Interesting Pork Topic I saw

[sarahaziz 0]

Thanks!

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

I agree that biblically we are not to eat pork but everyone has to admit bacon on anything makes it taste better...bacon cheese burger.

[sarahaziz 0]

lol ahhh

[sandinista! 1,816]

I still think it doesn't take into account all types of pig rearing or all types of pigs, and Harris himself talks about regions that are ecologically suited for raising pigs when he discusses the geographical limits of Islam.

The book I have is a food and culture book with an abominable pig chapter by Harris. It says "Wherever Islam has penetrated to regions where pig raising was a mainstay of the traditional farming systems, it has failed to win over substantial portions of the population. Regions such as Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Africa south of the Sahara, parts of which are ecologically well suited for pig raising, constitute the outer limits of the active spread of Islam. All along this frontier, the resistance of pig-eating Christians has prevented Islam from becoming the dominant religion". ..........."Islam, in other words, to this very day has a geographical limit ..... (coinciding with geographical zones)" He goes on for a bit and then says he isn't say " that a proselytizing religion like Islam" cannot get pig eating people to adhere just out of obedience to divine commandments, but rather the food preferences/aversions are "on balance favorable to the nutritional and ecological welfare of their followers".

So the theory, IMO, seems to rest on the fact that Islam has a limited audience, that places where pigs arguably prosper, Islam cannot, and that God couldn't somehow work around these limitations or chose not to. This comes across very atheistic to me. Not that belief in God has to be a basis for the discussion, but if followers are looking for the answer, it seems you cannot start with the premise that God was limited in his ability/desire to reach people with Islam, choosing instead to limit the message to a certain geographical audience all for the sake of the pig.

different types of pig rearing, and different types of pigs doesn't change the fact that there will ever be any use for the creature outside of a meat source. you will never get dairy nutrition from a pig, you'll never be able to hook a pig up to a plow to get fields ready for growing people food, and you're never going to get a warm wool blanket or a snuggly soft cashmere sweater from a pig. they are not going to provide a protein source like eggs on a daily basis before they are used for meat. that pigs can and do prosper in many areas is not relevant-people do and allow all kinds of ecologically detrimental things that defy wisdom and common sense (and God-i don't think it's entirely crazy to theorize that God might possibly favor some environmental sustainablility and ecology preservation).

as for the last utter ####### (not yours, i know, but harris')- it completely fails. i don't think the two ideas have to be intertwined, and the passage above from your book is completely omitted from mine. (maybe it was dropped when people quickly realized how how ridiculously historically inaccurate it was) the ecological aspect can stand without the other. i think it could maybe be possible that the utter waste involved in cultivating an animal that has the highest feed to meat ratio of all farm animals and only serves the purpose of providing meat could provide some reasoning for why they are disallowed. and i just don’t buy that there is any truth to any place on earth being “ecologically suited” well for pigs. an animal that serves no other purpose than a meat source and has such a big affinity for people food like grains, and nuts and tubers is not ecologically sound, no matter what the climate. as well, one doesn’t have to accept the conclusion that because pig eating was so well established in certain areas of the world that the flaw or error lies in islam.

this (pg. 358) anthropologist says pigs were “the major source of food for the neolithic populations of Tangier, Morocco (i.e. 4000-1000 bc).” they were hugely popular and common in carthage, as well as being “a significant domestic animal among Berbers.” the same is true for alcohol consumption and production-a huge, world-wide product that huge numbers of people gave up when they converted to islam. one can accept aspects of the theory without having to come to the conclusion that “places where pigs arguably prosper, Islam cannot” or “the premise that God was limited in his ability/desire to reach people with Islam, choosing instead to limit the message to a certain geographical audience all for the sake of the pig.” if i’m not mistaken, most followers of islam know there is no compulsion in religion, and that people can and do choose not to follow islam for whatever reason, whether it’s because they want to still eat certain foods or they adamantly believe that Jesus=God, etc. i just don’t see how that must mean that followers of islam would then see that as limiting or restricting to God or islam-the reason’s self-imposed by the rejecting individual. it's their issue, and their issue alone.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I agree that biblically we are not to eat pork but everyone has to admit bacon on anything makes it taste better...bacon cheese burger.

[Y's_habibitk 2]

I agree that biblically we are not to eat pork but everyone has to admit bacon on anything makes it taste better...bacon cheese burger.

So bad... but it tastes so good! LOL