Jewish and islamic religions dont allow their followers to eat certain food due to arbitrary reasons that dont hold up...

James 5:16 for one

For the Jews, the arbitrariness was the point. The weird rules they had to follow were designed to set them apart from the Canaanites.

>hasn't ever read the bible

>confess your sins to one another
That doesn't sound like catholic confession at all.
It sounds like the Orthodox system, where you pick a fellow congregant to mentor you in the faith.

youtu.be/2-Suevmghqo

Old testament:

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.

- Deuteronomy 14:8

New Testament:

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

- Acts 21:25

Why are christ-tards so stupid and hypocritical? You'd think they would read their own holy book at least.

They figured out that there aren't actually any adverse effects to eating pork, unlike kikes and muds

Congratulations OP, now we are discussing religion on a cooking board. You made it to the final boss.

>implying this is an accomplishment

stop appropriating Christ-chan she's a protestant meme

>They figured out that there aren't actually any adverse effects to eating pork

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taenia_solium
>Taenia solium is the pork tapeworm belonging to cyclophyllid cestodes in the family Taeniidae. It is an intestinal zoonotic parasite found throughout the world, and is most prevalent in countries where pork is eaten.
>With the help of digestive enzymes from the penetration glands, they penetrate the intestinal mucosa to enter blood and lymphatic vessels. They move along the general circulatory system to various organs, and large numbers are cleared in the liver. The surviving oncospheres preferentially migrate to striated muscles, as well as the brain, liver, and other tissues, where they settle to form cysts called cysticerci.
>as well as the brain

And on to the process of pig slaughter:
wired.com/2009/02/pigbrainmystery/
>More than a year after developing a mysterious neurological disorder eventually linked to their inhalation of aerosolized pig brains, 24 pork plant workers have regained their health.
>Doctors didn't know what caused the problem, but tests found severe spinal cord inflammation, suggesting an autoimmune disorder: the patients' immune systems no longer recognize their bodies' nerves, and attacked them.
>"When you're breathing in pig brain tissue, your body develops an antibody against it," said Mayo Clinic neurologist James Dyck, who helped treat the workers. Antibodies are chemicals used by the immune system to tag foreign bacteria and substances. "There's enough overlap between pig brains and human brains that it was a problem."
>"There's enough overlap between pig brains and human brains that it was a problem."

This is just from a quick 2 minute google search, mind you. There are a lot of fatal diseases which spread easily from pigs to men because of genetic similarity.

And regardless of that, you would think if Christians really did believe in the Abrahamic God as they say, and did believe that Christianity was their religion and that the Bible was the book of truth, then they would at least listen to God's own instruction unto them regarding their dietary laws, considering he is the supreme being.

The dietary laws are in Deuteronomy, which is in the Old Testament. That is why only Jews still follow them.
Christians believe that Christ, as the messiah, died in order to bring about a new covenant between God and man, so although hard-line Christians will often turn to the Old Testament for religious justification, the only binding stuff is in the New Testament, and within that there's as much variation in practice as there are Christians.

I just posted a line from the new testament, don't nitpick the first half of my post:

>As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

>- Acts 21:25

There isn't variance in the new testament, there is only nit-picking, mistranslation and religious institutions which literally hide religious documents from each other (Orthodox church and Catholic church).

The only way we can truly piece together what the correct adherence to christianity may be, is from what modern scholars and historians find regarding the religion (because anything found in the past was hidden, burned or is sitting in a pope's personal library).

That passage is a reiteration of Acts 15:20
>Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.
Don't eat food tainted in sacrifice to pagan gods, no cum food, no inhumanely slaughtered beasts, and don't drink blood.

>As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
where the fuck does that say to not eat pork?

Yes, which is a dietary law, except the sexual immorality part, that refers to pre-marital sex and the like.

Worth noting that this is instruction from the New Testament and not even followed either, further proving the 'christians only follow AND need to follow the new testament' is a crock of shit said by nitpickers.

God isn't real, eat whatever.
Pork, human... leaves, gasoline.

What is your point? That to be a good Christian you must never sin ever? There's repentance for a reason, user. Ever heard of Luke 5:32?

Where did I say that it referred to not eating pork? I was posting dietary laws straight from the new testament.

If you read the bible, even the new testament, you can see for yourself that there are 2 animals widely considered unclean: dogs and swine.

The assumption that swine are allowed to be eaten comes from followers of Paul, they cite a 'vision' which Paul obtained. You will find Christian denominations which forbid pork.

I find it redundant to argue with Christians as a majority of you are nit pickers that think 'salvation' is by words and not action.

If you truly believe in the supposed 'word of God', you would follow it or attempt to follow it, not disregard it and assume the sin would be forgiven. Is repentance not through intention? So follow the supposed commands of your lord instead of disregarding them. What is the excuse for not following your own dietary laws? That humans are not perfect? Imperfection is no excuse for negligence and ignorance. If you truly believed you would attempt to read the bible, you would attempt to follow the laws of your supposed lord.

feed me cum mommy

clearly demonic influence

>that think 'salvation' is by words and not action.
Salvation is by faith alone, my young heretic.
>What is the excuse for not following your own dietary laws? That humans are not perfect? Imperfection is no excuse for negligence and ignorance
Who says I do not follow them? Humans are fallible, and God is forgiving of trespasses. The only human who knew no sin was Christ, and Mary if you're a Catholic.
To strive to do God's will, though knowing we are eternally sinners and though we may stumble and there might not even be reward, is the way of faith. Don't mistake those stumbles for laziness, especially if you're not on the path yourself.

Isn't it interesting how asatro judges people on accomplishments instead of what is forbidden? Rape, incest, murder etc was a taboo in the society, not in the religion. Even a thrall had the opportunity to rise in rank and become respected, and that happened fairly often.

That aside, don't forget the seven kinds of beer the viking age people had aside from mead. And roast pork is nice enough, but for real viking fare you want palt/piteåpalt.

Hot damn, you are contemptible moron. How you could type so sanctimoniously while giving poorly defined red herring counter-points is beyond me. No, you don't know more about the Bible than anyone else, especially when you argue against Christian Dietary laws by arguing that 'humans aren't perfect' (something which everyone knows).

If you want to be taken seriously, try arguing with logic and reason, not by fallacy and poor rhetoric.

Do you even follow Liturgical fasts, bro?

You did have to sacrifice nine of every creature, humans included, every nine years

>The reason was "everyone kept dying because farm animals + human population centers = disease
Not quite. Jewish dietary laws had a lot more to do with keeping Jews separate from their neighbors, which is a great way to maintain cohesion among a nation of expats without a homeland. When all you have to hold your people together is a book, traditions and your bloodline you have to be careful about how much interaction they have with outsiders. A great way to assure that is to set up a bunch of diet laws so isolating that it will be impossible for your people to accept the hospitality of outsiders, forcing them to stick together even for something so basic as a meal.

As for the Christian rite, it's just a riff on Pesach, with the assumption that Jesus is Moshiach. Jews still believe their sins have delayed his arrival.

Christianity and Islam don't rely on dietary laws as much because they're not tribal. With open enrollment they are evangelical, seeking new converts with the promise of eternal afterlife. So interaction with outsiders is encouraged in a way that Judaism discourages.

It's also a neat way to create a little protected micro economy. If your community only eats kosher or halal and those goods can only be produced by members of your community, you create a market that people outside of your community can't get in on.

However unlike Jewish people, Muslims are allowed to eat meat killed by Jews or Christians as long as it was slain and the name of God was mentioned on it. So the Halal argument doesn't work, I don't know about Kosher though.

I admit I am no expert on these matters, but I thought that it was only permissible for Muslims to consume meat killed by Jews or Christians if there was no alternative available? In other words, if you have the option of going to a Halal butcher you must do that first. However, if that isn't possible for some reason then it is permissible to eat the alternative.

>arbitrary reasons that dont hold up nowadays.
you mean like that one about chastity until marriage?

>argument
I'm not arguing with anybody lad
Just pointing out that if your community will only eat blessed meat you're creating an industry of specialised slaughter parallel to the existing one and in the process giving jobs to members of that community. Religious technicalities aren't really relevant when it's observably what happens anywhere with a substantial Muslim minority

Nope, it is ok for a Muslim to eat a meat slain by a Jewish, Christian, or a Muslim as long as it was slain according to tradition according to their respective religions.
Muslims aren't allowed to eat meat slain by anyone who doesn't belong to an Abrahamic religion though.

