Mark 5:13

[Rube_E.Tewesday]

@Jodi

But Jesus didn’t drown the pigs, nor direct them to be drowned. The demons drowned them. So that wasn’t done “to prove a point,” unless the point was “demons don’t like to be inside pigs.”

But surely Jesus didn’t think anything good was going to come out of letting the demons into the pigs. Couldn’t he have said, “No, leave poor Porky alone, go straight to Hell”, like one of the Winchesters from Supernatural would have done? It’s a strange story, and I’m to think that it has some meaning that is no longer apparent.

[jimmmy]

Just being GQ I think it is fair to add that there are of course non-insane academic-type people who would say that this was never meant to be read as a literal story: Mark never meant it to be read that Jesus actually did this in the first place & plotting it on a map and trying to make literal sense of it would be the equivalent of plotting out the Garden of Eden and postulating why God placed the Fruit there in the first place.

[Colibri]

@devilsknew

I think Jews and muslims are self loathing cannibals. They probably all got rickets and mad cow disease in their prehistory in Africa and the taboo stuck, long pig and all that. The pig reminds them of human flesh in some weird genetic memory.

Moderator note

I’m going to assume that this is a rather bizarre attempt at humor. However, given its dubious nature I don’t believe it is really appropriate for GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[asterion]

@Thudlow Boink

Maybe he had demon insurance?

Even if he had insurance, that the demons went into the pigs was because of an Act of God and thus the insurance company wouldn’t pay.

[Blake]

@CalMeacham

…, I cite Marvin Harris, who has suggested in books and articles* that the cause is something completely different – that Pigs compete with people for food and resources, and that caring for them in that environment (where they must be kept cooled by mud wallows, or they die) was too labor-intensive, and used up even more resources (this is he quick version, that doesn’t do the theory justice. see Harris’ books for details), and that all those people experienced the same problems, leading them all to formulate the no-pigs rule.

And as I have often pointe dout everytime someone mentions this nonsense, it is utter nonsense that doesn’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny by someone with a bit of knowledge.

The more massive flaws are:

1. Only a tiny, tiny majority of people living in that environment ever had laws against pigs. The vast majority fo people living oustide of Judea itself happily kept and ate pigs and they were far more numerous than the Jew sliving in the exact same envrionemnt. So the story doesn;t even meet its own basic predictions. Even the Arabs were happily keeping and eating pigs for 3, 000 years after the Jews introduced their laws. So the idea that the Koranic laws especially ahve some positive benefit is just ridiulous. If a practice has no detrimental effect for 3,00 years claiming that it suddnely became useful in 500 ad is just ludicrous.

2. The dietary laws are not against pigs specifically. They also prohibit the eating of, amongst other things, camels. ostriches and termites. Those animals don’t compete with humans for food, they don’t need more water than cattle and so forth. The laws do however allow the eating of chickens which do comepete directly with humans for food and do need huge amounst of water and vast amounts of care. Once again, Harris’ “theory” fails to meet it sown most basic prediction because the laws don’t preclude all or even most water an management intensive animals, whiel simultaneously it retsricts the use of very management and water effeicient animals such as donkeys or camels.

Those are just two of the more masisve flaws and really don’t do justice tot he massive debunking I have given Harris’ ridiculous theory in the past. How anyone can seriously buy into it is beyond nme. the Jewsih dietary laws are mystical mumbo-jumbo. They have no basis in rationality and there is simply no pratcial common thread in terms of the animals that are outlawed and those thatr are allowed. Many of the most water and management efficient and disease free animals available (eg camels, donkeys) were outlawed, while simulateously water wasting and management intensive animals like chickens were endorsed. The laws are based on recieved religion, not any kind of common sense.

…And it explains why pigs were being raised there – not everyone had such prohibitions. Especially those who came from elsewhere, or whose ancestotrs did.

Can we see some evdience for this claim that people whose ancetsors moved to the middle east were more likely to have no taboo against pigs than people who originated there? Just based on my knowledge of the Semitic people at the time it seems to have little basis in fact.

As Harris points out, pig consumption is actually a religious duty in some places in the world, like parts of Polynesia

That is because Harris seems to be ignorant of the fact that pigs and dogs are the only domesticated animal in Polynesia. It has nothing at all to do with resource strain. Pigs are a massive resource strain in many parts of Polynesia. It is a religious duty to consume pigs because if you want to make an animals sacrifice and your only domestic animal is a pig then you need to consume pigs.

[CalMeacham]

Blake, I strongly suspicion you haven’t read Harris. But you do make belligerent noises that aren’t warranted.

That is because Harris seems to be ignorant of the fact that pigs and dogs are the only domesticated animal in Polynesia

He addresses these issues and the others you bring up, at considerable length.

The dietary laws are not against pigs specifically. They also prohibit the eating of, amongst other things, camels. ostriches and termites. Those animals don’t compete with humans for food, they don’t need more water than cattle and so forth.

Right. And not all automobile accidents are caused by the same factor, therefore that factor can’t be responsible for causing automobile accidents.

:rolleyes: