Technically you ought not to be answering a question addressed to Christians, right? Being a deist as you're faith icon indicates. Seems that since you are not a Christian you can't really claim to be speaking for Christians or Christianity.
Which is why I answered why I did. The law regarding unclean and clean meats is moral.
If a Christian thinks that Yeshua did away with this law, and taught something else, then the Messiah they imagine is not the same one spoken of in the law and prophets. Yes, I identify as Deist. I don't feel the need to claim a Christian title - especially because most Christians I come across are really not followers or respecters of Yeshua. They hold Saul/Paul and his writings in much higher esteem.
Nevertheless you make the point that God gives good things to his people and that God gave the Law to Moses and through him to the people of Israel. You reason that since God gives good things the Law's provisions against eating pork, shell fish, and meats from a number of land, sea, and avian animals he must have given them for good reasons. You conclude that among the good reasons must be some things about health and avoidance of disease. And your reasoning along those lines is shared with Seventh Day Adventists (who do identify as Christians). Thus you conclude that avoidance of the meats prohibited in the law is a moral obligation.
Seventh Day Adventists hold Saul/Paul as an apostle and trust the Canon of New Testament as being wholly inspired as a matter of doctrine. I do not.
I didn't say anything about anyone's obligation. I said the law was moral, and it is. It is as moral for the Hindu, Muslim, Christian or anyone else as it is for the Jew. It is moral not only by decree but can also be determined such through reasoning. If you don't like it, that is not my problem. If your Church teaches different, then your Church is teaching error.
Here's a question for you:
Would you feed a child raw pork? How about raw chicken?
If someone worked in childcare, and a child got violently sick because the childcare worker fed them either of these meats raw, then that childcare worker could face the law, possibly jail and maybe even manslaughter charges if the child died.
Yes, it is ABSOLUTELY a moral law. Having the meat cooked and sourced from a reliable farmer greatly lessons the risk - but it does not completely eliminate it.
I respond by observing that the laws against the meats mentioned never claim to be moral laws and keeping them is not specifically said to be a health measure. So, even though the reasoning appears to be sound it is not. Your reasoning is based on opinions rather than on clear and explicit teaching in the holy scriptures.
Then you are deceived. There is also a law regarding eating of blood. When's the last time you had a CLEAN meat - Chicken - raw? No? Why not? Because you'll get sick? Exactly. The same applies to cooked unclean meats - the only difference is that western farming practices lesson the risks to having sickness be a possibility rather than a certainty. That is, when they are practiced.
The Church has never regarded the laws regarding diet and the rules regarding what is a clean food and what is not as moral laws nor as obligations placed upon Christians. I would stop here since what I have said is sufficient in itself to answer what you've proposed. But I will add this observation. Under the new covenant the prohibitions on unclean foods are lifted explicitly in The Acts of the Apostles and in the Gospel according to Mark. You have previously said that you do not count these books as inspired and so it seems that what is written in them will not play a major role in your religion but for Christians (to whom this thread is addressed) those books are accounted s inspired and their teaching is important.
"The Church" - you mean the Catholic Church? It isn't the only religious organization around and I don't see it as any kind of authority on morals or Christianity in particular.
Not that I accept Acts as completely reliable - but the passage you speak of (the dream) is representative, not literal. The context is made clear just a few verses later when the dream is interpreted and any honest reading of it makes it clear that food is used as a symbol only. If not, then God is instructing Peter to eat Cornelius, which is ridiculous. A reading of Acts 10:28-29 should show this clearly.
Regarding "Mark" - the passage you refer to is a note by the author or a scribe. Mark is not an Apostle of Yeshua. But, even if it WAS completely inspired - the passage does not proclaim pork to be a food. It says "all foods are clean". Pork, vulture, shellfish and other unclean meats are never declared to be "food" - that is solely a tradition of various cultures, neither doctrine of Torah, nor of Mark, nor of Acts, nor of either of the 2 real disciples of Yeshua.
