Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

[Zzyzx]

.
Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

From a current thread:

.

Most of the 600+ OT laws are(were) good and positive (in their time). Obviously cynics would rush to pick a difficult example for me, rather than pick one fairly, t random, but if I stick a pin in somewhere, and come up with, say, the 'Do not eat Shellfish' law, that one is(was) massively good and positive in it's time.

You see, mostly every law kept the tribes as healthy and as strong as possible.

Easy......... easy.......

Perhaps you refer to Leviticus 11:9-12 ESV “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

Aquatic animals without fins and scales include lobster, crabs, shrimp, squid, crawdads, catfish, eels, sturgeon, etc.

First, let us name the commonly known unclean fish -- these are scaleless fish -- which are not fit for food: catfish, eels, paddlefish, sculpins, sticklebacks, sturgeons, and swordfish. These fish do not have true scales. Together with these creatures are other forms of sea life unfit for human consumption: abalone, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimp, whale. http://www.giveshare.org/Health/cleanunclean.html

Kindly explain to us (easy, easy of course) WHY a law against eating such things "is (was) massively good and positive in its time".

AND explain why prohibition against eating such things is not (or is) applicable now.

Questions for debate:

Does or did the prohibition against eating aquatic animals "without fins and scales" make sense? WHY?

Of the 600+ (or whatever number) OT laws, how many / what percentage can be identified as being "massively good and positive in it's time"?

[Royston]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Does or did the prohibition against eating aquatic animals "without fins and scales" make sense? WHY?

Due to the absence of refrigeration in OT-times, I'd say eschewing crustaceans as a foodstuff made good sense. Even today, people are rightfully wary of food poisoning from consuming crab, lobster, shrimp etc. that is past its best. People can, and do, die from eating seafood that's off (the entrepreneur Peter de Savory, by the by, nearly expired after eating bad shrimp on a British Airways' Concorde flight in the 80s).

Along similar lines to the above prohibition: the Koran instructs its adherents not to eat dead animals that they find on the roadside ('roadkill' in today's parlance, I suppose).

Of the 600+ (or whatever number) OT laws, how many / what percentage can be identified as being "massively good and positive in it's time"?

To properly address this question would amount to a tortuous ask, surely. I'd say that the application of common sense tends to make short shrift of those OT laws that are - at least by today's standards - either questionable or downright ridiculous.


All the best

[Elijah John]

Good topic, and this reply is a cut and past from another thread.

Aside from possible health reasons that Royston pointed out,..(maybe there was an ancient "red tide" on the shores of the Mediterranean way back then)

I have also heard/read from Jewish sources that some prohibitions which seem arbitrary are for the purpose of establishing and maintaining tribal identity...as in "Jews are those people who (among other things) do not eat pork or shellfish" These types of laws stengthen cultural ties and identity.

Also, these seemingly arbitrary, (but not productive of any harm) laws are in place because they demonstrate that sometimes obedience to God tansends, but does not necessarily contradict reason. They are, in effect there for folks to practice obedience without having to know the reason for EVERY command. Jews are taught to question...sometimes. (Israel means one who wrestles with God) But at other times, they are taught to simply obey. SOMETIMES, "because I said so" is enough for the obeservant Jew, or should be enough. I think such thinking can be applied to all Theistic religions.

That's my understanding anyway. But I am remided of the old joke that if one gets two Rabbis in a room for discussion, one will get three opinions.

[tfvespasianus]

In large part, much of what is under discussion is the codification of cultural norms. Although attempts are often made to form an ad hoc hypothesis for logic to a prohibition or taboo, these are most likely not their primary rationale. And this needn’t be a strike against their ‘utility’ as the norms themselves are a product of culture and cultural norms (regardless of their bare pragmatism) are a part of every society. In the West, we have foods that we do eat that other cultures may find disgusting and vice versa. As someone from a non-Anglo-Saxon background that brought ‘ethnic’ food to lunch at times in grade school I can state that feelings of what is ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ food to eat is deeply ingrained in our culture and produce a visceral reaction. The same applies to standards of dress and modesty. For the most part, these are not drawn upon rational lines, but rather culturally defined expectations. For example, if it is hot and humid outside you might find it comfortable to wear bikini bottoms to work, but you will be less comfortable when you get on the bus and see how people react. As for what can largely be characterized as standards of morality, this too is somewhat fluid though many of these expectations do have utility to the group as their impetus (e.g. don’t steal from me, I don’t want to be murdered, taking my wife would mess stuff up, etc.).

We as humans create cultural norms for ourselves in a given society. However, I don’t think everyone thinks their cultural norms where divinely mandated.

Take care,
TFV

[oldbadger]

Aquatic animals without fins and scales include lobster, crabs, shrimp, squid, crawdads, catfish, eels, sturgeon, etc.

Kindly explain to us (easy, easy of course) WHY a law against eating such things "is (was) massively good and positive in its time".

AND explain why prohibition against eating such things is not (or is) applicable now.

Excuse me for hacking up your post........ I think the above makes the question. OK?

OK..... no probs.

Have a read of the report where the paralysed youth at Capernaum was lowered through a roof to 'Jesus'. We don't know why the kid was paralysed, I accept, but keeping that in mind, and the position of Capernaum etrc, now just type 'shellfish poison paralysis' into google and start reading. Try freshwater as well as salt water. Even boiling shellfish is not certain protection. In the Mid East lands the risk is higher. Death is often the outcome, even today. But let's just bear 1st century in mind for now. And what did 'Jesus' say as the kid stagged off with his fanily? 'Your sin is forgiven'

Sin lead to sickness. Easy.

Here's another one for you. Read up the report in G-Mark where 'Jesus' and boatmen went over to the Eastern shore of the Lake and met the crazed man. Now just why did they go over there? What for? Now bear in mind that very large and very ancient fish-hooks have been found in the lake. They are no use for catching the scaled fish.... too big. But there are huge catfish in that lake.... massive, and these were of no use at all to the Jewish boatmen..... unsaleable as food. But a lot of folks on the NE/E Shoreline were not Jews. Now.... how about that for thought? See? I write 'food for thought'....... not a strong claim..... just an idea.

We can think about these things, and searching through the spaces helps to trawl ideas about what life might have been like for the heavily licensed and over-taxed boatmen of the lake.

[oldbadger]

I'd say that the application of common sense tends to make short shrift of those OT laws that are - at least by today's standards - either questionable or downright ridiculous.


All the best

Hello!....
Let's try it..... pick a ridiculous law and maybe we can worry some sense out of it.
These laws kept the tribes strong, safe, secure and thriving...... or rather, to break them lead to sickness, death, weakness etc.

It would be an interesting discussion, maybe?

[bluethread]

I'd say that the application of common sense tends to make short shrift of those OT laws that are - at least by today's standards - either questionable or downright ridiculous.


All the best

Hello!....
Let's try it..... pick a ridiculous law and maybe we can worry some sense out of it.
These laws kept the tribes strong, safe, secure and thriving...... or rather, to break them lead to sickness, death, weakness etc.

It would be an interesting discussion, maybe?

Yes, that is a fallacy, appeal to common sense. A legitimate argument would identify "those OT laws" and show specifically how they are "either questionable or downright ridiculous".

[Royston]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

Yes, that is a fallacy, appeal to common sense. A legitimate argument would identify "those OT laws" and show specifically how they are "either questionable or downright ridiculous".

While I see what you're getting at, my answer -- when taken in context with the enormity of the question it addressed ("Of the 600+ (or whatever number) OT laws, how many / what percentage can be identified as being "massively good and positive in it's time"?") -- is IMO both logical and sensible.


Go well.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

Yes, that is a fallacy, appeal to common sense. A legitimate argument would identify "those OT laws" and show specifically how they are "either questionable or downright ridiculous".

While I see what you're getting at, my answer -- when taken in context with the enormity of the question it addressed ("Of the 600+ (or whatever number) OT laws, how many / what percentage can be identified as being "massively good and positive in it's time"?") -- is IMO both logical and sensible.


Go well.

That would be presuming the conclusion, another fallacy. One can not know without at least looking at a random sample, not appealing to common sense.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I am wondering if it isn't because they were bottom dwellers, eating the yucky stuff that was left over from other fish. I think it had to do with unclean things being consumed by God's people. No research on my part, just a thought off the top of my head.

Have an awesome day people!!!