| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Wasteland" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2005 12:48:39 PM |
| Object: |
The Bible and Health |
Consider the Bible’s coverage of another field: health and
sanitation. If an Israelite had a skin blemish suspected of being
leprosy, he was put in isolation. “All the days that the plague is in
him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated.
Outside the camp is his dwelling place.” (Leviticus 13:46) Even
infected garments were burned. (Leviticus 13:52) In those days, this
was an effective way of preventing the spread of the infection.
Another important law had to do with the disposal of human
excrement, which had to be buried outside the camp. (Deuteronomy
23:12, 13) This law no doubt saved Israel from many sicknesses. Even
today, severe health problems are caused in some lands by the
improper disposal of human wastes. If people in those lands would
only follow the law written down thousands of years ago in the Bible,
they would be much healthier.
The Bible’s high standard of hygiene even involved mental health.
A Bible proverb said: “A calm heart is the life of the fleshly
organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones.” (Proverbs 14:30)
In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that our physical
health is indeed affected by our mental attitude. For example, Doctor
C. B. Thomas of Johns Hopkins University studied more than a thousand
graduates over a period of 16 years, matching their psychological
characteristics with their vulnerability to diseases. One thing she
noted: The graduates most vulnerable to disease were those who were
angrier and more anxious under stress.
.
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible and Health |
24 Jun 2005 01:58:44 PM |
|
|
In our last episode, <X8GG76HM38528.0754513889@reece.net.au>,
the lovely and talented Wasteland broadcast on alt.atheism:
Consider the Bible’s coverage of another field: health and
sanitation. If an Israelite had a skin blemish suspected of being
leprosy, he was put in isolation. “All the days that the plague is in
There was something of a movement around the turn of the (20th)
century to try to find a scientific basis for many of the
religious rules including the dietary laws and c*rc*mc*sion.
Not-particularly-religious Jewish scientists and fundamentalist
Christians were in the forefront of the movement.
The mainstream of rabbinical thought rejects this notion (if I
am correctly informed). The theory there is: we don't do these
things because they make scientific sense, but because God says
so. The attempt to justify the law by science can only serve to
undermine the justification of the law by faith.
To skeptics, of course, it makes perfect sense that when this or
that bit of good advice was discovered, a religious people would
incorporate it into their religious law in order to preserve the
knowledge. But then that would mean that religious laws can be
and have been altered on the basis of human wisdom and worldly
human knowledge - which is anathem to the truly religious.
And really, only a few of the religious laws could be related to
science in a logical and consistent way. Take the prohibition
on pork, for example. Everyone knows that poorly prepared pork
can contain dangerous pathogens. But the logical implication of
that, especially for a people who would sometimes face scarcity,
would be "Thou shalt eat pork only if it is well done."
Prohibiting pork entirely might result in people starving - or
at least suffering malnutrition - when there was a food source
readily at hand, and in the long run, more people might suffer
ill effects from refusing to eat pork at all than from eating
pork which might sometimes be ill-prepared and contaminated.
In other words "Thou shalt not eat pork at all ever" is not
really the scientifically-correct advice.
In some cases, the attempt to justify religious law by science
led to bad science, as was the case with c*rc*mc*sion. This
sort of thing often happens when you come to science with some
nonscientific ax to grind.
But in most cases, of course, there simply is no even remotely
possible connection between ritual practices and science. The
assumptions of ritual practices are: 1) there is a god, 2) that
god has a will for man, 3) the scribe who records the words got
the right words from the right god, and 4) the people who
interpret the words, knew exactly what the scribe meant when
wrote them and are interpreting them correctly. If you do not
accept each and every one of these assumptions then the ritual
practices are entirely arbitrary. If you accept all of the
assumptions then you may still think the ritual practices
are arbitrary, but you suppose God has a right to be arbitrary.
Smart religions have learned to butt out of science. The
Catholic church got its fingers burned on the geocentric thing.
Scientific theories can be proven wrong - and indeed the
possibility of being proven wrong is a good criterion for
determining if a statement is scientific. Religious leaders
think being proven wrong is a bad thing which is why, for them,
the best policy is to stick with spritual things in which the
chances of being proven wrong are greatly reduced.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
War on Terrorism: Camp Follower
"I am ... a total sucker for the guys ... with all the ribbons on and stuff,
and they say it's true and I'm ready to believe it. -Cokie Roberts,_ABC_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible and Health |
24 Jun 2005 06:19:46 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndbolso.ekj.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
And really, only a few of the religious laws could be related to
science in a logical and consistent way. Take the prohibition
on pork, for example. Everyone knows that poorly prepared pork
can contain dangerous pathogens. But the logical implication of
that, especially for a people who would sometimes face scarcity,
would be "Thou shalt eat pork only if it is well done."
Prohibiting pork entirely might result in people starving - or
at least suffering malnutrition - when there was a food source
readily at hand, and in the long run, more people might suffer
ill effects from refusing to eat pork at all than from eating
pork which might sometimes be ill-prepared and contaminated.
In other words "Thou shalt not eat pork at all ever" is not
really the scientifically-correct advice.
$$ Right! And lets not forget mad-cow disease although the bible claims
they're "clean" animals.
In some cases, the attempt to justify religious law by science
led to bad science, as was the case with c*rc*mc*sion. This
sort of thing often happens when you come to science with some
nonscientific ax to grind.
$$ Circumcision is a barbaric practice that should be outlawed. No one has
the right to mutilate a child.
Religious leaders
think being proven wrong is a bad thing which is why, for them,
the best policy is to stick with spritual things in which the
chances of being proven wrong are greatly reduced.
$$ Amen! :-)
--
CR........
http://silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ň> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
