Religious Dietary Laws

[SobaAddict70]

Does anyone think there may be a connection, between the proscription of certain animals as food and their unsuitability as sexual partners?

You mean, of the canine variety?

The practice does go on in certain unexplored (read: "rural") parts of the United States, that is, if internet posts are to be believed.

As to their consumption, besides Korea, I can point to the hinterlands of the Philippines, in which the wild variety has proven to be popular. A wild, feral dog should not be thought of in the same vein as your local neighborhood pooch.

For the record, I've never engaged in either practice (and the thought of either is revolting...to me). Yet, I can comprehend without resorting to likeability, the reasoning and even the justification behind consuming certain animals for food.

SA

Edited January 2, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Fat Guy]

With LML: Assistant Moderator firmly in control of this topic and keeping it real, and with Wilfrid bowing before my superior philosophical knowledge, and with all people now returning to their faiths, I believe my mission is complete. Please PM me, somebody, if my attentions here are further required. Thank you for a delicious and stimulating day of food discussion here on the thing we call eGullet. Love, -Me

[ivan]

"All food is sexy." --Nigella Lawson

[SobaAddict70]

A direct quote from the Culinary Goddess herself, during an television interview last night.

SA

[ivan]

I think LML said it first.

[SobaAddict70]

I think LML said it first.

Somehow it's more fitting if Her Worshipfulness said it, than if His Nibs did....don't you agree?

SA

[Gavin Jones]

'Bemba women must be alert to protect their cooking hearths from anyone who may have had sex without ritual purifiaction - otherwise a child which eats the food will die'. (F. Fernandez-Armesto)

That is a proper taboo.

At least with significant consequences - I guess Bataille & Duchamp could have got excommunicated if anyone had been interested (or executed if they'd existed a few hundred years earlier).

[Gavin Jones]

"All food is sexy." --Nigella Lawson

But so much more interesting for us the reverse

"All sex is about food".

Edited January 3, 2003 by Gavin Jones (log)

[g.johnson]

Does anyone think there may be a connection, between the proscription of certain animals as food and their unsuitability as sexual partners?

Some of my best friends are pigs.

[Gavin Jones]

Which religions explicitly proscribe love between the species?

The anti-cannibalism.

[Stone]

Plotnicki: Let's say I'm Hindu and I don't eat beef. I'll go to a steakhouse with you, but I'll order a lobster instead of a steak. Please explain to me how that would promote segregation in any sense of the word.

In addition, surely you acknowledge that there's a difference between self-imposed segregation and segregation imposed from without.

Jumping back in for a second (maybe this was already raised): For a long time, Jews were not allowed to eat with non-Jews. (It was self-imposed; different from non-Jews not letting us into their country clubs.) Bread and wine were not allowed to be made by non-Jews (supposedly similar to Japanese laws against importing rice -- the stuff was too important to create a dependency on the goyim). Even today, I'm told that for wine to be kosher, it must be made by Jews only, or boiled.

Them some segregating laws.

[Stone]

One would think that the less restrictions there are the easier it would be for people to convert.

As we saw with the massive growth of fundamentalist Christianity in the 80's, there are many reasons people turn to religion. Some are because of ease (my understanding is that, yes, when early Christians were distinguishing themselves from Judiasm, there was a concerted effort to make the practice easier -- also, it fit in well with what Jesus said; also, many newer Buddhist sects (Soka Gakai is the one I'm familiar with) make practice much easier); some are because people want the rules and "leadership" they get from a strict religion. There is no one, two or three answers to explain a history of religion.

[Stone]

Nickn: Yes. Wars now seem to fought more on the basis of hegemony and access to resources. At the top of the list of the latter, at this time, are oil and water.

All wars, at the root, are fought over resources. Access to fertile land and water, then stored food was the locus of wars early in man's history. Slave labor became an objective of warriors. The wars between the tribes of Native Americans were about resources. Over time, control of natural resources replaced food, and control of cheap labor replaced slave labor as objectives of war. Organized religion, allied with the ruling class, was the handmaiden of the war makers. Name a major war and dig deep and you will uncover an economic base of the conflict. More death and destruction has been justified in the name of one god or another but really fought to control some resource.

You think? Maybe you know more about it than me, but were the Crusades about economics? What economic benefit did the Christians in England think they were going to gain by taking back Palestine from the Muslims? Sure, we can come up with something (Christian control of the Silk Road?), but do you know of whether that was an actual motivation? How about the Crusade against the Jews in 1200 or so when tens of thousands were killed? Do you think they would have been killed if they weren't Jewish but, I don't know, Kurds? O.k., maybe they would have been, but I would expect it was because they were "different." Sure, we complain that the "others" are coming and taking our jobs and our women and all that -- but isn't that a rationalization of our bigotry?

[Max]

Causes of the crusades

According to Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay

Not a bad exposition. I'll look for further historical interpretations.

