Why did John the Baptist eat locusts? They're not kosher!

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

::wheeze:: ::choke:: ::splutter::

You just made my day!

I don't get it.

RE humans- aren't carnivorous humans automatically ruled out?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

I don't get it.

You had to be there...

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

I don't get it.

"Ken" is "yes" in Hebrew.

[Mapache]

Here in Oaxaca grasshoppers are a traditional favorite; there are little old ladies at the entrance to all the markets offering trays of fried chapulines, sorted by size, along with maguey worms (the kind you get in a bottle of tequila) and other invertebrate delicacies. They are reasonably edible, but the legs get caught in your teeth. You can even order grasshopper pizza if you like. And the local semipro baseball team is called 'Los Chapulineros' the grasshopper catchers.

[cmkeller]

Diogenes the Cynic:

Pigs must have symbolized something taboo to them but I have no idea what.

Wallowing in mud, perhaps?

[carlb]

Originally Posted by jayjay

"Ken" is "yes" in Hebrew.

I didn't know that. I assumed it had something to do with the prohibition against speaking the name of God. So I chuckled.

Works on a couple of levels. Nice.

[Malthus]

I imagine locusts are kosher because if there are locusts to eat, that is all there is to eat.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

What was the difficulty with turkeys? A remember the MO Rabbi had one for Passover. He remarked that a Kosher turkeywas very expensive in Arkansas.

Here's an article about the controversy with turkeys:

http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_intro/

[AskNott]

"How were these locusts prepared?"

"Well, we told 'em they were gonna die."

[Mister Rik]

Originally Posted by grimpixie

Now it will have to be - What does Israeli Barbie say in bed?

SPOILER:

Ken, Ken KEN!!

Grim

I thought it was

SPOILER:

Oy, Jake, the ceiling needs painted!

This thread reminds me of the old joke I heard back in grade school:

The Sunday School teacher was teaching her class about John the Baptist. When she described how he ate wild honey and locusts, little Susie raised her hand and asked, "What's a locust?"

"It's a kind of grasshopper," the teacher replied.

"Eeeew! He ate grasshoppers?!" exclaimed Susie.

"That's nothing," interjected Johnny. "My grandma drinks them!"

[tomndebb]

BrainGlutton, I have removed your "joke" from the thread as it was sufficiently offensive as to threaten to overload my in-box with reported posts.
"Ancient tasteless crude offensive " jokes stop being funny when their only "humor" is an ethnic slur.

- - -

Everyone else, let's not get carried away with these attempts at humor, particularly as they wander farther from the topic.


[ /Moderating ]

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

BrainGlutton, I have removed your "joke" from the thread as it was sufficiently offensive as to threaten to overload my in-box with reported posts.

You gotta be fuckin' kiddin' me.

[elucidator]

Too hip for the room, BG.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Too hip for the room, BG.

It smelled more of 'butt' than of 'hip', from where I was sitting.

Hmm, speaking of which, it sounds like if someone else prepared your soylent green/humanburger for you, then it would indeed be acceptable for eating, if they prepared it properly. Good to know, one supposes.

[Terrifel]

Well this is troubling. I didn't click on the spoiler box when I had the chance, and now the joke has been erased. So I have no idea which species of locust was the victim.

I'm guessing it was the red locusts. They're so touchy. Plus they've got this culture of entitlement. Especially compared to grasshoppers. I'm not trying to be racist here; but locusts and grasshoppers, they be different. Am I right, people? Back me up on this.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Yeah, Terrifel. Grasshoppers drive like this, but the locust brother he drive like this.

[DocCathode]

Re Pigs

The trichinosis argument doesn't make much sense. Besides everything else, you can get anthrax from cows and sheep but not pigs. Harris' argument that raising pigs was forbidden because it was economically unsound makes sense. His argument is pretty compelling.

Re Humans

I've heard it argued that no sentient being is kosher and even cud-chewing, split-hoofed aliens would be treif.

I actually just read a White Wolf rule book dealing with the subject of religious vampires. It ignored several halachic arguments.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

Harris' argument that raising pigs was forbidden because it was economically unsound makes sense. His argument is pretty compelling.

Actually his argument is totally nonensical. It is nothing but one huge example of special case pleading and blatantly ignoring all contradictory evidence to bolster his position.

Most obviously he ignores the multitude of other animals that Jews and Moslems are forbidden from eating including donkeys and camels that are economically far more sound for a desert dwelling culture, and whose taboo status means that huge amounts of protein from transport aniams is left to rot rather thanbeing consumed.

Similarly he ignores the multitude of animals such as chickens or carp that Jews and Moslems can and do eat that are more ecomomically and environmentally damaging than pigs.

Far from being compelling his argument relies on wilfully ignoring the any and all evidence that contradicts it.

[DocCathode]

Blake you make some interesting points. Could you expand please?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

Blake you make some interesting points. Could you expand please?

You can do a search on my name and Harris to see my numerous past debunkings of his claims.

In essence Harris claims that the pig was made taboo because it fouled and/or used a lot of water and competed with humans for food, and thus banning the keeping of pigs was a sound startegy that allowed te Abrahamic faiths to outcompete other cultures.

The biggest problem with that to my mind is one that Diogenes already adressed: that for most of history less than 1% of Semitic people and less than 50% of the population of Palestine had a taboo against pigs. That by itself falsifies Harris' theory. Quite clearly peoples with taboos against pigs didn't outcompete those without whether in the NA/ME region generally or Palestine/Judea specifically. The one objectively testable prediction that Harris makes actauly contradicts his own hypothesis. People who keep pigs provably performed better in that environment than those who didn't.

But Harris ignoire that and instead concentrates on the fact that Moslems eventually came to dominate the region, several thousand years after the taboo against keeping pigs was introduced. IOW he is engaging in an "after this therefore because of this" fallacy.

On the more theoretical side the problem is that while it is true that pigs can foul water, they are much less likely to do so than cattle or camels whcih are notorious for fouling water. More importantly surface water in the middle east was all so fouled by human waste anyway that it is up to Harris to provide any evidence at all that pigs woudl have made any difference. He fails to present any evidence to this effect.

His claim that pigs compete with humans for food is farcical from beginning to end. If pigs were a net food loss then humans wouldn't keep them. It's that simple. In fact what pigs do is utilise food sources that humans can't utilise, and turn it into a food source that we can. Without pigs, Abrahamic societies have no way of utilising food such as carrion, wild tubers and acorns, pine nuts and other wild fruit. Pigs fulfil that role in societies that keep them, and are provide a massive boost to communal protein intake for that very reason. In return pigs need to be supplemented with table wastes or other foods so they don't wander away from the village. So, far from competing with humans for food, pigs are a major food source for humans that keep them. Harris' claim that pigs are socially damaging because only rich people eat pigs and so they effectively take food from the poor is simply balderdash for which he offers not a shred of support.

Then we get to the point that chickens and pigeons are kosher animals that were and are kept by Abrahamic peoples, and yet these animals do directly compete with humans for food and are enet calorie loss. Pigs are are self sufficient in terms of food and only need supplemental reward feeding to keep them domesticated. In contrast chickens and doves in a Mediterranean village environment obtain only a tiny portion of their food from foraging and are dependant entirley on human feeding for their survival. Stop feeding them and they starve to death in short order or abandon the village. So chickens and doves are genuine competitors with humans for food, yet are perfectly acceptable Halal/Kosher food.

Yet according to Harris any society that keeps anaimals that comepete with humans for food is at a massive survival disadvanatge. Of course this is just another crock for which Harris presents no evidence and which contradicts the known facts. There is a good reason why the chicken has been so widely domesticated depite being a net food sink. Like pigs, chickens are capable of turning foods humans can't utilise into high quality food. Given low protein, carbohydrate rich food such as whole grain or potatoes, chickens will turn vermin such as cockroaches and mice into high quality protein. More importantly they do so in neat daily packets. That means that a person with a chicken never suffers severe protein deficiency provided that he harvests enough grain to feed the chicken. That's a massive advantage in peasant societies where carbohydrate is abundant and protein limiting.

But Harris overlooks this important point, indeed he glosses over the whole issue of chickens and doves in a couple of paragraphs. Pigs don't compete with humans for food but even if they did, as chickens and doves do, they still wouldn't be a liability because they represent a net source of protein due to the ability to turn food such as wild fruits, vermin and carrion into human utilisable protein. That is why humans keep chickens and doves despite the fact that they compete with humans for food.

