"The atheist atheists love to hate"

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I couldn't give a hoot whether the Bible states the Law is perfect. Explain to me how lopping of a child's foreskin 3000 years ago was 'desirable'.

Where does the bible state that it was desirable? If it does not then what are you havering about?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
A first year medical student could have developed better rules for the identification and treatment of 'leprous like' conditions than are present in the Bible and which could have been used in Mosaic times.

I just wonder why God, with his infinite knowledge, chose to set his advice in terms which are so patently deficient and look so obviously like ...[text shortened]... not a law, I wonder if you would subscribe to this piece of Biblical practical wisdom as well?

yeah thats right because quarantine was not a good idea, feel yer bum and be brought back to reality!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah thats right because quarantine was not a good idea, feel yer bum and be brought back to reality!

I didn't say all aspects of it were wrong, I said a first year medical student could have done better.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Where does the bible state that it was desirable? If it does not then what are you havering about?

For goodness sake, it's like spoon feeding a small child.

RO - So you accept that Mosaic law imposed requirements on its followers that were deficient, non-sensical and undesirable?

You - Sigh, it was for a particular epoch and for a particular people, for a particular purpose and no i do not accept any of your premise. Is not odd at all when one understands its purpose.

Me - Regardless of whether it was a for a particular epoch for a particular people and purpose, do you accept it was deficient, undesirable and nonsensical?

You - Are you in your own mind? The Bible states that the Law was perfect! and I remind you it is set within a context, to take it out if that context is unreasonable.

Me - I couldn't give a hoot whether the Bible states the Law is perfect. Explain to me how lopping of a child's foreskin 3000 years ago was 'desirable'.

Is it really that hard to follow?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
For goodness sake, it's like spoon feeding a small child.

RO - So you accept that Mosaic law imposed requirements on its followers that were deficient, non-sensical and undesirable?

You - Sigh, it was for a particular epoch and for a particular people, for a particular purpose and no [b]i do not accept any of your premise. Is not odd at all wh ...[text shortened]... of a child's foreskin 3000 years ago was 'desirable'.

Is it really that hard to follow?[/b]

i have not said its desirable, have I.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I didn't say all aspects of it were wrong, I said a first year medical student could have done better.

so you did, then again it wasn't until Miss Florence Nightingale and the Crimean war that the link between hygiene and disease was firmly established, yet Moses had it written in the Bible some three thousand years prior.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you did, then again it wasn't until Miss Florence Nightingale and the Crimean war that the link between hygiene and disease was firmly established, yet Moses had it written in the Bible some three thousand years prior.

As I suspect you know, hygiene practices that are conducive to good health predate this and have arisen independently of any knowledge of the Bible.

However, we do not need to debate this, as this was not what I was commenting on. I simply said a first year medical student could improve on this supposed 'superlative' practical wisdom.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have not said its desirable, have I.

So it's undesirable?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
As I suspect you know, hygiene practices that are conducive to good health predate this and have arisen independently of any knowledge of the Bible.

However, we do not need to debate this, as this was not what I was commenting on. I simply said a first year medical student could improve on this supposed 'superlative' practical wisdom.

really why then was it not until the 1800's that the notion suddenly occurred to the Victorians when nurses realised that more soldiers were dying from preventable diseases than wounds from warfare, yet hygiene LAWS were in place thousands of years earlier which would have wholly and effectively taken care of the matter, can you cite any other culture that had as strict or as effective hygiene laws as the ancient nation of Israel. What will it take to make you admit that the Bible is awesome, practical and utterly dependable?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So it's undesirable?

its neither desirable no undesirable, it was a requirement of the Law, one could of course argue the case for circumcision and cleanliness but why bow to rationality and reason when sensationalistic journalism abounds like a ship festooned with garlands of flowers sailing through the turbulent forum waters!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What will it take to make you admit that the Bible is awesome, practical and utterly dependable?

I don't know.

Probably the same as it will take you to admit that a first year medical student could have written better guidance on the identification and treatment of leprosy and similar conditions than the Bible contains.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really why then was it not until the 1800's that the notion suddenly occurred to the Victorians when nurses realised that more soldiers were dying from preventable diseases than wounds from warfare, yet hygiene LAWS were in place thousands of years earlier which would have wholly and effectively taken care of the matter, can you cite any other cultur ...[text shortened]... hat will it take to make you admit that the Bible is awesome, practical and utterly dependable?

What laws would have prevented all these deaths?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
What laws would have prevented all these deaths?

hygiene laws

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its neither desirable no undesirable, it was a requirement of the Law, one could of course argue the case for circumcision and cleanliness but why bow to rationality and reason when sensationalistic journalism abounds like a ship festooned with garlands of flowers sailing through the turbulent forum waters!!

So the practice is neither desirable or undesirable, yet the law which governs said practice is 'perfect'? Surely if the law is perfect the practice it governs would be desirable?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hygiene laws

What hygiene laws?