Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

I would know the deity exists. That's it. Why even talk about "faithfully following it", there? That would be another issue altogether.

I answered this in my lead up to the question. If the primary reason to not believe is proof than is proof sufficient to worship?

(... "if any"? dude...)

Would you refuse to worship regardless of what kind of proof is provided based on principal or if sufficient proof was presented, what would it take?

I saw a guy make the Statue of Liberty disappear, once.
Extensive evidence. Seriously. Not that it would be a problem anyway, for a god, right?

So are you saying that the proof needed would be based on an acceptable level for you and it would need to be bigger than the Statue of Liberty disappearing? Would proof basic

JGS, how can you have faith in something that is proven? That is a paradox. ally be a parlour trick on a grander scale?

I don't think I asked about faith. However, it's not a paradox anyway. Faith is the assurance of things to come. That faith is built on what we know already about God, not on just belief alone.

Speaking of belief, it is not just faith. it is a culmination of faith, hope, history, experience, love, & knowledge. So to believe something has faith only as a particular aspect of it. The "proof requested would only help validate the reason to have faith in a future fulfillment.

The only reason there would be a paradox is if you worship something only because proof is presented without considering the other factors. However, even, then it just makes the "worshipper" a hypocrite.

By the time I got all the proof I needed, I'd no longer be a 'faithful' follower... although I'd begrudgingly follow - even though I find much of the philosophies and guidance in religion of questionable efficacy and value.

How can one begrudgingly worship?

I was trying to ask in general but specifically if we are talking about God, how can one begrudgingly love God & their neighbor which are the two most important commandments given?

 

[Zaptruder]

How can one begrudgingly worship?

I was trying to ask in general but specifically if we are talking about God, how can one begrudgingly love God & their neighbor which are the two most important commandments given?

Well, you don't do a good job of it really. I mean, you'd go through the motions, and hope you're not sent to hell...

 

[JGS]

It never happened? At least not how it's described in the Bible. It was more likely 1/10000000000000 of that in scale and restricted to a tiny area.

How would you know that? By that, I mean the scale as mentioned in the Bible or the possibility of it being larger than your thinking?

So huh, all the stuff about what god made during that week, each day being described, is not a step-by-step description of the creation? What is it then? A metaphor?

Didn't say it was a metaphor. However, there's few people outside of a skeptic &/or a fundamentalist that would assume that one chapter in the Bible is going to describe in detail all of creation. That was the level of importance it had in relation to the rest of the message of the writer since everybody already knew God created everything. It was Cliff Notes.

However, it may still be a good idea to see what time means to God as to opposed to what it means to humans and why the 7th day is so much longer than the previous 6. Let's not forget that "day" is used in a bunch of ways by humans.

Can't remember exactly. Somewhere in Leviticus. Stuff involving killing a bird and bathing another bird in the first's blood. Some kind of voodoo.

Not a good enough answer. I will stick to there not being a cure for leprosy until a verse is found. If we are going literal I want to see the word voodoo too (j/k).

You do realize that every single claim about the natural world and most of the historical accounts are dead wrong? do you want me to copy and paste half of the bible? :/

Like what? If it takes copying and pasting Gaf allows the space, then go for it.

Well, you don't do a good job of it really. I mean, you'd go through the motions, and hope you're not sent to hell...

What if the punishiment is what Romans 6:23 says it is- death?

The worship or else viewpoint for me is Inception level of unlikelihood. You can't force a love of God and you certainly can't do it by ensuring torture. On the other hand, if one disagrees with God's view, wouldn't that be something worth dying over? A lot of people in the Bible thought so.

 

[JGS]

Sorry, work is distracting me (The nerve!) and thanks for the answers.

Assuming that's what the deity wanted? And also assuming the deity was clearly more powerful in some spiritual way than I am? Absolutely. However, I can also imagine Gods which do not care that I exist or have no direct power over me despite their position. If we're talking about those Gods, I'd certainly have to think about it.

Would the gods' expectations of you change your opinion of worshipping it?

Something repeatable and observable under close scrutiny. A single, miraculous incident (such as the parting of the red sea) is far more simply and easily attributable to cognitive error, even if I happen to be the observer in question.

Well, I mention the Red Sea since millions observed it at one time. So would the number of people witnessing it not have a bearing on the event (Especially sinceit was in connection to an even grander set of occurrences, but I didn't present that part of it).

Paul and a handful of other people were the only ones to observe Jesus on his trip to Damascus to beat up Christians and only Paul really got it. So he could be perceived as more loony and could think of himself as loony.

 

[Erigu]

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound insulting. I in no way think that you are idiots for not understanding the question.

Well, I certainly don't know what it was that you were trying to do exactly...

I answered this in my lead up to the question. If the primary reason to not believe is proof than is proof sufficient to worship?
Would you refuse to worship regardless of what kind of proof is provided based on principal or if sufficient proof was presented, what would it take?

I don't even know why you're asking these things in the first place.
Say there's sufficient evidence that the deity in question does indeed exist. So what? Why should I worship it?

You say "would you refuse to worship"... Is that to say the deity is asking me to worship it, in your scenario? If so, please specify, as you didn't mention a specific deity at all, and I wouldn't immediately assume that a being powerful enough to be called a "god" would want (need?) something from my puny human self.
Let's say it's asking me to worship it. Would I follow it? I don't know, perhaps. I mean, I'd be dealing with quite a powerful being, so chances are I'd be extremely intimidated. I don't know that I'd be very happy with the situation though ("worship me"? dude, your miracles sure got my attention, but you're not exactly winning my trust, with that attitude of yours), so I can't promise any genuine adoration or loyalty.

