Religion: pros & cons pt1 (Religion)

by dhw, Saturday, October 25, 2014, 18:16 (3680 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Dhw: I pointed out that the OT used the word “eat” (I can't find “ingest”), which to me suggests a ban on blood as food.
TONY: Read Leviticus 17 (the entire chapter). I'm done arguing semantics. The prohibition against blood is firmly established.-I'm afraid interpretation is all about semantics. For you, the all-important factor in the two quotes from Acts was “and”, because you thought that meant something separate from eating strangled animals. I pointed out that one can cut an animal's throat but still eat some blood. A different interpretation. Leviticus 17 repeatedly prohibits the EATING of blood, in the context of food. It gives instructions about using blood as a sacrifice (though I think you said the new covenant invalidated that). Nowhere does it mention the medical use of blood for saving life. Hardly surprising since the treatment was then unknown. Had it been known in Christ's day, perhaps the new covenant would have allowed for it, since “You must love your neighbour as yourself” took precedence over the law relating to the Sabbath (the man with the withered hand). Who knows? Of course you will stick to what you think is the right interpretation. So will other people. That's why the bible is not a reliable guide.
 
TONY: People can twist anything. There are hundreds, thousands of truths that have been twisted for one reason or another. That doesn't make those truths less true.-Nor does it mean that we know which version is the objective truth, and that is where I take issue with anyone who claims to know it and dismisses other people's beliefs as ignorant or malicious or self-interested. Of course you can cherry-pick instances of all three (I love to pick cherries with you!), but if the bible were as clear as you say, there would be no need for theologians to dedicate their lives to exegesis.-TONY: If there is a fundamental rule, principle, or set of principles in physics, and three or four people disagree, does that mean the principles are wrong or the people? I've often seen you give latitude or benefit of the doubt to scientist that you do not give to religion, and I wonder why that is.
 
I'm sure there are fundamental rules and principles, but if the physicists don't agree, the rest of us cannot know which version is correct. Even if the bible was the Word of God, only God knows what he meant, because there is no consensus among his human interpreters. As for latitude/benefit of the doubt, I need an example. Perhaps once more you are thinking of evolution, and I certainly believe the theory of common descent as it is so convincingly logical. How it all started, and how it proceeds, I don't know. Please give me a reference.-Once again you appear to approve of the Jews slaughtering every man, woman and child in a community worshipping a different god, and are happy with habitual gluttons and drunkards being stoned to death. You say God did not condone making war: “It says ‘Those making war with you.' This implies defensive action.” Ugh, I thought you were done arguing semantics! Earlier you quoted Deut.: “If you approach a city to fight against it, you should also announce to it terms of peace. If it gives a peaceful answer to you and opens up to you, all the people found there will become yours for forced labor, and they will serve you. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead goes to war with you, you should besiege it.” Approach a city...offer peace terms...besiege it. What sort of defensive action is this? (The same text says that the women, the children etc. "you may plunder for yourself.” Sounds like carte blanche to me.) All this refers to “cities very far away from you.” How come the Jews were defending themselves against cities very away from them? -You have drawn my attention to Mosaic law, which dispenses with prison and uses death and slavery as alternative forms of punishment: death is the punishment for worshipping idols, persuading someone to take another religion, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, a bride who is not a virgin, breaking the Sabbath, disrespecting and disobeying your parents etc. You have warned me not to equate biblical ‘slavery' with more modern forms, and have emphasized that biblical slaves had certain rights. I'm sure it would have been reassuring for a biblical slave to know, for instance, that “in case a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one actually dies under his hand, that one is to be avenged without fail. However, if he lingers for a day or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is his money.” Frankly, I'd rather go to prison. I have to admit a lot of these instructions are absolutely clear (unlike the blood business). I am, however, bewildered by your apparently enthusiastic support for them. “You must love your neighbour as yourself” sounds like a pretty good guide to me, but I really don't like the subclauses (e.g. if he's a homosexual, kill him). Sorry, but I have a different concept of neighbourly love.