15 Nov 16
3 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI don't think you even grasped what I said.
This is not an English sentence.
If you have an argument or evidence to refute what I said, present it.
Have you read the book to refute what he has said?
If you are going to suggest he did say something you know is wrong, quote him.
Difficult to give evidence for something I don't think you have done which is read the
book I brought up.
16 Nov 16
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou made the claim that the book was 'an MD view' of the Bible. I simply pointed out the motivation of the book was not to provide a critically detached medical assessment of the Bible's medical pronouncements. It was an attempt to validate the Bible's medical claims as divine through a process of selective material selection and wildly generous interpretation.
I don't think you even grasped what I said.
Have you read the book to refute what he has said?
If you are going to suggest he did say something you know is wrong, quote him.
Difficult to give evidence for something I don't think you have done which is read the
book I brought up.
I can quote some examples later, but it won't make a scrap of difference to you, as you are completely closed minded to any suggestion that the Bible is less than perfect.
So you will simply, like the Doctor, ignore anything I say or look for another interpretation/explanation.
16 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsider"I would recommend a book called "None of these diseases" by S.I. McMiller, MD he took a physicians view about what was medically sound in scripture. I agree with you about bacteria and viruses but what you see in scriptures deals with them."
You made the claim that the book was 'an MD view' of the Bible. I simply pointed out the motivation of the book was not to provide a critically detached medical assessment of the Bible's medical pronouncements. It was an attempt to validate the Bible's medical claims as divine through a process of selective material selection and wildly generous inte ...[text shortened]... l simply, like the Doctor, ignore anything I say or look for another interpretation/explanation.
As an MD his views are an MD view.
His motivation you are aware of how?
Did you read the book?
You are simply spouting off reasons to ignore the work without actually reading it, I get it
it is much easier to belittle him and me than actually touch the text.
The only thing you are doing here is questioning motives not addressing anything within the
book.
I've asked for quotes, and you have so far failed to produce any.
Not difficult to ignore you, since you have not actually said anything out side of question
the Doctor and my motives.
16 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayOk, just to prove to you that you are not capable of discussing this rationally, I will give you one example.
"I would recommend a book called "None of these diseases" by S.I. McMiller, MD he took a physicians view about what was medically sound in scripture. I agree with you about bacteria and viruses but what you see in scriptures deals with them."
As an MD his views are an MD view.
His motivation you are aware of how?
Did you read the book?
You are simply ...[text shortened]... you, since you have not actually said anything out side of question
the Doctor and my motives.
In his book, he claims that Norway followed the strict Bible recommendations for dealing with leprosy and saw a reduction in the cases of leprosy. Hey presto, the Bible is divinely inspired!
Except, this claim is not true. As far as I can tell, they followed one single element of it, namely isolation of people with leprosy. They ignored everything else in the Bible. Yet he cites this as proof of the Bible's divine word and ignores pretty much everything else the Bible says should be done.
He also takes pains to cite examples of other ancient texts 'silly ideas' about medicine, whilst ignoring the fact that there are plenty of pre-Bible texts that give sound medical advice, and even one which medical authorities believe identifies leprosy quite accurately and recommends reasonable palliative treatments. Much more use than most of the Bible's ideas on the subject, at least.
A doctor motivated to examine the medical claims in a Bible from a standpoint of medicine would look at all the claims impartially and make an overall assessment. Not choose the bits that fit his beliefs and ignoring the rest. He would also not poke fun at ancient (non Christian, of course) civilisations getting it wrong, whilst ignoring when they got it right.
The man is a charlatan, and you only like what he has to say because it supports your beliefs. Which is a pretty good working definition of being closed-minded.
As to his motivation, it is pretty much spelled out in the book. Perhaps you should read it again, but this time engage some critical judgement and not simply lap it up because you like the sound of it.
16 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderQUOTE THE BOOK, I've asked you how many times now!?
Ok, just to prove to you that you are not capable of discussing this rationally, I will give you one example.
In his book, he claims that Norway followed the strict Bible recommendations for dealing with leprosy and saw a reduction in the cases of leprosy. Hey presto, the Bible is divinely inspired!
Except, this claim is not true. As far as I c ...[text shortened]... s time engage some critical judgement and not simply lap it up because you like the sound of it.
I do not trust you, you've been going off about motives, now your suggesting things in the
book without giving references. if you want to discuss this give the text! I have a copy
so even chapter and verse would be enough.
16 Nov 16
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySee Chapter 2.
QUOTE THE BOOK, I've asked you how many times now!?
I do not trust you, you've been going off about motives, now your suggesting things in the
book without giving references. if you want to discuss this give the text! I have a copy
so even chapter and verse would be enough.
