Romans with Germ Warfare
We've almost all taken antibiotics at some time or another; this past week I took a few to take care of a pesky cut on my foot that required it. Which segues into another of the reasons "Terra Firma" gives for why the Bible is not inspired: he thinks if it was, it would have told us about things like quantum physics and antibiotics. As he puts it:
“Thou shalt boil thy water
lest the invisible creatures therein bring sickness upon your body.”
Invisible creatures living in the water and making people sick? This would have
sounded very odd to people in ancient times. But you know what? Not only would it impress modern day readers,
it would have saved millions of lives. Why oh why didn’t Jesus
warn people about germs?
Apart from the egocentric self-privilege this awards modern people, it's also shortsighted, as I demonstrated in this video from 2011:
Yes, if God had told us how to create antibiotics, "Terra Firma" would today be complaining about making it possible for Rome to discover germ warfare. He'd then be railing about how cruel and injudicious it was of God to introduce such advanced concepts to people unprepared for it. He'd also prime the ego pump and demand that God should have gently guided us in how to use antibiotics peacefully. By the time he got to the end of his sustained rant, he'd be asking why God didn't make it so we didn't have to clean the toilet.
By the way, the affected character in this one is a guy named Peter Breitbart, who put together a series called "Madman or Something Worse" which he opened by saying that Jesus was a "Bronze Age" figure.
I can't think of many better ways to sum up why fundy atheists deserve no respect.
Apart from the egocentric self-privilege this awards modern people, it's also shortsighted, as I demonstrated in this video from 2011:
Yes, if God had told us how to create antibiotics, "Terra Firma" would today be complaining about making it possible for Rome to discover germ warfare. He'd then be railing about how cruel and injudicious it was of God to introduce such advanced concepts to people unprepared for it. He'd also prime the ego pump and demand that God should have gently guided us in how to use antibiotics peacefully. By the time he got to the end of his sustained rant, he'd be asking why God didn't make it so we didn't have to clean the toilet.
By the way, the affected character in this one is a guy named Peter Breitbart, who put together a series called "Madman or Something Worse" which he opened by saying that Jesus was a "Bronze Age" figure.
I can't think of many better ways to sum up why fundy atheists deserve no respect.
Comments
It is a shame God is not powerful enough to prevent that.
God did supposedly give the Jews any number of other sanitrtary laws. For example, there is a law about washing after touching a corpse. Interesting to note that nevertheless the Romans did not use this as a method of warfare (though we know it has the potential to be ), so it seems unlikely they would take an instruction to boil water from the Judism and weaponise that.
You say "prime the ego pump". I guess that means the guy is hypothesising a God who wants to look after humanity, and it is worth pointing that we see Christians who "prime the ego pump" very frequently. Perhaps this guy was railing against that?
He gave humanity brains to study medicine. Don't tell me you really credit the stupoid garments he's exposing do you?
Oh, those fundy atheists. They go around asking perfectly reasonable questions like "Why wouldn't God instruct people to boil water?". How stupid. Of course, everyone knows that would inevitably lead to germ warfare. The truth is that God wanted people to die from drinking contaminated water, not from germ warfare.
It's not stupid but it only makes sense in a certain kind of framework where God is seen as a big man in the sky. besides you have no proof that he didn't tell them to boil water,
I think he's referring to moral code of the OT? Then he's already got an answer to his own rant : it'll look weird for ancients. Besides, it would be out of context of what OT is.
If you look at OT, most of it are prophetic revelations (Prophetic works such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc), Ancient law codes (Leviticus - Deuteronomy), and many of them are oral histories (Kings, Genesis, Exodus, etc.)
Complaining God should mention modern warfare is like complaining God should explain advanced waterway for sanitazion to ancients.
In my view, rather than 'ego' is more of like blantant stupidity. Though ego may be the reason beyond his rant ;)
Putting aside that the church was very much against the study of medicine in the Middle Ages, forbidding dissection, encouraging the belief that disease was a punishment from God, and generally telling people to rely on prayer, your response here: (1) fails to explain why God did supposedly the Jews some sanitary laws, such as with regards to touching corpses; and (2) does not help the uncountable many people who died in the millienia up to when mankind had worked it out for ourselves.
Joe: It's not stupid but it only makes sense in a certain kind of framework where God is seen as a big man in the sky.
It makes sense in a framework where God gives sanitary laws - which is exactly what Christianity proposes.
Joe: besides you have no proof that he didn't tell them to boil water,
So what are you saying? He gave Moses a law to boil water, but Moses forgot to write it down, and God was powerless to get it incorporated into the Bible after that?
Joe: He gave humanity brains to study medicine. Don't tell me you really credit the stupoid garments he's exposing do you?
Putting aside that the church was very much against the study of medicine in the Middle Ages, forbidding dissection, encouraging the belief that disease was a punishment from God, and generally telling people to rely on prayer, your response here:
no it wasn't, you have no basis for that assertion, You can't denouement it,that whole Christianity holding back science is just bull shit,that is the popular meta narrative from the enlightenment but it's disproved
(1) fails to explain why God did supposedly the Jews some sanitary laws, such as with regards to touching corpses; and (2) does not help the uncountable many people who died in the millienia up to when mankind had worked it out for ourselves.
Joe: It's not stupid but it only makes sense in a certain kind of framework where God is seen as a big man in the sky.
It makes sense in a framework where God gives sanitary laws - which is exactly what Christianity proposes.
Joe: besides you have no proof that he didn't tell them to boil water,
So what are you saying? He gave Moses a law to boil water, but Moses forgot to write it down, and God was powerless to get it incorporated into the Bible after that?
5/27/2018 10:12:00 AM Delete
(1) fails to explain why God did supposedly the Jews some sanitary laws, such as with regards to touching corpses; and (2) does not help the uncountable many people who died in the millienia up to when mankind had worked it out for ourselves.
Joe: It's not stupid but it only makes sense in a certain kind of framework where God is seen as a big man in the sky.
It makes sense in a framework where God gives sanitary laws - which is exactly what Christianity proposes.
He had to keep the Jews from wiping themselves out, that doesn't mean that if he doesn't create Johns Hopkins medical school in ancient Israel he has fialed as God.
Joe: besides you have no proof that he didn't tell them to boil water,
So what are you saying? He gave Moses a law to boil water, but Moses forgot to write it down, and God was powerless to get it incorporated into the Bible after that?
first fist because they didn't write it down doesn't mean he didn;t give it. they had an oral tradition. Jews claim that the Talmud existed as oral tradition for three centuries before it was written,
He would not have to make it a law, he only has to say:"Pssst,hey Moisha, heat the water"
That is addressing a slightly different issue, and that page does not even mention medicine.
From the conclusion here.
On the negative side the Church's decision to accept the healing powers of saints and their shrines and relics as theological dogma after the 5th century, distanced it from empirical medicine. There is reason to believe that the Christian and monastic physicians still continued to make use of both secular medicine and religious healing. The latter was seen as a form of legitimate supernatural cure and not magic. The precise role of faith healing has indeed remained a problem for many Christians through the ages, even up to the 20th century.
During the Middle Ages the Church's authoritative hand did not encourage original scientific thought outside the realms of its predestined medical dogma based largely on the teaching of the Greek master Galen in particular. Dissent was treated with growing displeasure, even ex-communication, and once it was equated with heresy (after the 13th century), death at the stake could be the punishment.
With regards to disease being a punishment from God, this is of course seen in the Bible. See also here:
In Christianity the marks and symptoms of disease were seen as divine punishment: each of the seven deadly sins had its own corresponding illness. It was common for individuals to examine their moral conduct to determine how they had brought illness upon themselves, and a priest as well as a healer would have been consulted (one man often fulfilled the two roles).
And here:
A lack of scientific evidence to support any other theories in the causes of disease meant the Church’s explanation was accepted i.e. God sent disease as a punishment. This discouraged questioning and research.
