so, how many religious folk out there are aware that there was a manmade reason for declaring the eating of shellfish an abomination? this abomination was actually written into the bible when people were getting very ill from eating bad shellfish, and eventually dieing of a disease known as trichinosis. it still occurs today, but for some reason eating shellfish is no longer considered an abomination. go figure...
2007-04-13
11:04:04
·
20 answers
·
asked by
just curious (A.A.A.A.)
5
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
thanks vinslave... actually, that's a pic of my trying to qualify... just barely missed qualifying... oh well, there's always next year!!!
2007-04-13
11:53:37 ·
update #1
monk, i'm trying to see this from both sides. i've asked questions assuming the bible is correct. you can't blame me for asking questions with some doubt and call it bashing. i'm looking for answers why people would say that's the word of god when obviously it's the word of man. if you can't face the possibility that maybe the bible is even the least bit the work of man, then you should really question your faith more.
2007-04-13
11:56:49 ·
update #2
it is an indeed an abomination...
leviticus 11:10-12 reads:
10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
2007-04-13
12:07:44 ·
update #3
pinkrose, if i were to create something i wouldn't intentionally create something else that could break it, i.e. sin. also, i wouldn't create disease either. if man were to have domain over all the earth, then god shouldn't have made viruses that can kill man. furthermore, i don't see how making the mistake of eating undercooked seafood and poultry will seperate you from god. people still die from it today. if anything i'd say people should be held more accountable for eating it today than 2000 years ago. you didn't explain that part.
2007-04-14
07:42:24 ·
update #4
Here's to hoping that pic isn't you training for the Boston... it's going to be rotten weather...
_()_
2007-04-13 11:06:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by vinslave 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
If you create or invent something, you usually also write an instruction manual so others can use your invention.
The Bible is God's instruction manual for living life at its best.
When the book of Leviticus was written there was no refrigeration etc. to hinder the growth of germs...plus at that time the people were living in the wilderness in tents.
So God wrote a "hygiene manual" in the book of Leviticus.
Here is a quote from the book THE STORY OF MEDICINE by Roberto Margotta:
"The historical importance of ancient Hebrew medicine lies in its fundamental contribution to communal hygiene through concepts contained in the Bible... Principles of bodily cleanliness, nutrition and diet, obstetrics and child welfare were codified in the book of Leviticus. Belief in one God denied the use of magical practices.
When Jesus came to fulfill the Law the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were no longer necessary. However the MORAL LAW of God is still valid today.
P.S. Did you know that some Muslims still consider eating shellfish a sin?
2007-04-14 01:27:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by pinkrose 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Shellfish are element of the filtering device that God positioned on earth. They pull the impurities out of the water an identical way that an AC clear out pulls airborne dirt and dust out of the air. might you talk approximately frying up your AC clear out for dinner, or might you talk approximately that an abomination? God continually has a reason while He tells us to not do some thing. For some human beings, they don't locate out the excuses till as quickly as they do it. For some, they pass ideal on doing the abomination and blame the effects of it on some thing else. I only dismiss the off topic remark which you wrote after your question approximately shellfish.
2016-10-22 02:30:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The same goes for pork. We don't actually know the reason for not being allowed to eat such things, but we speculate that it is for health reasons because pork and shellfish are very dangerous because of viruses that easily spread and trichinosos. Jews still don't (or aren't supposed to) eat them.
The reason why most people do now is because when Christianity came along, in the NT someone (I think Paul) said "from now on all animals are clean" (I forget where exactly). And look... eating them is still dangerous.
Btw, it's not considered to be a sin, just unclean and a really bad idea.
2007-04-13 11:18:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ambrielle 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, an abomination, just like homosexuality -- an abomination. Do we pick and choose? Are both an abomination or is it just homosexuality?
Why Do We Observe the Laws of Kashrut?
