Don't you love Jesus?

[Gurm]

Hmm... Once again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything...

How about this... Kosher laws for suitability, preparation, and storage of food.

At the time the laws were set down the science didn't exist to explain their advantage.

Now we learn that the kosher method of slaughter is perhaps the most humane, that the rules for what makes an animal suitable for consumption and what parts are to be consumed are relatively sound, and that the rules for storage are actually quite hygienic.

Jewish communities generally avoided the plague and I've not heard of a case of Mad Cow disease in an Orthodox Jew.

To expand on this - there was NO good reason, or so it was thought, for the wandering nomads led by Abraham to cut off the foreskins of their penises. But it turns out that it was, in fact, an EXCELLENT idea hygenically. Let's not get into a debate about modern circumcision, but the point is that for millennia Jews have avoided all kinds of nasty infections in the genital area due to something that God asked them to do.

Then we get to the part where God commanded that it be done on the 8th day. It turns out that the 8th day after you're born (after the umbilical cord is cut) is, in normal births, probably the BEST day to have a surgery in your entire life, since the healing will happen without a scar and nearly overnight. My cousin needed a hernia repair when she was born. They did it on the 8th day for PRECISELY this reason. Your levels of human healing factor are never higher than on the 8th day of your life. She now has NO scar. Not "gee that's hard to see" but NO SCAR AT ALL.

We could go on. There are all KINDS of rules concerning hygeine, infection, etc. which came "directly from God". They're contained in the Torah, mostly in Leviticus. Feel free to go look them up. Some seem really silly nowadays (for example a woman was to be essentially quarantined during her period) but at the time were eminently sensible hygenically.

There are societal behavioral rules, as well. Judaism can only be passed down on the mother's side. Why is this? Because when the Israelites were busy conquering the middle east, they had a nasty habit (as do ALL conquering tribes) of taking the women as wives... sometimes quite forcibly. A quick "your kids won't be Jews" nipped that in the bud. Maybe it came from someone wise at the time, or maybe it came straight from the big guy.

[Gurm]

Good examples indeed. I am missing proof that the rules were not man-made, but that is a bit of a spoiler, wouldn't you agree?

Quite. We have to dispense with that on SOME level.

I wonder though, were none of these practices existent prior to their codification (is that the word?) in the Torah? (Why can;t we boil a lamb in his mothers milk anyway?)

Some may have been, but many were not. They were new, and considered pretty "out there" by the other indigenous peoples. Circumcision, in particular, has been practiced ONLY by Jews and Muslims (who also claim Abraham as a common ancestor, and therefore honor his 'covenant' with God) until only very recently (last 150 years or so). While ritual scarring or bodily mutilation was popular among some primitive tribes in Africa, GENITAL mutilation was much less so.

For instance, flew, often deadly, occured more often in communities holding pigs. Nomads did not hold pigs. So when they settled down, might it be they established a link between pigs and flew, based a rule on that link, all the while completely lacking any understanding of the actual causal; connection? (A cynic might say that is why it is presented as displeasing to the lord (what's the word): it can;t be rationally explained").

That would be a potential argument, except that the prohibition against pork came during the nomadic years, NOT during the "settled down" years. But you are correct - most nomadic peoples keep cattle, they are far more easily driven than swine. Shellfish are also a no-no. This is only sensible considering the lack of refrigeration at the time, however for a coastal people not to eat shrimp and lobster? Strange at the time, as well as now.

But I will readily admit that I can not explain all these things right now without God. I am pretty sure some people looked into it though. When I have time (if I remember this) I'll see if I can come up with something. Course, any fellow Atheist may come to my aid at this moment

Usually the argument goes "well SOMEONE thought it up, it's just a bunch of good coincidences". You can use it, it's pretty tried-and-true.

[Umfriend]

Yep, I sorta saw this coming when Schmo made his first shot. That was the reason I suggested something about the universe like the earth not being flat. That would be pretty much outside the realm of humanity.

