October 14, 2022 - Alex stopped to help save a gunshot victim from bleeding out, he was then given Saint Paul Police Chiefs Award for Valor. He then gave this small speech. [video]
“I feel like I did what anyone would have done with a little bit of training that they have, that I have. I’m a certified firearms instructor, work in a high school in Minneapolis, dad and husband, and a wonderful community member.
That day, nine of your squad cars raced past us as I was flagging them down (was said in the letter you sent me), and that was a potential of 18 people. 18 people could have stopped to preserve life, but 18 people chose to go to a potential threat, and I recognize the man had a pistol and we didn’t know what he was doing. I do appreciate the recognition.
I won’t keep this stuff. This will go to my mom, this will probably go to my son because I am very uncomfortable being here with you guys. I do not rock with the police, but I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to say these things. I just want folks to know they don’t keep us safe. We keep us safe. Riots work. Thank you.”
hey, someone i follow here on tumblr recommended me this blog for questions about abrahamic religions, so one thing i always wondered is why is pork a big no for jews and muslims, but seems to be totally ok for christians, afaik they worship the same God and follow a lot of the same teachings, and i know theyre different in a lot of stuff but this one just stands out to me
(also sorry for getting in your askbox with this demonic themed looking blog i swear i just like creepypasta)
Hey! No worries about the blog theme, I'm always happy to interact with anyone interested in genuine dialogue. :)
So, I'm going to put Islam off to the side for now, because with few exceptions (Ibn Barrajan comes to mind), Muslims did not use the shared Judeo-Christian texts to explain their prohibition against pork. Most Islamic authorities would cite verses like Surah al-An'am, verse 145, which calls "the flesh of swine" either "loathsome" or "unclean," depending on your translation. When the issue is discussed among Jews and Christians, on the other hand, they would both cite Leviticus 11:7-8, which specifies that pigs cannot be eaten because any animal that does not both (a) have cloven-hooves, and (b) chew the cud, is ritually unclean. (Pigs have cloven hooves, but they don't chew their partially digested food a second time like cows do)
There are modern Orthodox Jewish perspectives (and very early Christian perspectives, such as that of the author of The Epistle of Barnabas) that explain this prohibition in allegorical terms. The consumption of animals that have both of the traits above are symbolic of traits that the Jewish community is supposed to emulate. But that doesn't explain why Jews who follow kosher laws follow the literal interpretation of the Leviticus verses while most mainstream Christians do not. So let's talk a little about the context in which early Christianity developed.
Christianity started as a movement that developed in a Jewish cultural context, but it did not remain a primarily Jewish movement for very long. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles depicts both Peter and Philip as integrating non-Jews into the nascent Christian community, but the mission of Paul of Tarsus seems to have been a turning point in Christian history. And as more and more non-Jews became involved in the Jesus movement, there was a question of to what extent they were expected to become Jewish in order to be Christian. Paul's answer was: not at all. But this would be an issue for the Christian community for a while, even with councils like the one held in Jerusalem around the year 50.
That council declared that non-Jewish Christians did not have to follow most of the laws listed in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, but it didn't really give a systematic explanation as to why that was. So from very early on it was understood that large sections of the Old Testament were not applicable to non-Jewish Christians, but it took a few centuries for Christian thinkers to articulate why that was not the case.
In its most mature form, we see the argument as follows: the laws of the Old Covenant (as Christians referred to the Covenant at Sinai) could be broken up into three broad categories.
(1) The Moral Law, which was binding for all people everywhere and for all time, laws that are pretty self-evident like "thou shalt not murder" or "thou shalt not steal." These are laws that are "written on their hearts," in the words of Saint Paul.
(2) The Ceremonial Law, laws God commanded Israel to follow because they had a symbolic meaning that in some way foreshadowed Christ in an allegorical way. These laws are "fulfilled" rather than "abolished" by Christ, but in common parlance that distinction doesn't seem to matter much, because either way Christ's life is believed to have ended their necessity.
(3) The Judicial Law, which were civil laws to be maintained by the Kingdom of Israel. Since the Kingdom of Israel has been non-existent since either 587 BC or 63 BC (depending on whether you count the Hasmonean dynasty as a legitimate successor state to the Davidic kingdom), these laws are essentially defunct.
Among Christians who believe the Law can be divided into these categories, they believe that the prohibition of pork is part of the Ceremonial Law, which has been fulfilled with the coming of Christ and is thus no longer binding on Christians. As such, Christians can eat pork. That's also why they can eat shellfish, wear clothing made from mixed fabrics, and cook meat and dairy together.