Leviticus 11 (Non-exhaustive)

Bei She'an Valley, Israel (Google Images)

I wish to visit Israel and Asia one day.

I listen to an audio Bible presentation online and was somewhat intrigued by Leviticus 11.

Verses 1-23

11 And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, ² “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. ³ Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. ⁴ Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ⁵ And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ⁶ And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ⁷ And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. ⁸ You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

⁹ “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. ¹⁰ But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. ¹¹ You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. ¹² Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.
¹³ “And these you shall detest among the birds;^[a] they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle,^[b] the bearded vulture, the black vulture, ¹⁴ the kite, the falcon of any kind, ¹⁵ every raven of any kind, ¹⁶ the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, ¹⁷ the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, ¹⁸ the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, ¹⁹ the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.
²⁰ “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. ²¹ Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. ²² Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. ²³ But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

End

Robert P. Gordon in his Leviticus commentary (1986) states that the priests were required to do more than alter service work as they were also distinguish between 'holy and profane' and 'clean and unclean'. Gordon (1986: 200).

Victor P. Hamilton in Handbook on the Pentateuch (1988) discusses the clean and unclean creatures which is the subject that intrigued me. Fruits and vegetables were part of the human diet in Genesis 1 and were not an aspect of the Chapter, the same for creatures of land and air. Hamilton (1988: 275). Hamilton deduces and provides the opinion human beings became carnivorous after the flood of Genesis 9: 3-5. Hamilton (1988: 275). From the New American Standard Bible is the idea that in verse 3:

'Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.'

Verse four explains not to eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

The English Standard Version is very similar:

'Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.'

Verse four stating not to eat the flesh which is the life, that is the blood.

Hamilton offers four common scholarly proposals for the approach to Leviticus 11:

1. Ethical

He documents Aristeas a first-century Egyptian Hebrew that states the law was ethical as abstaining from blood for example, would keep persons away from violence. Hamilton (1988: 275).

This seems weak philosophically in my opinion. I doubt that would curb sinful nature. Abstaining from blood would be more for health reasons.

2. Aesthetic

Unattractive animals were not likely to be cooked for a meal. Hamilton (1988: 275).

3. Theological

Animals associated with pagan religions were not allowed for Israel. Hamilton (1988: 275).

4. Hygienic

The most cited option. Hamilton (1988: 275).

As reasonably and rationally reasoned out carriers of disease, certain creatures/animals were not good candidates to be eaten. Hamilton (1988: 275). Hamilton mentions in the New Testament/new covenant context the Apostle Peter may very well have been allowed to eat some of these creatures via his vision in Acts 10:14. Hamilton (1988: 276-277).

Rules concerning animals are dealt with in verses 2-8, fish, 9-12, birds, 13-19, and winged insects 13-19. Gordon (1986: 200). Eating of a pig (and so pork) was considered unclean in verse 7. Gordon (1986: 200). It is stated that is quite difficult to find 'uniform principle according to which the creatures were pronounced clean or unclean'. Gordon (1986: 200). The opinion is provided that habits and physical characteristics were not sufficient to make clear distinctions. Gordon (1986: 200). Another suggestion is that hybrid creatures were discounted. Gordon (1986: 200). From the Scripture there does seem to be some pattern is the animals chosen and not...

³ Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. ⁴ Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ⁵

The text Old Testament Survey (Hebrew Bible) mentions that the book of Hebrews, which was written to Jewish Christians and was dealing with the issue of how the this sacrificial system of Leviticus and the old covenant was a shadow of the new covenant of Christ (Hebrews 10). La Sor, Hubbard, Bush (1987: 1590). The old covenant had no actual power to take away sins, however the sacrifice of Christ, the God-Man did once and for all. La Sor, Hubbard, Bush (1987: 1590). The old sacrificial system therefore became obsolete and vanished. La Sor, Hubbard, Bush (1987: 1590).

Hebrews 8: 13 states the old covenant is obsolete.

Contrary to what is at times seen in media from the professional critic or scientific critic of Christianity that quotes Leviticus as if it would be moronic and ignorant for Christians and modern persons to follow the Old Testament laws and the Bible word for word today, this is a misunderstanding, (again because of a lack of serious religious and philosophical academic education in society) as the Bible is not flat. In other words, the Bible is a progressive book with two covenants from a Christian perspective with Leviticus needing to be kept and used in its proper context. I am not an expert on Judaism but different groups within Judaism would handle Leviticus differently depending on the range of interpretations as in conservative to liberal. But I am certain there is a progressive realization within Judaism as well as there has been a transfer from temple and related sacrifices to synagogue.

