Germ theory of disease

Stormy · Aug 4, 2002

All the Christians and Atheist who do not think the Bible speaks of germs and bacteria causing illness should read the Book of Leviticus. It is full of advice for early man on how to avoid the spread of disease. But it is not without the truth that God should be thanked for healing.

No! I do not believe that we should not seek the aid of a doctor when we are ill. Still there is more to health than merely medicine. We do not have all the answers and I do not think we ever will.

Something happened to me a long time ago that still leaves me with wonder.

When I was a child of about eight years old my Aunt Irene became very ill from complications of childbirth. I was deeply upset because her new little girl would be without a mother. That night I said a prayer to God and asked that if he did not mind, could Irene please stay here. I told him that she was a good mommy to her other children and that they all really needed her.

My Aunt did recover even though she was at death's door.

The day we went to visit Irene and Mandy is eternally etched in my mind. Irene drew me near and hugged me. She told me that I had come to her when she was dying. She said that I glowed like an angel. She said that I took her hand and walked her back to her life.

Irene is a devote Catholic I have no reason to doubt her words.

People please understand that we are not the bearers of Supreme Knowledge... There is much that is unspoken.

Jerry Smith · Aug 4, 2002

All the Christians and Atheist who do not think the Bible speaks of germs and bacteria causing illness should read the Book of Leviticus. It is full of advice for early man on how to avoid the spread of disease.

I've read Leviticus more than once, and seen no reference to germ theory. As for the advice on how to avoid the spread of disease, it seems that Leviticus is fairly typical of an admixture of folk-lore and magic. That isn't to say that it wasn't good advice in some cases - the people who wrote it were surely aware what kind of hygenic habits were characteristic of groups most susceptible to plague. But it wasn't necessarily the advice that a modern doctor would have given to the Israelites should she have access to a time machine.

As for the Magic component, I really don't think that it supports the germ-model at all:
Leviticus 14:2-14

This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
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;
Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive [and] clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird [that was] killed over the running water:
And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean: and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days.
But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.
And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour [for] a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.
And the priest that maketh [him] clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the LORD, [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them [for] a wave offering before the LORD:
And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering [is] the priest's, [so is] the trespass offering: it [is] most holy:
And the priest shall take [some] of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put [it] upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:

etc... it is really a quite elaborate ritual. But as you remark, parts of the ritual do apply to a primitive form of quarantine that did most likely discourage the spread of infection..

Stormy · Aug 4, 2002

Tell me Jerry; do you think that the oneness of the body with the mind and soul has any bearing upon health?

seebs · Aug 4, 2002

Originally posted by Stormy
Tell me Jerry; do you think that the oneness of the body with the mind and soul has any bearing upon health?

I'm not Jerry, but I can sort of answer: Mood has a definite, measurable, effect. I can't tell how much the soul does or doesn't affect health, because I have no way to measure that kind of unity.

However, if you look at the examples for leprosy, my guess is that none of the sacrifices directly make any difference. I think they're more cultural than anything else.

Christian Soldier · Aug 4, 2002

"Pasteur's faith was an genuine as his science. In his panegyric of Littré, whose fauteuil he took, he said:

'Happy the man who bears within him a divinity, an ideal of beauty and obeys it; and ideal of art, and ideal of science, an ideal of country, and ideal of the virtues of the Gospel.'

These words are graven above his tomb in the Institut Pasteur. In his address Pasteur said further "These are the living springs of great thoughts and great actions. Everything grows clear in the reflections from the Infinite". Some of his letters to his children breathe profound simple piety. He declared "The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman." What he could not above all understand is the failure of scientists to recognize the demonstration of the existence of the Creator that there is in the world around us. He died with his rosary in his hand, after listening to the life of St. Vincent de Paul which he had asked to have read to him, because he thought that his work like that of St. Vincent would do much to save suffering children."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11536a.htm
-------------------------------------------------------

"Happy the man who bears within him a divinity, an ideal of beauty and obeys it; and ideal of art, and ideal of science, an ideal of country, and ideal of the virtues of the Gospel."---Louis Pasteur

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."---Louis Pasteur

"science brings men nearer to God"---Louis Pasteur

Jerry Smith · Aug 4, 2002

Originally posted by Stormy
Tell me Jerry; do you think that the oneness of the body with the mind and soul has any bearing upon health?

I don't know about the "soul," but otherwise I would agree with that somewhat.

Jerry Smith · Aug 4, 2002

Jerry's Wrong Again

ermmm... would you mind sharing with me what exactly I was wrong about?

