The Eating of Blood (Dinuguan)
MEHDULLA OBLONGATA
>
> Who ever started the eating of blood in the Philippines? Were they so hungry
> then that they would eat almost anything? The Bible has prohibited its
> eating (see the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy), who do people still
> continue?
The Chinese, the Spaniards and Poles, Germans,
Russians, Italians, Vietnamese (most non-Islamic
countries actually, except Israel)...whew!!
Actually most of the world eats blood in one form
or another (sausage, pudding or on soups), if your
religion denounces this practice then let it be,
we all know that Moses forbids this. But how much
of the Mosaic law do we follow, do you follow all
of them?
Cherubim_5
BENJAMIN L. GUADIZ
=========
MY TURN:
Before all hell breaks loose, let's first make some
definitions.
COOKED or FRESH or REFRIGERATED animal blood ???
manong ben
bl...@ix.netcom.com
bl...@earthlink.net
rcd...@i-manila.com.ph
Covina, CA 91722
USA
awstr...@my-dejanews.com
"Cherubim_5" <Cheru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who ever started the eating of blood in the Philippines? Were they so hungry
> then that they would eat almost anything? The Bible has prohibited its
> eating (see the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy), who do people still
> continue?
>
"blood". Ever heard of "blutwurst" ? Hmmm... yummy! Eating it does
not make the Europeans 'non-christian' just because the bible says so.
Servus!
- two schillings worth
from a catholic
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
awstr...@my-dejanews.com
"Cherubim_5" <Cheru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who ever started the eating of blood in the Philippines? Were they so hungry
> then that they would eat almost anything? The Bible has prohibited its
> eating (see the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy), who do people still
> continue?
Ouch..! you mean so hungry like cannibals? Schatzilein, it's not only
the Pinoys who love this "bloody" specialty. The Europeans also do.
They have their own style -- the "blutwurst" (yummy!)
And eating this doesn't make one 'barbaric' or 'un-christian' (bloedsinn!)
I'm sure even the Pope could have eaten this sausage at least once in
his entire life.
-zwei schillinge's worth from a christian.
tulisan
Cherubim_5 wrote in message <7f12bh$dn3$1...@tempo.news.iphil.net>...
>Who ever started the eating of blood in the Philippines? Were they so
hungry
whoever started the eating of blood in the philippines had to have superior,
if not sophisticated, tastes. it's not a "hungry" thing, cherubim. we eat
blood because it tastes soooo good! and aw c'mon puhleeze... if we had to
eat stuff that's in the bible we'll all end up limiting ourselves to locusts
and honey, manna in the morning, unleavened bread and bitter vetch.
sounds like hell to me. so please leave your bible outside the kitchen.
tulisan
ki...@my-dejanews.com
> eating (see the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy), who do people still
> continue?
They were not hungry. Instead, they know what it taste best. Please clarify,
if its fresh blood or cooked blood. Vampire bats love to eat fresh blood. I
like to eat dinuguan baboy with puto at merienda time. How about dinuguang
azucena,anyone?
Pietro E Reyes, III
(together with tenderloin tips, liver, kidney, ribs, etc.)
There is also a Cuban dish which uses pork blood as the base of its stew.
Just don't remember the name.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cherubim_5 <Cheru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7f12bh$dn3$1...@tempo.news.iphil.net...
Cherubim_5
Tom Ador
Mga aswang at manananggal.
tulisan
tulisan
Cherubim_5 wrote in message <7f3h90$581$1...@tempo.news.iphil.net>...
Bart
>Would there be any difference between eating pig's blood and regla?
I can't believe you asked that question. That's like asking would it make a
difference between eating a chicken drumstick or a human leg.
And while we're at it, the Old Testament also forbade the eating of pigs.
Don't tell me you refrain from lechon?
Hypcorite!
JT aka GF
Cherubim_5 wrote in message <7f3h90$581$1...@tempo.news.iphil.net>...
>Would there be any difference between eating pig's blood and regla?
>
-----------
BIG difference. I don't eat pig's blood. Hehehehehe.
--
JT aka GF
Talk to me at
JohnnyThor at Hotmail dot Com
awstr...@my-dejanews.com
"Cherubim_5" <Cheru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Would there be any difference between eating pig's blood and regla?
>
what a question ba naman 'yan, cherubim_5? REGLA-MENTE!!!
ang baba naman ng comparison mo. try it yourself nalang kaya?
kung babae ka, meron ka niyan. then taste it! kung lalaki ka, eh...
humingi ka sa nanay mo!!!
Pietro E Reyes, III
female...
