Topic: Health and Religion - page 96. (Read 210871 times)

Lets take a deeper look.

Maimonides on the Torah's Dietary Laws
https://www.mhcny.org/parasha/1026.pdf

I find this argument overall very interesting. Let's look at a few of these restriction.

1) Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten. Sounds strange right? How could that have anything to do with health. Oh wait!

That does not look very sanitary. Especially when one considers that the gentiles in the middle ages rarely bathed and underpants were not invented until the 13th centurary.

2) Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law.
These are all very strict and pretty much optimize the chance of having a health food source. Kosher poultry cannot show any signs of being pecked, sick or injured. The birds are killed with a slit to the neck, allowing the blood to drain out. They’re never plunged into hot water (a theoretical source of bacterial contamination), but are washed in cold water before being soaked, salted and washed again. Experts in the koshering process say the extensive use of salt helps kill bacteria.

To be kosher, cows must be younger than 30 months. Dairy cows are never used. Kosher laws preclude using a stun gun or a bullet to the brain, which could scatter brain and nerve tissue (a source of mad cow disease). The animal must be hand-slaughtered by slitting its neck. Religious inspectors look for signs of broken bones, disease or scarred or punctured organs, which disqualify the animal. Downer cattle are never used, and about only 40% of healthy cattle qualify as kosher. Meat can be taken from only the forequarters; it is then soaked and salted to draw out the blood. All blood must be drained from meat and poultry or broiled out of it before it is eaten.

3) Pork is forbidden.
We covered some of the reasons why pork may be unhealthy above reasons that humanity did not know or understand until the last 10 years! However, there are other reasons why pork or specifically pigs may be dangerous to humans. Pigs have a respiratory system that is very similar to our own close enough to ours to allow diseases to jump the species barrier causing pandemics. This is probably how the 1918 influenza pandamic got started which killed 50-100 million people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic#Hypotheses_about_source

What? Trying to cast doubt in his mind? For a joker who admits to accepting fictional science theory, rather than factual science law, you sure are an outspoken little ding-dong.

Which funny farm are you at again?

The vision appears symbolic, indicating that the gentiles or goyim were no longer unclean or abhorrent. I find that Paul's writings from 1 Corinthians 10:23 on are more relevant to this.


It is not the food that is a concern since Christ was sacrificed, but the respect and love for others that matters. This is much like inhaling a medium-rare burger in front of a vegan could be rude to the point of offense; consideration of others is the primary focus.

Much of the Old Testament, Deuteronomy in particular, struck me as a survival guide for a society. Numerous points of instruction were prudent forms of disease management and prevention considering the conditions of the time. I consider the change this way: with the practices ingrained in their cultural mindset and the people expanded in number, threats of eradication waned and the society as a whole matured to a point where it could be discerning with Jesus' guidance.

I understand your point that correlation does not prove causality. That said I find this particular coloration quite interesting. Even today we do not really know for sure why pork appears to have such a significant health effect. One of the scientist involved said the following:

Ursula Arens from the British Dietetic Association told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that putting fresh meat through a mincer did not make it processed meat. "Something has been done to it to extend its shelf life, or to change its taste, or to make it more palatable in some way... and this could be a traditional process like curing or salting." She said even good quality ham or sausages were still classed as processed meat, while homemade burgers using fresh meat were not.

In regards to the Christian tradition allowing pork consumption I believe that comes not from the time of Noah but later from Acts in the New Testament. However, I have not looked into it extensively and their may be other sources.

Why can Christians eat pork & shellfish, Muslims eat shellfish, but Jews cannot?
https://www.quora.com/Why-can-Christians-eat-pork-shellfish-Muslims-eat-shellfish-but-Jews-cannot

As an applied mathematician, you know that correlation does not prove causality. One correlation wouldn't mean the Bible is an effective dietary guide book for every climate, culture and situation.

Also processed meat is not the same as pig. Processed meat is more unhealthy due to the nitrate chemicals added. Also meat in general is more unhealthy when it is overly cooked, stored for too long, etc..

Also after Noah's ark, the Bible permits us to eat pig.


Generally I think having self-discipline and avoiding activities that religion typically disallows is probably more healthy especially for the offspring. But taking it down to the level of diet is a bit ridiculous. Except I would agree that many youth especially have horrendous diets these days, so if a strict religion could stop them from building bad habits that would be more healthy.

Here is a counter example:



Please don't claim by implication that the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust were healthy.

