NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/atheism/27169

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 6.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:27169 sci.skeptic:22980
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!texhrc!texhrc!ak45ldp
From: [e-mail] (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: microvax
Organization: Texaco
References: <[e-mail]> <[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 15:38:30 GMT
Lines: 105

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> 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?).

Storks are carnivorous and therefore, can catch disease from what they
have eaten and pass it along to whatever eats them.  Shellfish are
noted for spoiling quickly, are difficult to preserve, and carry some
diseases unique to shellfish.  Rabbits carry a variety of nasties.
As for camels, they are just plain too ugly to eat.  As far as I know,
there has never been a study on the effects of seething a kid in its
mother's milk.  That commandment really looks out of place and may
have been added at a later date by some priest who didn't like the
idea of eating a kid seethed in its mother's milk.  That's just a guess.

|> |> |>  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.

You read it as ritual purity, but I don't think that God would give some
arbitrary rules just to see if his people follow them, or just to
demonstrate his control over them.  God doesn't need an ego trip. There
must be some other reason for him to make all these rules.  This is just
my own interpretation.  Mileage may vary.

|> |> 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).

Rabies, anthrax, polio, various parasites, lots of bacterial stuff, some
virii.

|> |> 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).

That was my intent.

|> 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.

There is no point in arguing with someone who treats these commands as words
straight from the mouth of God, for they are without reason, and cannot
think clearly.

--
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : [e-mail]    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : [phone]       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.