The problem with these suggestions is that as they all relate to humanity, they may well be thought up by humans based on an experience/trial-on-error kind of proces. I'm not into the details of circumcision, but I'd wager that if it was a practice by some prior to the torah and if the differences in side-effects and ease of healing are significant, humanity would converge to doing it at 8 days.

[schmosef]

I know, likewise BTW, u do know that don;t you?

Good examples indeed. I am missing proof that the rules were not man-made, but that is a bit of a spoiler, wouldn't you agree?

I wonder though, were none of these practices existent prior to their codification (is that the word?) in the Torah? (Why can;t we boil a lamb in his mothers milk anyway?)

Moreover, mankind has adapted a lot of behaviour in spite of not yet having the scientific explanation for it (take the use of a compass for instance). I think it would be fair to say that there is a real possibility for these "earthly" rules to have been established by some sort of trial-on-error process.

For instance, flew, often deadly, occured more often in communities holding pigs. Nomads did not hold pigs. So when they settled down, might it be they established a link between pigs and flew, based a rule on that link, all the while completely lacking any understanding of the actual causal; connection? (A cynic might say that is why it is presented as displeasing to the lord (what's the word): it can;t be rationally explained").

But I will readily admit that I can not explain all these things right now without God. I am pretty sure some people looked into it though. When I have time (if I remember this) I'll see if I can come up with something. Course, any fellow Atheist may come to my aid at this moment

If these Kosher laws were so easy to figure out, why were the Jews the only ones observing them?

[SpiralDragon]

fine... ignore me the lot of you.. :P ....

any way i also find this intresting and aplicable

[SpiralDragon]

If these Kosher laws were so easy to figure out, why were the Jews the only ones observing them?

i beg to differ.... the jews where not the only ones to observe such practisis....

[schmosef]

interpret the folowing as you will.... but somehow i feel my point will not translate properly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationism

I feel that your point did not translate properly.




(seriously, I don't know what you were trying to say)

[schmosef]

i beg to differ.... the jews where not the only ones to observe such practisis....

... elaborate please.

[Umfriend]

I'll think about it. Please note the post above. I do not have all the answers (atm LOL).

On the other hand, the Chinese may well be the people most in conflict with jewish laws on hygiene, what to eat etc. There are 1.3 bln of them today and only, uhm, 20 mln jews? So how is the Torah a blessing? I'd say the Chinese, with all there filthy habits are quite succesfull! Maybe the cost of the laws to a society are just to high to enable it to grow? Maybe it's better to eat pigs and suffer some illness but have cheaper protein available?

[Umfriend]

SD, sorry, simply had no clue what you were on about.

[Gurm]

... elaborate please.

Yes, please. Who else observed Kosher and other Jewish practices at the same time that the Jews were in the wilderness (circa 2000B.C.)?

[Umfriend]

That would be a potential argument, except that the prohibition against pork came during the nomadic years, NOT during the "settled down" years.

This is not neccesarily true though. The jews had not always been nomadic prior to when they "received" the law, so they may well have had the benefit (as few poeple probably had at that time) of being able to tkae the best of nomadic and settled practices.

[Jammrock]

Yeah right, the reply took me to long. This is a reply to Jammrocks tutorial on divine logic

I claimed nothing of divinity. I said it was only a discourse.

1. To understand everything it is not required that you can produce and duplicate everything. Scientific knowledge has the form of theory. You are confusing understanding and testing or proving (and "proof" is not required by any normal scientist).

Perhaps understand was a poor choice of words. Knowledge of everything probably would have served better. After all, how can you understand everything in the universe if you do not have a definitive knowledge, i.e. proof, of the validity of your knowledge? Therefore, to know (or understand to an extreme sense of the word) the universe STARTING from a state of unknowing (i.e. I did not know it before) to knowing (i.e. I know know for a certainty) - which is the state of reference which I am referring to in my previous post, my fault for not being specific - it would require testing and proof.

Secondly I am not talking about "normal science." I am talking about the perfection of science.

2. Thus, you do not have to be all powerfull to understand ...

Matter of opinion. See corrected statement above.

... and not be able to be anywhere at any time either.