I suppose you mistook my opening line as a matter of me questioning the devotion of Pasteur. If that was the case, a quick re-read of my post will reveal to you that this was not the case..

Stormy · Aug 4, 2002

Jerry's wrong again

Christian Soldier : Please do not take all threads as an attack upon Jerry. This thread was started by Seebs who is a devote Christian.

I believe that you are too hasty with your replies. You are not taking the time to read the threads. I have found that true of many new people both Christian and Atheist. You show proof in the fact that you posted information about Louis Pasteur that I have already given.

But I thank you for taking the time to come to the forum and help. We Christians need to keep our light of truth shining brightly. Thanks for adding yours.

seebs · Aug 4, 2002

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Pasteur's faith was an genuine as his science. In his panegyric of Littré, whose fauteuil he took, he said:

'Happy the man who bears within him a divinity, an ideal of beauty and obeys it; and ideal of art, and ideal of science, an ideal of country, and ideal of the virtues of the Gospel.'

And how does this contradict the observation that we never seem to have to cast out demons when curing disease these days, because antibiotics tend to work just fine?

I think the Bible was written in terms of the scientific understanding of the time - in the case of disease, it was seen as a question of "evil spirits" and "ritual cleanliness" (not to be confused with sanitation). So... those are the terms in which advice was couched, and we see the same kind of "avoid sick people" advice that everyone in the world had back when Moses was writing things down.

I don't think this means that the Bible is "wrong"; I just think it means that the Bible is sometimes not scientifically accurate, but since it's not marketed as such, I don't see this as a problem.

What the Bible *does* tell us about disease, which is good advice today, is that we should minister to the sick, and comfort them. And that stays true whether disease is caused by germs or evil spirits.

Stormy · Aug 4, 2002

What the Bible *does* tell us about disease, which is good advice today, is that we should minister to the sick, and comfort them. And that stays true whether disease is caused by germs or evil spirits.

Plus prayer!!! Then we will reach an agreement.

Seebs to you think there is any power in prayer to aid one who is ill?

Christian Soldier · Aug 4, 2002

"Christian Soldier : Please do not take all threads as an attack upon Jerry. This thread was started by Seebs who is a devote Christian."

Jerry directly challenged my assertion that Pasteur was a devout Christian. So I responded, which I have every right to. Saying that "Jerry's Wrong Again" hardly constitutes an attack. It is not an ad hominem, it is my belief. I have never called him abusive names, used foul lanquage toward him, or threatened him.

"I believe that you are too hasty with your replies. You are not taking the time to read the threads. I have found that true of many new people both Christian and Atheist. You show proof in the fact that you posted information about Louis Pasteur that I have already given."

Your belief is unfounded. I had already read all the threads and was well aware you had posted that. However, you failed to credit your source and provide a link---it's illegal not to credit your source.

I chose to post it again, crediting the source and providing the link, with bold emphasis---because I believe Jerry either didn't read it or comprehend it when you first posted it.

I also added some additional relevant quotes from Pasteur, that you had not previously posted.

"But I thank you for taking the time to come to the forum and help. We Christians need to keep our light of truth shining brightly. Thanks for adding yours."

Thank you for your kindness, and God Bless. :wave:

Jerry Smith · Aug 4, 2002

Jerry directly challenged my assertion that Pasteur was a devout Christian. So I responded, which I have every right to. Saying that "Jerry's Wrong Again" hardly constitutes an attack. It is not an ad hominem, it is my belief. I have never called him abusive names, used foul lanquage toward him, or threatened him.

For the second time, I ask you to review my post and try to discern what I actually did. I did not challenge your assertion about Pasteur's devotion. I did try to put it into the perspective of the debate and of this thread.

Here it is again, in full:

How can you call him "devout" when his "theory" rejects the Biblical explanation of disease in favor a godless "naturalistic" bias? Is Kenneth Miller, in your opinion a "devout Christian"? What about Glenn Morton? Keith Miller? Denis Lamoureux?

Perhaps you do think they are "devout Christians." In that case, it wouldn't be inconsistent for you to also identify Pasteur as one. On the other hand, if you, like some, judge a person's devotion to God on the basis of their scientific beliefs and whether they conflict with a particular interpretation of the Bible, then you might want to re-think your position on Pasteur.

Notice the first question is rhetorical: how can you call him "devout" when his theory is at odds with "the" Biblical explanation? The answer is that the Bible is not a science book, and when it comes to some theories that contradict a specific interpretation of it, most people have no problem acknowledging a different interpretation.

