thanks, not eating pork is always something i've wondered about. whats the exact religious reason?
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 April 2002 16:52 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 >>> >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