Statistics have proven that people who practice premarital sex have higher chance of divorce.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

desu I think we should lock all teenage boys in permanent chastity as soon as they start puberty and only give their wife the key when they get married. if they made it to 30 without a wife they'd be castrated.

it would fix a lot of problems desu, rape would disappear overnight

>he doesn't know that jews are basically required to drink alcohol as part of just about every single religious holiday.
chosen people win

Isn't there one specific Jewish holiday in which they're required to get so drunk that they can't even recall the name of the person the holiday's name derives from? Hamantashen or something like that? (I'm sure I spelled that wrong)

It's bigger than just economics though. Particularly in the case of Jews it maintains insularity, which was necessary to maintain your culture and bloodline when you're a people without a homeland.
>people who practice premarital sex have higher chance of divorce.
This is still Abrahamic religions control their followers through controlling their sexuality. In places where the dominant culture is post-Christian the idea of marriage itself is in decline because it's not really necessary.

>In places where the dominant culture is post-Christian the idea of marriage itself is in decline because it's not really necessary.
Now the question is, are such families generally more stable than traditional ones? Or maybe this phenomenon hasn't be going for long enough to generate a representative sample?

>are such families generally more stable than traditional ones?
What does it matter? Seeing the family as the basic building block of society is a religious prejudice based around the idea that marriage (a religious institution) holds some sort of value. If instead you see the individual as the basic building block of society that idea seems silly.

>What does it matter?
It's an interesting topic of discussion.

Even if you see the individual as the building block of society it's still interesting to see how other factors interact. You can discuss the structure of a marriage without asserting that it is the fundamental building block of society.

>You can discuss the structure of a marriage without asserting that it is the fundamental building block of society.
Agreed. But placing value on the success of religious and state sanctioned monogamous relationships seems like a weird thing to do unless you're coming at it from a religious perspective. Otherwise why would anyone care about the institution? It's not like some sort of sanctioning is required to have a relationship or a family. So why value the institution at all? I can't see a nonreligious reason to do so.

How are families a religious prejudice? It's entirely biological, you fucking retard.

Your reading comp needs work.
Families are not a religious practice. Nobody said that. Families based on MARRIAGE are.

>Families based on MARRIAGE are.
This is my point. Having children is entirely biological. Having children within the context of a marriage is a religious thing that many states adopted because being religious was so much the norm in society at the time those states came about. But there's no need for marriage if you're not religious and want to have children. The idea that a family is defined by a marriage is entirely a religious one.

God isn't real and there are no divine rules as to what you should eat and drink. Go eat a baby diaper full of cat shit if you want to.

*tips fedora*

Whatever fucknuts, go suck off whatever statue you worship. All I know is I got nowhere to be on Sunday morning

God is with us not you, friend see digits

I would like to point out that this is from "acts" short for "acts of the apostles" so we don't know if Jesus himself preached this.

>Salvation is by faith alone
WRONG

Paul did Christianity a lot more harm than good. The letters he actually wrote are full of even worse stuff.

Purim.

>drink ‘til you can’t distinguish between cursing Haman and blessing Mordechai

>and call him Daddy
ftfy

...

don't eat pork
t. old testament

Why are fucking retarded 'Merican liberals siding with ultra right wing, religious, totalitarian, racist, sexist, & biggoted Muslims?

It's basically your liberals siding with foreign Republicans just because of the fact that the muslims are dark skinnned...

So fucking weird...

>[Jesus said], What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.
>Matthew 15:11

Surprisingly though, the discussion here is pretty civilized in general.

>It's basically your liberals siding with foreign Republicans just because of the fact that the muslims are dark skinnned...

It's basically proof that these liberal kids have no idea what they're talking about.

Niggers being racist = ok. Anybody else = evil.

Liberals live by a code of double standards.

Simple. White rich, spoiled kids are sheltered & ignorant.

They see a few posts in the media and thinks that's the way the world works.

Who is siding with ultra conservative Muslims? Besides ya know the military-petro-industrial complex with their hard on for Saudi Arabia.