No, why do you say that? - I didn't say "nothing."
I'm either thinking of something else, remembering incorrectly, or I've misunderstood. Please disregard?
I suppose, if I were to try to answer the question "why?", my answer would be:
"I am rather sensitive, perhaps overly sensitive, when it comes to comparisons between other religions and Judaism. I wrote that Abraham rediscovered a unique unity without
any division. You replied: We have that too in buddhism. I reacted to that negatively. Negatively meaning: No. They're not the same concept. If they were, then buddhists would believe in the God of Abraham, and I think we both agree that's not true.
I didn't say it was a conflict.
I know. Please forgive me for what may have sounded like an odd question? My struggle right now is trying to determine how much I need to explain to answer your question. You've asked for a rational explanation. For me, what I've written is more than enough already. To me it is obvious, like a bright blinking neon sign: "Obviously... don't boil a kid in its mother's milk. It's wrong y'all."
Your explanation iro Judaism I thought I understood.
What's "iro"?
Anyway, I suppose I'll continue with the explanation.
We left off with the following conclusion: Some relationships are harmonious. Some relationships are conflicting. The nature of these relationships ( mixtures ) is defined by the one which is creating everything. Hopefully this makes sense without too many additional words?
Illustrating Example: The one who is making the bicycle, designs the chain to fit over the gears. The chain's relationship to the gears when they are joined ( mixed ) is harmonious. The purpose of the bicycle is forward motion. The designer is making the chain, and is making the gears, such that when the two are brought together ( mixed ), the chain's relationship to the gears is in harmony with the forward motion of the bicycle.
Conversely, the chain's relationship to the spokes on the wheels are conflicting when they are mixed. If the chain is mixed with the spokes, the bicycle's forward motion is either greatly hampered or entirely prevented depending on how the chain is wrapping around the spokes or interfering with them. The intention of the designer is
not to interfere with the forward motion or to prevent it entirely. The intention of the design is opposite of that. Therefore, the relationship of the chain to the spokes when they are mixed is conflicting or clashing. Get it?
These concepts, once understood, seem to me to be very simple. The same principles apply in all manner of day to day life. Fashion, music, even and especially interpersonal relationships. There are few members of RF who almost always clash with me, and I almost always clash with them. Best practice? We should avoid each other. We should not be mixing with each other. I try to do that. It's not always easy because of limitations on the forum software. But I digress.
So. In regard to prohibited mixtures in Judaism, we believe ( or at least the Jewish folks who believe in God and Torah believe ) that each and everything was designed by a consciousness much much higher than our own. The method for Jewish living in harmony with each other, the planet, and all of God's creation, is recorded in our Torah. ( Thank you, God. ) We don't need rational reasons for each and every rule, because we have rational reasons to believe that the Torah came from God, Almighty. Nothing else needs rationalizing. That's it. We are confident that we know it came from God at Sinai. Because of the unique qualities of our God, and because of the unique history as a Jewish people, we can accept the Torah and all of its rules prior to even knowing what they are. The rational explanations are utterly insignificant. They're fun to talk about, because it offers a window into the mysteries of life. However. Even though the rational explanations are completely insignificant, there are Jewish people who absolutely need them. For them, our God is leaving signs so that the majority of the law can be derived rationally.
OK.
Now.
Let's get into specifics.
The prohibition is: don't boil a kid in its mother's milk. Let's break this down. Imagine you're a shepherd. In the middle of the night a baby goat is born. The next day, you wake up, isolate the new born baby goat, a kid, from its mother. Then you milk all the female goats collecting the milk in a vessel. Instead of taking the milk and feeding the new born baby goat, which is obviously the intended purpose of goat milk, you make a fire, place the vessel with the milk on top of the fire, and place the baby goat into the vessel boiling it to death. What do you think about that? The precious, nutritious, miracle which is milk, is being used in a manner which is completely, 100%, contrasting with its intended purpose. Agreed? Therefore, we Jews, don't do that. The milk mixed with the meat in this manner is antithetical to God's design for milk and meat.
Now do you see the conflict? It's the relationship. There's nothing wrong with the milk. There's nothing wrong with the meat. But they are simply not intended to go together in that way. Milk is not intended to be a murder weapon, to make it into an extreme analogy.. How much more so if it the milk is coming from the mother? The milk is
obviously intended for nourishing its offspring, not for cooking and killing it.
Questions?