[Max]

An excerpt from another source describing the social, ploitical and economic conditions prevailing in Europe during the period that gave birth to the first Crusades. As you read this, contrast the situation to the great noble story of "Onward Christian Soldiers"

then tell me that the "lord's" work was behind the Crusades...

Age of transition / crusades 1000 - 1500

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PERIOD:

Demography and economy:

Between the 10th century A.D. and the Plague in 1350 the population in Europe almost doubled in size. A lot of wasteland was cultivated in order to provide food for all these people, so much in fact that some were freed from the need to participate in primitive production of food and instead became clergy, artists or scientists.

Between 1347 and 1351 about one third of the European population was killed by the plague. After this disaster, smaller epidemics continued to strike Europe so that the population did not recover quickly. In addition to this, farmers had very small pieces of land and too much had been brought under cultivation. The growth that had taken place in the previous centuries was no longer possible. There was no new land available to be cultivated; the wasteland that was still there had to remain so since medieval farmers needed a certain amount of wasteland to run their business. In these conditions a bad harvest almost immediately led to famine.

Hard times had come for the farmers; besides famine and disease they had to cope with a bad grainmarket. The prices were low, because too much grain was being produced now that the population had diminished. Because of the low prices farmers produced even more the next year to get their usual amount of money. As a result the prices decreased further. Labourers on the other hand were very expensive. For many farmers it was not possible to change their business from grain-production to cattle breeding, which could have been a solution to this problem.

Many new cities had developed in the previous centuries, most of which appeared near citadels built during the invasions of the Norse. This did not mean however that Europe was urbanising quickly, as 90% of the population still made its living from agriculture and the cities often maintained a very rural character.

In Southern Europe, trade with the Near East as well as more remote areas was vital. The Italians played a mayor role in this respect, while the Jews were less active as a result of the crusades.

Politics:

The power of the church had diminished due to internal conflicts. People developed a very personal religion which included many mystical elements. Religious leaders responded to this development with the persecution of heretics during the 14th and 15th centuries. They also tried to spread Orthodox Christian beliefs to other areas, for instance by organising crusades.

Another seed of trouble lay in the conflict between central and local power within rising "states". There were many succession-right problems whereby cities and local lords wanted to keep their autonomy, whereas monarchs wanted to keep centralised power in their own hands.

A third political characteristic of Europe was a changing attitude towards the rest of the world. Europe was an area of expansion in the 11th to the 14th century, contrary to its previous position as a besieged fortress in the 9th and 10th centuries. Some contacts that already existed with Asia, the Middle East, overseas areas on the skirts of Africa and even America were strengthened and expanded upon during this period.

Source of excerpt

Edited January 3, 2003 by Max (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Macrosan - It doesn't matter if they ever invent an instrument to see electrons because they have already proven they exist through scientific experiments. You cannot put forth any evidence that god exists, circumstantial or otherwise. The only thing you can do is to point to the fact that science can't absolutely prove evolution from day one. But if you look at how things evolve which we have been able to trace, we can prove evolution from day **** until today. That would be good circumstantial evidence to support a theory that the world could not have been created by a greater being. Show me any evidence at all that says god ever did anything?

You see I think you, and other Jews like you, are silly to hang onto that theology. I promise you that one day in the future, probably not too distant but not in our lifetimes, people will discard that type of thinking. Then they will find a way to lead spritual lives that are not intended to promote segregation or the lack of self-esteem because Jews cannot have what others have in life. And if you do not think that is true, just look at how conservative and reformed Judaism were invented so Jews could fit in better. Five thousand five hundred years of pious rabbinate ordering people around by the letter of the law started to go down the drain because people realized the words don't really mean anything and nothing was going to happen to you if you didn't obey god's commands. And what better evidence is there than you? You pick and choose the words and meanings that suit you and you disregard the words that don't suit you. Isn't that hypocritical?

Edited January 3, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Nick]

Dstone, I've taken my acorn and gone back to the tree. Try looking at papal history.

[Max]

Crusades from a church perspective

Here's a look at the Crusades through a "biblical" lens.

[Max]

A lucid summary of Sir Steven Runciman's three volume A History of the Crusades, written by a reader and posted on Amazon's site. I haven't read these books, but plan to.

Western Europe in the middle ages is often depicted as a static and insular social system--and, to be sure, certain aspects of medieval history support that impression. But the events described in this fine book challenge such portrayals, showing a Western Europe in the eleventh century that was intimately involved in the eastern Mediterranean. Runciman traces this interaction back to the Roman Empire, beginning his book with a charmingly concise yet informative history of Christian society in the East.

We see how alert the West was to events in Asia Minor and the Levant: I was struck by how, a thousand years ago, tourism was such an important industry. Constantinople functioned almost as a modern-day theme park--with relics, art and architecture being the big-budget attractions--and as a crucial transportation hub along the pilgrimage route. The breakdown of this tourist industry due to local political instability--and its importance to the West--is what proximally prompted the Crusades.