So are you saying that the proof needed would be based on an acceptable level for you and it would need to be bigger than the Statue of Liberty disappearing?

Yes? I mentioned that one as an example of an impressive illusion. I then gave an example of what I'd consider a more convincing kind of evidence / miracle.
Of course, even then, one could still argue that, say, the deity is really an alien using extremely advanced technology, but hey, if it's that advanced, why not call it a "deity" anyway? Wouldn't make much of a difference as far as mankind is concerned...

Would proof basic

?

Not a good enough answer.

This, I imagine?

 

[Aristion]

Question for Christians:

In the book of Exodus, God makes Himself known to Moses as Yahweh for the first time in human history:

Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."

But in Genesis 15:7 it states: "And he said to him, “I am Yahweh who brought you [Abraham] out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.”

Why does Exodus contradict Genesis?




Similarly, Matthew 16:27-28 has Jesus saying:

"For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus says that there are some disciples among Him who will not die until they see Him arriving into His kingdom. However, these disciples have all since died and Jesus has not come.

How would you Christians answer these discrepancies?

 

[JGS]

Not sure what you're getting at but I'll bite.

I'm not really getting at anything except that I am a skeptic when it comes to belief by proof. in other words, I personally think it is exceedingly difficult to worship when you don't want to- proof or not. If proof is all that is stopping some from worshipping, how can you reconcile that with disagreements that you may have with worship?

1. Not necessarily, because I don't find deities, or any entities real or not, for that matter, inherently worthy of worship. I would believe in his/her/its existence, but that definitely doesn't mean I would be a follower. In general, in any scenario I can imagine this deity would have to answer the question of suffering in a way I found convincing or I would likely be a dissident.

This makes great sense

2. A dude on the road who says he's divine is not near enough proof, even if he's super nice. Like so many other religious conclusions, bizarre natural phenomena doesn't necessarily equal God. If a dude or voice came to me, claimed to be God, and was able to predict future events with exacting detail and with 100% accuracy over and over, that would probably be satisfactory evidence that this entity is, at the very least, omniscient. As ever, God has my absolute undivided attention any time he would like to prove his existence to me in non-metaphorical terms.

This is interesting because if this happened to me (If a voice came down and said he was god to me and no miracle happened along with it), I would assume I'm crazy lol. But I guess crazy people don't know they're crazy
3. Redundant at this point, but if the above proof was presented I would believe the entity communicating with me is omniscient and probably omnipotent, yes.

EDIT: I want to add, for you and for everyone else, again not really knowing what you're setting us up for, that rather or not atheists or religious people are dumb, obnoxious, annoying, mean, or wrong about other things is not related to the truth value of atheism or any particular religious doctrine. If Chrisitianity is correct, it is correct for only one reason: Because it is true. Likewise for atheism. Likewise for everything else in the universe that is quantifiably correct or incorrect.

Just for clarity's sake, I do not want this thread to go to pot. I have no problems with arguing for arguments sake, but that's for other threads. I'm truly only interested in understanding things that I don't know and explaining my opinion which I always know.

 

[JGS]

I don't even know why you're asking these things in the first place.

The reason why anyone asks anything is for an answer. If it's a poblem to answer or the question seems stupid, it's not necessary to answer.

You say "would you refuse to worship"... Is that to say the deity is asking me to worship it, in your scenario? If so, please specify, as you didn't mention a specific deity at all, and I wouldn't immediately assume that a being powerful enough to be called a "god" would want (need?) something from my puny human self.

I probably made the question too simple as the discussion usually pertans to God. Making it more specific, if Judeo Christian God exists, worship is a requirement for blessings. However, worship is completely voluntary.

Worship has nothing to do with needs of the provider/more powerful entity which survives just fine without your puny self. It's all about respect &/or sovreignty. We expect our kids to honor us even though they do nothing for us in a survival POV, so worship is pretty similar in regards to expectations. That is often not the case in reality though.

Let's say it's asking me to worship it. Would I follow it? I don't know, perhaps. I mean, I'd be dealing with quite a powerful being, so chances are I'd be extremely intimidated. I don't know that I'd be very happy with the situation though ("worship me"? dude, your miracles sure got my attention, but you're not exactly winning my trust, with that attitude of yours), so I can't promise any genuine adoration or loyalty.

Worship isn't about intimidation though which is why it's impossible to promise genuine adoration or loyalty. Your answer also validates my view that miracles are pointless in the long term which is why they are barely used even in the Bible.

Yes? I mentioned that one as an example of an impressive illusion. I then gave an example of what I'd consider a more convincing kind of evidence / miracle.
Of course, even then, one could still argue that, say, the deity is really an alien using extremely advanced technology, but hey, if it's that advanced, why not call it a "deity" anyway? Wouldn't make much of a difference as far as mankind is concerned...

OK, so really it would be difficult for God to do something so profound that it could convince at least some to worship &/or believe in him since there is always going to be something to explain away what was just witnessed.

This, I imagine?

Thanks. That's not really a cure for leprosy though as much as it is a cleanliness ritual for someone no longer having leprosy.

14:3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;

If he still had leprosy, he stayed unclean.

 

[Zaptruder]

What if the punishiment is what Romans 6:23 says it is- death?

The worship or else viewpoint for me is Inception level of unlikelihood. You can't force a love of God and you certainly can't do it by ensuring torture. On the other hand, if one disagrees with God's view, wouldn't that be something worth dying over? A lot of people in the Bible thought so.

Hahaha... the way I see it, by the time we have enough proof for me to believe, he'll have made his presence well and truly obvious to the entire world.

It's not just enough that he reveals his presence to me; because I'm quite aware of the cognitive deficits that we naturally possess and those that can develop - in that respect, congruence is an important element of been able to have trust in the world that you perceive.

 

[JGS]

Question for Christians:

In the book of Exodus, God makes Himself known to Moses as Yahweh for the first time in human history:

Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."

But in Genesis 15:7 it states: "And he said to him, “I am Yahweh who brought you [Abraham] out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.”

Why does Exodus contradict Genesis?

I would be lying if I said I knew this for a certainty, but earlier in Exodus (Burning Bush), Moses is asking God about his name and God says:

]13Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

14God said to Moses, “I am who I am.b This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

15God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord,c the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

So although Abraham may have known God's literal name, he may not have understood what the name actually meant.

Similarly, Matthew 16:27-28 has Jesus saying:

"For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus says that there are some disciples among Him who will not die until they see Him arriving into His kingdom. However, these disciples have all since died and Jesus has not come.

How would you Christians answer these discrepancies?

This occurred during the Jesus' transfiguration in front of a few of his disciples. It was a way of showing them that it was a done deal.

 

[Machspeed007]

JGS, how can you have faith in something that is proven? That is a paradox.

On one hand we would have the human being composed of beliefs and reason. On the other hand, we would have a proven God (belief wouldn't be required anymore). That would mean that God's Creation would have an attribute ("belief") that serves no ultimate purpose (see Leibniz, principles of plenitude).
This would leave us some interesting conclusions I think.
The first, and the quickest one would be that if God exists and we are his Creation than God will never be proven with 100% certainty. Belief, no matter how small, would still be required.
The other, compatible with having proven God with 100% certainty, would be that we've become one with the Universe, we would instantly know what the Creation is in every detail. I believe that current scientific position is that to know where every particle in the Universe is would require all the energy in the Universe, so I don't know how else we would know that unless our knowledge actually becomes the Universe.
That would require some post-human state of being. Death? Breaking through the confines of the Universe (maybe that's death again)? Entering "The Force" continuum?. I don't know.

 

[Erigu]

The reason why anyone asks anything is for an answer.

Thing is, when I answered your questions, I was told that I hadn't understood them. Considering how elementary the questions were, I assumed you meant that my replies simply weren't satisfactory as far as you were concerned because I failed to see why you asked all that in the first place.
So that wasn't it? 'Cause I really don't see how I failed to understand the questions themselves, there... Could you elaborate?

I probably made the question too simple as the discussion usually pertans to God. Making it more specific, if Judeo Christian God exists, worship is a requirement for blessings.

Well, you did say "whatever proven deity"...

So... the judeo-christian god, huh? This scenario just became a lot more difficult to consider...
Anyway, that would certainly not be a god I'd worship.

Worship has nothing to do with needs of the provider/more powerful entity which survives just fine without your puny self. It's all about respect &/or sovreignty. We expect our kids to honor us

(and worship us, too? really?)
I'd say respect is something you earn. That particular god you're speaking of didn't do much to earn mine. He actually sounds pretty damn terrible to me.

Your answer also validates my view that miracles are pointless in the long term which is why they are barely used even in the Bible.

Sooo... the "point" in that "pointless" would have been "getting more worshipers"? There would be more miracles if that were a good way for God to get people to adore him, but it's not so meh?
(by the by, evidence for the existence of the guy wouldn't get me to worship him, but I don't speak for the entirety of mankind)

so really it would be difficult for God to do something so profound that it could convince at least some to worship &/or believe in him since there is always going to be something to explain away what was just witnessed.

1) "Explain away"? It's not like I'd be arguing "this is all a trick", there! I'd be acknowledging the existence of a vastly superior being. Then again, that was before you clarified that you were really thinking of the judeo-christian god, i.e. a god that supposedly created the entire universe and comes with a lot of strange folklore...
2) I don't think getting someone to worship you should be easy, really.
3) Then again, I can't imagine anything being difficult for an omnipotent god.

If he still had leprosy, he stayed unclean.

Yes, that part gave me pause, considering the text then goes on to say how to clean the guy from the leprosy ("And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean", "This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing", and so on)...
(And yes, it sounds like voodoo. I like how there's a cheaper formula for the poor!)

 

[Tawpgun]

Q for atheists:

We all know how big a deal proof is for you. In many ways it seems to be the ONLY reason why you're not religious, but then that seems to not make sense so it would be nice to clarify.

If you had this proof, would you be a faithful follower of whatever proven deity?

What kind of proof would be required if any? Would meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus be sufficient or would a parting of the Red Sea be sufficient?

If you would be a faithful follower, why would you be one now that proof was presented?

If I had proof a diety or some kind of higher being exists... I mean... Yeah I'd believe it. It's proof. But if we only had proof that there is such a higher being, then not much would change for me. We'd have a better hypothesis on the origin of the universe.

If the proof was that it was the jewish, muslim, christian, certain denomination, hindu etc. god(s) then and we had proof that this god demanded everyone to worship him or go to hell... easy choice, worship him....Not much of a choice...

What kind of proof for a diety? It would be a diety actually coming to me or humanity and saying so. Show an example of his power, one that can defy laws of nature.

But I have a followup question... what if it was found out that the true god was another religion or denomination's god. Would you still follow? What if you believe in a forgiving and loving god but the real god is a total douche that will punish you eternally for being human? I guess you'd have to worship him, but damn would that suck.

Another question. When looking at the Adam and Eve account and the old testament in general... doesn't it seem like a story of an oppresive power with Satan/the snake wishing to liberate us?

God doesn't allow us to eat from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. Satan says go for it. God then punishes humanity for this.

Cue conspiracy Keanu.

WHAT IF SATAN IS REALLY THE GOOD GUY AND HELL IS AN AWESOME PLACE.

 

[Kinitari]

Hell is where all the sodomites fun people are, so we already know this to be true.

