Scoobes said:
I personally think this is true. What I find strange (with any religion) is that so many people are so quick to follow and accept the simple reasoning given, without looking and fully understanding the logic behind the rules in the context of the time they were set. We have fridges now so the reasoning behind not eating pork is somewhat redundant now. Another example would be halal meat. Halal is meant to be a humane way of slaughtering animals and was brought in to stop cruel practices. Now however, I think the current method (in the UK at least) for slaughtering animals is more humane, yet people still kill and eat halal meat. As for Hindus and cows, that might not have orginally been for holy reasons either. I was born a Hindu and my own reading suggests that at the time of the rule's formation it was customary to slaughter your most prized animal for food when you had guests over. As the cow was the most expensive and precious of the livestock, it would typically be the cow, but as cows were also the largest providers of milk they were seen as highly valuable... too valuable. Thus, the rule came in place to stop cows being killed. |
That is a good bit of info, thanks for sharing. It makes sense to me as well, and I think (again) that this is an example of a rule that was fair and useful for its time.