This is still a belief of some Christians today!
With regards to dissection, from here.
Following widespread introduction of Christianity in Europe during the Middle Ages, the development of rational thought and investigation was paralysed by the church authorities and physicians could only repeat the works of the eminent figures from past such as Aristotle or Galen, without questioning their scientific validity. During this period, human dissection was considered to be blasphemous and so was prohibited. For hundreds of years, the European world valued the sanctity of the church more than scientific quest and it was not until early 14th century that human dissection was revived as a tool for teaching anatomy in Bologna, Italy after a hiatus of over 1,700 years.
If you Google this issue, you will find a lot of articles saying this is is a myth, but these all seem to refer to after 1300, and so are not in disagreement with the above quote at all.
Because those were the only two options available to him, either giving rudimentary sanitary laws that omit boiling water, or creating a modern medical school in ancient Israel. Clearly in your view it is just impossible for God to say, boiling water before you drink.
Joe: first fist because they didn't write it down doesn't mean he didn;t give it. they had an oral tradition. Jews claim that the Talmud existed as oral tradition for three centuries before it was written,
Ah, so your position is that the Jews forgot it, and God was powerless to remind them.
Joe: He would not have to make it a law, he only has to say:"Pssst,hey Moisha, heat the water"
He made it a law not to mix threads in a garment, and not to touch a corpse. Why not make it a law not to drink unboiled water?
How stupid of you to think that available power creates an obligation to intervene. Why are you sitting on your backside at that computer when you could be feeding starving children in Somalia?
>>>God did supposedly give the Jews any number of other sanitrtary laws.
Sorry, I don't follow that populist line by whatever two bit apologist came up with it.
>>>it seems unlikely they would take an instruction to boil water from the Judism and weaponise that.
How silly of you to think that water was the sole or even chief source of contaminants. Of course, most people of the time got their water from wells, springs or rivers, so that wasn't exactly a leading problem. Nor for that matter is it necessarily wise. In case you missed it, exposure to germs helps build the immune system. Boiling water defeats that purpose and makes human more susceptible to infection. Are you one of those goofy freaks who wipes down everything with a sani-wipe?
>>I guess that means the guy is hypothesising a God who wants to look after humanity, and it is worth pointing that we see Christians who "prime the ego pump" very frequently. Perhaps this guy was railing against that?
Nope. He is hypothesizing a God who coddles and babies humanity. Which is also a pathetic exercise of some alleged Christians, to be sure. It's called the prosperity gospel.
Um...yeah...following there the PAGANS, you moron.
Joe: He had to keep the Jews from wiping themselves out, that doesn't mean that if he doesn't create Johns Hopkins medical school in ancient Israel he has fialed as God.
Because those were the only two options available to him, either giving rudimentary sanitary laws that omit boiling water, or creating a modern medical school in ancient Israel. Clearly in your view it is just impossible for God to say, boiling water before you drink.
odd I argued that he could have told them that without putting it in the Bible you turn that into he couldn't do it,
Joe: first fist because they didn't write it down doesn't mean he didn;t give it. they had an oral tradition. Jews claim that the Talmud existed as oral tradition for three centuries before it was written,
Ah, so your position is that the Jews forgot it, and God was powerless to remind them.
why would they forget it? It's so basic they were probably told before wittering existed and by the time it came to the exile the priests were so used to boiling water they didn't think of it,
Joe: He would not have to make it a law, he only has to say:"Pssst,hey Moisha, heat the water"
He made it a law not to mix threads in a garment, and not to touch a corpse. Why not make it a law not to drink unboiled water?
they were already doing it,
the book the mind has no sex by Shebanger, a feminist historian revisionist it was the Aristotelians who screwed medicine not Christianity
Um...yeah...following there the PAGANS, you moron.
Forgive me, JPH, for I do not have your towering intellect, and I can only dream of being as witty, so can you please explain in what way the fact that the Christian church followed the Pagan beliefs addresses my claim that the church forbid dissection? Seems to me that this is tacitly confirming it.
