Thoughts on Mixing Meat and Diary

"The distinguished Bible scholar Umberto Cassuto showed in his book "The Goddess Anath", published in 1951, (referencing Ginzberg's paper from 1935), that Ugaritic writings mention the Cananite custom of "seething a kid in milk", which is the corner stone of the Biblical injunctions against mixing milk and meat. In fact, this point was already raised by Maimonides (in this Guide of the Perplexed) in the 12th century."

- Dr. Saul Stokar (Israel)
[Comment from the BAS article Making Sense of Kosher Laws]

"With some research on the cultural background of the day, you will find that the mixing of dairy and meat came from a differentiation from pagan rituals of the day. The pagan ritual included killing a pregnant mother goat and the kid inside her. The kid would then be boiled in the mother's milk. With a strictly "written Torah" approach as a definition of kashrut, there is no prohibition from mixing dairy and meat. This came later with oral tradition and is not scripture based. As with other oral traditions these are "fences" around the original commandments and not based on Leviticus 11."

- Steve Bascom (USA)
[Comment from the BAS article Making Sense of Kosher Laws]

Kosher vs Relationship with God

"As a Reform Rabbi, I have evaluated my own dietary observance and while I do not propose that I keep kosher, I do believe that Jewish dietary law is about our relationship with God and that God must be part of the process of our food getting to our tables. Check out my Yom Kippur sermon from two years ago on the topic: http://www.templeisrael.com/saks_yk_2006.html"

- Rabbi Jared H. Saks (USA)
[Comment from the BAS article Making Sense of Kosher Laws]


Rabbi Saks comment about the dietary laws being about one's relationship to God struck me as very interesting. I like the connection that "God must be part of the process" in all aspects of getting, preparing, and eating of our food.

OT/ANE

I am currently trying to figure out how to align within my brain the fact that there are so many Ancient Near Eastern stories that are similar to those in the OT and quite a number that predate them. I fully aware that OT things come from a specific people, within a specific culture that picked things up from elsewhere (don't we all), but I'm trying to figure out how to put it all into a cohesive religious worldview for myself.

Afterlife

Well... I kinda hold to the Sheol ideology, or at least until judgment (which, itself, I haven't really formed complete ideas about). Then the idea that people burn eternally - the Bible speaks of eternal flames somewhere another, but to me it reads as though it was not designed for humanity, but for the fallen ones. Also is mentioned a second death, at which point you're ...gone - i suppose. And no where does it say that when you die you go to heaven. Firstly, that terminology isn't really used, but if we're talking about the "kingdom of God" I understand that -very- few make it.

John the Baptist's hair

My theory via newly discovered bits of scripture:

I think John the Baptizer had REALLY long hair.
Think Samson kinda long.
Why? This is why:

Luke 1:15 "... He will never drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb."
Which in some Bibles (e.g. the one I am using) this is cross referenced with Numbers 6:2.

Numbers 6:1-5 "The LORD said to Moses: Speak to the Israelites and tell them: When a man (or a woman) solemnly takes the nazirite vow to dedicate himself to the LORD, he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he may neither drink wine vinegar, other vinegar, or any kind of grape juice, nor eat either fresh or dried grapes. As long as he is a nazirite he shall not eat anything of the produce of the vine; not even unripe grapes or grapeskins. While he is under the nazirite vow, no razor shall touch his hair. Until the period of his dedication to the LORD is over, he shall be sacred, and shall let the hair of his head grow freely."

The historical/information note at the bottom reads:
"Nazirite: from the Hebrew word nazir, meaning "set apart as sacred, dedicated, vowed." The nazirite vow could be either for a limited period or for life. Those bound by this vow had to abstain from all the products of the grapevine, from cutting or shaving their hair, and from contact with a corpse [which it talks about beyond the excerpt that I included]. They were regarded as men of God like the prophets ... Examples of lifelong nazirites were Samson (Judges 13:4, 7; 16, 17), Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11), and John the Baptizer (Luke 1:15). At the time of Christ the practice of taking the nazirite vow for a limited period seems to have been quite common, even among the early Christians, Acts 18:18; 21, 23, 26.

So all that, to point out the fact that John seems to have been one who was under the nazirite vow (be that it was his choice, or chosen for him), and those under the vow are not to cut or shave their hair.

Hence, LONG hair.

"Christian"

I think (in my own little generational world) that "Jesus" is similar, but gives a different thought. Within my generation, there are a lot of [real] Christians who also don't like Churchy-Christianity. But they tend to be the Jesus People. They are (perhaps) less the hypocritical type, but are the ones that people avoid on the sidewalk because they project this always-happy-and-you-should-be-too image. The ones who want to stop and talk to you for 20 minutes just to see how your doing (when your on your way to class), because that's what they think Jesus would do. That's all find and nice, I suppose, but I'm not one of those either.

It's like "Christianity" is the hypocritical, "you're going to burn in the flames of hell!" - negative Christianity kind of people. And "I follow Jesus" is the "becuase of Jesus, my life is perfect," "are you ready to accept him as your personal saviour, yet...yet?...yet??" - positive side of Christianity kind of people.
Maybe I seem a little extreme, I am just trying to put into words some of my thoughts. And I guess the Jesus People are closer, but (at least in my generation, and on a college campus) they also have a specific "image" that they project to a lot of people.
I am just a person - like the rest of the world. I don't claim any special status. I believe something very real to me and if someone else is interested in the way I live my life, we can talk about it.

In regard to those who did not or will not hear

Romans 1:18-23
which my Bible cross-references with Book of Wisdom 13:1-9 (you can find it here - not the best translation, but it gets the point across)

camel or a rope

...through the eye of a needle.
(Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25)

Interesting reading if you have time.
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Franklin4YAHWEH/camelthroughneedle.html

Organized Religion

"Religion" might not be so bad if it was (actually, wholly) based on a Godly foundation.
But so much of "religion" and also denominations are based on not being like somebody else.

Paul

It seems like many churches, etc [similar functions] put nearly (or more?!) emphasis on what Paul says in the NT than what Jesus said. I understand that he is interpreting much of what Jesus said and elaborating and helping out the various churches, but isn't a lot of what he said basically his opinion (which given, is noteworthy, but still opinion)?
Also, I understand that we can learn from what he told the churches, but could it not be compared to things that were directed to Jews versus Gentiles? I know that [some people have] talked about the significance of what (promises, laws, etc) is directed to which group of people (or in some cases to both). Would Paul's letters to the churches be like that, most significant to those churches whom it was directed who were having specific issues and not so much so towards everyone else because they have separate issues and not the same things that were going on?
I am just confused why it often seems that soo much emphasis is put on Paul's letters when they were directed to a very specific group of people.

Thoughts, please?


additionally: My questioning wasn't trying to discredit Paul at all. Just question whether some things should be kept in more of a historical context. One example being women to be silent in church. From my understanding, it likely had more to do with what was going on in Corinth at the time than that women in general should not speak in church.
But it occurred to me that some things that he says may not need to be applied to so many situations...

Religion in a Vacuum

Thoughts.

Many people think they can understand something like religion from within a vacuum consisting of only what they believe.
Isn't that like taking something completely out of context and basing it's truth simply on the single statement itself?

Not to cause confusion, I firmly believe that Jesus/Yeshua is the messiah to the Jewish nation and the other nations/goyim/gentiles are able to be grafted in. etc., etc., etc.
BUT 'Modern Christianity' that claims that it is true simply "because it is true" strikes me as a logical fallacy (see "begging the question").

I know, I know, people say just have faith. I don't buy it though. Yes, have faith. But not as a founding reason to believe.

Thoughts?

Religious Language

"Religious language in the public sphere is not meant to convey information but to establish authority and legitimacy through assertion and persuasion."
-Me

Origins Rant

I definitely have trouble with everything came from nothing, but I also have an issue with everything happening in 7, 24-hr periods of time.
I don't see this as a non-faith issue (as many would), I fully believe that there is absolutely no reason that my faith and the most up-to-date science should conflict in any way. My God created what they are studying and thus I think it should align perfectly. When it doesn't, there is confusion somewhere. I don't attempt to point my finger and say science is wrong or the Bible is wrong, but just that someone, somewhere have their facts a little crooked.
To me, a Christian who can't stand the thought of 'believing what science finds' [through studying the nature that their God created] is discrediting Him. To those who don't believe in God because of what science says, I believe are confused about who and what He is, and largely are not open-minded enough (despite what they say) to actually allow themselves to consider that everything could be created by a Greater Being (because if they allowed themselves to really discover for themselves and not just rely on what others say Christianity is, they would have to realign their entire world view, and it is much easier to just deny it all).

Frustrated

I am so frustrated.

I am trying to find some way to explain it, but I can't because there is no logic behind it.

People who are angry with me because of stating my views. I am not really even challenging theirs. but they are angry because they don't agree with me. or angry because i don't agree with them. or angry because they don't understand what i'm saying. or i'm not really sure what the rational is...

It's all religious things.

Don't start a religious conversation with me if you don't want me to tell you how I feel...

I don't know.

I am just grr...

Analogy

I had lunch with [a friend/mentor of mine] today. We had good conversations (regarding lots of things, but a lot on religion). She shared with me an analogy that a mentor of hers once told her. I thought you might find it interesting and/or thought provoking.
They said that their/her relationship with "the church" was something like finding out that your mother is a whore. You love it because it gave you life, but hate it for what it has done.
I found that rather fitting for a lot of where I stand and what I believe personally and regarding organized churches.

*A Break for Lyrics*

Sacrificial

Now the last ten steps in silence
His cause upon His shoulders's strength
Feel the burning weight of darkness
Weight of Sacrificial Death


Lacerated, torn and jaded
Dressed in cloaks of mockery
The Jury's cries as Pilate turned and
washed his hands, set satan free

As the crown's blood stained His vision
The spears punctured His slender side

Nails of hatred driven deeply
The Lamb was tortured, sent to die

Now the last ten steps in silence
His cause upon His failing strength
Carried The Cross in silence
The weight of Sacrificial Death


As His throat, dry and forgiving
Of all inflicted unto Him
Limbs tore into suffocation
Spirit sinking, black with sin

Died for me
Died for me
The Lamb died for me
The Lamb died for me

I am free



--The Awakening

as Clay Crosse once sang

"it all comes down to a man dying on a cross saving the world"

...is there more to the story that is eternally significant?

Titles

God is a title, like Christ is a title.
God is not God's official name.

--God is a title. Never thought of it like that.

Polytheism?

Exodus 15:11
"Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?..."

Psalms 86:8
"There is no one like You among the gods, O Lord..."

etc...

Hebrew/Israelite polytheism...?


[ ... ]


I was less referring to God in the trinity and more to mentions of other gods in the Bible. I am not saying they worshiped other gods (although Aaron and his post-Egypt Israelites hint otherwise), and I am not saying these other gods had any power (false or not), but only that they believed that other gods did exist.