well, its said in the bible {not the "The New Testament". teh BIBLE} that "you shall not eat Capricorn on his mother milk" - dont eat meat and milk. also, ther is the rule who say that the man need to eat only animals: animals who Cud animals who have Hooves if the animal font have both, you shouldnt eat it {mean - no pigs, no horses, no hipos, no camels}
anotehr rule, a quite clear one is, that god stoped is work of creation in the seven day, and in teh 10 commands, he say, befor 'dont kill' and 'you shall have only one god-me' to:"Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify" which mean : do not work or do any job in Saturday, and keep it holy.
and ther are more rules, that seems that, and im being sarcastic, jessus said "well, we dont need them anymore".
why? and why save the others? isnt just making a new religion, with a new god who have new rules?
It takes time to decipher and understand his posts
I can read through his post once and understand for the most part what he's saying. There's a few things (like switching words up/mispellings) which make it take a slight bit longer, but it's good enough.
As they say "first impression is last" his grammar gives an impression of him being uneducated
The simple fact that he knows English well enough to converse with us without it being his first language already puts him ahead of 98% of all Americans in my book. Same with you too punisher btw.
hence his own writing style is first vote against his opinion.
Regardless of how he says it, he's still offering up an opinion idea. Even if the best idea in the world was presented in the worst possible way, that doesn't affect the idea itself. You should -never- just disregard something just because of how it's presented.
pigs were a very dirty animals, fed with garbage.
Pigs actually aren't dirty really. Sure, they're covered with mud when available, but that's to keep cool and not really what I'd call "dirty."
If we want to talk animals and cleanliness...
Least dirty to most dirty (common farm animals)
Goat -clean- Horse -clean- (may have stuff on legs) Chicken -mostly clean- Pig -most likely has dirt on it but otherwise clean- Cow -very gross- (they stand in their own crap all day and poop every 5 minutes) Sheep -absolutely disgusting- (You know that wool? Yeah, well, it keeps dirt, urine, fecal matter, and any sort of smallish material like leaves/twigs in it)
you dont cook a baby with his mother milk! its tjust wrong.
I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean...Cheese/milk are the same thing, just one is molded. Neither kills anything to obtain.
i visited wher david killed goliath, i see wher it all happened.
So uh, you can see an empty field? That's great. I don't know how that helps your non-belief? though.
Regardless of how he says it, he's still offering up an opinion idea. Even if the best idea in the world was presented in the worst possible way, that doesn't affect the idea itself. You should -never- just disregard something just because of how it's presented.
I don't but its human nature to make assumptions on first impression Any one debating with him for first time will have this Idea consciously or subconsciously.
So what? Want to take a guess at how much mercury is in "clean" fish that we often eat? Any negative effects from a pig eating dung can easily be counteracted through bleeding and cooking them.
I'm quite well aware of what it looks like in a slaughter house. Ever see what one for chickens looks like? But agian there is a good reason we cook meat.
This isn't strictly true as people were nice to each other but he was the first (in written memory) to come up with pacifism (no violence what so ever)
Gautama Buddha showed up 500 years before Jesus.
Also during that time they wouldn't have been at all concerned with animal conservation.
Yeah, the first time it was realized that humans could directly cause a species to go extinct was when the dodo were wiped out in the 1600s.
they eat ****
So do cows. Some are specifically fed chicken feces due to the high protein content.
in "milk and meat", the combination is said to be a not healthy one. dont get me wrong, i do eat meat-and-milk, but in the past it was conisderd as bad for your health.
slaughter house in judaisem are not very nice to watch, indeed, but what they ment in this law is that you wont eat meat from the ground. that if you walk in the forest and find a corpe, you wont bring it home. seems legit?
ther is another theory i found, that said that pigs are close to humans in ther Anatomy. {and again, i eat pigs, but thats the logic behind it}.
and the fishs - i dont know if the scales/poison part is the truth, but it does "clear" from the list alot of dangeruse fishs {as said, sharks and Tetraodontidae}
and, the judaisem was the first to make laws for helping the poor, like a law that said that if you harvester and some left aftre you "finished", its Prohibited for you to come back and collect it, doing a double harvest. you need to let the poors to collect it for themesleve. its also a Mitzvah, a good deed you need to do, to give donates for the poors, sending them foods in the holidays and etc. while in europe, poor peoples died in a massive scales, in the jewish communities they were able to survive by the help of the rest of the community.
PS - Brit, i know two words in english that just fit what i think now. can you guese them? its not a regular reaction of me, but i feel its a good time. here a link, if you cant understand what I wrote. enjoy!
i do eat meat-and-milk, but in the past it was conisderd as bad for your health.
Okay. So what you're trying to say is, they had their reasons for these laws/teachings, even if they were not true or factually correct.
that if you walk in the forest and find a corpe, you wont bring it home. seems legit?
Bad analogy. Cannibalism is not the same as eating meat from animals, nor is eating a decaying corpse the same as eating meat from a recently killed an then prepared animal.
the judaisem was the first to make laws for helping the poor
I highly doubt that. Can you provide any sort of proof? I don't know off the top of my head any other cultures/societies/social groupings that had a specific law for charity, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.
Certainly, religion wasn't the first in anything else I know of.
in "milk and meat", the combination is said to be a not healthy one. dont get me wrong, i do eat meat-and-milk, but in the past it was conisderd as bad for your health.
Your first argument that it was perceived as immoral was likely the reason for it. When you get down to it this was specific to a baby animal being cooked in milk. These were symbols of life and vitality. With the act of killing and cooking it associated these symbols with death, thus making it immoral to these people. It would have been later on broadened to mean any milk/meat cooking combo. So really there isn't anything actually wrong with it, it was just how the culture at the time perceived the idea.
ther is another theory i found, that said that pigs are close to humans in ther Anatomy. {and again, i eat pigs, but thats the logic behind it}.
Not really comparable to cannibalism.
and the fishs - i dont know if the scales/poison part is the truth, but it does "clear" from the list alot of dangeruse fishs {as said, sharks and Tetraodontidae}
Sharks aren't dangerous to eat and they are no more dangerous to catch then any large fish.
ok, seeing as we have been of topic, and nobody has awnsered this question properly i will do so.
about a year ago i asked they same question to myself. why are jewish and Christian laws so contradicting when they should all overlap?
at the forefront of my mind was the same argument you showed, why do Christians eat pork (other than the reason it tastes good) and why dont they follow other Jewish dietary laws.
after some deep researching i found, he answer lay not in the bible or holy scriptures, but other neutral scores from the time. let me fill you in on a brief history of Christianity after the death of Jesus. christianity was spreading wildly through rome and breaching other areas to, but one of the main reasons people weren't converting was that they didnt want to take up new traditions that would take time and money to commit to. then a few years after jesus died one of his disiples (cant remember who (think it was jhon.) claims that god came to him is his dreams and said basically: that you dont need to follow the torah to get to heaven, belief that jesus is the son of god is enough to get you to heaven. from that day forward christans needed only to believe in christ to be classed christian -inflict
claims that god came to him is his dreams and said basically: that you dont need to follow the torah to get to heaven,
no one ever believed (or at least was supposed to) that not following the old testaments rules means hell. actually, if im not wrong hell isnt even mentioned in the old testament. if this is true your answer isnt really a good one. also, whats the point? they didnt want to believe something because of change of tradition but they started to believe in it when it suited them? sounds more like they want to be a part of a big group and not to believe in the truth