Many modern Jews think that the laws of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become obsolete with modern methods of food preparation. There is no question that some of the dietary laws have some beneficial health effects. For example, the laws regarding kosher slaughter are so sanitary that kosher butchers and slaughterhouses have been exempted from many USDA regulations.
However, health is not the only reason for Jewish dietary laws. Many of the laws of kashrut have no known connection with health. To the best of our modern scientific knowledge, there is no reason why camel or rabbit meat (both treif) is any less healthy than cow or goat meat. In addition, some of the health benefits to be derived from kashrut were not made obsolete by the refrigerator. For example, there is some evidence that eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, and no modern food preparation technique reproduces the health benefit of the kosher law of eating them separately.
In recent years, several secular sources that have seriously looked into this matter have acknowledged that health does not explain these prohibitions. Some have suggested that the prohibitions are instead derived from environmental considerations. For example, a camel (which is not kosher) is more useful as a beast of burden than as a source of food. In the Middle Eastern climate, the pig consumes a quantity of food that is disproportional to its value as a food source. But again, these are not reasons that come from Jewish tradition.
The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah says so. The Torah does not specify any reason for these laws, and for a Torah-observant, traditional Jew, there is no need for any other reason. Some have suggested that the laws of kashrut fall into the category of "chukkim," laws for which there is no reason. We show our obedience to G-d by following these laws even though we do not know the reason. Others, however, have tried to ascertain G-d's reason for imposing these laws.
In his book "To Be a Jew" (an excellent resource on traditional Judaism), Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin suggests that the dietary laws are designed as a call to holiness. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control, requiring us to learn to control even our most basic, primal instincts.
Donin also points out that the laws of kashrut elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual. The Jewish dinner table is often compared to the Temple altar in rabbinic literature. A Jew who observes the laws of kashrut cannot eat a meal without being reminded of the fact that he is a Jew.
.
2007-04-13 11:11:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
That because you dont have any idea what really took place on the cross,
But your right, but do you really know what is in the meat of a shell fish, as trichinosis?
garbage, poo, and dropings from other fish.
all shell fish,,, eat other fish's poo, so when you take a bite of a shell fish, your eating all that poo, they ate, now you know why it makes you sick.
Pigs eat, and eat anything, in 20 minutes, its digested, in 45 minutes its coming out,,,, there is no way there body can cleans the food that they eat in that time frame, cows have 4 stumics, and so do lamb,,, pigs eat any thing, even each other. so when you eat Pork, if that pig has any sickness in it, your going to get it, pigs eat dirt, and drink water from there own pee, and poo. Ya,,,, where do you think that mud whole came from anyway, and what it is?
Sure today they are rased in better feed lots, but still, if there is a mud puddle, they will drink from it, even if a pig just pee'd in the pool.
Enjoy your meal
2007-04-13 11:15:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Faith Walker 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
I'm thinking that shellfish consider us eating them an abomination....maybe Mr Crabs wrote the old testament bible while enjoying himself down at the Crusty Crab .....Aaaarrgghh.
2007-04-13 11:11:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, homosexuality is an abomination, eating shellfish was merely forbidden|
Look at the pertinent passages of Scripture that tell you the degree and modality of disapproval that God has for each|
---
2007-04-13 11:23:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Catholic Philosopher 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
What's to figure? We now have brains and medicine.
This is typical of religion. Something that starts off as a godd idea (not eating shellfish or pork - both unclean feeders) suddenly becomes a sin. You can't trust people's intelligence, you have to use it to control them.
2007-04-13 11:07:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Maybe not an abomination, but shellfish certainly are gross.
When DH drags me to Red Lobster I order mozzarella sticks LOL.
2007-04-13 11:38:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Rapunzel XVIII 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Of course, today we know how to select and prepare food so as to minimize the risk of contagion. Likewise, most of the injunctions in the Bible were for practical reasons and relevant to the times, but no longer necessary or relevant to our times.
2007-04-13 11:08:28
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