Sodomites like it in the butt, right?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Oral, too.

 

[JGS]

Thing is, when I answered your questions, I was told that I hadn't understood them. Considering how elementary the questions were, I assumed you meant that my replies simply weren't satisfactory as far as you were concerned because I failed to see why you asked all that in the first place.
So that wasn't it? 'Cause I really don't see how I failed to understand the questions themselves, there... Could you elaborate?

I may be confused because I'm not sure that I was saying you misunderstood them. I think I was making a comment on how much thought was going into them, like I had some kind of angle in asking them and it also wasn't pointed to you specifically.

It was entirely my mistake for being vague regarding the aspect of worship since I'm not really qualified to speak on what other gods or deities required regarding worship.

(and worship us, too? really?)
I'd say respect is something you earn. That particular god you're speaking of didn't do much to earn mine. He actually sounds pretty damn terrible to me.

I disagree. Respect for the ones resopnsible for us should be implicit until they are proven to not be worthy of respect. So a parent should garner automatic respect from kids (they do unless they are spoiled brats. It's natural) until they do something to betray the trust, then it is impossible to respect/honor them which is similar to worship.

Sooo... the "point" in that "pointless" would have been "getting more worshipers"? There would be more miracles if that were a good way for God to get people to adore him, but it's not so meh?
(by the by, miracles wouldn't get me to worship the guy, but I don't speak for the entirety of mankind)

It doesn't really gather more worshippers. The ones seeing miracles usually were already worshippers and the ones who benefitted from them weren't required to worship just for receiving them. Perfect example is Jesus who perfomed miracles for thousands and yet very, very few hung around. Fuirther, many who saw the miracles wanted to kill him anyway. Miracles are used to get a conversation going, but in the end, if you didn't listen to the message, the miracle was pointless.

1) "Explain away"? It's not like I'd be arguing "this is all a trick", there! I'd be acknowledging the existence of a vastly superior being. Then again, that was before you clarified that you were really thinking of the judeo-christian god, i.e. a god that supposedly created the entire universe and comes with a lot of strange folklore...
2) I don't think getting someone to worship you should be easy, really.
3) Then again, I can't imagine anything being difficult for an omnipotent god.

1. I didn't accuse of that. However, you admit that a lot of things can be explained away. I'm not grasping the God creating the whole universe part. What would be hard to believe about that if he existed?
2. Agreed, it shouldn't be
3. True based on 1

Yes, that part gave me pause, considering the text then goes on to say how to clean the guy from the leprosy ("And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean", "This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing", and so on)...
(And yes, it sounds like voodoo. I like how there's a cheaper formula for the poor!)

It's basically a way to verify for all that the guy is clean. There are any number of sacrifices Israel had to perform and until they were done, nothing was offical. basically 2 birds etc... being sacrificed by the priest equates to a notary in our day.

That's why there was accomadation for the poor since it was just a value issue, not a cure issue.

 

[Conciliator]

This is interesting because if this happened to me (If a voice came down and said he was god to me and no miracle happened along with it), I would assume I'm crazy lol. But I guess crazy people don't know they're crazy

Well, just a voice talking to me; yeah I'd assume I was crazy. But if that voice could predict the future over and over in exacting detail and with a 100% success rate, that takes my sanity or insanity out of the picture(I could verify with others). Perhaps it's because I'm God and don't realize it, but same diff. Unless I was so crazy that I was making up all the predicted scenarios and all the people I talked to about it, but then I'm living in a solipsistic universe and I'd be the God of that universe anyway.

 

[Erigu]

I may be confused because I'm not sure that I was saying you misunderstood them.

You said "I in no way think that you are idiots for not understanding the question", which I took to mean "you didn't understand the question, but I don't think that means you're idiots".
I guess it could also mean "I don't think you misunderstood the question, and I don't think you're idiots", but considering your previous message was "Guys, these were not tough questions lol. I have to get ready for work, but I'll try to simplify further if that's needed.", the first interpretation sounded a great deal more likely to me.

I think I was making a comment on how much thought was going into them, like I had some kind of angle in asking them

Well, you said you would try and simplify your questions further for us, so... Well, if that was a misunderstanding, I think you can see why I got the wrong idea.
Anyway.

Respect for the ones resopnsible for us should be implicit until they are proven to not be worthy of respect.

The "responsible for us" bit implies the parent is taking good care of the kid (which would indeed be a way of earning some respect). That's not a given: there are some truly terrible parents out there.

It doesn't really gather more worshippers. The ones seeing miracles usually were already worshippers

Huh!

and the ones who benefitted from them weren't required to worship just for receiving them.

(that sounds better than that thing about worship being a requirement for blessings...)

Perfect example is Jesus who perfomed miracles for thousands and yet very, very few hung around. Fuirther, many who saw the miracles wanted to kill him anyway. Miracles are used to get a conversation going, but in the end, if you didn't listen to the message, the miracle was pointless.

Not for those who would benefit from them. But I guess that didn't really matter. Not nearly as much as getting conversations going, that's for sure.
Hmm...

you admit that a lot of things can be explained away.

I'm not sure about the "away" part. It would be an hypothesis to consider.

I'm not grasping the God creating the whole universe part. What would be hard to believe about that if he existed?

Well, as amazing as regenerated limbs (for example) would be, they wouldn't be evidence of that.

Plus, the idea of a complex intelligent being at the origin of everything? A complex being that always was complex? I find that harder to fathom than "things grew more complex over time", I guess.

But mostly, there would be the folklore... Like I said, this scenario became "a lot harder" for me to consider when you clarified the nature of the deity you had in mind...

It's basically a way to verify for all that the guy is clean.

"This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing"
Don't you think the wording there is odd as hell, if the guy is supposed to be fine already and only needs "cleansing"?

 

[Raist]

How would you know that? By that, I mean the scale as mentioned in the Bible or the possibility of it being larger than your thinking?

It should be observable in strata. Not to mention that to cover the whole earth with hundreds of feet of water, that would take eons even assuming torrential rain.

Didn't say it was a metaphor. However, there's few people outside of a skeptic &/or a fundamentalist that would assume that one chapter in the Bible is going to describe in detail all of creation. That was the level of importance it had in relation to the rest of the message of the writer since everybody already knew God created everything. It was Cliff Notes.

Huh OK so I guess the earth being there before stars, plants being there before light (guess they had some weird photosynthesis systems working in pitch black environments back then), all of that is in complete agreement with how it actually happened, right?

Not a good enough answer. I will stick to there not being a cure for leprosy until a verse is found. If we are going literal I want to see the word voodoo too (j/k).Like what? If it takes copying and pasting Gaf allows the space, then go for it.

Er, no?

I mean, what does this:

And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean

mean according to you? It's quite clear that it's supposed to be a ritual to clean the leper from his disease. I don't see how you're stating that this ritual is performed after the guy is clean already according to that verse, sorry.

 

[JGS]

Er, no?

I mean, what does this:

mean according to you? It's quite clear that it's supposed to be a ritual to clean the leper from his disease. I don't see how you're stating that this ritual is performed after the guy is clean already according to that verse, sorry.

Cleansing is not curing. Let's go ahead and copy/past that portion of Leviticus 14:

Leviticus 14
Cleansing From Defiling Skin Diseases 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “These are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,[a] 4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
8 “The person to be cleansed must wash their clothes, shave off all their hair and bathe with water; then they will be ceremonially clean. After this they may come into the camp, but they must stay outside their tent for seven days. 9 On the seventh day they must shave off all their hair; they must shave their head, their beard, their eyebrows and the rest of their hair. They must wash their clothes and bathe themselves with water, and they will be clean.

10 “On the eighth day they must bring two male lambs and one ewe lamb a year old, each without defect, along with three-tenths of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, and one log[c] of oil. 11 The priest who pronounces them clean shall present both the one to be cleansed and their offerings before the LORD at the entrance to the tent of meeting.
12 “Then the priest is to take one of the male lambs and offer it as a guilt offering, along with the log of oil; he shall wave them before the LORD as a wave offering. 13 He is to slaughter the lamb in the sanctuary area where the sin offering[d] and the burnt offering are slaughtered. Like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest; it is most holy. 14 The priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot. 15 The priest shall then take some of the log of oil, pour it in the palm of his own left hand, 16 dip his right forefinger into the oil in his palm, and with his finger sprinkle some of it before the LORD seven times. 17 The priest is to put some of the oil remaining in his palm on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot, on top of the blood of the guilt offering. 18 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed and make atonement for them before the LORD.
19 “Then the priest is to sacrifice the sin offering and make atonement for the one to be cleansed from their uncleanness. After that, the priest shall slaughter the burnt offering 20 and offer it on the altar, together with the grain offering, and make atonement for them, and they will be clean.

21 “If, however, they are poor and cannot afford these, they must take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to make atonement for them, together with a tenth of an ephah[e] of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, a log of oil, 22 and two doves or two young pigeons, such as they can afford, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.

23 “On the eighth day they must bring them for their cleansing to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting, before the LORD. 24 The priest is to take the lamb for the guilt offering, together with the log of oil, and wave them before the LORD as a wave offering. 25 He shall slaughter the lamb for the guilt offering and take some of its blood and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot. 26 The priest is to pour some of the oil into the palm of his own left hand, 27 and with his right forefinger sprinkle some of the oil from his palm seven times before the LORD. 28 Some of the oil in his palm he is to put on the same places he put the blood of the guilt offering—on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot. 29 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed, to make atonement for them before the LORD. 30 Then he shall sacrifice the doves or the young pigeons, such as the person can afford, 31 one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, together with the grain offering. In this way the priest will make atonement before the LORD on behalf of the one to be cleansed.”

32 These are the regulations for anyone who has a defiling skin disease and who cannot afford the regular offerings for their cleansing.

Having leprosy (Or any skin disease) was an automatic stamp of uncleanness and one had to make an atonement for it. Because of the severity of the disease, the atonement was...ummm complicated as it helped them focus on what it takes to be made clean before God.

If anyone has read anything else in Leviticus they would know that cleansing rituals and sacrifice go together milk and Frosted Flakes

 

[Ashes]

@Athiest gaf: do you think theists suffer from cognitive dissonance? If no, why not? If yes, how exactly do you think it manifests itself?

 

[Erigu]

Cleansing From Defiling Skin Diseases 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “These are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,[a] 4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
8 “The person to be cleansed must wash their clothes, shave off all their hair and bathe with water; then they will be ceremonially clean. After this they may come into the camp, but they must stay outside their tent for seven days. 9 On the seventh day they must shave off all their hair; they must shave their head, their beard, their eyebrows and the rest of their hair. They must wash their clothes and bathe themselves with water, and they will be clean.

