Kosher question

[grenadier32]

What do people think of the kosher law interpretation in which poultry is not considered meat for the purposes of the no-meat-and-dairy rule? I'm curious, because I gave it some thought and realized that since poultry doesn't actually produce milk it doesn't make much sense to avoid having dairy with it. It certainly does make sense to avoid things

Comments

[magistar2]

Well, it depends on what your reasoning behind the Kosher rules are. If it's too keep people healthy, then pretty much none of the Kosher rules make sense anymore (we do have better ways to cook things nowadays).

However, most people use Kosher nowadays as a covenant with God: a symbolic sacrifice to the almighty. Why can't Catholics eat meat on Fridays in Lent? No real reason, just to show God we care.

I have also heard rabbis say that the original Kosher rules weren't really health related, but created to differentiate "the chosen people." They go on to say most of the Jewish rules are for that. Why have long sideburns? Because pagan priests shaved their heads. Why not eat pork? Because pagans eat pork at ceremonies. So, if it's all symbolic, it still makes sense. It's supposed to be arbitrary. It's supposed to unnatural; you're doing something special to show your reverence to God. What did Kierkegaard say? "I believe because it doesn't make sense"? Something like that

[grenadier32]

The health reason indeed doesn't make much sense, though one could argue that in practice the no-meat-with-dairy rule does have a health benefit: the way I follow it, it essentially ends up severely limiting the amount of meat I eat. In fact, if left to my own devices I'll rarely eat meat at all

[magistar2]

I completely disconcur about milk and meat not being yummy. Cheeseburgers (especially bacon cheeseburgers), pizza with sausage, chicken cordon bleu...so good!

But, people tend to like what they eat when they were younger. And I grew up in a world of cheesburgers, shrimp, bacon, and other pieces of goyim goodness.

Finally, I think "adding insult to injury" only makes sense to an extent. If you're perfectly comfortable with killing a living thing and then consuming it in a ravenous orgy of depravity, I'm pretty sure a slice o' swiss won't hurt things too much.

Then again, I had a bacon cheeseburger for lunch. So good!

Oh, and btw: when I said "Liberal Christian" that does not mean a Christian who is a political liberal. A Liberal Christian is a branch of Christianity that believes that sacred texts should be re-examined for meaning by each individual person, as opposed to a fundamentalist Christian, who take the traditional interpretation as Gospel 24/7. True, a lot of them tend to be politically liberal, but they aren't

[grenadier32]

Heh, for the kid in mother's milk thing, I was referring more to the fact that the act of stewing a baby goat in it's mother's milk is forbidden because it is an act of adding insult to injury; I agree, putting a slice of cheese on a burger isn't. It's symbolic of a different ethical lesson, and the meaning is largely lost when you divorce the tradition from its scriptural roots--which is why the rule as it's generally followed today seems so arbitrary and unnecessary. This is why I'm reconsidering my interpretation of it--I'm considering the ethical lesson one gets from the line in scripture here, not from the traditional interpretation.

And don't worry, I understood what you meant about being a liberal Christian. It seems like by far the best way to handle scripture to me--in fact it's basically the same thing as what I'm trying to do here.

[sniffnoy]

Obviously not nearly an expert at this, but I think I've read that the original "You shall not boil a kid in its mothers milk" thing may have been because that was a religious ritual of a neighboring people?

[grenadier32]

That's interesting, and I would be fascinated to hear more about that. :)