Kosher Laws and Bible Wisdom

[Smitthy]

(I debated which category to post this in)

Hi, I am curious about how atheists would address the following. I found myself on an offshoot reading some material about the designations of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals â€" kosher diet laws in the bible. As a non-Jew, and fledgling deist/agnostic with Christian undertones... raised in the Christian belief, I always found kosher laws arbitrary and morally arbitrary â€" “What does it matter if one eats beef or pork?” â€" I have since heard the popular explanations that kosher laws were concerned with healthy, safe food consumption, etc.

My offshoot reason for interest in the issue was some random Googling/interest in cultural views of pets, treatment of animals, etc. For instance â€" Most Americans are appalled that some Chinese persons eat dog meat... Some? Many? fundamentalist Muslims do not believe dogs should be kept as pets.. and worse.. that dogs should be killed. While Western civilization, and Americans for sure view the dog as man’s best friend... a noble creature, loyal companion. Americans, culturally believe that eating dog is disgusting (as do I), taboo, and even morally ‘just plain wrong.’ Meanwhile â€" it occurred to me â€" and I freely admit my cultural bias (and that I eat hamburgers) â€" that pets, especially dogs, are special... beneficial, make people happy, etc... and that ‘those radical Muslims’ would lighten up if they were pet owners. And furthermore, it is a known fact, that there is a link between adult violence and animal abuse.  â€" So, I felt like I was onto something... wouldn’t the world be a better place if more people had dogs as pets.  And how does one convince people that it is morally wrong to eat dogs, while eating a chicken sandwich... Well, to the latter I would argue that the chickens aren’t clubbed to death so they taste better... but I know that the chickens probably did not have a great quality of life either. I’m not a PETA member, activist, etc... just off on a tangent... Well, for one â€" if going by the Kosher laws, dogs are considered ‘unclean’ â€" (which protects them from being food) but also, has been part of the twisted reasoning for their mistreatment by fundamentalist Islam believers.

So mixed up in the issue of animal treatment and consumption... even vegetarianism and eating meat â€" period... I wonder about the Bible and kosher laws. And here is what interests me... the animals designated as ‘clean’ for food are vegetarians... these by nature, abstain from blood. Whether or not pigs are filthy or carry parasites, is not the issue; pigs (I have read) have the potential of being meat eaters... cows do not. Abstaining from blood - life, and respect of that, as well as respect for treatment of animals is â€" I believe, the issue. And somewhere in here â€" I am challenged that there is deep wisdom that goes beyond split hooves, chewing of cud, and whether or not it is healthier to eat turkey than pork.

According to the Bible story, Adam and Eve were vegetarians... and mankind was vegetarian until the Flood... when Noah was told â€"even then â€" before Mosaic Law to round up so many ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ pairs of animals. There was also the instruction to Noah to abstain from blood, and not to eat the limb of a living creature... which speaks to humane slaughter methods and treatment and respect for animals. The first shedding of blood on the planet, according to Genesis, was the murder of Abel by Cain. Abel’s blood (life), it is written cried out to God. Also, as a result of Adam and Eve’s ‘sin’ â€" (whatever it really was) animals were then killed to clothe/cover them â€" and Abel, as we know was offering animal sacrifices to God.  What I see in this, is that Adam and Eve were reminded of their fallen-ness by the resulting fate of the animals... as some became carnivores and others food for carnivores, or fur-skin for man, or sacrifice â€" all after man’s fall.

Now this is not to argue the historical accuracy of Genesis or literal-ness of it either â€" but to say again, that I am challenged to consider that there is something deep here in the designation of clean and unclean animals and abstaining from blood.

I am interested in your thoughts.

Thanks,
Kathy (Smitthy)

[donkeyhoty]

well, not really deep, nor original(see the Avesta for all sorts of unclean/clean animals), but regarding pigs someone else has said this, and right now I can't remember who, that pigs were called unclean because in the middle eastern climate they were not a useful animal to raise.  For one, because of the fact that they can not be used for animal labor.  Also, you can't use them for clothing.  Thus, along with their diet(they would eat the same things people eat), pigs are not economically or environmentally viable to be raised in the middle east.

And like with most things, the religious texts don't actually explain this, they just say, "You can't eat pork, because I said so."  There is nothing enlightened or "deep" about saying, "don't do something because I say so".

edit: anthropologist Marvin Harris is the one that I couldn't think of.  He also studied and provided theories as to how and why dietary traditions developed in different cultues, e.g.. why the cow is sacred in India.

[Sidbob]

There was also an issue with them rolling around in the dirt, which to the casual observer might look like a dirty practice but they are just trying to keep cool.

If its unclean then give it a bath before you eat it, simple.

[Will]

God I love pork chops.

The laws were originally meant to keep people safe. Pigs may have had diseases that were not easily cooked out at the time and thus the pig was considered unclean in order to prevent disease. If you remember from the Bible, menstruating women were meant to be left alone when Aunt Flow visited because of the risk of infection, shellfish were to be avoided because of disease, and homosexuality because people are prudes.