+++++++++++++++++++
JT aka GF <Gerr...@My-Dejanews.Com> wrote in message
news:7f46n2$28f$1...@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
> Hiya Cherubim_5 dude!
>
> Cherubim_5 wrote in message <7f3h90$581$1...@tempo.news.iphil.net>...
> >Would there be any difference between eating pig's blood and regla?
> >
>
L O K E
supposed to be very clean animals and only roll around in the dirt to cool
off. In the Philippines the pigs (the country ones anyway that I've seen)
were fed grains and greens, making them very tasty lechon. As a Filipino
I would rather eat pigs blood (I used to anyway as a kid but I saw what
happened to the pig from the pen to the table...so now I'm traumatized).
But still I'm a Christian so no blood for thank you.
Let's just put it this way Cherubim...it's a question of culture and
religion.
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Redgie Garcia wrote:
> I agree with Cherubim.
> OK which is cleaner
> human blood or pig's blood ?
> Ofcourse you will eat the cleaner right?
> So why not eat human blood ?
>
>
Nami
Dumating na si Kristo
Naalala mo ang panaginip ni Paul? Pwede na kumain ng baboy, etc.
Bahala ka nalang sa cholesterol
Vegetarian Boy
Cherubim_5
My point, is human blood of lower quality in comparison with that of an
animal (pig or chicken) such that it is unfit to eat? Isn't "regla" human
blood?
Any true CHRISTIAN would not eat blood from any source, even if it were the
last food on earth!
<awstr...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7f4res$gfu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <7f3h90$581$1...@tempo.news.iphil.net>,
> "Cherubim_5" <Cheru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Would there be any difference between eating pig's blood and regla?
> >
>
GCPOPP
PAUL IN ACTS 15:20 TELLS US THAT EVEN THOUGH BIBLICAL LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO
FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST THERE ARE STILL THINGS WE SHOULD AVOID; POLLUTIONS OF
IDOLS. OR (ANYTHING OFFERED TO IDOLS.)
ABSTAIN FROM FORNICATION. FROM EATING THINGS STRANGLED,(THE BLOOD IS STILL IN
A STRANGLED ANIMAL.) , AND FROM EATING BLOOD. IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER
THE BLOOD IS FRESH, FROZEN, COOKED OR STILL IN THE ANIMAL. THAT IS IF YOU WANT
TO BE OBEDIENT TO THE WORD.
BLOOD SAUSAGE IS A COMMON FOOD IN THE STATE WHERE I LIVE, HOWEVER, I COULD NOT
EAT OF THIS WITH A CLEAR CONCIENCE.
OUT OF THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES LET EVERY WORD BE ESTABLISHED. G.C.
POPP
Redgie Garcia
OK which is cleaner
human blood or pig's blood ?
Ofcourse you will eat the cleaner right?
So why not eat human blood ?
JT aka GF
>I agree with Cherubim.
>OK which is cleaner
>human blood or pig's blood ?
>Ofcourse you will eat the cleaner right?
>So why not eat human blood ?
>
-----------
So now I ask you: which shop sells human blood???? Hehehehehe.
JT aka GF
Pietro E Reyes, III wrote in message
<7f697h$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>Eric, still to others, it matters whether the pig is either male or
>female...
>
------------
Of course, it does. Male pigs spew WHITE blood! Eeewwww!!!! Hehehehehe.
dava...@my-dejanews.com
Revelation are revealed. Eat Dinuguan, Lechon, or Adobo.
Yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmy........
In article <37163c62.0@scratchy>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
tulisan
tulisan
GCPOPP wrote in message <19990416001708...@ng106.aol.com>...
>HI AND PEACE TO THE CHILDREN OF GOD AND FATHER OF US ALL.
(nonsense snipped)
tulisan
Cherubim_5 wrote in message (snipped)>
>Any true CHRISTIAN would not eat blood from any source, even if it were the
>last food on earth!
how nice. now run along and pray.
tulisan
JayT
It is not what you eat that makes you holy. Christ came to fulfill the Law. A Christian has a strong foundation can eat anything except human flesh. If what he eats makes a new convert question the faith, he must abstain from eating the food in front of the new convert until the latter fully understands how a true Christian lives.
God bless,
minerva felipe
Cherubim_5 wrote:
> Any true CHRISTIAN would not eat blood from any source, even if it were the
> last food on earth!
hello cherubim_5! this is my take on this: it is not what comes in a man's
mouth that makes him unclean. it's what comes out. God's directives found in
the mosaic books are "to set a people apart from other nations". most were
symbolisms of prophecy, things yet to come at that time (e.g. sacrifice of a
lamb, sabbaths, passover etc.). what's really important to us of today, as
Christ has emphasized, is our love and devotion to God and other people. that
is what makes christians distinct "set apart"; that is what shows that His
Spirit is in us.
- mihali
DGallermo
Bible ever got to the Philippines?
Besides, the Bible also bans the eating of pork and shellfish, but I know
precious few Pinoys who are willing to give up lechon and alimango. And if you
ask an Orthodox Jew about Biblical dietary restrictions, he'll tell you those
apply only to Jews, and not to gentiles.
In short, if eating dinuguan is a sin, I must be Satan himself....
ManongDave
Jay
Why not human blood? We were created in the image of God, our body is the the temple of God.
God bless,
Redgie Garcia <rga...@asiansources.com> wrote in message news:371782E7...@asiansources.com...
| I agree with Cherubim.
| OK which is cleaner
| human blood or pig's blood ?
| Ofcourse you will eat the cleaner right?
| So why not eat human blood ?
|
|
| Cherubim_5 wrote:
|
| > What was shallow in the question?
| >
| > My point, is human blood of lower quality in comparison with that of an
| > animal (pig or chicken) such that it is unfit to eat? Isn't "regla" human
| > blood?
| >
| > Any true CHRISTIAN would not eat blood from any source, even if it were the
| > last food on earth!
| >
| > <awstr...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
| > news:7f4res$gfu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
| > > In article <7f3h90$581$1...@tempo.news.iphil.net>,
| > > "Cherubim_5" <Cheru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > > > Would there be any difference between eating pig's blood and regla?
| > > >
| > >
| > > what a question ba naman 'yan, cherubim_5? REGLA-MENTE!!!
| > > ang baba naman ng comparison mo. try it yourself nalang kaya?
| > > kung babae ka, meron ka niyan. then taste it! kung lalaki ka, eh...
| > > humingi ka sa nanay mo!!!
| > >
| > >
tansong isda
If you follow the laws handed down would also show
you that the only "meat" allowed is the breast
(chest, the part you make corned beef with) oh,
must be difficult to be Jewish/Islamic a world of
gourmet cooking.
All that tripe and balut! (very un-halal/kosher!!)
ki...@my-dejanews.com
Would there be any difference between eating pig's blood and regla?
Ang baboy mo este babaw mo naman ! There's a big difference. We don't eat
regla. Ask your mother the difference between regla and pig's blood.
Diego San Juan Bautista Nabuang
then again, I can't just pass up the opportunity to suppress ignorance
anywhere.
Cherubim_5 wrote:
> What was shallow in the question?
>
> My point, is human blood of lower quality in comparison with that of an
> animal (pig or chicken) such that it is unfit to eat? Isn't "regla" human
> blood?
how would you quantitate the QUALITY of human blood and otheranimal blood?
> Any true CHRISTIAN would not eat blood from any source, even if it were the
> last food on earth!
Does this mean that Catholics are not TRUE christians because in the
communion, they eat and drink the blood of christ? I always thought that
the blood and body of christ was the food for the soul. considering that
there are lots of people who need food for the soul, christ should remain
a main course for everyone
PerwisyongTalongNakaIhaw
Cherubim_5
Diego San Juan Bautista Nabuang <perw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:371AC41C...@hotmail.com...
> Errr, hmmmm, well, you know, i could very easily pass this up, but
> then again, I can't just pass up the opportunity to suppress ignorance
> anywhere.
> Does this mean that Catholics are not TRUE christians because in the
> communion, they eat and drink the blood of christ? I always thought that
> the blood and body of christ was the food for the soul. considering that
> there are lots of people who need food for the soul, christ should remain
> a main course for everyone
>
> PerwisyongTalongNakaIhaw
Ah, communion....the blood of Christ?
At that ritual, is Christ Blood literal or symbolical?
Perhaps you CANNOT comprehend, I am referring to the actual eating of cooked
or uncooked blood as food for the "physical body". Of course spiritual food
is different from physical food.
Diego San Juan Bautista Nabuang
Cherubim_5 wrote:
> Ah, communion....the blood of Christ?
> At that ritual, is Christ Blood literal or symbolical?
Hey, you tell me. I always believed that at the moment that you drink it,you
are drining christ. Kinda kinky if you ask me, but I just hope christ
doesn't have any transmissible diseases. It certainly would ruin your arugment
if at the instance that people drink the wine, it turned into blood. HOw do
you
know that it doesn't?
> Perhaps you CANNOT comprehend, I am referring to the actual eating of cooked
> or uncooked blood as food for the "physical body". Of course spiritual food
> is different from physical food.
