abaris
I think I pointed that out previously here, in this very thread. But I gladly repeat it. Compared to the Saudis, Iran is a liberal paradise. Especially when it comes to women's rights. It also points to our own hypocrisy. The worse one is our very best friend. The better one is our enemy. Purely because they haven't played western ball in the last 30 years.
Also, Iran is Shia. The Saudis are a peculiar sect of Sunni. Wahhabism is considered to be abysmal by most of the muslim world too. They mostly look down on them, calling them uppity nomads coming in from the desert.
As for not eating pork. That's actually one religious rule still making sense in certain regions. There's a reason why jews as well as muslims have that rule. The experience of eating pork making you sick. In some of the less developed regions, it still would. But it also points to humans being behind the creation of the particular religion. They simply collected their ways of life and their experiences with nature there and attributed them to the respective gods.
Ab, would you be surprised to learn that there is actually a study on this?
https://www.academia.edu/4062281/Pig_Hus..._and_Judah
(You might have to join Academia.edu to download the file but its free.)
There is a suggestion - backed up by population growth studies - that when the Assyrians overran the northern kingdom there was a substantial number of refugees who flooded south into Judah. The population of Judah was small, nomadic, except for a handful of villages and hamlets and we can see certain attitudes towards the northerners which indicate that they were less than thrilled to have a shitload of foreigners coming into their land. The pork thing is one of them. The Judahites were goat and sheep herders. The land is not ecologically suited to pigs unlike the Philistine coast where pigs were plentiful. and pigs are not generally "herded" the way sheep and goats are. This whole Bedouin-type "sheep and goats are good shows up in other places like when god accepts Cain's sacrifice of meat but tells Abel to take his grain and go fuck himself. The implication is clear. This story was written by a nomadic herding culture that did not like farmers.
(November 5, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I'd also like to elaborate that even deeply religion influenced nations under Islam draw very different influences ex. Iran and Saudi Arabia.
I think I pointed that out previously here, in this very thread. But I gladly repeat it. Compared to the Saudis, Iran is a liberal paradise. Especially when it comes to women's rights. It also points to our own hypocrisy. The worse one is our very best friend. The better one is our enemy. Purely because they haven't played western ball in the last 30 years.
Also, Iran is Shia. The Saudis are a peculiar sect of Sunni. Wahhabism is considered to be abysmal by most of the muslim world too. They mostly look down on them, calling them uppity nomads coming in from the desert.
As for not eating pork. That's actually one religious rule still making sense in certain regions. There's a reason why jews as well as muslims have that rule. The experience of eating pork making you sick. In some of the less developed regions, it still would. But it also points to humans being behind the creation of the particular religion. They simply collected their ways of life and their experiences with nature there and attributed them to the respective gods.
Ab, would you be surprised to learn that there is actually a study on this?
https://www.academia.edu/4062281/Pig_Hus..._and_Judah
(You might have to join Academia.edu to download the file but its free.)
Quote:The most intriguing pattern discovered at sites from the Iron Age IIA–B is the dichotomy between Israel and Judah.
In the lowlands, pigs do not appear in the Judahite Shephelah,while they do appear in large numbers in the Jezreel Valley sites of the Northern Kingdom,especially in the Iron Age IIB. It seems that the larger frequencies at those sites derive fromdomesticated pigs, raised as part of the livestock, and not from the occasional hunting of wildboar. No special attitude towards pigs (i.e., their appearance in some unique context, inarticulation, fragmented or butchered differently), can be observed in the reviewed reports.On the contrary, all authors define them as part of the eaten fauna. This seems to indicate that pigs were treated just like the rest of the eaten fauna and were not discarded in a specific manner reflecting a different cultural attitude.
There is a suggestion - backed up by population growth studies - that when the Assyrians overran the northern kingdom there was a substantial number of refugees who flooded south into Judah. The population of Judah was small, nomadic, except for a handful of villages and hamlets and we can see certain attitudes towards the northerners which indicate that they were less than thrilled to have a shitload of foreigners coming into their land. The pork thing is one of them. The Judahites were goat and sheep herders. The land is not ecologically suited to pigs unlike the Philistine coast where pigs were plentiful. and pigs are not generally "herded" the way sheep and goats are. This whole Bedouin-type "sheep and goats are good shows up in other places like when god accepts Cain's sacrifice of meat but tells Abel to take his grain and go fuck himself. The implication is clear. This story was written by a nomadic herding culture that did not like farmers.
