Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny
Your criticism of the Bible for not having instructions on using/making soap is a non sequitur based on the false premise that the Bible ought to include such instruction in hygiene. It does not follow (non sequitur) that a book focused on spiritual instruction would contain any particular instruction in hygiene, as hygiene is not primarily a spiritual matter but rather a physical one.
|
It's not just a "book focused on spiritual instruction", as many people have pointed out in this thread, it does talk about quarantining and washing with running water (a little). But I'm not referring to it as merely a book on spiritual instruction, but as THE FINAL "WORD OF GOD":
God's entirety of "useful" information he gave to us. There's a whole lot more stuff than hygiene that would have been useful to people of history that we only recently discovered, as well, obviously. So if it is the final "word of God", then it is obvious that he didn't care to tell people about any of these useful things, even though using soap is so simple that a caveman could understand it™.
My argument was NOT:
A spiritual book would have information about hygiene
The bible does not have information about hygiene
Therefore it's not a spiritual book
It was:
Information about using soap regularly is very useful to civilization
The bible does not contain this information
Therefore the bible would have been more useful if it did.
Quote:
So your criticism of the Bible for lacking instruction in hygiene is a non sequitur. My guess is that it's based on a faulty premise, i.e. that the Bible is supposed to contain such information.
Thank you for explaining your [non-sequitur] premise in more detail, that being that the Bible ought to include more instruction in science such as physical hygiene as opposed to instruction in spirituality. Basically, you want to argue that since you believe hand-washing and antibacterial soap would have saved countless lives (another unbacked, faulty premise that serves as a straw man, so there's another logical fallacy on your end) that the Bible, despite being a spiritual book, should have included this much about physical hygiene. Irrational.
|
OK so now you want to question the whole idea that soap is useful and even saves lives? And how is it a straw man when it relates directly to the OP?
Quote:
That statement is a great logical fallacy itself, so thanks for providing another one. Let's look at it:
- A caring God would teach people what's good for them
- Hand washing with bacterial soap is good for people
- The Bible which is supposed to be God's Word never taught people to wash hands with bacterial soap
Therefore, the Bible is not really written by God
OR
Therefore, God doesn't really care about people
LOGICAL FALLACY: Inverse error set up by the non sequitur that hand-washing hygiene ought to be in the Bible.
To suggest, imply, or state that God must not care about people because a god who cares about people would teach handwashing with antibacterial soap (non sequitur) but the God of the Bible did not is denying the antecedent.
|
You misunderstood my statement.
Let's look at it.
"But, as a side note, the fact that the
final "word from God" doesn't say anything about the simple but indispensable concept of washing your hands with soap regularly, at the very least, means that it
wasn't written by a god that cared for people to know this information."
He doesn't care for people
to know this information, meaning he didn't want people to know about it until millennia after the bible was written; Not that he didn't care for people period.
Here, so you can see it clearly:
God does what he wants
God gave the bible to humans to use for information
There is no other source of "God's word" than the bible
God avoided putting information about soap etc. in the bible
Therefore he did not want to tell humans about soap etc.
____
However, do you think it is caring to withhold such information? I don't. But I admit that this much is an opinion, not a logical proof.
Quote:
Logic is not your friend this time around, I'm afraid.
|
Nice try. It might help for you to lay out the logical proofs you are accusing me of postulating first. Oh and if you read and understood my posts better, that would help too.