Re: nothing new under the sun

Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:18:38 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins , Robert
Carnegie <rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx> in
<67bdb02f-6265-4e99-8594-ff96a3a9e501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Dec 17, 12:51�am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:22:11 -0700, in talk.origins , Bob Casanova
<nos...@xxxxxxxx> in <jcagk453devsotd338f01f9qr6iagq8...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:37:13 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank"
<lfl...@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Dec 15, 7:22�pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:12 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Origins of science ---the bible.

Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22).
Number of stars exceeds a billion (Jer. 33:22).
Every star is different (1 Cor 15:41).
Light is in motion (Job 38:19-20).
Blood is a source of life and healing (Lev. 17:11).
conservation of mass and energy (Eccl. 1:9; Eccl. 3:14-15).
water cycle (Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10).
gravity (Job 26:7; Job 38:31-33).

There is nothing new under the sun.
--

It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
�.�Adman�.�
^^^^^^^^^^^

Remind me again of the scientific achievements resulting from
religion.

Some of the Hebrew dietary laws may have originated in empirical
observations that those who ate shellfish were more prone to food
poisoning; those who slaughtered unconscious animals and ate their meat
got sick themselves; and so forth.

The Jewish ritual custom of washing one's hands before dinner may also
have had an origin in hygienic guidelines.

And in an age before proper sanitation, asepsis and antibiotics,
circumcision probably helped to reduce infection.

We can never be entirely sure how these rules originated, and many
rabbis maintain that these things were purely religious or mystical rituals.

Only since the Enlightenment has there come to be a "separation of
church and science." �In more ancient times, there wasn't such a clear
distinction between science and mysticism. �Rabbis, witches, shamans,
and medicine men would freely combine empirical rules of thumb (gleaned
over many years) with prayer, magic, ritual, incantation, etc.

I have heard it suggested that eating pigs was banned for a quite
legitimate ecological reason -- in an environment where food resources
for herds were pretty scarce, it makes sense to keep animals that are
multi-use, to get the maximum benefit from them. �Horses, of course,
can perform work and can also be ridden. �Cows provide meat, milk,
hides, cheese, and other useful things. Goats also provide meat, milk,
cheese, and hides, and they're pretty good at living on next to
nothing. Sheep provide wool.

Pigs, on the other hand, have limited use. �You can't ride them, they
can't pull a plow, their milk is crap, and they eat like . . .
well . . �like a pig.

So it makes sense to not keep them.

And pretty much the only way to enforce that, in those times, was
through a religious law.

An added point is that (IIRC) pigs share more diseases with
humans than do any other domesticated animals, and
poorly-cooked pork would allow those diseases to be passed
on. This could have been observed with the same results.

Both pigs and cows have diseases that can pass to humans. Cows carry
diseases that can be passed via milk. Yet cows are allowed and pigs
forbidden. The disease theory does not work. The two that make sense,
and it can be a combination, was either that the banned animals were
totems or the blood theory. The totem theory says that either they
animals were totems of defeated groups and banning the animal helps
bury the religion or they were once revered animals and so were not
allowed. I used to be a big proponent of that idea, but when you read
the text you don't find a list of banned mammals or fish, you find
rules for deciding. (You find a list of birds, but the list is easy to
make rules from: predators bad is the rule.)

I propose it could be that a rule is applied (a) to substitute a
method in place of an unwieldy list, and/or (b) to give a clear answer
in an unfamiliar case (say you're dragged off to Babylon, or to
Antarctica: penguins: yes or no?), and/or (c) to give an irrational
set of prohibitions an appearance of being reasonable: if there is a
system to it.

The Dietary laws contain both rules and lists. Birds are listed and so
you have to derive a rule from that. After all, are emus and turkeys
kosher? (Yes, for those who are worried.)

I don't see that "you have to derive a rule", although if it's your
system it isn't mine and is none of my business. Food and drink(?)
that's specified kosher is kosher, anything not on the list is not
kosher? (Although, do the emu and turkey perhaps not count as birds,
because they don't fly - unlike bats?)

As for the rule that embraces pigs, let me propose that perhaps when
the rule was invented, there were pig-eaters and non pig-eaters, but
the other animals falling under it weren't eaten anyway?

One approach to that question is, where did they get those rules?

I think that we can easily see the concern about blood and garbage as
pretty basic fundamental human issues rather than having to look for
some specific to the group's history reason. Sure, the rules pre-date
the Torah, they are quite well established by the time the document is
composed.

Do you know about evidence of dietary rules in earlier cultures?
There can't be much that's unambiguously older, and I hesitate to look
towards Egypt but there is lots written down there. But the practice
of extracting pharaoh body parts and storing them in jars for later is
disturbing.

I wonder if it is also worth looking at Islam. ("More trouble than
it's worth", perhaps.) I expect most of their regulations are
directly "Because the Prophet said so (which is because God said so)",
but apparently there are different views under the Muslim umbrella on
e.g. portraits. I wouldn't mind knowing more about that, unless there
is a critical mass limit of knowledge after which you must either
convert or be killed, for instance, in which case my staying ignorant
is less trouble for everybody.

I don't think there is such a limit. You are allowed to study Islam
(with the hope, I assume, that you "see the light"). You are not a
Muslim until you accept Allah and Mohammad.

Although, turning it around, is there a level of ignorance that
excuses you from forced conversion when the situation arises? Of
course it isn't supposed to - or is it? - but of course it has. And
of course it has when most other religions were ascendant or
established. The United Kingdom still has laws about the royal family
and Roman Catholicism, and for that matter the press - if not the
public - got worked up about whether the previous Prime Minister (to a
mainly ceremonial Queen), married to a Catholic, would turn Catholic
himself - which he did after leaving that job. That he himself
apparently chose to put off officially converting until then (he had
attended services), is interesting. For instance, did he feel that he
owed it to his country to /not/ be a Catholic, more than he owed it to
God and to his own wife and family? That's one of the more favourable
interpretations, but still odd. Maybe he thought it would confuse us.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Popes astronomer welcomes our alien overlords
    ... it is forbidden to eat animals. ... "thou shalt not kill", ... that they "have no soul" and are made exclusively to be exploited by ... however became part of the specific religion in question, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Popes astronomer welcomes our alien overlords
    ... it is forbidden to eat animals. ... "thou shalt not kill", ... that they "have no soul" and are made exclusively to be exploited by ... however became part of the specific religion in question, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: men really are pigs
    ... Religion is like the frosting on ... Nationalism and culture play significant roles in human conflict too, ... significant role in human conflict -- is equally invalid. ... >> animals killing other animals en mass for chunks metal, ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: The times, they are achanging!
    ... Animals that don't chew their cud or don't have true hooves, ... He denies that man evolved from earlier hominids, but doesn't attempt to explain the earlier hominids, nor mention what happened to the dinosaurs, although the serpent who tempts Eve looks ... the kids. ... Just because the minister and his wife's sister behaved like normal humans, there was a need to make it somehow consistent with the teachings of their religion. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The times, they are achanging!
    ... Animals that don't chew their cud or don't have true hooves, ... He denies that man evolved from earlier hominids, but doesn't attempt to explain the earlier hominids, nor mention what happened to the dinosaurs, although the serpent who tempts Eve looks ... the kids. ... Just because the minister and his wife's sister behaved like normal humans, there was a need to make it somehow consistent with the teachings of their religion. ...
    (soc.retirement)