Absolute rules

No blood, no fat.

Period.

That's what Leviticus says.

I have prepared food.

I've been told that I'm a pretty good cook.

And I know that there is no way, no possible way, to prepare any form of meat with absolutely no blood and no fat.

It is not humanly possible.

Sure, you can kid yourself that most of the blood is gone, and that you've bought lean and cut out most of the fatty pieces that might remain (which you should do in any event if you've made the choice to eat meat, according to generally accepted modern science and medicine).

But there will be some blood and some fat that remains.

Unless you have charred the piece of meat to ashes.

Try it.

Go ahead, try it.

Not going to happen in this world.

That is just the way it is.

Leviticus tells us that there are some forms of meat that can be consumed and still be holy.

So long as there is no blood and no fat.

Leviticus also prohibits (among other things) consumption of certain specified animals, including the hoopoe, which I thought initially was a goof, but is in fact a real animal.

The Hoopoe 

I'm not sure I'd ever be able to catch hoopoe, let alone want to eat one, in the real world.

So not eating a hoopoe and remaining holy, for me, isn't really an issue.

There are a number of things that are specified in Leviticus as unholy, such as homosexuality, that I've never really considered in my personal life to be an issue.

Because I'm not homosexual.

Must be lucky, in the sense of trying to be holy in the eyes of God, at least in the way that Leviticus presents the situation. 

So I've really never had the opportunity to consider how I would feel if the inspired word of my faith provided that I should be stoned to death simply for being what God made me to be.

At least the science of genetics suggests that such a human condition isn't a matter of human choice.

Sure, one's action in pursuit of sexual gratification is a matter of choice.

Doing something which is not natural might be a basis for consideration as a problem. 

But that probably isn't the case for a majority of homosexuals.

Perhaps altering one's native drive might be the perversion that is intended to be addressed in the infamous verse from Leviticus.

A perversion such as forcing or advocating a homosexual to engage in heterosexual conduct.

Kind of like sexual relations with other species.

Which, as it turns out, is specifically prohibited in Leviticus.

And which, again, is not a problem for me.

Thank God.

I've never desired to hook up with a hoopoe.

In any event, whatever its source or explanation, I'm fairly confident that experiencing thoughts that one is abhorred by God simply by reason of the way they were born would not be all that pleasant.

Back to those things that have some bearing on me.

Such as the issue of what I can consume as food and remain holy.

If I can eat certain animals, but can't eat their meat with any blood or fat, all that will be left is ashes.

And you can't get too far living on ashes.

With this conundrum in mind, it is difficult, if not impossible, for one who believes that they have faith to read the inspired word of God without becoming somewhat of an apologetic.

There.

I've said it.

Hopefully, having said that, I won't be consumed by flame.

As did Nabad and Abihu, sons of Aaron, for providing offerings considered unholy in their sincere sacrifice to God.

Nadab and Abihu preparing for sacrifice 

With all that is available for consideration as to the basis and formation of what remains after the historic revision and editing of the text reflecting the expostulation of what has transpired in the interaction between the divine and humankind, any level of reflection by a thinking individual on the meaning of what is written begs several questions:

How does the divine want the created (those who have been driven from the Garden of perfection) to address and resolve explicit rules which in His world cannot by human means be accomplished?

How are we to address the cognitive dissonance of the inspired word of God and remain holy?

Is it contextual? 

Is it interpretive relative to modern sensibilities?

Is the inspired word of God to be amended depending on what we think it should say?

Is it to be rejected as an ancient superstition of a God that has never existed, or a God so mercurial that a sincere intent to comply with His rules doesn't matter?

Those with faith and those who think (with whom your author condemns himself) struggle with those propositions.

I would prefer not end up as ashes like Nabad and Abihu for blowing the rules when trying to satisfy God.

Nadab and Abihu's unfortunate end as depicted in the

Nuremberg Bible 

At least I have no tattoos.

And (although I cannot admit that those who seek to lead my society advocate the same view) I individually do not oppress aliens who reside with me. 

I would, if I could, allow them to be as a citizen.

And I try, as hard as it may be, to love my neighbor as myself.

That's what Leviticus says I should do.