Explain to me again why actual eating of blood is not worthy for a christian.
Do you know that the meat the most christians eat have blood vessels such as
veins and arteries which contain blood? Chicken legs, lamb, steaks, hamburger
and sausages all contain blood. Thy ignorance is certainly appaling. Have you
ever thought of joining a circus? It would be a nice place to see the most
ignorant people. YOu could fit into the cage that sits right next to
lovey-dovey
and me.
PerwisyongNakaDisplay
tulisan
Cherubim_5 wrote in message <
(snip)>Perhaps you CANNOT comprehend, I am referring to the actual eating of
cooked
>or uncooked blood as food for the "physical body". Of course spiritual food
>is different from physical food.
>
enough! enouuugggghhhhh!!! i'll talk! i'll confess!!! i'll say anything you
want me to say!!! i'll betray anyone you'll want me to betray!!! enough of
this fundamentalist thread!!! please! SPAAAAARE MEEEEEEE!!!
tulisan
>
>
>
tulisan
Diego San Juan Bautista Nabuang wrote in message
<371C0062...@hotmail.com>...
(snip) Explain to me again why actual eating of blood is not worthy for a
christian.
>Do you know that the meat the most christians eat have blood vessels such
as
>veins and arteries which contain blood? Chicken legs, lamb, steaks,
hamburger
>and sausages all contain blood. Thy ignorance is certainly appaling.
thank you, dyaygs! i owe you a sirloin steak... extra rare, of course. this
guy just won't stop.
tulisan
Redgie Garcia
Blood is NOT A FOOD.
Jay wrote:
Hello Redgie,
Why not human blood? We were created in the image of God, our body is the the temple of God.
God bless,
Redgie Garcia <rga...@asiansources.com> wrote in message news:371782E7...@asiansources.com...
| I agree with Cherubim.
| OK which is cleaner
| human blood or pig's blood ?
| Ofcourse you will eat the cleaner right?
| So why not eat human blood ?
|
|
| Cherubim_5 wrote:
|
| > What was shallow in the question?
| >
| > My point, is human blood of lower quality in comparison with that of an
| > animal (pig or chicken) such that it is unfit to eat? Isn't "regla" human
| > blood?
| >
| > Any true CHRISTIAN would not eat blood from any source, even if it were the
| > last food on earth!
| >
| > <awstr...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
| > news:7f4res$gfu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
| > > In article <7f3h90$581$1...@tempo.news.iphil.net>,
| > > "Cherubim_5" <Cheru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > > > Would there be any difference between eating pig's blood and regla?
| > > >
| > >
| > > what a question ba naman 'yan, cherubim_5? REGLA-MENTE!!!
| > > ang baba naman ng comparison mo. try it yourself nalang kaya?
| > > kung babae ka, meron ka niyan. then taste it! kung lalaki ka, eh...
| > > humingi ka sa nanay mo!!!
| > >
| > >
Redgie Garcia
SINABI NA NGA SA BIBLIYA NA
HUWAG KUMAIN NG DUGO EH.
Diego San Juan Bautista Nabuang wrote:
Cherubim_5 wrote:
> Ah, communion....the blood of Christ?
> At that ritual, is Christ Blood literal or symbolical?
Hey, you tell me. I always believed that at the moment that you drink it,you
are drining christ. Kinda kinky if you ask me, but I just hope christ
doesn't have any transmissible diseases. It certainly would ruin your arugment
if at the instance that people drink the wine, it turned into blood. HOw do
you
know that it doesn't?
> Perhaps you CANNOT comprehend, I am referring to the actual eating of cooked
> or uncooked blood as food for the "physical body". Of course spiritual food
> is different from physical food.
Explain to me again why actual eating of blood is not worthy for a christian.
Do you know that the meat the most christians eat have blood vessels such as
veins and arteries which contain blood? Chicken legs, lamb, steaks, hamburger
and sausages all contain blood. Thy ignorance is certainly appaling. Have you
Johnny Thor
BAKIT BA ANG TITIGAS NG ULO NIYO.
SINABI NA NGA SA BIBLIYA NA
HUWAG KUMAIN NG DUGO EH.
Hindi ko naman kinakain ang dugo, e. INIINOM KO!!! O, ano, may angal ba
ang bibliya mo, a ber??
chairs,
--
Talk to me at
Johnn...@Hotmail.Com
DGallermo
>> Perhaps you CANNOT comprehend, I am referring to the actual eating of
>cooked
>> or uncooked blood as food for the "physical body". Of course spiritual food
>> is different from physical food.