You leftists will reap the evil that you are sowing:

It's a little different. Do this terrorist killer and his victims religion was a direct threat to health and life, but in the subject it most likely was about the fact that religion allows you to heal sick people. I doubt it very much.

Now a lot bought research. There are studies that talk about the placebo effect but its effectiveness is exaggerated. Moreover, no one investigated the damage from this effect. I am sure that health is the prerogative of physicians.

I recommend going through some of my prior posts in this thread. I have highlighted numerous studies that examine various aspects of the relationship between religion and human health.

The data available clearly shows that religion is both highly relevant and highly beneficial to human health.

Religion in General is irrelevant to human health. Moreover it prevents and actually harmful to health. How many people were hoping for a prayer and as a result launched the disease and lost his life.

Everyone are smart. It depends of the practice each person has for his own. Religion it's just a a help to be a better person, but still it depends on the person. I don't that one religion is ''smarter'' than an other, I think people are all equal to make the sames mistakes and equal to do things right.

Deuteronomy 14:8
"The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."


Processed meat 'early death' link
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-21682779

Processed meats do cause cancer - WHO
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621


Processed meat 'could be bad for asthma'
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38370057

Those can mainly be people who suffered a lot or suffering or maybe had nothing else to turn to, devastated in life so they turn to cults and cults are just waiting for people like those, easy to manipulate and deceive.

Sorry, I had to bump in. Are you saying that the fact that we're alive is the proof of forgiveness? So why didn't God forgive Adam and Eve for eating the apple?

The fact that life exists shows that forgiveness is effective while we are alive.

Don't understand how religious leaders can inspire people in the head with such nonsense? The person lives in order to live after death,but no evidence that it is really not.

Per my definition of the leftist religion, all leftists are atheists whether they admit it or not, because they w(h)or(e)ship the State instead of a God (or NATURAL LAW), as the lord pointed out in 1 Samuel 8 of the Bible. Thus more than 50% of the western world's population are atheists.

Perhaps one the smartest men alive on earth today, Freeman Dyson, is a non-denominational Christian. And btw, the 160 IQ Eric S. Raymond who says Dyson made Eric feel like the slowest one at the dinner table, is an atheist.

You atheists think someone of the intellect of Richard Dawkins has a high IQ, but see how Freeman Dyson dismantled that asshat Dawkins. Dyson obliterated Richard's small minded perspective.


Moloch, you are espousing the group evolutionary strategy of those who choose mutual self-destruction. I don't consider that very intelligent.

You think it is intelligent to defect from group evolutionary strategy by lying to yourselves with the religion of leftism. Smart indeed!


P.S. my two posts in this thread today are due to information, research, and insight that CoinCube provided, which stimulated my reductionist mind.

---

Follow-up:

I haven't the time to read all the vast information and deep thoughts in this thread.

I just want to comment on some private messaging between myself and CoinCube. I will make a summary statement of something I realized, which I think it applicable to the above quote and also the thread and religion in general.


Leftism is the religion which promises the individual he/she can entirely free, protected, while protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected.

Sounds very noble right? Read on...

All religions exist to protect the society (and the family) against the defection of the individual. Traditional religions argue that subjugation of some of the "evil" whims of the individual (e.g. extra-martial affairs) is necessary to maximize the success of the society, e.g. children who grow up without their fathers usually do statistically much worse in life in various metrics, including health.

Whereas, in leftism the "evil" is not "protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected". But what does this really mean? It is double-speak. It really means to steal from production so as to enable people to abandon their moral responsibilities so that the society can be utterly destroyed by hedonism and other ramifications of offering everyone "state-supported freedom" (which is a guaranteed megadeath hell in the future).

But don't dare tell the leftist, atheists that their idealism is corrupt, bankrupt, and disingenuous. They will gut you with a knife if you dare challenge the veracity of their beloved social justice.


"Entirely free" means you can do what ever the fuck you want and there are no NATURAL LAW ramifications (the State will always support your right to do what ever the fuck you want), as long as you support the State's right to protect and economically provide for everyone's right to do what ever the fuck they want. In other words, a "free for all" clusterfuck of political correctness and stealing.

But NATURAL LAW in inviolable. No State can protect every individual from the NATURAL LAW. And if you tell people they can be entirely free (including economic freedom for everyone and every whim), then you have lied.

In short, leftism is a Tragedy of the Commons. Thus is a false religion. It lies. It is Satan's religion.