10 “On the eighth day they must bring two male lambs and one ewe lamb a year old, each without defect, along with three-tenths of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, and one log[c] of oil. 11 The priest who pronounces them clean shall present both the one to be cleansed and their offerings before the LORD at the entrance to the tent of meeting.
12 “Then the priest is to take one of the male lambs and offer it as a guilt offering, along with the log of oil; he shall wave them before the LORD as a wave offering. 13 He is to slaughter the lamb in the sanctuary area where the sin offering[d] and the burnt offering are slaughtered. Like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest; it is most holy. 14 The priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot. 15 The priest shall then take some of the log of oil, pour it in the palm of his own left hand, 16 dip his right forefinger into the oil in his palm, and with his finger sprinkle some of it before the LORD seven times. 17 The priest is to put some of the oil remaining in his palm on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot, on top of the blood of the guilt offering. 18 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed and make atonement for them before the LORD.
19 “Then the priest is to sacrifice the sin offering and make atonement for the one to be cleansed from their uncleanness. After that, the priest shall slaughter the burnt offering 20 and offer it on the altar, together with the grain offering, and make atonement for them, and they will be clean.

21 “If, however, they are poor and cannot afford these, they must take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to make atonement for them, together with a tenth of an ephah[e] of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, a log of oil, 22 and two doves or two young pigeons, such as they can afford, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.

23 “On the eighth day they must bring them for their cleansing to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting, before the LORD. 24 The priest is to take the lamb for the guilt offering, together with the log of oil, and wave them before the LORD as a wave offering. 25 He shall slaughter the lamb for the guilt offering and take some of its blood and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot. 26 The priest is to pour some of the oil into the palm of his own left hand, 27 and with his right forefinger sprinkle some of the oil from his palm seven times before the LORD. 28 Some of the oil in his palm he is to put on the same places he put the blood of the guilt offering—on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot. 29 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed, to make atonement for them before the LORD. 30 Then he shall sacrifice the doves or the young pigeons, such as the person can afford, 31 one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, together with the grain offering. In this way the priest will make atonement before the LORD on behalf of the one to be cleansed.”

32 These are the regulations for anyone who has a defiling skin disease and who cannot afford the regular offerings for their cleansing.

You don't find that somewhat contradictory, really? Are they healed of the actual disease or not?

 

[Count Dookkake]

That too!

Tangent, but this reminds me of a comment I once saw (maybe on GAF?) where a deeply confused Christian poster claimed that they retained their pre-marriage purity/virginity by only having anal & oral sex rather than vaginal because those didn't count. I was laughing too hard to point out how utterly blasphemous such acts were.

Hey, at least it's consistent if you think a god would be fooled by Pascal's Wager.

@Athiest gaf: do you think theists suffer from cognitive dissonance? If no, why not? If yes, how exactly do you think it manifests itself?

By picking and choosing which bits of their holy book are to be taken seriously.

 

[Ashes]

By picking and choosing which bits of their holy book are to be taken seriously.

In that example, how is it cognitive dissonance? I don't mean that there isn't, but I want to see how you see that there is. If that makes sense.

 

[Genesis Knight]

By picking and choosing which bits of their holy book are to be taken seriously.

What if they take 100% of it seriously?

 

[Count Dookkake]

In that example, how is it cognitive dissonance? I don't mean that there isn't, but I want to see how you see that there is. If that makes sense.

They sometimes feel that something is right or wrong, independent of what the holy book claims.

What if they take 100% of it seriously?

That's harder to suss, but I imagine that there are people who believe it all yet still enjoy the works of us filthy sinners. That probably causes the occasional mental hiccup.

 

[Ashes]

They sometimes feel that something is right or wrong, independent of what the holy book claims.

So God X says burn homosexuals, you think, and the specific religious follower thinks god X doesn't say that or thinks something else, or interprets it differently. That kind of thing?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yeah. More or less. I imagine there are other ways, too, but that seems like it would be the most common.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

Why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god? Whether you believe in him or not, even a quick reading of the new testament should allow anyone to realize the character is disgusting.

 

[Ashes]

Yeah. More or less. I imagine there are other ways, too, but that seems like it would be the most common.

So what happens if that cognitive dissonance is resolved by an alternative interpretation, rightly or wrongly, or just say they dismiss the text for other reasons, is it still then cognitive dissonance? For you I mean. Of course that person may be convinced by it, cause they want to believe it. But for you, even if you don't buy the rationale, do you still think there is a cognitive dissonance there in the mind of said believer?

 

[milanbaros]

Why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god? Whether you believe in him or not, even a quick reading of the new testament should allow anyone to realize the character is disgusting.

Maybe another manifestation of cognitive dissonance on the part of the believer?

 

[Pollux]

Why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god? Whether you believe in him or not, even a quick reading of the new testament should allow anyone to realize the character is disgusting.

disgusting in what way?

 

[Count Dookkake]

So what happens if that cognitive dissonance is resolved by an alternative interpretation, rightly or wrongly, or just say they dismiss the text for other reasons, is it still then cognitive dissonance? For you I mean. Of course that person may be convinced by it, cause they want to believe it. But for you, even if you don't buy the rationale, do you still think there is a cognitive dissonance there in the mind of said believer?

It's still cognitive dissonance, even if it stifled by a holy man's clever wordplay.

 

[Ashes]

It's still cognitive dissonance, even if it stifled by a holy man's clever wordplay.

I see.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

disgusting in what way?

Morally disgusting

 

[Dice]

You don't find that somewhat contradictory, really? Are they healed of the actual disease or not?

As someone pointed out, there is a difference between cleansing and curing. Cleansing has to do with being "holy" and the disease is seen as a result of the sinfulness of man. For a person to be counted as cleansed of their sin, of which the disease is a mark, then they must go through the ceremony. For Christians, this whole ceremony is but a foreshadowing of what Christ was going to do spiritually, then ultimately in a physical sense as well in his second coming and the resurrection and creation of the new earth.

Let's format it to be a bit more clear...

