No, that’s the thing. It IS still relevant and fully correct for what it meant to do. Just because someone invented better preservation techniques doesn’t magically make shellfish or pork less FBI prone than other food. That is and will always be true.
You yourself called it “outdated science”, so please do not play the semantics game.
You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gets boiled down to, “skydaddy says so”. That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule…
My mistake. My second pass at it was much more accurate.
You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gefs boiled down to, “skydaddy says so”
Nope, I’m deliberately alluding to that fact and how it makes religion inherently unscientific. Sorry for being too subtle.
That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule
We don’t have any proof that scientific experiments were conducted and thoroughly studied to reach the conclusion either. Science is as much about the methods as the result.
Nobody disagrees that religion is not up to modern scientific standards.
That wasn’t the point. At all. The point is that modern science still says they were on to something. The premise is right answer, wrong reason, so if religion isn’t science … you’re simply agreeing with the whole reason those rules were mentioned in this discussion: (sortof) right answer, wrong reasons.
I’m positive it wasn’t simply, “god says so”, but probably because everyone noticed people who ate them got sick more often, and attributed ills befalling them as a message from God. It happens all the time in religion. It still stems from something real, just misattributed to God, as usual.
In either case, the rules are still valid examples of, “something modern science (sort of) agrees with”.
The point is that modern science still says they were on to something
Nope. Modern science explains things that they didn’t know.
They arrived at something that wasn’t completely incorrect in the same way as they arrived at “that burning bush talking must be sky daddy rather than my imagination”.
That’s not “being on to something”. That’s “blind hen can also find corn” territory.
If its backed up by science then it wouldn’t be religious, mutual exclusivity there
Not eating pork or shellfish with food preservation techniques available 6,000 years ago is definitely backed by science
Yeah, but outdated science doesn’t count. That’s just how science works.
Also, you don’t have to be a scientist to avoid clearly spoiled seafood. Especially in the desert.
No, that’s the thing. It IS still relevant and fully correct for what it meant to do. Just because someone invented better preservation techniques doesn’t magically make shellfish or pork less FBI prone than other food. That is and will always be true.
That’s not science, though.
They didn’t arrive at “don’t eat spoiled seafood” or “because the bacteria will make you sick”.
They arrived at “don’t eat any seafood, ever” and “because magic sky daddy says so and will punish you if you disobey”
Well, think about all those people who heard “rotten foot will make you sick” and said “don’t tell me how to live my life!”
Kinda makes sense to threaten that kind of person with fire.
What about the ones who heard “not ALL seafood will make you sick, here’s how you can tell which i-” and set THAT person on fire?
You yourself called it “outdated science”, so please do not play the semantics game.
You are completely waxing over that EVERYTHING in religion gets boiled down to, “skydaddy says so”. That does not and will never mean that is the actual etymology of the rule…
My mistake. My second pass at it was much more accurate.
Nope, I’m deliberately alluding to that fact and how it makes religion inherently unscientific. Sorry for being too subtle.
We don’t have any proof that scientific experiments were conducted and thoroughly studied to reach the conclusion either. Science is as much about the methods as the result.
Nobody disagrees that religion is not up to modern scientific standards.
That wasn’t the point. At all. The point is that modern science still says they were on to something. The premise is right answer, wrong reason, so if religion isn’t science … you’re simply agreeing with the whole reason those rules were mentioned in this discussion: (sortof) right answer, wrong reasons.
I’m positive it wasn’t simply, “god says so”, but probably because everyone noticed people who ate them got sick more often, and attributed ills befalling them as a message from God. It happens all the time in religion. It still stems from something real, just misattributed to God, as usual.
In either case, the rules are still valid examples of, “something modern science (sort of) agrees with”.
Not even that, no. Rotten seafood ≠ all seafood.
Nope. Modern science explains things that they didn’t know.
They arrived at something that wasn’t completely incorrect in the same way as they arrived at “that burning bush talking must be sky daddy rather than my imagination”.
That’s not “being on to something”. That’s “blind hen can also find corn” territory.