Re: All Will Be Made AliveSep 14th, 2020
The ancient Hebrew King David ascribes disease control in his day to the Lord.
"who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases” (Psalm 103:3)
There is a curious link between sin and illness, forgiveness and healing in David’s testimony and in the testimony about Jesus. The Gentile physician Luke records:
“Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.” (Luke 5:23-25)
According to U.N. statistics, some 9 million children around the world die every year before the age of five, mostly from assorted nasty infectious diseases, famine, and war. Just think about that number for a minute.
Yes, Luke was probably Paul's personal physician, but it's really stretching a point to describe him as a man of science. There were no men of science in his day, medicine was magic and superstition.
In any event, none of this has any bearing on Luke's scientific credentials or the state of medical practice in his time. They were still working with the old Greek idea of the four humours, had no real understanding of disease, and were still taking seriously some role for the deity in illness and health. If Heaven were really interested in relieving human suffering, there should have been an explanation of infection and hygiene and a recipe for making soap or some other kind of anti-bacterial agent in the Old Testament.
That citation does nothing but offer sweeping claims without specifics, and following Hitchen's dictum that what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I'm calling BS on it.
No he's not, he just offered an idea that seemed good to me, and unlike most people, I credit the source when I use it. I reject that site's claims because it offers no evidence for them, it's just a bunch of sweeping generalizations, doesn't provide chapter and verse citations to support any of them, doesn't even footnote the reference to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, which is just another self-serving evangelical text, like that gotquestions.org site, from the Moody Bible Institute. I concluded long ago, long before I encountered Hitchens' work, that the Bible is mostly mythology, so I won't accept it as an authority on how I should live my life, nor will I accept anything based on its presumed authority. The claim at that site you cited that the Bible provides a users manual for the human body is fatuous nonsense.
That citation does nothing but offer sweeping claims without specifics, and following Hitchen's dictum that what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I'm calling BS on it. I don't propose to re-read the whole of Leviticus to see what it says, but my secondary sources indicate that the Bible addresses only four conditions: leprosy, which was not understood at the time to be a bacterial disease, dry itch, whatever that is, freckles, and baldness. Diagnoses are made by a priest, who decides whether or not the afflicted person is unclean. The rules about personal hygiene are mostly about not touching unclean things, some of which make sense in terms of modern medicine, like avoiding the rotting carcases of dead animals, but they're presented as just orders, no explanation is offered. The only reference I could find to sewage disposal was the order to bury your waste when you're camping, not so much for hygiene reasons as, apparently, so God wouldn't step in it when he "walketh in the midst of thy camp." That's Deuteronomy 23:13-14.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, which I suppose only means I haven't the slightest understanding of what that sentence means. It eludes me how simply visiting a site could do anything for you.
No sarcasm intended, Dex. I am blessed by your scholarship. You cite your work. You investigate references and check their sources. Seeking after truth, you will find it.
Pigs were used to clean up the cities of human waste, that is why they were considered unclean and why most purists of all the Abrahamic faiths do not eat pork.
I've often suspected that's the explanation, it comes down to, knowing what a pig will eat, would you eat a pig? Lot of people say no. Pigs also carry some pretty nasty parasites, like trichinosis, and no doubt it was noted that some people who ate pig got very ill or died horribly.
If you were, you would read all the holy texts out there, not just one or those that support your views. The Vedas, the Bavagad Gita, the Koran, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, even Hitchen's and other books of philosophy. There are thousands of holy books. Each contains a piece of the puzzle. Not one has the whole truth. If you are going to be a seeker, then seek. Your truth is where ever you find it.
A friend used to paraphrase PT Barnum, "There is a seeker born every day."
I concluded long ago, long before I encountered Hitchens' work, that the Bible is mostly mythology, so I won't accept it as an authority on how I should live my life, nor will I accept anything based on its presumed authority.
This is a sincere question, Cliffy. Do you embrace all faith traditions except Christianity?
Have you ever read the red letter bible? The words of Jesus are in red.
If you read them, you will see that modern Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus and just about everything to do with the writings of Paul.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: I don't really like either of those terms, their definitions seem to vary a lot depending on who you're talking to. Agnostic just means without knowledge, and as I indicated in a previous post, I don't know whether there's a deity or not so the word might seem to apply. It seems highly improbable to me that there's a deity, and I don't believe there is, but the word seems to have been stretched to mean not only do we not know, we can't know, and I don't think I'll ever accept that latter idea. Atheism means without belief in a deity, and I'm certainly that, but it too has been stretched into meaning believing there isn't a deity, which, as I stated before, I think is logically indefensible. So I don't use them much as labels for myself, though sometimes atheist is a useful shorthand if I'm conversing with people I believe know what I mean. Agnostic I will never apply to myself. Otherwise though, I'll be more specific, depending on context: skeptic, humanist, rationalist, whatever seems appropriate to the nature of the exchange.