previous post. So all-in-all, the taboos of kashrut serve to give Jews a sense of unity in their distinctiveness and deprivations without making much difference to their nutrition.

 

That worked for the jews during biblical times, for the reasons you go into, but what about today? What about someone who does live in a forest with pigs and wants to follow the commandments of the lord? Why for him are pigs still not to be eaten?

It's stated as a universal maxim, not as a directive for a particular tribe in a particular time.

 

Veggies are the best bet.

But as I recall, the Jewish food restrictions don't apply to Christians - they can eat anything with impunity. Still, the meat industry today isn't exactly a pretty thing, whatever the religion of the producers and consumers.

 

Hail the hebrew prophets of yore! For it is clear that they truly saw a vision of the future and it is what inspired this dogma against eating pork

Don't know about the chickens...

 

Bosch knew it.

 

Replt to BlackBillthe Quote option doesn't seem to be working) You're right. Kashrut is part of the Laws of Moses which applies only to the Jews. Gentiles are bound by the Noahide Law (seven rules similar to the Ten Commandments), which say nothing about forbidden foods.

 

Reply to Writer: The admonitions about forbidden foods were given by Moses and were meant for the Jews. Leviticus 11: "Speak to the Sons of Israel..." Chrisitians rejected them. (Matthew 15:11;Acts 10:15). Why should Jews keep them today? TRADITION! (Fiddler on the Roof, opening Chorus). If I'm correct that the main purpose of the rules was to preserve distinctive Jewish cultural identity, the rules seem as applicable today as in ancient times. Jews are declining as a percentage of the world's populations, mainly because of cultural assimilation.

 

It appears that he certainly knew something - I'm tempted to say saw rather then knew in his case. He certainly was very adept with the paintbrush.

Thanks for the clarification.

I also agree that first defining, then preserving Jewish identity has a lot to do with their dietary restrictions.

Also it's a fact that pork is a high fat meat, and probably if meat is to be eaten, it's better from a health point of view to eat leaner meat. Although I suspect that's pure co-incidence, I doubt the ancient Rabbis were moved by those kinds of considerations.

 

I would beg to differ on the high fat of pork being a reason.

The issue in today's food identity is the clarification of what is healthy. We were born meat eaters. A strict diet of vegies will not sustain our body to perfection. It is a balancing act between fat, carbs and protein.

In saying that, I would think it had more to do with the cleanliness of the Pig rather than the fat content.

Besides a well done crackle is mighty tasty, although not that good for you.