Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

[oldbadger]

Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

It most certainly did!
Would anybody like to challenge that ?

[TRANSPONDER]

...A quick search through the internet can show you that undercooked pork is dangerous to eat. ...

I can agree with that, but why would it have been impossible to cook it properly in ancient times?

A good point. Which is why I suspect the prohibition is cultural (and without empirical validity) and not practical, which would have had empirical validity, though not necessarily Divine inspiration.

[TRANSPONDER]

To tell the truth, I'm not sure. I have a Theory that Mosaic laws were half based on cultural prohibitions so as to ensure the Hebrews remained culturally distinct from other peoples, In this it was stunningly successful.

But their God explained how the previous tribes had been offered the same laws but had failed, just as the Israelites did later on, many times.

I might suggest swinefleisch was a principle eat of the locals and that was something the Hebrews should not do, being goatherders from the Aramean hillsides. I might be wrong. and they really thought that pig was not safe. But Beef had its' problems, too.

There were risks with beef as well, it had to be prepared and eaten in certain ways and withing certain time limits.

The point being, whether or not clean food laws were valid them, they really aren't now. it is purely cultural, which is to say, Religious reasons, which is no good reasons.

No.....they really really are valid now.
But modern cooking methods are much more efficient.

It is the same problem with God's morality. At best human morality is just as good, and at worst, bad morality stubbornly maintained (never mind politically forced on people who do not want it) on the grounds that God said so, as though anything from the OT even counted anymore.

Ah......morality, like 'sin', so often used in religious rhetoric.
But God's laws were absolutely necessary for survival back then.
An old meaning for 'sin' was 'failure'.

The only claim that the other tribes were offered dietary laws (which can hardly have been empirically valid if everyone else ate pork and no harm) is one we can't check. The old tribes (cultures) made up their own gods and laws, which is why I suspect that the Israellites invented rules that kept their identity distinct, like rejecting other gods and eating particular foods.

Eating pigs, cattle and sheep were always eaten and apparently without problems that would lead to people Not eating them. So the restrictions don't seem practical, but I can only guess cultural, which is to say, without empirical validity.

[POI]

Please explain what do you mean with "genetic traits"?

Post 37 -> "The Torah explains that kosher animals are ruminants, which means they chew cud and have split hooves, like cows and sheep. Pigs are not ruminants, so they are not kosher. In Judaism, pigs are also considered unclean animals."

A practicing Orthodox Jew will not eat a pig. They follow the OT. As I asked, in my last response, which of the 100's of "laws" do you either a) rationalize or b) ignore? You have demonstrated how to a) rationalize eating a pig. Which is only one of the 100's of laws...

[oldbadger]

The only claim that the other tribes were offered dietary laws (which can hardly have been empirically valid if everyone else ate pork and no harm) is one we can't check.

Yes, you can check. They would certainly have known. The dangers of eating pork have been known for a very long time and all/any peoples from those days would have very aware that if pork is eaten without great care in preparation then it can lead to death. Most cooking implements were just not up to the job back then.

From a Google search:-
Yes, pork has been dangerous to eat in the past, but the risk of foodborne illnesses from eating pork has decreased over time:
Trichinosis
Before the 1950s, there were many cases of trichinosis, a fatal infection caused by the Trichinella roundworm found in undercooked pork.

The old tribes (cultures) made up their own gods and laws, which is why I suspect that the Israellites invented rules that kept their identity distinct, like rejecting other gods and eating particular foods.

Eating pigs, cattle and sheep were always eaten and apparently without problems that would lead to people Not eating them. So the restrictions don't seem practical, but I can only guess cultural, which is to say, without empirical validity.

Pork, other omnivores, scavenging creatures and fish, shellfish etc, all offer dreadful deaths to those who eat them without great care in cooking or preparation. If outsiders were eating any of these creatures then they had learned how to avoid such risks to some extent.
Mosaic law was very switched-on to survival, health, safety and success.

[TRANSPONDER]

But there's the problem. Other cultures didn't have such prohibitions, and they did fine. Otherwise they would have developed such prohibitions themselves, one would think.

Which is why cultural reasons seems more probable to me, because health and safety reasons doesn't account for everything.

[1213]

They didn't have air fryers and microwaves, 1213.....
It was possible to cook properly, but it was too easy to cut corners.

At least no air fryers and microwaves remaining from that era.

I think it is also nowadays too easy to cut corners. Personally I recommend not to eat anything that is unclean. But, luckily eating pig is not a threshold question to, can one get into eternal life.

[1213]

...A quick search through the internet can show you that undercooked pork is dangerous to eat. ...

I can agree with that, but why would it have been impossible to cook it properly in ancient times?

A good point. Which is why I suspect the prohibition is cultural (and without empirical validity) and not practical, which would have had empirical validity, though not necessarily Divine inspiration.

Thanks. I believe there is some better reason than cultural. But, at the moment I don't know it. However, I believe all God's commandments have a good reason, therefore I think it is good to go by them and for example not eat things that may be unclean.

[1213]

Please explain what do you mean with "genetic traits"?

Post 37 -> "The Torah explains that kosher animals are ruminants, which means they chew cud and have split hooves, like cows and sheep. Pigs are not ruminants, so they are not kosher. In Judaism, pigs are also considered unclean animals."

Yes, those are the physical traits, but Bible doesn't say they are the reason for calling them unclean.

A practicing Orthodox Jew will not eat a pig. They follow the OT. As I asked, in my last response, which of the 100's of "laws" do you either a) rationalize or b) ignore? You have demonstrated how to a) rationalize eating a pig. Which is only one of the 100's of laws...

If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid.
John 5:31

I think all the laws are good, and it would be good to go by them. This means for example, if you think something is unclean, don't eat it.

[TRANSPONDER]

...A quick search through the internet can show you that undercooked pork is dangerous to eat. ...

I can agree with that, but why would it have been impossible to cook it properly in ancient times?

A good point. Which is why I suspect the prohibition is cultural (and without empirical validity) and not practical, which would have had empirical validity, though not necessarily Divine inspiration.

Thanks. I believe there is some better reason than cultural. But, at the moment I don't know it. However, I believe all God's commandments have a good reason, therefore I think it is good to go by them and for example not eat things that may be unclean.

Well, if you come up wit a better reason, you let me know it. Until then cultural reasons - to distinguish the Jews from other people to ensure their distinctiveness, has as good explanatory power as any other and in fact fits with other rules to keep the Hebrews different. And it has worked very well in doing that, Either way, it wouldn't stand up as God given knowledge, which I suspect the argument was all about.

Please explain what do you mean with "genetic traits"?

Post 37 -> "The Torah explains that kosher animals are ruminants, which means they chew cud and have split hooves, like cows and sheep. Pigs are not ruminants, so they are not kosher. In Judaism, pigs are also considered unclean animals."

Yes, those are the physical traits, but Bible doesn't say they are the reason for calling them unclean.

A practicing Orthodox Jew will not eat a pig. They follow the OT. As I asked, in my last response, which of the 100's of "laws" do you either a) rationalize or b) ignore? You have demonstrated how to a) rationalize eating a pig. Which is only one of the 100's of laws...

If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid.
John 5:31

I think all the laws are good, and it would be good to go by them. This means for example, if you think something is unclean, don't eat it.

Yes, but then we are back to using human understanding or at least judgement, for doing things, not 'The Bible says so'. Especially not the OT which was made obsolete by the new.

[POI]

but Bible doesn't say they are the reason for calling them unclean.

Yes, it does, in Leviticus 11: (i.e.):

Leviticus 11:3-8 states -> "You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 4 "There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

**********************

The Bible gives hard no's for the above. There is no exception(s) to the rule. Hence, your prior given rationalization for eating a pig is a prime example of why this topic was created. You, and many others, are what we skeptics refer to as a cafeteria Christian. You guys cherry pick accordingly.

I think all the laws are good, and it would be good to go by them.

Then you must think that chattel slavery is also good. From the same book of 'laws' and 'allowances', Leviticus, comes the following instruction:

25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

************************

This is a form of chattel slavery, and God thinks it is good, otherwise, the Bible would not condone it. Do you think condoning or allowing this form of chattel slavery is good? Or, is there another rationalization coming?

In conclusion, you, among most other Christians, either a) rationalize or b) ignore some of the OT, to taste. You Christians are cherry pickers. Thanks for demonstrating this...