Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then color me confused. I admit, I'm having trouble following the argument. Ignoring laws that were given to one small population, and which are not able to be abided by currently would hold back medical advances? These laws have nothing to do with personal health, whether or not they are followed. I'll tap out and let people who can follow this argue about it.
I think you are reading the sentence too literally. Cancer is just a hyperbolic example for comic effect I think. Not a claim that cancer was literally in the text.
What the user is saying is that the OP appears to be cherry picking ritual that turn out in retrospect to have beneficial medical effects. While ignoring all the ones that do not. And he is saying that by pointing out that failing to stick to certain rituals has had no detrimental effect on his health.
The OP is trying to manufacture the idea that the Biblical text hides medical wisdom by simply cherry picking out a _tiny minority_ of rituals that coincidence with medical well being out of a large collection of those that do not.
Kosher living seems health related, but I don't want to argue about it either.
Of course it does, but the question was whether any of Leviticus was not really valid, from a medical sanitation (per this thread) perspective. Of course.
And yes, as has been said, some of these laws had/have validity from a health perspective, but to argue that other people somehow not allowing anyone to read Leviticus (????) set medicine back thousands of years is RIDICULOUS. OTHER cultures also had dozens upon dozens of later-to-be-found-very-solid medical validity in their traditions and practices. NONE of them were inventing the MRI, yet. So no, somehow repressing Leviticus (???) from other cultures, even if it had happened, would not have had a global impact on how fast science/medicine progressed. In fact, the primary component holding back or, in various ways, seriously limiting scientific discovery for thousands of years in the West was actually Christianity.
So the whole argument of this thread is bizarre...it's hard to know what end to pick it up by since it starts from a premise that...well, never even happened. Nobody was standing there telling people not to read Leviticus; I'm sure for people who could read, once Bibles were mass produced, they were reading Leviticus just like the rest of the Bible. They just weren't following it. Yet ironically per the indignation of the OP here, the group saying the laws in Leviticus shouldn't be followed anymore was Christianity.
Proposing that atheism or some repression of a somehow vastly superior medical/sanitation knowledge was somehow to blame for lack of advancement toward modern medicine for centuries is beyond ridiculous. Just so far beyond. There was plenty of scientific medical knowledge (per the times) in other parts of the world. Classical era Greece, for example, was so far beyond Leviticus at that point in time that it's not even a comparison. All parts of the world practiced medicine farther back than written language, per archaeology (giant category there but you get the idea). The Hebrews were a TINY sect by comparison to paganism as a whole and every culture had its medicines. The primary thing holding back scientific discovery has always been religion, until fairly recently. The two have butted heads over and over again. Beliefs about what's "right" and "wrong" and discoveries that were formerly put down to "God/the gods did that, it's as simple as that" have always been a threat to any given religion.
so what we often seem to be getting are some hopeful Big Hints being dropped of advanced medical knowledge in the bible that prove input from God thus proving God exists. If anyone is pretending that it's about anything theng else they are either dim or dishonest.
So we get the refutations (and they are what they are) but ratehr than stand their ground, we get evasions, like 'it was about cleanliness, that's all' or 'I don't want to argue about it' (what we call 'Running away', and a classic Ozzy response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
I don't think anyone here is as dumb as they (some) pretend to be, ignoring the core issue that I have brought up.
Ozzy mate, whether we get it or not (and I suspect that we 'Get it' better than you do) you have no case.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-12-2018 at 12:47 PM..
Kosher living seems health related, but I don't want to argue about it either.
Do you know what Kosher wine is?
I've heard Rabbis say that "Kosher" wine which is not made by (observant?) Jews, but made by some Gentile following all the same rules would still not be considered "Kosher."
Kosher means "fit" or "proper" (or "prepared" IIRC). It has nothing to do with physical health. Wine, to be considered acceptable, must not have been touched by a non-Jew during production unless it had already been boiled (yes, I'm over simplifying).
Kosher means "fit" or "proper" (or "prepared" IIRC). It has nothing to do with physical health. Wine, to be considered acceptable, must not have been touched by a non-Jew during production unless it had already been boiled (yes, I'm over simplifying).
I actually laughed at the idea of Gentiles being so vile and filthy that wine has to be boiled before any Jew can bear to touch it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.