premjan

Moses is not the one who would get wind of the fishy stuff, rather his followers possibly.

But in the case of Moses, I suppose he just deduced his commandments from a combination of universal abstract principles which could have occurred to anyone with a basic ethical sense, and some observations based on local practices, as well as just stuff that seemed compelling to him perhaps.

Avatar

Well, if that isn't a conversation stopper...

Care to explain the whys of being forbidden to wear two kinds of cloth or touching a woman who is going through her period?

Sheshbazzar

This line of reasoning is in substantial agreement with my previous posts.
And;The theories as to the primary sources for the Laws incorporated into the Torah are thus;
1. Moses wrote them exactly as was dictated by YHWH, this being the fundamentalist inerrantist position. The laws were in their entirety of Divine origin, having no need nor support of "experimental evidence", but unilaterally decreed by YHWH.
This being the "Single Source Theory".

2. The Levitical Priesthood at a much latter date, fabricated the Laws and the stories contained within the Torah to facilitate their domination and control of the people for their own gain.
This being the "Late Source Theory"

3. The Torah is a compilation and redaction of earlier religious writings and oral traditions whether the actual writing down is being attributed to Moses or to 'others', the sources themselves are of an earlier origin.
This is the "Early Source Theory"

This thread is in its essence a practical application of the law against the wearing of "two kinds of cloth", as it says in another place; "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways".
There are things that men need to make up their mind about to hold any valid claim to be employing "reason".
Above are three theories, each being mutually exclusive, no man can lay claim to more than one without being double minded.
Take care to what manner of garment you wear, and to what manner of thread it is woven, and to what manner of 'meat' you are swallowing.
"That you may live, and not die."

Anat

On the reasoning behind the strictly religious laws - my highschool TaNaKh teacher claimed they were all about exercising one's willpower over natural inclinations. The Hebrew Law does not view such inclinations as negative in themselves but does not permit indiscriminate action in pursuing the fulfillment of these desires and wishes.

Yeshayahu Leibowitz said that it was wrong to seek any meaning or purpose in the Law other than obedience to God for its own sake, as that turns God into one's doctor/social worker, an etity that serves the believer (which Leibowitz saw as the definition of idolatry) rather than vice versa.

In both these approaches the exact content of religious prohibition isn't important but only the existence of prohibitions is.

All these prohibitions are ceremonial, regardless of whether they have a practical advantage outside of the religious context, they introduce ceremony into daily life.

premjan

As God is an unverified hypothesis we might as well lay the secular interpretation on the laws, by looking for their utility. If we behave as if there is a God, this may also satisfy a secular purpose.

jackrabbit

Chickens are equally nasty. Not only are they fowl, but they are foul. I know, my grandfather had a hatchery. I am eternally grateful to my dad for getting an education and moving to the city.

Are there any injunctions against chickens?

Julian

I think premjan was making an Argument from Pulp Fiction.

Steven Avery

Only a temporary restaining order prohibiting crossing the road.

River

Visit my new thread


Neo-Paulians and their Pork Eating Fetish by River

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=148627

premjan

But chickens won't eat some of the stuff that pigs will, right?