Pages

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Blood and pork as food

I always kinda wondered what a herd of swine was doing in Nazareth.  I tend to see this as evidence the Gospel was written by a Greek who had only a fleeting knowledge of Palestine and its customs.  A herd of swine would have caused a riot.  Of course at that time "Nazareth" didn't exist anyway.

Religions have a tendency to make rules for the followers.  This serves a useful purpose in separating out the "true" believers from everyone else, and thereby gives the followers an excuse to feel superior to everyone else.  Food rules, what one wears, funerary customs, holidays, and on and on are of this sort.
Christians, for example, can eat pork, but cannot eat blood (two of the Jewish dietary restrictions, one of which got abandoned and the other maintained).  (Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think for some reason the Scots do consume blood products).  Of course it is impossible to avoid eating blood if one eats any meat, but this is justified by means of some pretty slaughtering rules (and cruel ones, at least in Muslim societies).

Neither pork nor blood is terribly good for adult males and women after menopause (but, then, again, neither is beef or whole milk), as they raise cholesterol and iron levels, but excellent food for children and anyone iron deficient.   Pork is about the best natural source of B-12 in our diet, and vegetarians should consider a supplement.

I think people migrating to new countries should, "Do as the Romans do," and not try to make themselves out as different in public ways.  It just generates bad feelings and mistrust all around, and is really quite arrogant and stupid.  What one does in private is of course different, and I don't think it a good idea for politicians to get involved, nor the law, if one pretends one has a free, secular, society.

No comments: