"I support Muslims who love freedom" (5 Viewers)

[Gamaro]

Yes, I wonder how Hitler convinced all those Germans to believe what he told them. It must be because the ideology was a good one.

(CONVINCED)
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah,You said it Alen.

Our argument with burke was about whether we became muslim through compulsion and force or through conivction,and i'm glad you believe that we are convinced with Islam and not forced to accept it.

Whether Islam is good or not,that was not our argument Alen.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

Is the lack of pork about it being a eater of trash and things that are unclean in the past?



Today, the health effects of eating pork are no different that beef or chicken.

The pork argument is old school. Islam is a more recent example, but there's kashrut of course, for example.

Back in the day, nobody knew how to handle pork and they got themselves sick. But the food supply today is radically different than what it was 13 centuries ago... that's the kicker. Medical science in the western world (and I will include Islam in this) as something independent of religion virtually disappeared by the 7th century.

Islam, for example, contributed a lot to medical science at the time -- largely what was based on Greek texts. But to claim today that the science of health has not evolved since then is a bit of hand-waving. In today's modern science and food delivery technology, chicken is far more dangerous to eat than pork ever is -- for example. And even a batch of unwashed spinach can kill you.

So while I appreciate Gamaro's attempt to explain things here, it's not about health so much as it is about tradition.

 

[Gamaro]

Coke is harmful in the long run. If you're saying it doesn't count because it's not harmful in short term use, then it's the same for alcohol.

Are you kidding?

Who said alcohol is not harmful in shor term?
If so then footballers would be allowed to drink once a week.

And regarding Coke,go to any Dietitian and he will show you the amounts of Coke to have that can't harm you even if you live for 100 years.

Is the lack of pork about it being a eater of trash and things that are unclean in the past?



Today, the health effects of eating pork are no different that beef or chicken.

 

[Gamaro]

The pork argument is old school. Islam is a more recent example, but there's kashrut of course, for example.

Back in the day, nobody knew how to handle pork and they got themselves sick. But the food supply today is radically different than what it was 13 centuries ago... that's the kicker. Medical science in the western world (and I will include Islam in this) as something independent of religion virtually disappeared by the 7th century.

Islam, for example, contributed a lot to medical science at the time -- largely what was based on Greek texts. But to claim today that the science of health has not evolved since then is a bit of hand-waving. In today's modern science and food delivery technology, chicken is far more dangerous to eat than pork ever is -- for example. And even a batch of unwashed spinach can kill you.

So while I appreciate Gamaro's attempt to explain things here, it's not about health so much as it is about tradition.

No Greg,it's not tradition.

As per th example of chicken,i would say,there is a harm in eating anything excessively.

No one can ever deny the benefits of the chicken even a perfect veg-diet can't compensate.

Surely unwashed spinach can kill you,but because it's unwashed not because it's harmful per se.

It's true that 200g of pork is less dangerous than 10k of chicken,but that doesn't mean pork is less harmful.This is illogical.

 

[Enron]

You could enlighten me then?

 

[swag]

No Greg,it's not tradition.

As per th example of chicken,i would say,there is a harm in eating anything excessively.

No one can ever deny the benefits of the chicken even a perfect veg-diet can't compensate.

No -- the levels of parasites and salmonella in chicken ridiculously outweigh any dangers of pork in our modern food supply. That is a scientific fact.

To presume that chicken is safe while pork isn't in this modern day is like calling the earth flat. There's no scientific foundation for it.

If you believe that, you're selectively following some facts while ignoring all the others to support your preconceived beliefs about the health of the modern food supply. There's nothing wrong with following tradition. But saying that chicken is safer than pork today is like saying the sky is yellow.

And to be honest, if you were to continue to insist that pork is somehow safer than chicken, then I'd have to call into question the foundation for your own beliefs. Because then it would sound a lot more like indoctrination than any rational thinking. It's one thing to say your religion believes X or Y is the right and righteous way. But it's an entirely different thing to say a rule is based on fact, not tradition, and that rule says the earth is flat.

 

[Enron]

No -- the levels of parasites and salmonella in chicken ridiculously outweigh any dangers of pork in our modern food supply. That is a scientific fact.

To presume that chicken is safe while pork isn't in this modern day is like calling the earth flat. There's no scientific foundation for it.

I know a guy who once worked in a chicken factory. He never eats chicken.

 

[Gamaro]

I think you may get something here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork#Nutrition

 

[swag]

I think you may get something here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork#Nutrition

I am a very saaaad panda. :frown: You are showing me evidence to suggest you're doing exactly as I feared: selectively picking out some details to support your belief system while ignoring all the others that might contradict it.

Which means I am starting to change my mind a little about this. Because now at least the pork thing in Islam is starting to sound more like indoctrination pretending to be science. At least in the way you personally see it.

 

[Gamaro]

What indoctrination dear,I'm not giving you the link to read the part of "religious view".

Read the parts above,in Nutrition part is says in the first few lines "Its myoglobin content is lower than that of beef, but much higher than that of chicken. The USDA treats pork as a red meat."

 

[Hængebøffer]

Of course.

I'm just saying, do you feel bad/sit around crying if you intentionally eat pork?

Because you know not eating pork 2000 years ago made a lot more sense as it was a much dirtier animal and had a much higher risk of disease.....

How it was in Christianity, but it had nothing to do with religion and in the New Testament no animals were seen as dirty and profane

 

[Gamaro]

Greg,read also the parts of "Food-borne illness" & "Trichinosis".

 

[swag]

Gamaro -- forget for a moment that I'm not an amateur who is convinced by a couple of citations on Wikipedia without any comparison made with chicken. I know far more about this topic than I care to admit, having spent time in medical school, knowing people in the food supply business, and reading statistical data about this over the years.

What you're doing here, however, is just proving my point. Rather than entertaining the possibility that pork may actually be safer and healthier in the modern food supply than chicken, which it most certainly is, you're looking to cite counter-examples to validate your pre-existing belief system.

Meaning: you don't question, you merely accept and defend.

That's not science. That is the definition of indoctrination, I'm afraid.

If you said it was tradition, I could accept that. What I can't accept is a belief from the 7th century, posing as fact, that flies in the face of modern evidence and the complete revolution of the human food supply and food technology several times over.

 

[Enron]

What indoctrination dear,I'm not giving you the link to read the part of "religious view".

Read the parts above,in Nutrition part is says in the first few lines "Its myoglobin content is lower than that of beef, but much higher than that of chicken. The USDA treats pork as a red meat."

Greg,read also the parts of "Food-borne illness" & "Trichinosis".

It's a wikipedia about nutrition content and the dangers uncooked or poorly cooked pork.

You can get sick from eating any uncooked meat, not just pork.

I don't eat a lot of pork and I'm not trying to be an advocate of it or anything. I've just always wondered why certain religion's shun it. If you can't explain the reasons behind it or if your reason is something as simple as "Allah forbids it" that's fine. I was just wondering, not questioning your beliefs.

 

[X Æ A-12]

Sumerians are especially hard to find since in the Third Reckoning Gozor came in the form of a giant Slor, many found out what it was like to roast in the belly of the Slor that day I can tell you.

 

[Enron]

GOOOOOZOOOOOOR.

 

[Gamaro]

Gamaro -- forget for a moment that I'm not an amateur who is convinced by a couple of citations on Wikipedia without any comparison made with chicken. I know far more about this topic than I care to admit, having spent time in medical school, knowing people in the food supply business, and reading statistical data about this over the years.

What you're doing here, however, is just proving my point. Rather than entertaining the possibility that pork may actually be safer and healthier in the modern food supply than chicken, which it most certainly is, you're looking to cite counter-examples to validate your pre-existing belief system.

Meaning: you don't question, you merely accept and defend.

That's not science. That is the definition of indoctrination, I'm afraid.

If you said it was tradition, I could accept that. What I can't accept is a belief from the 7th century, posing as fact, that flies in the face of modern evidence and the complete revolution of the human food supply and food technology several times over.

This sentence implies that you are not sure about it being less harmful than chicken,though in the early posts u insisted that it's safer.

Saying pork is safer and healthier than chicken is just

I respect your vast knowledge in this topic,but be sure that i'm also aware of it.Wikipedia is surely not the perfect place to get information from,but that what i got right now.

For the last time,i'm saying i'm not talking here without a solid scientific background just go Greg and ask about it.

 

[Enron]

Salmanella and E-coli suck.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Have you ever asked yourself why things like pig meat,Alcohol,cigarettes are prohibited in Islam?

The answer is because of their bad effects,that's it.

Do you think Islam is the main reason and cause behind the backwardness of the muslim countries?

1) Oxygen has a bad effect on the body, terrible effects, actually. Breathing Oxygen causes the body to Oxidize which causes aging and thus, death. That's why there are a lot of anti-aging vitamins and shit on the market that take away free radicals in the body, which are excess amounts of Oxygen...

Don't believe me? Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radicals#Reactive_oxygen_species

Why is Oxygen allowed?


2) Yes, but religion in general.

 

[Zé Tahir]

Yes, I wonder how Hitler convinced all those Germans to believe what he told them. It must be because the ideology was a good one.

Hitler stood to gain something out of it all though.