Talk:Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork

message: I agree that this article is not very good. I made an effort to remove the more dubious claims, and here are some of them:
One in six people in the US and Canada has trichinosis from eating worms that are found in pork. One in six people in the US and Canada has trichinosis from eating worms that are found in pork.
WHAT! I cannot possibly imagine that a good 60 million people in North America suffer from trichinosis pr 2006. As for that, trichinae is well representeed in numerous other animals we consume.
A common misconception about pork is that if it is cooked well, these ova die. In a research project undertaken in America (USA), it was found that out of twenty-four people suffering from Taenia tichurasis, twenty-two had cooked the pork very well. This indicates that the ova’s present in the pork do not die under normal cooking temperature. These worms are not noticed during meat inspections, nor are they killed by salting or smoking. Few people cook the meat long enough to kill the trichinae. The rat (another scavenger) also harbors this disease.
Which goes for ALL MEAT, not only pork. If you write for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, keep you bias to yourself!
Surely if a pig has ingested the blood of another animal, it is unclean — and God-forbid ingesting the pork would be (in the words of Jean Soler) “doubly unclean”.''''
Please, this is not very scientific. There is a long list of animals that (qv.) "ingest the blood of another animal", but are supposedly OK to consume.
Were the internal organs, for example the heart, the liver, or the brain crippled or damaged, the animal could die immediately and its blood would congeal in its veins and would eventually permeate the flesh. This implies that the animal flesh would be permeated and contaminated with uric acid and therefore very poisonous; only today did our dieticians realize such a thing
Hello! If YOUR brain, liver or heart was crippled, YOU would die as well! This is nonsense.
Sausage contains bits of pigs' lungs, so those who eat pork sausage tend to suffer more during epidemics of influenza.
THAT would be an interesting SCIENTIFIC study to see. And what about Avian Flu? From pigs with wings?
Pig meat contains excessive quantities of histamine and imidazole compounds, which can lead to itching and inflammation; growth hormone, which promotes inflammation and growth; Sulphur-containing mesenchymal mucus, which leads to swelling and deposits of mucus in tendons and cartilage, and replacing it with the latter resulting in arthritis, rheumatism, etc.
Sulphur helps cause firm human tendons and ligaments to be replaced by the pig's soft mesenchymal tissues, and degeneration of human cartilage.
And the medical and scientific evidence for this claim is...?
Pork has very little muscle building material and contains excess of fat.
Wrong! A pig is in fact a very agile, strong and powerful animal. It is perhaps the most dangerous of all domesticated animals because of its strength, speed and aggression.
This fat gets deposited in the vessels and can cause hypertension and server strokes that lead to heart attack in later life.
That goes for ALL fat, not specifically pigs!!!
Also it is said that the pig’s brain is similar to that of the human brain but on much smaller scale if you would to compare them together, an example would be a dwarf planet recently one such named Pluto quite distinctive with comparison to the Earth in the sense that they both are rocky or "inner core" but are worlds apart so Pigs are classed biologically similar to humans, and their meat is said to taste similar to the  human flesh and that is classed as cannibalism if God-forbid one eats a Human meat it would taste exactly the same as the swine but only a lot stronger a bit like alcoholic liquids.
I don't know. This is not even close to being scientific. This is hodge-podge of misunderstood comparisons, various non-relevant trivia (from geology and astronomy, nonetheless!), and some twisted culinary digression about alcohol-flavored humans (a la cock-au-vin?)
Pigs have been used for dissection in biology labs due to the similarity between their organs and human organs.
Or simply because they are accessible? What about the use of mice, rats, monkeys, kittens, frogs, fish etc.?
--Sparviere 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up attempt 

message: This article suffers from a lack of references and some highly POV text. The 'Great Facts on Pork' is especially bad. --Nydas 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I move to delete entire section "Side effects of pork consumption". Some religious crackpots have certainly done a great job filling in all sorts of (unsourced) claims to why their taboos are scientifically based and not cultural. I can see that other editors have taken a serious approach and emphasize the original eco-socioligal reasons for the taboo (Harris). Anything besides that is POV. Medico80 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (one year later) you're right. I have moved the section to Pork where it belongs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Still crazy after all this editing...

message: It's as clean as any cow after cooking, or not? --AnY FOUR! 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom line 

message: The article is extremely unreferenced and may contain WP:OR. Many inline citations should be used in the article. And in this way some other articles also can be created like Religious restrictions on the consumption of beef etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm...yes. Agree, actually many food articles are in a fairly indifferent shape. I am planning to (eventually) take pork to FAC at some point but it is a long way off and much more work than the horde of biology articles I done so far. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Should a Christianity section be added? In the version of the Christian religious text is says:
3 Do not eat any detestable thing. 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep.[a] 6 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses. 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2014&version=NIV  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.26.81 (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. I came looking for a little information on why and when Christians stopped observing the rules about kosher foods. There is no real information about that here. --60.242.61.222 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When after the fulfillment of the Old Law, its ceremonial parts were taken away, see Acts 10,10:16 (cf. also 1 Cor 8,8 for the theoretical standpoint; though this is talking about meat butchered in idolatrous sacrifices, it is a fortiori true about pigs). The consumption of blood and suffocated meat, though not pork, was kept on for some time as a disciplinary matter of positive human law, see Acts 15,19:22. This law too has since been voided by contrary custom. --91.34.248.15 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be added? 

message: Shouldn't someone who knows (that is, better than me) add for explanation the medieval analogy of
- a ruminant: the theologist must always keep repeating the same doctrine and 
- split hooves: it is necessary to distinguish right from wrong?
which was quite popular at some time, including Dante who says of someone in high position to be "a ruminant but without splitting hooves", or something? --77.4.72.236 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholastic allegory

message: Are there any other religions with similar prohibitions? A mention of vegetarian religions?
Is there a difference in conservative or radical members of these religions?
46.9.189.44 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I'll add a mention of Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. 73.170.203.143 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other religions 

message: What Christopher Hitchens Taught Me About Jewish Law and Pork – Tablet Magazine. I think this might help improving this article. Komitsuki (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Hitchens' on the pork taboo 

message: The apparent summary of Marvin Harris' views don't make sense. "Pigs require water and shady woods with seeds, but those conditions are scarce in Israel and the Middle East": Pigs do require water, but so do all animals. Pigs do not require seeds any more than poultry do. Water and shade are generally found where people settle, and were much more common in the ancient Middle East. Deforestation is relatively recent. "Unlike many other forms of livestock, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and refuse. This was deemed unclean": pigs are scavengers, but poultry too (and even goats) will eat anything, including carrion. If that makes a pig unclean, why not poultry?. The conclusion that "hence a Middle Eastern society keeping large stocks of pigs would destroy their ecosystem" simply does not follow. Ritual uncleanliness does not result in the destruction of an ecosystem - unless God smites the environment of the Ungodly who keep ritually unclean animals! Scavenging animals of any type can destroy an ecosystem, pigs are no worse than any other omnivore - or herbivore for that matter. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the religious grounds for prohibiting pork make no reference to scavenging or being an omnivore. Since they relate solely to appearance, I cannot help but conclude that the ritual uncleanliness was based purely on superstitious grounds, not ecological or scientific - which is a hardly surprising conclusion given the time from which these prohibitions must date.
Was this a fair summary of Harris' arguments? They seem rather weak and confused.
Has there been any scientific investigation into why pork should have been ritually unclean - or other animals?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvin Harris 

message: I'm surprised no one brings up the fact that human flesh is, apparently, very similar to pork...
Can someone look into that and see if there is any correlation between this and religious restriction? Or if a well-read enough person has anything to say on it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1801:A170:4449:12E0:E632:D5BA (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically you’re correct because the pig already has human DNA that’s why we can clone organs in it. so to eat pig is to commit cannibalism and if we need a physical body to reach ascension  it would make sense why we were told not to eat it. (Without a reason considering we weren’t evolved enough yet to understand science of the situation)and it was even repeated in the Quran. commandments are internal experiences that you can grow and learn from eating pork kills your physical body which is a hindrance of spiritual growth. DaedalVirtuoso (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to cannibalism? 

message: I added another scholarly opinion on the origin of the taboo from anthropologist Mary Douglas, to present a differing explanation from Harris's
Tuk12017 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Douglas 

message: I went to add all the vegetarian religions that are missing from this page and I was basically starting to replicate that page over here. This page should be folded into the vegetarianism in religions page.  "pigs" can be a sub-category in the relevant religious sections.  Pigs are already mentioned there in religions that are missing here. 73.170.203.143 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are definitely some issues with the current scope. On the one hand the page is oddly specific, and on the other hand, the title is quite misleading. Clearly it is basically just Abrahamic religions that are being discussed, and essentially just Judaism, Islam and some minor Christian sects. It could be merged elsewhere or alternatively retitled more specifically. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge request 

message: Christians can most definitely eat pork. I am a Christian and have it all of the time. With Jesus we are now not tied to the law of the Old Testament. With his grace we don’t need to be perfect because we aren’t perfect! Pork does not condemn you the only thing that does is not receiving the free gift of salvation God gives us. Jesus loves you and wants you to enjoy the food he has provided, like pork. 98.97.36.110 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. In Matthew 7:19 contextually Jesus purified the food not touched by tradition, not declaring pork clean. Some bible translation added them as a late edition, but some such as KJV does not, or other bible have some foot notes on it. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is completely wrong!!! 

message: This does not belong in the lede. Drsruli (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lost poem of Hermesianax, reported centuries later by the traveller Pausanias, reported an etiological myth of Attis destroyed by a supernatural boar to account for the fact that "in consequence of these events the Galatians who inhabit Pessinous do not touch pork"