The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh" None of these points are meant to stand on their own, but collectively they provide a very strong argument against the story of Jesus Christ being based on a real person.
Received Dec 4; Accepted Jun This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Food taboos are known from virtually all human societies. Most religions declare certain food items fit and others unfit for human consumption. Dietary rules and regulations may govern particular phases of the human life cycle and may be associated with special events such as menstrual period, pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, and — in traditional societies — preparation for the hunt, battle, wedding, funeral, etc.
On a comparative basis many food taboos seem to make no sense at all, as to what may be declared unfit by one group may be perfectly acceptable to another.
On the other hand, food taboos have a long history and one ought to expect a sound explanation for the existence and persistence of certain dietary customs in a given culture.
Yet, this is a highly debated view and no single theory may explain why people employ special food taboos.
This paper wants to revive interest in food taboo research and attempts a functionalist's explanation. However, to illustrate some of the complexity of possible reasons for food taboo five examples have been chosen, namely traditional food taboos in orthodox Jewish and Hindu societies as well as reports on aspects of dietary restrictions in communities with traditional lifestyles of Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and Nigeria.
An ecological or medical background is apparent for many, including some that are seen as religious or spiritual in origin.
On the one hand food taboos can help utilizing a resource more efficiently; on the other food taboos can lead to the protection of a resource.
Food taboos, whether scientifically correct or not, are often meant to protect the human individual and the observation, for example, that certain allergies and depression are associated with each other could have led to declaring food items taboo that were identified as causal agents for the allergies.
Moreover, any food taboo, acknowledged by a particular group of people as part of its ways, aids in the cohesion of this group, helps that particular group maintain its identity in the face of others, and therefore creates a feeling of "belonging". Background Years ago a student asked me the following question: Afterall, to grow and survive, animals all need the same basic things: Why are there herbivores, carnivores, detritovores, insectivores, fungivores, coprophages, xylophages and many more?
Although it is true that all heterotrophic organisms need the same fundamental food stuffs, it is easy to understand that on account of their different sizes, different anatomies, and different habitats, different species must make use of different food sources to satisfy their needs.
A cat would happily devour the meat of an antelope and a lion would not reject a mouse, but both are not built for these kinds of food items. A tree-dwelling leaf-eater does not graze on the ground and a grazer does not climb trees. Pond snails may love lettuce, but they can never leave their watery realm.
Moreover, it is a "Law of Nature" that, where there is an underexploited resource, it usually does not take long before such a resource is 'discovered' and used by some organism.
Yet, intense competition for one and the same kind of food by two species ultimately would lead to the extinction of one of them or it would result in the two species occupying different niches, either in connection with the food itself or the timing of feeding [ 12 ]. It is, thus, easy to understand why different species of animals with different anatomies and habitat preferences should use different food items, but food specialists within a species also occur and it is then less obvious why individuals of one and the same species should exploit different resources.
It becomes really tricky, when some adults of the same gender, species, and overall physical built nevertheless vary in relation to their food preferences. Yet, no ecologist or zoologist would use the term "food taboo" to describe intraspecific food preferences of this kind in animals, but in connection with humans we do use the term "food taboo".
We use it or refer to "prohibitions" to distinguish the deliberate avoidance of a food item for reasons other than simple dislike from food preferences.A Silent Epidemic with Serious Consequences—What You Need to Know about B12 Deficiency; Why You Should Think Twice About Vegetarian and Vegan Diets.
Mar 15, · The emergence and development of the life sciences has brought about changes in our understanding of nature and thus also of food. The significant contribution of the life sciences to increased living standards and a safer appraisal of food in .
I do not eat meat. I do not eat egg products as well.
I want everyone to quit eating meat. Here is why. Do both biblical and scientific research and discuss your theory on why individuals should not eat blood.
A Discussion on Why Individuals Should Not Eat Blood Based on a Biblical and Scientific Research PAGES WORDS 2, View Full Essay. As Congress and the Trump administration announce sanctions and tariffs on just about every country in the world, it should be noted that this will be the last time the U.S.
can use its hegemony. comments for “ Why same sex marriage is not an attack on the institution of marriage: experiences from Europe ”.