The most comical of Harris' outpourings is when he suggests that camels and horses are far to important for transport to be eaten. Yet the Roman era ME horse and camel heard were probably a few tens of thousands of animals. In contrast the herds of kosher animals was in the millions. How could making camels and horses kosher possibly result in a reduction in the number of animals raised, as Harris claims? Once again Harris makes the claim as a way of glossing over inconvenient facts. He never explains or presents and evidence as to why camels would be less common if they could be eaten as well as ridden when common sense and basic economics says that diversifying the market for a commmodity will cause an increase in production.

He also completely ignores that fact that, if camels and horses were able to be eaten, then people wouldn't be obliged to slaughter old horses and camles and then waste wood burning the carcasses. This is very important considering that Harris' whole thesis is based on an evolutionary argument that food is at a premiuim and the prinmary survival mechanism in these societies. Yet the very laws he discusses obliges people to abandon a perfectly good food source such as an old horse and waste energy disposing of the carcasse rather than eating it.

Harris also largely glosses over the fact that Jews and Moslens aren't forbidden from eating pigs. They are forbidden from eating any mammal that isn't a cervid or bovid. That means they can't eat most of the eild game of the ME either. For a law that Harris's thesis requires is widespread because it make more food avaialble it is incredible that he ignores the fact that it actually reduces the amount of food available.

I get the strong impression that Harris desperately wants to find some logical reason for Jewish dietary laws, whether for personal religious reasons or to sell to a religious audience. Unfortunately he will happily ignore contradictory evidence in order to invent such reasons. His ideas are are largely unscientific, and the few that do approach science don't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny and require a strict policy of ignoring inconvenient evidence to be remain coherent.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Blake

I get the strong impression that Harris desperately wants to find some logical reason for Jewish dietary laws, whether for personal religious reasons or to sell to a religious audience. .

Harris' main point in Cows, Pigs, War And Witches is that bizzare practices generally have a logical root reason even if the group in question is unaware of that reason. Most of the book makes his case well. However, you've made me doubt his conclusions and demolished (for me anyway) his explanation of the pig taboo.

Well, crap. The trichinosis explanation makes no sense. The 'pigs used to be sacred' explanation has no evidence to support it and even if it were true it just changes the question to 'why were pigs sacred?'. Now, I must return to my old answer for 'Is there a logical justification for the ban on pigs?'. That answer is sadly 'None that I have ever heard.'

[Blake]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

Harris' main point in Cows, Pigs, War And Witches...

I haven't read CPWW, but since you haven't said anyhting I assume his thesis there is pretty much the same as in "Sacred Cow..." and his numerous other works.

...is that bizzare practices generally have a logical root reason even if the group in question is unaware of that reason.

That has always been his stated position. However I get the very strong impression that his actual position stems more fom wanting to provide a logical basis for the Bible, whether from personal convictions or to sell to a rlegious audience. I can't see why else he feels the need to construct such a flimsy argument concerning the Abrahamic ban on pigs.

Most of the book makes his case well.

On that case his work must have improved immeasurably from previous works. His earlier stuff was all much the same as his pig work. He started from the conclusion he wanted to reach and then worked backwards to his premise by selecting only evidence that would allow him to reach that point and studiously ignoring all else.

His work on cannibalism has been a particularly laughable example off this type of "reasoning". In that case he started from the conclusion that most societies had a taboo against cannibalism, a conclusion that he never provided any evidence for and that is in contradiction to the facts, and then proceeded to fabricate a "logical" reason for the existence of this unupported conlusion.

I've seen no real reason to support Harris' contention that bizarre beliefs have a logical basis. Obviously completely unsustanable beliefs will never take hold, so for example no society has ever dictated that all male babies have to be killed at birth, or at least if they did they never left any trace. But Harris seems to have extrapolated from "Unsustainable beliefs can't be sustained", which is a tautlogy, into "All sustainable beliefs must be logically based" which requires ignoring the evidence and enegaging in True Scotsmen to stand up to even the most basic examination. Every human society believed in astrology for example, despite that belief having no logical root whastoever

Certainly not worth derailing this thread, but if you want you could start another thread debating the idea that most beliefs have alogical root, possibly outlining what cases you fell Harris has made well in this work, and what his evidence/reasoning was. Based on past experience I'm willing to bet that 9/10 of his work will be debunked almost immediately.

[DocCathode]

I'd start a thread on Harris except for one thing. I can't find my copy of his book.

[elucidator]

....However I get the very strong impression that his actual position stems more fom wanting to provide a logical basis for the Bible, whether from personal convictions or to sell to a rlegious audience....

What are you talking about? I have read a couple of Mr. Harris works and have found them interesting and insightful. My impression of his intention is that he opens a line of inquiry that he expects will be fruitful, but not to provide the final resolutions.

Frankly, the intensity of your displeasure with Mr. Harris makes one wonder. For instance, this insinuation that he is covertly advocating some religious agenda. Seems to this jaundiced eye quite the opposite, by examining the logical roots of some belief, he sets it contrast to a presumption of divine communication: the Jews didn't eat pork; not because God said so, but because it wasn't practical. How does this foster a religious agenda?

Mr. Harris also discusses the enonomics of the "sacred cow" phenomenon, does this mean his secretly advancing a Hindu agenda as well as a Jewish one?

....His work on cannibalism has been a particularly laughable example off this type of "reasoning". In that case he started from the conclusion that most societies had a taboo against cannibalism, a conclusion that he never provided any evidence for and that is in contradiction to the facts, and then proceeded to fabricate a "logical" reason for the existence of this unupported conlusion....

Excuse me, but haven't we always pretty much presumed a universal taboo on cannibalism, are we not, in fact, shocked when we discover otherwise? And simple Darwinism would strongly suggest that such a taboo has a definitely logical basis, in that eating dead people increases the likelihood that one is eating the very things that made them dead to begin with. Hence, cannibalism pretty much has to be the exception, the extraordinary.

And, for that matter, you present us only flat statements that are rather extreme: "laughable" being the kindest. You offer us only yourself for substantiation, and while your prose is impressive in its clarity it is also impressive for its rancor. Did Mr. Harris fuck your wife? Run over your cat?

In short: sez who?

[Great Dave]

Perhaps pig tastes too closely like human, so one could not be sure what one was being served?

[elucidator]

"Table for Donner, party of 6?..."

[BrainGlutton]

"There were seven Democrats in Hinsdale County and you ate five of them!"

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The prevailing theory I've seen is that not eating pork was a way for the Israelites to clearly distinguish themselves from the surrounding Canaanites. That may be but it seems...incomplete to me somehow. I think there must have been a a more religious association with pigs that they were trying to avoid. Pigs must have symbolized something taboo to them but I have no idea what.

Pigs are descended from horribly mutated ancient Hebrews?

(Yes, I know they're Artiodactyla! Magic obviously must have been involved.)

[student53]

According to a Purdue website "locust" meant carob bean of the same sort the Prodigal Son ate.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/carob.html

[Malacandra]

*sound of locusts crickets*

[foolsguinea]

I reread the thread. Some thoughts:

Originally Posted by Terrifel

Sure, John the Baptist may lived in the desert, dressed in camel's hair and believed that sin was water-soluble; but never let it be said that he failed to honor the sacred bug-eating traditions handed down from ancient Hebrews who couldn't count to six.

If there are six, there are four? Read it as "at least four"?

Originally Posted by Terrifel

It breaks my heart to think of all the little Levite children who brought their own lunches to school, and had to watch the other kids eating delicious bat McNuggets while they were forced to choke down another of Mom's crummy locust sandwiches.

What makes you think bat would taste better than locust?

Originally Posted by Gala Matrix Fire

FYI, locusts are also halal.

Pretty convenient when locusts periodically lay waste to vast swaths of crops and people face starvation or malnourishment as a result. Hey, guess what, we can eat those locusts! Whee!

Also, locusts are largely lean protein. Maybe instead of spraying them, we should plant corn just to attract them.

[Malacandra]

Did you read the part where it was a four-year-old thread?

