Author Shrek:
I want to express my opinion about the pork, which I personally eat, although I realize that I am sinning. I think that the idea that Christianity permits the consumption of pork is wrong. In any case, I have not met any arguments to the contrary.
Old Testament:
1 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them:
2 Tell the children of Israel: These are the animals that you may eat of all the livestock on the earth:
3 Eat every cattle that has cloven hooves and a deep slit on the hooves and chews the cud. 4 Only do not eat these of those who chew cud and have cloven hooves: the camel, because he chews the cud, but his hooves are not cloven; he is unclean to you. 5 and the jerboa, because he chews the cud, but his hooves are not split, he is unclean for you, 6 and the hare, because he chews the cud, but his hooves are not split, he is unclean for you; 7 and the pig, because her hooves are cloven and her hooves are deeply cut, but she does not chew gum, she is unclean to you; 8 Thou shalt not eat their meat, and thou shalt not go to their corpses.
touch; they are unclean to you.
New Testament: "Do not think that I came to break the law or the prophets: I came not to break, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17)
That is, Jesus did not abolish any laws, including the prohibition on pork.
Of course, he himself, being a Jew, did not eat pork. And it is no coincidence that he drove a legion of demons into a herd of pigs (Mark 5:13) and not into any other animals. And then he drowned them (2000 pieces) in the sea. Apparently, the pigs themselves belonged to Gentile Gentiles, not Jews. In the Talmud and in the Koran, there are similar legends according to which pork cannot be eaten, because the biblical prophet Moses (in the Koran Musa is the messenger of Allah) turned sinners into pigs. But in fact, if you look at his covenant with God, then in this part you can see that there are only artiodactyls and herbivores. It is difficult to call pigs herbivores - they devour anything.
I once read, however, about Muslims, I don't know how true (but plausible enough) that pigs were driven into the city so that they would eat the contents of cesspools. That is shit and slop. In general, they served as a kind of overshadowers. And then they drove them back.Where they were herded by the unbelievers, and by the pagans, who also ate them. I suppose that many of the customs from the beginning among all peoples, whose religion is rooted in the BOOK, were similar. Maybe the Jews had similar traditions.
If this is so, then it is clear where the Jews have such an attitude towards pigs, as especially unclean and carrion-eating animals. They were so unpleasant for the Jews, and later Muslims, that many of them did not pronounce the word "pig", replacing it with the phrase "this beast", "this animal." The dirty way of life of the pig was associated in the moral aspect with the sinful way of life of people, their tendency to return to bad. This happens to them according to the figurative expression of the Apostle Peter in the New Testament: "the dog returns to his vomit, and the washed pig goes to wallow in the mud." (2 Peter 2:22) in some translations - “…. wallow in feces "
In the New Testament, where the everyday traditions of the Jews are also reflected, the pig is allegorically mentioned only in a negative sense. From the New Testament comes the words of Jesus Christ: "Do not throw your pearls before the pigs, so that they do not trample it under their feet." (Matthew 7: 6)
If my Jewish friends are not lying, then in Yiddish there is an epithet “Hazerte fislah” - pork legs, it means hypocrisy. Since at first glance, judging by the cloven hooves, the pig is kosher - a clean animal, but in fact it is not, since it is not ruminant and is not clean at all. The Jews noticed this feature and used it as an epithet.
In general, I think that the religious prohibition on pork meat was due to the associative connection between the moral qualities of a person and the physical qualities of a pig that cause disgust and dislike, between the sinfulness of a person and the external impurity of a pig. Therefore, the pig was interpreted as an unsightly symbol.
The situation was different for the peoples who received Christianity instead of their already established culture and way of life. The Europeans, and in particular the Slavs, have eaten pork and wild boar from time immemorial. Therefore, this ban did not take root. Just as many other prohibitions have not taken root. For example, there are still pagan rituals, such as Christmas divination, games, dresses, carols, and many other things that are not common with Christianity. Therefore, we eat pork without even thinking that this is a sin.
God did not always explain his commands, but they could not be unreasonable. If the Lord forbade people to eat pork, then this is how it should be. It means it is harmful. And the fact that the Lord made a New Testament with people does not lead to the fact that pork, which was previously harmful, suddenly became useful.
The scientific note, published in the book by K.V. Bobrischev "This is how God heals", provides information on the mechanism of the disease of people who eat pork, such a formidable disease as cancer. I will quote from this book.
"After a thorough study of the pig cage, scientists of the world have come to a unanimous opinion: the pork fat cell does not dissolve in gastric juice, but is deposited in the human body, making up a foreign body, which then turns into a malignant tumor ..."
The Lord does nothing to our detriment. And now, as a matter of fact and always, science finds confirmation of this. If she eliminated the danger posed by very harmful worms in pork, pig blood and pig intestines (tapeworm with its calcareous testicles), then, for example, trichinosis is a hemorrhoid.
The causative agent of this disease is Trichinella spiralis, a parasite that lives in pigs. With the disease, the temperature rises, there are severe headaches and muscle pains, gastrointestinal disorders, cardiovascular failure, nausea, vomiting, and fever are observed.
Maybe someone will object that parasites also live in the organisms of sheep and cows, and they will be right in their own way, but in my opinion they are not. Since parasites living in the organisms of sheep and cows die when processed in high or low temperatures, in contrast to Trichinella, which lives even at ultra-low and ultra-high temperatures.
This hygienic version is also convincing enough. Maybe the ban on pork is really associated with the prevention of a severe, sometimes fatal, helminthic disease - trichinosis (V.P. Sergeev, N.N. Ozeretskovskaya, 1993). They were sick thousands of years ago: Trichinella larvae were found in the muscles of a mummy of a young man who lived in Egypt
1200 BC. Imagine a person without injuries and wounds dies at a young age, and in his body there is Trichinella. What is the conclusion. And this was certainly not an isolated case. Perhaps it was a mass phenomenon until contemporaries associated this pestilence with pork meat. Perhaps this is where the Jewish ban on pork comes from, which was later adopted by Islam.
The version about the prohibition of pork meat in order to prevent life-threatening helminthiasis does not contradict the assumption of the ancient assessment of the pig as a symbol of uncleanness. Thus, while there is no definitively proven reason for the Jewish ban on pork, I would single out three more or less convincing hypotheses about the origin of this ban. 1. hygienic - a source of disease. 2. morally - associative. 3. "fallout".
In fact, I think that all of them took place, since none of them not only contradicts the others, but on the contrary, one follows from the other.
In the emerging Christianity, there is no prohibition on pork meat. The formula works - what is not prohibited is allowed. And this despite the fact that not only the New Testament, but also the Old Testament is the basis of the Christian religion.
