NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/atheism/27132

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 5.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27132 sci.skeptic:22946
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU!sschaff
From: [e-mail] (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:17:33 GMT
Lines: 78

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> |> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
|> |>
|> |> |> [...] There are thousands of such references in
|> |> |> the Bible.  Everything from killing babies to raping women to killing one's
|> |> |> own children.  All at the commandment of this wonderful God. The Bible is
|> |> |> definitely not the word of MY God.  Mine has much higher morals.
|> |>
|> |>     I usually try to stay out of this thread, but I do like to check on
|> |> facts every now and then.  Killing babies is certainly commanded (in
|> |> connection with the Conquest), but where in the Bible do people rape and
|> |> kill their own children at the command of God?
|> |>
|> |>     By the way, what makes you think the command about not eating
|> |> animals that die of natural causes has anything to do with health?
|>
|> If you read the list, it becomes obvious.

Sorry, I did read the list before I posted (I anonymous ftp'd a Bible to my
site), and it's not obvious to me at all.  Why are rabbits unhealthy?
Why are crabs less healthy than fish?  And why is cooking a lamb in its
mother's milk unhealthy?  For that matter, does anybody know any reason
why eating camels and storks would be unhealthy?  (Tasty, no, but
unhealthy?).

|> |>  After all,
|> |> it does occur in the context of regulations about ritual purity.  I'm not
|> |> saying it couldn't have been intended as part of a health code, but do you
|> |> have any reason for thinking that's what it was?
|>
|> In Leviticus 22:8 and 22:9, God commands his people not to eat of anything
|> that dieth of itself or has been gnawed on by an animal, or they will die.

Go back and read it again.  Here you've got a list of things that make
a person ceremonially unclean, and therefore ineligable (temporarily or
permanently) for participating in the tabernacle worship.  The risk of
death you cite is associated with violating the ritual code, not just the
command about eating dead animals.


|> Obviously, the God of the bible knew about disease and that it could be
|> passed by saliva and by eating an animal that died of disease.  How
|> reassuring to know that God is not an idiot!

Hmm, just for a minute pretend I'm an idiot and tell me which diseases
you're talking about (I don't doubt that there are some, but I can't
think of any relevant ones at the moment).

|> Nowadays, we know about disease germs, parasites, and  viruses (viri?).
|> But back then, all they knew was that eating certain foods caused one
|> to die.  Either the ancients attributed their knowledge to God, or God
|> actually told them what to eat.  Believe whichever makes you most
|> comfortable.  In either case, the result is a list of foods that "God"
|> will kill you for eating. (through disease)

|> Add Leviticus to Deuteronomy and look at it in light of what we now know
|> about health.  It is quite obvious that Deuteronomy is a list of dangerous
|> foods, except for that odd sentence about not seething a kid in its mother's
|> milk.

Let my try to explain my problem with your argument.  If you were to argue
that some practical knowledge of health has been incorporated into a
mixture of ritual and practical (not that there's any clear distinction
here) tradition that makes up the Mosaic law, I would not object (I might
think that that's not all there is to be said about the law, but I
wouldn't trouble you with my thoughts on the subject).  On the other hand,
if you wish to argue with someone who treats these commands as words
straight from the mouth of God, then your argument is very weak:
these commands, *in their present form*, do not purport to be about health
at all but about ritual purity and how to please God.


--
Steve Schaffner        [e-mail]
    The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.