Religious pork bans

[Princess Arabia]

It's all made up. Conformity. To keep us more enslaved. Can't have enough rules to keep us in bondage. Don't eat pork but you can drink soda to rot out your stomach lining and eat greasy French fries and Oreos to fry the brain.

[Emerald]

It's probably similar to why Mormon's aren't supposed to drink coffee.

You'd think the prohibition on drinking coffee is because of the caffeine content... which is what I always assumed. I thought it was similar to prohibiting alcohol because caffeine is also a psychoactive substance.

But the actual reason why Mormon's aren't supposed to drink coffee is because Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) was reading some random article back in the 1800s that said that hot drinks were unhealthy for the body. And he believed that.

Then, he told his followers that they should stop drinking coffee because he thought the article had sound advice.

Though from what I understand, he also wasn't super strict about that himself.

So, while I'm almost positive that the prohibition on eating pork originally came from health concerns... the continued adherence to it is just because that's what the rules are that the leadership of the religion set up. And people have just put a lot of stock into those that set up the religion.

[Basman]

6 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

If not eating pork is obeying and worshipping your god then by extension obeying and worshipping your god will make you happy.

If god didn't want you to eat pork, then why did he make it (and why is it so delicious)?

6 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Maybe it was a regional thing where pigs from that region were unhealthy.

This is the likely explanation. The problem is that the distinction is being treated as absolute as opposed to relative. Moral significance to whether or not you eat pork is pure bullshit.

Pork being unhygienic is the perfect example in fact of religion being inherently political in nature. Making it a moral issue is about controlling the population. That kind of control for modern people is outdated and ends up just closing your mind.

6 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

... everything is indoctrinated to us from birth. Even wearing clothes. So if religion is good then you would be happy to not have missed out on that school of indoctrination. If it's bad then it would have been a crutch that you want to escape from. Most people are happy with their religions and the ones that aren't will escape but there have always been people escaping just now it's less hassle if you do escape. I don't think people want to leave because there is no replacement not because it's a matter of life and death. Religious people don't really feel a need to question everything in their religion and if they do the religion will just tell them to trust that god has higher wisdom than you and they do trust so there isn't any tug of war 

Religion is not about the content of your beliefs but about surrendering your authority to an ideology wholesale. You have to distinguish god from the religious. Religion is a social power structure. It is not spirituality which drives religion because spirituality doesn't demand dogma to be viable.

Why would god ever demand faith in the first place, -but only a specific kind of faith that is wholly relative to a specific culture at a specific point in time? Why even create the rest of the universe if god is Muslim? The crux of religion is that they want to have a monopoly on reality itself but reality is too diverse and relative for that to be possible. Therefor god cannot be religious, I.E. the purpose of religion is a culture of conformity and not god.

It is not even about if god is real but the structure of religion itself and how it suppresses human individuality and indoctrinates people to believe bullshit. Believing in the Muslim god is like believing in Santa. Once you see the sociopolitical scaffolding of religion it becomes impossible to ever take religion fully serious again.

[LordFall]

On 3/13/2025 at 1:38 PM, Ross said:

The Jewish and Islamic doctrine on the prohibition of pork is quite a tough nut to crack. Clearly nowadays we know that pork consumption has very little harm to humans when cooked properly, however many followers of those faiths still vehemently oppose pork. Also, the harm argument is a good point, but then they bring counter arguments that eating cats, dogs and rats may not be damaging to humans, but they are still shameful to eat. How do people beat this dogma? 

Eat whatever you want and if somebody tries to control your behaviour with no logical reason then be extremely skeptical of them? I think most major religions will fall in the next 20 years with AI debunking them and it being able to predict the future and unearth the past just like the day of judgement foretold. 

[Twentyfirst]

@Basman There is no point in debating religion. You either see the value in it or you think it's a hindrance

Now for the modern argument. Who says that we are modern? Who says that if we are modern that everything behind us was illogical and should be thrown out?

[Basman]

3 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

@Basman There is no point in debating religion. You either see the value in it or you think it's a hindrance

Now for the modern argument. Who says that we are modern? Who says that if we are modern that everything behind us was illogical and should be thrown out?

Religion has value primarily as a form social control for a very low developed population. Making eating pork moral in the context of it being unhygienic is effective when you are dealing with people who can't even read.

The cost of religion is that you can't turn spirituality into an ideology and you become close minded and dogmatic. It fills your worldview with contradictions. 

I'm not opposed to gaining value from a religion, you certainly can I believe without subscribing to the ideology, but becoming religious is a mistake.

Edited Monday at 10:41 AM by Basman

[Twentyfirst]

10 minutes ago, Basman said:

Religion has value primarily as a form social control for a very low developed population. Making eating pork moral in the context of it being unhygienic is effective when you are dealing with people who can't even read.

The cost of religion is that you can't turn spirituality into an ideology and you become close minded and dogmatic. It fills your worldview with contradictions. 

I'm not opposed to gaining value from a religion, you certainly can I believe without subscribing to the ideology, but becoming religious is a mistake.

I want the people to be under control. It would be dangerous to let them run wild

Holy scriptures are still among some of the best texts you can read even after you are enlightened. And they are the best for people who don't want to be enlightened 

[Basman]

4 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

I want the people to be under control. It would be dangerous to let them run wild

Holy scriptures are still among some of the best texts you can read even after you are enlightened. And they are the best for people who don't want to be enlightened 

Where I live in North Europe they do more damage than good. The Christian parties tend to represent some of the most regressive politics.

[LordFall]

4 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

I want the people to be under control. It would be dangerous to let them run wild

Holy scriptures are still among some of the best texts you can read even after you are enlightened. And they are the best for people who don't want to be enlightened 

And are you gonna be the one leading civilization to greater unity and prosperity? Or are you a coward that wants some other form of violent oppression to control the people and use religious text as a justification? 

[Twentyfirst]

9 hours ago, Basman said:

Where I live in North Europe they do more damage than good. The Christian parties tend to represent some of the most regressive politics.

The West has always used religion to oppress its people and to oppress other people. The popes who used to be basically the government used to only let certain classes of people read and then they preached the Bible in the way they wanted it to be interpreted. When the west would colonize people they would say that god is telling them that they should conquer like manifest destiny. Then they would show images of their prophet Jesus who looked white just like them and say that they were gods among humans. Why do you think the buddhists stayed buddhist, the muslims stayed muslim, but the Christians became atheist?

[Twentyfirst]

5 hours ago, LordFall said:

And are you gonna be the one leading civilization to greater unity and prosperity? Or are you a coward that wants some other form of violent oppression to control the people and use religious text as a justification? 

There are literally billions of people in religion. Anyone saying that these people are just brainwashed suckers with no hope and embarrassing them will never lead anyone to unity. You are better off understanding their religion and combining that with enlightenment so their path can serve both them and you 

[Basman]

52 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Why do you think the buddhists stayed buddhist, the muslims stayed muslim, but the Christians became atheist?

Europe outgrew religion largely though a lot of the principles that define us originate from Christianity, like equality and liberty. The West didn't become atheist but secular. Christianity is still the biggest religion in the world.

Muslims stay Muslim because the middle-east is the least developed region on the planet. Their societies would be even more tribalistic and dysfunctional without religion. I can't speak on Buddhism.

57 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

The West has always used religion to oppress its people and to oppress other people.

I'd argue that religion itself as a political tool is inherently oppressive. Being raised religious is mental bondage.

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

Europe outgrew religion largely though a lot of the principles that define us originate from Christianity, like equality and liberty. The West didn't become atheist but secular. Christianity is still the biggest religion in the world.

What's the difference between atheist and secular?

Where in the Bible does it say that the people following it for thousands of years was supposed to outgrow it by development? Or did the Europeans just make that part up?

1 hour ago, Basman said:

Muslims stay Muslim because the middle-east is the least developed region on the planet. Their societies would be even more tribalistic and dysfunctional without religion. I can't speak on Buddhism.

Says western texts like spiral dynamics? Of course you will use a western text rather than a middle eastern text. If you read their Quran it says they are on the right track of development. What do you think about bombs being dropped on them and in a war torn country based on survival they still hold true to their religion even if their government has fallen and doesn't require it?

1 hour ago, Basman said:

I'd argue that religion itself as a political tool is inherently oppressive. Being raised religious is mental bondage.

Ya because Christianity in the West is notorious for oppressing its people and other people around the world. They use religion as a form of bondage and to gain more power. Control can be good or bad depending on it's intentions and how it's used

[Basman]

42 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

What's the difference between atheist and secular?

Atheism is rejecting religion and god as being real. Their views tend to mirror religion in how they elevate science and materialism as existentially true. Secularism is the seperation of state and religion. They usually don't subscribe to a religion but many enjoy Christian traditions, like celebrating Christmas. 

42 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Where in the Bible does it say that the people following it for thousands of years was supposed to outgrow it by development? Or did the Europeans just make that part up?

Religion is a political instrument first and foremost. What happened was that state and church where seperated as religion became untenable for a West that became more conscious of what the role of the state was. Religion wants to monopolize the minds of people which is problematic for a society that is globalizing and increasing in diversity of perspective. Subsequent generations lost their faith as the church's influence waned.

Another way of putting it is that Europe went from SD Stage Blue to Orange. From a farmer to an industrial/service society.

Also, Europeans didn't originally write the Bible.

42 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Says western texts like spiral dynamics? Of course you will use a western text rather than a middle eastern text. If you read their Quran it says they are on the right track of development. What do you think about bombs being dropped on them and in a war torn country based on survival they still hold true to their religion even if their government has fallen and doesn't require it?

What you are not recognizing is that claiming to be the end point of how to understand and see the world is part of it's structure. It needs to do this to assume authority.

Religion is endlessly self-referential. It doesn't matter what is true, only that you believe.

Religion isn't necessarilly a top-down affair with a tyrant forcing people to become religious for political reasons. Religion is part of a collective identity and it's enforcement is part of the collective's survival agenda. Muslim's maintain Islam because they are Muslim. This why religion goes hand in hand with culture. It's why different cultures can have different interpretations of the same religion.

42 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Ya because Christianity in the West is notorious for oppressing its people and other people around the world. They use religion as a form of bondage and to gain more power. Control can be good or bad depending on it's intentions and how it's used

There are good things that have come from religion. Christianity for instance where the first to push for the emancipation of slavery. The problem with religion is that it wants to monopolize all ideology. Religion always fails to actually accomplish this because reality is too diverse to be monopolized in a simplistic and relative manner.

Would you want to live in a society that oppresses you for not believing in god? But only in a very specific and culturally relative way? By what right if religion is not even objectively true? Like not being able to eat pork.

[Leo Gura]

God loves crispy bacon.

[Twentyfirst]

51 minutes ago, Basman said:

Atheism is rejecting religion and god as being real. Their views tend to mirror religion in how they elevate science and materialism as existentially true. Secularism is the seperation of state and religion. They usually don't subscribe to a religion but many enjoy Christian traditions, like celebrating Christmas. 

Why separate state from religion? Does that mean the people who run the government are non believers and the people being run are believers?

51 minutes ago, Basman said:

Religion is a political instrument first and foremost. What happened was that state and church where seperated as religion became untenable for a West that became more conscious of what the role of the state was. Religion wants to monopolize the minds of people which is problematic for a society that is globalizing and increasing in diversity of perspective. Subsequent generations lost their faith as the church's influence waned.

Prophets are the exact opposite of religion. Watch a politician on tv versus the words of a prophet. They are not the same. But ya that's what I am telling you your politicians hijacked it for bad control and then abandoned it when it was more profitable 

51 minutes ago, Basman said:

Another way of putting it is that Europe went from SD Stage Blue to Orange. From a farmer to an industrial/service society.

Also, Europeans didn't originally write the Bible.

But a good follower of the Bible would follow it. Not find a new teaching like spiral dynamics which rejects the Bible. So no wonder it didnt work for you guys if you don't follow it correctly

51 minutes ago, Basman said:

What you are not recognizing is that claiming to be the end point of how to understand and see the world is part of it's structure. It needs to do this to assume authority.

Religion is endlessly self-referential. It doesn't matter what is true, only that you believe.

Religion isn't necessarilly a top-down affair with a tyrant forcing people to become religious for political reasons. Religion is part of a collective identity and it's enforcement is part of the collective's survival agenda. Muslim's maintain Islam because they are Muslim. This why religion goes hand in hand with culture. It's why different cultures can have different interpretations of the same religion.

I think this is overcomplicating it. It's a book written by extremely wise humans that were ahead of their times and still are to a degree. To quench humans most sought after question. In a way where they can all join in community. That will guide them through hardships of life. 

51 minutes ago, Basman said:

There are good things that have come from religion. Christianity for instance where the first to push for the emancipation of slavery. The problem with religion is that it wants to monopolize all ideology. Religion always fails to actually accomplish this because reality is too diverse to be monopolized in a simplistic and relative manner.

Rarely people speaking against religion mention that it's a monopoly. They usually use other arguments which tells me it's just something they want to get away from just because. I can see how it can be a monopoly but theres plenty of cultures that have christians and muslims living side by side with understanding and friendship. It is common sense to say this is my religion but others are fine too. Common sense or lack of common sense is everywhere so of course some religious people will fall for saying this is my religion and others are false

51 minutes ago, Basman said:

Would you want to live in a society that oppresses you for not believing in god? But only in a very specific and culturally relative way? By what right if religion is not even objectively true? Like not being able to eat pork.

But aren't political laws telling you what to do? You trust a sneaky politician who is 1,000 lifetimes away from enlightenment to tell you what is right and wrong? How many secret government programs and hidden classified files prove that you should never trust man made laws? How often are religions wrong and how badly are they wrong. If you figure out your religion lied about not eating pork it's not a big deal you can just start to eat it there shouldn't be much trauma 

[Basman]

4 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Why separate state from religion? Does that mean the people who run the government are non believers and the people being run are believers?

Prophets are the exact opposite of religion. Watch a politician on tv versus the words of a prophet. They are not the same. But ya that's what I am telling you your politicians hijacked it for bad control and then abandoned it when it was more profitable 

But a good follower of the Bible would follow it. Not find a new teaching like spiral dynamics which rejects the Bible. So no wonder it didnt work for you guys if you don't follow it correctly

I think this is overcomplicating it. It's a book written by extremely wise humans that were ahead of their times and still are to a degree. To quench humans most sought after question. In a way where they can all join in community. That will guide them through hardships of life. 

Rarely people speaking against religion mention that it's a monopoly. They usually use other arguments which tells me it's just something they want to get away from just because. I can see how it can be a monopoly but theres plenty of cultures that have christians and muslims living side by side with understanding and friendship. It is common sense to say this is my religion but others are fine too. Common sense or lack of common sense is everywhere so of course some religious people will fall for saying this is my religion and others are false

But aren't political laws telling you what to do? You trust a sneaky politician who is 1,000 lifetimes away from enlightenment to tell you what is right and wrong? How many secret government programs and hidden classified files prove that you should never trust man made laws? How often are religions wrong and how badly are they wrong. If you figure out your religion lied about not eating pork it's not a big deal you can just start to eat it there shouldn't be much trauma 

You're all over the place. You criticize governments for using religion for control but argue for people following religious laws over state law. You argue that religions get things wrong so why treat them as infallible?

The key issue is whether or not religion actually makes your life better. The issue with state mandated religion is that blind faith cannot adapt to a complex and changing world and that it would be largely oppressive. It wouldn't grow people spiritually. You are of course fine with that when it is your religion but when the Flying Spaghetti Monster becomes state mandated you'd cry for religious tolerance and freedom.

[Yimpa]

On 3/15/2025 at 8:44 PM, Princess Arabia said:

Oreos to fry the brain

I knew I ate one too many Oreos earlier  

Edited Tuesday at 06:10 AM by Yimpa

[Twentyfirst]

22 minutes ago, Basman said:

You're all over the place. You criticize governments for using religion for control but argue for people following religious laws over state law. You argue that religions get things wrong so why treat them as infallible?

The key issue is whether or not religion actually makes your life better. The issue with state mandated religion is that blind faith cannot adapt to a complex and changing world and that it would be largely oppressive. It wouldn't grow people spiritually. You are of course fine with that when it is your religion but when the Flying Spaghetti Monster becomes state mandated you'd cry for religious tolerance and freedom.

Im pretty consistent in what I am saying. 

People not being allowed to eat pork is not oppressive. Oppressive is something much worse

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

Im pretty consistent in what I am saying. 

People not being allowed to eat pork is not oppressive. Oppressive is something much worse

Enjoy your Sharia law.