How stupid of you to think that available power creates an obligation to intervene. Why are you sitting on your backside at that computer when you could be feeding starving children in Somalia?
If I was a better person I would be doing just that. But I am lazy and selfish, so here I am sitting on my backside. Like you, I guess.
Do you think that makes it okay for God to sit on his backside when people are suffering? I thought he was supposed to be perfectly good. Hmm, sounds like he is as lazy and selfish as me.
JPH: >>>God did supposedly give the Jews any number of other sanitrtary laws.
Sorry, I don't follow that populist line by whatever two bit apologist came up with it.
A lot of Christians think God gave the Jews saniary laws. Here is an example web site:
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Hygiene
Perhaps you should e-mail the web site and tell therm hey are just repeating a "populist line" by some "two bit apologist".
JPH: How silly of you to think that water was the sole or even chief source of contaminants.
I was responding to the OP, and your response to the quote "Thou shalt boil thy water lest the invisible creatures therein bring sickness upon your body." This discussion is about boiling water, so I wrote about boiling water. Context, JPH, context.
JPH: Nope. He is hypothesizing a God who coddles and babies humanity. Which is also a pathetic exercise of some alleged Christians, to be sure. It's called the prosperity gospel.
Not just the prosperity gospel. The idea that God/Jesus loves each and everyone of us individually is very common through out Christianity.
I have to say, your concept of God as someone who does not give a hoot about us, and will, for example, let the children in Somalia starve to death does fit much better with what we actually observe.
Are you serious commenting like that? Where the heck you got all that crap from?
God's covenant throughout the ages from Adam is that we (humans) act like Ambassadors for God. So it is our job to do the hard working. You may said God is not caring, but the hunger/famine analogy is the same as a leader of a country giving order to his subjects to give the food to them and it's the case of subjects messing up. I would say God's role in this conundrum is giving us foundation and moral laws to GIVE and left us at that. In my theology, i believe Holy Spirit fulfills that role. Babying you would make the covenant for humans to WORK will be nulled.
Only lazy suckers from modern-context individualism and infinite-resources like you believe that. Most of miracles in the bible does not even touch that kind of thing. Raining Manna is to establish the God's Kingdom and People, Plagues in Egypt was done to release Israel and fulfill His covenant with Abraham. AND. THAT. INCLUDES. HARD. WORK. Jesus' covenant is based on carrying cross, get yourself sued off your pants, got backhandslapped, and travelling across the country with social persecution at every corner.
Actually, LOVE that you spoke of is not a fondness nor the babying things you seem to be thinking. It involves WORK. Ancient Teachers used sometimes drastic measures to teach. You are given real-life problems, the teachers usually don't baby you up, and learn you rather forcefully from experience.
I don't know...but if you expect a deity who baby you around like that...i don't think any religion is fit for you.
And please. Stop looking Christian theology from your modern individualist perspective.
In what sense is that a covenant? Do you actually know what a convenant is? What you describe here is an instruction or command; that could be part of a covenant, but is not itself a convenant.
I am also wondering if you know what "ambassador" means. To who or what do you think we are acting as God's ambassadors? How does God expect us to act as his ambassadors if he will not even confirm his existence?
yoshua: So it is our job to do the hard working. You may said God is not caring, but the hunger/famine analogy is the same as a leader of a country giving order to his subjects to give the food to them and it's the case of subjects messing up.
Oh, right. God cannot provide food by himself, he needs us to do it for him. Guess I fell for all that nonsense about God being all-powerful.
yoshua: I would say God's role in this conundrum is giving us foundation and moral laws to GIVE and left us at that.
What you describe is a God who is identical to one that exists only in the imagination. You have the belief that your god gives your moral opinion foundations; he does not need to exist to do that.
yoshua: In my theology, i believe Holy Spirit fulfills that role. Babying you would make the covenant for humans to WORK will be nulled.