>
Evidently, what Cherubim cannot comprehend is the Catholic doctrine of
Transsubstantiation. The whole substance of the wine is transformed into blood.
Only the species (appearance) of wine remains. So Catholics are drinking
literally the blood of Christ.
(And you can get a nice buzz off of it if you have enough)
And in any case, self-righteousness must surely be a worse sin than eating
diniguan.
ManongDave
Kano Ako
(DGallermo) writes:
>
>Cherubim wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps you CANNOT comprehend, I am referring to the actual eating of
>>cooked
>>> or uncooked blood as food for the "physical body". Of course spiritual food
>>> is different from physical food.
>>
>
>Evidently, what Cherubim cannot comprehend is the Catholic doctrine of
>Transsubstantiation. The whole substance of the wine is transformed into blood.
>Only the species (appearance) of wine remains. So Catholics are drinking
>literally the blood of Christ.
I can not recall the exact verse but Jesus is definitely on record as saying
something like: That which you eat never enters your body, it goes into your
mouth and out the other end so it does not make you impure. That which comes
from inside, e.g. lustful, murderous etc thoughts is what makes one impure.
Of course I may add a bit and take away as much but the definite point is that
God does not care about what we eat but God does care about how we think and
act.
Mag-ingat kayong lahat ang sabi ni KanoAko
e-mail: kan...@lakefield.net
Cherubim_5
news:19990426035229...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> Evidently, what Cherubim cannot comprehend is the Catholic doctrine of
> Transsubstantiation. The whole substance of the wine is transformed into
blood.
Catholic doctrine of Transsubstantiation is purely an invention.
> Only the species (appearance) of wine remains. So Catholics are drinking
> literally the blood of Christ.
REALLY, can you actually prove that the wine at catholic rituals turn to
blood of christ?
> And in any case, self-righteousness must surely be a worse sin than eating
> diniguan.
> ManongDave
A sin is a sin no matter what form, it will receive punishment.
Why do insist to justify the eating of blood (dinuguan), is the pig's blood
"Transsubstantiated" to Christ's blood also?
DGallermo
invention.
>
>> Only the species (appearance) of wine remains. So Catholics are drinking
>> literally the blood of Christ.
>
>REALLY, can you actually prove that the wine at catholic rituals turn to
>blood of christ?
>
>Why do insist to justify the eating of blood (dinuguan), is the pig's blood
>"Transsubstantiated" to Christ's blood also?
>
It is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with you. Obviously, you have no
respect for anyone's religious belief but your own. You demand proof of a
Catholic doctrine, yet you offer absolutely no proof that your interpretation
of Christianity is valid, nor any proof that the Catholic interpretation is
invalid.
You have no respect for any opinion but your own. You attack a facet of
Filipino culture (the eating of dinuguan) for no purpose than merely to prove
to yourself that you are somehow better, more moral, more worthy of salvation
than all others. In short, you are basically on a self-righteous ego trip.
From the responses to your original post, I doubt you have converted a single
person on this news group to your belief. Rather, you have offended and
alienated many others by choosing to condemn a Filipino custom as an act of
demonic evil. A poor strategy of evangelism on a Filipino cultural newsgroup.
But then again, I doubt your true motive was not to persuade any of us to your
beliefs. Rather, it is clear your true motive was to crow your superiority over
an entire culture. Clearly, this speaks less of your religious convictions than
it does about your low self-esteem.
If you refuse to have any respect for my Catholic beliefs, then there really is
not point in continuing the debate, is there?
ManongDave
Jay™
I have a question for you, have you drank the wine during communion? If
not, why is it
only the priest who drinks the wine?
The Lord's Supper is for everybody who is a member of Christ's church,
and each one
is to partake of both the bread and the wine to remember His death and
promise.
tulisan
Cherubim_5 wrote in message <7g8es1
>A sin is a sin no matter what form, it will receive punishment.
>Why do insist to justify the eating of blood (dinuguan), is the pig's blood
>"Transsubstantiated" to Christ's blood also?
if A is equals to B and B is equal to C... then C must therefore become D???
good logic right there, cherubim!
tulisan
DGallermo
that's not the purpose of it. Your take on the Eucharist sounds like the
Doctrine of Consubstantiation, perhaps (Luther's interpretation), or perhaps
the Calvinist view, or the Anglican view.
In any case, as a Catholic, I subscribe to the view of Transsubstantiation. If
you or Cherubim 5 have different views, you are entitled to them, and I am by
no means trying to convert you, or demean your theology. I only hope I can
receive the same respect on this matter.
Halong,
ManongDave