3. Moreover, "omnipotent" means one could do *anything*, which is, you know, sometimes claimed to be in the power of god. That is far more I'd wager than doing just anything that is possible within the laws of the universe science tries to understand.

I beg to differ. Science is not just a journey after knowledge, but a journey to attain the ability control that which we know, which is to apply your knowledge. As an example, science did not stop and understanding atomics, they learned to control it. If your opinion is contray, that is your perogative.

I apologize for not being as consice with my original post. I whipped it up, rather than took the time to make it concise.

4. I have yet to come across, BTW, something that is clearly understood by God and misunderstood by Man until God set him straight. Cynical? Maybe, but *that* would be circumstancial evidence of the existence of god.

I don't follow you here. Elaborate?

5. So the statement that "As such you could, according to this logic, call godhood the ultimate end to science, i.e. a being that has achieved the ultimate goal of science." is nothing more than a semantic trick which is based on in part at least on confusing understanding and proving by reproduction. [Edit: to see the fallacy, ask yourself whether this statement means that if there is no god, there can be no end to science.]

This is, once again, a matter of opinion. If you think/beleive that mysteries of the universe are unattainable given an expansive amount of time, then this statement would certainly be a fallacy; however, if you think/believe that the mysteries of the universe of indeed attainable, then there is no fallacy. Thus depending on your interpretation of the abilities of science and humankind, your preceptions would change the basis of the arguement.

Like I said in the introduction to my arguement: This [is] one of the "logic discourses" (in quotes, because like most logic, it can be circular if you really put your mind to it) - Emphasis added.

6a: Atheism is not as strong as "there is no possibility of a god" which in fact is a scientific theory which can be disproven. Athism is simply not believing a god exists. I'd like to contrast this with the view that "As I do not understand everything, it is highly likely God does exist". This is *not* a scientific statement: it can not be disproved. Even if we understand everything, that is we have have a set of theories that can explian everything we see without the need of an axiom of God, it still does not prove God does not exist.

Technically, what I said is atheism. Or a common defenition of it. From Webster:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

While being agnostic is:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

I never argued against the second part of your arguement. It is logically valid, but holds no greater scientific value than what I have said. And I have never claimed that my arguement/discourse was scientific. Theological and/or philosophical only. From a purely scientific standpoint, god or a supreme being can neither be proven nor disproven. Carl Sagan has a wonderful analogy about it in his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

6b: Again, science does not need to be able to do anything in order to understand everything. Your representation of "understanding" is flawed.

Once again, see my corrections at the top, and once again this is a matter of opinion.

7. This one is nice: "Anyway ... the believer, following this line of logic, would say that at least one being/person has achieved this goal or status and uses it for their own purposes, like the creation of planets and populations." OK, aside from the "logic" I wonder, where does this being/person come from? Was it created by, uhm, God? Did God exist before it became God?

If I had an answer I would tell you. Maybe god has always been, and therefire has no place to begin and no place to end. I don't know. Never claimed I did.

I am not denying that god may exist. I just believe he does not. I don't think I will be convinded by semantics.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Just posted an arguement. Nobody can convince another person of anything. In the end it is up the person to decide what he will and will not be convinced of.

Jammrock

[schmosef]

I'll think about it. Please note the post above. I do not have all the answers (atm LOL).

On the other hand, the Chinese may well be the people most in conflict with jewish laws on hygiene, what to eat etc. There are 1.3 bln of them today and only, uhm, 20 mln jews? So how is the Torah a blessing? I'd say the Chinese, with all there filthy habits are quite succesfull! Maybe the cost of the laws to a society are just to high to enable it to grow? Maybe it's better to eat pigs and suffer some illness but have cheaper protein available?

I think you'd agree that there are other factors that served to limit the population growth of the Jewish people.

Sexy gentiles being one of those factors...

[Gurm]

This is not neccesarily true though. The jews had not always been nomadic prior to when they "received" the law, so they may well have had the benefit (as few poeple probably had at that time) of being able to tkae the best of nomadic and settled practices.

True. Just prior to that, they had lived in Egypt for some centuries.