[CalMeacham]

I realize that this is a zombie thread, but I had to comment on this, from Blake's post:

The biggest problem with that to my mind is one that Diogenes already adressed: that for most of history less than 1% of Semitic people and less than 50% of the population of Palestine had a taboo against pigs. That by itself falsifies Harris' theory. Quite clearly peoples with taboos against pigs didn't outcompete those without whether in the NA/ME region generally or Palestine/Judea specifically. The one objectively testable prediction that Harris makes actauly contradicts his own hypothesis. People who keep pigs provably performed better in that environment than those who didn't.

It's not true that the taboo on pigs is so restricted. The ancient Sumerians and Egyptians had similar taboos against pig, and eating pig is forbiddemn by the Koran as well. In other words, this is a well-established taboo in the Middle East. But not elsewhere -- this suggests that either this is the result of cultural diffusion or of environmental conditions, and tilts toward the latter.


Pigs DO compete with people for food, despite Blake's protestations. They can't eat grasses, unlike non-taboo species like cattle, sheep, and goats. They prefer roots, nuts, and the like, but they'll eat meat, too. There's a reason people use [pigs to locate truffles -- they like to eat them as much as people do.

Harris' argument is that caring for pigs in the middle east required too much work to be worthwhile (the whole thing about pigs wallowing in mud) and used resources people would. Pigs were successful where you could either let them forage on their own where roots and tubers were plentiful or could feed them on plentiful waste, and where wallows wouldn't be a problem. The Conquistadors brought pigs over and they were immensely successful foods sources for precisely that reason. Pigs (as Harris and others have pointed out) are immensely fecund, grow rapidly, and are about the most efficient converters of input to useful meat otr products. Harris' discussion of the role of the pig in 8th and 19th century America is particularly appropriate -- pigs were fattened before being taken to market on the corn that was grown. Back then transporting corn to market was the hassle. By converting it to pig you could have it walk itself to market. If you can afford it, pig is a good investrment in time and effort.

Harris' argument is that, for many societires in the Middle East, pigs were NOT a good investment, although tempting. Hence the taboo.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

Did you read the part where it was a four-year-old thread?

Zombie locusts are definitely not kosher.

[Kobal2]

The (zombie) discussion is moot, isn't it ?
I'm pretty sure Jews have a basic "you can eat treif when your life depends on it" rule/loophole. So even if locusts weren't kosher (which, as has already been elucidated, they are), John the Baptist could have eaten them while travelling to preach, provided he was hungry and desperate enough. And I'd reckon traipsing around like a bum, being reduced to eating bugs and wild honey qualifies as "desperate". He was basically starring in Survivor:Judea .

[carnivorousplant]

John the Baptist was running a mikvah.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

He was basically starring in Survivor:Judea .

He would've won, too, if he hadn't lost his head toward the end of the season.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by student53

According to a Purdue website "locust" meant carob bean of the same sort the Prodigal Son ate.

That would certainly put a different spin on Exodus 10.

[CalMeacham]

Originally Posted by student53

According to a Purdue website "locust" meant carob bean of the same sort the Prodigal Son ate.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/carob.html

People bring this up from time to time, but it seems like a late suggestion. Most scholars accept that he's talking about the insect kind of locusts. Certainly the Greeks were known to eat locusts -- Aristotle writes about it.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

If there are six, there are four? Read it as "at least four"?

Greater than or equal to four legs good, two legs bad?

Then there should be no problem with Cambodian fried spiders being kosher, amirite?
NB: Do not click on the video link unless you have a strong stomach.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Johanna

Greater than or equal to four legs good, two legs bad?

Then there should be no problem with Cambodian fried spiders being kosher, amirite?
NB: Do not click on the video link unless you have a strong stomach.

ETA - Gives me an idea for a story... Fried Black Spiders at the Phnom Penh Café. Nah... it would majorly bomb as a chick flick.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by jayjay

He would've won, too, if he hadn't lost his head toward the end of the season.

And he was so good at the water challenges and the "eating gross stuff" challenges, too. But they weren't too big on [immunity] idols back in those days, so he didn't stand much of a chance. I'm still thinking he banged that Christian chick from Texas, though. She really followed him around like he was some sort of Old Testament prophet or something.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

Did you read the part where it was a four-year-old thread?

Considering I'm the one who put the fork in it last time, yeah, I noticed it was a zombie. But since it had already shuffled back onto the front page, I used it as an excuse to add some stuff that I didn't before.