The LORD said to Moses,
“These are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest:

-The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them.
-If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease [Dice note: that's healed, meaning it is gone], the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. [Dice note: So they were all better, but the priest has to confirm this and do the ceremony for it to be official/their actions to be "legal" in the regulations of worship]

Then yadda yadda, he carries out the ceremony.

“The person to be cleansed must wash their clothes, shave off all their hair and bathe with water; then they will be ceremonially clean. After this they may come into the camp, but they must stay outside their tent for seven days. On the seventh day they must shave off all their hair; they must shave their head, their beard, their eyebrows and the rest of their hair. They must wash their clothes and bathe themselves with water, and they will be clean.

So here we have declaration of them being over their issue that marked them as unclean. But wait, that was just a sign of a deeper issue, that of sin. So we have more...

“On the eighth day they must bring two male lambs and one ewe lamb a year old, each without defect, along with three-tenths of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, and one log of oil. The priest who pronounces them clean shall present both the one to be cleansed and their offerings before the LORD at the entrance to the tent of meeting.
“Then the priest is to take one of the male lambs and offer it as a guilt offering, along with the log of oil; he shall wave them before the LORD as a wave offering. He is to slaughter the lamb in the sanctuary area where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. Like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest; it is most holy.

So you must be thinking "What is the difference between a guilt offering and sin offering? Why do they work similarly?"

Guilt is essentially a lot of stuff we do that is offensive to God but we don't even know about it. The priests had a lot of responsibilities for ceremonies to basically "cover our ass" for these offenses, while the sin offerings were conscious decisions against the law of God. Most of the time, diseases and such occur rather passively as the result of ignorance or just being on earth, so they were treated as a sign of inadvertently pissing off God. They could just be a rash, or they could actually be God afflicting them because of something serious. The reason for them happening were both viewed as being guilt before God. The book of Hebrews goes into detail about these sort of ceremonies and how Jesus himself is apparently in heaven carrying them out for all believers as our true high priest.

The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed and make atonement for them before the LORD.
“Then the priest is to sacrifice the sin offering and make atonement for the one to be cleansed from their uncleanness. After that, the priest shall slaughter the burnt offering and offer it on the altar, together with the grain offering, and make atonement for them, and they will be clean.

And now you see the language of atonement, meaning not just the body but the soul and being holy and right with God again for full access to worship activities.

Is this a bit overboard? Is it a bit superstitious? Well according to these same books of the bible God's literal presence was dwelling among them and if you weren't all clean and right and got too close, you'd die. The picture it paints is not some superstition but that of real presence of God in his holiness and real observation of the effects of the holiness of God and how nothing defiled by sin can exist within it.

It was also a time that God would sometimes afflict them with terrible shit like leprosy or cancers if they did really bad stuff, but then cure them if they cleaned up their act. That is all on the basis of their original agreement, that the entire world's knowledge of him would be closely related to his people, so much that they could end up giving him a bad name, so there would be blessings with obedience and curses with disobedience.

These are the regulations for anyone who has a defiling skin disease and who cannot afford the regular offerings for their cleansing.

I'd say it's likely just a bad translation here. It's obvious that it's saying the process is the same except for the modifications for the sacrifice, so they'd still have to take the first step, which would be waiting for their rash to clear up or whatever.

 

[Pollux]

Morally disgusting

Yea, I'm going to need examples bob.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

Yea, I'm going to need examples bob.

For example, Jesus says that if you're sexually attracted a woman who's not your wife, you deserve infinite punishment, and that to avoid that punishment you should blind yourself (Matthew 5:28).

So I ask again: why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god?

 

[Uchip]

So I ask again: why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god?

free alcohol

 

[Conciliator]

@Athiest gaf: do you think theists suffer from cognitive dissonance? If no, why not? If yes, how exactly do you think it manifests itself?

I think your def of cognitive dissonance is a little off...cognitave dissonance is the state of experiencing internal conflict about what you think/believe, so anyone who's 100% confident in their beliefs isn't experiencing that.

I understand what you're getting at though. Here's what I think: Most people get their interpretation of the world around them from one thing - what they feel is true. More specifically, they don't have a system for discerning truth, or their system is their instinct, or their system is conditional based on whether or not it gives them the answers they like the most. To that extent, their beliefs are always consistent with that method.

As self-aware beings with thousands of years of philosophy behind us, we have the choice to choose a method by which to determine truth in the universe. We don't have to - we can say 'some things don't have to answer to my system for me to know they are true' (in which case the system we think we have is irrelevant), we can say 'the universe is chaos or supernatural; what is true or not true is not systemic', or most commonly, we just don't think to establish a system.

If we don't have a system, we can come up with whatever reasons we want to believe or not believe something, which is itself a system that theism is consistent with.

 

[Dice]

For example, Jesus says that if you're sexually attracted a woman who's not your wife, you deserve infinite punishment, and that to avoid that punishment you should blind yourself (Matthew 5:28).

You need only ask a simple question to know what Jesus means: Can a blind man lust?

The answer is yes, of course. He wasn't saying to literally get rid of body parts, he was saying to examine your life and remove sources of temptation no matter how dear to you they are.

I think that teaching on hate and lust is often completely wrong as well. When you look at other examples of lust and hatred, people were actually going out and fucking or killing others. Some passages say things like "in your anger, do not sin" or condemn more specifically "unbridled lust" or getting married before your "burning passion" leads to sin.

In view of that, I think it's obvious that Jesus was exposing something to people who thought they were better than all the "filthy heathens" around them. He was explaining to them that the only thing stopping them from sin was the consequence. If they could have their way with a woman they weren't married to or push a button to remove a guy they hate from existence without any consequence to their public image or status in the temple, they would.

This is right after he said he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and that people had to be more righteous than the pharisees to enter the kingdom of God. What he meant by "more righteous" then, was obviously not only outward state but inward state. You had to also dislike sin, to have a moral compass aside from social pressure. He set the standard impossibly high, even to "perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect" at the end of the sermon.

Why would he do that? Because that is the purpose of the law. Romans 6 & 7 make that very clear. The law shows the impossibility of us fixing ourselves before God, and that is why Christ had to come, thus the teaching of Romans 8. There is no hope for our sinful selves, there is no way out, the punishment must be carried out, and so we die. Yet if we die in Christ, we also rise in Christ.

This isn't on the basis of earthly morality, earthly standards, earthly measurement, etc. You say "finite sin, infinite punishment, that is unjust" but that is not how it is weighted. For a God who is infinitely worthy of infinite honor, a transgression is infinitely offensive. It is forever in history, forever known, forever marked. The mark has to be removed, it has to be cleansed. That is the permanent nature by which the existence and laws of the spiritual realm seem to work.

And it may well just be that it is transcendent and there is no better way to explain it in a finite way than "forever" or some such. But theory on the nature of the spiritual realm and hell and whatnot gets pretty ridiculous, assuming, and semantic.

Isn't there a Christianity thread for this? lol

 

[Bungalow Bob]

You say "finite sin, infinite punishment, that is unjust" but that is not how it is weighted. For a God who is infinitely worthy of infinite honor, a transgression is infinitely offensive.

I most certainly don't say that. A man being sexually attracted to a woman who isn't his wife is often a good thing. And even if this god exists, why would it be worthy of any honor seeing as how morally disgusting it is.

 

[Dice]

Why do you always seem so needlessly combative? It's obvious then that your views on the nature of humanity, sexuality, marriage, their designs and purposes and thus their concluding systems of morality are completely different from those of a Judeo-Christian worldview. You would think that since this is so obvious, it wouldn't be inherently offensive to comprehend, and that you might then inquire for further details to discover these conceptual differences. Instead, you simply call it disgusting, seemingly (it's hard to determine in text) in a very dismissive tone. That is why people receive you as a troll. Do you understand this? I think if you did, you would run into a lot less aggression on this board.

 

[Erigu]

As someone pointed out, there is a difference between cleansing and curing. Cleansing has to do with being "holy" and the disease is seen as a result of the sinfulness of man. For a person to be counted as cleansed of their sin, of which the disease is a mark, then they must go through the ceremony. For Christians, this whole ceremony is but a foreshadowing of what Christ was going to do spiritually, then ultimately in a physical sense as well in his second coming and the resurrection and creation of the new earth.

Yes, I understand the idea, don't worry. But even if that ritual was about "the soul being unclean" or whatever, they're still referring to the person as being "diseased" here and there. Maybe they needed a better editor (holy text, guys! careful!). But the odd wording makes me wonder if the situation really was that clear-cut to them (physical illness / sin)... JGS makes it sound like they were simply going through the motions, seeing that ceremony as an empty ritual, a mere formality to carry out ("equates to a notary in our day"), and that seems a bit... I mean, does the bible also tell you how to renew your passport, while it's at it? (<- sorry! but I do find the whole thing amusing)

Ah, well. Just a thought, really. People were talking about this bird blood / leprosy thing but didn't have a source, that happened to ring a bell, and I thought I could probably help out... That's pretty much it. It's not like I think that's particularly relevant or anything.

Spoiler

B-Baka!

 

[Dice]

Yes, I understand the idea, don't worry. But even if that ritual was about "the soul being unclean" or whatever, they're still referring to the person as being "diseased" here and there. Maybe they needed a better editor (holy text, guys! careful!).

Hebrew is amazingly loose in its translation to English. It's a very difficult task. I haven't studied this passage in those depths, but it seems to be giving the instructions for a currently-diseased person and those instructions involve a future state where they are no longer diseased. Flipping between present state, hypothetical future state, and contingencies may be rather complicated to accurately move into English, especially when they have hangups about adding too many descriptive words that aren't there, thus becoming more of a paraphrase in the views of some people, even if the meaning is more accurately communicated.

 

[Erigu]

Hebrew is amazingly loose in its translation to English. It's a very difficult task.

Oh, I know how translations between two wildly different languages can be, don't worry about that! ^^;;

 

[Dice]

Heh, I just checked the NLT, which has the translation philosophy of meaning-for-meaning (and easy reading) rather than word-for-word and it says this:

Lev 14: 32 "These are the instructions for purification for those who have recovered from a serious skin disease but who cannot afford to bring the offerings normally required for the ceremony of purification.”

Bear in mind, this translation is not from a far removed school of Christianity. The people behind it are pretty far up in the conservative traditions.

 

[Pollux]

I most certainly don't say that. A man being sexually attracted to a woman who isn't his wife is often a good thing. And even if this god exists, why would it be worthy of any honor seeing as how morally disgusting it is.

How and why is that a good thing? You still haven't explained how Jesus is morally disgusting.

 

[Raist]

So "cleansed from leprosy" supposedly doesn't mean "cured from leprosy" now? I somewhat doubt that. And if it really does, what's the point of killing a bird and sprinkling aromatic herbs on the guy?

 

[JGS]

So "cleansed from leprosy" supposedly doesn't mean "cured from leprosy" now? I somewhat doubt that. And if it really does, what's the point of killing a bird and sprinkling aromatic herbs on the guy?

You can doubt all you want to the evidence is in the Scripture. One did not get cleansed until after they were healed.

If cleansed meant cure then a lot of things were considered illnesses like too much sex in one night, periods, and touching dead bodies. The Law was in effect because it was the law. No need for godly intervention although it made one aware of godly standards

If leprosy could be cured there would be no lepers considering they even had a clearance sale version of it.