Rational Bible: Exodus (food)

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by Sonof

Actually, I don't know.
I also don't know why would that matter and why would that be wrong in any way.

“We will do and we will hear”...What is the meaning of this?...

[Sonof]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

“We will do and we will hear”...What is the meaning of this?...

To me it sounds like "We will do as told".
But what are trying to communicate?

[theflipflop]

Originally Posted by Sonof

To me it sounds like "We will do as told".
But what are trying to communicate?

I’ll help you out here. It means we accepted the Torah unconditionally without even knowing what was inside of it. That’s how much we love and trust Hashem.

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by theflipflop

I’ll help you out here. It means we accepted the Torah unconditionally without even knowing what was inside of it. That’s how much we love and trust Hashem.

Couldn’t have said it better myself...

[Sonof]

Originally Posted by theflipflop

I’ll help you out here. It means we accepted the Torah unconditionally without even knowing what was inside of it. That’s how much we love and trust Hashem.

This is by definition what faith is - accepting something as true without valid justification, or, as you so eloquently put it, without even knowing what was inside of it.
As I said before, I have no problem with this approach as long as I'm not required to follow it in any way.
But this thread called "Reasonable Bible".
And that's what I have a problem with. I just don't see it.
This is the reason I'd like a simple question to be answered by whomever can answer it - what makes Bible reasonable? What makes believing in Bible rational?

[Jacob II]

Originally Posted by Sonof

I'm talking about an explicit prohibition “do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,”
which appears a total of 3 times in the Torah (Exodus 23:19, & 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21) and from which a general rule of not mixing meat and milk was derived.

So why did he decide not to give us an opportunity to use our free will and err for a while by cooking a kid in its mother’s milk?
Why that is so expressly prohibited? Did not he know that in this case too we will grow out our errors eventually and will mature exactly when he has planned?

Why something supremely amoral is, at very least endorsed, but something totally harmless (at least there is 0 scientific evidence that it causes any harm) is almost a mortal sin?

I'm just new to this thread. I would ask Sonof. . . Do you honestly see no issue with meat and milk ?


Because to me it just seems naturally wrong. It disrespectful to life.

[Sonof]

Originally Posted by Jacob II

I'm just new to this thread. I would ask Sonof. . . Do you honestly see no issue with meat and milk ?

I honestly see no evidence of any issue existing.
What would constitute an evidence?
In this case it is quite easy.
We can compare and see if, for example, "meat and milk" diets lead to higher rate of any kind of health problems relative to kosher way of life.
We have a enormous data base on that and nothing indicates any difference.
I think it is a good, rational and indicative approach.
What do you think?

Because to me it just seems naturally wrong.

Key words - "to me" and "seems".
So it is your subjective and intuitive opinion.
Nothing stops subjective and intuitive from being wrong.
How do you propose to make sure it is not?

It disrespectful to life.

Why?

[Jacob II]

The best I tell you is that it would be an act of abrasive indifference. A person takes an animal from it's mother to slaughter, and then milks the mother to cook down the meat. It's an act of disrespectful ingratitude. Milk allows for life to be brought forth. It could be used in certain realms of cooking. But using life giving milk as a means to cook meat is just opposite of ethical reasoning.



If you still don't get it. You are not alone. The fast food industry does not get it either.

[Sonof]

Originally Posted by Jacob II

The best I tell you is that it would be an act of abrasive indifference. A person takes an animal from it's mother to slaughter, and then milks the mother to cook down the meat. It's an act of disrespectful ingratitude. Milk allows for life to be brought forth. It could be used in certain realms of cooking. But using life giving milk as a means to cook meat is just opposite of ethical reasoning.

If you still don't get it. You are not alone. The fast food industry does not get it either.

What I don't get is why you choose to argue less than honestly, or, as it's called in logic, by appealing to emotions instead of making a reasonable argument?
Why do you choose loaded words, like slaughter? Btw, do kosher abattoirs gently put cows to slip or they treat them with despicable cruelty?https://www.peta.org/features/agriprocessors/
How does that go along with ethical reasoning?

Why paint such a grim picture of literally slaughtering an animal taken from it's mother and then milking the mother to cook down the meat? Why do you need to erect this ugly strawman?
Who is doing literally that nowadays or ever did?

Are not you exhibiting an abrasive indifference yourself when you, with disrespectful ingratitude, force life bringing milk to get spoiled beyond recognition in order to use it in certain realms of cooking, like, for example, making cheeses?
Or is it not OK for me, but perfectly fine for you, because special pleading is not something you concern yourself with?

And why would you bring up infamous fast food industry to make your point?
Why not use for your analogy famous, perfected over the centuries world renowned European culinary tradition of which creamy souses is an intricate part?
I guess, it would not help you to paint the same dishonest picture, would not it?

[Jacob II]

It just sorta came out. But I was just being honest. . .Passionately honest. I'm just glad to see it did not go unnoticed.



Any more questions ?