Same as any non-kosher animal. Definition of Kosher animal:

animal that chews its cud and has split hooves.

Pigs do not. Therefore, they are not kosher.

Judith
>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
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

Reply via email to