Many people (the other names I listed for example), do the same with the evolution/creation debate. When the science clearly contradicts a certain interpretation of the Bible, they opt for a different interpretation. Yet they are sometimes treated as a pariah and heretic for their views. The inconsistency is that the same people who reject the science of Miller, Morton, & Lamoureux on Biblical grounds, accept the science of Pasteur on scientific grounds, despite its non-Biblical basis and its seeming contradiction with a certain interpretation of the Bible.

Christian Soldier · Aug 4, 2002

"Does anyone here not accept the germ theory of disease?

Does anyone here deny that the Bible clearly describes a theory of disease involving evil spirits?"

Please post the relevant Biblical passages claiming that all disease is caused by "evil spirits".

I don't believe anybody has posted them yet. If they have, please refer me to the proper post#.

Christian Soldier · Aug 4, 2002

Bringing up Kenneth Miller et al., is not relevant to the discussion. Many of your alleged conflicts between science and the Bible are errors in interpretation and translation. Please try to stay on topic.

Jerry Smith · Aug 4, 2002

Bringing up Kenneth Miller et al., is not relevant to the discussion.

Their relevance is the same as Pasteur's relevance.

Many of your alleged conflicts between science and the Bible are errors in interpretation and translation.

Including the science of evolution, right?

Please try to stay on topic.

That is the topic.

Christian Soldier · Aug 4, 2002

"Their relevance is the same as Pasteur's relevance."

Oh, really? The topic involves the germ theory of science. Louis Pasteur, the discoverer of the germ theory and one of the greatest scientists in history---is no more relevant to the topic than Kenneth Miller and the other fellows you mentioned???!!!

O.K. Jer, we believe you! Not!

"Including the science of evolution, right?"

Correction: the pseudo-scientific religion of evolution. You've provided no proof whatsoever that evolution is scientific fact. It's still just a theory.

"That is the topic."

In a pig's eye. Please stop with the your childish "neh neh neh, I'm always right and have to get the last word" posting. Your suggestion that Kenneth Miller et al are as important to the germ theory of science as Pasteur, is patently absurd---and I bet there are plenty of evolutionists who will agree with me on that point.

Jerry Smith · Aug 4, 2002

Originally posted by Christian Soldier

Oh, really? The topic involves the germ theory of science. Louis Pasteur, the discoverer of the germ theory and one of the greatest scientists in history---is no more relevant to the topic than Kenneth Miller and the other fellows you mentioned???!!!

Then later:

In a pig's eye. Please stop with the your childish "neh neh neh, I'm always right and have to get the last word" posting. Your suggestion that Kenneth Miller et al are as important to the germ theory of science as Pasteur, is patently absurd---and I bet there are plenty of evolutionists who will agree with me on that point.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'm going to spell it out to you:

A is to B as C is to D.

Apples are to fruit as spinach is to vegetable.

Pasteur is to germ theory as Miller et al are to evolution...

namely - all are devout Christians who relate to the scientific theories by accepting the them based on the evidence, and without regards to perceived conflicts between the theory and a particular interpretation of scripture.

You with me?

Correction: the pseudo-scientific religion of evolution. You've provided no proof whatsoever that evolution is scientific fact. It's still just a theory.

Click to expand...

You are quite right. As mentioned elsewhere science isn't in the business of proving. It is in the business of building good theories on evidence. A parallel can be found in germ theory - never proven, always a theory. That makes it real science.

If you are interested in discussing pseudoscience, I can start a thread on Creation "Science." If you are interested in discussing mathematics, you should put the word out that you are interested in "proofs".

LewisWildermuth · Aug 4, 2002

One thing, Pasteur did not discover the Germ theory, he did help find evidence for it and help refine the germ theory but even in new testament times the germ theory of desease was well under construction.

You could even say thet Jesus was a supporter of the germ theory when he asked the pharasees if it was the mans sin or the mans fathers sin that caused a disease and then told them it was neither.

Notice that Luke was a doctor but not a priest until called by Jesus. This would have been unheard of throughout most of the OT and Luke would have been labled as a witch for healing and not being a member of the preisthood.

What we learn about the world around us changes, God told us to look at nature to see His glory. We looked at nature and found that most diseases are not caused by demons/sins but germs and changes some of our false beliefs about God. Now we look again at nature and see that the world is older than we thought and that even though God did make us it would seem that he made us in a way differently than we had previously believed. To hold on to those beliefs is the same as holding on to the demon/sin theory of disease and IMO degrades the true glory of God.

Christian Soldier · Aug 4, 2002

"Ok, I'm going to spell it out to you:

A is to B as C is to D.