And in the Crusades themselves is reflected the dynamic nature of medieval political history; in particular we see the restless aspirations of the powerful Norman warlords (especially their somewhat disenfranchised younger sons) played out as a key military motor of the Crusades. Reading the background Runciman gives to the Normans (Christianized descendants of the Vikings), and the Seldjuks (Islamized descendants of Turkish nomads), I could not help but notice a certain loose symmetry to their stories, and it didn't seem so odd that they would meet at the interface of the two great Mediterranean faiths.

There is much that I found eye-opening in the narrative: from the murderous anti-Jewish pogroms in Western Europe that the Crusaders used as warm-up exercises, to the pathetic lawlessness of their course through Hungary and Byzantium, to the Monty-Pythonesque absurdities of the "medieval mind" (e.g., the throng of German peasants led to the Crusades by "a goose that had been inspired by God").

Edited January 3, 2003 by Max (log)

[Max]

SteveP, you wil find much sustanance for your point of view about religion in the article at the link below:

A skeptics view of Christianity

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yeah what he said.

[jaybee]

This part is cool...

The Root Causes of Religious Atrocities

We have seen that simply claiming that Christians are good people and good people don't commit atrocities is logically flawed. However before going through the unpleasant task of chronicling the horrible consequences of Christianity, it is important to look at one more defense often heard from believers. The defense is normally stated as such:

While it may be true that some Christians committed horrible acts, they did this in spite of the teachings of Christianity. True Christianity would not have advocated such horrible actions and atrocities.

Note how the defense now has shifted from what constitute a real Christian to what constitute true Christianity. Here we will see how the acts of intolerance and atrocities are direct consequences of the Christian theological paradigm.[a]

* Monotheism, the belief in one exclusive god, is fundamentally intolerant.

* It is fundamental to Christian theology that God and his purpose are, in the final analysis, inscrutable to finite human minds. However his commandments must be followed.

* Finally, ethics and morality are ultimately rooted in God's commandments, not in a reasoned analysis.

* These three tenets, when applied singularly or as a cocktail, are largely responsible for the atrocities and horror we will be looking at.

The Particularism and Exclusivity of Monotheism

In his book One True God: The Historical Consequences of Monotheism,[1] the University of Washington sociologist Rodney Stark, postulated that the root causes of intolerance seen in monotheistic religions are the exclusiveness and particularism that are embedded within it's very definition.

Monotheism, however, is the belief that there exists only one god. All other gods are, by definition, either false or attempts by the devil to fool their adherents. Embedded within this belief is an automatic contempt for polytheistic gods. This tells us why monotheism will always be intolerant of polytheism.

Furthermore, in defining the attributes of their one God, include the concept of immutability, that God does not change. Thus the God of the monotheists comunicates only one consistent message. In this sense, monotheism is also particularistic. Not only is there only one god, there is only one true message and only one true religion. This leads to both internal and external conflicts.

In trying to find and understand the one true message,theologians read and interpret scriptures. Yet this is the very cause of heresy. For heresy, by definition, is an interpretation of the same message in a method different from the group which ultimately won the battle (and the right to call their interpretation "orthodoxy"). All monotheistic religions show this tendency to splinter.

In first century Judaism we find such factions as the Essenses, the Pharisees and the Sadducess. The Jewish Talmud noted that there were twenty four different factions altogether. In Islam we have the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Sufis. In Christianity we have from the earliest days various groups such as the Gnostics, the Patripassians, Sabellianism, Dynamic Monarchainism and Arians. Even today we find Christianity splintering into more than 20,000 denominations.

Obviously if monotheistic beliefs could not even reconcile themselves with factions who share the same scripture (but a different interpretation of it), their attitude towards other monotheistic religions with different scriptures are even worse. For if God is said to convey only one consistent message, competing sacred scriptures, with different and sometimes contradictory messages, cannot be reconciled within a particular monotheistic paradigm. Classic examples of these are the various crusades between Christendom and Islam.

[stefanyb]

Well I just read this whole thread and I cannot think of a more interesting or engaging thread having ever been on eGullet. It took me most of the evening as I did have some other things to do and I wanted to respond about a dozen times but was determined to read it to the end. Thats not to say that I wasn't intimidated by the level discourse, because I was. But now I'm at a loss to say anything other than Halle-fuckin-lujah. Maybe I can fashion a decent response tomorrow. Whew.

[Stone]

Dstone, I've taken my acorn and gone back to the tree. Try looking at papal history.

Don't know what that means.

[ivan]

(Edit: cut out potentially offensive drivel, leaving behind drivel less likely to offend)

If I were in a position to set down words that generations after me would live by, I'd cement a few things into place, things like "carbs are death" and "lunchables are for tourists".

I say it's time to update the religious dietary laws.

Edited January 3, 2003 by ivan (log)