Not that quoting the book is going to make any difference to your position.
He, of course, ignores the fact that, in Norway, the process of isolation was never vigorously enforced (so they weren't even following God's command) and that some academics have suggested that isolation, of itself, was only a minor cause in the drop in the rate of the disease, and that other factors may have had far greater bearing, such as increased incidence of other diseases creating cross-immunity.
But naturally he does not discuss any of these explanations, and simply attributes the decline in leprosy to the one element supported by the Bible without a shred of hard evidence to support his conclusion.
You should be embarrassed at accepting this tripe at face value.
16 Nov 16
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThe point of the book was to look at what it said with the understanding that if God had
Ok, just to prove to you that you are not capable of discussing this rationally, I will give you one example.
In his book, he claims that Norway followed the strict Bible recommendations for dealing with leprosy and saw a reduction in the cases of leprosy. Hey presto, the Bible is divinely inspired!
Except, this claim is not true. As far as I c ...[text shortened]... s time engage some critical judgement and not simply lap it up because you like the sound of it.
indeed inspired the writing? If what was written was completely unsound than we would
know the inspiration was faulty so we could throw the book out. In addition he did touch on
many of the common practices of that day and compared it to what was in scripture,
with the thrust being had they mixed in the knowledge of the day into the text it would
have also been faulty.
So looking at Leprosy, hand washings, waste disposal, and so on the common thrust
of what was in the text is sound, and some parts of we didn't fully grasp why until modern
times. Looking at hand washing after handling the dead and so on, that was not put in due
to common knowledge of that day, it wasn't even fully realized why until not to long ago.
You belittling him just shows you are not serious.
16 Nov 16
Originally posted by KellyJayOne thing I have pointed out before: Eating pig. The edict against pig is because of trichinosis from eating contaminated meat like pig. So the bible says don't eat pig. A reasonable edict considering the state of medicine ATT. But a god could have just as easily said, hey if you want to eat pig, cook the hell out of it if you don't want to get sick. Eat all the bacon you want, just cook it well. And that would be because there is a little bug inside the flesh that can make people sick but if you cook the meat well enough the little bug dies and is no longer a threat.
The point of the book was to look at what it said with the understanding that if God had
indeed inspired the writing? If what was written was completely unsound than we would
know the inspiration was faulty so we could throw the book out. In addition he did touch on
many of the common practices of that day and compared it to what was in scripture,
with ...[text shortened]... fully realized why until not to long ago.
You belittling him just shows you are not serious.
Now that would have made a lot of sense, but that didn't happen and that would be because the writers did not have access to that knowledge and there would have been no reason for that knowledge to be withheld but instead, in an entirely human move, not knowing what was happening, they just knew if you eat pig sometimes you get very sick. So edict comes out, don't eat pig.
That tells me the whole thing was written by humans with no deity involved.
16 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonhouseI think you have a good point, but unlike modern times you do not have the ability to say
One thing I have pointed out before: Eating pig. The edict against pig is because of trichinosis from eating contaminated meat like pig. So the bible says don't eat pig. A reasonable edict considering the state of medicine ATT. But a god could have just as easily said, hey if you want to eat pig, cook the hell out of it if you don't want to get sick. Eat al ...[text shortened]... , don't eat pig.
That tells me the whole thing was written by humans with no deity involved.
cook pork at 350 for 2 hours. Taking all the guess work out of the equation seems like a
much simpler set of directions to me.
16 Nov 16
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I said, quoting chapter and verse has made no difference to your view.
The point of the book was to look at what it said with the understanding that if God had
indeed inspired the writing? If what was written was completely unsound than we would
know the inspiration was faulty so we could throw the book out. In addition he did touch on
many of the common practices of that day and compared it to what was in scripture,
with ...[text shortened]... fully realized why until not to long ago.
You belittling him just shows you are not serious.
My claim was that this work was not primarily a medical work, but the work of a Christian trying to substantiate his beliefs by reference to the medical pronouncements in the Bible.
When I give you a 'chapter and verse' example of his partial and biased conclusions, you just ignore it.
I would ask you whether you think bird sacrifice, and dripping blood on the patient, is a medically appropriate practice before someone is admitted back into society having previously suffered from leprosy, but I can find the 'cut and paste' defence for myself on the internet.
I am going out on a limb here, but I expect the Norwegian Leprosy Act didn't require this.
Though I would note that your good doctor also makes the claim that there is nothing 'superstitious' about the Bible's treatment prescribed for lepers.
You couldn't make this stuff up, but it's sad that you lap it up without a moment's critical thought simply because it accords with your beliefs.