Apples are to fruit as spinach is to vegetable.

Pasteur is to germ theory as Miller et al are to evolution...

namely - all are devout Christians who relate to the scientific theories by accepting the them based on the evidence, and without regards to perceived conflicts between the theory and a particular interpretation of scripture."

As usual, your logic and argument fail. Pasteur was an outspoken opponent of Darwin's theory. So he didn't accept the theory based on the alleged "evidence" blah blah blah, like Miller et al.---as you mistakenly state.

You also haven't established that the Bible actually makes the claim that all or most diseases are caused by evil spirits. I have asked for the relevant passages to be posted, so far I have seen nothing.

"You are quite right. As mentioned elsewhere science isn't in the business of proving. It is in the business of building good theories on evidence. A parallel can be found in germ theory - never proven, always a theory. That makes it real science."

There's no significant scientific evidence that germ theory isn't a good theory, while there is rapidly accumulating scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is a deeply flawed theory. Many theories will never be proven and remain just a theory, that doesn't make them all good and equal. Your logic and argument both fail miserably.

"Science isn't in the business of proving" is your meager opinion. Most scientists are always trying to prove various theories, sometimes their own.

"If you are interested in discussing pseudoscience, I can start a thread on Creation "Science." If you are interested in discussing mathematics, you should put the word out that you are interested in "proofs"."

Why must you continually bring up straw men like Creation Science? I don't advocate that all teachers and professors be forced to teach it. The anti-Creationist educators out there would intentionally butcher it by not presenting it fairly. However, I feel it should be an option. At the very least, educators should be allowed to teach the significant scientific evidence against evolutionary theory. That can be done without any mention of God.

Jerry Smith · Aug 4, 2002

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
As usual, your logic and argument fail. Pasteur was an outspoken opponent of Darwin's theory.

As usual, you fail to demonstrate how my logic and argument fail. On a separate and unrelated note - do you have a reference to your claim that Pasteur opposed Darwin's theory? I don't doubt it strongly, but I cannot find a reliable reference to any historical document that would suggest it was true either. Is there such a thing?

So he didn't accept the theory based on the alleged "evidence" blah blah blah, like Miller et al.---as you mistakenly state.

So on what basis did Pasteur accept germ theory? Faith? I thought he performed experiments in order to gather data, and I was pretty sure that was the case.

You also haven't established that the Bible actually makes the claim that all or most diseases are caused by evil spirits. I have asked for the relevant passages to be posted, so far I have seen nothing.

I'll leave that between you and seebs.

There's no significant scientific evidence that germ theory isn't a good theory, while there is rapidly accumulating scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is a deeply flawed theory.

Really? Could you provide a reference to maybe just one of those rapidly accumulating bits of evidence? Just one?

Many theories will never be proven and remain just a theory, that doesn't make them all good and equal. Your logic and argument both fail miserably.

What is my logic? That your statements about the "unproven" nature of evolution apply equally well to germ theory? They do, you know. If you do not mean them as criticism, then that is fine - but apparently when it is germ theory, it is "a theory", and when it is evolution it is "just a theory" and therefore more suspect.

"Science isn't in the business of proving" is your meager opinion. Most scientists are always trying to prove various theories, sometimes their own.[/b]

Why must you continually bring up straw men like Creation Science?

Creation Science a straw man, now there is a thought... Perhaps you are right. Perhaps Morris, Gish, et al are only in the business of charicaturizing your personal beliefs in order to make it easier for us to criticize them. It would certainly explain a lot... How do you think we got them to concoct their charicature?

I don't advocate that all teachers and professors be forced to teach it. The anti-Creationist educators out there would intentionally butcher it by not presenting it fairly.

What the heck is an anti-Creationist? Someone who accepts science as science, and leaves religion to religion? Does that make chemists anti-Creationist too?

However, I feel it should be an option.

Why?

At the very least, educators should be allowed to teach the significant scientific evidence against evolutionary theory.

As soon as someone comes up with some.

That can be done without any mention of God.

And can be done without evidence too. But can it be done without deception?

Germ theory of disease

Senior Contributor

Fish out of water

Senior Contributor

God Made Me A Skeptic

QUESTION EVOLUTION

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Senior Contributor

God Made Me A Skeptic

Senior Contributor

QUESTION EVOLUTION

Fish out of water

QUESTION EVOLUTION

QUESTION EVOLUTION

Fish out of water

QUESTION EVOLUTION

Fish out of water

Senior Veteran

QUESTION EVOLUTION

Fish out of water

Similar threads