Ben you may be able to correct me here, but aren't pigs fairly close to us physiologically - there are a number of virii and bacteria that can easily make the jump from pigs to humans because of that. Accordingly pork would be more dangerous than beef or mutton.
larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 11:52 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Circumcision article link > > > Pig is one of the animals specifically mentioned as being not > allowed. Even when I wasn't religious I didn't eat it (and I > was just a kid). Closest I've come is soy bacon. salty, but I > love it. :) > > At 11:39 AM 4/12/02, you wrote: > >so as far as your concerned it's a commandment not to eat pork? > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: 12 April 2002 16:40 > >To: CF-Community > >Subject: Re: Circumcision article link > > > > > >Actually, a religious person (at least this one) looks at it > and says that > >its a commandment and I'm doing it because its a > commandment. If science > >says that the commandment has a physical effect, then fine > and good. The > >physical effect is totally secondary to the spiritual effect. > >To say that the commandment or every commandment was done > for a physical > >reason such as health opens the door to denial of the root of the > >commandment. Hey, not eating pork was because of > trichinosis. If we cook it > >right then we wouldn't get the disease and we can now eat > it. Same for all > >the other commandments. This is the rational of the reform > movement and a > >rational rejected by religious Jews. > > > >At 03:51 AM 4/12/02, you wrote: > >>It seems that much of the old testament law, such as > circumcision, what to > >eat and not to eat, etc., has a good basis in what is > healthy, especailly > >given the lack of sanitary conditions of the times. > >> > >>A religious person might argue that this is God making up > the lack of > >science of the time to protect people. A non-believer might > argue that this > >is wise people coming up religious law to mirror their own > observations > >about what makes a person sick. Either way, it demonstrates > a good deal of > >wisdom in the old books. > >> > >>H. > >> > >> > >>---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > >>from: "Braver, Ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:56:23 -0700 > >> > >>>Found a link to the original article on circumcision & > risk of cervical > >>>cancer - it's in the New England Journal of Medicine: > >>>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/15/1105 > >>> > >>>Apparently, the foreskin is particularly susceptible to > infection from HPV > >- > >>>human papilloma virus - which is linked to cervical cancer. > >>> > >>>-Ben > >>> > >> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
