In article
<3f323d98-63bb-4d53-9570-6eec419b5914@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> writes:

On Dec 10, 12:30 pm,

In article
<0fd91620-fedc-4341-b997-23e0d7cd3...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:

You mean, why should we believe the Bible, today..right? You are
right that men, 2,000 years ago, were as ignorant, then, as they are
often, today. Yet, the Bible keeps getting proven true for dietary
cautions, sexual limitations, and more. They couldn't even have
known
about venereal disease,

Am I the only person who thinks it hilarious that Ken can
use the word "Venereal" in the same sentence with a claim
that the Ancients could not have known of such diseases?

Hint #1 for Ken: what is the root of the word "venereal"?

Hint #2 for Ken: who is often credited with coining the word
"gonorrhea"?

I don't get WEiW's comment about the dietary cautions. None of the
food rules in the bible contribute in any way to better health, with
the possible exception of the one about not touching (and by
extrapolation, not eating) corpses.

Pigs and trichinosis is likely what Ken has in mind here.

Of course, God could have just said "be sure you cook that pork
chop real good", rather than shutting all non-ruminants and all animals
with uncleft hooves (mmmmm....camel); that seems more than a bit wasteful.

And Bast only knows what Ken thinks the Hebrews might
have contracted had they defied YHWH and downed shrimp
cocktails or a nice broth of eels.

Or veal a la leche.



(and then there's that whole "mixed fabrics" bit... what did
YHWH know that the Heberews didn't -- some unforgivable fashion
sin?)


-- cary

(and then there's that whole "mixed fabrics" bit... what did
YHWH know that the Heberews didn't -- some unforgivable fashion
sin?)

On Dec 10, 11:30 am,

In article <0fd91620-fedc-4341-b997-23e0d7cd3...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:

You mean, why should we believe the Bible, today..right? You are
right that men, 2,000 years ago, were as ignorant, then, as they are
often, today. Yet, the Bible keeps getting proven true for dietary
cautions, sexual limitations, and more. They couldn't even have known
about venereal disease,

Am I the only person who thinks it hilarious that Ken can
use the word "Venereal" in the same sentence with a claim
that the Ancients could not have known of such diseases?

Hint #1 for Ken: what is the root of the word "venereal"?

Hint #2 for Ken: who is often credited with coining the word "gonorrhea"?

-- cary

No Cary, you are not. =)

I didn't see this post the first time around, but... dietary and
sexual cautions?

There is a passage in the Bible where God instructs his army to eat
poo, and they do so.

On Dec 10, 3:44 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:30 pm,

In article <0fd91620-fedc-4341-b997-23e0d7cd3...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:

You mean, why should we believe the Bible, today..right? You are
right that men, 2,000 years ago, were as ignorant, then, as they are
often, today. Yet, the Bible keeps getting proven true for dietary
cautions, sexual limitations, and more. They couldn't even have known
about venereal disease,

Am I the only person who thinks it hilarious that Ken can
use the word "Venereal" in the same sentence with a claim
that the Ancients could not have known of such diseases?

Hint #1 for Ken: what is the root of the word "venereal"?

Hint #2 for Ken: who is often credited with coining the word "gonorrhea"?

I don't get WEiW's comment about the dietary cautions. None of the
food rules in the bible contribute in any way to better health, with
the possible exception of the one about not touching (and by
extrapolation, not eating) corpses.

Woulda been a more persuasive argument if the bible had food rules
about not eating high-cholesterol foods, foods with high
concentrations of simple carbohydrates, or some hints about germs and
how they cause disease. You know, things like "Verily, thou shall
heat thy milk to a boil for one-half hour before thou drinkest it."
*That* would have made me stop in my tracks and say "Whoa!"

Or how about, "Thou shall not eatest the flesh of a pig or other wild
animals unless it has been cooked all the way through, yea, near to
the point where water boils for the small worm that lives inside the
pig shall consume thy flesh from within unless it is slain first with
purifying heat." That certainly would have made a lot more sense than
just, "Don't eat pork." People knew that eating undercooked pork was
making them ill but they didn't know why. Apparently God didn't either
so He just banned it all.

On Dec 10, 3:44 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:30 pm,

In article <0fd91620-fedc-4341-b997-23e0d7cd3...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:

You mean, why should we believe the Bible, today..right? You are
right that men, 2,000 years ago, were as ignorant, then, as they are
often, today. Yet, the Bible keeps getting proven true for dietary
cautions, sexual limitations, and more. They couldn't even have known
about venereal disease,

Am I the only person who thinks it hilarious that Ken can
use the word "Venereal" in the same sentence with a claim
that the Ancients could not have known of such diseases?

Hint #1 for Ken: what is the root of the word "venereal"?

Hint #2 for Ken: who is often credited with coining the word "gonorrhea"?

I don't get WEiW's comment about the dietary cautions. None of the
food rules in the bible contribute in any way to better health, with
the possible exception of the one about not touching (and by
extrapolation, not eating) corpses.

Woulda been a more persuasive argument if the bible had food rules
about not eating high-cholesterol foods, foods with high
concentrations of simple carbohydrates, or some hints about germs and
how they cause disease. You know, things like "Verily, thou shall
heat thy milk to a boil for one-half hour before thou drinkest it."
*That* would have made me stop in my tracks and say "Whoa!"

Or how about, "Thou shall not eatest the flesh of a pig or other wild
animals unless it has been cooked all the way through, yea, near to
the point where water boils for the small worm that lives inside the
pig shall consume thy flesh from within unless it is slain first with
purifying heat." That certainly would have made a lot more sense than
just, "Don't eat pork." People knew that eating undercooked pork was
making them ill but they didn't know why. Apparently God didn't either
so He just banned it all.

Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -