this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
776 points (99.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

31401 readers
3960 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I like Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor's interpretation. It's far from being accepted in Judaism - probably because it makes so much sense.

The interpretation is based on the fact that the passage originally appears in Exodus twice - but not in a section about Kosher laws. It appears in sections about Bikurim - bringing offerings to the temple:

The very same verse that contains that law also contains a law about Bikkurim:

Bring the best firstfruits of your land to the house of the Lord your God.

You must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.

Because these two laws seem so unrelated, Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor suggests a different way to read the second part.

In Hebrew, the root of the word "cook"/"boil" is B-SH-L - and this is also the root of the word "ripe"/"mature". Because of that, it's possible to read "you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk" as "you must not let a young goat mature while drinking its mother's milk".

This makes the second part of the verse a repetition of the first part - a pattern very common in the Old Testament as a (vain) attempt to prevent misinterpretations. Reading it like so, both parts mean "the offerings should be as young and as fresh as possible".

That reading is a little bit odd - but not too odd in biblical language standards, and it makes so much more sense in the context where the passage appears.

[–] Live_your_lives@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

According to what I've read, the leading theory among scholars today is that this passage is a reference to pagan Canaanite rituals and we have some evidence in the literature of the time that this was indeed practiced.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

You know what also doesn't make sense? Not boiling chicken in milk. I can guarantee you that's not the milk of the chicken's mother. The "don't boil a young goat in the milk of its mother" thing at least has a proper interpretation in the sense of "there were some people who did that and God came and God said 'yo that's nasty, stop it'". Something about not using sacrifice as an opportunity to practice transgression.

In the end I think scripture is just a tool for Jews to have something to argue about endlessly.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

In the end I think scripture is just a tool for Jews to have something to argue about endlessly.

Considering how that's the main way to gain fame in Judaism - you're not wrong.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world -5 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't think this word means what you think it means... what is "copium" about discussing possible origins of dogma?

OP is literally saying "this widespread institutionally-reinforced religious practice/dietary restriction could all be due to a mistranslation", what exactly are they coping with?

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The copium is coming up for excuses for why religious stuff doesn’t make sense. There is no one on the face of the earth that can reconcile passages from religious texts such as these. Sometimes data and dogma can not be reconciled and you just need to take things in faith.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I... uh.... what? This still isn't how words work.

I repeat:

what exactly are they coping with?

Who is coping here? With what? It's... an athiest coping with a lack of faith? A jewish person coping with flaws in their religious law?

There is no one on the face of the earth that can reconcile passages from religious texts such as these.

Uh... way to just miss the point of the entire religion.

All of Judaism - down to their goddamn rite of manhood - is built upon literacy. Reading and interpreting the will of God. Scholarly analysis of their own texts - reconciling the word with the world - is literally the foundation of their entire religion.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

You’re not following what I’m saying and it’s fine. It’s not that deep. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[–] goldfndr@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Given how many homographs and other homonyms English has (and presumably other languages, I've definitely seen one Hebrew homograph when vowels are removed), it doesn't sound like a complete stretch for this to be a similar homonym situation.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 6 days ago (2 children)

This would have come from a time when ancient Judaism was evolving out of its polytheistic roots. The early sections of the Hebrew scriptures tended to treat other gods as existing, but you're only supposed to worship YHWH.

Likely, there was some specific ritual that had been used in local polytheistic practices, and it's specifically telling you not to do that.

This is an issue for the sort of fundamentalists who insist that absolutely everything in the bible is useful for modern times. You say that, but then what's this goat milk thing about? How about all the idolatry prohibitions when many modern Christians won't regularly encounter religions that use idols? Why is there a whole book devoted to Solomon's horny poetry?

You can kinda come up with answers to those, but they will invariably involve some kind of "reading between the lines". That is, reading assumptions into the text that aren't explicitly stated. Which fundamentalists also say you're not supposed to do.

[–] Alaknar@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

My favourite is that you cannot wear clothes made from more than one kind of thread.

Which means, in essence, that in the XXI c., literally everybody, including priests, is a sinner, and goes to hell, because everything is a blend these days.

[–] m4xie@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

Even in medical times, clothes were usually made with wool fabric and sewn with linen thread for strength. Some Jewish communities would only wear kosher clothing sewn with wool thread.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Not Jewish - but my understandings: Those are ritual laws. Non Jews aren’t bound by them. I don’t think the idea is ever that you “go to hell” for not following those rules in Judaism.

It’s more that you have a covenant with God, where you have agreed to follow a set of rules. The rules themselves are less important than the fact that you have an agreement about this with the higher power - that you keep yourself pure and honor that power through these rules. I think in the historical context a lot of the purity rules are a way of distinguishing your group from others - creating a shared culture around those rules.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Why is there a whole book devoted to Solomon’s horny poetry?

I have a theory...

[–] Ziglin@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

I mean I do feel weird whenever I do this. The solution is soy milk!

[–] HelluvaKick@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

I can't believe my friend broke containment this hard I woke up to it on lemmy lmfao

opposite idea from mixing powdered milknin fresh milk for "more milk per milk."

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Wow yea that sounds pretty sociopathic

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

This comes due to the conceptual meaning of the mother's milk as something that god made for nurture of the calf

Doing this would be extremely cruel and usage against the intended purpose

The principle was to instill a sense of profound abhorrence against cruel and unnatural acts as guidance towards perfection demanded of them to be able to be god's chosen people.

Jesus managed to completely fulfill the spirit of the law. Since that moment it was abolished for a new law.

Animals were only a part of it and thinking more about it, the Law contained a number of similar injunctions against cruelty to animals and safeguards against working contrary to the natural order of things.

For instance, the also Law included commands that prohibited sacrificing an animal unless it had been with its mother for at least seven days, slaughtering both an animal and its offspring on the same day, and taking from a nest both a mother and her eggs or offspring

(Leviticus 22:27, 28; Deuteronomy 22:6, 7)

I sort of used to have the same problem. You know, if you're gonna add oat milk to your oatmeal, you might as well just use water. But, whatever the reason, it sites taste better with oat milk.

[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I bet that tastes dope.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm conceptually opposed to oat milk generally.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 1 points 6 days ago

It makes for a mean cappuccino, and is environmentally much, much lower impact.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It's why I refuse to eat chicken and eggs

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Doesn't really count since the egg is used as an ingredient just to stick breadcrumbs on. I'm talking about scrambled eggs, etc.

The gymnastics are biblical.

[–] goldfndr@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Might also avoid corn at the same time, if you're not getting pasture-fed eggs.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 68 points 1 week ago (26 children)

Deuteronomy is originally from the Hebrew Bible. According to Jewish mythology, the book is from the sermons of Moses. Though, it's believed to be much more recent (something like a 1000 years) than the time period where the figure of Moses (or the person(s) he was based on) would have existed. But, even taking Jewish and Christian mythologies at their word, Jesus had nothing to do with that rule. Also, Jesus probably meant for this rule to end for adherents of Christianity.

Mark 7:14-23:
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.
15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?
19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them.
21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder,
22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

So, feel free to boil a young goat in its mother's milk. Jesus is A-ok with that.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

As I understand it, Jewish followers of the Jesus movement were meant to keep the law. However, especially after the death of Jesus, there was a lot of interest in getting gentiles on board and they, at least according to some authors (and apparently this was not a unified position?), the gentiles were not bound by the law (or maybe only by the Noahide law).

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

The law as per scripture is just guidance towards an impossible goal for god's worshippers and part of his chosen.

Jesus managed to fulfill the spirit of the law. Hence since that moment the law was overridden. It was replaced by a new law since then.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Deuteronomy is originally from the Hebrew Bible

And further back? Babylonian? There's some Gilgamesh and Atrahasis in the bible, Moses among others...

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I would be surprised if they were borrowing ideas from other cultures in the area (and vice versa). The various peoples in Mesopotamia were interacting regularly; so, some back and forth of ideas is to be expected. Though as a law code, Deuteronomy seems like it would be more home grown.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not at all surprised, christianity has assimilated all kinds of religions, usually as evil or demon prince. Some examples: Moloch, Beelzebub.

You can literally look up and search for christianity.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Sorry, just recognized my typo, I meant to say "I wouldn't be surprised..."., Not sure how I missed that.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

As much as I appreciate Japanese culture, they also created Oyakodon, which literally means "parent-and-child rice bowl". Like damn, Japan, what'd those birds ever do to you to necessitate multi-generational violence?

[–] baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

to clarify a bit, you get both the meat of a chicken as well as the egg of a chicken

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

More oats per oats

I have dairy in my diet, but when it comes to porridge, oat milk only please

load more comments
view more: next ›