Inspired by God as true and accurate religious history, in a pre-scientific era Leviticus 11 most likely protects Israel/God's people against unhealthy food practices by making what would be dangerous food choices, at least primarily in those times, religiously unclean. It therefore promotes both healthy food practices and religious observance to the Biblical God of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and makes rational, reasonable sense within its context.

GORDON, ROBERT P. (1986) 'Leviticus' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LA SOR, W.S., D.A HUBBARD and F.W BUSH (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

(Google Images)

Demotivational.com








This is not me when I do martial arts. Classic how he states 'alone'. Has cracked me up for years.

Religulaugh? (Short Non-Exhaustive Review)

Yosemite Valley, California (trekearth)


Yosemite Park, California (trekearth)

Religulous

Wikipedia link above.

Religulous is a 2008 US American comedy documentary film featuring Bill Maher and directed by Larry Charles. The title of the film is derived from the words religion and ridiculous. The film examines Christianity, Scientology, Mormonism and other.

I have viewed Maher on television over the years and realize he is a critic of religion and have heard his arguments as a critic, but my friend known online as 'Zombie', also known for falling asleep during visits, requested that our mutual friend online known as Uncle Chuck, known for putting people to sleep, and I, review the film with him. Zombie had viewed it previously.

I have asked for these gentlemen to write short reviews.

See Zombie's review in comments.

See Uncle Chuck's review in comments.

Thank you kindly.

Positive

Maher like many critics of religion and Christianity, including for example the ones I dealt with in my MPhil and PhD theodicy/problem of evil research does open up dialogue on certain issues and questions concerning origins, beliefs, the problem of evil and life in general. It is good to ponder on the deeper issues in life.

In doing this he demonstrated that some Christians and religious persons do not study enough to adequately defend their faith and philosophy.

There is a danger of fideism, and in this I mean an over-reliance on faith at the expense of reason.

From:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Fideism

'The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.'

'Fideism' is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.'

According to R.K. Johnston, fideism is a term used by Protestant modernists in Paris in the late 19th century. It is often used as a pejorative term to attack various strands of Christianity as forms of irrationalism. Johnston (1999: 415). Fideists, following Kant, who noted that reason cannot prove religious truth are said to base their religious understanding upon religious experience alone. Reason is believed to be incapable of establishing faith's certainty or credibility. Johnston (1999: 415). Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling note that fideism states religious and theological truth must be accepted without the use of reason. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). An extreme form of fideism states that reason misleads one in religious understanding. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51).

Negative

At 11:40 roughly with my version of the film Maher basically states paraphrased that there were not eyewitnesses of Christ that wrote the Gospels.

David J. Ellis concerning authorship of the Gospel of John states that in general it is believed in scholarship that the writer was Jewish in Ephesus toward the end of the First Century. There is a theory that three minds, three writers, may have contributed to the writing of the text but there is little agreement on who these could be. There may be a redactor. Ellis notes that Bernard believed John was responsible for the placing of a few minor notes. Ellis (1986: 1230).

Johannine scholar Leon Morris states that there is good reason to believe that the Apostle John was the author of the Gospel of John even though it was anonymous. Morris points out that it was John that was the beloved disciple (John 13: 23) and it was John that was commended to Mary (John 19: 26-27). Morris (1996: 585). These seem reasonable points as this writer seemingly could have been the Apostle John.

I am not stating that the Apostle John by Biblical, theological necessity has to be the author of the Gospel of John, not at all. There were other Apostles that had scribes that could have theoretically written such a work, but John historically has been a very strong candidate and even with what Ellis stated John appeared to be a possibility as one of the three minds that could have written the work, and they were theoretical which means it still could have been one mind.

I would therefore deduce that there were Gospel writers that were witnesses of Christ. John being a very good candidate.

As well concerning Matthew, H.L. Ellison explains that although the Gospel is anonymous there is a strong tradition that 'Matthew' compiled the oracles'. Ellison (1986: 1121).

Matthew like John would be an Apostle and eyewitness.

At the 13:00 mark roughly Maher notes that not all the Gospels contain the virgin birth. As the three of us were watching I confirmed to our group that indeed Mathew and Luke alone had any reference.

This is not a difficulty as the virgin birth only needs to be mentioned once. The Gospel writers are telling one story from four different perspectives and so will highlight different subjects. Also to not present different material would seem like the four books were simply virtual copies of each other.

At the end of the film Maher basically calls for rational non-religious people to unite and to have more of a say in society.

