Science and faith

I disagree with criticism of faith and the insinuation that science corrects errors of faith. Moses inquired and received instruction from Jehovah to wash the bedding of the sick that are treated and to wash the hands of the caregivers. (See Leviticus 15 [http://scriptures.lds.org/lev/15/1-5,7,13].) Not until Florence Nightingale did this practice become standard for preventing infection. Also, Joseph Smith inquired and received instruction from God about healthy eating habits and so forth (see D&C 89 [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/89]) well before any federal agency gave us the four food groups or the food pyramid. This revelation continues to be proven correct.

Men used their faith and received correct instruction dealing with real causes that science would eventually confirm, not correct.

You are a retard.  For every one of such statements, there are 100 religious fag announcements that don't apply to reality.  RELIGION IS FAIL.

Come back when you have evidence for your "god", failfag.

>>1
Taking complete baths whenever you get a bit of blood on you (or, as you'll have noticed, every time you orgasm) isn't good practice, it's a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Similarly, the dietary laws described in the Book of Mormon are nearly entirely bullshit. Any hot drinks are bad, but any herb and fruit is good?
On the very rare occasions when religious laws have turned out to be right about anything, it's always been about things that have been obvious, not anything implying special knowledge the writers couldn't have obtained normally.

And Mormonism specifically is one of the most obvious religious frauds in recent history. I can sort of see why the feeble-minded would be taken in by Christianity or Judaism, but the origin of the Book of Mormon should be immediately obvious to anyone reading any passage of it.

The Bible describes medical and sanitary practices remarkable for the time. It says you should bury your excrement (Deut. 23:13). It requires people to wash themselves after touching a dead body (Numbers 19:11-22).

>>Accuracy on one point does not show overall accuracy.

True, but accuracy on many points supports overall accuracy.

>>Genesis 30:25-33, for example, describes a breeding program based on sympathetic magic.

Actually the reference is wrong. The correct one is Genesis 30:37-43. The passage is describing a breeding program based on sympathetic magic, but they have left out the fact that the Bible is simply describing what Jacob did and that it does not endorse it or indicate a real cause and effect relationship. On the contrary Genesis 31:10-13 shows that God was controlling the results not Jacob's actions.

>>Deuteronomy 23:9-14 is not about hygiene. The purpose of burying excrement is so God will not be offended by seeing anything indecent and turn away. The idea is religious; uncleanliness would make one unfit for a religious war.

Actually, it is about both, in that it serves both purposes. The religious uncleanness is a stated reason but God established it in part for purposes of hygiene. Furthermore having a religious reason given does not change the fact that burying excrement would be good hygiene.

>>There is also a danger that exposed excrement could be found by the enemy and used magically against one.

Here is another case of making a baseless claim even though it is from another source. There's no hint of this in the passage.

>>Numbers 19:11-22 is not about hygiene. It refers to ritual purification conducted by sprinkling water, not washing with it. The purification is to be done not immediately after touching the body, as good health practice would demand, but on the third and seventh days. Whoever fails to perform the ritual is unclean and must be ostracized from Israel. Basically, it is a superstitious taboo. Similar taboos against people who have touched dead bodies appear to be universal in Polynesia. Furthermore, unless they have died from pestilence or have been decaying for a few days, dead bodies are no less clean than live ones.

It is correct that this is a purely ritual purification having nothing to do with hygiene. They show their bias however by calling it a superstitious taboo. It also needs to be noted that there is no evidence of contact between ancient Israel and Polynesian Islands. This was about religious purification with no evidence of superstition connected to it.

>>The Bible does not include directives that really would indicate good medical practices, such as burying feces downhill from the source for drinking water, and washing ones hands in clean water in circumstances that really would prevent spreading dangerous germs.

Deuteronomy 23:9-14 is describing a war time situation. Any clean water that was available would be needed for drinking, and wandering around outside that camp looking for a place for burying feces downhill from drinking water would be dangerous. Simply burying the feces would be the most practical way of dealing with it.

>>Attributing a requirement of some special knowledge to account for knowledge of good health practices assumes the ancient Hebrews were idiots. People can often see the results that come from bad practices.

True, except when it is said to have come personally from God.

>>4
Enjoy your confirmation bias and your bullshit rationalisations based only on historical ignorance.

Wound, skin and discharge precautions:

The instructions recorded in Leviticus 15 are strikingly similar to modern disease-prevention techniques.

For example, anyone touching a person with a ‘running issue’ (that is, a bodily discharge), or anything upon which that person sat or lay, became ‘unclean’. In addition, should the ‘toucher’ touch someone without first having washed his hands, uncleanness would be transferred to the person he touched as well.

Just a little more than 100 years ago, these precautions were instituted in modern medical facilities to prevent diseases from spreading. ‘No touch’ surgical and dressing techniques are now used.6 Gloves are necessary for persons touching infected areas and careful hand washing is observed before and after patient care. In addition, ‘universal precautions’ require that all bodily secretions be treated as potentially infectious agents.

Waste disposal:

The Israelites were instructed to bury their waste material away from the camp (Deuteronomy 23:12–14). Intestinal diseases such as cholera, amebic dysentery and E. coli enteritis continue even today to take a heavy toll on lives where similar sanitary practices are not observed.