Meanwhile millions are staving in Somalia. Odd that in practical terms your theology looks exactly the same as God not existing.
yoshua: Only lazy suckers from modern-context individualism and infinite-resources like you believe that. Most of miracles in the bible does not even touch that kind of thing. Raining Manna is to establish the God's Kingdom and People, Plagues in Egypt was done to release Israel and fulfill His covenant with Abraham. AND. THAT. INCLUDES. HARD. WORK. Jesus' covenant is based on carrying cross, get yourself sued off your pants, got backhandslapped, and travelling across the country with social persecution at every corner.
If the Bible is true, then God could provide food to the starving millions in Somalia. He chooses not to. He chooses to let them starve.
Do you think that is morally right?
yoshua: Actually, LOVE that you spoke of is not a fondness nor the babying things you seem to be thinking. It involves WORK.
Apparently it involves millions starving to death. Perhaps "love" is another word you do not know the meaning of, because that is surely not how I understand the word.
yoshua: Ancient Teachers used sometimes drastic measures to teach. You are given real-life problems, the teachers usually don't baby you up, and learn you rather forcefully from experience.
I wonder what lesson the millions starving in Somalia are learning...
yoshua: I don't know...but if you expect a deity who baby you around like that...i don't think any religion is fit for you.
Well obviously not. I would expect any moral god to help those in need. We know there is no god helping the millions who are starving in Somalia. Seems clear there is no moral god, so as you say, no religion is going to work for me.
yoshua: And please. Stop looking Christian theology from your modern individualist perspective.
Why? Does it fall apart if we do that? Kind of strange that a religion that claims a timeless, unchanging God cannot be looked at from a modern individualist perspective.
Kind of like it was invented in a specific age by people of that age.
those who know Christ are his ambassadors not you,that let;s you out. He does not have to conform his existence to those who know him.
See that makes sense. It was the claim that everyone is an ambassador ("we (humans) act like Ambassadors for God.") that was nonsense.
See that makes sense. It was the claim that everyone is an ambassador ("we (humans) act like Ambassadors for God.") that was nonsense.
6/06/2018 04:23:00 AM
I see, thank you
>>>Forgive me, JPH, for I do not have your towering intellect, and I can only dream of being as witty,
Truest thing you ever said. Too bad you’re also inept at sarcasm.
>>> so can you please explain in what way the fact that the Christian church followed the Pagan beliefs addresses my claim that the church forbid dissection? Seems to me that this is tacitly confirming it.
Pixelmind, the point is that Christianity didn’t originate the idea, so you can’t pin it on the belief system the way you would like to childishly do.
>>>But I am lazy and selfish, so here I am sitting on my backside. Like you, I guess.
Speak only for yourself. I am also not the one whining like a hypocrite.
>>>Do you think that makes it okay for God to sit on his backside when people are suffering?
He isn’t. He sent us to do the job. You’re the lazy and selfish one, just like you say.
>>>A lot of Christians think God gave the Jews saniary laws. Here is an example web site:
Why don’t you link me to Wikipedia while you’re at it. That’s a three bit website. You can write and tell them I said, so, you have too much time on your hands as is and no intention to do anything but waste it being a hypocrite.
>>>I was responding to the OP, and your response to the quote "Thou shalt boil thy water lest the invisible creatures therein bring sickness upon your body." This discussion is about boiling water, so
I wrote about boiling water. Context, JPH, context.
Yes, and the context is, you had a narrow minded grasp of the situation. Lazy and a hypocrite, as usual.
>>>Not just the prosperity gospel. The idea that God/Jesus loves each and everyone of us individually is very common through out Christianity.
Only in your addled imagination. The bulk of Christians in history have lived in collectivist cultures where such nonsense has never been heard of. So not only lazy and selfish, but a self-aggrandized cultural misanthrope too.
>>>I have to say, your concept of God as someone who does not give a hoot about us, `
Yes, you’d prefer that strawman too I’m sure. Typical fundy, can’t think any way but in extremes.