Maher basically did not present good scholarly research for the film, which should have been done even though it was a comedy film. I would be embarrassed to do such a poor job of research professionally in any capacity. We all make mistakes, but that approach is one of lack of in-depth scholarly research.

His approach is one I often come across which assumes that religious people are basically stupid, idiotic, morons and therefore to publicly review religion it does not take much serious research.

These type of people seem rather intellectually oblivious to the fact that places like Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, London, and of course Wales have Religion departments which are often closely associated with Philosophy departments which offer very serious and difficult to obtain Doctorates in the very subjects which Maher likes to joke about, and dismiss.

Yes, I realize there are good Christian institutions but I need to make a point here with secular ones.

These types of persons are oblivious to the amount of difficult thinking and many years of research these issues actually take and so they prefer to deal with mainly lightweight intellectual persons in context to try and make themselves and those with little religious education that watch and support them think they have done well and are winning the intellectual war when in reality they offer no real answers to many of life's most serious and everlasting issues. This is what mainly occurred in the film. In Maher's case he instead offers a world view of 'Doubt'.

The film is humorous is places but laughable as a reasonable academic critique of religion.

ELLIS, DAVID, J. (1986) 'John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE

NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

JOHNSTON, R.K.(1996) ‘Fideism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MORRIS, LEON (1996) 'John', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

The Fraser River-July 28, 2012





Kitsilano Beach-Vancouver-July 29, 2012

Survival Of The Fittest Aliens?

Corfu, Greece (Google Images)

Zombie and I took Uncle Chuck out for dinner as his Father recently passed away. After dinner per Saint Chucklins II's request we went over the Golden Ears Bridge, paid the toll and headed to Langley to watch the latest movie in the 'Alien' franchise 'Prometheus'. Although I admit the films are well-made normally I would not watch them in the theatre or on television because I find them too gory. But the movie does serve a blogging purpose.

From Wikipedia the Alien creature is the films is described as follows.

Alien

‘a highly aggressive extraterrestrial creature that stalks and kills the crew of a spaceship.’

In Prometheus is it deduced these creatures may have created human beings, although the one scientist wisely asks who made the creatures, to another scientist, seemingly understanding the need for first cause that is not finite and is beyond even everlasting. But an infinite and eternal first cause.

From a secular, naturalistic perspective it could be argued I suppose within this fictional framework that the Aliens were evolutionarily advanced from human beings and therefore as they had the natural ability, had the evolutionary right if not a moral right to kill (another argument for another post I very likely will not write but there is the comments) human beings for survival. The survival of the fittest. If the Aliens were more advanced rational beings in the survival context, this evolutionary right could be argued I suppose, whether or not they created human beings. That would not really be key. The Oxford Dictionary of Science explains that 'fitness' is how well an organism adapts to the environment it is in and this determines its survival. 323 (2010). It could be deduced that the Aliens via natural ability are more fit than human beings in a shared environment and if human beings cannot reason out a way to defend themselves then the Aliens have a evolutionary right to keep killing, even though both are seemingly highly rational beings.

This secular, naturalistic perspective could be translated to actual reality. If somehow in the future Earth came under the attack of aliens that wanted to dominate human beings, keep them for food etc. I am not stating I believe in aliens, but I am making my point. It is disturbing though...

A secularist could argue that any rational being like a human being has the basic right to live under normal circumstances, and I fully agree with this as long as rationality is defined well. I reason human beings should not abuse animals in nature, as pets or ones involved in the food industry, but I reason it acceptable to eat certain animals (I will exclude pets for cultural reasons, again another argument) as food as they do not have a level of rationality that can build a society, or worship God, for examples. A correct view would be that the Aliens in science fiction or potential aliens in actual life should not kill human beings because human beings are rational to the point of being able to build a society and worship God, as examples.

An essential addition to that argument in my view is that since human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1: 27), a being with a spirit made by God (Genesis 2: 7) being of that high level of rationality and value to the creator should not be killed under normal circumstances and certainly should not be used as food for fictional Aliens or potential actual aliens. Even if a human being is somehow mentally disabled with a damaged brain, still possessing the spirit from God he or she would still fall under the protection with this argument. Merely stating that a rational being that can build a society or worship God should not be killed by fictional Aliens or potential actual aliens would not necessarily protect the mentally disabled person that would not be rational at the level of an average human being or even perhaps significant measurable rationality, but they would be protected with this addition to the argument.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

York (2001)


York (2001)


York Minster (trekearth)




Poor kid.