The Israelites were also admonished to burn used dressings. Garments that contained a growth (perhaps a fungus) were to be washed. If the fungus/growth was removed, the garment was to be rewashed before using again. If not, it was to be burned (Leviticus 13:47–58). Note that a first wash could germinate hardy spores. The new growth could then be removed by rewashing. Objects that were touched by an infected person were to be washed. If the object was pottery, however, washing was insufficient (perhaps due to its porous nature). It was to be destroyed (Leviticus 11:33, 15:12).

Today’s health practices are quite similar. Objects and dressings contaminated with bodily discharges are removed for incineration. Whenever possible, disposable needles, syringes, eating utensils, dishes and other items are used. Non-disposable items are washed, bagged and sterilized.
Isolation

The Israelites took great care before diagnosing a person as having leprosy or a similar condition. If there was any doubt as to the certainty of a diagnosis, the person was to be isolated for observation (Leviticus 13:1–14:57). Once a person was diagnosed with a contagious condition, he was to be quarantined outside of the camp ‘all the days wherein the plague shall be in him.’ He was also required to wear a covering over his mouth, and to warn others by shouting, ‘Unclean, unclean!’ (Numbers 5:2–4 and Leviticus 13:45–46).

Modern hospitals also follow special isolation procedures for persons who have, or are suspected of having, contagious infections. For example, ‘strict isolation’ requires a private room with an independent air supply. The door to this room must be kept closed. Gowns, gloves and masks must be worn by all who enter the room. In addition, a sign must be placed on the patient’s door to warn others of his condition.
Burial precautions

Direct contact with the dead (human or animal) brought defilement and required the washing of body and garments (Numbers 19:11, 19, 22 and Leviticus 11:24–28, 40). Contact with objects that had come in direct contact with the dead (such as garments, swords, pots and graves) also resulted in ‘defilement’ and required cleansing or destruction.

Furthermore, when someone died in a tent, all who came into the tent, and all that was in the tent (including every ‘open vessel’) was declared unclean (Leviticus 11 and Numbers 19:14–16).

Until the late 1800s, it was common practice for physicians and medical students to examine their living patients immediately after participating in autopsies.7

Of course, the pathogens that were present in the bodies of those in the morgue were spread to the hospital wards. When doctors began practising procedures similar to those found in the first five books of the Bible, mortality rates were drastically reduced.

Food and drinking water safety:

If the carcass of an animal was found in drinking water, use of the water was forbidden as ‘unclean’. If, however, the water source had a continual supply of fresh water, such as a spring, it would remain ‘clean’ because of the tendency of such water to renew itself (Leviticus 11:34–36). In addition, all food and water within a vessel that came in contact with a dead animal or an infected person was declared unclean (Leviticus 11:34, 15:12).

Today, we know that failure to heed any one of these precautions could result in the transmission of infectious microorganisms.

Unlawful lifestyles and disease:

The Israelites were clearly forbidden to have any sexual relationships outside of marriage (Leviticus 18:22, 20:10–16 and Exodus 20:14). The biblical plan of husband and wife constituting an exclusive married unit (Genesis 1:27, 2:23–25; Matthew 19:3–6) certainly prevented the spread of venereal diseases.

Because of man’s failure to heed this admonition, sexually transmitted diseases continue to be the world’s leading contagious diseases.

The various things the holy books tell people to do comes from somewhere. Trichinella can be an absolute fuckery, and as such, two out of three Abrahamic religions say you shouldn't eat pork.

It's just that ancient people often didn't have any explanation other than  "God" (the theory with all the explanational power of "fuck if I know") to resort to explain why it was so.

In addition, when you follow a rule just because, instead of actually knowing why, well, you can fuck up royally the moment the circumstances deviate from those for which the rule was created. You can't adapt. In addition, as religion tends to be based upon absolute bullshit for why things are as they are, it's incapable of separating the rules which are there for a good reason from those who came from a bad case of heatstroke and rampant schizophrenia. (So a burning bush out in the the desert told you to do it?) This means that the rules, advice and suggestions from religion are worthless, as it's pure lottery as to whether they'll actually work, or something pulled out of a madman's ass three millennia ago and which will see you dead in a hurry.

As for faith, instead of religion, that's what you use if the "great doubt" keeps you awake at night (you know, the philosophical path which point out that not even "I think, therefore I am" is completely proven and logical, who's this "I" after all?). Faith and religion may be closely connected, but they are not synonyms.

>>1
Ok, so faith is right every now and then.  We were never expecting people to believe something that is 100% wrong.  What's your point?  What about all those places where faith phails?

>>2
Ah, RedCream, it's been a while.

>>3
One of my friends graduated from UCLA with a Mass Comm degree, and she's Mormon.  They can't all be that stupid, can they? lol

>>4
who are you arguing with?
There's a difference between religious purification and superstition?  That's news to me.

>>6
1800s people were stupid.  They claimed to follow the Bible, yet didn't bother heeding its medical advice.  Almost every damn religion requires a husband/wife unit, yet humanity never bothered to stay loyal.  Now, we have venereal disease and AIDS.

>>7
Truth.